Zipp Grade 2 Bearings???

[boysa]

No one else cares.

I care. He's got a damn good point, as far as I'm concerned.

[mattr]

TBH, probably 15-20% of the claims about top end kit are either misleading, misguided or outright lies.

[sedluk]

You are kind of missing the whole point. Zipp has always made very ordinarily rims and very ordinarily hubs. If you look back many years you read all their hype about each new generation of hubs and rims. Then the next year they kind of confess that last year's stuff was really not that good but they finally have stuff that is the best.

Year after year they have always had the best promotional videos and fluffy tech write-ups. The promotional stuff is always amazing and I admit that I have bought many of their products.

Your whole exercise is worthless, read the promo stuff and get excited, buy the wheels and enjoy them. Or you can spend way too much time trying to dissect their wonderful promotional stuff and never be sure. Better to just enjoy their products, they look cool and ride fine and just upgrade each year.

[ross]

Then the next year they kind of confess that last year's stuff was really not that good but they finally have stuff that is the best.

This is true of many manufacturers and not solely related to the bicycle industry either. HIFI industry is much the same, vehicle manufacturers, mobile telephones and even dishwasher tablets. While there are clearly advances in technology all the time, it's in their interest to shift as many units as possible

[mattyNorm]

I think the lack of response is more due to lack of knowledge than anything else

[ergott]

Another consideration is how long a bearing will even maintain that standard. Not long at all. Also need a race to coincide with that standard.

If you are chasing anything more than grade 5 you are kidding yourself for any cycling application.

Don't like Zipp's claims? Don't buy them. It's not even remotely close to the worst claim I've seen from a bike manufacturer (lighter, stiffer, more compliant, etc.).

[davidalone]

I'm interested too.

You could perhaps post this on Slowtwtich. Some sponsored athletes who are quite in touch with zipp can maybe help you get in touch wiht them . I know an SRAM rep is on tose forums fairly regularly too.

[boysa]

There's a difference between misleading, which I expect from all companies, and outright lying.

[Calnago]

That's what separates the "good" marketing teams from the bad.

[ergott]

There's a difference between misleading, which I expect from all companies, and outright lying.

Which hasn't actually been proven just yet. I'd like confirmation before I conclude it's a lie.

[boysa]

I totally agree. I only know what the OP has posted here, and honestly haven't done any research on my own. I don't ride Zipp, and truthfully never have and probably never will, so my interest is limited. I only meant to infer from what he has posted thus far, it SEEMS as if he's done some legwork on this, and his points seem valid.

I don't think anyone should dismiss it based on the explanation, "Oh well, it's just another marketing ploy." Marketing is Zipp saying they have the fastest wheel. Well, I know enough to understand this means they have the fastest wheel at "x mph," with/without their dummy on the bike, at a certain yaw angle, etc, etc. This seems to be something different.

My first inclination is to doubt a company of their reputation would risk making a claim they could be effectively be sued over, but it wouldn't be the first time.

[goodboyr]

I'm no lawyer, but don't you have to demonstrate damages to sue? I mean what are the damages if the balls are 3's instead of 2's?..

[eschelar]

Well thanks to all for your interest. I have received an answer from Zipp. Someone there decided to pay attention after I told him there was an "avid discussion" on weightweenies. OK, minor exaggeration, but given the context, I think that can be forgiven.

We use grade 3. ABEC 5, grade 3 ball. I believe the notion of the grade 2 bearings originated from our Zedtech bearing vendor. Since this program is no longer available, we will make sure this information is removed during the next website update.
Best,
ZIPP
Zipp Speed Weaponry

That would explain why they say that CeramicSpeed (ball grade 3, ABEC7) is an upgrade.

Ultimately, what people are saying "who cares" "if you are chasing anything more than grade 5 you are kidding yourself" and "there's no difference between Grade 3 and 2 and 5 and... etc" are all valid points. From what I have read, there is no significant benefit from bearings even beyond Grade 25. At that point, ball resistance is vastly overshadowed by seal resistance, which itself is negligible. Claims to the contrary like (a good set of bearings will save you 1-9 Watts) are contradicted by many posts found even on this very site, where engineers have pointed out that the energy savings is likely to be <0.01%, so a tiny fraction of a Watt. Certainly, if the resistance from the seal can be overcome with a tiny fraction of a watt, then it's not really plausible that removing that resistance can save thousands of times more energy. If I put a wheel on its side (eliminate balance problems), I can move a steel bearing wheel with Grade 25 balls by blowing gently on it...

The real issue I have with this is the fact that for who knows how long, Zipp has been claiming to use a product that is better than the competition, but this product doesn't actually exist. So competitors have no choice but to use "inferior" grade product, which is actually the best product available, or lie.

