Reynolds Assaults vs Zipp 101s

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Shinobi
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:05 pm

by Shinobi

Hi guys, I have a choice to make between riding Reynolds Assaults 2009 or Zipp 101 2011 wheels. Which would you go with, assuming you will be climbing and riding flats equally? There are the obvious initial differences, like rim depth and weight, but I'm interested in opinions of those who have ridden both. TIA!

ldamelio
Posts: 201
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:41 am
Location: Bucks County PA USA

by ldamelio

I'd avoid the 2009 Assaults - I owned a pair for a few months back then - they are really just low to mid-level Far East wheels with branding - flexy and one of the worse brake tracks ever. They would rub front and back even when climbing at moderate effort. They also gave me a death wobble shimmy descending at speed (despite being true), that I've had with no other wheels on the same bike, including other mid to high profile carbon wheels. They're also not terribly light or aero and come from the era when melting brake tracks was common. I saw this happen to someone else once (a skilled friend descending Palomar east grade - prolonged descent, not too technical or much braking). They are the epitome of the "it looks good but serves no purpose" poseur carbon clincher. If you insist on an all carbon value clincher, look at Boyd. I think the whole CC genre varies from crap (most) to beta technology (Zipp, Enve) at present. If you need aero and light weight for racing, get tubulars in one of the new wider iterations (Zipp Firecrest/Enve Smart). Otherwise, carbon clinchers look good at a distance, but don't serve any functional purpose. They may look racy on the B group ride, but scream 'Fred' to the knowledgeable (Yes, I was guilty. We all learn and evolve.). If you insist on carbon clinchers, the Mavic line (alloy brake track or the new embedded aluminum in carbon) seem well thought out from a quality and safety perspective and make some sense if you live/ride in a relatively flat area.

No personal experience riding the 101's. They seem like a well thought out design, but seem a little pricey for an alloy wheelset. However, you're on the right path with a wide, semi-aero alloy wheelset. 23 mm rims with latex tubes and good tires come damn close to tubulars for ride quality and make sense from a convenience standpoint. State of the art these days, excepting race day tubulars. If so inclined, you could replicate the 101's with any one of a number of handbuilt sets with equal quality components at a lower price point. There are now a few wide, semi-aero rims out there. Check with one of the great wheelbuilders. Ergott, Zen Cyclery and I believe Justin Spinelli all inhabit this website periodically.

If you're looking at two used sets and this is an 'either/or question', go with the 101's no doubt.

Happy riding.

by Weenie


User avatar
brycerider
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:59 am
Location: Australia

by brycerider

Agree with comments on Reynolds. 101 very expensive and somewhat fragile.

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk 2
N+1 It Never Stops

User avatar
eurperg
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 10:32 am
Location: Finland

by eurperg

Haven't ridden Assault clinchers, but at least my tubular versions are stiffer than Hyperons and have better braking too...

Idamelio: Aren't all carbon clinchers for posers?
Last edited by eurperg on Sat May 25, 2013 4:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

emkod
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 1:53 am

by emkod

If its an alloy clincher your after, consider Rolf Prima.
The Vigor is very light and at 34mm deep more aero than both.
It it's weight, have a look at their Élan.
I use both the VigorSL (road) and VigorFX (track) and am very satisfied.

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)

by justkeepedaling

That being said, the Zipp 101's outperform many deeper rims in terms of aero...

justinn
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 5:34 am

by justinn

justkeepedaling wrote:That being said, the Zipp 101's outperform many deeper rims in terms of aero...


Apparently not the rolf primas http://www.rolfprima.com/techinfo_aero_ ... -alloy.php

I'd second the rolfs, I had a pair and they were great

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)

by justkeepedaling

No offense but I have pretty much 0 trust for rolf's own material. They don't even show a yaw plot or multiple runs, nor do they show any development insight.

I'd put money on the 101s being more aero in an independent test

Johnny Rad
Posts: 1803
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:22 am
Location: Zion

by Johnny Rad

Just to show the other side of the coin, I've happily been on Reynolds Assaults and Attacks for a couple of years now with no issues. Descending (fast with zero "death" wobble) and ascending (slow to very slow usually) mountains in UT and CO, they've stayed true and the brake tracks haven't self-destructed despite my nearly exclusive use of latex tubes.

Then again, I'm apparently just a Fred poseur that's not as enlightened nor as knowledgeable as an earlier poster.

54x11
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:02 am

by 54x11

Shinobi wrote:Hi guys, I have a choice to make between riding Reynolds Assaults 2009 or Zipp 101 2011 wheels. Which would you go with, assuming you will be climbing and riding flats equally? There are the obvious initial differences, like rim depth and weight, but I'm interested in opinions of those who have ridden both. TIA!


Don't get the 2009 Assaults, they are rubbish as the other posters have said. The 2011/2012 Assaults are much better.

FIJIGabe
Posts: 1384
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:07 pm
Location: The Lone Star State

by FIJIGabe

Reynolds redid their brake tracks for 2011. Prior to that, they're a crap shoot. If those are your only options, I'd go for the 101's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Madone 9 https://goo.gl/7UwZpV
Crockett https://goo.gl/f5PdCN
Madone 5 https://goo.gl/cMdyFo

Madone 4, Cobia. I own a lot of Treks.

User avatar
eurperg
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 10:32 am
Location: Finland

by eurperg

Not true FIJIgabe, I have 2010 Assaults (no scrim surface) but braking is excellent with Reynolds cryo blue pads...

emkod
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 1:53 am

by emkod

justkeepedaling wrote:No offense but I have pretty much 0 trust for rolf's own material. They don't even show a yaw plot or multiple runs, nor do they show any development insight.

I'd put money on the 101s being more aero in an independent test


Interesting stance. I'd personally vouch for the Rolf's. Excellent wheelset and much better priced. Additionally, being a smaller company they will custom build to meet personal needs at no extra cost.

I take all company aero claims with a grain of salt. They only ever release favuorable information. Nothing beats rim depth in the end - deeper=less spokes=aero, aerofoil shape assist handling and wind affects.

thisisatest
Shop Owner
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Location: NoVA/DC

by thisisatest

The reason I don't buy Rolf's aero data is because it's way off what every other test has ever shown. When HED says they're slightly faster than Zipp and Zipp says they're slightly faster than HED, and Trek wheels are very close to both, etc..., I can accept that differences in setup or test protocol will skew the results one way or the other. When they all say Rolf wheels (and Reynolds) are noticeably slower, and semi-independent tests confirm it, I have to rule out Rolf's data almost entirely.
...and I've seen a lot of recurring broken spoke issues with Reynolds' cheaper wheels, even after only a couple months. I'm not saying the 101 have a stellar record, but they're still the ones I'd go with.

kulivontot
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm

by kulivontot

I just like the part where a 32h box rim is still 6 seconds faster than a ksyrium elite

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post