Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    zipp 101 or Zipp 202

    130 Pound rider
    .. and I recently went from williams 19's (1440grams) for climbing
    to zipp 101's (1523grams) because I wanted something for the flats..
    I was surprised at how much faster they are once they are up to speed
    they even surge better in a pack, but, they are definately slower to spin up from a start
    I spoke with the Zipp rep at the local TOC and asked him if
    the carbon 202's (1378 grams) would hold speed as well as the 101's since they are lighter..
    He said that the 202's would hold speed "much" better "at speed" since they are more aero
    than the aluminum 101's, and "because" they are lighter.. which makes me want to buy 202's

    So the questions is.. At speed, on the flats ( say 22+ mph)

    would the heavier 101's hold speed better than the lighter 202's?

    I searched around and couldn't find an answer to this question..

    thoughts?
    aka "Harry Guads"

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,232
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Aero trumps light weight for speed on flat ground. While neither of those is very aero in absolute terms, I'd think the 202s would be better than the 101s aerodynamically.

  3. #3
    Senior Member lsberrios1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Atlanta GA
    My Bikes
    '13 Spech Roubaix SL4 Expert
    Posts
    2,101
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    202s by a country mile. They are also 1500 bucks apart.
    Cat 6 going on PRO....

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    2,232
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd go with 303's if you want a good all rounder wheelset.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    given that neither set is real aero ..
    but similiar in aerodynamics, or is the implication that they are not?
    and price and material aside
    why would the 202's decelerate more slowly if they are lighter?
    wouldn't inertia be a greater influence than aerodynamics in this scenario?
    Last edited by w0lffian; 05-20-14 at 03:36 PM.
    aka "Harry Guads"

  6. #6
    Senior Member Looigi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7,541
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    FWIW, I saw aero test data somewhere for 202 compared to 303 and they were nearly as good over most yaw angles. Forgot where I saw that...
    Ride more. Fret less.

  7. #7
    Senior Member link0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles
    My Bikes
    '11 Merlin Extralight, '98 Dean Castanza, '89 Schwinn Prologue
    Posts
    440
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Go with 404s.

  8. #8
    Senior Member shoota's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    My Bikes
    1987 Trek 560
    Posts
    3,351
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by w0lffian View Post
    130 Pound rider
    .. and I recently went from williams 19's (1440grams) for climbing
    to zipp 101's (1523grams)
    I was surprised at how much faster they are once they are up to speed
    they even surge better in a pack, but, they are definitely slower to spin up from a start
    You can tell a noticeable difference between two sets of wheels that are 83g apart and about the same depth?!? I find that very surprising.
    2005 Cannondale six13 10s SRAM

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by link0 View Post
    Go with 404s.
    This.

    You won't go wrong with any of the wheels, but if constant speed flats are the priority, the 404s will be your best bet. Also keep in mind that outside of a lab, the difference in aero benefits between the 202/303/404s is splitting seriously small hairs. If your riding is a good mix of flats and hills, I'd venture a guess that the lower rim weight of the 202 is going to be much more appreciable than the aero of the 404.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the 19's are alot shallower and the 101's have alot more rim wieght and less spokes

    and more aero

    I was surprized the difference was noticible too.. part of this is probably being so light,

    so it makes me wonder if the difference would be noticible with the jump to

    202's.. but I have a hard time thinking the $1,500 is worth the leap.

    any time I look up Zipp data anywhere... it just keeps coming up marketing speak.

    the real question is ...

    is the inertia from the extra weight going to make the 101's keep better speed than the

    lighter and carbon and "more aero" 202's?
    aka "Harry Guads"

  11. #11
    Senior Member gc3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    DC
    My Bikes
    Now I Got Two
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by link0 View Post
    Go with 404s.
    not!...808s or nothing at all...why half-azz it...
    "I tried being reasonable, I didn‘t like it."

    "I understand. I just don't care"

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gc3 View Post
    not!...808s or nothing at all...why half-azz it...
    Carbon discs all around. You can try sailing it if you get tired in crosswinds.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Jiggle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere in TX
    My Bikes
    CAAD 9
    Posts
    768
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Friends don't let friends buy Zipp.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
    My Bikes
    7 single speed road
    Posts
    3,991
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    go ahead and buy the expensive ones. it's the only way you'll ever know for sure whether it's just a load of marketing BS or not.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    197
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by w0lffian View Post
    the 19's are alot shallower and the 101's have alot more rim wieght and less spokes

    and more aero

    I was surprized the difference was noticible too.. part of this is probably being so light,

    so it makes me wonder if the difference would be noticible with the jump to

    202's.. but I have a hard time thinking the $1,500 is worth the leap.

    any time I look up Zipp data anywhere... it just keeps coming up marketing speak.

    the real question is ...

    is the inertia from the extra weight going to make the 101's keep better speed than the

    lighter and carbon and "more aero" 202's?
    Unless someone is paying you decent money to ride for them or you aren't going to miss the $1500 from your budget in any way, there is pretty much no way to logically justify wheels that expensive. No one is going to fault you for buying toys, but trying to pretend there's another reason to buy them is silly.

