The real brilliance in this marketing is that just as they started to get stock in their old wheels, they develop something new that everyone will want but won't be able to get because of the selling model-it will keep these wheels relevant for years to come as people continue to line up every few months to buy them.

I think I can distinguish the spoke nipples in the photo, so I agree with structural carbon. This would address their weight issue, but I am not sure I would trust a full carbon brake track in a budget wheel.

Someone like Zipp has the engineering resources and QC to do a decent job and there is enough evidence of a serious problem with these things to override my inherent cheapness.

Congrats on the new wheels, I have the 2013 Flo 60 Front and was going to pick up the Flo 90 Rear in the next sale, Is there any issue running the 2013 and the 2016 together it terms of aero benefit?

How fast will the classifieds fill up with people unloading their old Flo's?

We rode at a variety of speeds during our studies. Of course higher speeds produce lower yaw angles, but there wasn't a significant enough difference to worry about. What the overwhelming result was, no matter where we rode, is that yaw angles are typically much lower than we believed in the past. Our data shows that 50% of your time is spent between 0 and 5 degrees, and by the time you get to 10 degrees of yaw, you have accounted for 80%. You spend only 20% of your time between 10 and 20 degrees of yaw, and as the angles get higher, the percentage of time gets lower.

Long story short, what I've said above really holds true for the average speeds almost any athlete is maintaining.

Make sense?

maybe they manage to improve their online ordering system before adding new fancy stuff to their "store"
you can have the best stuff at this world but if you can't sell it properly...

The real question is does it make the womp womp sound ;)

Congrats on the new wheels, I have the 2013 Flo 60 Front and was going to pick up the Flo 90 Rear in the next sale, Is there any issue running the 2013 and the 2016 together in terms of aero benefit?

Congrats on the new products, first they seem awesome, second they are very well introduced with all the information available at the same time !

I do have a couple of questions :
1- I saw you molded the shape of the GP4000S II 700x23 on the FLO30 to get it right and then develop your wheels around it. Very smart. My question about that process is : did you take into account the shape the tire might take from the 17mm internal width of the 45mm carbon clincher which is your minimum internal width if I read correctly to the 19.4mm internal width of the FLO30 and the new carbon/alloy model ? Or was the difference small enough between 17 and 19.4mm that it did not really matter (big difference going from 15 to 17mm but then differences gets smaller when going bigger).
2- Since lower yaw angles were getting higher in the priority list, I'm sure Attack 700x22 or the narrow Supersonic 700x23 were tested in your 20 tires pre-test, how did they compare at lower yaw angles to the GP4000S II 700x23 you ended up choosing ? Since the 45 is narrower at brake track, is it possible that those narrower tires make more sense on the 45mm model but you standardized with one tire (actually two 700x23mm models) just to keep the information easily readable ?
3- Per you own specs and graphs the carbon clincher disc is 40gr lighter but also slightly less aero than the carbon/alloy disc, would you recommend the carbon/alloy disc most of the time (it also has the wider internal width which makes the 40gr extra weight even easier to accept) and only recommend the carbon clincher version to the custommer wanting to save the very last gram ? I would pick carbon clincher all the time for all rims just because I'm not a fan of the big holes in carbon/alloy (don't want to start the debate, it's just a personnal preference) but since the discs are the same kind of construction in both carbon clincher and carbon/alloy I honnestly wonder which one I would pick.

Looking forward to reading your answer, and congrats again... I was not sure I needed new wheels but I think I do ;-) !!!

Congratulations, this is a very impressive product introduction. I think you're now making the transition to being a major industry player.

From a user standpoint it's nice to have so many wheel choices, although from a business standpoint I'm not quite as sure if it makes as much sense, but don't doubt you guys know what you're doing and you're going to sell so many wheels it really won't matter if a few of your offerings aren't as big a hit.

Hope you've made a lot of molds of that 60 CC rim, you're going to need them. The new 45 should do very well with roadies.

I think a ton of people will be queued up at their computers on your sale date.

Well done Chris. You and Jon just stepped the game up for the industry in terms of data and science behind the product.

Congratulations guys! It looks like you guys nailed it again. I'm still super happy with my FLO 60s from pre order #1, and my FLO 30's from their first order. I've trained and raced a lot of different conditions putting 10's of thousands of miles on those wheels without a single issue thus far. No complaints.

I'd be all over the new ones if it wasn't for the damn CAN$ sucking these days.

Chris, quick question: with your new carbon clinchers, can the end user replace the hub? I'm thinking along the lines of getting a 90 rear and having it replaced with a powertap g3. What about the spokes?