which wheelset are the best?

[Jan-willem]

which wheelset are the best and why?

a set of 404 tubies or a set of bora ultra's or a set of bora g3 tubbies?

[Christie]

Firstly, I asked Dilbert for some specs on the wheels:

 

Boras: Mass=1305g, Stiffness front=53N/mm, stiffness rear=44N/mm Aerodynamics (watts needed to turn wheel @ 50km/h)=23w

 

Zipp404: Mass=1252g, Stiffness front=61N/mm, Stiffness rear=46N/mm Aerodynamics (watts needed to turn wheel @ 50km/h)=21.6w

 

So in terms of engineering, the Zipps have got a slim edge on the Boras, lighter, stiffer, more aero, but it is a very slim edge. In terms of durability, it is difficult to draw a conclusion. I've heard of more broken Zipps than broken Boras, but very few people ride Boras, so this is not a valid comparison. In terms of price, Zipp has a definite edge. Zipp is also compatable with a powertap, with the Bora you have to use a SRM or a polar. As far as style goes, the Boras is the more unique wheel, and the G3 rear looks nice!

 

IMO if you have got Boras already, and dont want to use a powertap, keep them. If you have not got deep section currently, and want to buy new, go for the Zipp404's, the extra cost of the Bora is not justified by its engineering.

Christie2007-11-30 09:20:06

[dylankeyter]

the dura ace deep section are rated among the best. so are the new easton tempest carbons. they used to be identical to the zipp 404, but they have been upgraded.

[Jan-willem]

thank you for the helpful info

can you please get the same regarding the 2008 zipp 202 and 303 sets

i don't know wich set of zipp's to buy, and i weigh in at 75kg's

[bob_the_builder]

Shamal Ultra. QED.

[Pieter Henning]

Q.E.D.? What makes the Shamal's better?Phen2007-11-30 11:19:36

[bob_the_builder]

 

 

Q.E.D.? What makes the Shamal's better?

 

Well I assume you agree Campag is the only rational route. If not, then the entire argument is moot. So anyway, for my rands:

 

Shamal Ultra: 1395g per pair. At R6,929.65 ( and you can them in gold which is not my taste, but is cool)

vs

Bora Ultra: 1305g per pair. At R18,049.01.

 

12k for 90g? Are you nuts?

 

And I weigh in at 56kg (racing) so real deep section wheels become a handful for me in a stiff breeze, and performance per Rand, I'll take the Shamal Ultra's (even in Gold) any day. And I'm not a carbon nut... I ride a Scandium frame, with minimal carbo bits... Not that Carbon is bad, but my Rands...

 

 

bob_the_builder2007-12-01 12:12:49

[Christie]

Shamal will have worse aerodynamics than either the Zipp or the Bora, it has a shallower rim profile. It may be laterally stiffr, though.

[Carbon Freak]

Under all circumstance, and providing you weigh sub 75kgs there is no wheel on the market that can beata mavic Ksyerium. Weights a bit more tha the zipp lasts far longer, The hubs are bullet proof and the rims indestructible.

 

I challenge anyone to prove different....

Shimano suck.... Rims are durable and strong but the hubsare sh*te

Zipp are just too expensive although it must be said there fast

 

[Christie]

Ksyrium ES: Mass=1410g, Stiffness front=56N/mm, Stiffness rear=47N/mm Aerodynamics (watts needed to turn wheel @ 50km/h)=33.2w

 

In terms of the stats, these are not good wheels. They look cool, though, but as far as clinchers go, for example, the Campy Eurus is much better.

 

(I asked Dilbert, he doesn't have data for the 202 or the 303, only the 808)

[Pieter Henning]

Q.E.D.? What makes the Shamal's better?

Well I assume you agree Campag is the only rational route. If not' date=' then the entire argument is moot. So anyway, for my rands:

Shamal Ultra: 1395g per pair. At R6,929.65 ( and you can them in gold which is not my taste, but is cool)
vs
Bora Ultra: 1305g per pair. At R18,049.01.

12k for 90g? Are you nuts?

And I weigh in at 56kg (racing) so real deep section wheels become a handful for me in a stiff breeze, and performance per Rand, I'll take the Shamal Ultra's (even in Gold) any day. And I'm not a carbon nut... I ride a Scandium frame, with minimal carbo bits... Not that Carbon is bad, but my Rands...


[/quote']

 

Those specs sound good (especially value for money), but I assume those are clincher? Tubbies just glide across the road in a way that clinchers can't even begin to compare with - I don't know the stats on rolling resistance, but just the feeling of riding on tubbies is awesome.

[Pieter Henning]

Under all circumstance' date=' and providing you weigh sub 75kgs there is no wheel on the market that can beata mavic Ksyerium. Weights a bit more tha the zipp lasts far longer, The hubs are bullet proof and the rims indestructible.

 

I challenge anyone to prove different....

Shimano suck.... Rims are durable and strong but the hubsare sh*te

Zipp are just too expensive although it must be said there fast

 

[/quote']

 

The rear hub / free wheel body on the Ksyrium rear wheel gives a lot of problems - I have a set of those silver SL's, so I know. Also, I was on a training camp with our club earlier this year and two or three people were having the same problem with their Ksyriums. I'd say rather go for something like Campy Eurus, which is similar in weight, price and aerodynamics.

[bruce]

 Those specs sound good (especially value for money)' date=' but I assume those are clincher? Tubbies just glide across the road in a way that clinchers can't even begin to compare with - I don't know the stats on rolling resistance, but just the feeling of riding on tubbies is awesome.

[/quote']

 

Clinchers have significantly lower rolling resistance than tubbies, there are plenty of tests to prove it.  The glue that holds a tubby to the rim has more flex in it than the beading on a clincher.  So the tyre actually moves on the rim - a lot of enery is lost by the continual flexing of the glue.

[Jan-willem]

thanks for all your info guys: but now my head is spinnig

bruce do you race with tubbies or clinchers?

 

and sould i purchuse a set of tubbies or a set of clinchers?

it seems as if the tubies are much lighter(and more exspensive)

 

[Christie]

Bruce, the test I have seen (http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html) found that tubbies had a RR of between 34 and 53 watt, and the clinchers between 26 and 47, when inflated to the same pressure. They do not list any numbers for tubbies inflated to a higher pressure than the clinchers. They only state that tubbies with a hard casing showed a dramatic improvement in RR when inflated over 140 psi.

 

Based on their test data, it does look like clinchers have got a slightly lower RR at the same pressure, but no conclusion can be made for  tubbies inflated to their max rating.

 

Have you got some better data?

[Zaskar]

Shamal Ultra: 1395g per pair. At R6' date='929.65

[/quote']

 

Shamal Ultras for R6929.65?? Please tell me where i can find them at this price!!