Is the cause of this error deception or misinformation - I don't think anyone can say that and it would take a whistleblower at Zipp to say for sure that there was a specific chain of motive behind this behavior.

But make no mistake, there's a difference between saying "our wheels are faster" and "we use Grade 2 balls". Generally, the first type of statement isn't a big problem. It's when a company starts to make a claim that is specific like the second that they become legally punishable. If you make a drink that you say "contains electrolytes", that's a pretty broad claim. If you make a drink that contains "150mg Guarana per 250mL serving size", then that is a specific claim and does need to be accurate. If it is not, that's called "false advertising" and even a rudimentary knowledge of world events will tell you that this is taken very seriously and can be extremely expensive. Even if there are no specific damages and the type of lawsuit brought against the company is criminal rather than civil. Look at what happened with Red Bull a couple of years ago. Heck, look at VW. It is the act of being deceptive that is considered unlawful - and it becomes very expensive. Many would argue that VW cars are actually cleaner running than most US made cars and that the damage done is very little, but the key point is not the details of how well they run, it's the fact that they were deceptive about specific details.

Certainly, if I were a lawyer working for a competitor for Zipp, it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate damages. If Zipp bases their high sales volume and high markup on falsified information and as a result becomes a market leader, yeah, that's pretty easily demonstrable legally inappropriate behavior that is not OK. Other companies have been sued for far less. I don't think anything like that will happen because the bicycle industry is so small and now that Zipp is owned by SRAM, it's not really in anyone's best interests to sue them.

But I am glad that we did find some real information. I'm glad that Zipp is going to rescind their claim. I'm a bit disappointed that we'll probably never find out why and I'm a bit disappointed that this flat out BS remained on their website for so long. I've seen threads with people asking about this dating back to 2009 and 2011. Generally, the person who disagreed with Zipp was poo-poohed because Zipp is somehow considered a more credible source than an engineer.

In light of this discussion, that is very disappointing. What Mattr says about "15-20% of the claims about top end kit are either misleading, misguided or outright lies" is probably quite understated and it calls into serious question this whole process of trying to make educated decisions about buying product based on information posted on a manufacturer's website.

[ergott]

The real issue I have with this is the fact that for who knows how long, Zipp has been claiming to use a product that is better than the competition, but this product doesn't actually exist. So competitors have no choice but to use "inferior" grade product, which is actually the best product available, or lie.

I just did a quick read on their site. The claims about bearing aren't exactly at the forefront. You won't find mention of it reading about any of their wheel models. It's not until you get to the "hub technologies" subsection of the "technologies" tab. Yes, by all means they should correct the error on their website.

If it were one of the main claims of superiority they use to differentiate Zipp wheels from the competition I could see the righteous indignation. However, they generally point to their rim technologies (shape, carbon layup, brake performance, etc.) as being the main reason to purchase Zipps.

[eschelar]

The real issue I have with this is the fact that for who knows how long, Zipp has been claiming to use a product that is better than the competition, but this product doesn't actually exist. So competitors have no choice but to use "inferior" grade product, which is actually the best product available, or lie.

I just did a quick read on their site. The claims about bearing aren't exactly at the forefront. You won't find mention of it reading about any of their wheel models. It's not until you get to the "hub technologies" subsection of the "technologies" tab. Yes, by all means they should correct the error on their website.

If it were one of the main claims of superiority they use to differentiate Zipp wheels from the competition I could see the righteous indignation. However, they generally point to their rim technologies (shape, carbon layup, brake performance, etc.) as being the main reason to purchase Zipps.

Not sure why you think that way. As a consumer, I am aware that there's really only 2 critical parts of a wheel. Rims and hubs. Spokes are largely the same for everyone. When I look for information on hubs, they talk about bearings. Their "primary claims" are regarding Si3N4, which they imply is better than other brands' ceramic (when it is in fact the very same stuff) and ball grade. They state that they are using a non-existent ball grade, which is better than the competition (when it is in fact the same stuff).

Now I turn my attention to their rim technology. Physics tells us that dimples are effective on bluff bodies and there are articles by aerospace engineers that say that dimples do not help a wheel. Zipp provides data that shows it does.

And your take on this is that I should ignore the misleading and false information about their hub technologies and instead focus on their rim technologies.

The way I see it is that their information about hub technologies is misleading and contradicts reality. Their rim technology is their "primary message" also contradicts what engineers are telling us, so does that mean that it is an even greater deception? I don't know and I'm not trying to make a statement about that.

But fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice...

As a consumer, stuff like this destroys my trust in their brand and makes me highly critical of anything else they try to tell me about their product. I find it quite surprising that as a consumer, you would prefer to ignore this and trust them anyways because the deception is a smallish detail (that has been sitting unchallenged on their website for the better part of a decade, but has never been remotely true). What do you stand to gain from trusting someone who has already been caught in a falsehood?