campled wrote:

Whats the thing with Zipps 454 NSW & Princeton Carbons Wave 6560? Whos idea was first? Any tests made between the two?

According to them:


Zipp launched the NSW 454 while we were roughly 10,000 miles into testing our V2 prototype. It was a double edged sword – we felt they were validating our concept, while simultaneously stealing our thunder. Truth is, they most likely spent 10x our total research and development cost on the NSW 454 media launch. The real vindication came when we tested the Wake 6560 against the Zipp NSW 454 at A2 Wind Tunnel in the heart of NASCAR, Mooresville, North Carolina. And at every single yaw angle the Wake 6560 outperformed the Zipp NSW 454.

Their blog post "The Numbers" is a bit sparse on their testing methodology. No mention of what tire they used or what tire the 5560 was optimized for. Also, this claim doesn't pass my sniff test:



That strikes me as a bit suspicious considering that in wheel only testing the largest delta between the 5560 and a 404 was 6.58 grams.

Also, I'm not too keen on at 16 spoke front wheel.

There is also a difference in their "hump" shapes. The Zipps are longer.

Yes, both the length and the curvature profile is pretty different if you take a closer look. To my eyes the Zipp profile looks more elaborate in that it is clearly directional.

I'm pretty sure that the UK-based Metron company (the one with Dimitris Katsanis) took a patent (or at least applied for one) a handful or so years ago on a wheel with varying depth to create this 'hump' profile, so the idea is not quite new and likely neither created by Zipp nor Princeton. I remember I also saw a picture of Xavier Disley (AeroCoach) experimenting with similar structures on a wheel some time before the Zipp 454 was introduced.

The most important part, though, is: When are we going to see some proper data on the 454 or, preferrably (for me), the 858? I can't remember I've seen any yet.

Though they do claim that this varying rim depth shape is faster back-to-back with the standard shapes I think what Zipp is hanging their hat on is the stability. There’s real benefit in being able to ride an 858 in conditions where the 404 is the most you could handle. Similarly you could ride a 454 in conditions that normally warrant a 303 or 202. So it’s not so much that an 858 is faster than a 808 it’s that the varying depth profile allow you to ride a deeper wheel and access aero gains in volatile high yaw conditions. There’s objective benefit to being able to ride a straighter line versus some amount of wandering due to wind induced steering movement. This should be a pretty straightforward calculation that I think they should publish. That’s the data I’d like to see....how much faster am I if I can follow the little white painted line versus being a several inches on either side of some percentage of the time?

So I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t expect them to publish aero data because it’s not significantly different than what they’ve already published. But they can quantify the benefit to being more stable and that should be published.

True, though I can count the number of times I've had any problems with my Jet 9 Black in any of my TT's the almost two season's I've ridden it on one or two fingers - and I've used it for every single TT. So I'm really mostly interested in the speed differences - stability is mostly an added bonus at this point with the top manufacturers being pretty stable already. Now for TTT's and mass starts, there I think I could still use even more stability.

I can ride an 808 in pretty much any conditions but I often wonder if riding a 404 produces a straighter path forward would it be faster overall?

Do you have hi knyou can ride a straighter line with a shallower wheel than you could with your ultra deep wheel?

I think the difference is small as long as you can hold your position on the bike - if not, it's obvisouly better with the shallower wheel. It's in windy conditions yaw gets higher and you get an advantage of deeper wheels, so I think that as long as you can reasonably control it the deeper wheel is better. But it's obviously something that is really hard to test.

I'd like to see that too. My purely anecdotal n=1 was a ride I did with a SRAM rep who was all kitted out in SRAM/Zipp products including 454 NSW.
It was a moderately windy mountain ride.

I noticed he was separating himself from the group in a crosswind echelon. After he stopped I asked him about how the wheels handled, and in an impressive display of honesty he said, "I brought the wrong wheels."

So maybe they improve things, but I'd speculate that it's marginal.

He was separating himself because he was losing focus because of the increased focused on handling?

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

I didn't ask for details, but I would have guessed lack of confidence in holding tight echelon position. It was a subtle separation. While most of us were practically rubbing shoulders, he was standing off 6 inches or so. And he's a former elite/pro, so it wasn't a skill issue. The other possibility is he didn't trust the rest of us, and was just making an excuse.. But it seems unlikely a SRAM rep would throw a SRAM wheel under the bus for the sake of politeness, and this guy comes off as someone who just says what he thinks (unusual for an industry rep!)

