Hiya everyone, just looking for a little bit of help with the Zipp beam bikes, a couple of questions:
How much were the 2nd generation 2001s and ltd edition 3001s when they first came out?
Without a seat tube, would it be more aero to have a narrow (20mm) tyre, or a wider 23mm tyre. Rear wheel is an open pro + disc cover, but the option of a bulge disc cover is there so I can alter the width of the rim bed. Have access to vf records, pro 2 lights etc. but obviously clincher
Does anyone have any suggestions for wiring a powertap cable internally, or the best way to do it?
Is it really more aero than a Lotus? As posted on here a few years back. Numbers would be nice if anyone has any. The headtube is narrower than everything I’ve seen apart from a Look 496, that’s got to count for something
the zipp bikes tested to be very aero with a rear disc.
but they tested badly with any rear spoked wheel, traditional or deep. in many cases, they tested worse than a traditional semi-aero frame (kestrel road frame) with the same spoked rear wheel.
I did do a TT on the really old 2001 without the wheelcover on the rear wheel. Didn’t win either, so that makes it feel a bit better I’m thinking that the narrower I get it the better, ignoring rolling resistance arguments that is
Actually I’ve owned 4 Zipp frames. I had 2…like an idiot…I sold them. Rode a bunch of regular frames, including a custom over a few years and sold them all and bought 2 brand new Zipp frames about 3-4 years ago. They had been in storage : )
The Zipp 2001 frames sold for give or take $2,000 in 1996. The 3001 sold for a tad more, as the last Zipp frames ever made.
They tested second to the Lotus in the wind tunnel. But only by a tiny margin. They are the fastest bikes I’ve ever owned. Some of the speed is the frame, but I believe most of the speed comes from the comfort of the design. No moving around since it absorbes any thing the road can throw at you. Its a super comfortable frame. The beam can be preloaded to not bounce at all. I have mine set as hard as it goes.
I’v used many discs with my frames, HED , HED3d, Ghibli, Zipp, Renn and J-disc. I “think” the lenticular discs are the faster ones on this frame. Tests were done, not with the frame in mind, but in relation to Seat Stays, which are lacking on the Zipp. The flat discs were fasster on a seat stay bike since the disc needed to be as far from the stays as possible. The Zipp, on the other hand was faster with the “faster” disc, lenticular, since the stays were non-exsistant.
Thanks for that, much appreciated. I have the beam on my 3001 (naked carbon, no.76 so one of the last few) set hard as well, so don’t notice any suspension, but it is nice and comfy even if I only do 10mile TTs on it! I have been running 23mm tyres (Pro2 Light and Corsa Evo CX) with a disc cover, so lenticular - but will make a bulge disc cover that comes out 23mm about 4-5cm in from the rim and do some testing outside.
I seem to remember a list on here of aero data for a number of frames, including the 2001 and Lotus (was it Felt who did it?) but can’t for the life of me find it
I run 19 to 21mm tires on my disc and front wheel. I’ve not seen that the tire width makes that much difference. I also crank up the psi, too. Seems as though the narrower the tire and the more psi I use the less flats I get. I have 1 Zipp bike for training and one Zipp bike exclusively for racing.
I’m thinking that the narrower I get it the better, ignoring rolling resistance arguments that is