Zipp 3001/2001

Jun 4, 12 19:33

Post #1 of 33 (9622 views)

If the Zipp 3001 bike was so aero, why do we not see more beam bikes like it today? Some still seem to say it is very aero/low drag by todays standards. What am I missing?

The Zipp 2001 is considered one o f the fastest frames ever made, along with the HOTTA and the Cervelo P4. Zipp stopped making the bike when the International Cycling Union (UCI, the pro cycling governing body) deemed the design illegal. Of course, you can still race them in triathlon. From: http://austintriathlonstore.blogspot.com/...a-and-zipp-2001.html

Crazy to think that no one picked up on the Zipp concept after they droped it in 1998? Cycpro, is from what I can tell, is a nice though but is not production, working prototype (however very nice).

Thanks,

Last edited by: mfrassica: Jun 5, 12 19:11

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [mfrassica] [ In reply to ]

Jun 4, 12 19:50

Post #2 of 33 (9596 views)

TJ Tollakson is starting a new bike company called Dimond (I think that's the name) to bring back that bike design

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [djciii] [ In reply to ]

Jun 4, 12 20:02

Post #3 of 33 (9581 views)

Ok, funny cuz he is on the front cover of TriSports catalog and it looked like a beam bike. Saw a Zipp 3001 on ebay today and was reminded me of the design and how it is almost never seen today.

Thanks, I'll check out Tollakson's bike

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [mfrassica] [ In reply to ]

Jun 4, 12 20:02

Post #4 of 33 (9581 views)

Its difficult to sell a bike that can't be seen in the top cycling races. It shouldn't be but win on Sunday/sell on Monday works in cycling. Plus both major beam bike had some mechanical issues.

Styrrell

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [mfrassica] [ In reply to ]

Jun 4, 12 20:08

Post #5 of 33 (9567 views)

There is always Titanflex.

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [mfrassica] [ In reply to ]

Jun 4, 12 20:23

Post #6 of 33 (9543 views)

I think Cervelo have said that the P5 ( and maybe the P4) are as fast as a beam bike. If you can build a UCI legal frame that is just as fast, may as well meet the demand of UCI racing at the same time.

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [mfrassica] [ In reply to ]

Jun 4, 12 20:32

Post #7 of 33 (9533 views)

Cycpro

Running is a gift.

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [nickag] [ In reply to ]

Jun 4, 12 20:32

Post #8 of 33 (9533 views)

nickag wrote:

I think Cervelo have said that the P5 ( and maybe the P4) are as fast as a beam bike. If you can build a UCI legal frame that is just as fast, may as well meet the demand of UCI racing at the same time.

That may be true strictly for frame aerodynamics. But, beam bikes have a couple other advantages:

1) They are much more comfortable than double diamond bikes. So, you can hold a more aero body position for a longer duration.

2) I've heard it claimed that their reduced unsprung weight lowers Crr (but haven't seen hard data to back it up).

3) The suspension improves cornering grip on rough surfaces (another claim I haven't seen data to back up.)

4) They are unique.

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

Last edited by: MOP_Mike: Jun 4, 12 20:33

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [MOP_Mike] [ In reply to ]

Jun 4, 12 20:32

Post #9 of 33 (9530 views)

Was this Scott Molina's bike company or some other IM great? I do remember these bikes now

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [mfrassica] [ In reply to ]

Jun 4, 12 20:34

Post #10 of 33 (9527 views)

mfrassica wrote:

Was this Scott Molina's bike company or some other IM great? I do remember these bikes now

Scott Molina did ride a TF. I don't know that he was ever affiliated with the company, though.

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [Jiowa] [ In reply to ]

Jun 4, 12 20:36

Post #11 of 33 (9523 views)

Jiowa wrote:

Cycpro

Those look sweet! I'd love to hear some real world reviews on them to see how they perform/handle/etc. I think "The Sergio" rides one...

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [Jiowa] [ In reply to ]

Jun 4, 12 20:43

Post #12 of 33 (9515 views)

very cool design, I like it!

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [nickag] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 13:17

Post #13 of 33 (9410 views)

OK, but the P5 is crazy expensive and is about 20 years newer than the Zipp 2001 design. This is a long and expensive road to reach the same aero advantage of two decades ago. I know the beam bikes are not allowed by UCI, but I would think the market would open up for another frame builder to exploit the advantages of the beam design, no?

Bikes like the Zipp and what looks like a new brand Cycpro practically disappear when the rider is on them. The only horizontal surface is the head tube and base bar!

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [mfrassica] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 13:22

Post #14 of 33 (9395 views)

The p5 is not 'the same', it is faster than those beam bikes.
If we believe Cervelo, anyway.
How much? who knows.

mfrassica wrote:

OK, but the P5 is crazy expensive and is about 20 years newer than the Zipp 2001 design. This is a long and expensive road to reach the same aero advantage of two decades ago. I know the beam bikes are not allowed by UCI, but I would think the market would open up for another frame builder to exploit the advantages of the beam design, no?

