Zipp 404 Firecrest Carbon Clincher versus Mad Fiber Clincher

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Post Reply
wallyh2
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:39 pm

by wallyh2

I had my new wheelset narrowed down to these two. At claimed weights of 1561 and 1250 grams respectively, I was really on the fence. I weighed both and actual weights were 1481 and 1300, again respectively. Still a tough choice but I went with the Zipps. I've owned both the 303 and 404 tubulars and I'm a huge Zipp fan already, so familiarity definitely played a role. I'll certainly consider Mad Fiber again in the future and I'll bet we see some great surprises from them as well as continuing evolution from Zipp and Enve. It seems to be the Golden Age of wheels.

by Weenie


billspreston
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:40 pm
Location: CA

by billspreston

Wow your 404s were 80g lighter than claimed? Anyone else seen this? Any real world weights for a 303FC Clincher? Interested as I'm on the fence between 404 and 303 clinchers. I wonder if Zipp is claiming the 404s are heavier than they really are so they don't step on the 303s toes when comparing specs.

I would have picked the Zipp's over the MFs as well in your position, especially with the Zipps coming 80g under and the MFs coming 50g over.

roca rule
Posts: 678
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:23 am
Location: so. cal.

by roca rule

They are different wheels
If you value aero qualities then the zipp
Its for you.
If you value stiffness the madfibers are for you.
The zipp are more aero, but the madfibers are lighter, stiffer, and have better hubs.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

motorthings
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:56 pm

by motorthings

billspreston wrote:Wow your 404s were 80g lighter than claimed? Anyone else seen this? Any real world weights for a 303FC Clincher? Interested as I'm on the fence between 404 and 303 clinchers. I wonder if Zipp is claiming the 404s are heavier than they really are so they don't step on the 303s toes when comparing specs.



665g front 2012 303 fc clincher
795g rear 2012 303 fc clincher

sans rimstrip and skewer

upside
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:26 am
Location: USA

by upside

Man, at those weights why are you spending so much money on bling. If you want carbon wheels, tubular is the only way to gain any benefit for your money spent. Just one man's opinion.

wallyh2
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:39 pm

by wallyh2

Yes, I agree. Zipp 404 tubulars are lighter and cheaper. Seemingly a no-brainer. I rode them last summer and loved them but I got a flat far from the car that my sealant wouldn't fix. I generally have nobody to call for a ride either. I know, no big deal. I'll give up the performance though, for being able to pop in a tube and finish my ride. Obviously just my opinion, and I still question it myself. I still haven't returned my Mad Fibers though and now I'm wondering about the Zipp/Mad Fiber thing again, The Mads are just so light. I'm bad at decisions

by Weenie


da123
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:42 am

by da123

My Zipp 303 tubs (2011, not FC) came in at 1137 against a claimed 1181, so maybe they do err on the conservative side (would be pretty much a first I know...)

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post