How do you like your Flo Wheels overall? On par with Zipp? Or is there a significant difference?
After a LOT of research and thought, I decided this: You get what you pay for. Flo's cost a little over $900, on average. Zipps will run you $2500+. When you buy Flo's, you get a great wheel that is a vast improvement over your stock wheelset. When you buy Zipps, you are obviously buying a better wheel. There is a reason Zipp is the most popular wheel out there.

I think the main difference is weight, construction, and usage. You will save close to a couple pounds of weight (which is less important than aerodynamics) with the Zipps, in addition to the fact that Zipp carbon is structural, whereas Flo is not. The main (IMO) benefit to the FLO's is that they are cheap enough that you can use the same set for training and racing. I think Zipps are faster and the weight does make a difference for me on hills, especially being a lighter rider.

That said, I went with Zipps. Flo's are also an excellent choice. Depends how much you have to spend, I suppose.

You will save close to a couple pounds of weight .

For sake of accuracy, a set of 808's is 1840g. A set of Flo 90's is 2198g. 358g is less than .8lbs difference for the pair of wheels.

So how many minutes do those 13oz save you? And perhaps you could spend the money saved from buying Flo instead of Zipp on other aero goodies or a visit to a wind tunnel.

Flo's cost a little over $900, on average. Zipps will run you $2500+.

When you buy Zipps, you are obviously buying a better wheel.

There is a reason Zipp is the most popular wheel out there.

I think the main difference is weight, construction, and usage.

I have nothing to compare them to, Flo is all that I've owned concerning race wheels. I own a 2014 Trek SC 7.5 BTW.

To the other poster...yes, I I've seen the data on their site...but I don't remember a 112 mile TT comparison between the two sets of wheels I've mentioned. Could you send me a link to the specifics or else venture a guess as to the time savings? I'm no pro at reading the charts to determine the approx. time savings. But I can say that I ride the wheels and feel that they all are fast compared to the stock wheels on the SC.

I really just used Flo as an example since they are the wheels I ride...what would you guys say is a good estimate for time savings on any wheels with the given dimensions?

Nick B wrote:

The smart man's choice is a 60 front and a 30 w/ cover rear.

The 90 front is only faster than the 60 precisely when you don't want the extra depth up front.

The smart man's choice is a 60 front and a 30 w/ cover rear.

The 90 front is only faster than the 60 precisely when you don't want the extra depth up front.

I'm not following you. Doesn't this show the Flo 90 faster than the 60 under all yaw conditions: http://www.flocycling.com/aero.php


...same for the disc versus 90? Or are you factoring $ into the equation?

-Scott

You have to consider that 90% of the time you'll be under 7.5 degrees of yaw. The difference between the 60 and 90 is <1w. When you're experiencing 10deg of yaw, it's REALLY windy.

You sure about that? At 25mph, with a 5mph crosswind, your at a Yaw of 11 degrees. Pretty rare to do a race, in the midwest at least, with <5mph wind. I usually hope for winds that light. Since I don't ride a disc.

it depends on your terrain but the relevant rule to find windspeed at 1 m is this:



where v10 is the velocity at 10 meters
h is 1 meter in our case
and h10 is...well 10.

a is an exponent that depends on characteristics of the atmosphere and surface roughness of your terrain. It's lower (.2 or so) for open grassland and higher for areas with trees or houses and so on (up to ~.6).

A reasonable assumption is 30-40% of 10m speed at 1m.

So why a 30 over a disc? To have a 30 for training days? I understand weight << aero, but if aero is equal, then why not choose the lighter wheel?