I am currently running the EC90 TT wheelset and I like them but still feel scared to run tubulars even though I have had no problems with flats over the last year.
Has anybody compared these wheels with 808 Firecrest wheels? How do they compare in crosswinds? I know that aero trumps weight so I was wondering how much gain I might see with these on a Speed Concept.
Also I was wondering what training wheelset would be similar in rim width to the Firecrest so I don’t have to mess with adjusting the brakes on the SC all the time.
I’ve ridden both EC90 TT wheels (carbon clincher) and the FireCrest 404 and 808 (carbon clincher). In my opinion carbon clinchers are the way to go, most of the benefits of a tubie and the convenience of a clincher. As for which wheelset, the Zipps are noticeably faster. Not because of aerodynamics necessarily, but due to how they handle in the wind. The FC’s, in both 808 and 404, are much more stable and you don’t fight them in the wind as much. My first ride was in Kona (a demo bike, not on race day!) on the 808’s and they definitely handle more predictably. Staying in the aerobars vs. getting spooked and putting your hands on the bullhorns will be your biggest time gain. I’ve ridden the 404’s as a training wheel set up with no problems at all. I am 5’9" and 155, I would not hesitate to ride the 808’s in ALL conditions. The EC90’s are nice, but the FC’s certainly handle better in the wind.
As for the rim width/brake clearance, I don’t think anything else is as wide, but going with a carbon clincher you could conceivably use just 1 set for training and racing. Or, use a 404 set for training and buy an 808 rear for race day. FYI, SRAM’s new 990 TT brake is also a barrel adjuster so you can very easily adjust the brake clearance.
How do you find the braking to be on the Zipps? Also did you mean the EC90 Aero clinchers, the 56mm set? I find the braking on the Aero clinchers to be really really bad…so bad that I don’t like going down many steep sections because they take FOREVER to brake to a stop, I think the EC90 TT wheelset does a little bit better.
Are the Zipp 101 close to as wide as the Firecrest rims?
I am using the Swisstop yellow pads that come with the wheelset that easton says you should use with them… what would I gain by using something different?
I am using the Swisstop yellow pads that come with the wheelset that easton says you should use with them… what would I gain by using something different?
well, maybe better braking, though those are supposed to be pretty good.
trying a couple different pads would be worth a try though if you like the wheels otherwise.
Honestly I use the EC90 aero carbon clinchers at my training wheels and there are times that I am really scared to ride these on certain streets. You might know more but before I had all these easton wheels I had some Zipp 404/808 aluminum clinchers on my P2 and I feel like they were a little better in crosswinds…would I be correct in that assumptions and would I be correct if I can actually FEEL that while riding the wheels?
Thats partially my reason to get the Zipps or maybe the Flo wheels if they come out if the perform better in crosswinds and maybe as fast or faster than the Eastons.
Yea I do have those but I feel like what I feel is actually worse on the road are the 56mm Aero road version of those wheels.
I wondering if the EC90 TT set is a little better because the slightly more narrow rim profile actually helps more than the standard V shaped rim on the 56mm wheels.
The new Triathlon Germany just tested these deep wheels and found the 808FC to offer 10-30 watt advantage over the EC90 aero, the 404FC offered 2-12 watts advantage, they summed up the 808 like this (translated from German):
ZIPP 808 Firecrest
The high-flyer! With the “808 Firecrest” (available as clincher and tubular) Zipp has developed the currently fastest aero wheel. And that is under most all circumstances. For a long time it’s a head to head race with the previous leader HED “Stinger 9”, but with increasing side wind influences it overtakes it. At that it offers an unmatched handling. No comparable other wheel reacts so smooth to gusts of wind and when cornering, even the less deep rims react more measurably. Twelve of ten points!
The new Triathlon Germany just tested these deep wheels and found the 808FC to offer 10-30 watt advantage over the EC90 aero, the 404FC offered 2-12 watts advantage, they summed up the 808 like this (translated from German):
ZIPP 808 Firecrest
The high-flyer! With the “808 Firecrest” (available as clincher and tubular) Zipp has developed the currently fastest aero wheel. And that is under most all circumstances. For a long time it’s a head to head race with the previous leader HED “Stinger 9”, but with increasing side wind influences it overtakes it. At that it offers an unmatched handling. No comparable other wheel reacts so smooth to gusts of wind and when cornering, even the less deep rims react more measurably. Twelve of ten points!
