Zipp 454 NSW reviews

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
wingguy
Posts: 3739
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

TheKaiser wrote:
F45 wrote:
wingguy wrote:On any other ring drive system there is nothing pushing the rings together when you're coasting, only when you're pedalling.


Do you have an example in mind of a ring drive like this? I heard American Classic has a full disengagement drive but I haven't actually looked at it.


I'd be curious to know what he has in mind too, as King calls their system a "ring drive" if I remember correctly and the seem to have a bit of drag as well, although some of that will be due to their seals, and their buzzing sound demonstrates that there is still a rubbing between the engagement rings when freewheeling.


The CK system works as below with spiral splines pushing the rings against each other when the freehub is driven. When it's freewheeling the rings will still pretty much sit against each other but they won't be pushed together. On the Zipp system their own video posted above shows the magnets constantly pushing the rings together while freewheeling, so you've got the normal ring drive friction... but more. I don't understand in what way that is ever going to function in a lower drag fashion than any other freehub design. It simply isn't any more disengaged than any other design, and there are many more points of contact between the rings at all times while freewheeling than there are with a normal pawl design.

Image

User avatar
bearsdidit
Shop Owner
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:56 am
Location: California
Contact:

by bearsdidit

wingguy wrote:
nemeseri wrote:very weird noise from the freehub

I don't understand the Cognition freehub. Or should I say, I don't think it works the way they claim it works. Spinning the freehub by hand the magnets clearly don't make the drive rings fully disengage from each other the way they're supposed to, and it is much, much draggier than a normal 177 spring and pawl freehub. With an NSW clamped into a slatwall wheel hook you can use the friction in the freehub to spin the wheel up to a good 10 or 20 rpm. With a 177 hub there isn't enough to make it move at all.


I got a chance to ride the 404NSW for a bit and I was blown away by the rear hub. Initially, I thought it was pretty gimmicky, but my butt dyno sensed a big difference compared to a normal hub while coasting and going downhill.

by Weenie


wingguy
Posts: 3739
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

A big difference?

How much resistance is the rubbing of a normal freehub pawl supposed to contribute to a freewheeling bike anyway? Lost in the noise, I'd have thought :noidea:

nemeseri
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:40 pm

by nemeseri

wingguy wrote:A big difference?

How much resistance is the rubbing of a normal freehub pawl supposed to contribute to a freewheeling bike anyway? Lost in the noise, I'd have thought :noidea:


When I first got the wheelset I thought that there was some difference, but since then I'm pretty sure it was just my mind. I'm not saying that it's not working - it might save watts - but I don't feel the difference.

User avatar
bearsdidit
Shop Owner
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:56 am
Location: California
Contact:

by bearsdidit

wingguy wrote:A big difference?

How much resistance is the rubbing of a normal freehub pawl supposed to contribute to a freewheeling bike anyway? Lost in the noise, I'd have thought :noidea:


There was a significant difference when A/Bing the 404NSW compared to a normal 404 Firecrest in terms of perceived drag and slow down when coasting. I guess the next evolution of the test is to do a double blind...

User avatar
rossjm11
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:09 pm

by rossjm11

I have a pair of 404 NSWs and they are not worth the cost difference between them and a set of Firecrest 404s. I got my 404 NSWs around 50% US retail costs by buying from the UK. But still, 404 Firecrests can be had so cheaply. Unless you really need the weight savings, the 404 NSWs just eat up brakepads faster

PERCEIVED difference is minimal. Only in accelerations in race do I feel like I am benefiting at all... So for the majority of riders, not worth it
BMC SLR01 2015
Redline Conquest Team

User avatar
Beaver
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 6:06 pm
Location: Lower Saxony - Germany

by Beaver

https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/01/13/ro ... es-brakes/

According to Specialized's own tests, the 454 is less aerodynamic than the 1.415gr (real weight) Roval CLX 50...

Image

And another review: http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/cate ... iew-51031/

Sample came in 1.578gr sans skewers...

Hexsense
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

Beaver wrote:https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/01/13/roval-components-introduces-wide-tubeless-super-light-clx-50-carbon-wheels-axles-brakes/

According to Specialized's own tests, the 454 is less aerodynamic than the 1.415gr (real weight) Roval CLX 50...

Image

And another review: http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/cate ... iew-51031/

Sample came in 1.578gr sans skewers...

a graph without Y axis scale numbers? so typical Specialized.

User avatar
Beaver
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 6:06 pm
Location: Lower Saxony - Germany

by Beaver

It just looks better without numbers. :) Tour Magazine stated 15 watt difference at 45km/h for a very aerodynamic wheelset compared to a non aerodynamic one (e.g. Aksium vs. Zipp 808). The graphs above will only be a few watts apart. But I like the looks, the weight and the 21c rim of the Roval CLX 50.
Enve also just updated the 3.4 SES to 21mm: http://enve.com/products/new-ses-3-4/

User avatar
Stolichnaya
Posts: 2621
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:55 pm
Location: Vienna, AUT

by Stolichnaya

I am just here to wait for the next Zipp recall...

:popcorn:

User avatar
cyclespeed
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:45 am

by cyclespeed

Beaver wrote:It just looks better without numbers. :) Tour Magazine stated 15 watt difference at 45km/h for a very aerodynamic wheelset compared to a non aerodynamic one (e.g. Aksium vs. Zipp 808). The graphs above will only be a few watts apart. But I like the looks, the weight and the 21c rim of the Roval CLX 50.
Enve also just updated the 3.4 SES to 21mm: http://enve.com/products/new-ses-3-4/


have you seen the latest Bike Radar deep wheel test on Youtube?

They are claiming 40W difference between No1 and No10 wheelset (all similar deep depths). I'm struggling to get my head around that one.....

NiFTY
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:26 pm

by NiFTY

The comboned totals were additive of 5 and 12.5 yaw, as you can't have both together the combined drag difference should be divided by 2. This the biggest difference is 49 w/2 =24.5w saving between best and worst. Still seems like a lot.
Evo 5.02kg SL3 6.77 Slice RS 8.89 viewtopic.php?f=10&t=110579" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
cyclespeed
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:45 am

by cyclespeed

Indeed. Shame they didn't test a basic shallow wheel as a control. Because if they're finding 40w between the same depth wheels, that would imply at least anither 40 over normal wheels.
So 80watts just by slapping some deep wheelson? I don't think so.

nemeseri
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:40 pm

by nemeseri

cyclespeed wrote:have you seen the latest Bike Radar deep wheel test on Youtube?

They are claiming 40W difference between No1 and No10 wheelset (all similar deep depths). I'm struggling to get my head around that one.....


That youtube review is worth a separate thread. 20-40W difference seemed to be insane at first. The test with a real rider was very-very far from being a good test (I believe every test should be done with a pedaling leg/hip only mannequin ala tour mag). Although the reviewer pointed out that they achieved the differences at 30 mph instead of the usual 40 kmph. What is a big difference indeed.

wingguy
Posts: 3739
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

NiFTY wrote:The comboned totals were additive of 5 and 12.5 yaw, as you can't have both together the combined drag difference should be divided by 2. This the biggest difference is 49 w/2 =24.5w saving between best and worst. Still seems like a lot.

Incorrect. At 5 degrees of yaw alone, the claimed gap from best to worst at that angle was 37w.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post