If she's concerned about climbing, she should also consider descending, which should have you considering the brake track material.

The wheels that Performance is selling for $999 is the "R Four". It is a wheelset that is only sold by Performance and uses Reynolds 46mm deep rim that Reynolds stopped using in their own line of wheels about five years ago. The hubs and spokes are also quite inexpensive.

The 2016 Reynolds Assault SLG wheelset uses a rim that is 41mm deep and 24.5mm wide.

She is leaning heavily to the Flo's, The choice is between 45/45 and 45/60.

I have a question though. Are the all carbon wheels structural carbon or are they fairings like the aluminum Flo's.

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

Check out Chris Thornham's comments in this thread. The larger rear gives you more stability. He would probably steer you toward the 45/60 combo also.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ade_advice_P5999647/

All-carbon rims are solid, thick carbon through and through. They are not lightweight carbon like the fairings on aluminum rims. The cool thing is, my new Flo 60/90 wheels are lighter than the factory wheels that came with my IA 16.

I've been mulling similar choices (as you can see in the thread linked above). Between 45/45, 45/60, and 60/60, I think there's a pretty strong argument for 45/60. The larger rear is stabilizing in wind gusts, and also more shock-absorbing, which is more important for the rear. The front 45 is almost as fast as the 60, but almost invisible to the wind. For a tri bike, 60/90 or either 60 or 90 front plus a disk in the back seems to make the most sense, but for a road bike I think there's a reasonable case for less deep wheels (lighter, less affected by crosswinds). My two cents after mulling this for a while, and I'd be curious to hear pushback if others disagree.

Our carbon clinchers are all structural carbon and not fairings like our aluminum model wheels. Let me know if you have any additional questions.

---

Chris Thornham
Co-Founder And Previous Owner Of FLO Cycling

45/60 would be my suggestion. I'm female but bigger than your wife and run 60/60 for all crits and road races. I'd run the all carbon up front and the Alu/carbon in back. Then you still have the best braking where you need it. I don't think she'll even notice a 45 compared to a plain box rim in the front.

All of the small ladies in my club go 60/90 or 60/disc

jaretj

Personally I'd recommend 45/90. And go Flo.

My wife is similar in size and on Reynolds 60/60 on her tri bike. She is admittedly not the best bike handler but only has problems on the windiest of days. We are considering a deeper rear or shallower front at some point.

---

Team Zoot - Great Lakes

I'll support the 45/45 combo for simplicity, so you don't have to bother with a valve extender on the rear (or search out longer stem valves). Also, for aesthetics (*I think) same depth wheels look better on a road bike.

I think this is the way she is going. I asked her around lunch time when she was going to order and she said she likes 45/45 but she is still researching.

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

You realize that you get the most braking from the front wheel right? If you were going to have one aluminum and one carbon the front should be the aluminum one. Not that I am suggesting this, but I have done it before when I was running older Carbon Clinchers (i.e. previous generations of a different brand) and was riding huge mountains.

Agreed re aesthetics, and good point on valve extender. Conversely, deeper wheel on the back should be a bit more stable in crosswinds, a bit more compliant, and a bit faster. Priorities...

Its way too easy to go over the handlebars if you ever have to stop in a hurry though. Painful lesson learned.

With the pricing on Zipps from the UK right now, why on earth would you consider Flos? This is an honest question.

You learned the wrong lesson. The lesson isn't to reduce the abilities of your tools, it is to learn to use the tool better. Just because you cut yourself with a knife once doesn't mean that you should dull all your blades.

Grabbing a ton of rear brake while going downhill at best will do little to stop you because as you slow down you will still transfer weight to the front wheel thereby reducing the weight on the rear wheel and the ability for it to slow you down, at worst it will do what I said in a corner and wash out thereby sliding your wheel out and crashing.

Where are people getting killer deals on Zipps? I saw one report that Zipp was restricting sales to the US. I suppose one could have a UK friend reship even if that's the case.

Where are you finding the deal?

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

Looks like the PBK ship sailed. That sucks...I bought a 404 rear for less than $730 last week. 808s were at similar levels.

Check out Ribble...seems to still be some decent deals there

I suppose if they were the same price, I would have to see which had better reviews. With the price, reviews, and quality of Flo's, why would one consider Zipps is another sensible question. I would not think one is better than the other because of MSRP. Do Zipps have better recovered costs in resale, do they have less warranty issues, are they faster, do they brake better, do they ride better? They are cool wheels with a high bling factor, for sure, but I'm not sure they are better, and they cost more unless you are finding them for less than $1150 for a pair. Zipp does apparently have a crash replacement policy, but since rebuilding your old hub with a new hoop is going to cost you almost $500 (no PBK discounts on rebuilds I bet), you could get a new Flo for that just about, new hub and all.

The reason we don't see Flo's on the winning Pro bikes is, I imagine, because at $1150/pair, there isn't a lot of room for high paying sponsorship deals. I consider Flo the best kept "secret" although poorly kept.

I would never turn down a pair of Zipps though, but when purchasing, there just isn't an obvious Z>F, IMO. At the same price, I might go for Zipp, but I like the little guy more.

Haha. I'll reply to this later when I have time and a few drinks in me. Don't buy anything before then

Well don't drink too much because I'm sincerely interested in what you have to say ;)

I was going to ask the exact same question. Who would buy Zipp, Xentis, Easton, Bontrager, Reynolds, Enve, etc. when there are equal or better performing options at a fraction of the price? These old brands made sense a few years ago when they kind of owned the R&D and there were not alternative options. But the market shifted and the differences between these and the Flo, Williams, November, Boyd, and Swiss Side options are more marketing than substance. And, the major head scratcher is the legacy Zipp Firecrest with the downgraded spokes. Those list for $2400, but they under perform just about every option that has been released in the past couple years. I would not consider those if they were cheaper than Flo. Though, I would pay a small premium for the current Zipp NSW over Flo, but not a whole lot.

I too am curious about rom's analysis.