Snoek L kommt

[Dr. Jones]

Rear tire was different, as I have 559 (had Pasela 42 on it, runs quite fast, was inflated hard) and Snoek L is 700C (ran GP5000).

Was it this tire? https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/tour-reviews/panaracer-pasela-pt
According to bicyclerollingresistance it has more than twice(!) the rolling resistance of a GP5000. That accounts for about 20W difference at the 55kph you were riding. So the major part of the difference in efficiency you measured between the two bikes would be explained by the different tires...

 

[ChristianW]

Was it this tyre?

Btw: there is no

GP5000

in 559 unfortunately

 

[Dr. Jones]

Btw: there is no
GP5000
in 559 unfortunately

Yes, I know. But that was not my point

 

[Arend-Jan]

Was it this tire? https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/tour-reviews/panaracer-pasela-pt
According to bicyclerollingresistance it has more than twice(!) the rolling resistance of a GP5000. That accounts for about 20W difference at the 55kph you were riding. So the major part of the difference in efficiency you measured between the two bikes would be explained by the different tires...

That link is for the ProTite, a folding version of my tire, tested in 38x622 size at 4.1 and 5.2 bar.
At 5.2 bar, they measured 18.9 watts at 29km/h and 42,5kg load. A GP5000 sits at around 10 or 11 Watts (with butyl inner tube).

I ride the normal, clincher (not folding) version of 42x559, at around 6 or 6,5 bar.
I assume it may perform similar as the tested tire. Maybe even better because of the high pressure I run.

The GP5000 is probably slightly better, but I reckon it won't be over 5 Watts of difference?
Especially since front tires are the same (and the majority of the RR) and I tested at high speed so that aero drag becomes a bigger portion than RR.

By the way...
I did first mount a Schwalbe Pro One 28x559, but unfortunately managed to damage the inner tube. So no data for that tire..

 

[Arend-Jan]

One more note:
at 55 km/h, the power difference was small. This was wind wind coming from favourable angle.
the run into the wind, at 49 km/h had a lot bigger difference, but lower speed. This indicates the difference is aero, not RR.
If it were caused by RR, the difference would be bigger at 55 than at 50, not the other way around

I also think I can tell my 42x559 is a rather fast tire. I did ride many different types, at various pressures, and quite like this one.
I also rode the Pro One for some time.. but do not think it's (significantly/noticeably) faster. I did truly HATE how hard it is to (dis)mount and how easy it is to puncture (especially the fronts, 1 emergency stop and they're gone).

 

[Dr. Jones]

I agree with you conclusions about the aerodynamics. It seems to make a (small/moderate?) difference.
I am not sure about the interpretation of the rolling resistance, though. The Pasela does not seem to be a fast tire by any means, even though you feel differently. More than 20W at standard testing conditions is just slow. Even though the tested version is not the one you use, I can't imagine it being remotely as fast as a GP5000. Overpressuring it a bit does not do a lot in terms of rolling resistance, since the resistance curve is quite flat the high pressure end. My guess is that the difference at your test run is at least somewhere around 10-20W. But that's all it is: guesswork. Too many unknown variables.

But that doesn't mean the Snoek L is not a nice bike. I happen to agree that it is quite pretty. And if you like it and feel good in it, thats the most important thing, I guess.

 

[Hoekie]

You should have left out the last sentence... / Sie hätten diesen letzten Satz weglassen sollen...

 

[Arend-Jan]

Maybe I should just test that rear tire myself. Do a few laps with it, swap it for something else, measure again. It's interesting to know.

But let's just imagine that you're right and it requires 20W more than GP5000.
If I correct my measured power +20W for the Milan, then it would be more efficient than the Snoek L when riding downwind, but still not as efficient when riding into the wind. But how could it be more efficient than Snoek L downwind but less efficient into the wind? That result would only be possible if the RR of my Milan is lower than the tested Snoek L's and the aero drag bigger. I'm not saying that wouldn't be possible, but I reckon it's unlikely.

SnoekL is 10% smaller frontal area than my GT, and very smooth. I can't imagine it's not aerodynamically faster by a similar amount.

 

[Dr. Jones]

The effect you describe is very much possible, just by considering the larger frontal area of the GT: When riding downwind, the wind pushes you forward, making it more "efficient". When riding against the wind, the wind slows you down, making the GT less efficient.

But this simple consideration again does not take into account all variables like drag coefficient (which is itself depends on the angle of attack). So, a lot to guess about. Performing exact measurements is hard, guessing is easy

 

[MartinL]

Nicht 'apparantly',

Doch apparently! Apparently heißt offensichtlich oder offenbar.

Wenn etwas offen sichtlich ist oder sich offenbart, dann ist es in der Regel so. Wobei apparently im Englischen noch viel konkreter ist als das auch relativierend zu gebrauchende offenbar bei uns.

There you are.

 

[Hoekie]

...oder anscheinend. Anscheinend = apparantly, seemingly

Die englische Sprache hat viel weniger Wörter als die deutsche Sprache. Mehr Wörter haben also mehrere Bedeutungen als in die deutsche Sprache (und Niederländische) Wenn Ich mir nicht sicher bin benutze Ich mehrere Übersetzungs-Websites. Tröste dich, auch die stimmen nicht immer miteinander überein. In diesem Fall war es ganz klar.

Erweiterung:
1. Linguistische Schulung.
2. Ich hatte damals ein Freund in Hannover. Die reden da von 'eben so gross als' und 'gleich gross wie'
3. Youtube, typ 'apparantly'

Spoiler

4. Ich glaube, er ist nur mürrisch, weil er seinen Snoek verkaufen muss, weil er an einem beschissenen Ort lebt, um Velomobile fahren zu können

 

[Arend-Jan]

The effect you describe is very much possible, just by considering the larger frontal area of the GT: When riding downwind, the wind pushes you forward, making it more "efficient". When riding against the wind, the wind slows you down, making the GT less efficient.

But this simple consideration again does not take into account all variables like drag coefficient (which is itself depends on the angle of attack). So, a lot to guess about. Performing exact measurements is hard, guessing is easy

4bft tailwind while riding 55 is still a headwind ... So no...

 

[benparke]

I’m just curious why it is that every time a new model comes out at some point it ends up a lengthy discussion about which one is the fastest. They’re all fast. Just go out and enjoy riding!

 

[Disch]

Die englische Sprache hat viel weniger Wörter als die deutsche Sprache.

Ist zwar OT, aber eigentlich ist es anders herum

 

[Hoekie]

Ist zwar OT, aber eigentlich ist es anders herum

Sie haben recht. Mehrere englische Wörter bedeuten das Gleiche.

 

[M-Elch]

Oder auch dasselbe

 

[Hoekie]

I’m just curious why it is that every time a new model comes out at some point it ends up a lengthy discussion about which one is the fastest. They’re all fast. Just go out and enjoy riding!

Weil es sie nicht gibt? Zumindest nicht dieses Mal.
Arend-Jan hat einen guten Vergleich - mit seinem eigenen Velomobil - gezogen. Und daran haben einige Zweifel.

 

[Hoekie]

Is there any experience with cooling when using a hood?

Noch nicht. Ist noch nicht fertig.

 

[Arend-Jan]

Weil es sie nicht gibt? Zumindest nicht dieses Mal.
Arend-Jan hat einen guten Vergleich - mit seinem eigenen Velomobil - gezogen. Und daran haben einige Zweifel.

Indeed, I compared it not to see if it is the fastest/hottest bike ever, but to see if I think it's worth selling my own GT for.

And for me, it is, I ordered the Snoek L. It accelerates better (drivetrain feels stiffer), suspension is more comfortable and I think it's more efficient as well, at higher speeds / riding into the wind. I also think it's quite pretty (but so is the GT imho). I also love the removable/exchangeable foot bumps/holes cover.

For relaxed/slow touring, the GT is more suited. Turning circle of my GT is smaller, wider tires fit, it has more luggage capacity and the flip-up entry lid is simply genius (I'll miss that). Also, at touring speeds, any potential aero benefit is not noticeable as it's mostly rolling resistance anyway (but I now also have a QV for such rides).

For swift long distance (200+ km) riding, which I like to do, I think I will notice, just like I noticed quite well when I traded up from Quest to GT. Even if it's 'only' 10 watts saved, over many hours that makes a very big difference.

 

[benparke]

Indeed, I compared it not to see if it is the fastest/hottest bike ever, but to see if I think it's worth selling my own GT for.

And for me, it is, I ordered the Snoek L. It accelerates better (drivetrain feels stiffer), suspension is more comfortable and I think it's more efficient as well, at higher speeds / riding into the wind. I also think it's quite pretty (but so is the GT imho). I also love the removable/exchangeable foot bumps/holes cover.

For relaxed/slow touring, the GT is more suited. Turning circle of my GT is smaller, wider tires fit, it has more luggage capacity and the flip-up entry lid is simply genius (I'll miss that). Also, at touring speeds, any potential aero benefit is not noticeable as it's mostly rolling resistance anyway (but I now also have a QV for such rides).

For swift long distance (200+ km) riding, which I like to do, I think I will notice, just like I noticed quite well when I traded up from Quest to GT. Even if it's 'only' 10 watts saved, over many hours that makes a very big difference.

This is what I noticed when moving from my quest xs to the Bülk. Big change in stiffness, handling, comfort, and efficiency. My suspicion is that quite a lot of the newest models are very similar in efficiency. At that point I think it comes down to comfort and fit rather than a few watts. My quest was built is 2012. A lot has changed since then.