You can read their logo frontwards and backwards!

The shape is okay, but no Firecrest. They are very well constructed, though, and are both stiff and light.

Have you seen any direct comparisons between the Smart design and Firecrest?

---

Styrrell

I haven't seen much on the Smart system at all. My interest is in clinchers right now, so I got a set of 65s for the road bike. Zipps would be faster and HEDs would be cheaper, but I like the ENVEs and I'm happy with them!

Cyclists tend to be more picky about how a wheel actually rides as opposed to pure drag numbers. Rightly or wrongly, cyclists are also more sensitive to weight. Ride quality is something that is difficult to explain. I'm finally a Cat 1 roadie now and all i know is that over the years, i've become more aware what wheels i like and what wheels i don't. This tends to become more apparent when you do a lot of road racing where how a wheel feels in the corners, in the sprint, matters more. Unfortunately, in triathlon most bike course are dumbed down and boring (endless out and backs on a highway with one U turn...) and bike handling doesn't really matter. Such a shame in my opinion.

I've owned two sets of Edge Composites (Enve) and they are wonderful wheels. Both were 68mm, clincher, and both were a little sensitive in cross winds. Nothing that you couldn't get used to, just more sensitive. I've just glued up a set of 2010 Zipp 404 tubulars which seem really nice too, first race on them will be this weekend so we'll see how they stack up.

---

___________________________________________________
Team Medique Powered by Silber Investments

Why do you say that?

http://www.bikeradar.com/...-quicker-30331?img=5

Because the Zipps are faster @ 15*?

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Zipps would be faster than my ENVE 65 clinchers. I don't think there is much debate on that point.

They are fast and you can BEAT on them. Guys use them in cyclocross.

---

---------------------------------------
Sponsors hit me up, space for rent.

I really don't agree that Zipps are obviously faster than anything else. You guys listen way too much to fake data and bs marketing.

I've ridden Enve & Reynolds DV46 since they both came out....love supporting the underdog....but, the set of Zipp 303 Firecrest that Rich @ Wheelbuilder just put together for me is hands-down the best set of wheels I've ridden in 25+ years of top level racing on both tri/uscf/usac levels.

It isn't just about the wind-tunnel. The Zipps get up to speed better than the Enve/Reynolds, and they track thru windy turns MUCH better. Paired with Vittoria Pave's, they are simply the best carbon clinchers on the market.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

If they really do get up to speed better than the Enve/Reynolds, it would be BECAUSE they are better in the wind tunnel.

---

---

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

Which ENVEs do you have? The new "smart" wheels or an older model?

Huh? I thought getting up to speed was more about rotational inertia and stiffness?

---

"We don't inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." --Chief Seattle

Never seen data comparing the two (and of course which set of Zipps?). I've been happy with my carbon clincher deep rim Edge Composite rims. Haven't tried out a new purchase of a 808 FC CC for comparison though. Also haven't been able to try the new 6.7 system (tubular only at the moment). Really, with the right tires, aero position, helmet, fluid bottle management and engine training, the difference really must be minimal.

---

"We don't inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." --Chief Seattle

That is what most people think, but the idea is not supported by physics, or reality.

Some background here:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/...nd_Inertia_2106.html

The mistak everyone makes is they correctly remember the basics of inertia, from highschool, but do not actually do the math to see what the effect of a few hundred grams on a rim, accelerated at the rates human accelerate on bikes actually is.

its tiny, even with big 1000 watt efforts.

---

---

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

Thanks Jack. Good article. Guess that helps explain why people love their deep dish cosmic carbones so much. I always looked at the weight penalty and discounted them immediately.

---

"We don't inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." --Chief Seattle

"Some background here:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/...nd_Inertia_2106.html "

Thats a different situation, or at least not the entire situation. Tom started at speed then sprinted. At 25-30 mph aero is going to matter a lot. Not so much going from 0-15 at stoplight, or 0-30.

Any way you slice and dice it lighter wheels will help you accelerate faster, and absent any data showing which of the newest wheels are more aero, picking the lightest from amongst the top aero contenders isn't a bad way to go.

---

Styrrell

So running the numbers over at http://www.analyticcycling.com/...WindCourse_Page.html

I take a hypothetical 1000 watt effort starting at 0mph, for 25 meters. flat road, no wind.

I add 100 grams of weight to each wheel and .01kg m^2 of inertia to each wheel

the riders will hit about 20mph and the difference in time to reach 25meters is less than .01 seconds.....it shows up as 0.00!

if I bump the difference up to 200 grams per wheel and .02 kg m^2 of inertia, then the light wheels win by .01 seconds

it should be noted that if we leave the weight difference but keep the inertia the same, you get the same result - 0.01 that is to say adding 400 total grams of wheel weight has no more effect than adding 400 grams of frame weight, even in a 1000 watt acceleration (within 0.01 seconds anyway)

---

---

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

So running the numbers over at http://www.analyticcycling.com/...WindCourse_Page.html

I take a hypothetical 1000 watt effort starting at 0mph, for 25 meters. flat road, no wind.

I add 100 grams of weight to each wheel and .01kg m^2 of inertia to each wheel

the riders will hit about 20mph and the difference in time to reach 25meters is less than .01 seconds.....it shows up as 0.00!

if I bump the difference up to 200 grams per wheel and .02 kg m^2 of inertia, then the light wheels win by .01 seconds

it should be noted that if we leave the weight difference but keep the inertia the same, you get the same result - 0.01 that is to say adding 400 total grams of wheel weight has no more effect than adding 400 grams of frame weight, even in a 1000 watt acceleration (within 0.01 seconds anyway)


Of course, i wouldn't expect a big difference in that analysis. For the following reasons.

A) its 25meters, in the only real life example that correlates, the match sprint, the difference is enough to win a Gold medal.
B) did you keep the rider and bike weight the same, using the defaults? If so its pretty unrealistic to reduce wheel weight but leave total weight the same.
C) Lighter weight isn't going to help much on a dead flat course. As you have shown it helps some even on an unrealistically short/flat course where the weight loss on the wheels is added back to the total weight of the bike/rider (I think).

In real life riding I still maintain that if you are choosing between 2 sets of wheels that are pretty equivalent to each other in aero properties, the lighter ones aren't a bad choice.

---

Styrrell

yes, if the wheels are identical aerodynamically, or you figure it is a 50/50 tossup on which one is more aero as far as you can tell, by all means get the lighter one

but, these mass performance differences are so tiny, you might also consider the cheaper one, or more reliable one.

---

---

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

Between Zipp FC and ENVE Smart I doubt their is much cheaper debates amongst potential buyers, which sadly doesn't include me right now. ;-)

---

Styrrell

Jack,

Not that it would make much of a difference, but 100gms is 0.1kg (not 0.01kg). That is a 10 fold difference.

---

"We don't inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." --Chief Seattle

.01 was the inertial change, .01 kg m^2

---

---

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