I’m thinking of buying a Mavic Cosmic Carbone SL clincher front wheel for my tri bike, to use in races up to HIM distance. I’m comparing it to a (used) Zipp 404, a HED Jet 6 C2 or something similar. The Cosmic Carbone SL seems like a solid wheel, very aero, nice hubs, well made, etc.
However, in searching the reviews on ST and other sites, there are lots of complaints from weight weenies that it’s “too heavy.” But it looks like the 2009 and 2010 model SL front wheel weighs almost exactly the same as the Zipp 404 and the Hed Jet 6:
Am I missing something? We’re talking 8 grams here. Is there a reason why the SL supposedly feels heavier than other similar carbon wheels? Is there something else that gives it a bad rap with weight?
Like the other manufacturers, Mavic makes even lighter versions of the Cosmic Carbone for more money, and I realize that all these wheels are heavier than comparable tubulars.
Any opinions out there from someone who has one? I like the look of the Mavic, and also the idea of potentially saving some cash.
My wife has a set of the Cosmic Carbone SL wheels and really likes them. They are a solid wheel and ride well (Even on a gravel section of a road race). She had a set of R-sys but after a broken spoke (Note to Specialized Transition riders, don’t put an R-sys in back!) and the recall, our LBS was super cool and switched them out for Carbone SL and some $$$. She could have gone to the carbon spoke version but the idea of anymore carbon spokes didn’t sit well.
It’s not a climbers wheel and if you are a weight weenie you aren’t riding a clincher anyway.
I think of the choices you listed, go with what looks best on your bike. It’s down to splitting hairs.
I’ve been riding Mavic Cosmic Carbones clinchers since the late 90’s. It was 650’s for a long time and now the Cosmic Carbone Premiums in 700 for a number of years- close to the wheel you are looking at. I love them. I have never had trouble in 7 IMs and countless halfs. They are bullet proof. If something was to happen they are repairable. Great hubs. The newer models do not have much of a weight penalty. Always my first choice.
In the spirit of trying to learn more about aero wheels–what makes Cosmic Carbones have more drag? Is it the deeper rim on the Zipp and Hed (60/58mm vs 52mm)? Or is it something else in addition?
the toroidal shape of the heds and zipps allows for a tunable drop in drag an a yaw angle of the designers choice. these company own patents on it that other companies can’t use, for now
Thanks for the responses.
In the spirit of trying to learn more about aero wheels–what makes Cosmic Carbones have more drag? Is it the deeper rim on the Zipp and Hed (60/58mm vs 52mm)? Or is it something else in addition?
I may be mistaken Jack, but I believe that the Mavic has a slight “bulged” profile and is the reason it does fairly well here(2 watts slower than the 404s at 30mph at half the price): http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html
The patent that Hed and Zipp share does not apply to non structural fairings and so Mavic, and anyone else is free to make bulged rims in the same manner as the Cosmic Carbone or Jet. I have a feeling Mavic hasn’t tuned the profile of the Carbone to the same degree as Hed or Zipp.
To the Original poster, the Mavic is comparable in weight to other 60mm deep clinchers.
you might be right, would be neat to see a yaw sweep of the mavic wheel.
I may be mistaken Jack, but I believe that the Mavic has a slight “bulged” profile and is the reason it does fairly well here(2 watts slower than the 404s at 30mph at half the price): http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html
The patent that Hed and Zipp share does not apply to non structural fairings and so Mavic, and anyone else is free to make bulged rims in the same manner as the Cosmic Carbone or Jet. I have a feeling Mavic hasn’t tuned the profile of the Carbone to the same degree as Hed or Zipp.
To the Original poster, the Mavic is comparable in weight to other 60mm deep clinchers.
I agree about seeing the raw data. The one thing that Tour did wrong in my opinion was they “weighted” the data to zero degrees, when we know that a proper weighting would be a bell curve around 7-10 degrees of yaw and going down from there. Though I have yet to see more comprehensive free data then that test.
Also, they use a 23mm tire on all the clinchers, which we know is not an ideal width for most wheels.
Go for the Carbones. Most durable aero wheel on the market. I’m a cyclist with 10000’s of miles on HED, Zipp and Carbones and the Carbones are the best overall wheel IMO. If wheels are sponsor supplied I’ll ride anything. But if spending my own jack it would be on Carbones. Zipp rims are prone to crack at the spoke holes and why most 404’s are rebuilt at sometime. Just look on ebay at the number of new/rebuilt/warranty Zipp wheels usually for sale. FWIW, the net time difference for me of adding 1 watt of drag (Carbones in lieu of 404s) is less than 3 seconds over one hour.
It’s hard for me to say. In a lot of instances the narrower the tire, the higher the rolling resistance, though there are some significant exceptions such as the Bontrager Aerowing TT tire. Also, the narrower the tire(to a point) the better the aerodynamics. (ST user Tom A. put together a great graph which showed the interaction)
Generally the rule of thumb, before the new age super wide wheels, was that your tire’s width should be no wider than the rim you are using. So for a Hed 3 you want a 19mm-20mm, for a Jet 60/ Zipp 404 or Cosmic Carbone maybe a 21mm.
The Bontrager Aerowing TT tire is 20mm wide, rolls well and is actually fairly robust given its weight. However, mine is hard to mount correctly, it takes a lot of elbow grease to get the bead to set without getting the little wing trapped underneath.
As you can see, the best rolling, currently made “narrow”(21mm and under) tires are probably Veloflex Record and Zipp Tangente. The Record is a thin tire though so watch your roads if you use it.
I love my Cosmic Carbone SL’s. Rode on them today. For the clincher, they weigh the same as Zipps and cost half as much. That sealed the deal for me. They do feel more sluggish on steep climbs as compared to non-aero wheels because–I’m guessing–the deep dish has more mass to rotate. Give a little on the climbs, take a little on the flats.
the toroidal shape of the heds and zipps allows for a tunable drop in drag an a yaw angle of the designers choice. these company own patents on it that other companies can’t use, for now
Thanks for the responses.
In the spirit of trying to learn more about aero wheels–what makes Cosmic Carbones have more drag? Is it the deeper rim on the Zipp and Hed (60/58mm vs 52mm)? Or is it something else in
addition?
OH MY GOD DUDE!!! do you train??? or do you just read stuff???
I would definitely not buy the HEDs for the Specialized Transition. I bought the HED Jet 6 and could not use them on my 2009 Transition Pro. The HEDs are a wider wheel and they don’t fit in the narrow profile of the Transition. The spokes actually rub against the bike. I looked at the Mavics. But am a heavy rider and went with the Zipp 404 clydesdale builds.