So- if I understand this correctly- (I haven’t read the article)-Triathlon Germany basically also found out that the 808FC beats the 404FC by 8 (72 grams of drag) to 18 watts (162 grams of drag)? Is that for a pair of 808FC versus a pair of 404FC? To give Triathlon Germany the benefit of the doubt- I will say it’s a pair of 808FCs over a pair of 404FCs (which would be unusual to multiply the ‘benefit’ of one wheel over another wheel). When I pull up your Zipp charts- I just don’t see how Triathlon Germany could test the 808FC as being THAT MUCH FASTER than the 404FC. Did they test it out to 25 or 30 degrees yaw for these extremes? Any insight would be great… I know it’s not your test- but how could they test the 808FC to be that good and the 404FC to be that poor (relative to each other - as compared to your own results relative to each other).
Do the Pro-Cyclists know how fast the Zipps are supposed to be? The reason I say this is that at the ToC Stage 6 TT, it looks like the Mavic Cosmic was the fastest wheel followed by Bontrager. Wait a second, maybe all the wheels are actually fast and the numbers really do not pan out in real life. I say pick what you like, Easton, HED, Mavic, Flo., Zipp, they will all be fast in real life.
Do the Pro-Cyclists know how fast the Zipps are supposed to be? The reason I say this is that at the ToC Stage 6 TT, it looks like the Mavic Cosmic was the fastest wheel followed by Bontrager. Wait a second, maybe all the wheels are actually fast and the numbers really do not pan out in real life. I say pick what you like, Easton, HED, Mavic, Flo., Zipp, they will all be fast in real life.
Sigh…nice strawman :-/
Anyway, those guys all are utilizing those wheels mostly on the left side of those graphs (unlike us average punters) since they go so fast their apparent yaws are pretty tightly clustered around 0 yaw…you know, where the wheel to wheel differences are lower?
But, you are perfectly welcome to continue wallowing in your poorly formed conclusions about the “real world”…
Not to hijack, but fascinating graph - in addition to the question you raise, it would be interesting to know why these graphs look so wildly different (assume the 2009 Zipps are the ones HED used) than the corresponding graph of the H3 vs the 404 at http://hedcycling.com/aerodynamics.asp
.
Not to hijack, but fascinating graph - in addition to the question you raise, it would be interesting to know why these graphs look so wildly different (assume the 2009 Zipps are the ones HED used) than the corresponding graph of the H3 vs the 404 at http://hedcycling.com/aerodynamics.asp
Probably the difference is mainly the tire used on each wheel in each test. For Zipp, they have officially stated that all wheels are tested with 21C Zipp Tangente tires…for Hed, on the tire subject (i.e what particular tire was used to test what particular wheel) we’ve gotten…
I say pick what you like, Easton, HED, Mavic, Flo., Zipp, they will all be fast in real life.
and some will be a few seconds faster than others, which will occasionally matter if you race a lot and are neither fabian cancellara, nor horrifically slow.
if you are in fact fabian cancellara, or horrifically slow…well actually if you are REALLY slow the yaw angles are big so a good wheel could be a big deal.
Just wanted to add that Zipp’s cork brake pads are really good on my 808 FC carbon clincher front wheel (at least in the dry, I haven’t tried them in the rain), so I would choose their cork pads again in a heartbeat.
Do the Pro-Cyclists know how fast the Zipps are supposed to be? The reason I say this is that at the ToC Stage 6 TT, it looks like the Mavic Cosmic was the fastest wheel followed by Bontrager. Wait a second, maybe all the wheels are actually fast and the numbers really do not pan out in real life. I say pick what you like, Easton, HED, Mavic, Flo., Zipp, they will all be fast in real life.
Because you know the drag coefficient of each cyclist on their TT bike and how many watts they were producing, right?
You would need to compare wind speed in real time throughout the course also.
…well actually if you are REALLY slow the yaw angles are big so a good wheel could be a big deal.
=)
Actually… if you are REALLY slow, the yaw angles are big, but unless wind velocity itself is also really high, yaw won’t matter, and no aero setup will help much, wheels or otherwise, because most of your energy isn’t going to overcoming wind resistance anyway!
Not to hijack, but fascinating graph - in addition to the question you raise, it would be interesting to know why these graphs look so wildly different (assume the 2009 Zipps are the ones HED used) than the corresponding graph of the H3 vs the 404 at http://hedcycling.com/aerodynamics.asp
Probably the difference is mainly the tire used on each wheel in each test. For Zipp, they have officially stated that all wheels are tested with 21C Zipp Tangente tires…for Hed, on the tire subject (i.e what particular tire was used to test what particular wheel) we’ve gotten…
It also might suggest that one of the deciding factors between the new HED and Zipp wheels, aside from cost and weight, obviously, is your preference for tire size and pressure.
