This is more of a general comment on wind tunnel testing for cycling but…
the thing is, there is no universal wind tunnel standard, so any manufacturer can change their testing procedure to whatever suits them best no matter how “realistic” or practical it is, then claim it’s “the fastest” without ever having to disclose exactly how they reached their claim of “saving x watts at x speed” which is just hot air without any real context. I think it’s shocking that some component manufacturers and even independent reviewers do their “testing” without a rider/dummy in the wind tunnel at all.
What’s great about the Hambini article is that not only does it highlight this but also shows just how far behind the cycling industry is in aerodynamics. I think anyone who has even the slightest experience with physics knows that the difference between steady state and transient responses is worlds apart, it’s like taking Newtonian physics and applying it at quantum levels. FLO seems to take this to the extreme which makes it the perfect target to pick on–a couple dudes straight out of college design a rim to be theoretically “the fastest” at steady state and with minimal yaw, then throw a bunch of marketing at it to great success. The result is that they perform quite excellent in those specific conditions, but mix in a little oscillation and some ramping yaw angles like you would experience on the open road and the design becomes, very, very poor at handling reattachment.
To be fair though, apparently it takes wind tunnels on the level of Boeing or whatever other aerospace equivalent to even be able to properly test for things like transient analysis, which is obviously not on the table for companies in such a niche market like cycling.