I am having a hard time deciding which wheels to purchase fro next years tri season. Clx 60 vs. Zipp 404 vs. FLO 60 (F and R) with a rear disc also…Any suggestions???
What are your constraints? If you’re budget-limited, the only reasonable choice from your group is the Flo 60 set – even adding a disc will put you well below the cost of a set of FC404s or the CLX 60s.
Price is not the issue. Am curious about performance.
The FLO’s will have marginally better braking performance, maybe significantly better in very wet conditions.
The Zipp 404 is a bit lighter and very slightly more aero.
Don’t know much about the CLX 60, but it probably doesn’t beat the Zipp in terms of pure aero/weight, nor the Flo in braking.
I’d pick the Zipp if I were doing my big-time A race in known dry conditions.
I’d pick the Flo as an all-rounder that you can use in any condition with very little sacrifice in performance.
The Zipp 404 is a bit lighter and very slightly more aero.
I’m curious to know if this has been verified anywhere. It’s such a popularity contest between brands here sometimes.
I’m curious to know if this has been verified anywhere. It’s such a popularity contest between brands here sometimes.
I may have to retract that. I have a vague memory of what I thought was Flo’s own A2 data showing this. But I can’t find it anywhere, so it may not exist.
You should look at the Reynolds Aero 58 as well. Find a Ride to decide dealer near you and you get a free two year crash replacement warranty and a $100 back from Reynolds.
I rep for Reynolds but the new Aero wheels are amazing.
I’ve never seen any white paper zipp vs. flo.
Put a Aeolus 9 in the rear a 7 in the front or put a “disc” in the rear Aeolus 7 in the front and call it a day
.
I’ve never seen any white paper zipp vs. flo.
Yeah, I’m starting to think I’ve been seeing fantasy whitepapers in my sleep.
No direct comparisons that I am aware of. By looking at Zipp’s own data and Flo’s data you can tell a few things though.
-
you can tell they used different testing protocols, the difference at 0 yaw is too large to be real. One may have subtracted the tares while the other did not, for example
-
the shape of the yaw sweep curve is similar, with drag being minimum at about the same yaw angle on both
-
the amount of drag reduction with yaw is similar as well
I suspect they are real close aero wise. Zipps are a lot lighter.
I’m using the data from aeroweenie.com, data section, wheels.
I’ve never seen any white paper zipp vs. flo.
Yeah, I’m starting to think I’ve been seeing fantasy whitepapers in my sleep.
If price is not an issue, and performance is too close to measure, there is an obvious way to choose.
Pick whatever you think looks best with your bike!
I don’t have the CLX 60s, but several of my teammates do. I ride the CLX 40s on my road bike, and I love them - they’re my everyday wheels now. Almost $1000 cheaper than the comparable Zipp FCs and a little lighter. They also come standard with ceramic bearings and I believe a lifetime warranty (your Specialized dealer can verify that).
That said, I ride Zipp FC 404s and 808s on the my tri bike and am happy with them. They are not as comfy a ride as the CLXs (I rode the 404s on my road bike before I got the CLXs), but it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison since the rim depth is different.
The CLXs are not quite as wide as the FCs, but are still wide enough that I can fix a flat without tire levers. I also feel as though the CLXs corner better on twisty descents, but that’s just my subjective impression.
I don’t have any skin in either company, FYI. Overall, I think the Rovals are a better value than the Zipps, but the Zipps may well be more aero - no idea. In the end, spending more time training on either will likely beat any aero differences between the two.
Thanks everyone for their input. Another question…when racing are their any advantages to running tubeless over tubes? And how durable are tubeless?
yeah tubes in your tires are currently a lot faster than tubless setups for road. especially if you use a nice latex tube and a good tire.
Tubeless tech is just not there yet for road in terms of rolling resistance. at least not anything i’ve seen.
Hi,
I rode the whole year with Roval CLX40 and 60 in the later part. I really liked the CLX40 for climbing and going downhill, super stable and confident with the brakes. I also believe they are better suited to a rider like me (170 lbs) than the Zipp, as I’ve “heard” a lot of rubbing on them when pushing the pedals. I never heard any of the sort with the Roval. This is, however, from personal experience. Don’t have any data to back that up!
Also, I tested the CLX 60 in Kona last October, and they were really stable in the cross winds, loved them!
I’d be interested to know if there is any direct comparison between the wheels, and maybe including the Mavic CXR into the mix, as they were testing them in Kona, and I was impressed by what I saw.
Enve’s are top notch and evrery bit as good as the zipps in my opinion. They also tested very well in the Velo magazine testing (though they were tubulars). The nice thing is the 5-year warranty.
My guess is just about all the latest generation high end wheels from the majors perform similarly In the WT (e.g., Zipp , Enve, Bontrager, HED, Reynolds, Mavic, Specialized…). Where you will notice a difference is probably things like braking performance and warranty.