HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 5:23 am
Posts: 117
which is better? how about u guys giving it a vote.?

_________________
italian bikes rules!


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 12:43 pm 


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:25 am
Posts: 2188
Location: Southern Indiana USA
Zipp and lighter too.

_________________
For certain parts stiffer is more important than lighter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:35 pm
Posts: 1435
Location: Middle of nowhere, EU
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:21 pm
Posts: 1450
Location: around Paris
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...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 5:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:12 pm
Posts: 1326
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 7:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:11 pm
Posts: 672
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:21 am
Posts: 609
Location: belgium
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 350
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:
File comment: 2005
05carbonemavic150.jpg
05carbonemavic150.jpg [ 62.34 KiB | Viewed 5361 times ]
File comment: 2004 an earlier
4121056.jpg
4121056.jpg [ 20.33 KiB | Viewed 1196 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2005 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:28 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Canada
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2005 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 3:49 am
Posts: 946
Location: Kingston, the heart of UK weenie-ism
[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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:28 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Canada
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 4:35 pm
Posts: 465
Location: The Netherlands
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:36 pm
Posts: 4123
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 8:39 pm
Posts: 1234
Location: Holland
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:53 pm 


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 5:35 pm 
Offline
Resident Pro

Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 9:42 pm
Posts: 1972
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Bing [Bot], hawklongly and 47 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Mavic Carbone Pro Decals?

in Road

addicted

0

491

Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:04 pm

addicted View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Mavic Cosmic Carbone SLE or SLS

in Road

nelson

4

5161

Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:35 pm

ecguevara View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Mavic Cosmic Carbone SL discontinued?

[ Go to page: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

in Road

pdlpsher1

46

2240

Wed May 21, 2014 6:42 am

pdlpsher1 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Removing decals from Mavic Cosmic Carbone SLR

in Road

lippythelion

4

607

Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:02 am

lippythelion View the latest post

This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Sticker removal on Cosmic Carbone SLR's: HELP!!

in Road

bikawright

0

435

Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:39 am

bikawright View the latest post


It is currently Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:45 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB