I guess Zipp used to (in marketing at least) claim the title with the Sub-9 and then the Super-9. But how does that look in 2023?
Talking about rear, Clincher/tubeless and disc brakes obviously.
I am eying a Swiss Side 80mm / Disc config for my upcoming Canyon Speedmax setup, but it comes loaded with Zipp 404/808. Opinions on both much appreciated.
T
It would be interesting to see an independent disc wheel shootout with all these top disc wheels instead of relying on the marketing data of each company. Many factors to consider no doubt when saying which one is fastest. I know the Autobahn from Lightweight always interested me but the prices are ridiculous. The ultra rare Dash that is no longer in production but would be a great contender amongst the “greats” like Zipp or SS, or some other little known brands, sure seems like an article worth reading.
Personally, I like the sound the Zipp makes. Pricey as well, but that sound…very cool “Whom whom whom…”
Lightweight and Dash are/were waaaaaay too narrow for modern tires.
Zipp was probably only 1st in marketing spend and less so in speed. Has it ever tested faster than a HED Jet?
Known quantities (fast) on a budget: HED and Flo
Known quantities on a bigger budget: Aerocoach, Princeton
Other’s I’d consider: Revolver, Citec, Roval, DT Swiss, Lightbicycle, Prime, and Premier
How big are the differences anyway, except for fitting (or not fitting) wider tyres? And weight, which won’t be that relevant on a flat course without a ton of switchbacks…
I initially see you point, many discs look very similar nowadays, except maybe Cadex, Flo, Vision, HED, Black Inc - still all have that “bulge” like the Zipp Sub-9 had. I would love HED, if only they would make a true carbon walled disc.
I see many (Euro?) top pros using DT Swiss and Swiss Side.
I initially see you point, many discs look very similar nowadays, except maybe Cadex, Flo, Vision, HED, Black Inc - still all have that “bulge” like the Zipp Sub-9 had. I would love HED, if only they would make a true carbon walled disc.
I see many (Euro?) top pros using DT Swiss and Swiss Side.
Paying mega bucks for a Zipp or DT Swiss disc these days is a joke, particularly when there are so many alternatives at a fraction of the price that would be as fast if not faster.
DT Swiss and Swissside wheels are quite popular in Europe in general (Austria, Germany and Switzerland especially). And then, when people want a matching rear disc wheel, they turn their heads towards those brands. Zipp is still very popular, but then e.g. HED is barely noticeable anywhere.
As for the pros, they generally ride what they’re being offered, not what the fastest would test (maybe with only a few exceptions). There’s a reason why Sanders has HED sponsorship and e.g. Lange has Swissside sponsorship.
Also… if the difference between a deep rear and a disc rear is only about 2W, then the difference between disc rear A and disc rear B is around negligible…
I initially see you point, many discs look very similar nowadays, except maybe Cadex, Flo, Vision, HED, Black Inc - still all have that “bulge” like the Zipp Sub-9 had. I would love HED, if only they would make a true carbon walled disc.
I see many (Euro?) top pros using DT Swiss and Swiss Side.
Pros ride based on sponsors, not what’s best, so I’d ignore that as part of your reasoning.
The Zipp bulge is there because it adds stiffness compared to a completely flat disc. Making it in a straight line like Zipp does is the easiest way to do it. For these two reasons you see many others with the same design (they’re not copying Zipp). The more complex shapes like Princeton, Aerocoach, etc seem to test a bit faster.
HED makes a true carbon disc. The Jet line is aluminum rim and carbon walled. The Vanquish line is full carbon and I believe also wider.
I’m old. I bought a set of 808 rims and had them build on DT hubs when the rims (and 808 wheels, too) were only available as tubulars. JonnyO (former pro and a coach) did a test showing that an aerojacket cover on the 808s was faster than the 900 flat disc. I bought the aerojacket and didn’t look back. The weight penalty was about 150gms or about 1.3 seconds in a flat 40k at 25mph. I continued to use a cover when I moved on to different wheels.
