login
Flo vs . . .
-
No new posts
 2015-02-09 9:06 AM |
 409  Durham, North Carolina |  Subject: Flo vs . . .Hey everyone! I'm about to pull the trigger on a Flo 60/90 combo, but my friend is offering to sell me his 2014 Reynolds assault slg's around the same price. Now I'm confused on what I thought would be an easy decision. I just wanted your opinions on which you think would be better for tri's, and also opinions on other options around that price point. I'm leaning towards the Flo's mainly because I love the looks of two different size clinchers and I can also get the color accent that I want. Looking forward to what you all have to say. |
| 2015-02-09 9:12 AM in reply to: Lupy |
Regular 589  Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . Just one side of the story, love my Flo 90 / 60's, for the aesthetics and they are more than enough for a MOP'er like me. |
| 2015-02-09 10:43 AM in reply to: Lupy |
| DC | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . New is always nice. |
| 2015-02-09 12:14 PM in reply to: Lupy |
Expert 4623 Middle River, Maryland Silver member | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . Originally posted by Lupy Hey everyone! I'm about to pull the trigger on a Flo 60/90 combo, but my friend is offering to sell me his 2014 Reynolds assault slg's around the same price. Now I'm confused on what I thought would be an easy decision. I just wanted your opinions on which you think would be better for tri's, and also opinions on other options around that price point. I'm leaning towards the Flo's mainly because I love the looks of two different size clinchers and I can also get the color accent that I want. Looking forward to what you all have to say. I think you answered your own question. |
| 2015-02-09 12:28 PM in reply to: jmhpsu93 |
| 409 Durham, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . Originally posted by jmhpsu93 Originally posted by Lupy Hey everyone! I'm about to pull the trigger on a Flo 60/90 combo, but my friend is offering to sell me his 2014 Reynolds assault slg's around the same price. Now I'm confused on what I thought would be an easy decision. I just wanted your opinions on which you think would be better for tri's, and also opinions on other options around that price point. I'm leaning towards the Flo's mainly because I love the looks of two different size clinchers and I can also get the color accent that I want. Looking forward to what you all have to say. I think you answered your own question. I agree, but I can be easily swayed  |
| 2015-02-09 12:53 PM in reply to: Lupy |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . Originally posted by Lupy Hey everyone! I'm about to pull the trigger on a Flo 60/90 combo, but my friend is offering to sell me his 2014 Reynolds assault slg's around the same price. Now I'm confused on what I thought would be an easy decision. I just wanted your opinions on which you think would be better for tri's, and also opinions on other options around that price point. I'm leaning towards the Flo's mainly because I love the looks of two different size clinchers and I can also get the color accent that I want. Looking forward to what you all have to say. For tri I would go with the Flo (that was on purpose), but for road racing I would take the Reynolds. |
| 2015-02-09 3:45 PM in reply to: msteiner |
1055 | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . If you'll want to do road races or TT's, I'm not sure if Flo has been added to the approved equipment list and I don't know how closely that is policed. |
| 2015-02-09 3:48 PM in reply to: msteiner |
| 360 Ottawa, Ontario | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . Originally posted by msteiner For tri I would go with the Flo (that was on purpose), but for road racing I would take the Reynolds. Agreed. The Reynolds is not as deep, nor is it the wide torroidal shape of the Flos, so it won't be as aero. It'll climb better and likely be better in cross-winds, but will not be as fast as the Flos. |
| 2015-02-09 5:05 PM in reply to: SenatorClayDavis |
| 409 Durham, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Originally posted by msteiner For tri I would go with the Flo (that was on purpose), but for road racing I would take the Reynolds. Agreed. The Reynolds is not as deep, nor is it the wide torroidal shape of the Flos, so it won't be as aero. It'll climb better and likely be better in cross-winds, but will not be as fast as the Flos. Thanks. I only plan on doing tri's. |
| 2015-02-09 6:26 PM in reply to: #5091803 |
Member 325 Groningen, Netherlands | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . Actually because the flos are more aero they will also be more stable in cross winds than an older deep rim design (I dont know what kind of rim design the Reynolds is though) |
| 2015-02-09 6:46 PM in reply to: Snaaijer |
| 360 Ottawa, Ontario | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . Yes, a torroidal shape is more stable in crosswinds than a deep-v - I believe the Reynolds are U-shaped, so somewhere between the two shapes. If both wheels were the same depth, the Flo would certainly be more stable in crosswinds, but the Reynolds is 2/3 the size of the Flo 60, so it's likely that whatever it's losing in cross-sectional shape, it's making up for with its shallowness. |
| 2015-02-10 7:32 AM in reply to: Lupy |
Extreme Veteran 1018 | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . Thumbs up to the Flo 60/90. I'm still rocking mine all the time. I was in order #3. |
| 2015-02-10 4:25 PM in reply to: Lupy |
Elite 5145 Cleveland | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . Ask your friend whether or not he's selling his Reynolds' to buy a set of FLO's... if so, there's your answer |
| 2015-02-10 8:34 PM in reply to: cgregg |
New user 121 Green Bay, WI | Subject: RE: Flo vs . . . I love my 60/90 combo. You won't regret that decision. |
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| |||
| Giant vs Felt vs QR vs Cervelo Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK