Zipp 404 special edition V Mavic Carbonne SL

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

Holiday wheels, definitely.

Why do you think that?

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Holiday wheels, definitely.

Raam wrote: »

Why do you think that?

Because when I'm on my holidays I want deep section carbon clinchers.

Parking the bike next to my sun lounger will also help explain my farmers cyclists tan.

Seriously, when you Competitive Cyclist selling CCUs on the basis that they don't fill up with water, you have to be sceptical about the sanity of using deep section wheels in all weather (and then there's the brake squeal and rim wear).

CompetitiveCyclist wrote:

..like Lightweight, the Ultimate's tire bed is smooth, no holes. This allows the carbon bed to be both lighter and stronger. It also means the rim is totally sealed from the elements. No water can be forced inside the rim, even on the wettest days

Raam

I gotta say, I quite like the Reynolds Assaults. I had my eye on white decal Carbones for ages, but now I'm changing my mind.

As for filling up with water... honestly, is it really an issue or does just some water accumulate inside?

blorg

To be honest I like the feel of the Zipps so much I am half-considering a deep section clincher for non-race/dodgy race/spare use.

Thing is I am not sure what it is about the Zipps as they are (1) aero (2) light (3) tubular.

So if I got a heavier deep section clincher, would I be losing out a lot compared to the Zipps. I already have a selection of lightweight (1,350-1,500g) clinchers, at least some of which are not horribly non-aero.

Does anyone (Quigs?) have an opinion on that?

To be honest this is fantasy shopping at this stage but I would be interested in anyone who has a comparison between say tubular Zipps, clincher Zipps and Mavic Cosmic Carbone clinchers.

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

As for filling up with water... honestly, is it really an issue or does just some water accumulate inside?

The Mavic Carbones SLs come with drainage holes in the fairing, according to one report I read. So it must be an issue to some extent.

niceonetom

The more this thread progresses the less sure I am about anything...

Lumen wrote: »

The Mavic Carbones SLs come with drainage holes in the fairing, according to one report I read. So it must be an issue to some extent.

Aren't those drainage hole as much the cause of the problem as the solution to the problem though? You know, like beer?

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

The more this thread progresses the less sure I am about anything...

Almost all other bicycle components either have a defined service life (chains, cassettes etc) or last almost indefinitely.

Buying fancy wheels is therefore not like buying a fancy frame that will just get slightly tattier over the years. You can spend €1000 or so on a lovely frame that is as light, stiff, and compliant as you will ever want or need.

Wheels wear out. Even with a fairly traditional wheel the bearings go, the braking surface gets worn down, the nipples can seize.

Consequently, it is possible to fill the internet with discussion about which wheel to buy, because there is no right answer. Cheap, light, strong, aero, whatever, wheels are a collection of consumable parts.

niceonetom

Given that wheels are so consumable, and that no one pair is suitable for all occasions, and that price and fragility are strongly correlated, I'm feeling better and better about my 32 spokers...

It's all so perverse. I am never as likely to hit a pothole at 40kph+ without any time to jump or swerve as I am while racing, yet that is when I'm supposed to be on my best wheels... (if I had best wheels that is).

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

I am never as likely to hit a pothole at 40kph+ without any time to jump or swerve as I am while racing

...or crash.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

...or crash.

yeah! I can't imagine you're exactly dying to bring your new ardennes to meet the A4s...

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

yeah! I can't imagine you're exactly dying to bring your new ardennes to meet the A4s...

Indeed, I'm bringing a £50 Planet-X wheel this weekend.

But then the Ardennes have other qualities, like being run with 23mm tyres at 80psi (which I could have achieved much more cheaply by using 25mm tyres, at the cost of some marginal aero and weight disadvantage).

dave2pvd

blorg wrote: »

To be honest I like the feel of the Zipps so much I am half-considering a deep section clincher for non-race/dodgy race/spare use.

Thing is I am not sure what it is about the Zipps as they are (1) aero (2) light (3) tubular.