With all the advances in aero wheels, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn the differences are minuscule and the fastest disc wheel may not be the fastest on your bike. Think Hed tri-spoke in a narrow fork. For value, I’d buy a set of the Swiss side 80s and a cover. If money doesn’t matter, buy what you want or what looks best on your bike.
The best approximation is looking at what pro cycling teams use when they go off sponsor brand and either run blacked out or rebadged discs (Ineos and Jumbo have been the primary ones doing this in the past, but other teams have been rebadging other disc wheels).
The common choices for non-sponsor appropriate discs were Princeton Carbonworks, Aerocoach, and Roval 321.
Personally, I have a Roval 321 rim and absolutely love it. It’s insanely light (1015g, lighter than some deep section rear wheels) and has a nice balance of stiffness and ride quality with a wide rim. Only downside is that the brake track kinda sucks especially when it gets hot (braking after a couple turns on a mountain descent led to a fair amount of brake fade and shake), but that’s not an issue with disc brakes (and is a price to pay for a 1000g structural carbon disc wheel). I had a hed jet with an aluminum brake track previously, and while the braking was better, the wheel felt much heavier and more cumbersome compared to the roval, and the ride quality wasn’t better even with the spokes.
Disc wheels are very hard to compare for average people like myself. I have Zipp disc and love it, but I got nothing to compare with, so I ride with what I have. I wish I have access to 2-3 other disc wheels, put them on my bike and ride, so I can compare.
The Zipp bulge is there because it adds stiffness compared to a completely flat disc.
We’re talking about the toroidal bulge on the Sub-9, not the “lenticular” bulge on some other discs? I believe toroidal shape was intended for aerodynamics - toroidal design was the hot aero shape of that era. The Sub-9 shape borrowed from the 808 rim shape of the time - it’s like an 808 filled in to the hub with a flat section. Also the Sub-9 was anecdotally a flexy disc, so if stiffness was indeed the intent, it may not have worked out. I never see track riders use it - always the 900 or the Super-9.
Now toroidal design seems to have mostly gone away, with the “Firecrest” shape predominant. Though plenty of variations out there.
If anyone wants to do a wind tunnel comparison - I’d be happy to send our disc wheel. 
No one’s wheel will be faster +/- “margin of error” in the tunnel.
I remember when the bike companies participated in an unbiased test (including our frame) a few years ago - they all wished they had not. Kind of cut through all the marketing!!
The Zipp bulge is there because it adds stiffness compared to a completely flat disc.
We’re talking about the toroidal bulge on the Sub-9, not the “lenticular” bulge on some other discs? I believe toroidal shape was intended for aerodynamics - toroidal design was the hot aero shape of that era. The Sub-9 shape borrowed from the 808 rim shape of the time - it’s like an 808 filled in to the hub with a flat section. Also the Sub-9 was anecdotally a flexy disc, so if stiffness was indeed the intent, it may not have worked out. I never see track riders use it - always the 900 or the Super-9.
Now toroidal design seems to have mostly gone away, with the “Firecrest” shape predominant. Though plenty of variations out there.
Yes, the point of the bulge is to improve aerodynamics of the trailing edge of the wheel. The tire is round and not great aerodynamically, so having a concave cross section leading into it helps reduce separation at the rear. The leading edge of the rear dics is actually of little concern as it is well sheltered by the frame.
The ideal rear disc wheel shape is lenticular, as in the Mavic Comete track version. This is impractical for a road bike drive side as the cassette needs to mounted far inboards, so the bulge at the rim was designed as a next-best solution.
The Zipp bulge is there because it adds stiffness compared to a completely flat disc.
We’re talking about the toroidal bulge on the Sub-9, not the “lenticular” bulge on some other discs? I believe toroidal shape was intended for aerodynamics - toroidal design was the hot aero shape of that era. The Sub-9 shape borrowed from the 808 rim shape of the time - it’s like an 808 filled in to the hub with a flat section. Also the Sub-9 was anecdotally a flexy disc, so if stiffness was indeed the intent, it may not have worked out. I never see track riders use it - always the 900 or the Super-9.
