Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Front FLO 60 vs. 90
Quote | Reply
Has anyone been able to ride their tri bike with a front FLO 60 and again swapping the 60 out for the front FLO 90? I am curious about any differences in handling, acceleration, aerodynamics etc. In my personal opinion the front FLO 90 is more aesthetically pleasing and I am trying to figure out if there are any disadvantages with having the 90 up front instead of the 60.

I apologize if this has already been discussed but I could not find any anecdotal statements.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [badgertri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for asking. I have the same question.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [badgertri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There is really no reason to choose the Flo 90 front over a Flo 60 other than vanity.

In the vast majority of conditions, the performance between the 2 front wheels will be identical. The only time the 90 will be more aero than the 60 is when it's super windy and wouldn't want to use a deeper front in the first place.

With that said, I use a 808 FC cc. Why did I choose that over a 404? It was 1-2w faster at typical yaw angles, slightly less watts to spin, and most importantly so easy to handle I saw no downside.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Nick_Barkley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nick_Barkley wrote:
There is really no reason to choose the Flo 90 front over a Flo 60 other than vanity.

In the vast majority of conditions, the performance between the 2 front wheels will be identical. The only time the 90 will be more aero than the 60 is when it's super windy and wouldn't want to use a deeper front in the first place.

With that said, I use a 808 FC cc. Why did I choose that over a 404? It was 1-2w faster at typical yaw angles, slightly less watts to spin, and most importantly so easy to handle I saw no downside.

Huh...the exact same thing could be said about the Flo60 and 90:



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I've never ridden the 90 front so I have no idea if it handles as well as the 808.

I don't believe the flo 90 is shaped better than the 60. I just think when you have the deeper rim combined with the Gp4000s, the tire just does all the work at yaw as seen vs their old data with the PR3.
Last edited by: Nick_Barkley: Nov 5, 13 17:45
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Nick_Barkley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nick_Barkley wrote:
There is really no reason to choose the Flo 90 front over a Flo 60 other than vanity.

In the vast majority of conditions, the performance between the 2 front wheels will be identical. The only time the 90 will be more aero than the 60 is when it's super windy and wouldn't want to use a deeper front in the first place.

With that said, I use a 808 FC cc. Why did I choose that over a 404? It was 1-2w faster at typical yaw angles, slightly less watts to spin, and most importantly so easy to handle I saw no downside.

So are you saying that the same benefits you see in the 808 vs the 404 cannot be said about the FLO 90 vs the 60? Also, if it were super windy would you not ride your 808?
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [badgertri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have the flo 90 and although I can't speak for the differences between the 60- the front 90 replaced a Mavic Cosmic Carbone SL (50mm). I went with the front 90 to run with a rear 90 or flo disc (all on 4000S tires). Overall, I'm very pleased with the front flo 90 although it can throw you around a bit on a good crosswind. I'm in Texas and with the fronts rolling in now it can be a PITA at times, but I'm happy with my decision.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [badgertri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have a Flo 60 and 90 front wheel for my TT bike and raced them both this season.

On windy days, you can feel the difference between the two wheels, but the 90 is faster. With a good fitting bike, it shouldn't be an issue handling the 90 up front. However, if you have issues in crosswinds, the 60 will be easier to control and in the end faster.

Both are good and considering I live in Oregon where there isn't a lot of wind ... I'll probably ride the 90 most of the year next season.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Wookiebiker] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, I don't see much wind where I am at either. So it sounds like with reasonable levels of wind things will be, at worse, about equivalent when comparing the 90 to the 60 up front but with some heavier crosswinds overall the 60 may be the better option due to handling concerns.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Wookiebiker] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wookiebiker wrote:
I have a Flo 60 and 90 front wheel for my TT bike and raced them both this season.

On windy days, you can feel the difference between the two wheels, but the 90 is faster. With a good fitting bike, it shouldn't be an issue handling the 90 up front. However, if you have issues in crosswinds, the 60 will be easier to control and in the end faster.

Both are good and considering I live in Oregon where there isn't a lot of wind ... I'll probably ride the 90 most of the year next season.

I know this is a slightly older thread, but what are you considering a windy day? Where I live there is at least 10mph wind almost every day and it isn't rare to see 15-20+. Until it gets around 20 I don't really consider it too windy but everyone has there own frame of reference. I have never ridden a wheel deeper than ~45mm but I do like the look of a 90 more than a 60, and the lure of an extra watt or two of savings calls to me:)

Any more advice on what others would do knowing that it will be my only deep wheel (no option to get both 60 and 90) and my fall-back is a 30mm deep training wheel? If it matters for yaw angles and such, I race mostly short course and normally at speeds 25-26mph.

Powertap / Cycleops / Saris
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Tulkas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I've ridden them both, and I'd say go with the Flo 60. As pointed out earlier, the difference in speed is only marginal while the 60 should handle better in crosswinds.

The time I road with the 90, I could definitely notice the crosswinds. I live in a region with a lot of strong winds (the coast in the Holland), so this might be different for your situation. In certain extreme conditions, I didn't feel secure in the aerobars anymore. I haven't had this problem with the 60 front wheel.

It also depends on what speeds you are used to riding. For higher speeds, the crosswinds have a relatively smaller influence, thus allowing for deeper rims.

Of course, the 90 does have the pimp factor ;)
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Nick_Barkley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nick_Barkley wrote:
I've never ridden the 90 front so I have no idea if it handles as well as the 808.

I don't believe the flo 90 is shaped better than the 60. I just think when you have the deeper rim combined with the Gp4000s, the tire just does all the work at yaw as seen vs their old data with the PR3.

I've never ridden a Flo 90 but I've owned both a Flo 60 and a Zipp 404 FC front wheel. In my opinion the Zipp is somewhat less affected by crosswinds. The Flo seemed to "wander" a bit more than the Zipp, although I mostly got used to it. I didn't have the two wheelsets at the same time so can't contribute any hard data, but subjectively they both seemed equally fast. If you get caught in the rain the Flos have much better braking, carbon sucks when it's wet. Also you don't have to swap brake pads which is kind of a PITA.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Tulkas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tulkas,

It's generally not super windy here in Oregon, but we have our days. In a couple races this year we had steady winds in the mid teens with gusts in the mid/upper 20 mph range and a large portion of the race was in crosswinds ... not head/tail winds.. When compared to almost no wind, it makes a big difference.

Also consider bike set up and position will make a difference in crosswinds. If you have a ton of weight over the front wheel you will likely notice the winds more than if you are balanced or have less weight on the front wheel.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Tulkas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Here's a very good indicator as to what front wheel almost everyone on this website should use (outliers would likely be: heavier riders). Say what you will about him but regardless of doping or cheating, Lance would only use a 60 up front for his stint in triathlons because the 90 was too wobbly. I'm 100% accurate on this. The guy with the strongest bike skills across the entire triathlon scene wouldn't even touch a 90. I believe he did use it for a race or two in the beginning but realized he should step back.

If that isn't reason enough to go 60 up front... I really don't know what is.

I'm a lighter rider (155ish) and road a rented 808 for a race and could tell it was WAY too much. I won't even consider it again. 404 or Flo 60 all day everyday. Back wheel doesn't matter and there are tons of threads on that. Go big (disc) or go home. Plus the back wheels aerodynamics are so less effective than the front.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [BrentwoodTriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Step 1: Train on your deep wheels before racinf
Step 2: Use a disc

Did you try to old 808 or new FC design. The FC is so much easier to handle and feels like a 60mm rim.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Nick_Barkley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nick_Barkley wrote:
Step 1: Train on your deep wheels before racinf
Step 2: Use a disc

Did you try to old 808 or new FC design. The FC is so much easier to handle and feels like a 60mm rim.

2012 FC design. Overall, it was perfectly fine. I just had a couple sections where I was going 38-40mph on a downhill and hit a crosswind and "wobbled". If the course was "windy", it would have been horrible: at least I guessed.

IMHO: the "true" savings from a 404 to 808 are very minimal. So minimal that you should be more concerned about comfort than aerodynamics and weight (when applicable). I mean, really, in an Ironman, if I run a 404/disc, am I really going to lose 1-2 minutes on a 808/disc? Does anyone truly believe that here? Just curious. I know there are graphs and wind tunnel info that might state otherwise but in real life, I just don't buy it.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [BrentwoodTriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're most likely giving up about 40s or so over an IM. I got the 808 fc cc front over the 404 because it was much cheaper. For instance, you could pick up one on the classifieds section for $750. For me, it does not make sense to go with anything other than a wheel cover for the rear.

The carbon clincher design is mostly about mating the brake track with the tire which can save an additional 2 watts.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Nick_Barkley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nick_Barkley wrote:
You're most likely giving up about 40s or so over an IM. I got the 808 fc cc front over the 404 because it was much cheaper. For instance, you could pick up one on the classifieds section for $750. For me, it does not make sense to go with anything other than a wheel cover for the rear.

The carbon clincher design is mostly about mating the brake track with the tire which can save an additional 2 watts.

I would never in a million years, regardless of what kind of money I make, pay that kind of money for a wheel. The most I would ever pay/do is get a Powertap rear, cover, and Flo 60 front. The savings going with anything more expensive is negligible enough for me that I wouldn't even consider it. It's the same when talking about bikes too. I have the the 2012 SC 7.5... I wouldn't consider getting the newer "better" version unless something happened to my bike... the savings are just not worth the spending.

A great example is Ultegra vs Dura Ace... what are you really getting for that massive price increase? Not a whole lot... better marketing and the satisfaction that you have the top tier stuff. That's it to me.

Good on ya if you want to spend the coin but it just doesn't seem financially logical to me.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Nick_Barkley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nick_Barkley wrote:
You're most likely giving up about 40s or so over an IM. I got the 808 fc cc front over the 404 because it was much cheaper. For instance, you could pick up one on the classifieds section for $750. For me, it does not make sense to go with anything other than a wheel cover for the rear.

The carbon clincher design is mostly about mating the brake track with the tire which can save an additional 2 watts.

The 40 second savings assumes you can stay tucked in the aero position on both 60mm and 90mm front wheels. If winds bring you out of the tucked position on the 90mm wheel, then the 60mm front wheel is likely your better choice.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [wacomme] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wacomme wrote:
Nick_Barkley wrote:
You're most likely giving up about 40s or so over an IM. I got the 808 fc cc front over the 404 because it was much cheaper. For instance, you could pick up one on the classifieds section for $750. For me, it does not make sense to go with anything other than a wheel cover for the rear.

The carbon clincher design is mostly about mating the brake track with the tire which can save an additional 2 watts.

The 40 second savings assumes you can stay tucked in the aero position on both 60mm and 90mm front wheels. If winds bring you out of the tucked position on the 90mm wheel, then the 60mm front wheel is likely your better choice.

If it's too windy for 808,it's too windy for a 404 and I'd just run a training front rim and disc rear.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [BrentwoodTriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Good on ya if you want to spend the coin but it just doesn't seem financially logical to me.

Triathlon is a hobby and nothing is financially logical.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [wacomme] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't want to deviate too much from the 60mm vs 90 mm front wheel discussion, but I'm trying to make a decision with the upcoming Flo wheel purchase.

While not completely sold on Flo (considering HED Jet - used), I'm considering buying a 60mm front Flo (I live/race in windy Colorado Front Range and don't have stellar bike handling skills, thus the 60 and not 90 - I race TTs, not tri) and use a disc cover rear. However, I'm considering entering road races next season, not limiting myself to TTs and hill climbs. I currently have a very light set of non-aero wheels (Stan's 340's and Alchemy hubs) that I ride on my road bike during non-winter months; I use these wheels for hill climb races too. But for general road races, should I consider adding a 90mm rear Flo wheel to my purchase? Would the 60/90 Flo combo be a better wheel option than my current lightweight non-aero wheels? I do live in Colorado, and most road races do have hills, and sometimes significant climbs.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Nick_Barkley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nick_Barkley wrote:
wacomme wrote:
Nick_Barkley wrote:
You're most likely giving up about 40s or so over an IM. I got the 808 fc cc front over the 404 because it was much cheaper. For instance, you could pick up one on the classifieds section for $750. For me, it does not make sense to go with anything other than a wheel cover for the rear.

The carbon clincher design is mostly about mating the brake track with the tire which can save an additional 2 watts.


The 40 second savings assumes you can stay tucked in the aero position on both 60mm and 90mm front wheels. If winds bring you out of the tucked position on the 90mm wheel, then the 60mm front wheel is likely your better choice.


If it's too windy for 808,it's too windy for a 404 and I'd just run a training front rim and disc rear.

Really? It seems that many people have few problems riding 404's/60's in wind, but when they go bigger problems ensue.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [wacomme] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wacomme wrote:
I don't want to deviate too much from the 60mm vs 90 mm front wheel discussion, but I'm trying to make a decision with the upcoming Flo wheel purchase.

While not completely sold on Flo (considering HED Jet - used), I'm considering buying a 60mm front Flo (I live/race in windy Colorado Front Range and don't have stellar bike handling skills, thus the 60 and not 90 - I race TTs, not tri) and use a disc cover rear. However, I'm considering entering road races next season, not limiting myself to TTs and hill climbs. I currently have a very light set of non-aero wheels (Stan's 340's and Alchemy hubs) that I ride on my road bike during non-winter months; I use these wheels for hill climb races too. But for general road races, should I consider adding a 90mm rear Flo wheel to my purchase? Would the 60/90 Flo combo be a better wheel option than my current lightweight non-aero wheels? I do live in Colorado, and most road races do have hills, and sometimes significant climbs.

For a wheelset that triples as tri and road racing and training set, it's going to be hard to beat a Flo30 and Conti 4000s tiess. Just slap on a wheel cover for tris and you're done.
Quote Reply
Re: Front FLO 60 vs. 90 [Nick_Barkley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nick_Barkley wrote:
wacomme wrote:
I don't want to deviate too much from the 60mm vs 90 mm front wheel discussion, but I'm trying to make a decision with the upcoming Flo wheel purchase.

While not completely sold on Flo (considering HED Jet - used), I'm considering buying a 60mm front Flo (I live/race in windy Colorado Front Range and don't have stellar bike handling skills, thus the 60 and not 90 - I race TTs, not tri) and use a disc cover rear. However, I'm considering entering road races next season, not limiting myself to TTs and hill climbs. I currently have a very light set of non-aero wheels (Stan's 340's and Alchemy hubs) that I ride on my road bike during non-winter months; I use these wheels for hill climb races too. But for general road races, should I consider adding a 90mm rear Flo wheel to my purchase? Would the 60/90 Flo combo be a better wheel option than my current lightweight non-aero wheels? I do live in Colorado, and most road races do have hills, and sometimes significant climbs.


For a wheelset that triples as tri and road racing and training set, it's going to be hard to beat a Flo30 and Conti 4000s tiess. Just slap on a wheel cover for tris and you're done.

I have training wheels covered - Stan's 340s during the season, old pair of Kysrium SL's for winter, and an old rear Mavic Open Pro for the trainer; ROL wheelset for the TT bike, wheelcover on rear for races. My first concern is an aero front for tt races - looking at Flo 60. But if I start adding road races to my repertoire of TT/hill climb races, then perhaps it would behoove me to add a Flo 90 rear to my Flo 60 front purchase. I'd then use the 60/90 Flo combo for road racing, Flo 60 front/ROL rear with wheelcover for TT's, and the Stan's for pure hill climb races. I'm just wondering if buying the Flo 90 rear is a good purchasing decision, or if the Stan's wheels will serve me just fine for road races.
Quote Reply

Prev Next