OMG, Zipps aren't the best?
03-05-08, 06:48 AM
#51
Zippy Engineer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: IN
Posts: 1,801
Bikes: Bianchi 928, Bianchi Pista Concept 2004, Surly Steamroller, 1998 Schwinn Factory Team Homegrown, 1999 Schwinn Homegrown Factory, 2000 Schwinn Panther, Niner EMD9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So, I should bash sponsorship stuff? Hmmm. I don't think it's any secrect that I ride pretty much all HED wheels. I stay out of 95% of the Zipp brainwashing threads. I posted this because I thought it was funny and wanted to get a stir out of a few people. At least that part worked.
So you're telling me that Cervelo is only choosing to run HED wheels because they are cheaper? It appears to me that the 08 models are still sporting Zipps. When did or when will the OEM change?
And I've yet to see a side by side comparison of the Stinger 90 vs 808 vs H3. Can you point me to that? I have searched far and wide and the only thing I've ever seen is Josh say the Zipps are faster and Hed say the Stinger is faster.
So you're telling me that Cervelo is only choosing to run HED wheels because they are cheaper? It appears to me that the 08 models are still sporting Zipps. When did or when will the OEM change?
And I've yet to see a side by side comparison of the Stinger 90 vs 808 vs H3. Can you point me to that? I have searched far and wide and the only thing I've ever seen is Josh say the Zipps are faster and Hed say the Stinger is faster.
In any event, the data for Stinger 90 vs. 808 vs. H3 was on BTR last I checked and I assumed people would prefer that source to our data. I'll have time to address all the other questions raised after work. EDIT: Some of the questions with regard to tire size and selection, our info on 808 vs. H3, etc. can be found here:
https://www.zipp.com/Technology/Aerod...3/Default.aspx
03-05-08, 11:52 AM
#52
Quarq shill
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,962
Bikes: 08 Felt F4, 05 Fuji Team SL, 08 Planet X Stealth, 10 Kona Jake the Snake, 03 Giant OCR flat bar.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
No, I was commending you on your promotion of your chosen brand. I wish some of our sponsored riders were as dedicated as you. I mean this in all seriousness and apologize if it came across as glib.
In any event, the data for Stinger 90 vs. 808 vs. H3 was on BTR last I checked and I assumed people would prefer that source to our data. I'll have time to address all the other questions raised after work. EDIT: Some of the questions with regard to tire size and selection, our info on 808 vs. H3, etc. can be found here:
[url]https://www.zipp.com/Technology/Aerodynamics/RimShape/tabid/103/Default.aspx[/url]
In any event, the data for Stinger 90 vs. 808 vs. H3 was on BTR last I checked and I assumed people would prefer that source to our data. I'll have time to address all the other questions raised after work. EDIT: Some of the questions with regard to tire size and selection, our info on 808 vs. H3, etc. can be found here:
[url]https://www.zipp.com/Technology/Aerodynamics/RimShape/tabid/103/Default.aspx[/url]
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.
03-05-08, 01:46 PM
#53
Luggite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Comparing the Hed Jet 60 Clincher to the Zipp 404 Clincher isn't even a comparison. The Zipp is a better wheel by a mile, er, $700. The Jets are just rims with a carbon fairing glued on. The holes where the spokes pass through (down to the standard rim) could almost fit 3-4 spokes through them (aerodynamic I think not), aside from the hole or 2 for no reason (maybe water drainage from the huge spoke holes??) on the side of the fairing. Squeezing both sides of the Jet fairing also shows you the fragility, which also creates noise while riding. The Zipps don't budge. I'm not saying they're worth $2100, but it's hard to knock the build/overall quality.
Too bad almost no shops don't carry both Hed Jet and Zipp. One glance is all it takes.
On the Hed Stinger (tubular) vs the Zipp 404 tubular, they are probably pretty similar. Looks like the Stingers are better constructed than the Jets, whereas the Zipp in tubular or clincher are both nice wheels. Weight due to clincher convenience being the only measurable difference.
If you're buying clincher traditional spoked wheels, Jet isn't it.
Too bad almost no shops don't carry both Hed Jet and Zipp. One glance is all it takes.
On the Hed Stinger (tubular) vs the Zipp 404 tubular, they are probably pretty similar. Looks like the Stingers are better constructed than the Jets, whereas the Zipp in tubular or clincher are both nice wheels. Weight due to clincher convenience being the only measurable difference.
If you're buying clincher traditional spoked wheels, Jet isn't it.
03-05-08, 02:05 PM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SFBay
Posts: 2,334
Bikes: n, I would like n+1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 133 Times
in
108 Posts
Comparing the Hed Jet 60 Clincher to the Zipp 404 Clincher isn't even a comparison. The Zipp is a better wheel by a mile, er, $700. The Jets are just rims with a carbon fairing glued on. The holes where the spokes pass through (down to the standard rim) could almost fit 3-4 spokes through them (aerodynamic I think not), aside from the hole or 2 for no reason (maybe water drainage from the huge spoke holes??) on the side of the fairing. Squeezing both sides of the Jet fairing also shows you the fragility, which also creates noise while riding. The Zipps don't budge. I'm not saying they're worth $2100, but it's hard to knock the build/overall quality.
Too bad almost no shops don't carry both Hed Jet and Zipp. One glance is all it takes.
On the Hed Stinger (tubular) vs the Zipp 404 tubular, they are probably pretty similar. Looks like the Stingers are better constructed than the Jets, whereas the Zipp in tubular or clincher are both nice wheels. Weight due to clincher convenience being the only measurable difference.
If you're buying clincher traditional spoked wheels, Jet isn't it.
Too bad almost no shops don't carry both Hed Jet and Zipp. One glance is all it takes.
On the Hed Stinger (tubular) vs the Zipp 404 tubular, they are probably pretty similar. Looks like the Stingers are better constructed than the Jets, whereas the Zipp in tubular or clincher are both nice wheels. Weight due to clincher convenience being the only measurable difference.
If you're buying clincher traditional spoked wheels, Jet isn't it.
03-05-08, 02:30 PM
#55
Luggite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think Alps are discontinued.
You're probably right about the spoke holes, but the Zipps just seem better. $2100 doesn't though.
I'm really surprised that this type of wheel (404) hasn't been knocked off in Taiwan for a lot less money (Gigantex needs to add a 60mm wheel to their line). When you can buy carbon frames wholesale for $200-300 in Taiwan (estimate), you know they can build wheels for a lot less. In reality, the market probably isn't that big so a production run would probably go a few days at most for a year's worth of wheels.
You're probably right about the spoke holes, but the Zipps just seem better. $2100 doesn't though.
I'm really surprised that this type of wheel (404) hasn't been knocked off in Taiwan for a lot less money (Gigantex needs to add a 60mm wheel to their line). When you can buy carbon frames wholesale for $200-300 in Taiwan (estimate), you know they can build wheels for a lot less. In reality, the market probably isn't that big so a production run would probably go a few days at most for a year's worth of wheels.
03-05-08, 02:33 PM
#56
Quarq shill
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,962
Bikes: 08 Felt F4, 05 Fuji Team SL, 08 Planet X Stealth, 10 Kona Jake the Snake, 03 Giant OCR flat bar.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Comparing the Hed Jet 60 Clincher to the Zipp 404 Clincher isn't even a comparison. The Zipp is a better wheel by a mile, er, $700. The Jets are just rims with a carbon fairing glued on. The holes where the spokes pass through (down to the standard rim) could almost fit 3-4 spokes through them (aerodynamic I think not), aside from the hole or 2 for no reason (maybe water drainage from the huge spoke holes??) on the side of the fairing. Squeezing both sides of the Jet fairing also shows you the fragility, which also creates noise while riding. The Zipps don't budge. I'm not saying they're worth $2100, but it's hard to knock the build/overall quality.
Too bad almost no shops don't carry both Hed Jet and Zipp. One glance is all it takes.
On the Hed Stinger (tubular) vs the Zipp 404 tubular, they are probably pretty similar. Looks like the Stingers are better constructed than the Jets, whereas the Zipp in tubular or clincher are both nice wheels. Weight due to clincher convenience being the only measurable difference.
If you're buying clincher traditional spoked wheels, Jet isn't it.
Too bad almost no shops don't carry both Hed Jet and Zipp. One glance is all it takes.
On the Hed Stinger (tubular) vs the Zipp 404 tubular, they are probably pretty similar. Looks like the Stingers are better constructed than the Jets, whereas the Zipp in tubular or clincher are both nice wheels. Weight due to clincher convenience being the only measurable difference.
