Anyone suggest why the new Zipp 30s have a modest 21.5mm tire bed, when compared to the 101 (23.79mm) or HED’s Ardennes?
I’ve been looking for a ‘wider’ training wheel to complement my 808 Firecrests but felt the Zipp 101 was a little over the top. The Zipp 30 looked quite interesting at first. Perhaps I’m missing something?
I believe you are confusing brake track width, clincher bead width and widest point of the rim.
101s have 16mm bead width, not sure about the 30s, but I’m pretty sure 23.79 is a typo. At any rate the zipp 30s seem to have a typo somewhere in the description as it seems non sensical.
I the Zipp 30 is the previous Zipp 303, so it was developed before the wide brake track trend, whereas the current 101 was developed to take advantage of the wider brake track design.
I believe you are confusing brake track width, clincher bead width and widest point of the rim.
101s have 16mm bead width, not sure about the 30s, but I’m pretty sure 23.79 is a typo. At any rate the zipp 30s seem to have a typo somewhere in the description as it seems non sensical.
While there may very well be a typo in the published Zipp 30 specs I don’t believe it’s an inside width (bead to bead) vs outside width confusion. If you go to the spec sheets posted on the Zipp site for both wheels and compare the same listed dimensions you get:
Brake Track Width (center)
Zipp 30: 20.4mm
Zipp 101: 22.98mm
Max Width
Zipp 30: 21.5mm
Zipp 101 23.79mm
It sure seems like they decided to release a narrower but not traditional 19mm narrow rim. Seems funny with the current trend towards wider clincher rims but perhaps they’re intentionally bucking that trend or didn’t want to compete with their 101 sales. A bit hard to figure out.
-Dave
I believe you are confusing brake track width, clincher bead width and widest point of the rim.
101s have 16mm bead width, not sure about the 30s, but I’m pretty sure 23.79 is a typo. At any rate the zipp 30s seem to have a typo somewhere in the description as it seems non sensical.
While there may very well be a typo in the published Zipp 30 specs I don’t believe it’s an inside width (bead to bead) vs outside width confusion. If you go to the spec sheets posted on the Zipp site for both wheels and compare the same listed dimensions you get:
Brake Track Width (center)
Zipp 30: 20.4mm
Zipp 101: 22.98mm
Max Width
Zipp 30: 21.5mm
Zipp 101 23.79mm
It sure seems like they decided to release a narrower but not traditional 19mm narrow rim. Seems funny with the current trend towards wider clincher rims but perhaps they’re intentionally bucking that trend or didn’t want to compete with their 101 sales. A bit hard to figure out.
-Dave
I’m not sure why they came out with two fairly similar wheels, but for the 30 they say it has a “21.5mm wide tire bed”, pretty sure they meant max width, not tire bed, as that would give a tire bed wider than the outside brake track width.
Anyone suggest why the new Zipp 30s have a modest 21.5mm tire bed, when compared to the 101 (23.79mm) or HED’s Ardennes?
I’ve been looking for a ‘wider’ training wheel to complement my 808 Firecrests but felt the Zipp 101 was a little over the top. The Zipp 30 looked quite interesting at first. Perhaps I’m missing something?
I’m at the US launch now. They told us journalists 21mm width at braking surfaces, 21.5mm max width at the bulge, and 16c ETRTO.
I’m at the US launch now. They told us journalists 21mm width at braking surfaces, 21.5mm max width at the bulge, and 16c ETRTO.
Thanks for clearing that up Greg. I was quite careful to mirror the language Zipp used in the product description on their website, but as this thread demonstrates another round of copywriting wouldn’t hurt.
Back to the substantive point and as Dave_Ryan points out, by both sets of numbers the 30 is noticeably narrower than the 101. It would be great get some insight into that. I look forward to your thoughts on Zipp’s new product in due course.
BTW. Really enjoying your content, especially the how-tos. I always learn something from your articles.
I’m at the US launch now. They told us journalists 21mm width at braking surfaces, 21.5mm max width at the bulge, and 16c ETRTO.
Thanks for clearing that up Greg. I was quite careful to mirror the language Zipp used in the product description on their website, but as this thread demonstrates another round of copywriting wouldn’t hurt.
Back to the substantive point and as Dave_Ryan points out, by both sets of numbers the 30 is noticeably narrower than the 101. It would be great get some insight into that. I look forward to your thoughts on Zipp’s new product in due course.
BTW. Really enjoying your content, especially the how-tos. I always learn something from your articles.
Thanks, glad you’re enjoying it.
To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure why Zipp didn’t go wider. They told us that the reason the 30 is hybrid torroidal (parallel brake tracks) is simply cost - the torroidal 101 rim is very expensive to make. I’m guessing the reason they didn’t go wider is weight - SRAM is super weight-conscious as a company. That’s what a lot of bike manufacturers make buying decisions based on (along with OE price). SRAM wants to get some OEM specification with this wheel. I would personally prefer a wider rim at the cost of a few grams - as I imagine many triathletes would… but, my impression is that their focus with that product is the road market. On our group ride today, all of the tri bikes has Firecrests on them, and the road bikes had 30’s/60’s. The tri editors road the tri bikes, and the road editors were on the road bikes (for the most part).
I think you will find that the Zipp 30 rim is just the old Sram S30 rim. I imagine the hubs are also pretty similar to the Sram S series hubs.
They are not really a cheaper 101. They are a more expensive S30.
I have a pair of S30s and from what I have seen from the Zipp 30 they are near identical. Zipp really should have priced this set around $500.