Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-20-14, 11:47 AM   #1
w0lffian
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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?
w0lffian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 11:55 AM   #2
achoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 4,700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
achoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 11:57 AM   #3
lsberrios1 
Senior Member
 
lsberrios1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Atlanta GA
Bikes: '13 Spech Roubaix SL4 Expert
Posts: 2,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
202s by a country mile. They are also 1500 bucks apart.
__________________
Cat 6 going on PRO....
lsberrios1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 12:04 PM   #4
Elvo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Orange County, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 3,264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
I'd go with 303's if you want a good all rounder wheelset.
Elvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 01:49 PM   #5
w0lffian
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
w0lffian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 02:55 PM   #6
Looigi
Senior Member
 
Looigi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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...
Looigi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 04:13 PM   #7
link0
Senior Member
 
link0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Bikes: '11 Merlin Extralight, '98 Dean Castanza, '89 Schwinn Prologue
Posts: 772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Go with 404s.
link0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 04:20 PM   #8
shoota 
Senior Member
 
shoota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Bikes:
Posts: 4,152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(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.
__________________
1987 Trek 560
1989 Cannondale ST400
2005 Cannondale six13 frameset
2010 Cannondale CAAD8 Cyclocross 6
2013 Cannondale CAAD10
2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO 2
shoota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 04:37 PM   #9
bahula03
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
bahula03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 04:38 PM   #10
w0lffian
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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?
w0lffian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 04:40 PM   #11
gc3 
Falls Downalot
 
gc3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: DC
Bikes: Now I Got Two
Posts: 3,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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"
"I don't give a f*ck" if they remember me at all" (F. Zappa)
gc3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 04:53 PM   #12
bahula03
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
bahula03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 05:10 PM   #13
Jiggle
Senior Member
 
Jiggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Somewhere in TX
Bikes: CAAD 9
Posts: 1,833
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Friends don't let friends buy Zipp.
Jiggle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 05:15 PM   #14
hueyhoolihan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Bikes: 7⃥ 9 road bikes
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
hueyhoolihan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 05:24 PM   #15
bahula03
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
bahula03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 06:39 PM   #16
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Bikes:
Posts: 1,142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(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
redlude97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 07:18 PM   #17
w0lffian
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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..
w0lffian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 07:50 PM   #18
achoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 4,700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
achoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 08:09 PM   #19
w0lffian
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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..
w0lffian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 10:05 PM   #20
I <3 Robots
Senior Member
 
I <3 Robots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: So Cal
Bikes: Cervelo S2, Workswell 062, Banshee Spitfire
Posts: 1,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
IMO...202's are single purpose wheels. Go 303 or 404...ooor 303 front and 404 rear.
I <3 Robots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 10:47 PM   #21
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 7,270
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(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.
gregf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-14, 11:21 PM   #22
w0lffian
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
w0lffian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 12:33 AM   #23
JimF22003
Senior Member
 
JimF22003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern VA
Bikes: 2008 Trek Madone 5.5, 2009 Cervelo R3SL tdf edition, Cervelo R5 with Di2
Posts: 2,654
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
JimF22003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 04:30 AM   #24
Homebrew01
Senior Member
 
Homebrew01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ffld Cnty Connecticut
Bikes: Old Steelies I made, Old Cannondales
Posts: 19,563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(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
Homebrew01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 05:49 AM   #25
chaadster
Thread Killer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Bikes:
Posts: 7,624
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(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.
chaadster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:25 PM.