Bikes like the Zipp and what looks like a new brand Cycpro practically disappear when the rider is on them. The only horizontal surface is the head tube and base bar!

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

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [MOP_Mike] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 13:25

Post #15 of 33 (9383 views)

2) I don't believe that's possible. Lower weight would reduce Crr, but the weight affecting the Crr in this case is the bike + rider + any additional force from wind. Having a spring sitting on top of all that doesn't change the weight the tires see overall at all.

-Andrew Saar
It is better to do the right thing and be paid poorly,
than to do the wrong thing and be rewarded richly.

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 13:38

Post #16 of 33 (9365 views)

Well, another question though is how much faster could a beam bike be today? Most of the P5 features could be integrated into a new beam bike. Hidden front and rear brakes, integrated fork, integrated stem/bars.

That is the bike I want to see.

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [Lou3000] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 13:42

Post #17 of 33 (9358 views)

Might not be any faster at all.

Say you went with a top-tube-only kind of design, which is generally thought to be the fastest, something like:

You lose the downtube, but then the top tube and seat tube have to grow quite a bit for it to not fall apart.

Is it a net win? Maybe double diamond is a better overall design once you have it curving around the front wheel with a dropped downtube?

It would be fun to play with all of this in the wind tunnel

Lou3000 wrote:

Well, another question though is how much faster could a beam bike be today? Most of the P5 features could be integrated into a new beam bike. Hidden front and rear brakes, integrated fork, integrated stem/bars.

That is the bike I want to see.

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

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [mfrassica] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 13:57

Post #18 of 33 (9337 views)

Cycpro. Looks nice, in a mad sort of way.

-------------------------------
�Get the most aero and light bike you can get. With the aero advantage you can be saving minutes and with the weight advantage you can be saving seconds. In a race against the clock both matter.�

BMANX

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [AndrewSaar] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 14:01

Post #19 of 33 (9328 views)

AndrewSaar wrote:

2) I don't believe that's possible. Lower weight would reduce Crr, but the weight affecting the Crr in this case is the bike + rider + any additional force from wind. Having a spring sitting on top of all that doesn't change the weight the tires see overall at all.

A softer rear end reduce wheel load and Crr

http://cds-0.blogspot.com

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [Epic-o] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 14:11

Post #20 of 33 (9310 views)

I thought so too, but then someone pointed out that any reduction in wheel load, is vibration that used to be absorbed by the tire, now being absorbed by frame flex, and the tire is actually more efficient at that than the frame is.

In other words it might be *worse* crr, at least on relatively smooth roads.

Epic-o wrote:

A softer rear end reduce wheel load and Crr

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

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [AndrewSaar] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 14:15

Post #21 of 33 (9306 views)

AndrewSaar wrote:

2) I don't believe that's possible. Lower weight would reduce Crr, but the weight affecting the Crr in this case is the bike + rider + any additional force from wind. Having a spring sitting on top of all that doesn't change the weight the tires see overall at all.

Like I mentioned, I haven't seen data to support it. But, the claim is that over a rough surface the lower unsprung weight reduces Crr because the micro z-axis deflections occur with less effective weight on the tires.

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [MOP_Mike] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 14:16

Post #22 of 33 (9303 views)

Right but now the frame deflects instead of the tires., which also takes energy.

No free lunch!

MOP_Mike wrote:

Like I mentioned, I haven't seen data to support it. But, the claim is that over a rough surface the lower unsprung weight reduces Crr because the micro z-axis deflections occur with less effective weight on the tires.

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

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 14:18

Post #23 of 33 (9301 views)

jackmott wrote:

I thought so too, but then someone pointed out that any reduction in wheel load, is vibration that used to be absorbed by the tire, now being absorbed by frame flex, and the tire is actually more efficient at that than the frame is.

In other words it might be *worse* crr, at least on relatively smooth roads.

Epic-o wrote:

A softer rear end reduce wheel load and Crr

I remember that discussion. Which has less hysteresis during z-axis deflections, the tire or the beam? I think you have to consider that on a rigid bike, much of that deflection will be absorbed by the rider, who likely has more hysteresis than either tire or beam.

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [jackmott] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 14:20

Post #24 of 33 (9298 views)

jackmott wrote:

Right but now the frame deflects instead of the tires., which also takes energy.

No free lunch!

MOP_Mike wrote:

Like I mentioned, I haven't seen data to support it. But, the claim is that over a rough surface the lower unsprung weight reduces Crr because the micro z-axis deflections occur with less effective weight on the tires.

Yah, but it's more like "now the frame deflects instead of the rider".

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

Re: Zipp 3001/2001 [MOP_Mike] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 12 14:23

Post #25 of 33 (9288 views)

MOP_Mike wrote:

Yah, but it's more like "now the frame deflects instead of the rider".

On rough enough roads perhaps

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

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.