# Zipp 404 vs. Mavic Cosmic Carbone (Clinchers)



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

I am currently in the process of deciding on buying a pair of high profile wheels for racing on the flats (to chase down breaks, go on break-aways, etc.). My choices are whittled down to the Zipp 404s and the Mavic Cosmic Carbone Premium.

Would be interested in hearing positive and negative feedback from those that have experienced riding ridden on the clincher versions of BOTH the Zipp 404s and the Mavic Cosmic Carbone (SL or Premium).

Thanks.


----------



## mytorelli (Dec 19, 2004)

heres my take:

(1 worst 5 best) in terms of 50mm-60mm deep rims

404's:
-weight... 5
-aero... 5
-durability...2.5
-stiffness...4

cosmics:
-weight....2
-durable... 5
-aero...5
-stiffness...4


----------



## backinthesaddle (Nov 22, 2006)

Pretty equal other than the hubs. Zipp hubs SUCK. I see a lot of Zipps with other manufacturers hubs. 

My Carbones have been bulletproof. They may be heavier, but they are DAMN fast.


----------



## tobyinsydney (Nov 28, 2006)

on a side note: what's the difference between to SL and premium Carbone's..? other than a few bucks.


----------



## spinacci (Sep 5, 2005)

tobyinsydney said:


> on a side note: what's the difference between to SL and premium Carbone's..? other than a few bucks.


Ti skewers and axle, and cooler stickers.

i think i'd go for the Mavics than the Zipps. Just wish I had the $$$.

jos


----------



## azdroptop (Jun 6, 2006)

I am also looking at these wheels and am wondering if they climb ok? Is it the aero advantage that makes them faster than a lighter wheel?


----------



## gibson00 (Aug 7, 2006)

They are both very aero. After doing lots and lots of reading on the subject over the past few years, the impression I have gotten is that weight is over-rated. I think lighter, in general, is better, but the difference is very slight. Lots of pros used Cosmic Carbones (US Postal/Discovery, etc.). The Zipp 404's are over a pound lighter. Pros often use rebadged equipment if it makes a difference. Yet they still used the heavey Cosmic Carbones instead of Lightweights, Zipps, etc.
If the wheel weight made that much difference, all pro's would buy themselves Lightweights.
The difference is even less for us mere mortals since we ride/race at speeds so much slower than pros.
I've owned Zipp 404's in the past. I sold them (for no particular reason), raced on Ksyriums this past Summer, and just bought a set of used 2005 Cosmic Carbone SL tubulars to race on next year.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

gibson00 said:


> The Zipp 404's are over a pound lighter.


That could well be true on the tubular versions, but fyi on the clincher versions of the 404s and the Carbones (which us mere mortals tend to buy, as opposed to the tubular versions) a pair of 404s weigh about 100 grams (or about a quarter pound) less than the Carbones. 

All the foregoing is SUPER helpful, thanks. :thumbsup: 

Some more random facts:

1. I've read changing inner tubes on 404 clincher versions a little on the tricky side; on the Carbones it's as easy as changing inner tubes on Kysriums.

2. Also read that on 404s the inner tube stem typically needs an extension to inflate properly. With regular long-stem inner tube on Mavic Carbone you're good to go.

3. "Carbone" (French word for carbon) is a misnomer (ahh, those sneaky French), as the deep rim is really made out of plastic (flexes when squeezed), not carbon; on the 404, the deep rim indeed is carbon (very stiff, no flex when squeezed).


----------



## gibson00 (Aug 7, 2006)

Is the newer carbone not made with a real carbon fairing? I know the older ones were plastic.

Anyhow, when dishing out this kind of $$ for wheels, I think you should really consider tubulars. They will be somewhat lighter, and you will never get a pinch flat. Gluing tubulars is really really easy, and it is easy to pull a spare tire onto the wheel if you happen to flat on the road, which is not that often on tubulars. And tubies ride -really- nice!
Oh, yes, you do need a valve extension with Zipps. I'm really not sure if you do with Mavics or not. I assumed you would need them with either.


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 5, 2004)

*Reynolds?*



fornaca68 said:


> I am currently in the process of deciding on buying a pair of high profile wheels for racing on the flats (to chase down breaks, go on break-aways, etc.). My choices are whittled down to the Zipp 404s and the Mavic Cosmic Carbone Premium.
> 
> Would be interested in hearing positive and negative feedback from those that have experienced riding ridden on the clincher versions of BOTH the Zipp 404s and the Mavic Cosmic Carbone (SL or Premium).
> 
> Thanks.


You could go significantly lighter and almost as aero, and stay clincher, with the Reynolds Stratus DV clincher wheelset. Or you could contact a builder like Ligero and get some custom Zipp 404s built up. The Zipp hubs are less than stellar.


----------



## backinthesaddle (Nov 22, 2006)

I have a set of Stratus DV clinchers and Carbones. 

Carbones are heavier, but seem way stiffer and seem to 'roll' a bit better at speed (over 26-27). The Reynolds weigh a true 1510 grams w/o skewers and are probably as stiff as Ksyriums. I'm probably going to tear down the rear Reynolds wheel and rebuild it with some heavier gauge spokes to see if that stiffens it up.

I can definitely feel some give when pushing the Reynolds hard into a corner. The Carbones seem to just track through like on rails. The Reynolds also have a carbon brake track, which will absolutely eat your brake blocks if you don't swap them out for carbon specific ones. 

I like my DVs, but given the choice and spending the $, I'd buy some Carbone SLs... (I didn't pay for either of my wheelsets...)


----------



## scubad (Jun 22, 2004)

I have a pair of 404's and considered the Reynolds and Carbone's as well. I voted for the 404's because of the weight. Plus on the recommendation of my LBS. He is a guy I trust and stated that the 404 quality has improved. 

When I first got them, I pinched two tubes getting a new tire(GP4000) on them. Put on a pair of older tires(Pro Race 2) for the first couple of weeks. Put the new tires on the other wheelset. I guess it stretched them out enough when I put the Conti GP4000's on the 404's, it went on really easy.

You will need longer stems or an extender. I use the shorter stems with removable core so I can use an extender. I do carry a plastic extender in case I run into a tube(ex. my buddies tubes) that doesn't have a removable core.

Bottom line for me, I love em and feel that they are faster than my other wheel sets.

ScubaD


----------



## Bikbldr (Mar 31, 2005)

Ok, on a whim I picked up some new wheels today. I am second-guessing myself now and since this thread is on topic I decided to give it a bump.

Shipping out to me is a handbuilt wheelset from Mike Curiak that is composed of the Zipp 404 rims or Zipp 505's (which I guess are the same thing) laced to Bontrager Race lite hubs (the rear is a rebadged DT240 basically). I got a great deal, so that isn't the issue. I am just curious if I bought something that will improve on what I already have. I currently have a DT240 hubset laced to DTrr1.1 rims with supercomp spokes (built so that I could switch these wheels to my cross bike when needed) and then also a FSA RD400 wheelset. This new zipp set up promises to be the heaviest of all. Will it still be faster, or will I be disappointed?

Thanks


----------



## azdroptop (Jun 6, 2006)

Bikbldr said:


> Ok, on a whim I picked up some new wheels today. I am second-guessing myself now and since this thread is on topic I decided to give it a bump.
> 
> Shipping out to me is a handbuilt wheelset from Mike Curiak that is composed of the Zipp 404 rims or Zipp 505's (which I guess are the same thing) laced to Bontrager Race lite hubs (the rear is a rebadged DT240 basically). I got a great deal, so that isn't the issue. I am just curious if I bought something that will improve on what I already have. I currently have a DT240 hubset laced to DTrr1.1 rims with supercomp spokes (built so that I could switch these wheels to my cross bike when needed) and then also a FSA RD400 wheelset. This new zipp set up promises to be the heaviest of all. Will it still be faster, or will I be disappointed?
> 
> Thanks


Well I'm no expert, but from what I've read aero is more important than weight when it comes to speed and the zipp wheel is a 58 right? The r1.1 is 19 or 21 so dispite the weight it should be faster...At least in most applications.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

I owned and put a ton of miles on both

get the zipps

the mavics are garbage


----------



## QCWheelman (Jul 26, 2006)

I ride both. I have an older version of the Mavics (the plastic 2004 version). Those Carbones are the ultimate for flat crits and time trials: once they get spun up, they hold 30 MPH without much difficulty. They're boat-anchor heavy (2100g), but I think combination of rotational weight and aerodynamics actually helps them at speed due to the flywheel effect. Not great for climbing and accelerating though. The Zipps accelerate like crazy, expecially uphill, but I've found they're a little slower in a flat time trial. Because they're expensive, a little more delicate, and tubular, I would never train on the Zipps. Race day only wheels.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

sooooooooooooooooooooooo .................

Logic 101 =)

if crits are constant acceleration and stop and go, one would think that Zipps, accordingt to all of us, spin up super fast, would eb the wheel of choice, so for crits ZIPP all the way because you dont spend a whole lot of time over 30 in a crit

That means for road races and crits the Mavics are NOT the choice becuase they are heavy and slow until you get to speed, so maybe TTs??? How about no again becuase the Zipps are more aero and possess a deeper profile

SO GET THE ZIPPS


----------



## backinthesaddle (Nov 22, 2006)

CARBON110 said:


> sooooooooooooooooooooooo .................
> 
> Logic 101 =)
> 
> ...


No....

When you get out of Cat4 or 5, crits aren't always stop and go and sprinting out of corners. Go jump in a Masters 35+ crit and see how much you touch your brakes. 
I race my Carbones in crits and have little trouble. If you are forced to accelerate, it's not from 12 to 20 mph, it's from 23 to 32...

Carbones are also stiffer than 404s. And yes, I've ridden and raced both. Zipp left me kind of Blah...
For the cash, get Mavics or Cane Creeks.


----------



## Bikbldr (Mar 31, 2005)

azdroptop said:


> Well I'm no expert, but from what I've read aero is more important than weight when it comes to speed and the zipp wheel is a 58 right? The r1.1 is 19 or 21 so dispite the weight it should be faster...At least in most applications.



Yeah the rims are 58s but the difference in weight is probably 350 grams. I am guessing that they will weigh about 1850 to 1900 grams. I am thinking that despite the fact I just bought these, I may just sell them before I even put a wheel on them. But I have never ridden an aero rim so I could be being a bit rash. I got a great deal on them, so I should be able to get out of them about what I bought them for. 

Those that have experience with the 404 clincher version I would like to hear from you.


----------



## Fignon's Barber (Mar 2, 2004)

backinthesaddle said:


> No....
> 
> Go jump in a Masters 35+ crit and see how much you touch your brakes.
> I race my Carbones in crits and have little trouble. If you are forced to accelerate, it's not from 12 to 20 mph, it's from 23 to 32...


True dat. Having raced in masters 30+ for the last 15 years, I was about to go on a nationwide hunt for these "stop and go " crits.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

backinthesaddle said:


> No....
> 
> When you get out of Cat4 or 5, crits aren't always stop and go and sprinting out of corners.


Not that it matters either way. Even while accelerating, riders still have to work against aero drag and the power to overcome drag at typical crit speeds is much greater than the power to accelerate wheels so that for all practicle purposes, acceleration effects can be ignored. http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_theory.htm


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

ok cowboys and cowgirls,


RULE 1 - no broad generalizations about race speed - each race is different, everyone has passed "lower cats" in a race so that means nothing and stop n go is in every cat, things slow down, things speed up, especially in upper cat1 and masters, the faster you go the more you slow down around tight unforgiving corners

RULE 2 - wasting energy by getting them up to speed is stil energy lost, the Mavics are like the Titanic in rain, full of water, the ZIpps the nipple is tied off at the top of the rim on both clincher (aluminum brkaing) and tubie

RULE 3- Zipp is not flimsy or squishy unless you weigh ALOT. Mavic weights a POUND MORE, and have fewer spokes but they are wide and bladed and high strung = more harsh. According to Nimble Wheel company, wide flat spokes tested in the AUstin wind tunnel, same one Lance uses, specifically tested Mavic wheels, in their words are like "egg beaters in the wind" completely counter productive

if you think for one second the Mavics are better in any way than the Zipps you are crazy

replacement is far faster through Zipp - they are more aero, more comfortable, more everything

want some fun training wheels, get the mavics, want some race wheels get the zipps

if a rider can save 10-15% of energy riding behind another rider and 8% riding aero wheels according to S.Hed then why even consider 2000 + gram wheels?


soooooooooo everything points to Zipp, includinghaving ridden thousands of miles on both, which one are you going to stick with?

DOn't be George Bush and go against the SCIENCE


----------



## pkgdave9144 (Nov 21, 2006)

*Zipps are fast*

I gave up on Zipps after my 3rd messed up set. 1 cracked rim (404), 1 nipple pulled though(303 clincher) and 1 set couldnt be trued without creating dents in the rim form tension (303)

Zipps are much faster feeling than Cosmics in crits and hilly races.

I personally feel the Cosmics handle better for road races, they really have a good, stable feeling. Likely due to the high momentum of the rims.

Whoever says Comsics are flexy have obviously never ridden them.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

that is true, i blew through 3 pair of 303s and saw many team8s do the same but never with the 404s

i know Cane Creek had some issues with zipp rims too

why i went with Reynolds above all


----------



## pkgdave9144 (Nov 21, 2006)

I loved my Reynolds, but I couldnt keep the spokes from breaking


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Really?

I use the clincher 46mm deep and run them in mud, 30-40 mph dirt roads, rain, snow, everything, never had to even tru them and braking surface was awesome in rain with the right pads

I really like the new Bontrager carbon clinchers, but I heard, have not seen them myself, that the aero part is really fragile


----------



## mytorelli (Dec 19, 2004)

CARBON110 said:


> ok cowboys and cowgirls,
> 
> RULE 3- Zipp is not flimsy or squishy unless you weigh ALOT. Mavic weights a POUND MORE, and have fewer spokes but they are wide and bladed and high strung = more harsh. According to Nimble Wheel company, wide flat spokes tested in the AUstin wind tunnel, same one Lance uses, specifically tested Mavic wheels, in their words are like "egg beaters in the wind" completely counter productive
> 
> ...


How do mavics weigh a pound more?? zipps weigh approx 1672 grams and mavics weigh 1792 grams. (mavic is actual, zipp is claimed, so zipp would probably weigh more) in my calculations thats only 120 grams, and not close to a pound. 

Mavic cosmic carbons are stronger than zipp clinchers, mavics spokes are connected to the rim, and zipps are connected to the carbon. 

in terms of aerodynamics they are about the same, they wouldnt be noticable

soo... mavics stronger, zipps slightly lighter, same aerodynamics, and im not sure about replacement..


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

look here my fine fruity friend, i only say this because I care, there are alot of decaf brands on the market that taste just like the real thing!

Mavic made the Carbone SL in 2005 and I'm not sure what it weighs in clincher but the tubular is 1800 grams mmkay, the 2004 Carbone SSC weighed 2000+ grams 


I have owned 5 sets of Zipps and the most they were ever off in weight was by 50 grams

In terms of aerodynamics according to Steve Hed, someone who has more know how around the subject than you or me, the Zipps are the wheel of choice becuase 1) they weigh less and 2) more importantly they have a DEEPER profile

so listen noobie, think before you something like 58mm is the same as 50 mm deep mmmkay =) because alot of fine people have wasted their time proving this so that wanks like me could correct noobies like you, oh and so that cyclists would be fastrer and save more energy too!

you said - 

""soo... mavics stronger, zipps slightly lighter, same aerodynamics, and im not sure about replacement.."" 


well, noooooooooooooo, not even close. Mavics are more stiff, not stronger and this is arguable. They are more harsh of a ride if that is what you mean. Carbon is known to stiffen wheels and the Zipp 404s and 440s have ALOT of carbon hence = more stiffness and more durable.

Slightly lighter? you mean 300+ grams is ALMOST a pound 1 pound = 453.59237 grams 

not the same aerodynamics either

you can NOT get replacements from Mavic as they do not sell ONE wheel only wheelsets. To get a wheel fixed you send it to FRANCE. Zipp is located in the USA and turn around time is fast and you can actually speak to someone about your case when you call

now you know about replacement, and your welcome!

By the way when those Mavic spokes break it sounds like a gun shot going off and you cna't get it fixed at the LBS

short recap

zipps keep the H2O out
zipps are faster
zipp is more aero
zipp is more light
zipp is more easy to fix just in case
zipp is in the usa
zipp has real carbon not carbone whatever the fck that is



ok **********? =]


----------



## skepticman (Dec 25, 2005)

CARBON110 said:


> Mavic made the Carbone SL in 2005 and I'm not sure what it weighs in clincher but the tubular is 1800 grams mmkay, the 2004 Carbone SSC weighed 2000+ grams


This thread is about clinchers. Here are the official weights from the manufacturers' sites.

http://www.mavic.com/ewb_pages/p/pr...L_premium.php?onglet=2&gamme=route&annee=2007
Carbone SL Premium
785g Front + 970g Rear = 1755g

http://www.zipp.com/Products/Wheels...ProductID/41/Default.aspx?SortField=ISBN,ISBN
Zipp 404 Clincher
788g front + 884g rear = 1672g

A whopping 83g or 0.18 pound difference.

The Carbones are also 52mm deep, not 50 as you state. And the Mavic site says the wheels are made from "12K carbon fiber." The old ones were some kind of composite material.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Also, the ZIpps have the "golf ball" technology, by that I mean, Zipp put on their wheels what Titelist put on their golf balls to make them travel further

So the air passes over them even faster

I stand corrected, I did not know Mavic made the SL in clincher - and they still weigh more

still looking to see any advantage the Mavics have on Zipps ????


----------



## mytorelli (Dec 19, 2004)

CARBON110 said:


> look here my fine fruity friend, i only say this because I care, there are alot of decaf brands on the market that taste just like the real thing!
> 
> Mavic made the Carbone SL in 2005 and I'm not sure what it weighs in clincher but the tubular is 1800 grams mmkay, the 2004 Carbone SSC weighed 2000+ grams
> 
> ...


1st of all thanks for calling me a "noobie" when you dont even know me, 2nd of all thanks for calling me "**********" what ever that means and a "fine fruity" 3rd of all we dont need people like you who argue too much in the cycling world, its people like you who make riding less fun.

not sure where you get your info from. 

weight difference is 120 grams, and your arguing with me when you dont even know the weight of the current mavics!

like i said your not going to feel a difference between aerodynamics between the two, mavics have 51 profile, zipps have 58, 7mm wont make that big of a difference. Yes the zipps are SLIGHTLY more aerodynamic

a lot of carbon does not mean its more durable than metal, mavics are proven strong wheels. Do you know how many wheels CSC broke? and have you heard of the MP3 plan? and ive worked at a LBS and we have fixed broken spokes on mavics, so i dont know why you said LBS's cant fix them.

thanks for all the arguing, and name calling, I dont like visiting forums like this because of childish people like you.


----------



## gibson00 (Aug 7, 2006)

CARBON110 said:


> Also, the ZIpps have the "golf ball" technology, by that I mean, Zipp put on their wheels what Titelist put on their golf balls to make them travel further
> 
> So the air passes over them even faster
> 
> ...



First, to the person who was asking about the pound difference, sorry if I confused the thread. I was comparing tubulars. Zipp 404 tubulars are about a pound lighter than Carbone SL tubulars. I've ridden 404's, and liked them. I did NOT find them to be very stiff, but maybe that was just mine, maybe they weren't tensioned well at the factory, who knows. I'm looking forward to trying a set of Carbone SL's this summer. Not many climbs longer than half a mile where I live, so I think the effect of the extra weight will be minimal. And I agree about the criterium comments. The type of accelerating in the faster races isn't an issue, you are already up to speed, even through the corners. Not sure what the average speed is in Cat 5?

ALSO, regarding golf ball technology................the moment I saw a CSC team disc wheel with a huge 'CSC' logo carved/dimpled into the disk, I mean as one big dimple per letter, I lost any faith in the 'golf ball' technology. Not exactly strategic dimple placing going on there..............or did they scientifically find that the letters 'CSC' create a faster surface???? hahahaha


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

easy fella it was in good fun, my apologies if I hurt your feelings, sincerely

ZIpps are the fastest wheels out there except maybe Bontrager's new Aeoulus 60 or is it 65 mm deep?

why? Because deeper dish cuts through the wind

it's about the physics of aerodynamics

you are correct, I did not know Mavic came out with a new Carbone SL, I owned up to that and I stand corrected

That being said, they still will accelerate slower and weigh more than the zipps buttercup 

=)

According to Steve Hed, only wheels with 50+ mm deep actaully save a rider any energy or should be considered "aero" The industry started using the term losely becuase a 44 mm deep wheel is theoretically more "aero" than a regular 24mm deep wheel

How many wheels did CSC break? Do you know?

You should be able to know that Zipps are faster if you wrenched at LBS - then again maybe not

MP3 plan? Like an iwheel? 

""thanks for all the arguing, and name calling, I dont like visiting forums like this because of childish people like you""

I thought it was a good discussion. 

If you are so sensitive as to be hurt by something I said, I apologize truly, if I'd known you would take it so hard I would have been more stoic in my responses - thought it was clear it was in jest . 

In any case, you shouldn't allow me to keep you from experiencing all the wild and wonder a place like RBR has to offer - and there is plenty - and I am certain there are people here who can benfit from your opinions and perceptions, 


try the fiction forum (JUST KIDDING!)

Have a nice weekend,

C110


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

ahah gibby my boy!

see, sarcasm is like a second language around here and I'm digging yours =]

I never said golf ball tech was going to save the day. but according to Zipp and CSC who Bjarn Riis is known for getting the ebst and latest to save as much time as possible, I believe it! Why not, make ssense when you read the findings

Don't remember Cat5 races much lower cats slow down just like everyone in crits - roadraces are more fluid of course, most of the time, but I meana field of 90-120 riders, there is going to be some braking and accelerating regardless of category

Zipps still pwn Mavics all day - I wouldn't buy them, I'd go with Bontragers or Reynolds - Reynolds because they are industructable in my experiences, Bontragers because they appeal to my sensibilities not my performance, they are not the lightests, and they are $$$$ to get fixed but I love them


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

CARBON110 said:


> According to Steve Hed, only wheels with 50+ mm deep actaully save a rider any energy or should be considered "aero" The industry started using the term losely becuase a 44 mm deep wheel is theoretically more "aero" than a regular 24mm deep wheel


I'm surprised Steve would say that in light of data such as that presented here, http://www.zipp.com/RimShape/tabid/103/Default.aspx . As you say any increase in rim depth will result in a decrease in drag and so a reduction in energy required of the rider. There is no magic depth at which one can say a wheel is or isn't aero. Whether the energy savings for a particular wheel is worth the cost is something that depends on the particulars of the rider - in terms of intended uses for the wheel, rider's abilities, and finances.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

asgelle said:


> I'm surprised Steve would say that in light of data such as that presented here, http://www.zipp.com/RimShape/tabid/103/Default.aspx . As you say any increase in rim depth will result in a decrease in drag and so a reduction in energy required of the rider. There is no magic depth at which one can say a wheel is or isn't aero. Whether the energy savings for a particular wheel is worth the cost is something that depends on the particulars of the rider - in terms of intended uses for the wheel, rider's abilities, and finances.


Good points! In fact, the answers to those questions make all the difference 

Hey it's his coin, buy the wheels you like better


----------



## cheekybondi (Nov 2, 2006)

CARBON110 said:


> easy fella it was in good fun, my apologies if I hurt your feelings, sincerely
> 
> ZIpps are the fastest wheels out there except maybe Bontrager's new Aeoulus 60 or is it 65 mm deep?
> 
> ...



Carbon, I am but a passive participant in this thread, but I agree with Mytorelli. The name calling and aggressive tone of your posts do nothing for the objectivity of your posts. 

I didn't find any of your posts to be in jest - just rude. Please try to tone it down and keep to the facts as you know them. Thanks.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

is this an encounter group? lol just playn

certainly, be happy to "tone it down", my apologies if I offended your delicate senses with words like; noobie, buttercup, and fine fruity friend


I can't apologize for people that argue that a heavier less aero wheel is better so lets stick to the subject not my "agressive" posts 

By the way, perhaps how you read the post might change the tone as well - in fact, why don't you just relax and not personalize something that isn't ment to be and I will try harder at my poor attempts at humor mmkay


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

carbon110: here you are argueing without your sidekick, Z KEN. hahaha yup i do believe beside lightweights, boras and 404 are the best, damn fastest money can buy wheels ( road racing only ) 

it's your money you can buy anything you want but when you're being drop like a fly you'll come to senses and wish you've boras/404.

anyway enjoy and ride strong-my motto


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

CARBON110 said:


> How many wheels did CSC break? Do you know?
> 
> 
> C110


At the end of august they had broken a total of around 80 wheels.


----------



## dougn (Jun 9, 2004)

i've seen how mavic backs their stuff. reynolds and zipp have to be better at that......


----------



## 2oldnslow (Jan 3, 2007)

Is it me or is carbon I complete knob ? Shame really having come back to road cycling after many years I joined the forum hoping to get some valuable insights to help me build up my recently acquired Cervelo. Sad to say seems to be not much more than a juvenile pissing contest oh well back to WW.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

2oldnslow,

Sensitivity Awareness meetings are down the hall and to the right. Be sure to fill out all the forms!


ahhaahah =)


----------



## z ken (Dec 30, 2006)

carbon: easy now buddy, you're going to get in trouble talking like that. we're all cyclists and we all share the same passion: NO CAR ALLOWED!! so lighten up and enjoy what we have here. heheh

since i bought my 404 couple days ago ( haven't ride it yet but heard alot of great reviews ) i believe they're sexier than Mavic + Mavic is Made in France?? err those smelly POS. heheh i mean that in a good way.


----------



## Ronman (Feb 12, 2007)

A friend has run the 404 w/a power tap. He's a big, strong guy, weighing about 230# and kicks out some serious motor on the bike. Long story short, the 404 flexed noticeably under his weight and unltimately he broke a wheel. What he found out later is that he should have been sold the 'Clydesdale' version of the wheel, which brought the spoke count up to something like 32 instead of 24 or 26 of the standard version.
He wound up with a 303, as the 404 couldn't be laced to the power tap hub in the Clydesdale version. The Clydesdale 303 suits him well and is very stiff. Not sure what the weight penalty is for the additional spokes, but for those with breakage issues on the Zipps this may be a worthwhile option to consider.
~Ron


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Ronman said:


> A friend has run the 404 w/a power tap. He's a big, strong guy, weighing about 230# and kicks out some serious motor on the bike. Long story short, the 404 flexed noticeably under his weight and unltimately he broke a wheel. What he found out later is that he should have been sold the 'Clydesdale' version of the wheel, which brought the spoke count up to something like 32 instead of 24 or 26 of the standard version.
> He wound up with a 303, as the 404 couldn't be laced to the power tap hub in the Clydesdale version. The Clydesdale 303 suits him well and is very stiff. Not sure what the weight penalty is for the additional spokes, but for those with breakage issues on the Zipps this may be a worthwhile option to consider.
> ~Ron


and then has the whole weight argument for the zipps disappeared. With the higher spoke counts in the clydes it is also not obvious the aerodynamics is better anymore, has the clydes been tested?


