1557g total weight vs 1658g for the zipp 404 aluminum clincher. How does the strength compare (and how does it compare to the tubular 404)? And the aerodynamics?
Seems like the new 404 carbon clincher uses a wider rim: what would be the recommended tire width for these wheels (compared to what is recommended for the 404 aluminum clincher?
404cc is faster than even the tubie. The other major thing I noticed is that it is a lot stiffer laterally as well as stronger.
You can use down to a 21mm tire. I am using 23s, which give a really nice ride.
What would be the recommended tire width (what was the rim designed around for best aerodynamics)? Also, what tests have been done to compare the strengths of all 3 wheels? And how have the wheels been tested in the wind tunnel?
Seems like it comes down to:
404 Tubular: lightest wheel, tubular tire (better cornering characteristics? better flatting behavior? i.e. still able to ride the wheel when flat… might appeal better to pros and bike racers)
404 Carbon Clincher: convenience of a clincher, saves 100g over al clincher, better ride (wider tire; does it compare with ride characteristics of tubulars?)
404 Al Clincher: Ultimate in strength, convenience of a clincher, best braking characteristics
according to zipp? your testing?
404cc is faster than even the tubie.
according to zipp? your testing?
404cc is faster than even the tubie.
Seeing as how bikescott admitted in the other thread about these wheels that he’s a Zipp sales rep, my guess is that statement is based on Zipp testing to which he is privy…
According to zipp. I have 100 miles on mine and they FEEL fast, but so do the al clincher and tubie. No power data on that ride, and my personal wind tunnel has a problem with its flux capacitor.
21 is optimal, 23 a close 2nd. You can read about zipp’s wind tunnel protocol on the website, I am posting from my phone or I would post a link.
According to zipp’s aero edge flyer, they are 2 seconds faster than the tubie.
Exactly. Definitely not trying to hide my affiliation with zipp or any of the other companies I represent.
1557g total weight vs 1658g for the zipp 404 aluminum clincher. How does the strength compare (and how does it compare to the tubular 404)? And the aerodynamics?
Seems like the new 404 carbon clincher uses a wider rim: what would be the recommended tire width for these wheels (compared to what is recommended for the 404 aluminum clincher?
Guo, you are an engineer, and you wrote just “strength”? Seriously? 
What do you want to know? Impact strength for each wheel? The standard test their is to drop a weight on the rim from a height. But there is also the Zipp “bump” test, where it hits a bump (of various sizes) on a testing drum. So lots of different options for measuring strength…
Is strength not a technical term? Maybe impact-resistance? Although that doesn’t sound technical enough to me either. At least fatigue doesn’t come into play for carbon… I’m not an engineer; I’m a biologist. q= I just so happened to have an interest in bicycle stuff (worked with Mark Cote in the MIT wind tunnel my freshman year before I decided to focus on more biology-related research).
Yeah, whatever test that would best simulate hitting a pothole. I’m paranoid after cracking both front and rear zipp 404 tubular rims (pre-dimpled) on the same pothole during a race.
Is strength not a technical term? Maybe impact-resistance? Although that doesn’t sound technical enough to me either. At least fatigue doesn’t come into play for carbon… I’m not an engineer; I’m a biologist. q= I just so happened to have an interest in bicycle stuff (worked with Mark Cote in the MIT wind tunnel my freshman year before I decided to focus on more biology-related research).
Yeah, whatever test that would best simulate hitting a pothole. I’m paranoid after cracking both front and rear zipp 404 tubular rims (pre-dimpled) on the same pothole during a race.
Ah… impact strength then.
Honestly, the weight numbers for the 404 carbon clinchers are disappointing in the context of the current 404 al clinchers… if the al clinchers are indeed stronger, I would have them over carbon clinchers; cheaper, only a 100g weight penalty, and I can still use regular brake pads.
have a listen … josh talks about impact strength, stiffness, and comparisons to 404 Tu and 404 Alum Cl
Carbon Clincher ZippCast:
http://www.zipp.com/_media/zippcast/100507_Zippcast_0079.mp3
Ah… impact strength then.
Honestly, the weight numbers for the 404 carbon clinchers are disappointing in the context of the current 404 al clinchers… if the al clinchers are indeed stronger, I would have them over carbon clinchers; cheaper, only a 100g weight penalty, and I can still use regular brake pads.
100g PER WHEEL
Really?
Carbon Clincher: Total Weight 1557g
Aluminum Clincher: Total Weight 1658g
From Zipp’s website…
Really?
Carbon Clincher: Total Weight 1557g
Aluminum Clincher: Total Weight 1658g
From Zipp’s website…
My bad. I had an early prototype wheelset that was a bit different wrt to rim shape and layup that was lighter but not as aerodynamic.
PS: Zipp also errs on the high end of wheel weights. And there’s about 50g/hoop (IIRC) variance from the lightest to the heaviest. So they will put the heaviest that the wheels will be on the site.
That’s one of the benefits of ZedTech; they pick the lightest hoops from the production line to make the wheels.
Rapp,
What is the reason Zipp (or any one else) can’t shape the Al rim to match the new carbon rim? The would seem like an easier problem to fix.
And did you ever get the aero numbers for the 101’s?
Thanks,
Brian
Rapp,
What is the reason Zipp (or any one else) can’t shape the Al rim to match the new carbon rim? The would seem like an easier problem to fix.
And did you ever get the aero numbers for the 101’s?
Thanks,
Brian
You can’t make non-parallel brake tracks with an aluminum rim. Well, you could, but it’d be REALLY heavy.
Didn’t get the exact numbers for the 101, but I think they are published. I did confirm that the 101 and the S30 use a completely different rim (and hub, but that was obvious).
“You can’t make non-parallel brake tracks with an aluminum rim. Well, you could, but it’d be REALLY heavy.”
Isn’t that what Zipp did with the 101, and is the primary difference between the Zipp (fully-toroidal) and SRAM (semi-toroidal) rims? I have seen the 101 numbers published (42 sec per 40K IIRC), but do you have (or can you get) the numbers for the SRAM rims?
Thanks.
Also, nice to meet you in Knoxville over the weekend, thanks for your nutrition feedback.