One man's opinion: Hed + $475 = Zipp. Weight and aerodynamics are the same. Cool guy factor is the same. Hed it is.

FWIW, my Zipp 808 rear weights 836g on my scale. Nowhere near 1050.
Edit: Sorry, missed the clincher reference. Mine's tubular of course.

---

I wanna go fast!

Yeah, the "advertised" weights are often different in reality. The Zipp will be lighter almost for sure. Also, the Zipp uses a much better hub.

But, the HED is deeper and that is what you want. The Blackwell 100 and Planet-X 101 are even better still (but not clincher yet). I'd go with the HED as well.

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

Thanks all for the feedback. Regarding Zipp weights; the tubulars are for definitely much lighter but the advertised weights of the clinchers seem to be about the same as the Hed's.

BTW I have Hed Alps and am very pleased with the weight and stiffness.

thanks

Don't forget to add $40 if you want a different color sticker on your Jet 90 ;)

Are the Jet 90's stickers baked under the enamel???

I am also contemplating a Jet 90 (Not C2), to replace ZIPP 404 front, and the choices are basically FP80 or Jet 90. The 90 should in theory be faster, right?

stickers are removeable

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

the aerodynamics is "close"

the price is a lot cheaper.

seems like unless $500 means nothing to you its a pretty simple choice. if money is no object, then maybe the zip saves you a second out on course?

=)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Neither Zipp nor HED decals on '08 wheels are baked on, they use decals

Maybe this is a whole 'nother post, but how can I determine the ideal tire width for the rim?

I have always been running regular old 23s on ZIPP 303 rear covered up and 404 front. Looking at changing to FP80 or HED non-C2 90 for the front...

Should I be thinking about 20s ... in the front? rear?

Weight: Tie
Aerodynamics: Advantage Zipp
Coolness factor: Advantage Zipp
Price: Advantage HED

I would go with the 808 especially the new 2009 version.

Thanks.... where would you measure rim width. Outside to outside or inside to inside of the braking surface or??

I went thru the same decision process earlier this year, only for a front wheel.

I got the HED Jet90 C2.

Initially, I kinda thought maybe I shoulda spent the extra beanos, but now w/ numerous races (and numerous PB's) on it, I am VERY happy with it.
I sprung for the $60 ceramic bearing upgrade, and also got the black and white stickers (which go perfectly w/ my B2).

It is a fast, smooth, light, badass wheel. Add Bonty RXL Pro tires and Michelin 18-20 latex tubes, and you are golden.


PS - save yerself some $, get a disk cover from wheelbuilder.com for the rear.

---

float , hammer , and jog

You are fast enough. No need to make such a SMART decision as you just posted above ...

;)

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

I wish I could take credit for the SMART decision, but you were one of the folks who advised me to do it! : )

And you (and Tom A., and a few others) are on the very short list of folks I take bike gear advice from.
So thx!!! I owe ya a beer. (heck, I've owed ya several beers for various other things already)

---

float , hammer , and jog

All the sales rep's I talked when looking for a deep wheel said the Zipp is stronher and stiffer than the Hed.

Marcos

---

http://www.marcosapenedoamaral.blogspot.com

Thanks. I noticed that the Jet HED 90 (non-c2) and Flashpoint FP80 are both on sale for about $500 shipped on trisports.com. Any thoughts between the two for a FRONT wheel? Running 303 w/ cover in the rear currently, and 404 in the front.

Thanks I'll check it out.

I have been meaning to consider skinnier Evo CX tires for fast TT courses on smooth roads.

I am a small rider and never had any trouble with the winds riding 808 on front, altough I live in Brazil and the winds here are way more calm. I think is only a matter of driving the bike properly and in accordance with the conditions. Today, I would have gone even deeper and buy a 1080 as tge front wheel.

---

http://www.marcosapenedoamaral.blogspot.com

Don't suppose you've seen some independent data for the HED's?

