Zipp 303 FireCrest Clincher Wheelset Fitment Problem

elffy

I am presently looking at purchasing a Zipp 303 FireCrest Clincher wheelset for my Specialised S-Works Venge but I believe I could have a problem with the fitment due the clearance between the rim and chainstay. There is known problem with the McLaren Venge but I'm not sure if my S-works Venge has the same geometry hence the same problem. I have had the rim only fitted onto the bike and there appeared to be approx 5-7mm between the frame and rim? Is this enough allowing for the rim to deflect under load?

foggymike

I'd be a bit worried myself but others seem to have done it...

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=4428395;

...maybe worth dropping Zipp an email so if you go ahead then at least they'll have advised one way or another and you'll have a chance to return/swap the wheels rather than having to sell them with marks on if you do get a bit of rubbing. Probably hard to advise as your weight and riding style will make a difference too.

ugo.santalucia

If you have 5 mm clearance, that should be plenty... if the rim was to deflect of 5 mm, what would be the point in spending all that money for alleged stellar stiffness claims?

Dick Scruttock

I would believe its the same for the S-Works Venge as well as the Mclaren.

elffy

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If you have 5 mm clearance, that should be plenty... if the rim was to deflect of 5 mm, what would be the point in spending all that money for alleged stellar stiffness claims?

That was my thoughts exactly. Have spoken to Zipp and they recommend 3mm clearance plus bike flex so I'm assuming the Venge being so stiff that the flex will be nominal so I should be ok. It's still a bit of a worry when you are buying something at risk. Zipp say the 404 is thinner by 2mm (1mm each side of the rim) but to me that doesn't seem conclusive either.

FransJacques

The 303s are a very wide rim, I'd go to a shop and try the rear for sure. I have a 303 front and it's not a big deal. But I'm glad that the geometry of new DA and Red 22 brakes coming out deal with the width a lot better.

bernithebiker

Won't fit the SL4 S works either, I'd steer well clear; (of the wheels, not the SL4!)

thegreatdivide

They're very wide. I run 303 FC's on my Wilier Cento Uno and there's not much room up by the BB. If you can get to a Zipp dealing LBS it's deffo worth trying to fit one first.

Without trying to start yet another pro/con tub thread I strongly advise you go down the tubular route if you're buying FC wheels. I would hazard a guess that these are going on the best bike only to be ridden on the finest of days? If so there is no benefit to the clincher version other than not having to learn how to mount a tub (easy). With the tub version you get the considerable weight reduction, a rim that will cope a lot better with the occasional surprise pot hole (they survive Paris –Roubaix) a 23/25 mm tyre will sit perfectly to give you the ‘teardrop’ and then there’s the luxurious ride.

smidsy

thegreatdivide wrote:

there is no benefit to the clincher version

Apart from the fact that a clincher has less rolling resistance of course

Monty Dog

Rolling resistance counts for diddly when you're stood at the side of the road with a flat tyre and a broken rim because you hit a pothole.

gaddster

Amazing how quick a simple question becomes a ramble of spurious scaremongering comments. I suppose when the mods agree with them then that's when threads stay unlocked for the 'pros' to add to the 'advice'. I've hit plenty of potholes without breaking a rim. If you're that blind to miss something that's deep enough to possibly break a wheel you need to start questioning if you should be riding a bike in the first place.

To the OP, try them really is your only way of finding out if it's that tight.

smidsy

Monty Dog wrote:

Rolling resistance counts for diddly when you're stood at the side of the road with a flat tyre and a broken rim because you hit a pothole.

This is true but irrelevant. A tub could also broken in that scnario.

Someone said there is no benefit to a clincher, I merely stated 1 such benefit.

mfin

When people are shelling out loadsamoney to get a very light aero wheel, I think most people would much rather have the lighter, uncompromised design-wise wheel, but often just can't get their heads around the thought of fitting a tub. So in these cases people buy the heavier, compromised clincher version.

Customer "Id like a pair of your Zipps Mr Zipp, but I don't want to use normal tyres cos Im scared of the thought of changing a Tub" ...Mr Zipp "Well, I can make you some, but we'll have to figure out a way to add a load of carbon to the structure to find a way of fitting the clinchers on securely, its not ideal, and it will weigh more" ...Customer "I don't care, as long as they look the same, that's what matters really"

When you see your average muppet working in a bike shop, if he can change a tub, does everybody like this rate themselves as so much 'thicker' that they can't figure it out?

gaddster

Again another irrelevant response, why don't you post this in the 8 page long thread that already exists on this subject?

smidsy

gaddster wrote:

Again another irrelevant response, why don't you post this in the 8 page long thread that already exists on this subject?

If we are going down that road why did the OP not use the search and read said 8 page thread that already exists on the subject? :roll:

mfin

gaddster wrote:

Again another irrelevant response, why don't you post this in the 8 page long thread that already exists on this subject?

Cos I posted it here

thegreatdivide

gaddster wrote:

I've hit plenty of potholes without breaking a rim. If you're that blind to miss something that's deep enough to possibly break a wheel you need to start questioning if you should be riding a bike in the first place.

Scenario – 12 man fast group ride comes round a tight downhill corner at breakneck speed. Too fast to take action as the impending big pothole is called out, so it’s a case of pray that you’re not the one that hits it, swerve the hole then smack into another that nobody saw in the shade of some trees. Happened to us a week last Saturday. My rear 303 FC tub hit it full on (managed to lift the front but couldn’t bunny hop in time*) and after a check on the road and a more detailed check at home the rim has come away just fine. However the rear Zipp 101 alu clincher on my mate’s bike buckled.

*I know, bunny hopping on a carbon rim is not advisable even though that bloke did it on YouTube.

gaddster

smidsy wrote:

gaddster wrote:

Again another irrelevant response, why don't you post this in the 8 page long thread that already exists on this subject?

If we are going down that road why did the OP not use the search and read said 8 page thread that already exists on the subject? :roll:

That thread is about a completely different subject and not the one he posted here about. What's your point?

gaddster

thegreatdivide wrote:

gaddster wrote:

I've hit plenty of potholes without breaking a rim. If you're that blind to miss something that's deep enough to possibly break a wheel you need to start questioning if you should be riding a bike in the first place.

Scenario – 12 man fast group ride comes round a tight downhill corner at breakneck speed. Too fast to take action as the impending big pothole is called out, so it’s a case of pray that you’re not the one that hits it, swerve the hole then smack into another that nobody saw in the shade of some trees. Happened to us a week last Saturday. My rear 303 FC tub hit it full on (managed to lift the front but couldn’t bunny hop in time*) and after a check on the road and a more detailed check at home the rim has come away just fine. However the rear Zipp 101 alu clincher on my mate’s bike buckled.

*I know, bunny hopping on a carbon rim is not advisable even though that bloke did it on YouTube.

So you're comparing a 101 aluminium rim which are not exactly strong to start with to a completely different full carbon one? How can that be indicative of all clincher rims and a valid comparison?

thegreatdivide

gaddster wrote:

So you're comparing a 101 aluminium rim which are not exactly strong to start with to a completely different full carbon one? How can that be indicative of all clincher rims and a valid comparison?

The alu rim was a side note to the scenario I gave to counter the pretentious remark you made about riders hitting pot holes.

Dick Scruttock

Think we should get back on topic and keep all the tub v clincher arguments to the other thread.

gaddster

thegreatdivide wrote:

gaddster wrote:

So you're comparing a 101 aluminium rim which are not exactly strong to start with to a completely different full carbon one? How can that be indicative of all clincher rims and a valid comparison?

The alu rim was a side note to the scenario I gave to counter the pretentious remark you made about riders hitting pot holes.

If you're going to give examples at least make them like for like and relevant. You're point was to say it buckled because it was a clincher right? Well no it buckled because it was a pretty light and weak rim to start with. If on the other hand your mate had the clincher equivalent of your wheel and his failed then it would be a valid comparison.

I'm not denying that tubs are the better wheel choice, nowhere have I said contrary, it's just I can't be arsed with all the stuff that goes with them as I'm lazy and have had none of the apparent negative effects from using clinchers.