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

I don't think so

the deep rim remains aero and is certainly better than regular spoke wheels.

Light rims like the 404s have reduces rotational weight which is huge

higher spoke count might increase drag but minimally and it increases stiffness and reliability

Cane Creek theory about putting spokes at the hub to reduce RW is brilliant and should be standard


----------



## pkgdave9144 (Nov 21, 2006)

All the aero tests seem to indicate that spoke count has a huge effect on aero efficiency. Look at the Shimano DA 7800 wheels for instance (16/20 spoke, 24mm rims). More aero than many 38mm+ carbon wheelsets.

The only place ive ever read that spoke count is neglible is from Zipp's own propaganda.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

CARBON110 said:


> I don't think so
> 
> the deep rim remains aero and is certainly better than regular spoke wheels.
> 
> ...


So you don't have any tests of the clydes wheels?
As for inertia being a huge effect, that depends on the definition of huge I guess.
http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_theory.htm


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

I have not searched out any info on the clydes.

That being said, all of the tests over in Trek Forums under wheel theory have deep dish rims. Deep dish rims are more aero than say hidden nipples like the Dura Ace7800. So a dep rim is better than a low profile rim

I was surprised how low Nimbles 3 spoke pattern tested untilI realized it has a low profiile rim compared to the others

so I dont think a 7800 is more aero or light than a 38mm zipp and according to the S. Hed article under the Aeolus wheel in Trek forums rbr, he convinced Discovery team to use the deep dish wheels except when there is more climbing than rolling terrain

so no, according to them, 7800 would not be more aero than a 38mm even with a high spoke count espcially in rolling terrain which predominates races and group rides

check it out for yourself and see what you think


----------



## Bikbldr (Mar 31, 2005)

den bakker said:


> and then has the whole weight argument for the zipps disappeared. With the higher spoke counts in the clydes it is also not obvious the aerodynamics is better anymore, has the clydes been tested?



you gotta compare apples to apples.

Compare other wheelsets appropriate for clydes vs. the Zipp 404 clyde version. The zipps should still easily come out on top vs. non-aero non-carbon rims for those that are strong enough for big guys.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Bikbldr said:


> you gotta compare apples to apples.
> 
> Compare other wheelsets appropriate for clydes vs. the Zipp 404 clyde version. The zipps should still easily come out on top vs. non-aero non-carbon rims for those that are strong enough for big guys.


Seems like the apple to apple comparison is zipp clyde to the carbones. There is a reason zipp had to make a clyde version and mavic did not....
That whole basis for the thread was zipp 404 vs carcone, not non-aero non-corbon made-out-of-marshmellow wheels.


----------



## pkgdave9144 (Nov 21, 2006)

Yep... You cant win a race on a broken Zipp.
----------------------
How often do you hear/read: "My damn Mavic Cosmic broke on me!" Rarely? Never? Yeah, never is close.

How about : "My Zipp's cracked....again" Ive personally cracked two and pulled nipples out of another. And the stupid aero spokes were not aero most of the time. They kept rotating and turning into wind blockers.
--------------------
So yeah, Im in the zipp-hating club now... I find that most zipp owners join after a while.

Zipp-lovers hate me because I can ride my clincher Cosmics every day of the week and not think twice about it. They have to save the zipps for special events, 'cause they know the time-bomb clock is ticking backwards on them.


----------



## I am The Edge (Jul 27, 2004)

i'd buy easton tempest 2 carbon before i'd buy mavic or zips.


----------

