Both are excellent, you can't go wrong. Really if offered both I might pick based on which has cooler stickers.

Might want to go even deeper though, at least in the back.

---

---

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

I was recently looking at wheels for road racing application and pretty much ruled the 303 out immediately. If you are focused on weight go for the 202. As I understand it only slightly less aero than the 303 and is 100g lighter. Alternatively, the 404 is only 50g heavier than the 303 and is meaningfully more aerodynamic. I went for the 404.

202: -100g, +2 watts
303: Baseline (1475g)
404: +50g, -4 watts

http://i40.tinypic.com/v4t8hh.jpg

(weights are for 2013 firecrest cc and power savings are from the zipp spreadsheet above, I don't know the methodology)

Nice.

As a point of comparison, if you are doing a moderately strong race effort up a long climb, it would need to be around a 10% grade before the 303 would be faster than the 404.

---

---

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

I don't doubt the order of the rankings are the same but the saving chart appears to be non FC wheels as they have the 1080 faster than the 808

---

Styrrell

I'm planning on tubulars. For tubies, the mass difference is 100g between the 303s and 404s.
2 or 4 watts is in the noise level as far as I'm concerned.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not the mountain you're climbing, it's yourself. If you don't want to know, stay at the bottom.

Based on what kind of speed/power?

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not the mountain you're climbing, it's yourself. If you don't want to know, stay at the bottom.

If 2 watts is noise

100g is even more so noise, by a factor of about 20

That is to say, even on a false flat (1% grade), 2 watts of aero savings =~ 2,400 grams of weight savings.

---

---

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

350 watts, 75kg rider.
@ 250 watts it would be an 8% grade where they draw even.

so it all kinda depends if your races have hour long climbs, where you probably wont be doing 350 watts, or short ones where people tend to surge up at 500 watts.

---

---

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

Okay, here is the info for tubular, which proves the same point:

202: -140g, +2 watts
303: Baseline (1255g)
404: +100g, -4 watts

You are saying that 2-4 watts is noise for you, but that 100g is meaningful (I am not refuting your opinion on this). In that case, you should go 140g lighter and get the 202.

Its an old arguement but the weight advantage is always there, the aero advantage is situational. Its 4 watts pulling on the flat, but its cut by about 60% when drafting, which if you're doing it (racing) correctly you should be most of the time.

It really doesn't make a difference in racing how long the the climb is, once it goes beyond 200 yards or so. Once a climber gets a gap, its a big advantage, especially if their are a few climbers to work together. In almost any race at almost any level, you rarely see guys that win races get dropped on fairly flat ground, but you see guys get dropped on climbs all the time.

I think Carl and a few other top masters have written a number or race reports here from masters nationals, an they almost always come down to the final climbs.

Tha said there just isn't one perfect wheelset. Ideally Id have a 404/808 for flat races and 202s for hilly races, but if I had to pick one set (which at the price of top wheels isn't unusual), I'd pick 303s. You aren't giving up a lot on climbs or flats, and probably more importantly you can use a wider tire and not be penalized. With dirt road races and crappy roads in general 25s and even 28mm tires aren't a bad choice.

---

Styrrell

The length of the climb matters because it informs the speed/power that will be happening on it.

In Texas for instance the climbs are always short, and you tend to do 400, 500, 600 watts up them even in cat 4 races. At that power level, aero wins every time.

Longer climbs might have attacks here and there but you can't persist with it and speeds won't be as high except for attacks occurring right at the base.

---

---

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

Its not really power level its speed, which gets back to the grade. I agree for short climbs it doesn't matter. When I race a course that has short climbs, especially if I race masters, where I'm over my head, I just make sure I'm near the front at the base. I might slide back 30 spots, but by the top I still have guys to draft.

But rides like this http://www.trimbleoutdoors.com/ViewTrip/1370062 will quickly looking for every climbing advantage you can get. Of course on this ride I really don't want to be on carbon rims for the downhills anyways.

---

Styrrell

absolutely, steep, 7 mile climb, weight trumps aero unless you are contador maybe!

---

---

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

IDK about the Zipps, but I have the Aelous 6.5s. Those are great wheels and almost indestructible. Some jerkwad merged in front of me and slammed on his brakes while I was in aero. Smacked into the back of his car doing 22 mph. Messed up my aero bars. Some scratches on the bike. The Aeolous front wheel didn't even come out of true.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Thanks everyone.... some good points regarding racing style, typical length of climbs, and mass vs aero.
Appreciate all the feedback.

How about durability and customer support?
Any feedback additional to Tri-Banter's?

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not the mountain you're climbing, it's yourself. If you don't want to know, stay at the bottom.

With the discussion so far going mostly about rim-depth on the Zipp side of things, I'll throw in a vote for Bontrager.

Aero data says the differences between the equal-depth offerings from Zipp and Bontrager are minimal anyhow. See if you can get a better deal on one, or which one tickles your fancy better. I saw the new Aeolous today at the Trek shop and was absolutely smitten by the UD finish, whereas Zipp's dimpled surface doesn't quite have the same appeal to me.

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

This aero data is super old.

Just as a point of reference, there is a 2011 aero edge flyer where the "watts saved" reads:
202 - 14 watts saved
303(NON FIRECREST) - 24 watts saved
404 FIRECREST - 27 watts saved

To me, 202 versus 303, the 303 is "winner winner chicken dinner"; even more so if the 303 firecrest version is closing that gap with the 404 at all.

But more to the original poster's point. The Bontrager white paper shows the OLD 303 to be pretty similar to the Bontrager 3. Its probably a safe bet the new 303 has an edge in aerodynamics but it gives up 100 grams of weight.

So... flip a coin or make the decision between marginal weight and marginal aero differences.

The other quick little bit that you need to look at is rim width. I've been told that 303s don't work with some frames (Tarmac comes to mind, but 2x check me) and the Bontragers are even wider at 27mm!

If you can, test fit the wheels before you buy em.

M

Did you get him to cut you a check for damages or you just parted ways?

---

https://www.strava.com/...tes/zachary_mckinney

Haven't ridden those exact wheels, but I do have traditional Zipp 404s and now have Aeolus 7/9s on my tri bike.

Both are great. Bontrager wheels feel a little more rock solid to me, but the zipps are great too (Aeolus a little stiffer). Can't go wrong with either.

Yup. His insurance paid up no questions asked. He actually tried to sue me for the 'damage' to his car. After the insurance co cut me a check, he failed to show up for the court case he filed. Don't ya just love people...

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

I have 303 tubulars on my road bike. I use them for training and local club racing. Love them.

The 202 Firecrest clincher is supposed to be only a little less aero than the 303. However, the 202 tubie is still non-Firecrest, so I would think a good bit less aero than its clincher equivalent.

Can you explain what you mean by this. Even though it seems to obvious I can't decide whether you are saying that saving 100grams is better, or saving 2 watts of aero is better. Thanks.

---

"Wait.....and Hope" -Edmond Dantes