Switching from tubulars back to clinchers as I'm planning on racing my first iron distance race next year, IMLP. Looking at spending no more than $1000. Has anyone had any experience with the new zipp 60 wheelset? I'm looking for something with an alloy brake track but durable enough to train on. The Mavic Cosmic Cabone SL is over 100g less than the 60's which appeals to me. I know the zipps are faster but honestly not big enough of a difference to me as I'm not looking to be competitive at LP. Durability is big and the mavics are bombproof. Or would I be better off looking for a used set of the pre firecrest 404s with the alloy brake track. They come in at 1650ish grams. I will probably swap these back and forth between the road bike and the tt bike for faster group rides and such so the lighter weight is a bonus. FLO wheels are certainly a contender too but if I'm honest I'd probably choose the Mavics over them.
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [adktriguy46]
[ In reply to ]
The "new" Zipp 60 is the old 404. Hubs and spokes are different, and overall weight is slightly higher, but it's the same wheel. Based on my experience on the old wheel and the new wheel, it's bomb-proof and race-worthy. It is, however, a tad heavy.
http://www.theracingpost.us has a review in their September issue.
http://www.theracingpost.us has a review in their September issue.
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [adktriguy46]
[ In reply to ]
The cosmic carbone is vastly worse aerodynamically than the other options you are looking at. Which means it is slower, even if it is lighter by 100g..or 400g.
Chosing them over the FLO wheels would be even more crazy, since the Flo wheel is a good bit more aero than the Zipp 60.
Mavic makes some legit aero wheels now in the CXR80 and CXR60, sadly the Cosmic Carbone really wans't. The Mavic *may* be the most durable wheel of them all. Makes a good cool looking slightly aero training wheel!
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
Chosing them over the FLO wheels would be even more crazy, since the Flo wheel is a good bit more aero than the Zipp 60.
Mavic makes some legit aero wheels now in the CXR80 and CXR60, sadly the Cosmic Carbone really wans't. The Mavic *may* be the most durable wheel of them all. Makes a good cool looking slightly aero training wheel!
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 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [AthletesOnTrack]
[ In reply to ]
Thanks that's a great review.
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [jackmott]
[ In reply to ]
I think I would still choose the zipp 60s over the FLOs. So that leaves the question, new zipp 60 or older zipp 404?
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [adktriguy46]
[ In reply to ]
adktriguy46 wrote:
I think I would still choose the zipp 60s over the FLOs. So that leaves the question, new zipp 60 or older zipp 404?Just curious (as I'm in the exact same boat as you; want less than $1K aero wheel for train/race), why are you still opposed to Flo?
Also, whoever said that Mavic's are bad aerodynamically, thank you! I had no idea and those were on my list as well.
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [adktriguy46]
[ In reply to ]
adktriguy46 wrote:
I think I would still choose the zipp 60s over the FLOs.Uh, you realize that's pretty dumb, right? You could save money AND go faster with a set of Flo 60's. The 100g weight difference is basically negligible, especially if you don't do all of your riding uphill.
The Zipp 60 is an attempt by Zipp to squeeze more money out of their brand name by offering old-tech wheels at no development cost (which have been long ago amortized with the old 404 sales). If you're hell-bent on spending money, get a set of HED Jet6's, which are a better wheel than the Zipp60 in every way (aero, weight, wide rims) at only a slightly higher cost. Or get the Bontrager Aura5's, which are again a new-aero-shaped wheel that are lighter than the Zipp60 for less money.
At $1000, the Zipp 60 might be worth consideration (but even then, it would be slower than Flo 60's). At $1500, they're just not worth it, unless you feel you HAVE to have the Zipp name.
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [radelj44]
[ In reply to ]
The CXR 60 is worth a look and coming soon:
Mavic generously provided a prototype set for me to test:
http://blog.aeroweenie.com/...hey-made-custom.html
Just curious (as I'm in the exact same boat as you; want less than $1K aero wheel for train/race), why are you still opposed to Flo?
Also, whoever said that Mavic's are bad aerodynamically, thank you! I had no idea and those were on my list as well.
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
Mavic generously provided a prototype set for me to test:
http://blog.aeroweenie.com/...hey-made-custom.html
radelj44 wrote:
adktriguy46 wrote:
I think I would still choose the zipp 60s over the FLOs. So that leaves the question, new zipp 60 or older zipp 404?Just curious (as I'm in the exact same boat as you; want less than $1K aero wheel for train/race), why are you still opposed to Flo?
Also, whoever said that Mavic's are bad aerodynamically, thank you! I had no idea and those were on my list as well.
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 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [radelj44]
[ In reply to ]
The FLO's are great wheels, especially for the price. Hard to beat unless you are a stickler for weight. Can't see any wheel that will be more durable either.
Only drawback, and this applies to all wide rims, is comparability with some frames. My Guru has 30mm of clearance for the rear wheel/tire, same with the Giant Trinity Alliance and a few other bikes. I can physically fit a wide rim in my frame but it doesn't leave much room for flexing before it rubs.
Only drawback, and this applies to all wide rims, is comparability with some frames. My Guru has 30mm of clearance for the rear wheel/tire, same with the Giant Trinity Alliance and a few other bikes. I can physically fit a wide rim in my frame but it doesn't leave much room for flexing before it rubs.
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [asad137]
[ In reply to ]
Nothing dumb about rather sticking with a known bullet proof wheel with great aero properties than try a new wheel who's durability has yet to be established all in an effort to maybe be a couple minutes faster over an iron course. I love how a guy is just looking for advice and someone feels the need to be insulting. Thanks
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [asad137]
[ In reply to ]
asad137 wrote:
The Zipp 60 is an attempt by Zipp to squeeze more money out of their brand name by offering old-tech wheels at no development cost (which have been long ago amortized with the old 404 sales). If you're hell-bent on spending money, get a set of HED Jet6's, which are a better wheel than the Zipp60 in every way (aero, weight, wide rims) at only a slightly higher cost. Or get the Bontrager Aura5's, which are again a new-aero-shaped wheel that are lighter than the Zipp60 for less money. At $1000, the Zipp 60 might be worth consideration (but even then, it would be slower than Flo 60's). At $1500, they're just not worth it, unless you feel you HAVE to have the Zipp name.
So the Zipp 60 is essentially the old 404 clincher, right? Is it really significantly slower than a Flo 60? Have any data?
You make it sound like the Zipp 60 is a piece of rubbish but that was essentially THE wheel to have (or the tubular) for like, what, half a decade? It couldn't have been that bad, could it?
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [needmoreair]
[ In reply to ]
I think the Zip 60 is a good economical alternative. Yes it's previous generation rim shape. I consider it the same as getting a Trek SC7 series instead of a SC9 series. Either way, it's a hell of a lot better than a Madone with clip-ons if you mostly race Tri's.
I have a 2010 404 in front and just picked up a 808FC for the rear. Not a bad combo since the 404/60 have an aluminum rim so you get excellent braking. That's where the higher weight comes from.
However, I really, really like the ride and feel of the wider FC rim and I'd swear that the all carbon 808 rim rides a lot smoother too.
TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
I have a 2010 404 in front and just picked up a 808FC for the rear. Not a bad combo since the 404/60 have an aluminum rim so you get excellent braking. That's where the higher weight comes from.
However, I really, really like the ride and feel of the wider FC rim and I'd swear that the all carbon 808 rim rides a lot smoother too.
TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [adktriguy46]
[ In reply to ]
There is no reason to doubt the FLO wheels. They are using a full alloy rim, cx-ray spokes and solid hubs. It isn't ultralight gear that will be fragile, it's strong stuff. Faster and cheaper.
The Zipp might actually be less durable. The nipples are bedded in the carbon rim for the zipp vs the alloy rim for FLO. Has the advantage of exposed nipples for truing, but more risk of damage from high spoke tensions. My current 404 is starting to crack at the spoke holes (2005 model rim).
The Zipp might actually be less durable. The nipples are bedded in the carbon rim for the zipp vs the alloy rim for FLO. Has the advantage of exposed nipples for truing, but more risk of damage from high spoke tensions. My current 404 is starting to crack at the spoke holes (2005 model rim).
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [needmoreair]
[ In reply to ]
The old clincher zipps were significantly less awesome than the old tubular zipps.
If you were deciding between a tubular zipp and a Flo I would say not that huge of a deal. Flo probably still better though.
At $1000, the Zipp 60 might be worth consideration (but even then, it would be slower than Flo 60's). At $1500, they're just not worth it, unless you feel you HAVE to have the Zipp name.
So the Zipp 60 is essentially the old 404 clincher, right? Is it really significantly slower than a Flo 60? Have any data?
You make it sound like the Zipp 60 is a piece of rubbish but that was essentially THE wheel to have (or the tubular) for like, what, half a decade? It couldn't have been that bad, could it?
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
If you were deciding between a tubular zipp and a Flo I would say not that huge of a deal. Flo probably still better though.
needmoreair wrote:
asad137 wrote:
The Zipp 60 is an attempt by Zipp to squeeze more money out of their brand name by offering old-tech wheels at no development cost (which have been long ago amortized with the old 404 sales). If you're hell-bent on spending money, get a set of HED Jet6's, which are a better wheel than the Zipp60 in every way (aero, weight, wide rims) at only a slightly higher cost. Or get the Bontrager Aura5's, which are again a new-aero-shaped wheel that are lighter than the Zipp60 for less money. At $1000, the Zipp 60 might be worth consideration (but even then, it would be slower than Flo 60's). At $1500, they're just not worth it, unless you feel you HAVE to have the Zipp name.
So the Zipp 60 is essentially the old 404 clincher, right? Is it really significantly slower than a Flo 60? Have any data?
You make it sound like the Zipp 60 is a piece of rubbish but that was essentially THE wheel to have (or the tubular) for like, what, half a decade? It couldn't have been that bad, could it?
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 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [adktriguy46]
[ In reply to ]
adktriguy46 wrote:
a new wheel who's durability has yet to be establishedFlos are an aluminum rim with a non-structural carbon fairing. Are you questioning the durability of aluminum rims?
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [needmoreair]
[ In reply to ]
needmoreair wrote:
So the Zipp 60 is essentially the old 404 clincher, right? Is it really significantly slower than a Flo 60? Have any data?
There's plenty of data showing that newer, wider, blunt-nosed rim shapes in general have less drag and less crosswind susceptibility than the old 404 hybrid-toroidal shape. I haven't seen a direct old-404 to Flo comparison, and probably never will.
Quote:
You make it sound like the Zipp 60 is a piece of rubbish but that was essentially THE wheel to have (or the tubular) for like, what, half a decade? It couldn't have been that bad, could it?
Yep, it WAS the wheel to have. It's not a bad wheel, but given that there are other alternatives out there NOW that are likely faster and cost less or similar, it's a bad choice.
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [motoguy128]
[ In reply to ]
motoguy128 wrote:
I think the Zip 60 is a good economical alternative.No, it's really not. It costs more than other wheels that are better. How is that in any way economical?
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [asad137]
[ In reply to ]
I think we've all ridden some pretty shit aluminum wheels at some point. Not all are the same so I think it's only practical question their durability.
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [adktriguy46]
[ In reply to ]
Texas had a couple state champions on Flos
Don't let the price fool ya!
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
Don't let the price fool ya!
adktriguy46 wrote:
I think we've all ridden some pretty shit aluminum wheels at some point. Not all are the same so I think it's only practical question their durability.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 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [adktriguy46]
[ In reply to ]
adktriguy46 wrote:
I think we've all ridden some pretty shit aluminum wheels at some point. Not all are the same so I think it's only practical question their durability.If betting on wheels, I would bet on 'unproven-build-but-proven-technology-and-quality-component' aluminum rims over a 'proven' structural carbon rim any day of the week. There are PLENTY of stories of cracked Zipps.
Also, if you're so hung up on proven wheels, why not newer HED Jets? Faster and cost about the same (within a few %) for Jet6s, and lower cost for the Jet5 Express.
And, to come back to this:
Quote:
I love how a guy is just looking for advice and someone feels the need to be insulting. ThanksOne, I wasn't insulting you, I was insulting your decision -- there is a difference. Two, sometimes making strong statements is the best way to make people to realize they're doing something dumb. Three, welcome to Slowtwitch. Would it have made you feel better if I had said "That doesn't make any sense" instead of "That's dumb"? Either way, it's a bad decision.
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [jackmott]
[ In reply to ]
Pa and NJ too. :)
I have a Flo 90 front and will be getting a 60 next year for really windy days (about 3/4 of the time here lol) They are nice wheels for the money and the bearings are really smooth.
I wish Flo would sell a seperate rim that could be laced to a Powertap.
I have a Flo 90 front and will be getting a 60 next year for really windy days (about 3/4 of the time here lol) They are nice wheels for the money and the bearings are really smooth.
I wish Flo would sell a seperate rim that could be laced to a Powertap.
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [ridenfish39]
[ In reply to ]
if you dremel the spoke openings out you could make it happen I imagine.
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
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 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [adktriguy46]
[ In reply to ]
adktriguy46 wrote:
I think we've all ridden some pretty shit aluminum wheels at some point. Not all are the same so I think it's only practical question their durability.You should also question the durability of structural carbon rims. If you want to ride 100% of the time on a wheel, I would take an alloy rim over a carbon rim.
Zipp made a name for themselves with lightweight carbon tubular race wheels. They didn't 'break' into the training wheel world until a few years ago. The earlier wheels were not meant as training wheels.
Re: Zipp 60 versus 404 versus Cosmic Carbone [ridenfish39]
[ In reply to ]
How many miles do you have on yours? How's the overall wear?
adktriguy46 wrote:
How many miles do you have on yours? How's the overall wear?Maybe 300 miles. The brake track is showing silver now.......bearings still like butter and the wheel is true and that's all that matters.