Mavic cosmic pro carbon SL clincher

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

commfire
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:14 pm

by commfire

Wow. That is a disappointing weight. Does that include rim strips (not that matters much)

User avatar
reknop
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:15 am

by reknop

leungti1 wrote:I just bought a pair of these but very disappointed to find out these wheels weight 1570g vs. 1450g claimed (excluding tires/skewers)! I used two different scales and they show the same weight. Mavic is usually pretty good on weight but these are much heavier. Not sure if the weight comes from the rims or hubs. I suspect they found weakness in the rims and had to beef them up which resulted in higher weight. Anyone has the same issue?


I'm surprised to see that the Mavic Ksyrium SLR are really hard to beat, even for a lot of (high-end) carbon wheels. Their weight 1355 grams ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
https://www.cycling-review.net

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Bluecoupe
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:32 pm

by Bluecoupe

I just received my set of Cosmic Pro's and weighed them with tires and skewers... the front came out to 1110g vs 1080g (DA C35 with GP4000 23mm) and the rear wheel without the cassette but had tire and skewer 1280g vs 1220 (DA C35 also without cassette) wanted to go ride then so I didn't weigh them without the tires, skewers or tubes :lol:

User avatar
mpulsiv
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm

by mpulsiv

wingguy wrote:New Zipp hubs are always coming.They came out this year, they'll come out next year, they'll come out the year after that. Then they'll all be recalled, then it starts all over again :P


Amen.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Racing is a three-dimensional high-speed chess game, involving hundreds of pieces on the board.

:arrow: CBA = Chronic Bike Addiction
:arrow: OCD = Obsessive Cycling Disorder

commfire
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:14 pm

by commfire

Are the tubular version of these due out soon?

cooper
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:50 am
Location: California

by cooper

leungti1 wrote:I just bought a pair of these but very disappointed to find out these wheels weight 1570g vs. 1450g claimed (excluding tires/skewers)!

If I'm reading what you did, it looks like your 1570g included the rim strips. See below, their contribution to the discrepancy is non trivial.

Here are my weights.
  • Bare Wheels (F/R) ------ (657g/823g) 1480g
  • Stock Rim Strips (F/R) -- (24.6g/24.4g) 49g
  • Mavic Skewers (F/R) ----- (52g/56.5g) 108g
  • Mavic Tires (F/R) ------ (217g/211g) 428g
  • Mavic Tubes (F/R) ----- (131g/128g) 259g
My bare wheels (no rim strips) were 1480g vs Mavic's claimed 1450g. So my wheels were +2% to claimed weight.

The main sources of easily addressed extra weight were the stock rim strips, the stock skewers, and the stock tubes. I installed the following:
  • Stans No Tubes rim strips 12g (-37g)
  • Zipp Ti Skewers 55g (-53g)
  • Continental Race Lite tubes 152g (-107g)
Just in those simple changes shaved nearly 200g off the as delivered wheels.

YMMV

MadScientist
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 3:30 pm

by MadScientist

Interesting points here. I have also bought these wheels, and I am very pleased with them compared to the Reynolds assault slg they replaced. Braking is excellent, and they are very stable in wind.

I have two concerns though.

1. Why do Mavic say they should only be used with 25-32mm tubes, and fit the heaviest thickest tubes I have ever seen as standard? Concerned about heat?
2. Why do they insist only a 25mm tyre is suitable?

I currently have them fitted with Michelin pro 4 comps and continental light tubes. They seem OK, but I am nervous! Saved a whopping 186g verified though.

MadScientist
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 3:30 pm

by MadScientist

By the way, I weighed my front wheel at 692g with rim tape.

sawyer
Posts: 4485
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

MadScientist wrote:Interesting points here. I have also bought these wheels, and I am very pleased with them compared to the Reynolds assault slg they replaced. Braking is excellent, and they are very stable in wind.

I have two concerns though.

1. Why do Mavic say they should only be used with 25-32mm tubes, and fit the heaviest thickest tubes I have ever seen as standard? Concerned about heat?
2. Why do they insist only a 25mm tyre is suitable?

I currently have them fitted with Michelin pro 4 comps and continental light tubes. They seem OK, but I am nervous! Saved a whopping 186g verified though.


It's a guess, but I suspect you are right on (1) ... some people buying these won't know what on earth they are doing and no punctures and less heat risk is a good thing as long as the heavy tubes aren't included in the marketing weight number right?

Personally I'd be happy riding them as you plan to, but that isn't a recommendation of course!

Those tubes are LOL heavy jeez
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:

MadScientist
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 3:30 pm

by MadScientist

Well, the Michelin pro 4 comp in 23mm measures up at 24.8mm, so I think I will be ok. Heat wise, don't brake downhill!

wingguy
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

MadScientist wrote:1. Why do Mavic say they should only be used with 25-32mm tubes, and fit the heaviest thickest tubes I have ever seen as standard? Concerned about heat?
2. Why do they insist only a 25mm tyre is suitable?

Mavic are a very cautious and conservative company in a lot of respects. They adhere closely to industry standards from ETRTO - and (IIRC) ETRTO say that nothing smaller than a 25 should be used on a rim that has internal 17 width for tyre fit and security. Obviously a lot of other companies completely ignore this and nothing bad seems to be happening because of it, but Mavic stick to the letter of standard.

5DII
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2014 7:52 pm

by 5DII

Has anyone ridden these and the CC40? How do they compare in terms of ride quality?

Vtrdaz
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:19 pm

by Vtrdaz

Afternoon chaps,
I'm considering a pair of these myself over zipp 303's - does anyone have any more feedback on then?

Cheers

Darren

cooper
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:50 am
Location: California

by cooper

Vtrdaz wrote:Afternoon chaps,
I'm considering a pair of these myself over zipp 303's - does anyone have any more feedback on then?

In addition to the Cosmic Pro Carbon SL-C, I have a pair of Zipp 202 Firecrests with White Industries Hubs. My 202s are ~80 grams lighter than my Cosmic wheelset and while I climb a lot, I prefer the Mavics. In terms of personal preference I'm also liking the stock hubs on the Mavics. They engage quickly, but just be aware that when freewheeling the pawls do make a fair amount of noise (which I find helpful on the multi-use trails when coming up from behind walkers)

The area where the Cosmic Pro Carbon SL-C really shines over the Zipp Firecrest is the brake track. The SL-C brake track is substantially better. While I have seen a lot of positive reviews for the 303 NSW brake tracks, I don't have any direct experience wit them. Also the NSWs are $900 more than the Mavics. So if you're looking at the Firecrests, I'd say go with the new SL-C Cosmics.

5DII
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2014 7:52 pm

by 5DII

can you describe the hub freewheeling sound or compare it to others?

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply