Page 2 of 2

Re: Zipp 202FC faster than 404FC, WTH?

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:00 pm
by KWalker
Juanmoretime wrote:While we would all like to get sucked into manufacturers white papers the reality is aero wheels will make you faster but within that reality is a handful of seconds saved. To the average person the savings is meaningless. To the serious competitor or someone that earns a paycheck racing their bike its everything.


Most models and drag tests show differences in the order of minutes. Flo's recent light vs. aero test comes to mind- their 2000g wheelset saves minutes over a very hilly course. In reality the weight argument was overhyped years ago before they had decent aero rim profiles and rims were a lot slower than they are now.

Contador was on 303s at Tirreno.

Re: Zipp 202FC faster than 404FC, WTH?

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:25 pm
by hasbeen
404 front and 202 rear. Better acceleration with the 202 which would be great in rolling terrain and crits. More aero on the front where it can count.
I have also felt on very long windy rides an aero wheel on the front loses some of its advantages by being harder on the upper body to control. The constant, though very small, effect on the arms and shoulders must effect overall performance.

Re: Zipp 202FC faster than 404FC, WTH?

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:01 pm
by LiKuid
Maybe a bit off topic, but what would be the ideal tire to get the most out of the Zipp firecrests?
I ve got 22 Contis and i am about to change them, considering the 25 option, or maybe 22 front-25 rear.
Any thoughts what works best?

Re: Zipp 202FC faster than 404FC, WTH?

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:28 pm
by hasbeen
Zipps are best with (clincher) Conti 4000s 23c or (tubular) any 22 to 23c that also has some aero characteristics. The rear doesnt matter so much but a 22 or 23c tire will still flow across the rim better.

Re: Zipp 202FC faster than 404FC, WTH?

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:24 pm
by KWalker
Moment of inertia is often irrelevant, per the slow twitch link posted earlier in this thread. I honestly think the 202 feels "snappier" mainly because it might just be a stiffer build. My 808s felt flexier than my 404s, so maybe 202s feel stiffer than 404s? Either way Zipp hubs and stiffness are terrible.

Re: Zipp 202FC faster than 404FC, WTH?

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:29 pm
by NYCPrynne
While possible, I am having a difficult time wrapping my head around the idea that the 808s are more flexible than the 404. I think that stiffer wheels can sometimes result in flexing of the rear triangle of the frame so that some brake rub occurs. Perhaps less stiff wheels (but still stiff) may be better "tuned" to the frame so that they work better together, with less frame flex?

Re: Zipp 202FC faster than 404FC, WTH?

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:47 pm
by CBRE
I think im not giving the 404's a fair chance as it's been brutally windy here lately, Even a 20mph cross wind makes the 404's feel slower than the 202's. Nicer weather around the corner for a better back to back evaluation.

Re: Zipp 202FC faster than 404FC, WTH?

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:05 pm
by kulivontot
Lol. Nothing like a WW thread where 30 people tell the OP he's dead wrong. I think until you post two back to back Strava runs with full GPS, HR, and power data the mob will not be satisfied

Re: Zipp 202FC faster than 404FC, WTH?

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:04 am
by ras11
Be interesting to let you borrow my new Rolf Ares 4 Clinchers. They are 98% the aero gain as the 404FC, but the same weight as the 202s. Why choose when you can have both weight and aero.

The big question though is whether the numbers = speed.

Re: Zipp 202FC faster than 404FC, WTH?

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:28 am
by rijndael
ras11 wrote:They are 98% the aero gain as the 404FC
Please post a link to the aero data.

Re: Zipp 202FC faster than 404FC, WTH?

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:23 am
by springs
KWalker wrote:
Juanmoretime wrote:While we would all like to get sucked into manufacturers white papers the reality is aero wheels will make you faster but within that reality is a handful of seconds saved. To the average person the savings is meaningless. To the serious competitor or someone that earns a paycheck racing their bike its everything.


Most models and drag tests show differences in the order of minutes. Flo's recent light vs. aero test comes to mind- their 2000g wheelset saves minutes over a very hilly course. In reality the weight argument was overhyped years ago before they had decent aero rim profiles and rims were a lot slower than they are now.

Contador was on 303s at Tirreno.

Flo's areo vs weight article was not a test, and was not test data. It was a computer simulation.

When the pros start using 808s and disks on mountain stages I'll be more inclined to accept Flo's assertions.