Maybe he was worried about trashing a set of $4k wheels. Perhaps he was thinking that he should have brought a $2k Zipp Wheel or even the $1k Zipp wheels.

Not as worried about *I* would have been given he gets all new wheelsets every year from Zipp as a job perk, and I assume doesn't have an issue with crash replacement...

Princeton CarbonWorks went to A2 for a second time, December 13th, 2017, they tested and posted results for WAKE 6560, Zipp 404, Zipp 454, Zipp 858, Jet 6+, and Jet 9+:

https://www.princetoncarbon.com/uncategorized/slaying-cycling-giants-in-the-land-of-nascar-a2-wind-tunnel-visit-2/


Were also just featured on BIKERUMOR:


https://www.bikerumor.com/2018/03/01/found-sinusoidal-princeton-carbonworks-wake-6560-wheels-claim-faster-lighter-cheaper/


Faster than the 858, lighter than the 303...$2400 or with Chris King upgrade for $3200. Sounds pretty good.


As a final - USAT athletes are riding them Abu Dhabi this week, Hamish Bond rode them at New Zealand National Championships in January, and Kona bike leg record holder is test riding them.

---

Paul Daniels
paul@princetoncarbon.com
http://www.princetoncarbon.com

Say what you will, but at least Princeton is putting their money where their mouth is. Zipp has had the 454 for almost a year and a half and only empty claims in PR speak have been released, with many sponsored athletes and teams opting not to use the wheels.

Zipp still haven't released tunnel data for the 454 or 858. From the Princeton CarbonWorks chart it looks like the 404 beats the 454 at every yaw angle 0-20 degrees. What Zipp HAS said is that the 454 is "12% more stable" - so $2000 extra for a wheelset slower than the 404FC but 12% more stable. Cool.

---

Paul Daniels
paul@princetoncarbon.com
http://www.princetoncarbon.com

So everyone made fun of Zipp and ridiculed them for the whale design yet Princeton CarbonWorks does it and they get a pass?

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

Thanks for the link with the wind tunnel data. It was good that I saved their chart before they removed the 858 and Jet 9+ from it ;) The 858 actually seemed to fair very well at yaw angles below 10 degrees - probably because the GP4000SII 23mm is narrower on it than (most of) the other wheels in the test since I believe it has a narrower internal width.

the 454 and 858 are clincher tire and tube only, so i imagine most pro teams are opting for the wheels that are available in a tubular set up. tony martin has run the 858/super9 CC in TTs in the past, but he seems to be the exception in the pro tour.

Hello campled and All,

So ... if stability is improved with the wave design on wheel rims .... but slows the wheel down a bit .....

And trip wires on socks and shoulders can improve boundary layer aerodynamics ....

How about some inexpensive little add on plastic vortex vanes that attach to the spokes next to the rims when it is is windy to improve handling? They could swivel a bit on the spoke to adjust to changing cross winds.


Make them reflective for night riding and in bright colors for daytime riding.


We can call them 'articulators'.

That might breathe some new life into my wheels and make what is old new again.

https://phys.org/...-purpose-vortex.html

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

So for the highest yaw, the 454 is producing significantly more drag than a 404? Is my logic wrong when I think that it should be less because its supposed to be more stable? Or is stability somehow bought at the costs of drag?

Or just apply Occam's razor to it plus the fact that Zipp themselves never showed wind tunnel testing.

What's the purpose of these spoke mounted turbulators? Are they intended to be beneficial at the trailing edge of the lead rim or the leading edge of the trailing rim. It's certainly not going to do much good at the top and bottom of the rotation. As a trailing edge device, it would perhaps increase wake mixing and avoid step changes in pressure profiles in favour of gradual transitions almost certainly at the expense of higher drag? That sort of application has virtually nothing in in common with what the linked study is talking about. The study is talking about boundary layer control via surface mounted vortex generators. These are commonly used to energise the boundary layer since a turbulent boundary layer is more robust and thus resistant to separation. However a turbulent boundary layer is a higher drag condition up to the point where separation occurs. The linked study seems to be suggesting use of vortex generators in laminar flow regimes which is a bit strange. At least some part of the boundary layer would require turbulation in order to energise it. The extract seems rather unclear as to what specific mechanism they are saying they've demonstrated. I may have a look for the full study later as I'm curious what exactly they are suggesting.