    The beneficial inertia from heavier rims is a misnomer. If it was true, you'd go out with rims that weighed a ton, get them up to speed, and cruise to glory. In the case of bike wheels and the forces acting on them, less mass is always less work than greater mass.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    697
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by shoota View Post
    You can tell a noticeable difference between two sets of wheels that are 83g apart and about the same depth?!? I find that very surprising.
    There's a pretty big difference in width that may contribute. HED claims their new wheels are also more aero than their old 23mm rims

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I do think there is a design difference and a quality difference between the 19's and the 101's which is what makes
    the ride difference noticable.. I was also after the wider rims..
    but I DID think that " what spins up faster.. spins down slower" which is why I think (all other things being relatively equal)
    the 101's would keep speed better for energy spent.. how does that square with "less mass is less work"?
    and the 202's will keep speed better?
    that's what the rep is claiming..
    aka "Harry Guads"

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,232
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The inertia to keep you moving is proportional to your speed. The power to keep you moving is proportional to speed cubed - mostly because of aerodynamic drag.

    Aero is WAY more important in keeping you moving fast.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    so..
    all things being equal.. the lighter the faster..
    so in that sense, the zipp guy was right..
    the 202 are faster in every catagory..
    Dammit Jim..
    aka "Harry Guads"

  20. #20
    Senior Member I <3 Robots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    So Cal
    My Bikes
    Cervelo S2, Specialized Carve Pro, Pivot Mach 5
    Posts
    1,328
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    IMO...202's are single purpose wheels. Go 303 or 404...ooor 303 front and 404 rear.
    Cervelo S2 | Zipp | SRAM | Rotor

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    5,063
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by achoo View Post
    Aero trumps light weight for speed on flat ground. While neither of those is very aero in absolute terms, I'd think the 202s would be better than the 101s aerodynamically.
    Not according to Zipp. They're essentially the same aerodynamically but the 202s are lighter.

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think it makes a difference the lighter you are... the reason I wanted to stay with lower profile was the wieght
    and the influence of crosswinds for a lighter rider.. and of course.. the climibing
    aka "Harry Guads"

  23. #23
    Senior Member JimF22003's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northern VA
    My Bikes
    2008 Trek Madone 5.5, 2009 Cervelo R3SL tdf edition, Cervelo R5 with Di2
    Posts
    2,462
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have 101s on one bike and 202s on another (the bikes are very similar.)

    I'd love to add something brilliant to this analysis, but I don't notice much difference, except the 202s make a cool engine turbine sound when I apply the brakes.
    2009 Cervelo R3SL TdF Edition, Ultegra Di2
    2011 Cervelo R5, DA Di2

  24. #24
    Senior Member Homebrew01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Ffld Cnty Connecticut
    My Bikes
    Old Steelies I made, Old Cannondales
    Posts
    15,837
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by shoota View Post
    You can tell a noticeable difference between two sets of wheels that are 83g apart and about the same depth?!? I find that very surprising.
    Placebo is a wonderful thing.

    101 look pretty expensive for an aluminum rim.
    Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike

  25. #25
    Thread Killer
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gregf83 View Post
    Not according to Zipp. They're essentially the same aerodynamically but the 202s are lighter.
    What do you mean? What does "essentially the same aerodynamically" mean? What does Zipp say?

    I looked at the 101 (now 30C) before I bought my last set of wheels, and I believe the 101s are not Zipp's premier Firecrest rim profile. The Zipp site says only the 202,303,404 and 808 use the Firecrest, which is "more aerodynamic than any other rim design." What that means, exactly, is unclear in terms of aero efficiency, but I'd be surprised if Zipp means the 101 and 202 are "essentially the same aerodynamically," but perhaps you have some other insight?

    Also, the 202 is wider overall, bead to bead, and 2mm deeper than 101, so if rim shape affects aero performance, well, there's some reason to expect difference between those two.
    Chaad--'95 DeKerf Team SL, '02 Lemond Buenos Aires, '05 Novara Buzz, '73 Schwinn Collegiate, '06 Mountain Cycle Rumble, '09 Dahon Mariner D7, '12 Mercier Nano, '12 Breezer Venturi

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •