Cheapest way to own a pair of 404's

Spins

Where's the best (cheapest) place to get a pair of ZIPP 404 clinchers?

Genghis

I got mine via adverts.ie! Seriously, its difficult to find these anywhere cheap - even on ebay, second hand really holds their value. The Sterling rate has changed quite a bit since I looked around for mine, try a Google Product Search on .co.uk and see what comes back at you.

http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=Zipp+404

RobFowl

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/cycle/7/Zipp_404_Wheelset_2008/5360034954/

just under €1600

http://www.slanecycles.co.uk/productdetail.aspx?id=1778&subid=280&catid=67

£1199.99 sterling at Slanes cycles Belfast

scottreynolds

http://www.slanecycles.co.uk/productdetail.aspx?id=1778&subid=280&catid=67

£1199.99 sterling at Slanes cycles Belfast[/QUOTE]

Snap I was just about to post that.

If money is a big concern look around for a second hand ex-demo set or go for a different wheel i.e. Planet-X. I know that a poor substitute but its all down to your budget.

I'd also give Wheelworx in Clondakin a call and tell them want you want and then see what they can do. They demo them as well.

P.S. I really want some too.

Lumen

Almost worth buying a bike, swapping wheels and reselling.

Just read that 202s are 1081g a pair :eek: £1200 though :eek::eek:

Fortunately they're not available as a clincher.

bunnygreen

I think there's a secondhand pair in Cyclesuperstore for €1,000,maybe Tubs though,cheaper alternative might be a pair of Mavic Carbones,Hollingsworth are doing them for under €800 in Templeouge.

RobFowl

Tub's are probably the better option in terms of ride quality. If you keep them for race only wheels as well it shouldn't be too much of an issue in terms of cost running them.

tunney

bunnygreen wrote: »

I think there's a secondhand pair in Cyclesuperstore for €1,000,maybe Tubs though,cheaper alternative might be a pair of Mavic Carbones,Hollingsworth are doing them for under €800 in Templeouge.

carbones are rather heavy and not that aero.

Spins

Anyone agree RE: tubs. They will be used for racing only except for the odd bling Sunday cruise on good roads....

TinyExplosions

I would be anti-tubs unless you've got a team car, spare wheels and a mechanic... you save about 350g on Clinchers, which isn't a huge amount.

I'd maybe, maybe consider tubs for racing on, but certainly not as my main wheelset

tunney

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I would be anti-tubs unless you've got a team car, spare wheels and a mechanic... you save about 350g on Clinchers, which isn't a huge amount.

I'd maybe, maybe consider tubs for racing on, but certainly not as my main wheelset

its 350g on the rim.
rotational weight..............

TinyExplosions

tunney wrote: »

its 350g on the rim.
rotational weight..............

Yes, but it's still not a huge amount, and imo, worth it for the convenience of clinchers

scottreynolds

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Yes, but it's still not a huge amount, and imo, worth it for the convenience of clinchers

I disagree here. People are upgrading wheels sets to save 200g so 350g of rotational mass is fairly significant. The general feeling I get round this forum is that you should be using Tubs if using these wheels for racing only. There's no difference is price but you should get extra benefit from the weight saving.You would need to be good about applying a tub tire in the event of emergency.

In saying this Chrissy Wellington, World Ironman Champ, still rides clinchers.

Lumen

scottreynolds wrote: »

People are upgrading wheels sets to save 200g so 350g of rotational mass is fairly significant.

Is it? I've read a lot of complete bollox written on this subject by people who claim to know what they're talking about, but apparently don't (*).

If a wheel resists acceleration, it resists deceleration too, so unless you're using the brakes you get the energy back sooner or later.

I'd expect that actual energy losses due to heavier wheels are negligible.

(*) he says, about to do the same

RobFowl

Straight from the horses mouths (Zipp website)



From road to triathlon to track, from mountaintop finishes to field sprints, the 404 does it all. Its 58mm rim depth is the classic in Zipp's arsenal and has carried athletes to victory from the days of Mark Allen and Jacky Durand to Frank Schleck and Carlos Sastre. The 404 has conquered the Queen K, Alpe d'Huez and countless Tour stages and world championships.
For 2009 the 404 tubular wheelset is faster than ever with the third generation of our patented ABLC dimpling pattern and a new fully toroidal rim shape derived from the 1080 and Sub 9 projects. Refined through over 100 hours of wind tunnel testing during co-development with the new 808, the new 404 shows reduced drag at every angle from 0 to 30 degrees.
The new tubular rim shape also offers the benefits of added stiffness, due to a slight widening of the rim, and better braking, with a slightly angled brake track. We've also taken similar leaps forward with the new 88 and 188 hubs that are smoother, stiffer, and more durable than ever before.
Even with all these upgrades, there is no weight penalty. The 404 Tubular set tips the scales at just 1232g per pair with 16/20 front/rear spoke counts.
Like all our tubulars, the 404 is built with our Carbon Bridge technology that dramatically increases impact resistance with a Kevlar thread running perpendicular to the carbon laminate. Between those layers of carbon lies our VCLC system, which uses a shock-absorbing material to reduce vibration by 10% and keep your wheels glued to the pavement under all conditions

And re the Clincher

The clincher version of the 404 uses the same go-anywhere, win-anything 58mm rim depth of its tubular brother, but with the everyday convenience of clincher tires and the reliability of an aluminum braking track.
Plus, Zipp's M2CM technology maximizes rim strength and durability by fusing the aluminum hoop to the inner carbon section. ABLC dimples, VCLC vibration-reduction technologies, and the new 88/188 hubset round out the 404 Clinchers' 1615g total package with 16/20 front/rear spoke counts.
True, they're heavier than tubulars and they lack the new rim shape, but they are still lighter and faster than many SL wheels on the market. But if glass and potholes factor into your rides, the peace of mind is well worth it.




As I read it if you want a wheel for training, racing and mixed use then clinchers, if you want a race wheelset then tub's.
IMO 404's are far too good to go training on :eek:
(unless you aspire to be Alan Sugar)

zzzzzzzz

Lumen wrote: »

Is it? I've read a lot of complete bollox written on this subject by people who claim to know what they're talking about, but apparently don't (*).

If a wheel resists acceleration, it resists deceleration too, so unless you're using the brakes you get the energy back sooner or later.

I'd expect that actual energy losses due to heavier wheels are negligible.

(*) he says, about to do the same

I could also be talking sh1te but I don't think that's how it works.

It takes a certain amount of energy to turn the wheels. The amount of energy required goes up as the weight goes up. This, like everything weight related, matters more on climbs. I don't think, as you say, you get the energy back sooner or later... Also, descending at high speeds, where you'd "get the energy back", is assumedly more dependent on aerodynamics than weight.

Again - I could be talking complete sh1te.

blorg

I'm also considering something and am still torn between clinchers or tubular... Rotational weight, yes, but you do have to factor in that with tubs you will need to carry a spare tyre on the bike, say 270g, but you won't have to carry an inner tube -75g...

Lumen

aidan.offbeat wrote: »

It takes a certain amount of energy to turn the wheels. The amount of energy required goes up as the weight goes up. This, like everything weight related, matters more on climbs. I don't think, as you say, you get the energy back sooner or later...

Yes, it takes (a very small amount of) energy to spin up a wheel. A bike wheel is just like a flywheel, which is an extremely efficient energy storage device.

When you reduce the pedal power below what is required to maintain a constant speed, the heavier wheels will just return the energy by maintaining your speed a more than light wheels.

If you are saying that the rotational energy leaks away somewhere, then you'll have to tell me where.

Considering non-rotating mass, a heavier bike/rider is obviously harder to move up a hill (mgh), and you don't get a perfect return of that gravitational p.e. on the downhill, because the increased speed on a descent is exponentially less efficient, but for the small speed changes associated with the giving and taking of rotational inertia I can't see rotating mass being a big deal.

scottreynolds

Lumen wrote: »

(*)

I only going on the balance of what I have read but like you I agree there is alot of people who crap on about nothing. I guess the bottom line is do you research... its a significant purchase and you should understand the benefits and trade offs of both options. Since I'm not buying them, at the moment, I don't need to be an expert I only offer my opinons --

If it were me and i were buying 404's I call up Zipp and see what they recommend.

Lumen

scottreynolds wrote: »

If it were me and i were buying 404's I call up Zipp and see what they recommend.

The aero benefits of 404s are well documented. 404s are about 8W more efficient at 50kph, compared to boggo wheels. For a rider putting out (say) 350W this will presumably result in small but measurable time savings in a TT, and nothing whatsoever in road racing.

But that's the same regardless of clincher vs tub.

blorg

scottreynolds wrote: »

I only going on the balance of what I have read but like you I agree there is alot of people who crap on about nothing. I guess the bottom line is do you research... its a significant purchase and you should understand the benefits and trade offs of both options.

Zipps have dimples! Patented dimples! Like golf balls. Golf balls go fast. Up to 328 km/h.

If it were me and i were buying 404's I call up Zipp and see what they recommend.

Zipps I imagine, they have dimples.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

Zipps have dimples! Patented dimples! Like golf balls. Golf balls go fast. Up to 328 km/h.

