Well, there is no Easton comparison here but there is a look at the Firecrest configuration:

http://university.tri-sports.com/...%80%9Cbest%E2%80%9D/

Firecrest on the left, previous conventional Zipp ripp alloy clincher that may be comparable in configuration to older Eastons on the left:

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Which easton wheel? One massive difference is that aerodynamically, there is no penalty for running clinchers. The easton EC90TT is not even available as a clincher wheel; it's only available as a tubular.

But I'd guess it's simply my thread on "new zipps coming may 2010." There's a lot to read through. Your best bet is to read through a lot of the basic aero primers on Zipp's website that explain the fundamentals and evolution of the various "toroidal" rim shapes - hybrid, full, and the new firecrest.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Nice pictures. They really demonstrate the angled brake track on the new FireCrest. The Firecrest picture makes me wonder how much difference there is in the profile between the FireCrest and the Stinger. Both wheels look like theri primary design advantage is the integration of the tire profile into the rim profile (i.e., the tire and rim become a single smooth shape).

Rappstar - Can you elaborate? What do you mean no penalty for running clinchers?

The zipp site has a ton of good info, thanks Rapp.

I guess my question though is more about the face of the rim. Surely zipp has created a great wheel that more effectively integrates the tire with the seating and blending it more into the shape of the profile. But looking at the face of the rim, it does seem to me to not be toroidal at all. It looks more like "cheaper" carbon rims that are just slightly tapered from the seating to the spoke nipples with little to no other "shape".

Does that make any sense?

On a traditional aluminum clincher set-up, you needed to have parallel braketracks - which are not optimal aerodynamically. And you also are more limited as to how wide you can make the braketracks, because of how wide the bead can be spread and with aluminum, because of weight reasons, you wouldn't want to have a very different ID and OD for braketrack and too wide an OD would be problematic for keeping the tire mounted appropriately.

All in all it added up to about 3-5w running the best tires on clincher vs. the optimal tire on tubulars, and even worse when you ran a non-optimal tire, which you almost always would, because it's pretty much across the board that for standard aluminum bead dimensions, a 19mm tire is fastest.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

So the 404 alu clincher is about 3 to 5w slower than the old 404 tubular? With which tires? 21mm?

Does this mean that a 404 alu clincher has a 15-17w advantage compared to the mavic ksyrium? (Zipps baseline wheel in the True Aero Edge Folder, link)
So the 404 alu clincher has almost the same aerodynamic drag as a Zipp 101 clincher with a 21mm tire? Would the difference between the 101 and 404 alu clincher be even smaller with 23mm tires?

---

___________________________________
Paul | Medisch Info | Medisch Zoeken

I had to opportunity to inspect the rim shape of a set of 404 Firecrest Carbon Clinchers today and I must say, I don't doubt they are faster,

BUT

Ignore all the marketing babble and BS - what they've done is fill in the gaps. They've made a really wide rim to catch the air and keep it attached for as long as possible. (Sure, it would have been tested to the nth degree, but at the end of the day, a really simple flat shape was obsiouly the fastest if they started out wide and stayed there)

the classic toroidal shape has been replaced with basically a flat but very wide surface.

Zipp will say a lot about the high radius this and that but it's quite clear what they are doing with both the firecrest and super 9. they will try and make it sound more complicated than it is in reality.

They are the nicest set of clincher wheels I've seen though. The attention to detail is significant. The skewers are sweet. They are still a notch above any other wheelset on the market.

The set I inspected are going to be used as a training wheel - and I wouldn't doubt they will hold up to the load, the seemed very robust.

Fat is in fassion when it comes to rims.

Two problems with your analysis.

1) it only LOOKS flat. And most of the time, when people talk about "flat," they are talking about V shaped rims not U shaped rims. There's never been a rim with "flat" walls where the walls have basically been parallel. Of course, there's also the fact that the walls are not actually flat at all. They are just a lot flatTER than they were. But they aren't flat. And the subtle radiusing is quite important. Or maybe you'd like to provide your substantiation that's is so much less complicated that it's made out to be?

2) you totally ignore the trailing edge shape. It's not like you just get to draw a curvy line and connect point a-to-b and have that be optimal.

So, my advice to amd618 is "ignore all the babble and BS from folks who don't actually design and make wheels for a living, because all they claim to understand is what they think they seem and even their understanding of that is tenuous at best."

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I think you're forgetting about Mr. Cobb's Blackwell Research 100s and 200s. Those were pretty danged flat IIRC...of course, they were also pretty narrow too.


Now, is that the trailing edge, or the leading edge you're talking about? ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

:):) Cheers Rappstar, I knew you'd chime in....

and as I said - they are flat and "almost" parallel. The fact that they are way more parellel than the traditional toroidal shape is significant. The subtle radiusing may be quite important. It appears what they've done is really focus on the tyre to rim transition.

the trailing edge - there are two - and the one formed by the tyre is the last point of contact. The narrow trailing edge of rims is a little out of vogue at the moment as it is in a lot of areas.

perhaps it's to keep the air runner relatively straight along the wheel. The trailing edge of the firecrest shape is quite a reversal in previous models of Zipps. It's much closer to what a trailing edge or leading edge formed by a tyre is. Again, the focus is evidently on the complete package and how the wheel/tyre work together on a bike.

The problem companies face when they so heavily market is the information they provide can cometimes back themselves in to a corner. Zipp boo hooed carbon clinchers for years - until they did it, claiming they got it right blah blah blah.. The focused heavily on the toroidal shape - now firecrest is here and despite what they may call it - it really is very close to being flat.

It's like the dimples - they've backed themselves in to a corner with that one.

I applaud Zipp, as I said in my first post, I've no doubt these wheels are faster than anything they've produced, they are the sweetest set of wheels I've laid my eyes on - and I lay my eyes on a lot.

And I'm not more or less qualified than you to comment - I do as much wheel design as you! :):)

Not sure if this has been mentioned in any other threads, but are Zipp planning on transferring the Firecrest CC shape to the existing 1080 and disc wheels?

---

VALÄ’RE | YouTube

I never understand why people think that Zipp "boohoos" other ideas. Simply put, no one was ever able to make a wheel with ~flat sides that was nearly as fast as a toroidal shape. A significant part of it is related to technology. Zipp invests a massive amount in computing horsepower. And a lot of what has allowed this sort of new design to come about is advancements in the CFD technology they use. NO ONE in the Zipp engineering department would ever had told you that thought they had it "figured out." Why do you think they experimented and developed non-toroidal prototypes? Because they knew there was the potential for improvement.

I've had the conversation with Josh about carbon clinchers many times. They always delayed because they never could make a wheel that was up to their standards. And if you look at the other wheels they tested on the CEN braking test, there still aren't any other wheels up to their standards. A huge part of why they were able to develop carbon clinchers is actually related to investments in new resin technology from an F1 motorsports company. The higher curing temperature allows for a stronger wheel, which plays a significant role in Zipp finally being able to make a wheel they felt was strong enough.

The folks at Zipp never perceive they are locked into a corner. If they came up with a technology that they felt was superior to dimples, they'd scrap them in a heartbeat. What I love about Zipp is not so much what they know. It's that they know there is even more that they don't know. And that's because they never feel any obligation not to totally scrap the designs they relied on for years as soon as they figure out something better. But any "boohooing" was based off what they knew at the time. And, in the case of carbon clinchers, what appears to be the case with every other carbon clincher out there based off Zipp's own testing of those wheels.

As always, well thought out posts. I figure you don't mind a few jabs here and there. ;)

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

The 1080, no - because the max width would be impractically wide for a significant number of existing frames.

For discs, it's harder to say, because discs are obviously quite different wheels in many ways. The clincher disc is the most "out of date" wheel in Zipp's lineup, and I would expect that there will be a carbon clincher disc at some point. But I don't have any idea when. But certainly the advancements from Firecrest will make their way into prototype wheels. Whether or not they make it into production wheels matters on one thing and one thing only - does it make the wheel better.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

If they don't make a 1080 in Firecrest when would you purchase a 1080 over a Firecrest 808?

I would guess that the Firecrest 808 would be more aero in most if not all conditions than a 1080. Is this true?

(not always remember! :):)

Cheers.

As for the later post re when to choose and 808 firecrest or 1080....

My thoughts:

It would be horses for courses. there would be some yaw angles teh 1080 would still be faster, but others the 808 firecrest would be much more of an advantage.

I think the 808 firecrest would most likely be more versatile (i.e. the best option in most circumstances)

I think the biggest advancement is in the clincher line up. They are a sweet set of clinchers - I had my doubts regarding the call that they'd be robust enough to train on - but the only thing I can see damaging these wheels is a large chunk of flying metal thrown at them by a truck or up from the road somehow - unfortunately that is quite common in the industrial region I live. But if your roads are free from objects these wheels are rock solid.

I plan on doing some testing soon. I've got the 404's to test, now who wants to buy me a set of 808's firecrest and loan them to me for some runs...):)

Thanks for the explanation Jordan.

A lot of pros were on the Firecrest wheels in Kona and I was surprised that many went with an 808 front and rear rather than 606. Even Linsey Corbin, a very small and light rider, had 808s. Is the improved handling at high yaws really noticeable when riding?

---

VALÄ’RE | YouTube

I'm really interested in the claims of Zipp that the 808 is nearly like the 404 in terms of handling (esp crosswinds), and yet maintain the advantage of having a deep wheel.

I'm on a Jet 6/9 front rear combo, because I thought a Jet 9/9 combo *might* be a handful... but this new Firecrest technology really intrigues me...

---

----------------------------------------------------------

keep it simple , keep it real .
--Brett Sutton

But i dont really know that much about bikes. I just sit on em and do as i am told. peddle. hard and fast.
--Chrissie Wellington

I think the best way to get faster is to enjoy it, the more you do the better you get, so go out and enjoy swim, biking and running, and don't feel to constrained and just do lots.
--Stephen Bayliss

I think the 1080 is still a faster wheel at lower yaw angles (i.e. for faster riders).


Source: http://competitor.com/...e-day-one-recap_6409

This actually begs the question at what yaw angle (maybe some distribution of yaw angles?) Zipp calculates the time savings in their aero flyer. IIRC the 808 FC is listed as saving you marginally more time than the 1080.

But, think of how much the randoneurs out there would LOVE having the a wheel that matched up to 25C or greater tires at the brake track! I think Jan Heine of Bicycle Quarterly would probably kiss someone at Zipp if they actually made that wheel ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Aye...but therein lies the 1080 conundrum...at low yaw angles there's a plethora of wheel/tire combos that are as fast or faster (think narrow for low yaw angles) AND lighter (if the course dictates that as a concern), and then when the wind starts coming up and adding more of an off-axis component, there are wheel/tire combos that not only are as fast or faster (i.e. the 808 FC), but also are easier to handle (my experience with a 1080 clincher is that it's a bit "twitchy" with even small crosswinds).

Given "unlimited resources", I'm having a hard time thinking of a case where I'd pick a 1080 over some other wheel/tire combo. My guess is that the 1080 will slowly "fade away"...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Given unlimited resources I also think you can find better wheels for many situations, however, you will probably have to use 2-3 different wheels depending on the circumstances. From what I can find of information (and this is admittedly a bit limited given the only drag vs. yaw graph I remember I have seen for the 1080 is the one on HED's site), the 1080 seems like a very fast wheel in the 5-10 degrees yaw window. Below 5 degrees many deep and narrow wheel/tire combinations will probably be faster and at higher yaw than 10 degrees something like a H3 or the 808 FC probably come out on top.

It is worth noting that Kraig Willet is seemingly very happy about the aerodynamics of the 1080 - link. Granted, there's no specific information about test protocol or drag at different yaw angles, but given how he has tested a lot of wheels and been in the business a long time I give his ratings some credit.

Given that I can borrow both a 1080, a 808 Zedtech and a FFWD F9R (90 mm) to test against my H3 I will probably do some testing on my own when I have got myself a powermeter (and gladly share the results, if anyone is interested). Of course, field testing is not the best way to try to test drag vs. yaw, but one can always try and get some repeatable measurements on a day with steady crosswind :) Has anyone actually tried that?

The FC 404s are notably easier to handle than the old 404s. I logged a ton of miles on my old 404s, so I never really thought of them as being hard to handle in any conditions, but I've been riding the 404FCs up in the mountains in some pretty stiff winds, and while I would at least notice that the old 404s were a bit deeper, I never notice that with these wheels. They could easily, from a handling standpoint, be a box section rim.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

The 1080 won't fade away, because it's still a better choice as a rear wheel than a 808FC, because it improves stability. I'd rather run 808FC up front and 1080 rear than an 808 pair because it'd be more stable. So the 1080 will certainly continue to exist, as it's really the ideal rear wheel for Kona.

Even if a 1080FC never comes about, I can see perhaps a 1080 carbon clincher coming out, but that's definitely not at the top of the development list.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp