is the Look set up for Bjorn?

So...when are you going to send them to me for a P2K vs. P4 vs. 596 field test "shootout"? ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Not exactly the prettiest bikes I've ever seen...

---

Forget speedwork. Speedwork is the icing on the cake and you don't have a cake yet. - MattinSF

Basically they have 9 tenants, live life to the fullest, do not turn the cheak, and embrace the 7 deadly since. - TheForge (on satanists)

I know the p4 is the fastest bike ever invented :^) but I've got to say I like the looks of the Look better. Picture may not due the p4 justice. Plus the Zipp bars seem to give the Look a faster look.

Where's that woman from Hawaii holding up the Look? I'm disappointed, I thought she came with the bike.

---

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

That seems to be the consensus. The P4 is a tool: The fastest tool that may be available. The Look has some interesting engineering and some intersting design and component themes. Both nice bikes (understatement). Both different approachs.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Wait a second...is the 596 in the small chainring? Isn't that some kind of ST faux pas?

I'll go a step further and say that the P4 is ugly as shit. I'm sure it's fast tho.

The look is interesting looking.

is cervelo required to put the same $200 aerobars on every tri bike it sells?

Oh for crying out loud. Fiddlesticks. I can't frickin' believe I actually did that.... Dang it.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

The Look appears to have edged out the P4 on the sprint to the finish line. Is that your way of subliminally letting the STers know which is faster??? Did you ever find out if that was YOUR Look or just yours to review?

While you are looking at the LOOK with the chain on the small chainring, imagine a one peice carbon crank installed on one of the old school BMX huge bottom brackets. We had the new 596 at a club meeting a few weeks ago and it is pretty amazing how light the cranks are.

---

________________
Runnin' Dave
________________

I agree .....The P4 reminds me of the old QR Redbone with that stupid looking plastic fairing thing.......

---

I shall never misuse Rex Kwon Do
I shall be a champion of freedom and justice

I have to agree with you. It is ugly as sin. With the economy where it is I just don't see very many people wanting to upgrade to the P4 other than the truly hard core and well off Cervelo fanatics. It may very well be the fastest bike ever made but it is straight up fugly. Sitting beside the Look just emphasizes that point even more.

That's -24,000 posts for you, Tom. Frickin newbie. You probably don't know how use search either. Sheesh.

Tom,

I noticed on your site that you seem to really like the Felt's. How does the DA compare to these two machines? I had a LOOK Monoblade ten years back and these machines don't seem to be huge steps forward in design.

THX

they are both ugly as hell and i usually love cervelos.

I think the Look is ugly as shit. Completely unnecessary lines and comlication that serve only to make it slower and more expensive to manufacture while the P4 is beautiful in its simplistic functionality.

The P4 is what happens when function dictates design. This is what works- what is believed to be fastest. For many people who say they want the most aerodynamic frame and that is their primary agenda- this is it...

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

The cost vs. aerodynamics vs. adjustability analysis of the Vision bars has been much better than any of the other options for a very long time. Personally I would love to see them take up the 31.8 banner because I am heavily invested in that area, but you really can't fault Cervelo for sticking with such a well conceived cockpit.

Chris

I'm in the other camp. I'm not fast enough that a P4 would save me enough time to justify the expense, and that is a REALLY fugly bike.

Scott Plasma2 or Argon18 E-112. That's where I'm heading. :D Or maybe a Ridley Dean.

John

---

---

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

The RedSTONE was awesome and a revolutionary design by Mr. Empfield, as well as a fast bike. FWIW...I had one and loved it. Still have PR's on that bike. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway.

I think Cervelo blew it on the paint scheme for the P4.

Black? Really? Was that the best they could do?

They really need to hire a graphic designer up there.

---

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

Most of my PR's are 10 years ago too! Ok, I like Cervelo, just not the P4, but what do I know, I ride an old Ti Merlin.

---

http://noel-ironman.blogspot.com/

And the more angular and alluring look of the 596:



The P4- Form follows function:

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Why hasn't Cervelo moved over to BB30? I thought that was the wave of the future, plus FSA is really behind it this year and they were pretty tight with Cervelo at CSC.

Interestingly the Look 496 uses a proprietary bottom bracket configuration that is enormously oversized. there are adapters provided for using a conventional crank. The P4 uses a functional, proven, refreshingly standard bottom bracket configuration.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Is that a second generation water bottle for the P4? It already looks different from the first relaeased pics.

Honestly, I am not certain.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

My god, those bikes are ugly. Looks like someone took a sledgehammer to the top tube and seat post of the Look.

It maybe fast but sure it is UGLY

As indicated by the painting below, aesthetics are subjective:



bike design is said to be dictated by other parameters:

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

They both look much better in person. And I don't belive how thin the P4 is can actually be properley seen in photos...you have to see it live. But I will agree with man that it is ugly (this is coming from someone that really likes Cervelos). The Look is pleasant in person, and the new QR is just beautiful!

---

---

"your horse is too high" - tigerchik

You are the second person today to tell me they like the looks of the new QR.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I like how they put the "Lance Hump" into the top tube.

Oh man, can I steal that term? The "Lance Hump", I like it.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Anyone know a weight on a p4 frame- also weight of fork?

What does that thing look like when you put a standard spoked training wheel on it?

Did they really build the P4 expecting to sell a ton of them? or did they build it for the buzz and the potential to grow the P2 and P3 models.

To you other post about what factors drive bike buying decisions for me its function than looks. I think the "average joe" walks into a bike shop and buys the fastest looking bike with the paint scheme most appealing to him or her. Paint / Color is king.

I was able to see the P4 in person and there is a lot of function going on that I don't think pictures can capture (i.e. chainstays, drive side bottom bracket, etc.).

It certainly will be interesting to see how it performs in 09'.

So for all the business and marketing types, who will sell more framesets in 2009...Cervelo or Trek (now that the Lance factor is back)?

---

"There is no charge for awesomeness or attractiveness." Po "The Dragon Warrior", Kung-Fu Panda

A bit like a Playboy bunny in coveralls.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

heeeeee haaaw

huge.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

The P4 actually looks better in this shot than any other I have seen. I have no doubt that it is a much better looking bike in person. Impossible for a 2 dimensional photo to do it justice though I think you have done a better job than even Cervelo.

Aside from which frame/manufacturer you prefer, in the matchup of those particular builds the front end really gives an aesthetic edge to the Look. Of course the fit may (dare I say probably) be worse for any given rider, but the bar config appears much sleeker, and the drop from saddle to bar is sick. By contrast, the P4 actually looks rideable to me, not so aggressive.

Good point. Cervelo has been showing the P4 with the new 3T Ventus bar and it looks sick fast. It is nice to see a different build that does look more ridable. Might be interesting to see the response if Tom just changes out the aero bars. Might give each bike a totally different feel.

Tom,

I'm waiting as patiently as possible and then you post these pics : (

The only saving factor is its not a white one. If it had been, you would've received one nasty telephone call : )

By the way................any word, yet?

I did a double race weekend and completed only one of the races. Half way thru the second race the seat bolts snapped clean in half again and the seat fell off my bike. I dying for a NEW bike : ) The booboo was not the fault of the bike, though. I hit a speed bump, the fourth of 4 in a row (huge sharp one) at 38mph. Just about killed myself and my bike.

---

.
.
Paul

It's a bit naive to think that the bike is designed purely by engineering...

Tom -- What is that little black 'cap' that is right next to the 4 on the downtube?

The white Looks are supposed to be following here in the next week or two at the most I'm told. They look nice based on what I saw at the Interbike tradeshow.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Tom,

Have you taken the P4 out for a ride? Can you report on the ride quality, stiffness, etc..?

Do you have any hydration suggestions with the P4? I just can't see that bike as a feasible option for IM racing. Can you really see refilling the custom bottle while hammering at 25 mph? The bottle is too small and placed too low on the frame IMO. I know it's fast, but I think we should consider how much time you will lose if you are not properly hydrated.

Only option I see is an aero bottle between the aerobars and a hydrotail -- still not optimal. I think the P3 will continue to dominate the 70.3/IM market. Short TTs and sprints/olys are what the P4 is really designed for.

Yeah. They're both ugly as fuck. Makes me glad I don't own one.

---

"Paulo knows where to find me."

Throw the Zipp bars on that thing and it would "look" wicked fast. Yeah, I know, it is fastest in the wind tunnel, these bars are more ergodynamic, more adjustibilty, blah, blah, blah. Zipp bars (or more S-bends for that matter) simply look faster and sexier. So, if you want to portray speed and sex appeal in a photo, you gotta go with the Zipps.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

With aid station at every 10miles in a ironman... there is only need for one or two bottle really.. so the p4 aero bottle and put another one if you want on the aerobar horizontal between your arms......that bottle can be exchange at every aid station. So really, if someone as a problem with hydratation on a p4 during a ironman, i would recommend him to get a good coach and learn the art of nutrition during a ironman.

look at many of the pro racing with one bottle only....they are a good exemple of how to do it......

Personaly, i see the p4 as the ideal ironman bike...... 2000cal in the aero bottle, and gatorade or water bottle between my arms as i go to aid station...

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

Makes sense. However, I've been curious about the spare - where does it go if you're using the P4's aero bottle for nutrition and a horizontal bar-bottle for hydration? A saddle-banana (is that what we're calling it now)?

just tape it with tape under the saddle, if you use clincher like me, you can easily put two tube under the seat very tight and clean with 2 co2 cartridges and tire lever and you are all set.... you should be able to tape them together under the seat and behind the seat post so it s SUPER clean...

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

Tom, how far in front of the BB is the saddle on the LOOK? Also, the LOOK also accepts the 5mm post, right - the R5 (as opposed to the R32 post shown, which has 32mm of setback/setforward).

Also, how does the seatpost binder on the P4 work? Can you show a closeup? It's clearly different than than the p3c // p2c.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Cervelo has to be kidding spec'ing the P4 with those crappy vision bars. Anyone who is going to slap down $4800 for a frameset or $6800 for a bike isn't going to have that crap for their cockpit. They should spec the bike with the Zipp Vuka or the 3T ventus. I'm going with the 3T myself as I'm pretty sure Vroomen White didn't get their 20% drag reduction over the P3 using Vision bars.

cant wait to see the gel dispenser on the the P5

---

Formely stef32

Holy crap, there is actually a bicycle that the P4 is better looking than, and who has arms long enough to reach that water bottle?

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

Yeah, those things are totally crap. They've only won, what 2, 3 world time trial championships? Total garbage. Burn them! BURN THEM!!!!

---

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

as others have said the look is ugly as fuck

Always shoot bikes in 53x11... 54x11 is even better... 56x11 even better...pedals at 3 and 9... the LOOK was done a disservice. Go to the box for 2 minutes and feel the shame.

Scott

---

Scott Murison

http://www.wildrock.net/

LOL, funny, but true. It really is a good thing that there is not a Felt, a Trek TTX, a Scott Plasma 2, or just about any other popular Tri bike next to the P4, it might just turn everyone off. Also, until this bike proves itself in real race conditions lets not say that it is the fastest bike out there. Talk is cheap, lets prove it first..

by 3t ventus, i hope you mean 3t brezza, since speccing a ventus would mean that a large proportion of people would have to throw the aerobars in the garbage as it wouldn't allow them to fit to the bike.

It's official-- two of the ugliest bikes I've ever seen. There is no reason why a bike can't be "the fastest ever" and more aesthetically pleasing than those two bikes. In a few years, you'll see-- both Cervelo and Look will have "faster" bikes that won't be so u-g-l-y. Luckily for me, I'm slow enough that I'm allowed to still care about aesthetics. If I ever reach my physical potential and can't get any faster on the fastest attractive bike, then maybe I'll change my tune about aesthetics mattering.

I would be curious to see both bikes set up with the same geometry. Same size (or close) frame, with the same drop, reach, and all that jazz.
The look just looks faster, but I think its partly due to the way its set up.
Any chance that you can make this happen?

Agreed, 100%

---

http://bryanlh.blogspot.com/

Please post a picture of a bike that looks good to you. I'm not trying to argue, but the two bikes posted look very different from each other, yet you rank them #1 and #2 in historical ugliness.

Another vote for potentially two of the ugliest bikes ever, side by side.
While they may be undisputed marvels of engineering and the most efficient tools of the trade, they just don't have the classic lines of many other rides.

---

______________________

I think the Cervelo S3 is a fantastic looking bike, as was the 2008 P3C. I think Look's 2008 line up was pretty nice too. Honestly, I think it would be very hard for me to think of 2 bikes as ugly as the P4 and the 596 even though they look so different. Like others, I respect the engineering though. If you own either of these bikes, feel free to laugh as you pass me. I'm cool with that.

I don' t really like "tradition", so in my eyes, the 596 is one the best looking bikes I've ever seen. I love the broken top tube, I love the front end, and the huge stays. It looks as though its doing 30 mph standing still.

The P4 on the other hand looks like a square brick, from the side. Its all about "ugly". The P4 may be slightly faster, maybe, for some of us, all depends on your position. I'm sure that bike can be slower for some of us depending on your position on said bike.

Remember, I love the Zipp 2001 frames, one of the fastest ever produced and looks like its going 30 mph standing still.

I don't want a bike that looks like every other bike in transition. I like to be different. I'd bet that most of the frames out there, for my position, wouldn't gain me more then a few seconds aerodynamically when compared to each other. Now on the other hand, with the new ZED cranks, huge bottom bracket, and the elastomer in the seat post, the 596 may just be faster then anything I've ever had. That and the fact that I love the looks of the 596.............I bought one!

---

.
.
Paul

Your position would have nothing to do with it - either it is more aero, or it isn't.

Let's still remember, no one anywhere has won anything on it yet, so it is not the fastest thing there is, it is only marketing still......

i saw both these bikes today up at RA. I like them both, but the Look, looks amazing.

I think the Ridley-Dean trumps them both for "curb appeal"...

---

Lar Dog

---

Lar Dog

Tom D, wich bike are you going to ride next year?

---

Formely stef32

Thats a nice looking bike.

But one of the best things about the 596 is the elastomer in the seat post. If you've never ridden a road or TT bike with suspension, you really are missing something. The ride of the Zipp 2001 is super smooth. Its like riding a dream. The 596 I'm sure will ride a bit more stiff without a beam, but the elastomer will improve the ride over a regular bike.

Once my wife saw that the 596 had an elastomer in the seat post, she said I could have one : )

---

.
.
Paul

Never heard of the elastomer...can you provide a few more details? Is Look the only one who uses this?

---

Lar Dog

"So really, if someone as a problem with hydratation on a p4 during a ironman, i would recommend him to get a good coach and learn the art of nutrition during a ironman.

look at many of the pro racing with one bottle only....they are a good exemple of how to do it...... "


I can think of at least one hugely successful female pro who is routinely photographed at IM races with 3 water bottles plus an aerodrink on a P3/P3C. I doubt seriously that she needs additional coaching on IM nutrition. There are plenty of examples of pros who use more than 1 water bottle to race that distance and it would be interesting to hear how they feel about a bike with no place to attach a water bottle cage. A fair number of St'ers have voiced a negative opinion about that feature of the P4 and it could very well be a reason for looking at other bike options (maybe the P3). One water bottle is not for everyone...

As far as I know Look is the first to place an elastomer in the seat post of a TT/road bike. The 596 is the only Look frame to have the elastomer. 3 elastomers come with each frame, soft, medium and hard, each a different color. I'll be testing each one to see if they provide a difference in the ride.

I can't lie, the elastomer is one the biggest reasons I bought the 596 (and my wife says so). I've ridden alot of different bikes over the past 18 years. Suspension rules! Whether its an elastomer or whatever. I just can't get into a stiff seat post up my butt for hours on end. They really do make a huge difference with road shock.