Unfortunately this is the wrong question to ask. The real comparison is not Zipp vs Hed, but Flashpoint vs. Hed. The FP80 wheel matches the Hed in Aero performance, weight, and cost, while having less side force for better handling, but more importantly is a fully structural carbon/aluminum co-molded rim where the Hed is a carbon fairing on a traditional aluminum rim. Also, the FP80 and Hed wheels both use hubs manufactured in Asia and bearings from Asia, while the zipp hub is considerably higher tolerance, lighter weight, manufactured entirely in the USA of US materials and uses Swiss bearings of higher precision than most ceramic bearings, and uses custom spokes from Sapim in Belgium. Ultimately the Flashpoint brand lines up directly against the Hed Stinger line as they are structural carbon rims like the FP's and not just fairings as seen in the Jet line... so when it comes to comparisons you guys really need to move the goal posts here... if you are considering price in the equation, then you need to talk in FP terms and you will see that the FP series wheels offer incredible value at that pricepoint.

---

http://www.SILCA.cc
Check out my podcast, inside stories from more than 20 years of product and tech innovation from inside the Pro Peloton and Pro Triathlon worlds!
http://www.marginalgainspodcast.cc

Josh...can you explain how, from an end user standpoint, this makes a difference?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Why does this matter at all?

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Picky differences, but a structural fairing should be both lighter and more aer. Lighter due to having both the aluminum and carbon sharing the load, vs just the aluminum with the carbon added on and providing no support. Also the spokes should be both shorter and stronger because they only have to reach to the carbon.

More aero (and this is admittedly minor) because the spoke on a structural carbon rim exit the apex of the rim versus out of the sides of the rim.

Mind you I'm strictly speaking about the differences in the construction methods. How well these 2 products optimized the construction I have no idea.

Styrrell

Maybe, but ultimately what matters is how much each wheel weighs. Not theoretical construction advantages =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I can't speak for everyone, but if you race in a rainy climate (as I do), the fairing type wheels pick up a significant amount of water (people who live in Arizona or something seem to dispute this every time I mention it, but oh well..). While I'm a believe that weight doesn't matter that much, they can pick up a LOT of water. There are some drain holes in the new ones, but from what I've seen last year (picking up a teammates wheel after a 3 hr road race in the rain), they don't work.

valid point there, i could see that happening.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Who's crazy enough to race 3 hrs in the rain? ;-)

Seriously, this is a legitimate answer to the above questions...of course, does this mean that the spoke holes on a Zipp rim are sealed? How does the water get out of the hollow cavity of a Zipp rim?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Maybe it's not about the water getting out, but about it not getting in (as much) in the first place?

I used some HED Jet (or Jet-style...don't know what they called them at the time) wheels for a few months quite some time ago, and at least back then there was at least 1 mm of clearance around each spoke as it passed through the (side of the) fairing on its way to the rim. I never rode the wheels in the rain, but I could certainly see how such a design would admit far more water than a structural carbon rim where the spoke holes are filled with nipples that are pulled against their seat with quite some force.

As for aerodynamics, the theoretical disadvantage to Jet-style wheels is the fact that the spoke pass through the fairing slightly off-center, i.e., are staggered right-left-right, etc. Whether it truly makes a difference I don't know, but Hed used to use this as an argument of why their structural wheels were a "step up".

I've used my Jet 90 at Muncie in the heavy rain. I didn't notice any water getting in the wheel.

jaretj

Since Josh jumped in, I now feel the need to add to his comments, specifically "The FP80 wheel matches the Hed in Aero performance, weight,". The FP front wheel actually beats the rear Jet 90 for weight, in fact it is 24G lighter. But it is 170g heavier than a Jet 90 front. The difference in the pair weight is about 300g.
Aerodynamically, I pretty much agree. Our data from running them in the same session at LSWT shows that the Jet 90 only has about 5g lower drag.

---

Andy Tetmeyer (I work at HED)

first off, I hate you.....

secondly--the water doesn't seem to get in nearly as much in the Zipps (or a Stinger type rim) since the spoke nipple basically 'seals' the rim, at least with external nipples. I haven't used an internal nipple Zipp in the rain, so I can't comment there. Some water does get in (probably around the valve stem), and that water doesn't get out--you have to remove the tire/tube to get that water out--but it is a very small amount.

Maybe for triathlon this isn't a big deal. Road racing in the rain, you get the 'pressure washer' effect of road spray coming from everywhere.

True...there are clearances at the spoke entry points...but there are also some significant "drain" holes out where the cap meets the rim. I'm sure centripetal acceleration would help force the water out of those drains...

That said, I have a standing rule for myself that, since it's just a hobby, I don't race bikes in the rain :-)

Heck, one of the main reasons I live in SoCal is so I don't even have to train in the rain...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

you know, you'd be surprised. road racing in the rain is pretty damn safe, at least in a climate where everyone does it--and in categories where people have been racing for a while.

I agree with you though-I wouldn't enjoy racing in the rain with a bunch of Californians........

Even the pros crash a whole lot more when it rains

granted, they seem to get less chewed up by the road when they do

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Hmmm...so are you saying that a FP80 is actually much lower drag than an 808? At least that's what that statement coupled with this plot would imply (assuming the "82mm" wheel is an 808)...



Just trying to keep y'all "honest" in this thread ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Heck...I don't even like driving here when it rains...you should see the yahoos all over the road <rolleyes>

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

just imagine if it snowed for ~ six months of the year :-)

Hehe...even better than watching the antics of SoCal drivers when it rains...is watching them in "snow country" (i.e. near the ski resorts) trying to drive during a snowfall. Truly comical.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

There has clearly been a lot of discussion over the validity of the data that Tom A posted, and I will add that the '82mm' data looks very suspicious if it is supposed to be an 808. Having said that, Gigantex in taiwan makes 3 different 82mm profile rims that they sell to anybody and everybody, so clearly we set the std . Our data, and both sets of published Tour Magazine data show the 808 having peak minimum drag at 12.5 degrees and that drag being roughly half of the drag at zero degrees...this graph shows the peak minimum occuring at 7.5 degrees at roughly 70% of zero degree drag...so this data looks nothing like either of the published Tour Mag graphs, which match the published Zipp data almost exactly.

---

http://www.SILCA.cc
Check out my podcast, inside stories from more than 20 years of product and tech innovation from inside the Pro Peloton and Pro Triathlon worlds!
http://www.marginalgainspodcast.cc

That is the sweetest Uni-brow I've seen in a while... bravo.

i'm spinning my wheels trying to make sense of this thread. Lots of different wheels here. JET 90, FP 80, JET C2 90, ZIPP 808.

I'll tell you what I just ordered one of them and I'm psyched to test it out.

Hey josh,

Any chance you can distinguish between the new SRAM S80 and the Flashpoint 80s? They look to be the exact same except maybe 50g weight difference? Will they be the same price of $1400 or will the flashpoints change to make room?

Thanks

Fair points and observations. The flashpoints do seem like a great deal. I think they are based on old Zipp molds, correct?

SWEET! Thanks for the reference to Wheelbuilder.com. I saw those on Darrel Eng's bike at Wildflower; I didn't know who made them. Back in the late '80's and early '90's I had the original UNI disc cover, some other plastic thingy from Nytro sports, and the famous J-disc (those were damn cool but fragile).
I have to say, for 65 bucks, how can you go wrong? They've got to give 90% of the aero advantage of a "real" disc wheel.

I think I'll try them on the Alps wheel.

Anyone know how heavy these things are?

Depends, you want a narrow or wider rim?

Mine is trimmed at the edge for a 30mm rim, and at the hub for a powertap hub. Total weight with aluminum fasteners is 460g (roughly 1lb.). Trimmed for a deeper rim like an Alpes it'd be slightly lighter.

Can anybody show me any test data that (using a low Crr tire/tube combo) a wider rim/wider tire combo is actually "faster" than an appropriately chosen narrow rim/narrow tire combo?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

What about durablility? Both wheels are pretty equal as far as I can see or atleast within my racing. A couple seconds is close enough for me Ill just go ride more. Which one will last the longest?

Ive seen data that suggests there is no difference.

Can you share that data or tell us where to find it?

Im pretty sure I remember reading it at BTR.
Ill try and have a look for it later today and see what I can find.

Did you ever find this data?

While we wait on data, I'm wondering if there is even any theoretical reason to think this matters. HED clearly seems to be moving all their products to the wider rim. Is this solely a marketing thing (set their wheels apart from the comp)? Even if it isn't any more aero HED seems to be saying that it is a much more comfortable ride so even if the aero-ness is a wash the added comfort (they say) is the advantage. Any evidence (not anectdotal) to back these claims up?

OK ... you asked for anecdotal. Here goes:

I don't think anyone at HED ever said the C2 rim was more aero. They may contend that it works well with the torroidal rim bulge, but I don't think I've read "more aero" anywhere in anything from HED. Maybe I'm just not remembering.

The idea of a wider rim is supposed to be less rolling resistance and more "adhesion" for cornering. Since the adhesion thing has little relevance in TTs and triathlons, lets focus on the rolling resistance claim. Here I think the argument is based on the shape of the contact patch where the tire meets the road. In a skinnier tire, the contact patch is longer and more narrow ... more contact with the surface IN THE PLANE OF MOTION or in the line of motion. But with a wider tire, the contact patch is wider and less long. Less contact with the ground in the plane or line of motion.

Add to this that they encourage running only 80 to 100 psi on these wheels. Not because it's all they can handle, but because they believe it's optimal for both rolling resistance and adhesion ... following the line of thinking that the more the tire conforms to the road surface, the more your energy is put toward forward motion rather than toward bouncing around on the road surface.

I believe the above is a fair synthesis of what I've read about the concepts behind the C2 rims.

I recently acquired a HED Jet 90 C2 front wheel and a standard width Jet disc. (Couldn't do the C2 on the rear because of tight clearances between my P3C chainstays.) I've done three races since ... won all three and set new PRs in two of them (the third I raced in driving rain and wind). The PRs were by significant amounts ... 3 minutes for a HIM relay bike split and a full minute in a 40k TT. But I also have a new 3T Funda fork. So there are other variables. The two PRs came on courses that had quite a bit of rough pavement where running 100 psi was quite a comfortable change from what I've normally done. As others have pointed out when I've talked about this in other threads ... maybe it was just running a more appropriate PSI. Maybe it was the fork. Maybe it was a combination of all the new elements. Whatever it was, the new HED wheels have been part of some really nice results I've just had. I'm not missing my old race wheels at all and most people would consider my old race wheels to have been among the very very best.

One more anecdotal thing. Search on Hed Jet C2 and read all the posts you can find where people talk about having ridden it and raced on it. I recall reading one post where there was a complaint about build quality (a concern I don't share), but I can't recall a negative comment from anyone who has actually ridden it and raced it.

I can do anecdotal and experienctial. Just don't confuse me with data and "facts." Too many times, the data has flaws and the facts, over time, turn out not to be facts.

Thanks man. I was actually asking for evidence that was NOT anecdotal but that is cool. I've read your posts before and I haven't heard a bad thing from anyone here on the new C2's or their new disc. The reason I said not anecdotal is that I think human nature tends to influence our judgement when we get anything new and supposedly better. We need to justify that purchase to ourselves. Not that I doubt your experience with their ride quality especially since it kind of makes common sense that the wider tire with less inflation would be more comfortable. I'm just wondering if there is anyway to quantify it scientifically.

This is only the first day of my taper and I'm already losing it. The next 10 days are going to be rough. ;-)

Ha. I here you. I'm curious if you have done any big hills with the C2 90 in windy conditions (I guess this is more of a question about deep rimmed front wheels and not so much about the C2 90) for my races. It was my first experience with a deep front wheel. I was on completely flat courses on both rides so far with very little wind. A few gust caught my attention but again it was minor wind on a flat course. I was thinking that going 35+ mph on a downhill with a crosswind might be tricky. Or when you are going that fast does the crosswind no effect you much?

I do the TT series at the Lowes motor speedway and the final night this year there was a pretty stiff crosswind coming down the back stretch (which is slightly downhill and usually a spot where it's easy for me to be going 31-32 mph). There's a concrete barrier along that stretch and there's one place where it breaks for an access road. Passing that break on each lap was VERY interesting because the wind was coming through there like a wind tunnel. It caught me off guard the first time around and was unnerving. Once I knew to expect it, I had no problems. That was a very windy night overall and, with the oval track and all the breaks between grandstands, it could come at you from just about any direction. I didn't find the 90 to be any more or less difficult than other front wheels I've raced in similar conditions. It takes a little getting used to, but you just have to remember that speed is your friend.

Cool. I'm pretty sold on the deep front after trying the FP 80. I had the fastest bike split in my group for the first time ever today. It was a smaller race and thus a smaller group but my avg mph was almost 2 mph faster than any other race I've done in the last few months. Now part of that is just being stronger and fresher. Bu my last race was 2 weeks ago so I'm probably not that much stronger tho I'm definitely fresher. Plus this course was flat and that helped me a lot. But I would still guess that the deep fron added close to another mph for me. It sure felt fast and feeling fast is fun.

Here is a link to the thread and test I was thinking of.
http://biketechreview.com/...lit=rim+width#p21891

On the face of it, it shows the tires mounted to a C2 to have a slightly lower crr than a narrower rim, but the spread is about what the estimate of repeatability is.

But, like others have said, it doesnt take into account the comfort factor.

I thought that tire in combination with the C2 rim was supposed to create a more aero combination. The traditional combo of the two creates the"lightbulb" effect with a tire where the sidewalls are usually wider than the rim, but on the C2 the tire sidewalls end up transitioning to the rim more smoothly.

Maybe that transition only has to do with sidewall flex and rolling resistance. But I thought there was a positive aerodynamic effect to this as well? Maybe Andy from Hed or someone else in the know can speak to this.

Personally, I'm looking into it more from the comfort perspective. If over the course of the ride, it's less jarring to the body and lets you stay in the aero position for longer, that's the biggest plus there could be.

Yeah, I think it is a combination of the factors.

I emailed HED and was told that on the old, narrow Jet, than a 19/20mm tire is more aero than a 23mm tire, but that a 23mm tire will be faster for athletes that aren't super light due to rolling resistance.

the c2 rims allow you to get that better rolling resistance and as much, or close, aeroness.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I thought that tire in combination with the C2 rim was supposed to create a more aero combination. The traditional combo of the two creates the"lightbulb" effect with a tire where the sidewalls are usually wider than the rim, but on the C2 the tire sidewalls end up transitioning to the rim more smoothly.

Now that you mention it, I do recall reading/hearing that before. I guess I mentally discounted that after the discussion I had with HED when I bought the wheels. First, they told me to run 700x23 tires on the C2. But the Jet Disc I bought was not C2. I asked them if I should run a 700x20 on that for best aerodynamics and they said it wouldn't really make any difference. Then, when I mounted a 700x23 Pro Race 3 on the front C2, it still had a bit of the lightbulb thing going on. So I guess I have a question about how sincerely they hold to the their belief in the tire/rim interface thing. I've since mounted a 700x21 RXL Pro. I haven't ridden/raced it yet, but it looks pretty awesome ... a straight edge touching the side of the tire rests dead flat on the braking surface. Don't know if this is the way to go. If it compromises the comfort benefit I had with the 700x23s without a discernable speed benefit, then I'll go back. Of course, the 700x21 RXL Pro on the 19mm wide Jet Disc rim looks like a much better match.

I'm not sure non-anecdotal evidence is possible? I've never seen an objective measure of comfort. Maybe the shock delivered through the seat post could be measure somehow on a bumpy roller, but that's not the same as "comfort."

My anecdotal evidence is that C2's inflated to 90 are extremely comfortable and cushy. Of course any clincher inflated to 90 is more comfortable, but the C2 claim is that the increased sidewall support and volume allow this without sacrificing rolling resistance or increasing risk of a pinch flat. I have no objective data for any of that, except to say that I've been very happy with mine, and haven't had any pinch flats.

ZIPP: Your choice of Zipps announces to the world that you're on a mission to be the best. You accept no compromises, and cost is no object. You've been training 30 hours per week all year, and you're asking that your wheels match that commitment ...

I'd say this is a pretty accurate account of my expectations when I bought my Zipps. I've bagged them for HEDs and been happier ever since. Has nothing to do with herd mentality or even budget. It has everything to do with performance/results and I've had results so far on the HEDs that were never matched on any combination of the various Zipps I've owned over the last three years. The fact that they're the equivalent of Dunkin' Donuts coffee versus Starbucks is just a nice little extra ... (that would be an extra $1,000 in my pocket).

No ditching the aero helmet here.

 
Getting dangerously close to pulling the trigger on a Jet C290 front and Jet disc. I was just speaking with Tom at Bikesports and he was saying that all the 2008 Zipp stuff is now on sale for 20-30% off. It made me think twice about the C290 but I like the idea of the wider rim. Apparently Zipp realizes the merit of this approach as their new model lineup will be copying HED in this regard. Unfortunately I still don't see the point of paying a premium for Zipp when HED offers such a good product. But if you are in the market for some Zipp's give Tom a call.