blackbox

Hello Gents, I am having a difficult time trying to decide on a Wheel set for my CAAD10.
I weight between 130 to 140lbs, and my current wheels are the Fulcrum Racing 5 on Victtoria Pro Slick 700x23 tires. I ride a mix of 60-70% flats, and 30-40% hills here in Ontario.

After many nights of research, I have narrowed it down to two wheel sets.
If they were the same price, which they are not…
Which would you buy for your do it all wheel?

A) Shimano DA 9000 C24
About a 100g lighter then the Zipp, and 300g lighter then my current wheel.

or

B) Zipp 101
About a 100g lighter then my current wheel, but possibly more aero then the C24.

merlinextraligh

I have no idea which is more aero.

However, it's a certainty that even a small aero advantage trumps 100g of weight in virtually every application, with the exception of a pure uphill TT at a very steep grade.

blackbox

Or Option C) Zipp 303 Tubular, drop the hammer and cry later when the visa bill comes?

uncrx2003

I think the "aero" of the zipp is prob pretty small especially at that depth. I love my c24. The c24 will be significantly cheaper.

Bah Humbug

The wind tunnel says the 101 is more aero than popular opinion gives it credit for. Its also wide-bed, and the C24 alone in the DA9000 range is not, if that's important to you. I'd go with the 101, personally, if you couldn't tell, though I might go to Wheelbuilder for a 20/24 build.

merlinextraligh

You might also consider Hed Ardennes. Cheaper than the other 2 options, allegedly fairly aero due to the wider rim profile, and bullet proof.

I got a pair of wheels built by Psimet with C2 rims, and Chris King hubs, with 24/28 spokes for cyclocross, and they work great.

Clipped_in

That is a pretty stiff rim. IMO, at the OP's weight he'd probably be fine with the standard Zipp low spoke count. They are rated up to 250#. It's a very aero wheel for aluminum that's less than 30mm deep.

I know a guy who rides them and likes them. But, he didn't pay anywhere near full retail.

Clipped_in

If going custom, the new Pacenti SL23 rim would be another very nice option. It doesn't have the exact toric x-section design as the Zipp 101, but it's pretty close. I think Psimet said he is building a lot of wheels with that rim right now. It's becoming quite popular and the reviews so far are favorable.

Bah Humbug

While it's a nice rim for he price, the sharp trailing edge hurts its drag. I'd go XC279 by preference.

blackbox

Can anyone confirm if the New DA 9000 C24 is now wider? like 22mm or more?

Hiro11

I have 50MM deep section race wheels and I honestly can't tell the difference between them and my (100g heavier) WH-6700 training wheels in everyday riding. IMO, aero benefits from wheels only matter in TTs or tris. If you're just getting these for training / club rides there will be zero real world performance difference. As such, this is more a question of what you want.

KantoBoy

None of those wheels are "aero". Wind tunnel blah blah blah you might as well buy regular wheelsets.

Try 50mm.

Bah Humbug

I answered that in post #5. No, it's not wider. The rest of the DA9000 line is; I guess they wanted to keep the narrow rim to make it a low-weight dedicated climber.

Bah Humbug

Not a fan of the "science" thingy?

Dunbar

You mean the "science" about how if you can maintain 30mph over 40km aero wheels will save you <60 seconds? I can't maintain 30mph for more than a minute without a generous tailwind. At $1300 for the Zipp 101's are more than double what a good "non-aero" 23mm wide aluminum clincher wheelset costs.

guy2600

I currently own and have put some miles on both wheelsets. Here is my opinion:

1) The weight difference is more than 100 grams. I weighed both sets at work out of the box with rim tape on a very accurate scale (less than 1/4 gram). Zipp 101: 1617 grams. DA 9000: 1424 grams. Difference: 193 grams. Most of this weight difference is at the rim too where it matters most. These are actual weights, not published BS.

2) I did a fair amount of research on the aero difference. It's basically 1 watt at 25 miles an hour, less at lower speeds. There's a great shootout done a year or two ago that had both of these wheels (in addition to others) head to head that I can't remember off the top of my head. At any rate, I spoke multiple times over the phone with Zipp at great length and they confirmed this to be a reasonable conclusion. If you truly want aero advantage, you need to go to 404's or equivilant depth. Even then, you need to be pushing a fair amount of MPH over a long distance. If you are not racing, doing TT's or Ironman where literally seconds are huge, there is no point in worrying about it at this depth imo.

