Citing the interactive chart here: http://www.hedcycling.com/aerodynamics_technology/
I’m going to assume a large aspect of this is that Zipp wheels have exposed nipples. and possibly rim shape.
and the possibility the Fusee hub is more aero: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/tour-tech-wheels-and-gadgets-from-the-worlds-best/81005
and the 23mm wide rim that HED and Zipp and using for ride quality and aero purposes and the combining the aero advantage of the all carbon Stinger vs. Jet wheels and the advantage of clincher tires for changing in mid race and during training…having a carbon clincher and throwing in the new tubeless technology for pinch flat resistance and ride quality. This would be the best aero wheel to date. or would it?
the tubeless tech is, currently slower
.
Depends on the type of riding that you are doing (TT, crit, ect.) I personally ride Reynold assaults and love them. I’m a 200+ lb rider and they are plenty stiff and aero at a 46mm rim depth (with internal nipples as well). They are cheaper and possible lighter than zipp 404’s, but i can’t remember off the top of my head.
Really? I didn’t know that tubeless is slower than clincher. can you explain? and does this apply to the Shimano/Corima system and/or the Stans conversion system?
As for the Reynolds, they don’t appear to be nearly as aero as the HEDs and Zipps due to not having a toroidial rim.
Really? I didn’t know that tubeless is slower than clincher. can you explain? and does this apply to the Shimano/Corima system and/or the Stans conversion system?
As for the Reynolds, they don’t appear to be nearly as aero as the HEDs and Zipps due to not having a toroidial rim.
Well technically nearly all wheels are toroidal (a solid surface revolved about a center axis.) Personally I would never buy HED wheels the uni-directional carbon used in Reynolds and Zipps is far superior to the woven carbon cloth in HED wheels. http://www.zipp.com/technologies/composite/woven.php Plus Reynolds uses internal nipples. If anything, I would think it would be a toss up between zipp and reynolds, depending on how much you are willing to spend.
Reynolds and Zipp have structural carbon, whereas HED uses a Carbon faring, which, from my experience, provides a more comfortable ride due to the box rim of the HED providing more flex than the ‘V’ structrual carbon design used by Zipp and Reynolds. V rims don’t flex much vertically under load compared to box rims. For being just a faring, woven carbon is just fine in the HED wheels.
does that provide an adequate answer for comparing HED and Zipp wheels?
Reynolds and Zipp have structural carbon, whereas HED uses a Carbon faring, which, from my experience, provides a more comfortable ride due to the box rim of the HED providing more flex than the ‘V’ structrual carbon design used by Zipp and Reynolds. V rims don’t flex much vertically under load compared to box rims. For being just a faring, woven carbon is just fine in the HED wheels.
What about HED Stinger 6 and Stinger 9 - they look like structural carbon on the pic’s on their website???/
Stingers are structural carbon with exposed nipples. “the Stinger uses three different types of carbon and a unique layup schedule that produces a wheel that is 15% stiffer laterally and 10% more impact resistant.”
So maybe revise that: 23mm wide carbon clincher rim (tubeless unless explained why it’s slower) with HED carbon faring and hidden nipples as on JET wheels but with the aero shape of the Stinger which makes it the best testing wheels available.
Stingers are structural carbon with exposed nipples. “the Stinger uses three different types of carbon and a unique layup schedule that produces a wheel that is 15% stiffer laterally and 10% more impact resistant.”
So maybe revise that: 23mm wide carbon clincher rim (tubeless unless explained why it’s slower) with HED carbon faring and hidden nipples as on JET wheels but with the aero shape of the Stinger which makes it the best testing wheels available.
Mate, you’ve lost me there, don’t have a clue apart from the HED quote what you’re talking about or trying to say. Are you up late drinking or something??
pretty funny. the OP was about a hypothetical wheel that would be the most aero. So I revised my original post with a description of the attributes of the best hypothetical aero wheel. The attributes are from existing wheels. not up late, but it is early and time to jump on the bike.
pretty funny. the OP was about a hypothetical wheel that would be the most aero. So I revised my original post with a description of the attributes of the best hypothetical aero wheel. The attributes are from existing wheels. not up late, but it is early and time to jump on the bike.
Aahhh I get you now, I was trying to think of what wheel your talking about - but it doesn’ exist
23mm wide rim
Why saddle yourself with a wider, less aerodynamic rim than necessary??
23mm wide rim
Why saddle yourself with a wider, less aerodynamic rim than necessary??
Yeah, I don’t really have all the facts but isn’t the Zipp/HED tiroidal (sp?) shape supposed to allow a 22mm tyre to work perfectly fine on a 19mm rim.
And the advantage of a wider up to about 22mm tyre is redueced rolling resistance or ???
I’m not sure if the trend towards 23mm is led by crit/roadies who want better corner performance and comfort??
Should time trial/tri stick to 19mm tyres the same width as rims? Are Zipp/Hed the only to allow a wider tyre to work?
All very interesting.
What bugs me the most is that most of the testing in cycling is done by the companies themselves and their data always supports their product being the best. I’d love to see and updated wheel test. Specifically comparing the various rim depths, dimples, shapes and of course non-spoke entirely composite wheels.
And then discs, that’s another bag isn’t it - what’s the best disc shape???
So many unkowns and the manufacturers sort of benefit from it, they can play on it to entice us to buy their product.
Zipp and HED are using the wider rim and claiming less rolling resistance and more aerodynamics. I like it because I can run 90 psi and have a darn nice ride. There’s plenty of threads on this message board discussing this with diagrams and tests cited.
Zipp and HED are using the wider rim and claiming less rolling resistance and more aerodynamics. I like it because I can run 90 psi and have a darn nice ride. There’s plenty of threads on this message board discussing this with diagrams and tests cited.
I am aware of their marketing claims. I am also aware that the only independent test of the idea (i.e., Al’s) failed to support them.
I figured you were aware of the claims and I’ll look for other threads where you cite the independent research. Aside from claimed aerodynamics, the wider rims corner and ride better and resist pinch flats at lower pressure.
Personally I would never buy HED wheels the uni-directional carbon used in Reynolds and Zipps is far superior to the woven carbon cloth in HED wheels. http://www.zipp.com/technologies/composite/woven.php Plus Reynolds uses internal nipples. If anything, I would think it would be a toss up between zipp and reynolds, depending on how much you are willing to spend.
Actually… per that Zipp link- woven fabric is superior to UNI because it is an “all around” fabric. Usually the 3K/12K or whateverK woven fabric is only used as the outside layer in order to provide some impact resistance as well as a cosmetic layer. It is much more expensive then a UNI fabric- so i would be very surprised if every single layer in the layup of HED wheels is woven.
Zipp and HED are using the wider rim and claiming less rolling resistance and more aerodynamics. I like it because I can run 90 psi and have a darn nice ride. There’s plenty of threads on this message board discussing this with diagrams and tests cited.
I am aware of their marketing claims. I am also aware that the only independent test of the idea (i.e., Al’s) failed to support them.
Whoa, you’ve thrown me now, I’m not aware of those independet tests? Any idea where I could find them. I am about to buy some race wheels, a rear disc and a deep front and would rather save my money if I can and get the best value/performance benefit. It is just hard to make decisions without objection information. The price differences are very significant. And of course the manufacturers have us believe the performance difference is too.
I would consider over 40km anything greater then 15 seconds difference important to me.
Anyone aware of this independet tests??? i.e. “Al’s”