They're not dimples. They're goosebumps caused by the pure sexcitment of preventing boundary layer separation.

scottreynolds

Lumen wrote: »

But that's the same regardless of clincher vs tub.

I know that they would rec Zipps I would rung them to undertstand the technical differences, or percieved advantages, of tubs v clincher and get them to help me make an more informed decision. Hell we only rides them they are the geeks.............

Its one of those things that you really need to understand in great detail, which I definately don't, to make an infirmed decision on. Lets all agree that 404's are great wheels that we would probably all like to own -- clinchers or otherwise.

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

The aero benefits of 404s are well documented. 404s are about 8W more efficient at 50kph, compared to boggo wheels. For a rider putting out (say) 350W this will presumably result in small but measurable time savings in a TT, and nothing whatsoever in road racing.

There are a few factors- energy you save throughout the race in the bunch, energy you save/speed you gain in breakaways, and speed in the final sprint. Remember in road racing your time is irrelevant, it's position that counts

From what I have read the aero savings outweigh the weight penalties over climbing wheels in anything but the hilliest of races.

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

The aero benefits of 404s are well documented. 404s are about 8W more efficient at 50kph, compared to boggo wheels. For a rider putting out (say) 350W this will presumably result in small but measurable time savings in a TT, and nothing whatsoever in road racing.

But that's the same regardless of clincher vs tub.

At least read what you link to.

404 19.9watts
aksium 31.1watts

Difference being 11.2watts per wheel or 22.3 watts for both.

Assuming a threshold power of 300watts - its about 7.5%.
7.5% improvement is a big one.

TinyExplosions

Sorry, the physics is totally lost on me really... all I was saying is that if I was buying Zipps, and had only one set for use training, racing, general cycling, then I'd go for clinchers, as the saved weight/rotational mass etc etc is not as great as the inconvienience of repairing a punctured tub or replacing one with all the glueing etc etc etc... for me there's a level of practicality I'm not prepared to give up, no matter what the advantage

Billy Whizz

I'd go for the Carbones over the 404s. As mentioned before they may not be as light or as aero, but they are certainly better suited to Irish roads. I'd rather a set of 404s if I lived somewhere else, but I know a good few people who have destroyed 404s rather tamely.

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

At least read what you link to.

404 19.9watts
aksium 31.1watts

Difference being 11.2watts per wheel or 22.3 watts for both.

Assuming a threshold power of 300watts - its about 7.5%.
7.5% improvement is a big one.

I was reading off the graph, and picked Mavic Askium 2008 as my boggo example. Using the table, it's 28.3W so 8.4W difference.

I don't know where you get 300W from - a random online calculator gives 430W for 50kph on aerobars.

So that's 2% difference.

Still, I shall beat myself to a dimple for being so careless.

Gavin

We need a mathematical model of a bicycle with parameter values for all bicycle products, particularly Zipps to sort this out. Someone get on it.

short circuit

less weight is always better ... on the body ... on the frame ... on wheels .. everywhere.

But if you are going to spend money on reducing weight ... new frame .. new groupset, new stem, liposuction etc ... it is recommended that you first concentrate on rotational weight ... wheels (rims, spokes, hub ... in that order), pedals, cranks, chainrings .... and then get the liposuction.

Anything which is not rotating ... you only need to provide kinetic energy .. for stuff which is rotating .. you are providing both KE and rotational energy ... so every gram lost on rotating parts is worth twice that lost on a non-rotating part.

For coolness and looking euro ... zipps win every time over liposuction ...

bunnygreen

Has anyone an experience of the Detec M-58 Full Carbon Tubular Wheelset, Cyclesuperstore are doing them for under a grand,guy in there says there as good as Zipps,then again i suppose he would.

scottreynolds

short circuit wrote: »

For coolness and looking euro ... zipps win every time over liposuction ...

Lets consider the 'euro' test:

"Hey guys, I saved 10 minutes over 40m TT by reducing my bike / rider weight by getting lipo. I would throughly recommend it"

-or-

"Hey, I saved 10 minutes on my 40m TT but getting Zipp 404's. "

Hungrycol

You can also roll better/faster with a flat Tub than a flat clincher while you wait for your team or Mavic car to get to you.

Spins

Billy Whizz wrote: »

I'd go for the Carbones over the 404s. As mentioned before they may not be as light or as aero, but they are certainly better suited to Irish roads. I'd rather a set of 404s if I lived somewhere else, but I know a good few people who have destroyed 404s rather tamely.

Really? Anybody else heard of similar complaints? Is there a question mark over 404 durability?

Diarmuid

Wait a sec, €1500 for a set of wheels? Ouch. Who here is doing 50kph (not in a peleton) sustained?

They do look cool though

blorg

Spins wrote: »

Really? Anybody else heard of similar complaints? Is there a question mark over 404 durability?

Zipp 404 road rims on a 29er. Owner is apparently an ultra long-distance mountain biker who abuses the hell out of them. Originally posted by a Zipp employee so taking it with a grain of salt, but cool picture.

Diarmuid

blorg wrote: »

Zipp 404 road rims on a 29er. Owner is apparently an ultra long-distance mountain biker who abuses the hell out of them.

More money than sense I guess. Road aero rims on a mtb!

Lumen

Diarmuid wrote: »

More money than sense I guess. Road aero rims on a mtb!

Indeed. Everyone knows that aero rims are for commuting.



(courtesy: bikesnobnyc)

tunney

Spins wrote: »

Really? Anybody else heard of similar complaints? Is there a question mark over 404 durability?

not really no

tunney

Diarmuid wrote: »

Wait a sec, €1500 for a set of wheels? Ouch. Who here is doing 50kph (not in a peleton) sustained?

They do look cool though

Set???? Thats just the cost of my rear one
(Zipp 900)

blorg

Diarmuid wrote: »

More money than sense I guess. Road aero rims on a mtb!

In fairness guy's name is Mike Curiak and he wins ultra-distance MTB races... Fit for purpose I guess. He uses a different sort of bike to do stuff like cycle across Alaska:

blorg

tunney wrote: »

Set???? Thats just the cost of my rear one
(Zipp 900)

What other wheels do you have tunney, and what do you think of them, would be interested... Do you only do TT/tri with disc rears?

CheGuedara

It's like if Mad Max had a bike!

Chips Lovell

For me it would be a waste of money to buy carbon rims and then go for clinchers. Tubulars all the way.

Lumen

tunney, don't you have to fix your own punctures in IM events? Presumably that's a case for choosing for clinchers.

blorg

el tonto wrote: »

For me it would be a waste of money to buy carbon rims and then go for clinchers. Tubulars all the way.

How do you find tubs vs clinchers with latex tubes, you got them, right?

I am in two minds, not sure I would be happy to buy expensive bling wheels and JUST use them racing. Also not sure how much 350g matters in a Cat 3 race in this country, they are mostly mighty flat.

It is really easy to change a puncture with the tape? I wouldn't mind if it added five minutes, even ten.

Also not sure of the whole carbon pad/carbon braking surface thing, I don't mind whipping wheels around for a race but if I have to change the pads as well (I have done it before, I know how easy it is, I am lazy about bike changes.)

Tubs are not a nightmare?

Chips Lovell

blorg wrote: »

How do you find tubs vs clinchers with latex tubes, you got them, right?

Tubs are a much nicer ride.

blorg wrote: »

I am in two minds, not sure I would be happy to buy expensive bling wheels and JUST use them racing. Also not sure how much 350g matters in a Cat 3 race in this country, they are mostly mighty flat.

It wasn´t the weight I bought them for, more the speed.

blorg wrote: »

It is really easy to change a puncture with the tape? I wouldn't mind if it added five minutes, even ten.

Tape is a doddle. Possible as quick to change as a clincher if the backing tape doesn´t break on you. What´s more, you can ride an unglued tub provided you don´t corner hard on it.

blorg wrote: »

Also not sure of the whole carbon pad/carbon braking surface thing, I don't mind whipping wheels around for a race but if I have to change the pads as well (I have done it before, I know how easy it is, I am lazy about bike changes.)

Swiss Stop yellow. You can use them on both.

blorg wrote: »

Tubs are not a nightmare?

Not as much as I thought they´d be.

BH2008

el tonto wrote: »

Swiss Stop yellow. You can use them on both.
quote]

I thought you had to change pads because of the danger of bits of aluminium sticking in the pad and damaging the carbon braking surface??

bunnygreen

Hey El Tonto,what Tubs do you use?

Chips Lovell

BH2008 wrote: »

I thought you had to change pads because of the danger of bits of aluminium sticking in the pad and damaging the carbon braking surface??

The main reason for changing them is that traditional pads don´t work well on carbon. You can check the pads for bits of metal before swapping wheels. They´re bright yellow, so if anything is lodged in them, it´s pretty easy to spot.

blorg

Thanks for those answers Tonto, being able to use the same brake pads would be a big plus... Regarding the weight thing, I would be comparing the same model of wheel in the clincher or tubular variant, I would be buying primarily for the aero benefit myself (and a bit the bling )