Page 1 of 1

2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:05 pm
by NYCPrynne
I had originally thought that the big difference between the 2012 and 2013 303 Firecrest Clincher models was that the SRAM/Shimano cassette compatability was 10 versus 11-speeds respectively. However, it seems, when looking at online shops, that some of the 2012 models are billed as 11-speed compatible. Also, the 2013 is a 23 grams lighter.....insignificant, yet I wonder why?

Does anyone know if I am wrong with what I seem to be seeing on the various sites?

Re: 2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:10 am
by wpccrunner
the 2013 has a new hub design.

2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:13 am
by MikeMiranda
2013 also has a higher spoke count

Re: 2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:24 am
by RichTheRoadie
2013 is the same spoke count as Zipp has been for ages - 18h front, 24h rear.

Re: 2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:42 pm
by NYCPrynne
These small incremental changes and what are hopefully improvements are welcome, but it is getting almost as bad as computer and mobile phone manufacturers. This brings to mind Adobe's and Window's incessant and constant "upgrades," but at least those are sent out free to all people that have bought the products.

Re: 2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:14 am
by Zigmeister
Well, they put a lot of time and money into the current design, and it is still top notch. So they need to recoup money until they can come up with something significantly better to make the investment in molds that make financial sense.

I welcome hub redisgn and improvements. I just dont get the whole micro adjustment for the hubs/ wheels. My rear hub rim has play back and forth even tightening it up past recommended tension. Albeit just slight, still makes me wonder why????. Bearing and hub play should be somethng not allowed IMO in a hub.

Im just waiting for my rear hub to die so I can have them strung up better hubs. Rims are fantastic, rear hub is just suspect IMHO.

Re: 2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:35 am
by tetonrider
Zigmeister wrote:I just dont get the whole micro adjustment for the hubs/ wheels. My rear hub rim has play back and forth even tightening it up past recommended tension. Albeit just slight, still makes me wonder why????. Bearing and hub play should be somethng not allowed IMO in a hub.

Im just waiting for my rear hub to die so I can have them strung up better hubs. Rims are fantastic, rear hub is just suspect IMHO.

zipp hubs are pretty darn great. any honest wheelbuilder will confess this to be true.

there is a great deal written about ply in zipp hubs (when unloaded) -- it's intentional and part of their design philosophy. a quick google search should turn up some good reading. you may disagree with them, but it's done for a reason.

2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:22 pm
by drmutley
tetonrider wrote:
Zigmeister wrote:I just dont get the whole micro adjustment for the hubs/ wheels. My rear hub rim has play back and forth even tightening it up past recommended tension. Albeit just slight, still makes me wonder why????. Bearing and hub play should be somethng not allowed IMO in a hub.

Im just waiting for my rear hub to die so I can have them strung up better hubs. Rims are fantastic, rear hub is just suspect IMHO.

zipp hubs are pretty darn great. any honest wheelbuilder will confess this to be true.

there is a great deal written about ply in zipp hubs (when unloaded) -- it's intentional and part of their design philosophy. a quick google search should turn up some good reading. you may disagree with them, but it's done for a reason.

pretty darn great? Really?!
I don't see too many people getting wheels built up with 188 hubs? Is there a reason why they don't, and choose CK, Alchemy, WI, or DTS hubs instead?

Re: 2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:48 pm
by NGMN
The lack of use of Zipp hubs aftermarket, in my mind is probably more related to these things than quality:
1. price is high
2. you are stuck with straight pull spokes, which isn't a huge thing but limits you pretty much to CX Rays
3. front hub doesn't have a 20 hole option
4. rear doesn't have a 28 hole option

I agree with Tetonrider, they are nice hubs at a good weight. Maybe not the best and maybe require a little more care but when you consider the company they are with they are expecially good: they stack up well to Mavic but are lighter, and are better than Hed. Enve doesn't make hubs.

Very few (performance) wheel companies that are big in the market are making their own hubs or making them as well as Zipp.

Re: 2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:40 pm
by Philbar72
[quote="tetonrider"]zipp hubs are pretty darn great. any honest wheelbuilder will confess this to be true.

[quote]

Absolutely not true. getting both hubs rebuilt with decent hubs.... the zipp hubs are terrible! replace rear with dura ace and front with chris king and be able to sleep at night. being ultra light and bling is one thing but when you have to constantly adjust them, thats another thing!

Re: 2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:22 pm
by GT56
NYCPrynne wrote:I had originally thought that the big difference between the 2012 and 2013 303 Firecrest Clincher models was that the SRAM/Shimano cassette compatability was 10 versus 11-speeds respectively. However, it seems, when looking at online shops, that some of the 2012 models are billed as 11-speed compatible. Also, the 2013 is a 23 grams lighter.....insignificant, yet I wonder why?

Does anyone know if I am wrong with what I seem to be seeing on the various sites?


as far as i know, are the 2012 ones 10 speed, can be converted to 11 with another freewheel body and a re-dish

2013 is 11 speed

Re: 2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:57 pm
by ajh
other than the cassette there is no difference between 2012 and 2013. It is not cheap to convert a 2012 to 11spd shimano as you have to send to wheelbuilder or other Zipp authorized center for this.

if a 12 is labelled as 11spd I would verify first as perhaps is it a typo or a late 12 model that got the new hub,

14's have the new v9 hub which has virtual 3 cross on both sides of the hub and also has larger bearings that no longer float and clunk when not loaded.

Re: 2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:51 pm
by FredBloggs
drmutley wrote:
tetonrider wrote:
Zigmeister wrote:I just dont get the whole micro adjustment for the hubs/ wheels. My rear hub rim has play back and forth even tightening it up past recommended tension. Albeit just slight, still makes me wonder why????. Bearing and hub play should be somethng not allowed IMO in a hub.

Im just waiting for my rear hub to die so I can have them strung up better hubs. Rims are fantastic, rear hub is just suspect IMHO.

zipp hubs are pretty darn great. any honest wheelbuilder will confess this to be true.

there is a great deal written about ply in zipp hubs (when unloaded) -- it's intentional and part of their design philosophy. a quick google search should turn up some good reading. you may disagree with them, but it's done for a reason.

pretty darn great? Really?!
I don't see too many people getting wheels built up with 188 hubs? Is there a reason why they don't, and choose CK, Alchemy, WI, or DTS hubs instead?


Off topic but.....Alchemy. If you live in a climate that has any significant amount of rainfall stay away from them. They are a bloody waste of time and money. Zero seals, which in turn means that the bearings need to be replaced so often I have lost count. Seriously, if I had bought this item (front hub) from the UK I would have reported them to trading standards.

And as for the ZIPP 188 rear hub....hmmm I weigh 58kg and can make my 202 rear flex. Chris King, Hope, Royce, DA, DT Swiss, tell me, how many of them have play built into them.

Re: 2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:13 am
by Doolop
tetonrider wrote:zipp hubs are pretty darn great. any honest wheelbuilder will confess this to be true.


Just want to shut this down right now- as an honest wheelbuilder and someone who maintains all too many zipp hubs they are of poor design and do not stack up to even the most average of hubs available today.

Stock bearings are of poor quality and poorly sealed/ wear out quickly in wet conditions.
Zipp hubs have tiny little bearings that that sell under their branding for a fortune where as enduro bearings the same size are available for very little and are of higher quality.
Zipp hubs have lateral movement under clamping force while in the frame.
Zipp hubs are straight laced on the drive side up till the current gen. of hubs- clearly a bad idea as zipp has corrected it with their newest hub.
Zipp rear hub flanges are known for breaking- common on zipp 101s (To zipps credit almost all of these flange breakages are covered under warranty)

In regards to the topic at hand- Zipp will say that a 11s freehub body will not fit on silver 188 hubs. I have done it with a re-dish and it works fine.
All black 188 hubs are compatible according to zipp with 11s freehub bodies.
2012's shipped with 10s freehub bodies and some 2013's shipped with 11s freehub bodies.

Re: 2012 versus 2013 zipp 303 firecrest clincher

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:55 pm
by NYCPrynne
Doolop wrote:
tetonrider wrote:zipp hubs are pretty darn great. any honest wheelbuilder will confess this to be true.


Just want to shut this down right now- as an honest wheelbuilder and someone who maintains all too many zipp hubs they are of poor design and do not stack up to even the most average of hubs available today.

Stock bearings are of poor quality and poorly sealed/ wear out quickly in wet conditions.
Zipp hubs have tiny little bearings that that sell under their branding for a fortune where as enduro bearings the same size are available for very little and are of higher quality.
Zipp hubs have lateral movement under clamping force while in the frame.
Zipp hubs are straight laced on the drive side up till the current gen. of hubs- clearly a bad idea as zipp has corrected it with their newest hub.
Zipp rear hub flanges are known for breaking- common on zipp 101s (To zipps credit almost all of these flange breakages are covered under warranty)


Is this true, even with the more recent V8 and V9 versions of the rear hubs?