So if I got a heavier deep section clincher, would I be losing out a lot compared to the Zipps. I already have a selection of lightweight (1,350-1,500g) clinchers, at least some of which are not horribly non-aero.

Does anyone (Quigs?) have an opinion on that?

To be honest this is fantasy shopping at this stage but I would be interested in anyone who has a comparison between say tubular Zipps, clincher Zipps and Mavic Cosmic Carbone clinchers.

Blorg,

I sold my 2008 404 tubs recently. Then I went and 'traded up' to 404 clinchers. I can tell you that when you're riding 25+mph, they roll just as fast.

I can't tell that there is a difference between the Cs and the tubs yet. Well, braking is a bit more conventional.

I do like the new hubs. The lip seals seem pretty good - they weren't super on the 2008s.

As for as durability goes, the 2008's were very strong. I used them with the Zipp tubs (same as Vittoria?). Those tyres were really only for TTs; awful when cornering, but little rolling resistance.

Will the Cs be as strong? I think that some people think that having the aluminum rim in there strengthens the wheel. I'm not so sure about that. The 404 has done very well in recent editions of Paris-Roubaix - and it wasn't the clincher version that was being used. I do expect the Cs to be durable however. Yet I won't be using them in crits or RRs with very bad road surface. Any wheel can get trashed. 404s just cost more to un-trash. And I can't afford that.

The reason I bought the Cs is that I don't want the regret of it all on my death-bed. Can you imagine? Thinking back on all that time you wasted cleaning glue off rims and carefully re-gluing tubs. You never get that time back. It's a bit like having to drive a long way to work every day. There are much better ways of using your time.

The weight disadvantage: so what? When will it make one scrap of a difference? Sure I might notice it slightly accelerating out of tight corners. On hills? No. Unless I have an Alpe d'Huez TT in my near future, that small weight penalty means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Lumen

dave2pvd wrote: »

The weight disadvantage: so what? When will it make one scrap of a difference? Sure I might notice it slightly accelerating out of tight corners. On hills? No. Unless I have an Alpe d'Huez TT in my near future, that small weight penalty means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

It all means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

E.g. compare a Zipp 404 clincher to a fairly conventional light alloy wheelset, the Shimano 7850 C24 (for which there is data) at about a third of the price.

The 404 is about 1650g, and produces about 20W of drag at 50kph.

The C24 is about 1400g, and produces about 23.5W of drag at the same speed.

Since it takes perhaps 600W to ride a normal road bike at 50kph, that 3.5W drag benefit is worth about 0.6%.

The 250g weight saving of the C24 is about 0.3% of total bike+rider weight. You could spend some of the difference to weight-weenie the C24s by replacing the hubs, bringing the weight difference closer to 0.5%.

So whilst I accept that super-aero/quite heavy beats marginally aero/quite light, the case isn't totally clear-cut, and all these advantages are absolutely miniscule and arguably completely irrelevant in anything but a TT.

The biggest problem with non-toroidal rims (i.e. anything except Zipp and HED) is that there is plenty of data to suggest that they aren't any faster than a low-profile V section alloy rim like the C24. Unfortunately most of the data is collected by Zipp and HED.

Added to which, you need to run <23mm tyres to reap all the benefits from deep section rims (with the exception of the new wider Zipps). How many people run <23mm clinchers?

Chips Lovell

dave2pvd wrote: »

The 404 has done very well in recent editions of Paris-Roubaix - and it wasn't the clincher version that was being used.

You mean Cancellera and O'Grady? Neither of them was riding 404s.

jag con

Lumen wrote: »

It all means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

E.g. compare a Zipp 404 clincher to a fairly conventional light alloy wheelset, the Shimano 7850 C24 (for which there is data) at about a third of the price.

The 404 is about 1650g, and produces about 20W of drag at 50kph.

The C24 is about 1400g, and produces about 23.5W of drag at the same speed.

Since it takes perhaps 600W to ride a normal road bike at 50kph, that 3.5W drag benefit is worth about 0.6%.

The 250g weight saving of the C24 is about 0.3% of total bike+rider weight. You could spend some of the difference to weight-weenie the C24s by replacing the hubs, bringing the weight difference closer to 0.5%.

So whilst I accept that super-aero/quite heavy beats marginally aero/quite light, the case isn't totally clear-cut, and all these advantages are absolutely miniscule and arguably completely irrelevant in anything but a TT.

The biggest problem with non-toroidal rims (i.e. anything except Zipp and HED) is that there is plenty of data to suggest that they aren't any faster than a low-profile V section alloy rim like the C24. Unfortunately most of the data is collected by Zipp and HED.

Added to which, you need to run <23mm tyres to reap all the benefits from deep section rims (with the exception of the new wider Zipps). How many people run <23mm clinchers?

Lumen if i go for the Reynolds or Mavic i would be running them on Conti GP4000S tyres i presume that is possible

Con

Lumen

jag con wrote: »

if i go for the Reynolds or Mavic i would be running them on Conti GP4000S tyres i presume that is possible

Sure, those are great tyres.

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

You mean Cancellera and O'Grady? Neither of them was riding 404s.

I thought cobble-proof spec was 303s with 24mm or 27mm tubulars, depending on rider weight. From here.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

I thought cobble-proof spec was 303s with 24mm or 27mm tubulars, depending on rider weight. From here.

Both of them road handbuilt box section rims with Vittoria Pave tubs for their Paris Roubaix wins.

jag con

Lumen wrote: »

Sure, those are great tyres.

I think i am leaning towards the Mavics because of the alu braking rim which is better than the carbon braking surface

Lumen i read the reviews on Bike radar and the only negatives they seem to be giving the Reynolds are the brakes and surface



Con

Lumen

jag con wrote: »

I think i am leaning towards the Mavics because of the alu braking rim which is better than the carbon braking surface

Lumen i read the reviews on Bike radar and the only negatives they seem to be giving the Reynolds are the brakes and surface

It really depends on what criteria are important. If I understand correctly, these are basically a purchase to reward yourself for all the cycling you've been doing, in which case just go with whatever butters your muffin.

Quigs has commented a few times on the strength of his Mavics.

Lets try and make this simple...

If you buy Cosmics, don't expect them to be light.
If you buy Zipps, don't expect them to be bulletproof.
If you buy any full carbon wheel, expect nothing but trouble.

I'm going down the third road. Someone has to.

Chips Lovell

A word on carbon braking surfaces. I've used my wheels a good bit at this stage. Braking is good, albeit with a slightly different feel compared to alloy rims, when used with decent pads like Swiss Stop Yellow. The only time it got ropey was in torrential rain. Light rain or wet roads, it's never been an issue.

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

A word on carbon braking surfaces. I've used my wheels a good bit at this stage. Braking is good, albeit with a slightly different feel compared to alloy rims, when used with decent pads like Swiss Stop Yellow. The only time it got ropey was in torrential rain. Light rain or wet roads, it's never been an issue.

What state is the brake track in, wear-wise? How many kms have you done on them now?

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

What state is the brake track in, wear-wise? How many kms have you done on them now?

Good as new, i.e. no obvious wear. Not sure about the mileage to be honest. Perhaps 1000km?

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

It all means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I've seen the numbers and was sceptical myself... thing is though, the Zipps feels like something else compared to other wheels I have ridden. Wasn't intending to race on them but then took them the work the day before and by the time I got back couldn't bring myself not to! So trying to figure out if that is aero/weight/tubulars as those three variables are all different. Weight the least significant certainly as I have pretty some pretty light wheels.

Could be all in my head... but then your head is 90% of success in a road race so not to be discounted :pac:

dave2pvd

el tonto wrote: »

You mean Cancellera and O'Grady? Neither of them was riding 404s.

My mistake - it appears that the 303 was the '09 Roubaix wheel.

Has anyone seen the new 303? It is quite different from the other Zipp rims. It is FAT. The sidewalls bulge out noticeably. My first though upon seeing it is if they scale that shape up for an 808, it will hit the chainstays.

