BTW Spinergy Rev-X is 8 spokes, 4 pairs.

I don't know anything about Spinergy, but if some offered me a Zipp 440 and $500 in exchange for my brand new Zipp 404 front, I'd take the old wheel, money and run.

I went from 650 to 700 c thus requiring a change, but I can't see how the new wheel could be any faster than the old. If it is faster, it must be measured in seconds.

Chad

I can't speak to which wheel would be faster, because I simply don't know. But I can tell you that you'll look faster with the Zipp wheel.

But sometimes seconds count! I lost a first place by 1.6 seconds this year, and also dropped from 4th to 5th in another race by 1.5 seconds!!!

---

"mt evans in 2:07:33"

I have had both wheels (and some Hed3s too) so I feel that I can comment: the 404 without a doubt. The Zipp is still probably slightly more aero, but the hub is so far superior that it alone probably gives you your 2-3 secs that you were looking for.

Good luck and go hard!

---

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

Ha! Maybe you should have worn racing flats that weight 2 oz. less. :)

Chad

My wheel is an older '440' though, not the '404'. What do you think about that one?

---

"mt evans in 2:07:33"

Do you have the 440 with the carbon hub? It was a simple thing of beauty and "seemed" to roll ever bit as well as the aluminum hub on my new Zipp. If I had stuck with 650c I would have no qualms about racing that wheel right now along with the rear J-Disc I was using. I certainly wouldn't spend any money to buy a newer Zipp.

Years ago Zipp and Hed pretty much nailed the basic design of their deep wheels. Everything they have done since is mostly marketing to get people to buy new wheels. Real world improvements are incrementally tiny at best.

Chad

No, I have the newer, aluminum front hub (with the stupid little carbon end cap dust covers). Still an awesome hub that spins forever. In fact, for fun I have 3 bikes with wheels currently mounted (Zipp 404 tubular, Reynolds Alta Race clincher, Ksyrium SSC SL clinchers - all quality wheelsets/tires). I can spin all 3 with the same force and the Zipp will out spin the others (the Reynolds stops quite fast for some reason and it is new) by over 2 minutes!

On the road I "think" I can feel it too - very smooth. Obviously the aero benefit is the main reason to go with it, but it is also the lightest wheel by far (and the most expensive too)

---

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

Let me share some experiences. I've used the Zipp 440 ever since 1994. It is an awesome wheel. In between I used the Spynergy revX for one season since I had a 650 bike that season. The RevX sucks. It is not aero like the Zipp 440 and it is heavy.

The only downside of the 440 is the carbon hub which has a lot of play. I am thinking of getting mine rebuilt with a standard tried and true Ultegra 32 spoke hub (you can get them for $29.99 at Nashbar). I'll just lace every second hole for the 16 spokes on the Zipp.

I do agree with Chad's comments. There is little or no difference between the ancient Zipp 440 and the newer Zipp 404. Let's put it this way. When they were ued by Mark Allen's bike in Kona 1993, he biked sub 4:30. So unless you are in the same league as any of these guys below, the 440 will suffice:

1 MARK ALLEN USA 00:50:40 04:29:00 02:48:05 08:07:45 - 2 PAULI KIURU 00:51:05 04:28:06 02:55:16 08:14:27 0:06:42 3 WOLFGANG DITTRICH 00:48:30 04:30:29 03:01:14 08:20:13 0:12:28 4 KEN GLAH USA 00:50:41 04:33:54 02:59:26 08:24:01 0:16:16 5 JÜRGEN ZÄCK 00:51:52 04:27:42 03:06:44 08:26:18 0:18:33 6 PAUL HUDDLE 00:53:32 04:39:39 02:54:36 08:27:47 0:20:02 7 BRUCE THOMAS 00:50:29 04:38:15 03:00:05 08:28:49 0:21:04 8 HOLGER LORENZ 00:51:47 04:35:29 03:05:35 08:32:51 0:25:06 9 JEFF DEVLIN 00:53:40 04:44:20 02:55:18 08:33:18 0:25:33 10 OLAF SABATSCHUS 00:57:05 04:40:08 02:56:55 08:34:08 0:26:23 11 BEN VAN ZELST 00:55:03 04:37:59 03:02:21 08:35:23 0:27:38

I agree as well. The newer hub is actually slightly heavier than the older, carbon hub, but supposedly a little more durable. Their best hubs are way to expensive (the Z series, Z3, Z4 etc.) but are even better still (Z4s go for about 3K and are otherwise the same wheel as a new 404 except for the awesome hub).

I think Mark Allen in his prime could have beat the field with my mountain bike tires on his bike ;)

---

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

Let's just say that Mark Allen beat Pauli Kiuru in that 1993 race by one mile (time diff of 6:45). Kiuru and Bustos had the same misfortune as Ullrich...being total studs in an era dominated by the best all time in Hawaii (sorry Dave Scott...). In fairness to Mr. Kiuru, Allen needed everything he had in the tank to make sure that he one. Perhaps not a Dave vs Mark thing, but Kiuru was no slouch. Allen would have beaten you and I on MTB tires, but he needed the full arnsenal to hammer Kiuru including his Zipp 440's :-)

Be warely of the Rev-X...the reports I have read is that they are even less aero than a spoked wheel. That's in addition to how dangerous they are.

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

I've ridden a pair of Rev-Xs for about 6 years now. They are waaaay more aero than spoked wheels. The only downside to the Rev-Xs in my opinion is that they seemed to be very susceptible to cross-winds. Not sure why you say they are dangerous....

Spot

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

take a look at this data, it has the Zipp 440 and the Rev-x scroll down to the large table of data.

http://www.bsn.com/...eelAerodynamics.html

it shows the Rev-x as a bit faster in half the wind angels then the Zipp

Dan...

Hi Hoehler

i'm going to post this again so you see it it's a good list of data.

http://www.bsn.com/...eelAerodynamics.html

Dan...

I've had the 440's and currently have 404's. The major difference I found is that you'll need about 500 more feet to brake on the 440 than the 404's. IMHO, Zipp really improved the braking surface going to the 404's. In a TT is this really important? To quote Cipo..."If you brake you loose." :-)

Also there's a slight weight difference. Not really import in TT's as well.

I would say it was the serious fall I took going 45 kph when the wheel collapsed that convinced me that the wheels were unsafe. I ended up tumbling into the middle of the lane and the bumper of the car with the screeching wheels behind me was within inches of my head when the car came to a stop. Spinergy admitted that the wheels are prone to collapse due the hardening of the glue used to bind the carbon fiber to the hub. Enough said?

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

My fastest times were on rev x's, but the ride quality sucked. They are also scary on descents and in cross winds.

Trevor, I certainly buy the braking benefits of the 404. The 440 rim just burns through brake pads like they are going out of style.

...when do you get to Ottawa next weekend ?

I was just curious since I have many, many miles on mine, and I'm definitely not the lightest dude in the world. But that sounds heinous....

Spot

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Hey Adrian

did this happen to you? you had a Rev-X collapse?

Dan...

Yes. I truly believe I was lucky to escape long term physical problems based on the severity of the situation. What really shocked me was the apalling customer service that followed - they admitted fault, but refused to replace the wheels and even tried to sell me a new pair!!!

You may think your Rev-X's are fine - but it only takes one collapse to convince you otherwise.

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

Just to reply to Paul's comments, which are very insightful...

The last few years actually have seen some very notable improvements in technology, but they are subtle, as with many technologies the 80/20 rule sort of applies in that we got 80% of the way there very quickly and have now spent years tackling the last 20%. Mainly the improvements have been in tuning where the wheels are fast, the original wheels were nearly as fast as the current wheels, but only in a narrow range of wind angles, where the moden shapes allow the new 404 for instance to be faster than the 440 at every data point, but significantly faster in the 10-20 degrees of wind angle condition which is the most common real world condition. But at 25-30 degrees of wind, the 440 and new 404 are only separated by a few percent (advantage new 404) so the new wheels would only be slightly advantageous here.

But the main improvements (other than in durability, quality control, manufacturing, etc..) are in usability and range of efficiency. The old wheels were not only fast in limited wind conditions, but only with very limited tire width selection (<20mm measured tire width), something that today is possible with 20-22.5mm width tires, and in significantly more wind conditions. This increase in tire choice is better for everybody and lets you ride with more sane tire pressures for better RR as well as some comfort (very important for IM IMO) with increased durability and peace of mind.

We are asked the question quite frequently why the times of old still holdup so well against the times of today even though today's equipment is so much better, and the answer is that the old equipment may still be as fast as the new stuff in some very limited or specific conditions, but on the whole the newer designs will be faster (even if only slightly) 100% of the time. If you look at races elsewhere (especially the TdF) the times continue to fall and speeds continue to rise..but many of those events have conditions which are not as extreme as those in Kona.

Regards

---

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