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 (1920 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 (1908 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 (1887 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 (1880 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 (1873 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 (1853 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: Dimond Bikes | Zipp | 1st Endurance | Normatec | Quarq | SRAM | Oakley | ROKA


cyclingdoc

Mar 9, 12 13:13

Post #7 of 8 (1826 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 (1807 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

   
 
 
 



1x for Tri
1x (one-by) is the popular designation for single chainring, no front derailleur. It's at least a moderate hit for SRAM in both MTB (XX1) and cross (CX1). tri (TX1?) seems poised to be next. Would you give this serious consideration for your next tri bike?
Yes
No
Not enough info
Undecided