To an earlier comment: the Zipp tyres were 19mm. And they rode like it too.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

I've seen the numbers and was sceptical myself... thing is though, the Zipps feels like something else compared to other wheels I have ridden. Wasn't intending to race on them but then took them the work the day before and by the time I got back couldn't bring myself not to! So trying to figure out if that is aero/weight/tubulars as those three variables are all different. Weight the least significant certainly as I have pretty some pretty light wheels.

Could be all in my head... but then your head is 90% of success in a road race so not to be discounted :pac:

How many open races have you scored points in without Zipps?

How many open races have you scored points in with Zipps?

I think a Zipp press release is in order.

Lumen

Zipp's FAQ says:

Zipp wrote:

Q: How come Zipp hasn't come out with a full carbon clincher rim yet?

A: The short answer is that we don't really want to have a full carbon clincher on the market. The reasoning behind this is that the technology has not yet advanced to make available reliable, durable, safe full carbon clinchers. Carbon is a wonderful material and everyday more is learned about how to work with it. However, at this point in time, no one has learned enough to overcome the three main forces a clincher rim has to overcome. The first force is an outward force on the clincher bead exerted by the pressure of the tire. The second hurdle to overcome is the tremendous heat generated by heavy braking. The final force to overcome is impact. Consider the following scenario. You start a ride with a tire pressure of 160 psi. Your ride takes you up into the mountains and (obviously) down the other side. On the way back down, you will be braking heavily occasionally. It is not uncommon for the surface of a carbon rim to reach temperatures in excess of 250 degrees Fahrenheit (121 C). With this increase in temperature, your tire pressure has suddenly gone to almost 200 psi. This excessive pressure forces the clincher beads apart. This force compromises the impact resistance since the beads are no longer parallel, but rather bowed outward. If the wheel takes a hit, the impact will sheer the sidewall of the rim off causing the tire to blow off. Granted, this scenario requires many variables to come into place which simply will not happen 99% of the time. However we have been able to replicate this failure in our testing and have decided that it is not yet feasible to produce a full carbon clincher rim and have devoted our focus to producing lightweight, durable carbon/alloy clincher rims that, on average, only weigh about 75 grams more than their full carbon counterparts.

Of course, it is not unknown for Zipp to change their minds on things. :pac:

I wouldn't be surprised to see a full carbon clincher from Zipp in the near future.

They're not too far out with the weight differences. The 58mm 404 clincher is ~1615g compared to ~1525g for the 46mm Reynolds Assault, and ~1406g for the 46mm Reynolds DV46ULC. 1615g is certainly not a very heavy wheel considering the depth. But they are very expensive.

edit: This is also funny - "Consider the following scenario. You start a ride with a tire pressure of 160 psi. Your ride takes you up into the mountains...On the way back down...your tire pressure has suddenly gone to almost 200 psi...the wheel takes a hit...causing the tire to blow off". WTF? How about this scenario "You start a ride with a tyre pressure of 100psi. On the way back down it goes to almost 125psi. Big deal. The end."

Ryaner

Lumen wrote: »

The Mavic Carbones SLs come with drainage holes in the fairing, according to one report I read. So it must be an issue to some extent.

I've got these (powertap version) and it is possible to get a tiny bit of water in them, however I also got water inside of my Open Pros, so anything is possible.

So far I've only done just under 500km on them, nearly all in the hills but they feel very solid and very fast.

While the rim is only 52mm, it is possible to get a slight feeling of light if you corner very sharply and there is a cross wind. Takes some getting used to. The braking surface is alu and is very responsive.

As for the weight, I can't say it makes too much difference. At least with mine which are the Powertap ones, most of the weight is in the hub so there is very little inertia on the hills. Certainly hasn't slowed me down this week.