If you're buying clincher traditional spoked wheels, Jet isn't it.
The drag numbers for the Jet 60 vs the Stinger 60 are almost identical.
The spokes on the Jets go all the way to the rim, making them a quite durable wheel. The soft fairing doesn't flex unless you push on it, so why does that matter?
03-05-08, 04:45 PM
#57
hooray for spring
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Palmdale, CA
Posts: 1,067
Bikes: 2008 Look 586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Funny they mention testing aero bottles as faster than round ones and hands below the forearms as much slower and what wheel is that again?
https://www.velonews.com/files/images/casey3.jpg
https://www.velonews.com/files/images/casey3.jpg
03-05-08, 04:49 PM
#58
Pegger
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 171
Bikes: devinci chicane, 80's Fuji, 2006 Cannondale R1000, Cannondale Six13 Team Campy
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Levi's also an oompa loompa compared to Fabian and less frontal drag (ie. levi's miggity body) is a much bigger contributor to the speed than whether or not Fabian pushes out 50W more, so it's hard to say that the zipp 808 front is any less/more fast than the hed...
03-05-08, 05:45 PM
#59
Knowing's half the battle
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 6,119
Bikes: 2009 Cannondale CAAD9 BB30, SRAM Red, Fulcrum Racing 3s
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
03-05-08, 08:13 PM
#61
Peloton Shelter Dog
03-05-08, 08:13 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,711
Bikes: S-Works SL3 Tarmac, Allez E5, Leader 735TT, others
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
03-05-08, 08:51 PM
#63
Knowing's half the battle
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 6,119
Bikes: 2009 Cannondale CAAD9 BB30, SRAM Red, Fulcrum Racing 3s
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
03-05-08, 09:11 PM
#64
Zippy Engineer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: IN
Posts: 1,801
Bikes: Bianchi 928, Bianchi Pista Concept 2004, Surly Steamroller, 1998 Schwinn Factory Team Homegrown, 1999 Schwinn Homegrown Factory, 2000 Schwinn Panther, Niner EMD9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Sorry I got tied up sending out pesky wedding invitations and now I'm a bit short on time but I'll try to get to all the questions asked. Lest I forget once I get into all this, Hed sells a fine product. I've recommended their rims or Bontrager to others on forums that do not wish to buy our product for whatever reason (if anyone has enough free time to search my post history, though it may be in PM only). The shape used by ourselves, Hed, and Bontrager certainly separates us from some of the more slab-sided and starkly v-shaped rims that appear with multiple brand names.
The data you are requesting regarding the tri-spoke is on our website. In fact, it's been on our website for three years. The information on the tire used in that test has also been on our website for three years. Perhaps your definition of recent differs from mine. Per your request, we tested with a Corsa CX in 21 mm width (our wheels are still baselined with this tire though they perform better with a 22 mm tire).
You'll recall that we used to manufacture a tri-spoke. We stopped producing them when we introduced the 400 rim as we were then able to introduce a rim that tested better than a 3-spoke and was considerably lighter. The graph above is wheel only, where the wheel holding fixture consists of two airfoil-shaped legs spaced much wider than in an actual fork. Even if we could create a 3, 4, or 5 spoke wheel that would replicated the drag profile of an 808 (or 1080 now) in this setting, we still have to contend with the transient aerodynamic effects of the spokes of the wheel passing between the fork blades displacing the airflow already occupying that space. In a 3 spoke wheel, this manifests itself in the distinctive sound that is made as each blade passes through the fork. This sound results when a spoke traveling at a relatively high velocity enters the space between the fork blades and suddenly displaces the air already flowing through this area. The result is that the displaced air flows sideways rapidly and creates a transient damn of air as localized vortices are created, with associated areas of stagnant or nearly stagnant air. It takes considerable power to produce audible sound (we all know this as we seek out higher powered audio systems for our homes or cars), and the faster you go the louder this sound becomes as the airflow becomes more energized as the wheel is rotating that much faster. This effect adds about 6-8 watts to spin over a deep section wheel with comparable drag profile.
Tour uses 20 mm tires. This information is in their articles (well, at least the print version but possibly not the abbreviated versions that float around the net).
You mention pricing, but don't actually ask a question. I presume you would like some explanation of why our prices are higher than Hed's or any of several other companies on the market. I'm sure some of this info is not what you want to hear, but here goes anyway. First of all, let's look at hubs. You can buy a complete set of hubs from JoyTech (Hed's source, it's a stock hub) for the price of the raw material in our hub shell (whereas in Asia aluminum is heavily subsidized) or the price of the bearings we use. That's ignoring our costs in designing, refining, and testing the hubs and before we do the manufacturing processes and assembly here in the states, much less the EDM cutting of the ratchet rings and pawls. Rim prices-if you're looking at some of the fairing wheels, this is certainly easier to manufacture and allows the manufacture of multiple models using the same rim, thereby reducing costs. The Stinger rims are manufactured by Gigantex, making them considerably less expensive than ours. Again, we are responsible for all manufacturing and engineering costs associated with our products; I don't know how much of that is shared by Hed and don't want to speculate on that either. Our wheels are all hand built in the US but I am assuming that is also the case for Hed, thus that would be a wash. Mold tooling is multiple times more expensive here in the states as well, plus all the money we spent dimpling our dozens of tools...
As far as marketing and honesty goes, you didn't ask a question there but I will go so far as to say that we are a big fan of honesty.
Our data is consistently replicated by outside sources (saving the Trek/Hed data that was leaked to their dealers last year with oddly high values for our wheels). If this comment was a result of your inability to find the data you were looking for on our website, I apologize. It is due for a re-design and I hope our website will be more functional and user-friendly in the future.
With regard to lenticular discs, I'm guessing your question may originate in the older data that is posted on BTR. I'm getting even shorter on time so I am going to plagiarize a bit from Josh:
We have introduced two brand new discs in the past three years. These disc shapes were developed via CFD with final verification using SLA prototypes in the tunnel. In each case, all options were considered but the performance of the lenticular disc was simply not there. As we've seen with the Mavic Comete disc in the past, the wheel performs considerably better when yawed to the left than it does when yawed to the right, as the wind seems to prefer the flatter side to be windward and the lenticular shape to be leeward. The data essentially averaged out to that of a flat disc when considering wheel-only data, but the advantage went to the flat disc when tested on a bike due to the same air-damming effects previously mentioned in regards to the tri spoke. After we completed this research, one non-Zipp sponsored professional team in Europe switched to the flat discs.
As far as the Mavic doing well in the Tour test, I don't have the results handy so I can't really comment on that. The shape used on those rims is certainly more favorable than the v-shaped profiles of many other brands. I do have this chart showing some data we've collected relative to the 32 mm 202, where you see the 202 saving between 20 and 48 grams between 10 and 20 degrees of yaw.
I hope that answered all your questions. It seems like you should check out HedMafia; that's a pretty neat site.
You read what you want to read, which is fine for you. The Tour data I mentioned was the actual print tests, not the reprints that appear on Weight Weenies and elsewhere showing a collection of data from different tests and tunnels.
Since you apparently believe you know quite a bit about the gains we have shown for the items you mentioned, I'm curious as to why you would even question their magnitude relative to the resolution of the tunnel (hint: what is the relation between Watts and grams of drag?). Here's a nice chart showing the difference we saw in transitioning from a v-shaped rim to the toroidal shape and subsequently the dimples you so enjoy. I'm sure Hed/Bontrager will confirm the benefits of the toroidal shape as well.
The blue arrows indicate the savings when we switched from the 440 rim with its v-shaped profile to our initial toroidal profile, the red arrows correspond to a change in the toroidal profile, and the green arrows correspond to the addition of the dimples.
I lurk on Slowtwitch and have posted more on Weight Weenies as I find there's more material of substance there than here. I joined this forum and posted regularly three years before I got the job at Zipp, but thanks for asking. I'll grant that our older rims were slightly weaker than some others on the market. With regard to the strength of our current rims, I'll refer to CSC's experience last season with our new laminate (patent pending). In all of the Classics including two practice runs at Paris-Roubaix (they didn't use the wheels in the race as they felt they were too radially stiff on some of the tougher cobbled sections), as well as the remainder of the Grand Tour season, they broke one of the new wheels (and that was in Lars' crash of his backup bike at Paris-Roubaix). I'm just a lowly testing engineer, but I'll let our design engineer know that he has made you a happy guy.
It's pretty funny you mention the sale to SRAM. Have you noticed how companies in trouble don't usually keep their president, all employees (actually, we just started a second shift), and there was no mention of assumed debt or anything of that nature in the press release? I'm sure you read it as you seem to enjoy our others. Life is good and getting better.
