mavic carbone vs zipp 404?

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

Moderator: robbosmans

rohaimie
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 5:23 am

by rohaimie

which is better? how about u guys giving it a vote.?
italian bikes rules!

User avatar
yourdaguy
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:25 am
Location: Southern Indiana USA
Contact:

by yourdaguy

Zipp and lighter too.
For certain parts stiffer is more important than lighter.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



User avatar
mrowkoob
Posts: 1472
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:35 pm
Location: Middle of nowhere, EU

by mrowkoob

yourdaguy wrote:Zipp and lighter too.


I´ve only ridden the clincher models and can say that in that area Cosmic outperforms Zipp. Weight is almost the same for clinchers. Cosmics are stiffer, and more durable since the spokes are connected to the alu rims on cosmic and to the carbon rim on Zipp. My Zipps loosened at the alu rim/carbon area. I´ve read that the area where the spokes are connected to the rims on Zipps may crack easily (never happened to me).

When it comes to tubular Mavic has released cosmic for tubulars but here Zipp wins by far beeing much lighter ( I say this as an opinion having never ridden the tubular models), also since you can buy Zipp rims you can build with other hubs than standard Zipp hubs and reach an "ideal" setup. So if you looking to buy a tubular wheelset (and dont have the cash for lightweight) Zipp seems like a good option.

I comes down to what you´re going to use it for. I live in a flat country where the weight difference is less an issue. I like to "cheat" some times and use the wheels for training. They feel solid, they were "cheap" compared to other "carbon" wheels. So I use them a lot and I dont really worry about them braking (yet). In races they work well, since climbs are short. And the hubs roll really great so I´m a happy customer so far. I´ve owned Zipp 303, 404 and now have the Carbone SL

If you live in a hilly place and are going to use them solely for racing Zipp tubulars would be a good choice (model depending on your weight and riding enviroment) And there are several other brands you might want to look at too like Corima, Campagnolo even Shimano.

If you are looking at clinchers I would get the Mavics as opposed to the Zipps. Mavics are more solid,weigh the same, are much cheaper.

User avatar
Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez
Posts: 2147
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: around Paris

by Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez

does someone have an idea of the price of a set of the new Shimano carbon ?? not the aero version which is a proto at the moment...

marko
Posts: 1323
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:12 pm

by marko

By the listing section, cosmic corbones are almost a pound a wheel heavier than zipp. That's like attaching a bottle of water to each wheel. There is no excuse on this planet for that weight in a carbon wheel. You could weigh 400lbs and cyclocross on wheels that heavy. Any wheels over $500 that cross over 2000g are expesive fly wheels. Zipp has fantastic customer service and a crash replacement program. If Mavic does as well I appologize. If the rim in question is the one not in the listing, it still is too heavy for the price.

Oswald
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:11 pm

by Oswald

marko wrote:By the listing section, cosmic corbones are almost a pound a wheel heavier than zipp. That's like attaching a bottle of water to each wheel. There is no excuse on this planet for that weight in a carbon wheel. You could weigh 400lbs and cyclocross on wheels that heavy. Any wheels over $500 that cross over 2000g are expesive fly wheels. Zipp has fantastic customer service and a crash replacement program. If Mavic does as well I appologize. If the rim in question is the one not in the listing, it still is too heavy for the price.


Claimed weight for the Mavic is 1765, whereas the Zipp is claimed at 1712... Not that big of a difference... More like adding a powerbar to each wheel... Off course, it is also important where the weight difference is (rim, spokes, hub?) As we all know, it makes a smaller difference if the weight is towards the center of the wheels.

The difference in weight of the tubular versions is bigger though.

User avatar
tommy
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:21 am
Location: belgium

by tommy

Samuel Sanchez Gonzalez wrote:does someone have an idea of the price of a set of the new Shimano carbon ?? not the aero version which is a proto at the moment...

They are about 1350euro at my LBS

brian
Posts: 349
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:52 am

by brian

marko wrote:By the listing section, cosmic corbones are almost a pound a wheel heavier than zipp. That's like attaching a bottle of water to each wheel. There is no excuse on this planet for that weight in a carbon wheel. You could weigh 400lbs and cyclocross on wheels that heavy. Any wheels over $500 that cross over 2000g are expesive fly wheels. Zipp has fantastic customer service and a crash replacement program. If Mavic does as well I appologize. If the rim in question is the one not in the listing, it still is too heavy for the price.


The weight you`re refering to is the old version 2003, the 2005s are lighter, they`re not carbon wheels, they`re alu rims with carbon to make them aero.
Attachments
2005
2005
2004 an earlier
2004 an earlier

carbone
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:28 pm
Location: Canada

by carbone

I’ve used tubular Zipps for two seasons and 2004 Cosmic carbones for one season. Here are my conclusions: The cosmics are an extremely stiff everyday bombproof fast wheel. The Zipps are a delicate, extremely light, fast wheel but quite soft.

You can feel every bump in the road with the cosmics but the zipps offer a smoother ride. The tubular zipps would accelerate quicker due to lower rotational weight but they would flex (the rear would sometimes touch my brake pads) so I’m sure I was losing climbing or sprinting power to the wheels. The clincher zipp with additional aluminium rim would probably be stiffer though or a lot of riders choose the cyclocross rim version. The cosmics are extremely stiff (I believe only lightweights are stiffer) and therefore super efficient climbing, sprinting wheelset.

To the people who say that the cosmics are too heavy: I’m a faster climber with the cosmics vs. my ksyriums SSC, explain that? I always preferred the aluminium braking surface of cosmics and the cosmics are significantly easier to handle in heavy crosswinds vs. the zipps. As for drag, the cosmics are more aero since the spoke nipples are located inside the carbon fairing. The cosmics even have a lower drag than lightweights!

I’ve seen the 2005 Cosmics SL but never ridden these. From comparing the 2004 and 2005 cosmics side by side, the Cosmics SL rim seems a few mm shallower (I may be wrong ?) and the spokes are significantly more bladed (wide) than the 2004, therefore these wheels might be a little harder to handle in heavy crosswinds but offer better acceleration due to lower weight.

User avatar
rico
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 3:49 am
Location: Kingston, the heart of UK weenie-ism

by rico

[quote="carbone"]

To the people who say that the cosmics are too heavy: I’m a faster climber with the cosmics vs. my ksyriums SSC, explain that? [quote]

Same here. They are much stiffer than Ksyriums - especially at the back - and the weight doesn't seem to be that big a factor.

I tried the 404 clincher last year and had a 'poor experience' with them. The tub version might be better for racing, but I have LWs for that and really like the Carbones as a tough, aero, everyday wheelset.

rico

carbone
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:28 pm
Location: Canada

by carbone

Rico, I'm curious, are you significantly faster climbing with your Lightweights vs. your Cosmics?

Seems like everyone's mathematical model of weight of wheels vs. climbing speed is based on being completely stopped at the base of the climb and then to start accelerating up the hill but we all know that in real life you carry lots of speed before entering a climb. Therefore the accelration of the wheel is less important. As for rear stiffness and drag, these two wheelsets are almost equal.

Paul_nl
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 4:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

by Paul_nl

carbone wrote:Rico, I'm curious, are you significantly faster climbing with your Lightweights vs. your Cosmics?

Seems like everyone's mathematical model of weight of wheels vs. climbing speed is based on being completely stopped at the base of the climb and then to start accelerating up the hill but we all know that in real life you carry lots of speed before entering a climb. Therefore the accelration of the wheel is less important. As for rear stiffness and drag, these two wheelsets are almost equal.


But in a climb your speed changes fast and has a very big range. While climbing you have a lot of accelerations and decelerations compared to cycling on the flat. So rotating weight is more of an issue while climbing than cycling on the flat.

Lightweights should be a lot faster than carbones climbing an hill.

rico wrote:Same here. They are much stiffer than Ksyriums - especially at the back - and the weight doesn't seem to be that big a factor.


Are the carbones SL as stiff as the carbone 2004?

User avatar
divve
Posts: 4106
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:36 pm
Contact:

by divve

Paul_nl wrote:Lightweights should be a lot faster than carbones climbing an hill.


Two bikes, both minimum 6.8kg UCI weight. One with Lightweights and the other with Cosmic Carbone. You'll find almost no difference in climbing.

User avatar
asphaltdude
Posts: 1231
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 8:39 pm
Location: Holland
Contact:

by asphaltdude

divve wrote:
Paul_nl wrote:Lightweights should be a lot faster than carbones climbing an hill.


Two bikes, both minimum 6.8kg UCI weight. One with Lightweights and the other with Cosmic Carbone. You'll find almost no difference in climbing.


Exactly!
Whow! That's a pretty damn nice garage door!

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



mike
Resident Pro
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 9:42 pm

by mike

i have never used mavic cosmics....i have used 2 pairs of zipps, and no problems ever. however, I do weigh 150 pounds, so if you are much heavier, that may be an issue. i know zipps do make clydesdale wheels though.

the zipps with am classic hubs are light and fast. the 58 mm rim is a little harder to control on windy days, but the 38mm rim works just fine on windy days.

Post Reply