Quantcast
    MAIN INDEX RULES & LEGEND LOG IN  

Slowtwitch Forums: Triathlon Forum:
Zipp 808 Firecrest vs non firecrest. Tubular. Data???

 

   


cyclingdoc

Mar 9, 12 12:06

Post #1 of 8 (1564 views)
Zipp 808 Firecrest vs non firecrest. Tubular. Data??? Quote | Reply

Any info out there on the 808 non firecrest vs the 808 firecrest? Is the firecrest that much faster? Or would I be wasting $2500. I currently have non firecrest 808s. I'm considering the tubular version.

I couldn't find any direct comparion data on multiple different searches.

Thanks,
Jack

-----
Fine Line Racing - "this is living"


jjabr

Mar 9, 12 12:11

Post #2 of 8 (1552 views)
Re: Zipp 808 Firecrest vs non firecrest. Tubular. Data??? [cyclingdoc] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I had to make this choice and ended up moving from 2010 808s to 2011 FC 808s because of a good deal. However, the most optimistic numbers were something like 35-40 seconds saved over a 40k TT for firecrest over regular 808. imo not worth it based purely on a speed gain.

However, they do look baller as hell and seem to ride better in crosswinds in my limited experience so far.


styrrell

Mar 9, 12 12:27

Post #3 of 8 (1531 views)
Re: Zipp 808 Firecrest vs non firecrest. Tubular. Data??? [cyclingdoc] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I thought I saw a comparison where the older 808s were faster by a tiny bit at low yaws and the FC were faster at higher yaws.
Styrrell


indytri

Mar 9, 12 12:31

Post #4 of 8 (1524 views)
Re: Zipp 808 Firecrest vs non firecrest. Tubular. Data??? [cyclingdoc] [In reply to] Quote | Reply




cyclingdoc

Mar 9, 12 12:33

Post #5 of 8 (1517 views)
Re: Zipp 808 Firecrest vs non firecrest. Tubular. Data??? [indytri] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

is that a lot?

-----
Fine Line Racing - "this is living"


Rappstar

Mar 9, 12 12:58

Post #6 of 8 (1497 views)
Re: Zipp 808 Firecrest vs non firecrest. Tubular. Data??? [cyclingdoc] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

cyclingdoc wrote:
is that a lot?

At the higher yaws, yes. At the lower yaws, no. But the really significant difference, besides high yaw performance, is the stability of the Firecrest. It's notably easier to handle the Firecrest wheel of a given depth than the equivalent pre-Firecrest wheel. 808FCs feel like 404non-FCs. 404FCs feel like box rims.


"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | Facebook - Rappstar Racing | @rappstar | WTC Ironman Pro Ambassador

Ask me about: Specialized | Compex 20% OFF - RAPPSTAR20 | Zipp | 1st Endurance | Normatec 10% OFF - RAPP2013 | Quarq | SRAM | ZICO | Smith Optics


cyclingdoc

Mar 9, 12 13:13

Post #7 of 8 (1470 views)
Re: Zipp 808 Firecrest vs non firecrest. Tubular. Data??? [Rappstar] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Thanks everyone. I appreciate it.

One last thought...CC or tubular???

I will be using them for racing only. I'm having a hard time moving away from tubulars. I'm sort of old fashioned.

thanks,
jack

-----
Fine Line Racing - "this is living"


styrrell

Mar 9, 12 13:29

Post #8 of 8 (1451 views)
Re: Zipp 808 Firecrest vs non firecrest. Tubular. Data??? [cyclingdoc] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

What type of racing? If its TTs where a flat means your done, I'd go with tubulars. If its long course Tris where sooner or later you are going to flat and a quick change may not significantly change your placing, clinchers are a better option.
Styrrell

   
 
 
 



Ironman run shoe weight
When you race an Ironman, what weight class do you think is most appropriate for you? A sub-6-ounce shoe is a pure racing flat. A 7.5 - 8oz shoe would be a Saucony Kinvara or Hoka Clifton. A 10-11oz shoe is a lightweight trainer.
5.5-6.0oz
7.5-8.0oz
9.5-11.0oz
12oz+
I never thought about it
I don't do 140.6
I'm boycotting this poll