2016 Zipp 202 FC Clinchers vs. Enve Smart 3.4 CCL
Moderator: robbosmans
If I had to build the wheels over again I wouldn't use the 240 hub. Don't get me wrong, it's a solid reliable hub but the rear wheel would be better on hub with wider flanges like WI T11 or CK R45. But that said the wheel is fine and I have many many miles on them.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
rmerka wrote:If I had to build the wheels over again I wouldn't use the 240 hub. Don't get me wrong, it's a solid reliable hub but the rear wheel would be better on hub with wider flanges like WI T11 or CK R45. But that said the wheel is fine and I have many many miles on them.
Care to elaborate on the part about wider flanges? Tks
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
The further you can push the non drive side flange away from the center of the hub the stiffer you're rear wheel will be laterally. It's a balance though, you can't go too far or the spokes will lose too much tension because you have to balance against the necessarily steep drive side. Think of the wheel as a right triangle with the hypotenuse being a line from the flange to the nipple and the right angle at the hub. DT 240 errs on the side of even tension balance over stiffness of the wheel.
rmerka wrote:The further you can push the non drive side flange away from the center of the hub the stiffer you're rear wheel will be laterally. It's a balance though, you can't go too far or the spokes will lose too much tension because you have to balance against the necessarily steep drive side. Think of the wheel as a right triangle with the hypotenuse being a line from the flange to the nipple and the right angle at the hub. DT 240 errs on the side of even tension balance over stiffness of the wheel.
Tks for explaining. Cheers
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:49 am
spandexboy817 wrote:I wouldn't get the 3.4s. I would get the new revised 4.5s. They have a crazy redesigned brake track that is just just just coming out and are amazing. Just got myself a set last week and LOVE them. Super stable, stiff, and spin up real fast. I have them laced to dt240s and carbon clinchers
Sorry, am I understanding this correctly...did ENVE make a running change to the 4.5 whereby they have now incorporated the brake track from the 2.2 rims? Because originally, the 4.5 brake track was not the same as the cross checked / raised 2.2 brake track. This message makes it seem like they are the same now?
nohands wrote:how's the side to side play on the 3.4s? I have the classic 45 (with r45 hubs) and there's a little bit of lateral play.
I have no side to side with my 3.4 with extralite hubs.. slight play in my rear 6.7 with CK R45's
2024 BMC TeamMachine R
2018 BMC TImeMachine Road
2002 Moots Compact-SL
2019 Parlee Z0XD - "classified"
2023 Pivot E-Vault
2018 BMC TImeMachine Road
2002 Moots Compact-SL
2019 Parlee Z0XD - "classified"
2023 Pivot E-Vault
If you don't care about aero then I would suggest building up a really light set of aluminum clinchers and saving yourself a lot money while getting improved braking. A rim like the Pacenti SL23 with cx-rays and 240s hubs will be around 1400g in a 20/24 build.
For overall speed the 3.4 will be better since they are gonna be a little more aero... Even for climbing you can sacrifice a little weight for better aerodynamics, I would be looking at something at least 40mm deep like the Roval CLX 40s which come in at 1395 g (vs. 1450 for 202) and are a bit deeper. The Enve 4.5 set is just north of 1500g and is 48/55mm deep, which should offer great aerodynamics for a 50g weight penalty. Other more aero options are the Bora one 50s (1485g) and Bontrager Aeolus 5s (1440g) which are both 50mm deep and should offer significant aero gains without a penalty on weight. Deeper rims can be a little more precarious to descend on (due to catching crosswinds), so if that bothers you I would suggest going closer to 40mm than 50mm.
For overall speed the 3.4 will be better since they are gonna be a little more aero... Even for climbing you can sacrifice a little weight for better aerodynamics, I would be looking at something at least 40mm deep like the Roval CLX 40s which come in at 1395 g (vs. 1450 for 202) and are a bit deeper. The Enve 4.5 set is just north of 1500g and is 48/55mm deep, which should offer great aerodynamics for a 50g weight penalty. Other more aero options are the Bora one 50s (1485g) and Bontrager Aeolus 5s (1440g) which are both 50mm deep and should offer significant aero gains without a penalty on weight. Deeper rims can be a little more precarious to descend on (due to catching crosswinds), so if that bothers you I would suggest going closer to 40mm than 50mm.
What about tubs for the mountains. It is where their attributes put clinchers in the shade most emphatically.
The options you're looking at are nice, though if I was in the market for carbon clinchers I'd be looking at the new offerings from Fulcrum. Generally a lot cheaper than Zipp and ENVE and given how good Fulcrum/Campag hoops are, likely to be at least as solid.
The options you're looking at are nice, though if I was in the market for carbon clinchers I'd be looking at the new offerings from Fulcrum. Generally a lot cheaper than Zipp and ENVE and given how good Fulcrum/Campag hoops are, likely to be at least as solid.
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!!
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!!