Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: As promised, Williams vs. Zipp CyclingPower Lab report attached [joroshiba] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
joroshiba wrote:
Watt Matters wrote:
agreif wrote:
Looks like there has been some serious improvements from the 2013 versions to get such improvements (http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/pdf/WheelSystem58.pdf)! Kudos, this could be a game changer!


IMO, price per gram drag saved comparisons aren't particularly useful when comparing components with different performance. If a wheel doesn't perform as well as another, it doesn't matter if it's free or you are paid to use it. It'll still be slower.

Unless of course you are poor, cause then you can easily optimize the amount you are spending for the speed enhancements you are getting. Like how I decided that a $100 pair of 20 year old heavy as shit HED CX wheels and a commuter helmet would be good updates to my road racing bike. $140 spent, 80% the performance of spending $3000 on the two. Success (I later did field testing and found the commuter helmet tested better for me than an Evade. Haha.)
Which helmet!?

Spill!!!
Quote Reply
Re: As promised, Williams vs. Zipp CyclingPower Lab report attached [BigCheese] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hello,

Renorider: The new tech 85's are 25.7mm wide (outside to outside) at braking surface. There is a lot of info out there regarding wheel compatibility and the P4. I believe the P4 model year is critical when figuring out wheel compatibility.

Bigcheese: We have not tested a tri spoke vs. deep section wheels at this time. It would be fantastic to get some test results if any forum member has the data. We are currently sold out of our disc wheel. We hope to update the design and have new inventory in early 2015.

Keith Williams
Quote Reply
Re: As promised, Williams vs. Zipp CyclingPower Lab report attached [AaronT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Giro Reverb, but that was just on me in the position I was in. Helmets are such a crap shoot to get right.

Evade was much better ventilated though.

---------------------
Jordan Oroshiba --- Roadie invading Triathlete space for knowledge access
Quote Reply
Re: As promised, Williams vs. Zipp CyclingPower Lab report attached [Keith Williams] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hi Keith,

Good to see you posting here. :-)

All P4 chain stays are 32 mm apart.

The second generation brake opens up about 3 mm more than the first generation. I don't have the number on hand, but shaving the pads is commonly done for wide rims and is no problem.

By the way, the P4 brake pad holders are short, but they accept any Shimano-compatible pad: just cut off the excess length and file a slot where the retaining pin goes. I watched the Cervelo TestTeam mechanic do this in less than a minute on several occasions. He'd take (worn) brake pads off the road bikes to skip the shaving. ;-)

Cheers,

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)
Quote Reply
Re: As promised, Williams vs. Zipp CyclingPower Lab report attached [Keith Williams] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Keith
Can you tell us about what is in the works for the disc wheel? Tubie or clincher (carbon?)? Width, and flat or bulged?
Thx
Quote Reply
Re: As promised, Williams vs. Zipp CyclingPower Lab report attached [gibson00] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'll let you know shortly. I will meet with our design engineers in a couple weeks.

Keith Williams
Quote Reply

Prev Next