that frame looks pretty hot, and it sure looks like a re-worked p3c.

about the p4, who cares? i wanna know when the p5 is coming out. then i can get a p4 for cheap. :^)


seriously, anybody (gerard especially) know if the p4 will be uci-legal?

i hope it won't be uci-legal. and not because i think the bike will be a lot more aero if it's not uci-legal. it's more that the uci are such a bunch of friggin' bozos, they need to have the best bike company in world put them and their ridiculous rules in their place.

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

If the P$ (opps I left the shift key on but I think it fits) P4 is going to happen, I would love to hear about how it was developed and how long they have been working on the design and such. I am always interested in how long a new frame takes to build. Did Cervelo start working on the P4 shortly after the release of the P3C after they had more wind tunnel time and could see where a few things might be changed.

I do hope that Gerard will be able to go over some of the finer points of the new frame once it is unveiled at the Tour.

If that is the P4 it's missing the Cervelo patented features I thought were definitely going to be included (hydraulic brakes integrated into the forks and integrated hydration system). Could that be the reason the fork is white and the rest of the bike is black?

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Is that a ninety degree seat angle?

Interesting cockpit design, looks like the fork is offset somehow.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

the seat tube appears to be uci illegal, not falling within a prescribed rectangle from bb to toptube junction.

I took the picture below from the NEW GIANT thread and there is some interesting comments from Gerard in the CONTE BIKE SHOP thread.

I like what Gerard said on that other thread - basicaly that we will not release something new until it is really worthwhile to release something new with clearcut advantages. I wish more companies thought this way, instead of releaseing "new" product simply for the sake of doing something. Secretly, many dealers wish this to. It leads to longer product cycles that are actually very helpful to dealers in terms of stocking and sell through.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

In a thread a while ago about the P4, Gerard mentioned that they would not release a new frame unless it was something like 20% better or higher correct. So if the P4 is actually going to happen for sure, I can not wait to see what innovative ideas they have come up with and an explanation on why they did what they did.

Since the Tour is not governed by the UCI and is under the control of the ASO, are they going to be allowed to use non UCI restricted frames and does that mean that they minimum bike weight will be scrapped?

The French association that the Tour is operating under follows much of the same UCI rules. So no crazy bikes, I'm afraid.

---

--
"Rock and roll, dude." -- Dave Z., on winning TTs in all 3 Grand Tours.

no, they'll probably still follow the UCI's ridiculous rules but chalk it up to 'tradition'. Gotta give them some credit, they are actually having it both ways.

I figured that they would following the Technical guidelines put out by the Evil UCI Empire. It would be cool to allow bikes at a new lower weight however since bikes now can be under the limit with stock parts very easily. As for bike designs, I doubt that anyone has a non UCI bike available (save a few companies) to just throw it into the race.

EDIT: it would be very nice to see the riders allowed to be in a more forward position and get a lot more aggressive with their positioning.

I hope that is not the p4, that thing is freakin ugly.

"Is that a ninety degree seat angle? "

Seat angle is measured in a line from the BB to the middle of the seat post. It's probably the same 75-78 variable adjustment as other Cervelos, in fact it would have to be in order to be TDF legal.

I agree that at first glance it looks mostly like a reworked P3C. We'll have to get more info as to find out if there is anything genuinely revolutionary about this frame. The p3C was a tough act to follow so finding a 20% improvement was probably not easy to do. The double diamond frame design is probably now very close to being maxed out aerodynamically.

Yes, so until then, I guess that some pissant company making beam bikes will ALWAYS be faster than the latest and greatest Mighty Cervelo TT Machine.

seriously, anybody (gerard especially) know if the p4 will be uci-legal?

i hope it won't be uci-legal. and not because i think the bike will be a lot more aero if it's not uci-legal. it's more that the uci are such a bunch of friggin' bozos, they need to have the best bike company in world put them and their ridiculous rules in their place.[/reply]
That seems like an uneducated hope. UCI doesn't prevent things from being more aero - it just gives a more fair advantage to countries with less resources to spend on custom bikes. Go do some reading about the USA's 1million dollar Atlanta track project or other such ventures from other countries.

It will be UCI legal because Cervelo got up and running (and where it is today) from its Protour sponsorship of CSC not because a bunch of triathletes decided it was cool to have a bike that looks fast.

 
I doubt that is the P4 for a few reasons.
a) the front brake is tucked behind the fork. Gerard has stated here that Cervelo has observed no aerodynamic improvements from moving the brakes
b) the seatpost doesn't have Cervelo's characteristic binder.
c) the fork has a bigger rake angle than their current TT bikes.
d) Those don't look like cervelo brakes. Why would they use anything different than their own brakes?
e) that doesn't look like Cervelo's or 3T's fork.
f) the seatpost doesn't have it's holes seen on the PxC bikes
g) the seatstays don't appear to be sculpted like those on any of the PxC bikes.

I'll digress and say it could be a Cervelo for 2 reasons.
a) The front end looks alot like Cervelo's 1st prototype.
b) From my wind tunnel experience last year, I think we're going to see a market shift with less emphasis on the design in the rear of TT bikes in the future and more on the front.

I know Rhodsey has posted on here. I wonder what his thoughts on the p4 are? I would guess he may be sworn to secrecy.
IMO he is the ultimate cervelo-tri connection. Hasn't he ridden them longer than anyone(pro)?

It's the new Giant.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

Or Walser...

---

Suffer Well.

Good sleuthing but as above my guess is this is the P4 without the eventual fork (which will have hydraulic integrated brakes). That takes care of a, c, d and e...

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

My observations of this frame, as i can sit here and look at my P3 in front of me.
The Curve, is not as deep as P3.
No Cervelo binder
Where seatstays butt into seat-tube is lumpy/bulky compared to P3c
Horizontal drop-outs are shorter than cervelo (very similar to the Giant used to have)
I'd love to see how the 'straight-line' is going to go through the seat tube to saddle.

---

'to give anything less than the best is to sacrifice the gift'...Pre

How are you so sure about the hydraulic brakes?

---

-------------------------------
Ignorance is bliss until they take your bliss away.

Stop the guessing people. This isn't the P4, it's the new Giant, High Road (sponsored by Giant) is riding them.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

Doesn't Giant make Cervelo's for them?

The guy above may be right about it being a giant but the brakes comment stems from some patent filings cervelo have made. There was a debate on here last time about whether it was 'the right thing to do' to post links so I won't (but google is your friend).

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek