Very tidy test, and actually these are the results I did expect to see. Thanks a lot! Concerning differences: I do really prefer the Bülk because of it's flexibility. It doesn't fit super wides, but in warm and humid weather there's some more cooling to be had from removing the knee cover. I was still capable of riding 30 mph average without that cover, so it doesn't slow it down thát much. It's just a really well designed velomobile. A Milan SL might be faster but I don't fit in one of those :-)
I agree. It's the comfort features that really sell me on the Buelk. Little things like the shelf over the swingarm, the cable holding the tiller off my torso, the channeling of rain water away from the hinges, the multiple hood options, the ease of entering and exiting, and seating flexibility is big for me too. The W9 feels like it was meant to be a barebones sports car and the Buelk was meant for luxury cruising, but can be set for high performance too. I'd probably be a bit faster in a Milan SL, but the Buelk is more than fast enough for me.
With wheel pants, yes. Without wheel pants I would expect the DF to be a little bit slower. The olen wheel wells create some aerodynamic drag that will produce a little lower speeds. With pants, it is possible the DF would be equally fast.
@@mnveloguy Hey Ben! Nice vid ... so no difference at all in an everyday use setup. Did attach some "half" wheel pants on my DF and I think that helps a lot - without increasing the turning circle. Mainly the crosswinds are handled better ☺
@@devasfpv2232 I remember seeing your half wheel pants when we met. Seems like a good compromise solution. The DF has a reputation for being impacted by wind. So far the Bülk seems to do the best with crosswinds.
I have a DF XL (without wheelpants) and a Bülk. On daily commutes, they're equally quick, only not if I have a nasty headwind. I often commute at 25 mph average (without hood) and it doesn't matter which velomobile I ride to do so. The DF accelerates and climbs a little bit easier and I think this is due to the more upright position. When I really go max effort, the Bülk is faster for two reasons: 1) at higher speeds the aerodynamics play a much bigger part. The DF really feels like it hits a wall around 35 mph, the Bülk just keeps going. 2) In the DF, my peak power output is 200W higher, but my FTP is some 20W lower than in the Bülk. My heartrate just goes through the roof when I try to maintain 330-350W in the DF, while in the Bülk it's painful but manageable. I think this is also due to the position, as if the air intake and/or blood flow is somehow limited a bit in the DF.
Excellent test, thanks! Would be very interesting if you could get hold of an original full size Quest to test sometime late spring to early summer. I'm quite curious how much difference has been made in 15-20 years of design advancements.
One of my clients has a carbon Quest. He’s still dialing in his Bülk, but once he does, I’ll have some data to share. compared to my Quest XS, I’m 5-10% faster in the Bülk.. I had planned to do comparison testing with the Quest XS, but unfortunately a distracted driver hit me and destroyed the Quest.XS back in March.
Thanks for your sacrifice! It's been awhile since the trial but perhaps in retrospect, do you feel one is better at transferring power from the pedals to the drive wheel than the other? Admittedly a very subjective comparison but your thoughts are appreciated.
I think they are equal in power transfer, especially now that I have switched to 140 cranks in both Bülk and W9. The difference to me is in features and comfort. One person may like the more spartan setup of the W9 while another may like the little creature comforts of the Bülk. For me the hood system and seat system of the Bülk along with airflow are what made me decide the Bülk was right for me even though I find the W9 more aesthetically pleasing.
power ~ speed³ Buelk / Alpha efficiency relation run1: 1.026 run2:1.047 run3:1.008. Average 1.027. 2.7% more efficiency is a lot for racing. But in dayly driving convenience is more important. Variation is a lot between the measurements as MN said. So do not trust my calculation.
@@burkhardg4095 2.7% was more than I was expecting. Still I think it is within the margin of error. I found the seating position of the W9 made it harder for me to breath when pedaling hard. That could account for the difference. Overall I have found the Bülk much more practical for my urban riding situation. More adjustable, enough cargo capacity, all the hood options, and the smaller turning radius make it a better option for me.
Cameras mounted. The GoPro max is a giant unaerodynamic brick. I would expect the DFXL to be slower. Older technology and open wheel wells. My quest xs was slower too. Probably around 5% slower. Keep in mind that the wattage varies by system weight. I weigh 135-140lbs depending on recent cookie intake.
Valid test. You did add nonstock mirrors to W9 and Daniel Fenn optimized it making it not a stock set up. Also, W9 does not usually come with Hotspot. They are both amazing velos that are about the same speed.
Yes, as I explained I’m not comparing stock configuration. To truly see the aerodynamic difference both Velomobiles need to be set up the same. If I remove the mirrors and hotspot, then I need to do the same for the Bülk and will get the same results again.
I like how you tested it and it works. For me, I would order without the extra mirror, but with Hotspot. Actually, I would order M9, but you have the smaller W9….so its the best that we can do right now. I can only fit into a M9 and not a W9.
@@johnyang1420 Yes. The W9 is a tighter fit. The M9 would likely be a bit slower, but I think that only matters if you're racing. The Buelk could be an option for you, depending on your size if you want the same efficiency as the W9 but more room for longer legs/torso. I found the mirrors in the W9, even with my head in the intended position, didn't give me the field of view I wanted. Now that I'm done aero testing I'll put the Zefal Spin mirrors back on. I prefer the field of view from them compared to the mirrors with cones.
W9 has 140 cranks. Bülk has 155 cranks. Strava doesn’t show me the average rpm on segments so I don’t know if one bike had higher rpm than the other on average. I did try to find a gear that I could most comfortably spin in with both bikes.
Your testing of which vehicle is x seconds faster and better is getting boring and has zero benefit for the market. You should present the advantages of both vehicles over other forms of transport instead of pitting one against the other.
This is exactly the point I make at the end of the video, had you watched to that point. The purpose of the testing was to show that the obsession of the German market with which model is fastest and claims of aerodynamic superiority from the designer of the W9 are pointless because both are equally fast. If you scan through my list of videos, you will see that I have quite a lot of videos showing all the advantages of a velomobile. I have even made a video showing how a velomobile is the perfect cargo bike. There are quite a lot of people who do want to know which velomobile is the fastest. The German velomobile forum is full of heated debates on this topic. If you wish to get people to stop these debates, then you might want to start with your own forum instead of criticizing testing done to make exactly the point you wanted me to make.
Thanks to you, I wasn't bored while waiting for the Bülk. I appreciate it. I'm planning to receive it around the end of July.
That is very exciting news about your Bülk. I hope it will work for you as well as mine has for me.
Great test and very reasonable conclusions, thanks very much!
Very tidy test, and actually these are the results I did expect to see. Thanks a lot!
Concerning differences: I do really prefer the Bülk because of it's flexibility. It doesn't fit super wides, but in warm and humid weather there's some more cooling to be had from removing the knee cover. I was still capable of riding 30 mph average without that cover, so it doesn't slow it down thát much. It's just a really well designed velomobile. A Milan SL might be faster but I don't fit in one of those :-)
I agree. It's the comfort features that really sell me on the Buelk. Little things like the shelf over the swingarm, the cable holding the tiller off my torso, the channeling of rain water away from the hinges, the multiple hood options, the ease of entering and exiting, and seating flexibility is big for me too. The W9 feels like it was meant to be a barebones sports car and the Buelk was meant for luxury cruising, but can be set for high performance too. I'd probably be a bit faster in a Milan SL, but the Buelk is more than fast enough for me.
Thank you for your service! 😉
Thank you for the test. Great Information.
Great Report. Thanks for your effort!
Thanks a lot, Ben!
It's all true, what you have said...
I m pretty sure that my 7 year old DF will produce similar results.
With wheel pants, yes. Without wheel pants I would expect the DF to be a little bit slower. The olen wheel wells create some aerodynamic drag that will produce a little lower speeds. With pants, it is possible the DF would be equally fast.
@@mnveloguy Hey Ben! Nice vid ... so no difference at all in an everyday use setup.
Did attach some "half" wheel pants on my DF and I think that helps a lot - without increasing the turning circle. Mainly the crosswinds are handled better ☺
@@devasfpv2232 I remember seeing your half wheel pants when we met. Seems like a good compromise solution. The DF has a reputation for being impacted by wind. So far the Bülk seems to do the best with crosswinds.
@@devasfpv2232Do you have a pic or vid concerning the half wheel pants?
I have a DF XL (without wheelpants) and a Bülk. On daily commutes, they're equally quick, only not if I have a nasty headwind. I often commute at 25 mph average (without hood) and it doesn't matter which velomobile I ride to do so. The DF accelerates and climbs a little bit easier and I think this is due to the more upright position. When I really go max effort, the Bülk is faster for two reasons: 1) at higher speeds the aerodynamics play a much bigger part. The DF really feels like it hits a wall around 35 mph, the Bülk just keeps going. 2) In the DF, my peak power output is 200W higher, but my FTP is some 20W lower than in the Bülk. My heartrate just goes through the roof when I try to maintain 330-350W in the DF, while in the Bülk it's painful but manageable. I think this is also due to the position, as if the air intake and/or blood flow is somehow limited a bit in the DF.
Excellent test, thanks! Would be very interesting if you could get hold of an original full size Quest to test sometime late spring to early summer. I'm quite curious how much difference has been made in 15-20 years of design advancements.
One of my clients has a carbon Quest. He’s still dialing in his Bülk, but once he does, I’ll have some data to share. compared to my Quest XS, I’m 5-10% faster in the Bülk.. I had planned to do comparison testing with the Quest XS, but unfortunately a distracted driver hit me and destroyed the Quest.XS back in March.
Thanks for your sacrifice! It's been awhile since the trial but perhaps in retrospect, do you feel one is better at transferring power from the pedals to the drive wheel than the other? Admittedly a very subjective comparison but your thoughts are appreciated.
I think they are equal in power transfer, especially now that I have switched to 140 cranks in both Bülk and W9. The difference to me is in features and comfort. One person may like the more spartan setup of the W9 while another may like the little creature comforts of the Bülk. For me the hood system and seat system of the Bülk along with airflow are what made me decide the Bülk was right for me even though I find the W9 more aesthetically pleasing.
power ~ speed³ Buelk / Alpha efficiency relation run1: 1.026 run2:1.047 run3:1.008. Average 1.027. 2.7% more efficiency is a lot for racing. But in dayly driving convenience is more important. Variation is a lot between the measurements as MN said. So do not trust my calculation.
I’m not clear which velomobile you are determine was more efficient.
@@mnveloguy Buelk was more efficient
@@burkhardg4095 2.7% was more than I was expecting. Still I think it is within the margin of error. I found the seating position of the W9 made it harder for me to breath when pedaling hard. That could account for the difference.
Overall I have found the Bülk much more practical for my urban riding situation. More adjustable, enough cargo capacity, all the hood options, and the smaller turning radius make it a better option for me.
Were the tests run with the cameras mounted or unmounted ? I think my DFXL is significantly slower.
Cameras mounted. The GoPro max is a giant unaerodynamic brick. I would expect the DFXL to be slower. Older technology and open wheel wells. My quest xs was slower too. Probably around 5% slower. Keep in mind that the wattage varies by system weight. I weigh 135-140lbs depending on recent cookie intake.
@@mnveloguy Oh you're light Ben, thanks for the heads up.
@@pedalpowercycling yes. In theory I’d be a good climber on a traditional bike, minus the fact that I’m not especially muscular.
Valid test. You did add nonstock mirrors to W9 and Daniel Fenn optimized it making it not a stock set up. Also, W9 does not usually come with Hotspot. They are both amazing velos that are about the same speed.
Yes, as I explained I’m not comparing stock configuration. To truly see the aerodynamic difference both Velomobiles need to be set up the same. If I remove the mirrors and hotspot, then I need to do the same for the Bülk and will get the same results again.
I like how you tested it and it works. For me, I would order without the extra mirror, but with Hotspot. Actually, I would order M9, but you have the smaller W9….so its the best that we can do right now. I can only fit into a M9 and not a W9.
@@johnyang1420 Yes. The W9 is a tighter fit. The M9 would likely be a bit slower, but I think that only matters if you're racing. The Buelk could be an option for you, depending on your size if you want the same efficiency as the W9 but more room for longer legs/torso.
I found the mirrors in the W9, even with my head in the intended position, didn't give me the field of view I wanted. Now that I'm done aero testing I'll put the Zefal Spin mirrors back on. I prefer the field of view from them compared to the mirrors with cones.
RPM is different in the movie, was it in all runs ?
W9 has 140 cranks. Bülk has 155 cranks. Strava doesn’t show me the average rpm on segments so I don’t know if one bike had higher rpm than the other on average. I did try to find a gear that I could most comfortably spin in with both bikes.
Your testing of which vehicle is x seconds faster and better is getting boring and has zero benefit for the market. You should present the advantages of both vehicles over other forms of transport instead of pitting one against the other.
This is exactly the point I make at the end of the video, had you watched to that point. The purpose of the testing was to show that the obsession of the German market with which model is fastest and claims of aerodynamic superiority from the designer of the W9 are pointless because both are equally fast. If you scan through my list of videos, you will see that I have quite a lot of videos showing all the advantages of a velomobile. I have even made a video showing how a velomobile is the perfect cargo bike. There are quite a lot of people who do want to know which velomobile is the fastest. The German velomobile forum is full of heated debates on this topic. If you wish to get people to stop these debates, then you might want to start with your own forum instead of criticizing testing done to make exactly the point you wanted me to make.
Red keinen Unfug