3) Price: If you look around, both can be had well under MSRP. I paid $875 new for the Zipps and the DA's $767 from merlincycles.com

4) Perceived difference: The 101's are the most stable wheelset I've ever ridden at high speeds through crosswinds (35+MPH decents through sustained gusts). This was very noticeable though perceived no difference in stability during normal terrain/riding. I think the 101's also look better. The DA's spin up much faster in comparison though. Can't put numbers to it but when I was sprinting, it was certainly noticeable. 101's feel sluggish compared to other wheels I've owned in the past.

Verdict for me? Keeping the DA's. 101's are nice but I would rather have a wheels that spins up quick when I want them to. YMMV...

Bah Humbug

KB claimed they weren't aero. You're debating the advantages of aeroness. Unless you're a triathlete or time trialist I agree it's not worth it. Care to dial down the snottiness until you can address the point I was actually making?

Also, however immaterial aero is, 200g of weight is more so.

Dunbar

A veteran 41 poster complaining about snottiness? Surely you jest...I'd personally like to see wind tunnel data for aero wheels at the speeds most of us are actually riding at. It wouldn't surprise if that showed the "aero" benefit as <10s over 40km.

Bah Humbug

You do know that (at bikes speeds) air is air and it's readily translated into lower speeds? I'll leave the formula as an exercise for you. And again, you completely missed my point and weren't even the person I was talking to, so I have no idea why you felt the need to jump in.

Dunbar

Drag goes up at the square of speed. So by definition things that reduce drag make much less difference at lower speeds. That's why I find it so silly for manufacturers to quote time savings at 30mph.

coachboyd

Cervelo actually did this testing (with bikes though). Because a slower rider is out on the course longer, they actually get more of a benefit from aero equipment. There are three forces to overcome when you are riding, friction, gravity, and aero. Friction is a very small percentage but is consistent no matter what speed you are going. Gravity forces only are affected by going up hill or down hill, so when you are on flat ground there are no gravity forces. The rest is aero forces, and even at slow speeds it's the majority of what you are overcoming when you pedal.

Now, going more aerodynamic will make a bigger difference to have an overall faster speed. And to increase your speed you are going through exponentially higher aero forces (which is why it's harder to go from 28mph to 30mph compared to 22mph to 24mph). But the rider who is going 22mph will be on course for a lot longer than the rider going 30, and if each rider changes exactly the same things the slower rider will have a bigger time savings.

_____________________

I just plugged in some calculations.
A rider who average 300 watts for a dead calm, dead flat time trial at 100m above sea level and a drag coefficient of .330 (rolling resistance of .005) will average 40.20kph and have a time of 29:51. If he keeps all else the same but lowers his drag coefficient to .315 (the difference of a good set of wheels or not) he will average 40.79Kph for a time of 29:25. The faster drag coefficient will save him 26 seconds over 20K

Now, take another rider with the exact same drag and conditions. If he averages 200 watts for the 20K effort he will average 34.5Kph and will have a time of 34:46 for the 20K time trial. Again, if you improve the drag coefficient from .330 to .315 and leave all other variables the same the rider will improve to a speed of 35.0Kph and the time will be 34:17. This rider will have saved 29 seconds over 20K.

Dunbar

Your numbers seem a little optimistic for a recreational rider on a road bike. What Cervelo says about solo riders on an S5 is over 60mi/100km is that it allows you to either:

-Arrive one and a half minutes sooner (for the same power output),
-Arrive at the same time while saving 9 Watts continuously during the ride, or
-Arrive a little sooner while saving energy.

Now, maybe I'm being cynical but 90 seconds over 60 miles seems like a pretty trivial time savings on a 3 1/2 hour ride (on a good day) for me. That works out to less than a 1% time savings and I'm willing to bet that even those numbers are optimistic for most of us.

Clipped_in

Good info.--good post.

KantoBoy

I personally don't see/believe on how a 30mm> deep rim can get you an aero advantage.

Just my .02

NathanC

What about something a little more deep like C35?