Zipp 303 Firecrest Clinchers - 10sp vs 11sp?

Capt.Ramjet

Hi all,

I'm in the market for some 2nd hand Zipp 303 Firecrest Clinchers. I need Shimano hubs. I'm getting confused over which year models are 11sp vs 10sp compatible.

If there are any Zipp experts out there, could I trouble you to advise which year models are 10sp and 11sp compatible?

Many thanks

itsnotarace

2012 onwards

http://www.zipp.com/about/story.php?ID=496

ugo.santalucia

Don't get the pre 2014 ones, as the hub is prone to catastrophic failure. You want the new ones with the V9 rear hub

viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12930058&p=18935320&hilit=zipp+188#p18935320

Capt.Ramjet

Great feedback. Many thanks.

londoncommuter

Just to add a bit of balance, Zipp told me this when I enquired about the pre-2014 hubs:

"The failure rate on the hubs is less than 0.1% - when a hub does blow, it feels like a major defect and images go viral.
We have changed the design and the lacing pattern for 2014 to improve wheel stiffness and balance the forces on the flanges better."

You do never hear from people who have no issues with something so it's hard to tell how widespread this is.

ugo.santalucia

londoncommuter wrote:

Just to add a bit of balance, Zipp told me this when I enquired about the pre-2014 hubs:

"The failure rate on the hubs is less than 0.1% - when a hub does blow, it feels like a major defect and images go viral.
We have changed the design and the lacing pattern for 2014 to improve wheel stiffness and balance the forces on the flanges better."

You do never hear from people who have no issues with something so it's hard to tell how widespread this is.

I believe it's more than 0.1%, but fair enough... It's not the rate of failure per se, but it's the mode of failure, which is worrying. When the flanges cracks 2 or 3 spokes on the side collapse, which is a major failure, potentially leading to a bad crash.
I have described it in my article here

http://paolocoppo.drupalgardens.com/con ... w-finished

The hub could have been designed with notches to allow only one spoke to collapse at any one time, but that would be admitting there is a problem... which was highly predictable, by the way.

gaddster

Where's your proof of more than 0.1% then?

ugo.santalucia

gaddster wrote:

Where's your proof of more than 0.1% then?

Do you know the meaning of "I believe"?: if not, it means that I believe (like one believes in God, for instance... no evidence)... I have no proofs... we have had at least 4 cases on this forum only... according to Zipp's statistics we should have > 4000 users on Zipp, which seem a lot to me... but again, it is entirely possible

gaddster

Yes thanks for the English lesson, beautifully delivered as all your sermons are. So as you yourself say, you don't have any, 0.1% it is then.

Thanks for clearing that up..

lawrences

Deep breaths please Gaddster.

thegreatdivide

I've done thousands of miles on my 2013 FC tubs now and I'm still waiting for them to explode. That feedback from Zipp is on the money. A few...and it is a few...experiences of hub failure and the internet decides they're a death sentence. Total boll@cks.

charlie_potatoes

gaddster wrote:

0.1% it is then..

Where's your proof of 0.1% then?

ugo.santalucia

thegreatdivide wrote:

That feedback from Zipp is on the money. A few...and it is a few...experiences of hub failure and the internet decides they're a death sentence.

Probably. I would assume he talked to Denham, who seems to be the person who answers query at Zipp. I did talk to him once asking for advice on which washers to use on their rims. He was nice and answered promptly... I told him it was a rebuild due to seized nipples and he replied that it's very rare... well, IME it is not rare at all!

Assuming the 0.1% figure is correct... who re-designes completely a mechanical part which has a 99.9% rate of success?

gaddster

I would say that is perfectly normal for a company which overall has a decent product to want to improve something that is not 100% reliable. You shouldn't really question the desire to improve things, as that means end users get better products.

ugo.santalucia

gaddster wrote:

I would say that is perfectly normal for a company which overall has a decent product to want to improve something that is not 100% reliable. You shouldn't really question the desire to improve things, as that means end users get better products.

I agree.. but if it was 99.9% reliable, then surely a minor adjustment would solve the issue and would be in line with what you say. Changing completely the pattern and "going back" to a traditional 3 cross effectively means to me the previous concept was somehow flawed and needed a complete overhaul...

gaddster

Yes but you're saying something different now. Flawed design doesn't necessarily equal unreliable. My car has plenty of flawed designs but it keeps going, just not as efficiently or smoothly as the newer improved ones.

We obviously see improvements in a different way.

ugo.santalucia

gaddster wrote:

Yes but you're saying something different now. Flawed design doesn't necessarily equal unreliable. My car has plenty of flawed designs but it keeps going, just not as efficiently or smoothly as the newer improved ones.

We obviously see improvements in a different way.

This is an old set of Zipp, pre-firecrest

As you can see the drive side is crossed.
Then they designed the 188 hub with the radial drive side... then the newer V9 is essentially the same design as the one in the photo above... you can call it improvement or progress, if you like, but I prefer to think that they cocked it up and went back to the older design... and then marketed the all thing as new and better... maybe you are right, maybe you are not... the jury is out