Well, I think I've said my piece. When it comes down to it, a lot of the differences are quite small and quite dependent on frame, fork, and tire selection. This is the issue inherent in releasing data from the tunnel as it is all very specific to the conditions of the test but tends to get passed on as a universal truth. I'm likely to be unable to check here for a few days so PM me if anyone has any questions and I'll try to get back to you as soon as possible. In the mean time, have fun and I hope some of you can get out and ride so I can live vicariously.
Hey Waldo, to change gears on the Zipp vs. Hed debate for a second, why is it everyone can confirm what a hed 3 does aerodynamically except Zipp? Last I checked the Hed 3 data you have posted on your website shows it as inferior to your 303s. This would only make sense if the Hed 3 was tested with a very FAT or very NARROW tire. Though, you guys have only recently started mentioning what tire is used in your tests, nevermind the fact that its the leading and trailing edge of the wheel. It's quite obvious that Torroidal rim shapes are designed for 20-22mm tires, and Hed 3s are designed for 19-21mm tires, so I'd really think Zipp would be more upstanding than to do it's competitors a disservice in their testing and post data that showed a true false performance of their product.
Yet the following companies/cycling teams, FOUR TOTAL, have all put the Hed 3 within grams of the Stinger 90s/ 808s over the average of 0-25 degrees and PUBLISHED IT, Some ahead, some behind, many using the same wind tunnel as Zipp...
Tour - data suspect, due to no knowledge of tire use
Hed
Cycling team that Jasongk on slowtwitch works for
biketechreview
and maybe Cervelo if we can strangle it out of them, ehh?
I think Zipp has done a great job of identifying it's main competition as the Hed 3 and smearing it without regard to data and truth. Thats marketing at its finest.
While you're posting, why not share some truth on lenticular discs and dimples. How about how aluminum rim with a carbon fairing wheels perform as a shorter wheel, except for that the mavic cosmic carbone does very well in the tour tests, despite its terrible fairing?
Hed has quietly worked magic in Minnesota, posting their own data on their website. Steve Hed created the first affordable disc wheel and the first deep section wheel. They would probably agree with some of what Zipp has started doing, like "tire blending technology" which is basically what Hed has done all along with the Stinger 90. Or making the 202 wider, much as Hed is doing with their ardennes. Same ideas, different companies, different attitudes, DIFFERENT PRICES, same results.
Looking forward to your comments on any of the following...
Hed 3 and your test results,
Pricing
Marketing/honesty(see hed 3 inuendo)
Lenticular discs
Aluminum rim, carbon faired wheels
note: I'm a hed rider and fanatic for their affordable products. However not one of their employees nor an employee of any bike company.
Yet the following companies/cycling teams, FOUR TOTAL, have all put the Hed 3 within grams of the Stinger 90s/ 808s over the average of 0-25 degrees and PUBLISHED IT, Some ahead, some behind, many using the same wind tunnel as Zipp...
Tour - data suspect, due to no knowledge of tire use
Hed
Cycling team that Jasongk on slowtwitch works for
biketechreview
and maybe Cervelo if we can strangle it out of them, ehh?
I think Zipp has done a great job of identifying it's main competition as the Hed 3 and smearing it without regard to data and truth. Thats marketing at its finest.
While you're posting, why not share some truth on lenticular discs and dimples. How about how aluminum rim with a carbon fairing wheels perform as a shorter wheel, except for that the mavic cosmic carbone does very well in the tour tests, despite its terrible fairing?
Hed has quietly worked magic in Minnesota, posting their own data on their website. Steve Hed created the first affordable disc wheel and the first deep section wheel. They would probably agree with some of what Zipp has started doing, like "tire blending technology" which is basically what Hed has done all along with the Stinger 90. Or making the 202 wider, much as Hed is doing with their ardennes. Same ideas, different companies, different attitudes, DIFFERENT PRICES, same results.
Looking forward to your comments on any of the following...
Hed 3 and your test results,
Pricing
Marketing/honesty(see hed 3 inuendo)
Lenticular discs
Aluminum rim, carbon faired wheels
note: I'm a hed rider and fanatic for their affordable products. However not one of their employees nor an employee of any bike company.
Originally Posted by our website
The chart below shows the same 808 and 404 graphs from above, compared with a disc, a 3 spoke and some other popular spoked wheels, and the results are quite dramatic.
Note: all lines represent an average of at least 3 runs all using the identical Vittoria Corsa CX 21mm tubular tire. The scale appears compressed compared to the above graph because the 32 spoke wheel has such large drag values that the Y-axis registers up to 1.2lbs compared to 0.7 lbs on the above graph.
Note: all lines represent an average of at least 3 runs all using the identical Vittoria Corsa CX 21mm tubular tire. The scale appears compressed compared to the above graph because the 32 spoke wheel has such large drag values that the Y-axis registers up to 1.2lbs compared to 0.7 lbs on the above graph.
Tour uses 20 mm tires. This information is in their articles (well, at least the print version but possibly not the abbreviated versions that float around the net).
You mention pricing, but don't actually ask a question. I presume you would like some explanation of why our prices are higher than Hed's or any of several other companies on the market. I'm sure some of this info is not what you want to hear, but here goes anyway. First of all, let's look at hubs. You can buy a complete set of hubs from JoyTech (Hed's source, it's a stock hub) for the price of the raw material in our hub shell (whereas in Asia aluminum is heavily subsidized) or the price of the bearings we use. That's ignoring our costs in designing, refining, and testing the hubs and before we do the manufacturing processes and assembly here in the states, much less the EDM cutting of the ratchet rings and pawls. Rim prices-if you're looking at some of the fairing wheels, this is certainly easier to manufacture and allows the manufacture of multiple models using the same rim, thereby reducing costs. The Stinger rims are manufactured by Gigantex, making them considerably less expensive than ours. Again, we are responsible for all manufacturing and engineering costs associated with our products; I don't know how much of that is shared by Hed and don't want to speculate on that either. Our wheels are all hand built in the US but I am assuming that is also the case for Hed, thus that would be a wash. Mold tooling is multiple times more expensive here in the states as well, plus all the money we spent dimpling our dozens of tools...
As far as marketing and honesty goes, you didn't ask a question there but I will go so far as to say that we are a big fan of honesty.
Our data is consistently replicated by outside sources (saving the Trek/Hed data that was leaked to their dealers last year with oddly high values for our wheels). If this comment was a result of your inability to find the data you were looking for on our website, I apologize. It is due for a re-design and I hope our website will be more functional and user-friendly in the future.
With regard to lenticular discs, I'm guessing your question may originate in the older data that is posted on BTR. I'm getting even shorter on time so I am going to plagiarize a bit from Josh:
Originally Posted by JoshatZipp
As for the BTR data, it is interesting that your are recommending it without mentioning that it is using only 1 run for each wheel (+/-0.05 lb error)as well as using an older tunnel protocol of running the yaw angles at 0+ degrees instead of moving to 30 degrees and yawing back. This protocol was changed some years ago to remove the large hysteresis in graphs on lenticular type disc and some other wheels. Regardless, the BTR data on this has been openly disputed by John Cobb, ourselves and others for showing a curve for the flat disc that is not representative of anybody's data in the last 15 years (and also disputed by the CFD models). Not only are the magnitudes odd, but the curve shape is also odd, and fails to mimic any data from any tunnel we've ever seen for a similar wheel. Again, not to say that this isn't what the data actually was, I know Kraig (and he's a stand up guy) and have talked to him about this test and the data is exactly what they got, but if they had repeated this test even once, that data would not have repeated (this can be an interesting feature of wind tunnel testing sometimes..).
As far as the Mavic doing well in the Tour test, I don't have the results handy so I can't really comment on that. The shape used on those rims is certainly more favorable than the v-shaped profiles of many other brands. I do have this chart showing some data we've collected relative to the 32 mm 202, where you see the 202 saving between 20 and 48 grams between 10 and 20 degrees of yaw.
I hope that answered all your questions. It seems like you should check out HedMafia; that's a pretty neat site.
Why shouldn't I, that is EXACTLY what Zipp does. You quote tests like Tour but when you look at the test the 808 is the deepest rim by far tested, yet Zipp puts out a press release claiming victory. Gets even worse when Tour republishes the 808 data in new tests again comparing different wheels with again much less depth than the 808 and not surprising the 808 comes out on top. Guess what Zipp does...yup another press release claiming victory but this time with the added claim of repeatedly verified. sic.
