Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Another wheel thread.
Quote | Reply
I dont have aero wheels and I am about to make the investment.

Is there any point to buying 404 front and 808 rear? Or should I just get one or the other.

I wont be using them exclusively for tris, and even with the tris I do a lot are very very hilly.
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [endosch2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
endosch2 wrote:
I dont have aero wheels and I am about to make the investment.

Is there any point to buying 404 front and 808 rear? Or should I just get one or the other.

I wont be using them exclusively for tris, and even with the tris I do a lot are very very hilly.
I'm no expert on aero wheels, I'm ordering my first set today, however I think most will agree that the criteria are more or less as follows:

Deeper = faster
Deeper = heavier
Deeper = wind will buffet the bike more
Front = more important aerodynamically
Front = more susceptible to wind problems (wind can produce a steering influence)

50-60mm is generally considered a reasonable depth for gaining most of the aerodynamic benefits without undue impact on handling in wind or weight.
For general use, including relaxed riding, group rides, poor weather rides and climbing, 50-60mm is probably the deepest that's wise.
You can also fit a wheel cover on your 50-60mm rear if you want the aero benefits of a disk wheel without the cost.

If you want better aero performance you can go to something like 80-100mm front and back or a deep front rim and a disk on the back. Depending on your weight and how confident you are with your bike handling, you may or may not be comfortable using these in windy conditions. They may also be less than ideal on hilly rides or simply when you're not racing.

A common compromise is to use a shallower front rim to minimise handling issues. Typical example would be 50mm to 70mm on the front, and anything up to a full disk at the back. I'm intending to buy a 62.5mm front and 85mm rear. Your 404 front, 808 rear wouldn't be much different. However, I plan to use mine mostly for triathlon and I may put basic shallow rims on for most training rides and group rides especially when it's hilly or windy. 404 front and back may be better as an all rounder solution.
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [endosch2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
404s are probably the best all-around wheelset on the planet. They are almost always good performers no matter what the application.

I am not sure the 808 rear offer many benefits. It will be a little faster on a flat course, but not as fast as a disc or a 404 with a wheel cover. It weighs a bit more, so climbing and sprinting won't be as good.

For really hilly riding I would worry about brake track performance/durability. Zipp is the only company I trust for carbon clinchers. The Jet+ 60 might be the best wheel with an aluminum brake track.
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [endosch2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
endosch2 wrote:
I dont have aero wheels and I am about to make the investment.

Is there any point to buying 404 front and 808 rear? Or should I just get one or the other.

I wont be using them exclusively for tris, and even with the tris I do a lot are very very hilly.

Will let others chime in, but you might want to invest in a pair of 404s or something like Flo 60s (for all around riding) and then get a rear wheelcover to use for tris.
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [grumpier.mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
grumpier.mike wrote:
The Jet+ 60 might be the best wheel with an aluminum brake track.

Or it might be the best wheel of similar depth, period. :)
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [endosch2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For a single wheelset that's a great way to go. Used to have the 404/808 combo and it worked for everything.

I am now on Enve 8.9 (85 front 95 rear) with a 60 front as well - carbon clinchers all. I've had the 60 on the front in the last couple of races (windy, hilly or travelling and just bringing a single set) so that's kind of similar to a 404/808. I've also got a Catalyst disc cover on the rear and love the versatility of taking it off if I have to (i.e. Kona).

Personally, for a tri bike I'd rather go with an 808 (or 95 in my case) rear than a shallower rim. If I had to stick with a single front I'd go with a 404 (60 for me) for the versatility. Buffeting/gusting winds can be an issue so if I'm able to stay in my aerobars longer with a shallower front, I figure it would save me time over occasionally having to ride in the pursuits for control with a deeper front.

They're all pretty darn light so a few more grams for an 808 vs. 404 rear wouldn't bother me in the slightest. A disc cover is a nice option whatever you decide.

For a road bike though? I'd go with 404/404 for appearance alone. 808 just wouldn't look right.

Kiwami NA Racing Team
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [shaggyrider] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I really like Reynolds carbon clinchers.
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [nrfosnaugh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Get the HED Jet 6/9 clincher set from RA for $1099 and be done with it.......

https://www.racycles.com/...incher-wheelset-8527

"I would definitely smell her seat after a century ride"
Rappstar wrote:
That might be the post of the year right there.
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [endosch2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm sure you know this... but for some reason a 404 is 58mm deep. Not sure why it's called a 404.
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [Donzo98] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Donzo98 wrote:
I'm sure you know this... but for some reason a 404 is 58mm deep. Not sure why it's called a 404.

It's called marketing.....

"I would definitely smell her seat after a century ride"
Rappstar wrote:
That might be the post of the year right there.
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [shivermetimbers] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
shivermetimbers wrote:
Donzo98 wrote:
I'm sure you know this... but for some reason a 404 is 58mm deep. Not sure why it's called a 404.


It's called marketing.....

How is that marketing??

The could have called it a 606... like the 808 which is 81mm deep.
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [shivermetimbers] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
shivermetimbers wrote:
Get the HED Jet 6/9 clincher set from RA for $1099 and be done with it.......https://www.racycles.com/...incher-wheelset-8527[/quote[/url]]

I just pulled the trigger here - that seems too good to pass up. Maybe a little heavy but it seems like the most rational choice. In the end I could not really see how much more I would get from Zipps.

Pluses are not having to change pads going back and forth between these and my aluminum training wheels. I was thinking about Flos but at this price you get something a little nicer without 300 more grams of the Flos.
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [Donzo98] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Donzo98 wrote:
I'm sure you know this... but for some reason a 404 is 58mm deep. Not sure why it's called a 404.


Just to keep this thread off topic, the original Zipp spoked wheel was the 440 which I think referred to the weight of the rim (the 650 was a Zipp 400). I am only guessing that that 404 naming was a marketing reference to the 440 so there was some familarity for customers.

Having said that the first clincher they released (the 440/400 were tubular) was the 530? in the early 2000's. When they went to the deeper rim in around 2003 with the 808 tubular it was a reference to the rim depth. Then the 808/404 combo was called the 606 although that was never actually an individual wheel.

So I think while the 440 referred to an actual wheel, the naming convention from then on has been based on customer recognition and marketing.
Last edited by: nickag: Nov 28, 15 6:09
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [nickag] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Interesting... thanks.
Quote Reply
Re: Another wheel thread. [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
grumpier.mike wrote:
The Jet+ 6 might be the best wheel with an aluminum brake track.

Or it might be the best wheel of similar depth, period. :)

This.
Quote Reply