Now toroidal design seems to have mostly gone away, with the “Firecrest” shape predominant. Though plenty of variations out there.
Yes, the point of the bulge is to improve aerodynamics of the trailing edge of the wheel. The tire is round and not great aerodynamically, so having a concave cross section leading into it helps reduce separation at the rear. The leading edge of the rear dics is actually of little concern as it is well sheltered by the frame.
The ideal rear disc wheel shape is lenticular, as in the Mavic Comete track version. This is impractical for a road bike drive side as the cassette needs to mounted far inboards, so the bulge at the rim was designed as a next-best solution.
It was interesting that the bulged Zipp and Hed discs came out after they tested a Zipp 808/Hed 9 with a cover and found it to be faster.
Lets assume this is correct (not saying that it is not), but it would be fun to see that article describing that and further: Why are they not ALL (Zipp, DT Swiss, etc etc) making the bulge on the discs today?
It was interesting that the bulged Zipp and Hed discs came out after they tested a Zipp 808/Hed 9 with a cover and found it to be faster.
If anyone wants to do a wind tunnel comparison - I’d be happy to send our disc wheel.
No one’s wheel will be faster +/- “margin of error” in the tunnel.
I remember when the bike companies participated in an unbiased test (including our frame) a few years ago - they all wished they had not. Kind of cut through all the marketing!!
Be serious, you are trying to tell me your 1290 gram disk wheel is going to have the same performance as my 800 gram Corima disk? In the wind tunnel maybe, on the road way different, and happy to wager before the testing begins which is faster.
If anyone wants to do a wind tunnel comparison - I’d be happy to send our disc wheel.
No one’s wheel will be faster +/- “margin of error” in the tunnel.
I remember when the bike companies participated in an unbiased test (including our frame) a few years ago - they all wished they had not. Kind of cut through all the marketing!!
Be serious, you are trying to tell me your 1290 gram disk wheel is going to have the same performance as my 800 gram Corima disk? In the wind tunnel maybe, on the road way different, and happy to wager before the testing begins which is faster.
How is it “way different” ?
If anyone wants to do a wind tunnel comparison - I’d be happy to send our disc wheel.
No one’s wheel will be faster +/- “margin of error” in the tunnel.
I remember when the bike companies participated in an unbiased test (including our frame) a few years ago - they all wished they had not. Kind of cut through all the marketing!!
Be serious, you are trying to tell me your 1290 gram disk wheel is going to have the same performance as my 800 gram Corima disk? In the wind tunnel maybe, on the road way different, and happy to wager before the testing begins which is faster.
How is it “way different” ?
Get out your fist year physics book and calculate how much faster a 800 gram weight will get to the top of a 1km/10% hill when compared to a 1290 gram weight when the same amount of force is applied to booth.
If anyone wants to do a wind tunnel comparison - I’d be happy to send our disc wheel.
No one’s wheel will be faster +/- “margin of error” in the tunnel.
I remember when the bike companies participated in an unbiased test (including our frame) a few years ago - they all wished they had not. Kind of cut through all the marketing!!
Be serious, you are trying to tell me your 1290 gram disk wheel is going to have the same performance as my 800 gram Corima disk? In the wind tunnel maybe, on the road way different, and happy to wager before the testing begins which is faster.
How is it “way different” ?
Get out your fist year physics book and calculate how much faster a 800 gram weight will get to the top of a 1km/10% hill when compared to a 1290 gram weight when the same amount of force is applied to booth.
Ok, let me turn to page 113.
On flat at 40km/h you it will cost .490 * 9.81 * .004 * 11.11 = .21 watts. in rolling resistance…yawn
On a 4% incline, at say 30km/h, 1km = .490 * 9.81 * 40m = 192joules / 120s = 1.6 watts…yawn…you get some of that on the way down, btw
I guess you were doing the TT on the Planche des belles filles.
Carry on