How much of the Zipp claims like dimples on rims, hubs, tires and toroidal shape fall into the resolution of your tunnel? ans: all of them and I'm being generous in assuming there was actually a measured difference. Doesn't stop you from marketing the hell out of those gimmicks.
How many forums are you on? BF, WW, slowtwitch...RBR? Maybe if you worked more on product design instead of spamming forums your wheels would be more durable and you wouldn't have had to sell yourself to SRAM.
How much of the Zipp claims like dimples on rims, hubs, tires and toroidal shape fall into the resolution of your tunnel? ans: all of them and I'm being generous in assuming there was actually a measured difference. Doesn't stop you from marketing the hell out of those gimmicks.
How many forums are you on? BF, WW, slowtwitch...RBR? Maybe if you worked more on product design instead of spamming forums your wheels would be more durable and you wouldn't have had to sell yourself to SRAM.
Since you apparently believe you know quite a bit about the gains we have shown for the items you mentioned, I'm curious as to why you would even question their magnitude relative to the resolution of the tunnel (hint: what is the relation between Watts and grams of drag?). Here's a nice chart showing the difference we saw in transitioning from a v-shaped rim to the toroidal shape and subsequently the dimples you so enjoy. I'm sure Hed/Bontrager will confirm the benefits of the toroidal shape as well.
The blue arrows indicate the savings when we switched from the 440 rim with its v-shaped profile to our initial toroidal profile, the red arrows correspond to a change in the toroidal profile, and the green arrows correspond to the addition of the dimples.
I lurk on Slowtwitch and have posted more on Weight Weenies as I find there's more material of substance there than here. I joined this forum and posted regularly three years before I got the job at Zipp, but thanks for asking. I'll grant that our older rims were slightly weaker than some others on the market. With regard to the strength of our current rims, I'll refer to CSC's experience last season with our new laminate (patent pending). In all of the Classics including two practice runs at Paris-Roubaix (they didn't use the wheels in the race as they felt they were too radially stiff on some of the tougher cobbled sections), as well as the remainder of the Grand Tour season, they broke one of the new wheels (and that was in Lars' crash of his backup bike at Paris-Roubaix). I'm just a lowly testing engineer, but I'll let our design engineer know that he has made you a happy guy.
It's pretty funny you mention the sale to SRAM. Have you noticed how companies in trouble don't usually keep their president, all employees (actually, we just started a second shift), and there was no mention of assumed debt or anything of that nature in the press release? I'm sure you read it as you seem to enjoy our others. Life is good and getting better.
Well, I think I've said my piece. When it comes down to it, a lot of the differences are quite small and quite dependent on frame, fork, and tire selection. This is the issue inherent in releasing data from the tunnel as it is all very specific to the conditions of the test but tends to get passed on as a universal truth. I'm likely to be unable to check here for a few days so PM me if anyone has any questions and I'll try to get back to you as soon as possible. In the mean time, have fun and I hope some of you can get out and ride so I can live vicariously.
Last edited by Waldo; 03-06-08 at 06:44 AM.
03-05-08, 09:55 PM
#65
Toughen the pluck up!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: So Fla
Posts: 748
Bikes: 1990 KHS Sled; 2004 Specialized Sirrus Pro; 2005 Cannondale Saeco Replica
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Too shay!
From the very happy owner of a set of Zedtech 4's.
From the very happy owner of a set of Zedtech 4's.
03-05-08, 10:08 PM
#66
Quarq shill
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,962
Bikes: 08 Felt F4, 05 Fuji Team SL, 08 Planet X Stealth, 10 Kona Jake the Snake, 03 Giant OCR flat bar.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Realizing it's your money and all, do you really think that an additional 1K, or 2K if you got the ceramic upgrade is noticeable in the Z4's over regular 404s?
The Zeds have always blown my mind.
The Zeds have always blown my mind.
03-05-08, 10:12 PM
#67
CERVEL-LIZED!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,696
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Levi's also an oompa loompa compared to Fabian and less frontal drag (ie. levi's miggity body) is a much bigger contributor to the speed than whether or not Fabian pushes out 50W more, so it's hard to say that the zipp 808 front is any less/more fast than the hed...
Levi showed em' how a HED3 front still delivers with the best of em' if not the best on most TT conditions.....
HED Jets are supposed to be "daily-training ride/race ride" tough......
At the end of the day the allegiance depends on each riders experience on the wheels...HED or Zipps.
