So many dumb comments by Zipp.
Let's start with this one: majority of the 250g saved are from going hookless. Measure the dimensions of the hooks on your wheels and multiply the volume by the density of carbon. Hint, your answer will be somewhere in the 10g range.
28mm will not have lower RR than 25mm unless you're pumping them to the same pressure.
Which you wouldn't. At the same vertical compliance, RR is essentially the same (within BRR error margins). In any case, if you want to have 23mm inner width to allow for bigger tires, you can still meet 105 rule by making the outside width greater. Just add hooks.
Don't even get me started on the "smooth interface" being more aero when the tire is wider than the rim. And then unironically followed by dimples right next to the interface.
why? it's measurably true and one after another after another premium wheel company are discovering this.
I will say though, kudos on making a 75mm+ wheel sub-1600g. That's mighty impressive. Un-kudos for the asinine price. I thought hookless was what made the 303s so much cheaper. What happened to that logic?
what as MSRP of the last model year 808 per pair? pre inflation, pre supply chain problems, pre freight robbery?
I don't know if your single word answers are just meant to engage or shut down, so I'll give benefit of doubt and go with the former.
Source for the 10g? On my knight and SES wheels it came out to ~10g. Depending on the hook dimensions of yours, it'll vary but be in that ballpark. Show me the old and new cross section of the Zipp wheels. Then show me how (most of) 250g savings came from the hook. Thats akin to the weight of the entire rim beds.
RE rolling resistance vs size and comfort level. Wider and lower pressure is faster in many real-use cases because of poor road surfaces not allowing low enough pressure with the narrower tires. But for any given surface, the narrowest possible that can still roll smoothly will be fastest (else we'd just jump to 40mm). Here is what I've seen claiming the same comfort level gives the same RR. They're not perfect, but it's more than Zipp provides.
Continental's engineer: https://road.cc/...e-right-tyres-279289
Why is it faulty reasoning that you can have both wider tires and still meet the 105 rule busy just making the whole thing wider? How can that even be faulty? Lol. Zipp said having the tire stretching wider is better than meeting 105, but you can have.... both.
Which companies have shown that the smooth interface is faster? Never seen a single data point that attributes a wheel's speed to that feature. Perhaps mavic with the CXR80 had something but those wheels can't be compared with/without strips since there's a big recess that sticks out where the strip sits. Roval and Hunt have gone the opposite way and exaggerated the step created by the hooks (one is hollow and the other is filled). They claim it's faster because it is easier to meet the 105 rule with bigger tires. The air can flow smoothly even if the surface has small gaps, as long as the two disjoint sections line up. So are Roval/Hunt the ones making wrong claims or is it Zipp? In any case, the smooth transition won't help you with smooth airflow if you have a 28mm tire ballooning to 30mm on a 23mm internal wheel that is 27mm on the outside.
Regarding the price. I said sub-1600g so clearly I'm talking about the 858. The Firecrests are competitive value. The 404FC was in my top 2 when I was purchasing new wheels last year and almost pulled the trigger when i saw them 20% off. Went with the i9.65 which is 7mm deeper, wider, still within 70g, and has hooks. I wonder how they managed that weight with those 150g hooks (just kidding around).
If there are contradicting "sources" and "measurably true" data for the claims you make, I'd be happy to read those if you're wiling to share them instead of replying in 1-2 words to each paragraph. I like reading about the tech side of these things but haven't found anything that actually shows that smooth interface is measurably more aero beyond the eye tunnel, hooks save many times more weight than the material they remove, etc. Only generic claims from the sales and marketing departments.