My wife would never let me buy a Cervelo P3, I never wanted one anyway, since the seat post is STRAIGHT up. It just looks like it hurts!! : ) That totally rules out a P4, too!

---

.
.
Paul

I never said you cant be succesfull with 4 bottles on your bike. You can, but you arent maximizing your aerodynamic. For someone like stadler, even if he isnt riding the most aero bike, he will still be ahead of most because he is so strong. For someone not as strong that is struggling to make the front group.... to take attention of all the details might make the difference.

Now, the p4 can be riden with 4 bottles easy. The aero bottle on the down tube, 2 bottle behind the seat and one between the aerobar. That is for anyone that want a p4 with tons of bottles.

Now, for those that want every chance on there side. There is way to learn to have a effective hydratation/fuel plan with only 1 or 2 bottle on the bike. The p4 come as extremly handy as you can use the aero bottle on the frame and a normal bottle between your arms on the aerobars and you have the fastest set up available on the market... you put all your chance on your side to get the most out of your output...

not sure how is your succesfull pro women but perhaps...she could be even more succesfull by looking at those details...

Tons of pro have such big engin...it dosnt matter what they do...they are going to go fast. But if your FTP isnt 400 watts, but you still want to keep up with the others, to be wiser than them and look at details might payoff..

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

I totally get why someone would want the P4. Assuming its the fastest bike, then why not ride it the way its supposed to be ridden and get the maximum benefits? I also understand that some people can and do get by with 1-2 bottles with no issues at all. It works for you and others, so no argument there. I just wonder about the supposition that some of the most successful triathletes are winning "in spite of themselves." Perhaps their plans and methods translate to certain equipment choices that sortof buck the aero assumptions? Its very hard to argue with success. All I'm saying is that the P4 presents certain challenges that may not be worth it in the end for many athletes for a variety of reasons- including pros and elites. It will be interesting to see how everyone does it...

I was flipping through one of the Tri magazines and my girlfriend who could care less about bikes saw the Look. She said, "Wow, that is a hot bike. Why don't you get one of those." I just smiled.

I see how the aerodynamic benefit could be a few minutes in an Ironman, but you also have to consider the time and energy lost every 10-20 miles when you slow to grab a bottle and accelerate up to pace. See how much time you save when competitors around you are slowing to grab bottles and you stay left and skip the aid station. You will gain some distance. It adds ups and i am not an expert at all on aerodynamics or this and that, but i am guessing that you would actually be faster with 3 bottles on bike and less visits to the aid station even if you are a very good technical rider, you still have to slow. what do you think??

you bring some good points.....and important to think about it. Now, to be honest, in the pro race, we dont slow down for bottles,(often we are lucky and have the volonteer spint with bottles for the first few riders...) when i look next to me, i see very experimented rider and they know how to grad a bottle quickly and you often dont even have to get out of aero position to do so. But you still bring a good point, everyone as to figure out what work best for them....

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

Jonnyo,

Ok, so maybe you can get by in a race -- barely. How would you do long training rides on the bike without aid stations every 10 miles? If you can't train on this bike why race on it?

Also, is it really ideal to slow down for each and every aid station? I blow through as many as possible, especially the first few. If I don't need the aid, I'm not slowing down.

I think it's kind of crazy to have your whole race depend on the aid stations. Some of those volunteers don't know how to hand up a bottle. I use aid stations for probably 1/2 the IM. Once you do get a bottle, with this bike you refill the small 20 oz custom bottle on the bottom bracket -- what a waste of time and energy. Bottle Exchange? Not with the custom bottle. Also, how can you refill this thing if you are pedaling, the bottle is right in the center of all the action. The whole tiny bottle thing way down on the bb doesn't work for me -- the tool kit is a better idea.

I have not seen any pros race with 1 bottle, name me some pros who race IM with one bottle and I'll look at their setup.

I've tried the mega calories in one bottle -- bad idea -- too easy to get the osmolity all mixed up and end up with a bad gut ache. I've done 3 IMs and don't think I need a coach to figure out hydration, this bike just doesn't look like it would work for me.

I guess to each their own. It will be interesting to see how many pros use this bike for IM racing.. I think Demerly summed it up best when he said this bike was designed around the water bottle.

Tom, can you confirm that the Look 596 comes with pedals that allow for crank arm length adjustment? Also, it is interesting that Look appears to be going the opposite direction from Cervelo/Felt, etc. in terms of rear wheel aerodynamics -- rear wheel further from the frame versus close as possible.

I use 1 bottle of Perpertuem made up for the duration of any training ride or event I do over 2 hours. So the mix maybe for a duration anywhere between 3 and 6 hours. In training I use a Camelbak to carry water, refilling if necessary. During events, I use on course water, collecting, and discarding 1 bottle every aid station.

If you and Tom don't mind. Yes, the Look 596 comes with proprietary special Look Keo Zed pedals. Depending on how you mount the pedal the crank length is adjustable at 170, 172.5 and 175mm in length. Its a strange looking threaded hole in the crank arm that apparently allows the axle to be turned to adjust the length.

---

.
.
Paul

Regarding the Elastomer

Actually the 596 is not the only bike to come with the elastomer. The 576 used the same system on the tri side, and the 595 and 586 on the road side all use the same system. The 596 one looks different but it is just a fairing around the normal Epost system.

The 595 has been out since the 2007 model year, and the Epost works great!

Paul,

You are going to love the Epost system. As you may remember, I also own a Zipp 2001, we talked a couple of times when I first got the bike. I have been riding a 595 with the Epost since late 2006, and it is in a lot of ways better than the Zipp beam. The beam has more "travel", but it moves more than just up and down. Not a ton, but there is some side to side flex. With the Epost, you get close to the same amount of "travel", but no side to side movement.

You are going to love your new bike, I am getting one as well, though I like the black and red.

Scott

---

---------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This poster is a sales rep in the bicycle industry

Thanks for the info. Now I'm "really" looking forward to riding the 596.

---

.
.
Paul

What about Specialized Zertz inserts? I believe these were introduced on the 2005 Roubaix line and at some point were added to the previous generation Transition line.

My 2005 Roubaix has Zertz elastomeric inserts in the fork seatpost and seat stays. I distinctly recall seeing the inserts in the seatpost and fork of a previous generation Transition. The technology may have been applied to other Specialized lines, including the Tarmac.

peter

I have tried Perpeteum -- when I referred to the gut ache, it was from that stuff. I can't stand it in the heat -- yuck, it does ok for me in cooler weather. How do you get the osmality right? I tried the multi hour bottle but I always ended up drinking too much of the mix/paste and not enough water or vice versa. I now use 3 bottles of Infinit on the bike ~200 cals each that usually lasts me until 70 miles or so then add 2-3 bottles of gatorade and/or water and a few gels from the aid stations, usually 5-6 bottles total for IM depending on t's. The Infinit takes all the guesswork out of the osmality and allows me to just focus on the race.

Camelback sounds like the best option for this bike, but if you don't use it for racing you are violating the whole rule of "train how you race".

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

Marry her now!

That's not a fair comparison since both bikes are setup up differently. Cervelo better hire some graphics dept. otherwise they will lose significant market share over the coming years.

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

I love this bike.

---

The best pace is a suicide pace, and today looks like a good day to die.-Pre

Similar application of a similar technology. However, the Zertz do not actually provide "travel" in the vertical direction. They were more about vibration damping. I guess you could say it was similar, but the ePost goes significantly further by integrating the post with the frame.

---

---------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This poster is a sales rep in the bicycle industry

I can't afford a ring... I gotta get a bike!!! ;-)

Hey Tom, hows about a quick review of that San Marco Zoncolan saddle you have on the Look. There was a scathing review of it on insidetri, and ive seen it on a few of your bikes in the photos.

Do you rate it?

Would u recommend/prefer the cutout version?

---

Trek Speed Concept 9.9

Agree.

Cheers on that one. Horrible graphics. Well, the simple black and white Rs is good. But that silver and red Soloist team for 08??? All I see is Wal-mart Magna, etc. when I see that.

---

USA Cycling Cat. 2 Coach!! Yahoo
... ... ... ... ...
http://www.raysracingadventures.blogspot.com

I work for Look Canada,

1. Yes the bike comes with the KEO Zed pedals

2. we had a great PK on the reasons for why there is spacing behind the rear stay and wheel. Essentially when Look took the bike to
Nevers the famous F1 Magny Cours Wind Tunnel (yes, the same wind tunnel many F1 and Lemans cars are tested at), and according to Look the only wind tunnel able to run tests with spinning wheels. Look took to this tunnel to develop the 596, and during their time there, developed several iterations of what would eventually become the 596. One of the major designs they worked on was the gap between the rear wheel and the seat tube. What most bike manufacturers have adopted, is a fairly tight gap, but Look found that design caused a lot of turbulence in the area behind the seat tube and ran counter to the ultimate goal of cheating the wind. So engineers actually added more space to give the spinning air somewhere to go. A radically different direction, but not completely unfounded, as many Lemans race cars have louvered fenders to reduce pressure in their wheel wells.

A radically different direction, but not completely unfounded, as many Lemans race cars have louvered fenders to reduce pressure in their wheel wells.

I'm surprised you haven't been flamed about this statement yet since most STers seem to aerodynamics experts and would point out that a bike doesn't travel at nearly the speeds that a Lemans race car is travelling and would therefore not be subject to the same aerodynamic concerns that a bike would be. I'm not an aero expert, however, I do think that Look makes a mistake in trying to justify the wheel gap by making this comparison. I know that they are trying to market this bike by saying that they found that the wheel gap was more aero with the wheels spinning but until STers see the wind tunnel data then this will likely be viewed skeptically by this community since so many other bike makers have found contrary evidence.

Personally I think Look probably tested both options and concluded that both designs were probably so close that it wasn't going to make much of a real world difference. I think they made a conscious decision to have a bike that was very different aesthetically and would have people take notice of their product (i.e. the bent top tube). This doesn't mean that I think the bike is any more or less aero than any other bike out there in real world conditions. Let's face it. Look is a French company and style matters to them a lot (as well it should). And that doesn't have to mean that this bike is style over substance. It might very well mean style AND substance. But unless Look, for that matter the entire bike industry, agrees to an aero testing standard and then releases that data to the public then consumers will always have the right to question and/or ignore all aerodynamics claims.

"Tom D, wich bike are you going to ride next year?"

Fair question. The honest answer is that I do not know yet. I have very (very)limited riding on both right now- enough to write some commentary on the ride quality but not enough to know which I will fit on best.

It would seem the P4 is the natural for me since the geometry is the same as my excellent P3C which I used last year and really enjoyed very much. I am already excited about using the Look though since I also have a Look road bike that I really like.

I'll know more about what I'm going to ride as the season draws near and I get a few races under my belt on each bike. Ultimately for me it boils down to the one that seems to fit the best.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I know that they are trying to market this bike by saying that they found that the wheel gap was more aero with the wheels spinning but until STers see the wind tunnel data then this will likely be viewed skeptically by this community since so many other bike makers have found contrary evidence.
I have not heard of MANY bike makers found contrary evidence - only seen many bike makers copying Cervelo.

What I acually have read about this issue by companies that have tested different rear wheel gaps in wind tunnel is:

Cervelo: Minimum rear wheel gap is the faster.
Look: Larger gap is faster
Trek: No difference from minor gap up to 1-2 cm.
Wilier(J.Cobb): A gap up to a few cm makes no difference

Exactly. This goes back to the ST windtunnel shootout idea I proposed.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

If LOOK is truly claiming that, then they've put a pretty big dent in their credibility right there...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

They are claiming that, which I've found confusing. I've been meaning to follow up on that. My guess is that there some subtle modifier like "...in France" that got dropped by the marketing department.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

It worked for Henry Ford. I guess Cervelo feels empowered.

---

------------------------------
Team Clarks/EU Cycle Imports presented by RIDECLEAN

I've received much info on the "gap" from many sources. If I "see the forest through the trees", then this is a very fast frame. People need to see the overall picture presented by any manufacturer and not pick apart each statement made by the advertising department. If I took every single statement made as such then I'd never buy a product from anyone. Most manufacturers make some strange statements. I for one don't then disregard the product based on this one claim. So the marketing dept may have dropped something from this statement.... I don't care.

There are some other elements of the design that some have disregarded because they don't like the claim that it was tested in the only wind tunnel with spinning wheels. I don't disregard the presentation of this product based on that.

For instance - the seat tube is designed differently from a seat tube with near zero gap. The different design of the seat tube negates the need for a near zero gap. The design allows the air flow to by-pass the larger gap without being disturbed.

---

.
.
Paul

Well said Paul.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Tom....keep this top secret between just you and I. I am going to let you in on a business idea that could make the two of us the richest men in the triathlon world.....dimpled airfoil race numbers, imagine the timesavings on the bike with out that pesky race number flapping in the wind offsetting the aero gains of the rear wheel gap (or lack there of)....

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

That's all fine...but until the they actually reveal some actual testing data and protocol comparing it to the stuff they tried and/or other bikes, all we have to go one to evaluate their claims is what they've said...and if they are inaccurate on a simple subject like the "wheels spinning", how can we trust anything else that's said? What else is being "left out"? Like I said above, it puts a big dent in their credibility...it doesn't mean it's totally blown, just that I'm going to treat any other claims they make with an extra amount of scrutiny, especially things that go "against the grain" of the designs of other top end TT bike manufacturers (i.e. Cervelo, Felt, Trek, Specialized, etc. who ALL have considerable time in windtunnels - with spinning wheels - and have found that being able to adjust the gap to a minimum is important enough that they include horizontal dropouts.)

Personally, I really like some aspects of that LOOK design. I think the front end of the bike is well thought out and the whole crankset idea is pretty cool. BUT...there seems to be a bit of "handwaving" going on with respect to the "kink" in the top tube and the whole cutout issue. Heck, as Gerard has implied, with a poorly thought out seatstay/seattube junction, perhaps a significant gap is better than no gap...but that doesn't mean that with a well designed SS/ST junction that no gap couldn't be better. LOOK needs to show that they've done the "homework" on the SS/ST junction before implying that they found that a larger gap is better than a small gap. Perhaps what was "left out" in that case was the statement "...for this particular bike"??

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Consumers will have a hard time verifying aero claims, but they can easily verify claims like the above. A quick call to MIT, or San Diego, or Texas, or most tunnels I know, will reveal that they all test with spinning wheels. In fact, I don't think I have ever been in a tunnel that couldn't. I have no idea why Look would say stuff that obviously isn't true, and from your note, it seems they continue to do so even after it has been pointed out that it's simply not true, because they show themselves not to be very knowledgeable when it comes to the possibilities in aero testing.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

Just to clarify: LOOK does not claim that this is the only windtunnel in the world that allows testing in this manner. Regarding our use of the Magny Cours wind tunnel, the text in our catalog reads:

"...not all wind tunnels are created alike...One important factor that sets this tunnel apart is the rolling track that allows both wheels to spin..."

Also, as far as the gap/no gap testing goes, we're not saying that a larger gap is always faster, and no gap is always slower. The 596 front end was tested with several different rear triangle designs and the version that made it to production was the fastest we tested. Obviously a front end with different tube profiles and shapes may have produced different results, but the 596 rear end was the fastest we tested for this particular frame.

I hope that helps clear things up a little bit.

chas@LookUSA

Chas,


I think that in true Slowtwitch fashion, you and Gerard are going to have to name call, pick an ST posse and then meet somewhere for a throwdown...I suggest that you and Gerard belly up to a bar and figure out what frame is really faster by validating what one of the two of you can consume more single malt whiskey before hitting the floor or vomiting.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

Thanks Chas,
...but that quote above still begs the question "How does that 'factor' set 'this tunnel apart' when pretty much every other wind tunnel used for bikes does the same thing?"

I hear what you're saying on the "gap vs. no gap" and how it was tested on the LOOK bike. However, it would probably be more accurate (and clear) if you merely said that it was the "fastest rear end of the particular design iterations they tested for this model."

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Let me first say that I very much respect your bike designs and position in the industry. But I will say that I'm not sure that Look continues to make that statement about the use of the only wind tunnel that tests with spinning wheels. I've only seen this once, in the same statement and/or ads for the bike and repeated and re-posted. I've not heard them repeat this statement in other forms since then. OK>>>>>>>>edit>>>>>>>>.I just read Chas's response.....thank you!!!!

I will not argue the fact that Cervelos or other bike frames with little to no gap are very fast and tested as such. But I don't think I can discount a different design that utilizes a different seat tube design that may optimize a larger gap. Besides, the aero saving are going to be very small anyway.

The aerodynamic difference between Cervelo frames and Look frames will never make any difference in my racing or training. In fact I'd say this is true for the majority of people I race with. So really my decision comes down to which bike I like best. For me this decision comes down to my preference to being different and the epost with the elastomer : ) Cervelo is by far the most common bikes in transition now-a-days. That makes up my mind right there. Its one of the reasons I've been riding Zipp 2001's for many years. Its easy to find mine in transition. Its the only one !!

For my own selfish reasons I hope Look doesn't sell many 596's : )

---

.
.
Paul

That P4 looks hideous dude. Guess I am lucky the Cervello geometry is no good for me!

---

Lar Dog

To answer the ride question - i rode the demo P4 in Kona ( I sell Cervelos and others in the UK), which was way bigger than my 51cm P3c, i could be on the 54 though, and found, all things considered, it's very similar in ride to my p3c, which is a good thing.

---

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

Is it possible to grab the integrated bottle on the P4 while still pedaling - and for that matter, but it back, while still pedaling?

Yes, I have ridden the bike now and removed and replaced the bottle with no problem whatsoever, even while steering in a tight parking lot. Think: Profile Razor aero bottle. Same thing.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

exactly

I have a power point presentation (from Look France) that i'm trying to convert for the masses. It outlines the steps they took to design what they feel is a top level Tri/TT frame. There is plenty of empirical data so hopefully I can get this going soo.

Essentially the rear end was designed so that as air travels past the front wheel, fork and seat tube into the rear wheel the gap does 2 things:

1. allows the air to transfer from airfoil a (seattube) to airfoil b (deep dish or disc wheel)
2. The gap allows for air travelling back towards the frame (when a wheel is rotating the top of the wheel is dragging air withit towards the seat and seatube area, while the lower part of the wheel is pushing it away past the rear der) to flow quickly and easily without turbulence created by a narrow space between the tire/wheel and the seatube. When Look tested their front end frame design (yes they did a bike virtually the exact same gap as a cervelo along with others) they found they needed a gap to allow air to continue flowing through the frame (front to back) but also not causing turbulence when air re enters the top portion of the seatube/brake area.

Remember the front end of the Look bikes (track 496, track 596, tri 596, TT 596) all have a proprietary headset and fork integration with somewhere close to 15 patents. This front end is what keeps the bike extremely stable under adverse conditions but also makes it one of the best handling Track/Tri/TT bikes in the world, something that is very very often overlooked by many brands. Take a look at the integration of the front end of a Look compared to other regular headtube designs, you'll see that our integrated front end allows for the rider to be lower and more aerodynamic in their tuck (which really translates to the best way to reduce overall watts used to acheive a certain speed ie: 40km/h) and being that much closer will give you much better handling at high speeds (look at a mountain bike and you'll see the shorter top tubes and stem lengths, especially with downhill mountain bikes)

I hope this helps

Thanks for the info and I'd love to see the powerpoint when you get it finished.

I'm impatiently waiting for my bike to be delivered. I'm sure I'll love the bike, all the new engineering that went into this frame will make it faster then my current Zipp 2001. The 2001 may be very fast in the tunnel, but with all the new stuff on the Look, from the front end to the crankset to the weight, I have no doubt that it'll be faster.

---

.
.
Paul

That was excellent information. Thanks for sharing that.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I ride a 56cm P2C and according to everything I can tell, i would need the largest size in the Look. So, no, you're not imagining things, I've noticed it too.

Bob

One of the features of the Look frames is their sizing is named oddly. I ride an "Extra Small" Look 596. I have both a small and extra small right now and the small is too large- too long and too high. It is simply too much bike. By comparison I am on a 54cm Cervelo Soloist Carbon SL and a 51cm P3C. I am 5'9" solid.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I'm 5'11 or so and based off of the TT measurement and HT length, it seems the L is my size..But, as I have said, the geometry diagram on the Look website leave much to be desired. Have they ever considered labels?

I am using the rear hole (That sounds odd) on my P2C seat post due to hamstring injuries over the years and the TT measures over 57 CM. On the Look Large it's 56 or so.

I have a 58cm Look 585 and it fits like a glove.

Bob

The geometry chart Look published on the bike is.... difficult to interpret shall we say politely. Hopefully Slowman can do some easy stack and reach on it for a more meaningful comparison. I originally was certain I'd be on the small. When the demo bike arrived it was very large. I was briefly thinking it was mislabelled.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Here is a short explanation of the 596 from Ming at LookUSA

http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/...first-look-look-596/

That was an excellent little synopsis that explained Look's idea behind the wheel gap particularly well. Thank you for finding that. Useful.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Above is an image taken while using the wind tunnel when the rear end of a more traditional shaped Tri bike, as you can see here there is increased turbulence as the air coming back around the wheel towards the seatube has a very small window in which to enter, this causes air flow turbulence and therefore slowing the riders down because they need to put in more energy to turn the rear wheel.