The only downside to them, which partly may be down to the frame, but they are REALLY solid. Even little bump translates back up, but in a good way most of the time.

jag con

Cheers everybody for all the advice i ended up going for the Mavic in the end and have used them a few times and they are great. They are a little scary when there is a cross wind but i will get used to that with time

Con

Quigs Snr

What do you think of the sound effects Con ?

jag con

The sound out of them is really cool there a nice set of wheels

mloc123

What makes the sound? Are these dimpled is it purely the depth of the rim that makes the noise

jag con

i reckon its the depth of the rims theres not really any dimples on them

S. Goodspeed

Apologies for digging up a month old thread but I was reading through and had decided to go for the Mavic CC SLs but when I went onto Wiggle I saw there was a set of CC SLRs for about 400€ more. Has anyone used the SLRs before or better still can anyone compare the SLs with the SLRs? From the bit of research I did on the web its seems the SLRs are slightly lighter (c150g) and marginally more aerodynamic (although this is disputed). I wouldn’t mind forking out the extra if I felt it would make a noticeable difference but obviously don’t want to do it just for the sake of it.

Cheers

Lumen

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

Apologies for digging up a month old thread but I was reading through and had decided to go for the Mavic CC SLs but when I went onto Wiggle I saw there was a set of CC SLRs for about 400€ more. Has anyone used the SLRs before or better still can anyone compare the SLs with the SLRs? From the bit of research I did on the web its seems the SLRs are slightly lighter (c150g) and marginally more aerodynamic (although this is disputed). I wouldn’t mind forking out the extra if I felt it would make a noticeable difference but obviously don’t want to do it just for the sake of it.

I would doubt you would notice 7% difference in wheel weight.

Competitive Cyclist has reasonable sales-oriented descriptions of the SLR and SL.

The construction is essentially the same, except the SLRs use carbon spokes. They can apparently be trued and replaced, but given that standard Ksyrium spokes are about €4.50 each it might not be cheap.

The problem with carbon fibre as a spoke material is that it is strong in tension but doesn't take much sideways force to snap. So possibly quite easy to put a foot through the wheel and take out a bunch of spokes (possibly kinder to your foot though).

€1450 is a very expensive wheelset, obviously.

Lumen

Oh and FWIW, my HED Ardennes (reportedly the finest clinchers in the world) are showing signs of play in the rear hub after one race, so I can't claim any expertise in choosing winners.

Quigs Snr

Apart from a 400-600 euro price difference depending on where you buy (kilgrew cycles in cork are the cheapest I could fine online).....

The SLR's are reportedly usually heavier than claimed, more like 1660g than 1595. This varies however.

They have also been shown in one test to be less aero than the standard SL's, presumably because of the larger spoke holes on the rim to accomodate the wider spoke holes and the associated turbulence they cause.

In short. Pretty, slightly lighter, but not nearly 500 euro worth lighter than the SL's, the carbon spokes are serviceable which is a plus but you will be paying big if anything goes wrong.

So...If you want a clincher aero wheel that is light enough for hilly rides, buy the standard SL's for 799 for flat days and the Shimano Dura Ace CL 7850 24's (for 550) or similar for hilly days. It will cost you the same as the SLR's.

anoble66

SLR's are 1149e with these guys:-

http://www.jedi-sports.de/index.php?cat=c43_Wheelsets-Road.html&sort=&XTCsid=8tha8kh9o6e5kefjgon4jm8bvv15b5s3&filter_id=3

Ordered a set of SL's today from them for 699e. 28e shipping extra then for wheelsets...still way cheaper than I have found elsewhere.

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Apart from a 400-600 euro price difference depending on where you buy (kilgrew cycles in cork are the cheapest I could fine online).....

The SLR's are reportedly usually heavier than claimed, more like 1660g than 1595. This varies however.

They have also been shown in one test to be less aero than the standard SL's, presumably because of the larger spoke holes on the rim to accomodate the wider spoke holes and the associated turbulence they cause.

In short. Pretty, slightly lighter, but not nearly 500 euro worth lighter than the SL's, the carbon spokes are serviceable which is a plus but you will be paying big if anything goes wrong.

So...If you want a clincher aero wheel that is light enough for hilly rides, buy the standard SL's for 799 for flat days and the Shimano Dura Ace CL 7850 24's (for 550) or similar for hilly days. It will cost you the same as the SLR's.

BryanL

are there any online . group reviews of the various deep section wheel sets. Where they compare the aero advantage of each wheel V's weight etc.
Bryan

Lumen

BryanL wrote: »

are there any online . group reviews of the various deep section wheel sets. Where they compare the aero advantage of each wheel V's weight etc.
Bryan

Great Wheel Test 2008.

keano007

Lumen wrote: »

I would buy neither.

This is a subjective judgement, since wheels don't objectively matter, but carbon fairings on alloy rims make no sense to me. They weight and ugliness makes them too compromised.

If you are looking for performance, buy a full carbon rim, tubular or clincher. It will be lighter and probably cheaper than these options.

The only downside of carbon rims is use in crappy conditions, but IMO you shouldn't be using deep section rims in those conditions, instead use traditional alloy wheels.

A few ideas for fancy wheels right now:

Bad weather alloy clinchers:
Shimano RS80, 24mm alloy, 1540g, €396
Shimano 7850 CL, 24mm alloy, 1440g, €572

Summer/race deep carbon clinchers:
Reynolds Assault, 45mm carbon, 1525g, €943
Soul C4.0, 40mm carbon, 1390g, €930 (95kg weight limit)
Soul C5.0, 50mm carbon, 1465g, €1100 (no weight limit)

Summer/race deep carbon tubulars:
FFWD F4R, 40mm carbon, 1260g, €998
Reynolds Assault tubular, 45mm carbon, ? price/weight
Soul C5.0T, 50mm carbon, 1315g, €1100

I also don't really "get" shallow section carbon clinchers, except perhaps for hll TTs for the tub-phobic. They can't really beat alloy clinchers for weight/strength and are not aero enough to justify the compromises.

If money were no object and I wanted tubulars I'd have 303s or 404s (or Lightweights, obviously). I believe (without any real basis other than internet rumour and Zipp marketing spin) that Zipp tubs are now at least as strong as anything else. The only problem is that all wheels are destructible, and therefore a broken Zipp will be much more expensive to replace than a broken Gigantex rim or whatever.

For tubs, there is always the Planet-X option, although they are quite heavy.

edit: and FWIW I've put my money where my mouth is and ordered some Soul 5.0 carbon clinchers.

edit #2: I bow to Quigs' practical experience regarding strength, obviously. It's a shame to read about the tubular Zipps not holding up last year - I thought Zipp had "cracked" the issue with the 2009 versions. Obviously not.

edit #3: also, if I weighed more than 80kg I wouldn't even consider carbon rims. At <70kg I think I can risk it. How much do you weigh?

I've noticed that this thread was already re-opened last month so apologies for doing it again. As an infrequent poster to both the cycling forum and A/R/T forum i think my question is best to be posted here.

I spent the weekend in Athlone for the Triathlon and competed in my first triathlon. While down there and admiring the bikes on show I couldn't believe the amount of bikes with Zipp 404's and 808's. I have to say i just love the look of them and could really see myself spending the 1000+ on these.

As i write this im thinking should i be posting on the "I should of left the credit card at home thread".

Anyway my question is to Lumen who mentioned that the weight of a person matters when considering buying deep section carbon wheels. While I'm not overweight I am about 80kg.....just looking for people's opinions on me getting these:

http://www.cyclesuperstore.ie/shop/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=89&idproduct=33584

Lumen

keano007 wrote: »

Anyway my question is to Lumen who mentioned that the weight of a person matters when considering buying deep section carbon wheels. While I'm not overweight I am about 80kg.....just looking for people's opinions on me getting these:

http://www.cyclesuperstore.ie/shop/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=89&idproduct=33584

I think Zipps are a common choice for triathlon as (a) you get all the aero advantage (b) durability is less of a concern than in road racing as you're not cycling in a bunch so can dodge the potholes as (or at least that's what I thought until I saw TV coverage of the elites in Athlone going round in peletons).

80kg is well within the design range of all but the most fragile climbing wheels.

Alloy clincher Zipps are getting cheaper as they've recently introduced a carbon clincher.