I'm considering getting a set of Zipp or Bontrager Aeolus D3 carbon tubies - these have rim widths in the neighborhood of 27mm. I took a look at my fork and existing wheels: rims are 20mm wide, and by eyeballing, I'd say there's about 5-8mm of space between the outsides of the rims and the insides of the fork legs (as well as between the rims sides and chainstays at their closest proximity). This is to say that my fork's legs are about 30-36mm apart (I don't have a proper pair of calipers to measure at the moment).

We all know about wheel flex, which is why we need to leave enough space between the brake pads to clear this movement, so I'm curious as to what people have found, from personal experience, when using rims that are around 27mm wide with forks and chainstays that only offer about 30-36mm, and if any rubbing occurs from the flex during hard efforts?

Thanks in advance.

If the wheels flexed you'd notice at the pads first.. And I can confirm both the 3d3 and 5d3 do not flex noticeably.
This is relative to he'd setinger 4's he'd Ardennes, mavic kysiriums ...

All in all you are unlikely to have an issue with frame or fork rub...

I learned the hard way that the new generation of zipp 303 tubulars (firecrest) do cause frame rub issues on some frames. I have a set that sat in the garage all year because they rub on my the chainstays of my Tarmac under heavy accelerations. Zipp has since admitted that there is an issue and now they have a disclaimer on their 303 page. I tried contacting Bontrager about this as I considered replacing my 303s with a set of D5s, but Bontrager never responded.

What year Tarmac? Also what year did this start with Zipp?

Yeah, I've got a Tarmac (1st gen) as well ...
I did notice on the current Zipp website that the 404 firecrest tubies are slightly narrower overall compared to the 303s - since I remember seeing some pics of Venges and Tarmac SL3s/SL4s with 404s on, maybe these JUST clear our Specialized frames? And the 303s are maybe the only problems?

I think it's with the Firecrest series that they got REALLY wide.

2010 Tarmac. The issue is with the 2012 "firecrest" wheels. I previously had the 2011 303s and they fit fine. I received the 303 firecrest as warrenty replacements for the 2011 set and was no longer able to use them in my frame.

I have an 09 Tarmac, so I guess no FC wheels for me

Seems like it's the 303 FCs (at nearly 29mm wide) that are the main culprit. The 404 FCs are narrower at 27.1mm, which might be ok. I think only a visit to our respective LBS's will confirm for us. I spoke with a Zipp rep, and he said there needs to be a min 3mm clearance on each side of the rim to accommodate wheel flex. Tried asking Specialized about Zipp + Tarmac/Venge but they haven't responded yet, although I saw on another forum thread that a rep said their frames are designed with mainly the 404 in mind.

The 303s specifically with Specialized, Venge and Tarmac have had some minor rubbing issues. The profile of the 404 and widest part apparently hasn't been the problem. I believe that was the rear chain stays only. Haven't heard of any front fork rubbing anywhere.

I think we will see the frame makers have to make some new molds, or just say, sorry folks, your wheels will rub on our frame until we decide to spend $10K on some new molds to accommodate the wider profile wheels.

Progress must move forward!

I think the Zipp solution is to run a 606 setup. 404 Rear, 303 Front. Shouldn't be a problem with Specialized at least.

I have a Scott Foil, I also have 303 FCs...no problems.

The Zipp 606 is an 808 rear with a 404 front. I don't think Zipp has formally sold the 343 set up in a whilembut it's a popular setup with my customers. It's a great set up for smaller guys or people that want the smallest amount of feedback on the front end.

Any people (besides shadwell above) who've tried the Aeolus D3 series wheels on their (older) frames and had any rubbing issues? They're 27mm wide - that magical number for all the new rim profiles coming out.

But older model Zipps are fine? Like 2010 303s would be a ok?