you’ve got your answer i think, but wanted to point out A) 20mph makes a deep set of wheels very worth it, many won’t ever hit 20mph avg, so don’t think you “don’t deserve” them B) the slower you go doesn’t mean the shallower you have to go, unless you start going REAL slow and have to then worry about weight.
given the way most 808ish wheels perform compared to most 404ish wheels at higher yaws, a deeper front would be MORE ‘worth it’ for a slower rider, not less.
other factor is: are your races hilly- like real hilly- then maybe shallower
deeper wheels aren’t enough heavier for that to really ever matter.
we all want to make this a complicated thing where there is a right wheel set for the course
but really, the right wheel set for the course is 99% of the time - disc rear and deep as you can stand front.
**even savageman. **
if it was raining at savageman then probably go with a weight weenie set =)
damn you for taking away my example. 
“given the way most 808ish wheels perform compared to most 404ish wheels at higher yaws, a deeper front would be MORE ‘worth it’ for a slower rider, not less.”
^^that’s sorta what I was trying to say, and failed to (big surprise). a “slower” rider (20, 25mph) will not be hurt riding a deeper wheel than a “faster” rider (22, 30mph). faster you go the more you benefit from aero overall? but it’s not like the “slower” rider won’t get a benefit from riding an 808ish vs. a 404ish (and you bring up the point that they will benefit MORE). That;s what I was trying to say.
and by really slow I meant like 6mph- more of a hypothetical than a real thing.
My only question is if you race hillier courses wouldn’t the 404 provide better climbing than the 808?
yes
the question is - how much
the answer is - a lot lot less than people imagine
analyticcycling.com you can plug in the numbers and get an idea.
slower riders and faster riders benefit approximately “the same” from aero.
in one sense the slower riders benefit more, because they save more TIME over a fixed distance
in another sense, faster riders benefit more because they save a higher PERCENT OF TIME over a fixed distance.
My only question is if you race hillier courses wouldn’t the 404 provide better climbing than the 808?
if jackmott is saying run disc on savagmen, you can’t really get a hillier course, unless you’re road racing. if you’re road racing, then maybe the 404 would be a better wheel for semi-dual purpose? but for me, I’d rather go extreme on either end- get deep wheels for triathlon, and get light (<1300g) 20-30mm deep rims for cycling. Cost more, but then you’re not sacrificing one for the other, considering both can give you big gains in each respective sport.
so instead of getting zipps i’d get something cheaper, like renn or something, and then get some road wheels with the saved $, if that was the case
edit: I should add that I don’t have either really (Jet 6 and HED3 and 1500g road wheels), because I don’t have the financial well being
slower riders and faster riders benefit approximately “the same” from aero.
in one sense the slower riders benefit more, because they save more TIME over a fixed distance
in another sense, faster riders benefit more because they save a higher PERCENT OF TIME over a fixed distance.
that’s all i was refering too, but you’re the expert here, Im just repeating what i’ve read (and understood? debatable )
and get light (<1300g) 20-30mm deep rims for cycling.
hmmm
that’s net uphill. So that might work out in your favor to ride light wheels. Depends on the grade there, and how you expect the race to play out. If you expect to be in a small group going into the final climb (ie doing work on the front) I’d tend to think the deep wheels are worthwhile.
well yeah if it is a hill top finish by all means break out the super light carbon tubies
.
They don’t get a choice between weight and aero. When Pro teams do get a choice, like at the somewhat uphill TT in Utah or Colorado some choose weight some choose aero, and there wasn’t a clear “correct” answer.
Generally you want to favor aero vs weight but both matter and a big weight difference can out way a small aero difference.
Given Cervelos analysis in the Col De Tipping point. Weight savings would be a good idea on that course. They had 200 grams of weight being an almost even trade off for the aero difference between a R series and S3 bike frame for a road course. the course they modelled was hilly but 0 net gain. Given the net up hill if the aero difference vs weight is in the ball park they used I’d go with the weight loss on that course.
I might also come down to strategy. Pick aero if you plan on breaking away on the flat before the last climb then hold on. pick weight if you are going to draft and cover attacks until the ladst climb then attack.
Sometimes its not physics that wins but tactics. Well almost always having better tactical ability will outweigh a small advantage in weight or aero in road racing.