Above is what Look finally decided on after many many different rear ends (changing the seatube angle, airfoil, etc), as you can see by inserting the cutouts by the seatstays (yes there are cut outs in the stays and in the front fork to allow air to flow through better, take a look next time you're in a store) and increasing the width of the gap between the seatube and wheel there is significantly less turbulence and hence less energy (watts) is needed to move the bike forward, which simply put turns into a faster bike.


Remember when looking at this engineering imaging air is traveling in two directions.
1. The wind/resistence we create when riding comes from the front of the bike and travels to the back, we use airfoil desing tubes, fork, headtube, wheels etc to try and minimize this.
2. The wind created by the wheel when it rotates, this is called the Wheels Viscosity effect. Where the top half of the wheel is bring air back against the bike from back to front into three areas of the frame: the fork, seat stays and seatube areas.

That is why Look feels their design is unique because they have mitigated this Viscosity effect with cutouts and extra spacing at both the front fork area and the seat stay/seatube.

Excellent resource. Say, can I borrow these images for use in our review?

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

absolutely, that is exactly what they were intended for!

If the P4 had been designed by any bike manufacturer other than Cervelo, it would have been laughed out of existence IMO. I don't care what the tunnel tests would have claimed. Is that some sort of Benito box down there?

With all due respect and haven't read the entire thread...

That is not an image of a wind tunnel... that is a screen shot of a CFD application.

And as with any data and without more information about the assumptions in the model, it means little since GIGO.

g

---

greg
www.wattagetraining.com

 
furthermore..
looking through the guy's bikes at kona thread (http://picasaweb.google.com/ben2008kona/GuysBikes#) it seems to me that a huge impact will be made on the turbulance at the rear based on their number plate placement..

ie..

It is kind of funny that you mention that since the bike companies spend huge amounts of time in the wind tunnel and doing computer modeling of their bike to minimize the drag and then we slap our numbers all over the bike. I wonder if there have been any aerodynamic studies on where the best location is for a number plate?

Not to mention, the drag created by the numbers flapping away on number belts (as can be seen in the same pictures).

Just out of curiosity, why do we hold some manfacturers to one standard of technical proof while holding other manufacturers to a completely different one?

Look says it has something intriguing, but if they don't post video, computer print outs, and swear on their first born child that it's true, most on ST call them liars, cast doubt, or simply cut them down. Yesteday Rappstar dismissed in hand their statements about the wheel gap simply because a word was missing from a translated piece of marketing material. C'mon that pretty juvenile. If you did some digging (Um, hello Google) you can find the video on Road Bike Review, which explains their thought on the wheel gap. But, again, one standard of proof and an immediate dismission of statements.

On the other hand, when Cervelo introduced the P4 and said it was 20% faster than the P3, everyone in the world took them on their word. Glitzy marketing material and fake subterfuge aside, Cervelo showed didly pooh the the public at launch but we took them at their word. Have they shown a wind tunnel video yet? Have they shown their data? Have they shown anything more than marketing materials? Have they shown anything that we're requiring Look to present? Not to my knowledge. At some point Cervelo will say "This frame is so efficient it propels itself and also levitates" and we'll take them at their word.

And don't think I am a Cervelo hater, I have two right now.

Bob

Since the stem is so adjustable doesn't that make determining the stack and reach virtually impossible? Jordan Rapp implied that in response to a question I sent him that I posted in another thread. I will repost here for those only following this thread.

This is what Jordan Rapp wrote me back (posted with his permission) when I asked him about the concerns he mentioned about the Look 596 in his Interbike review regarding how steep the bike was designed to be ridden:

We are in the midst of it. They are working with me to come up with good answers. The more we talk, the more I see the additional complications, since where the stem fixes effectively changes both the stack and reach of each bike since, obviously, the headtube is angled. Using the front-center//offset//HTA I've deduced that the bike is actually probably designed to be ridden steeper than LOOK might believe. I think the bike is probably most comparable to a Felt DA in terms of geometry, with the L LOOK matching up pretty with the 56 DA. The biggest LOOK is still a relatively small bike, which LOOK actually indicates calling the biggest size an L (55), which would make sense given that I don't know of any TdF riders that ride much bigger than that size for TT bikes; Cancellara, for example, rides a 56 P3C, and he is one of the bigger riders in the Tour.
Bottom line, though, is that the 596 is probably more of steep bike than LOOK pitches, and maybe even moreso than they actually recognize themselves.

Are there any images like this for the front fork?

I'm sure Look was referring to windtunnels in Europe. Are any of the windtunnels you mentioned in Europe? So please get off of your high horse, and quit bashing other bike companies. Afterall, your P4 is the ugliest bike that I have ever seen.

I am not holding anyone to some high standard.

The poster I replied to showed a picture of "an apple" and called it "an orange".

I merely pointed out that the picture was in fact, "an apple".

What conclusions that one can make about the above facts and what that means for the validity of the bike or poster in question are yours to make.

CFD is a tool (and a good one at that), but is only as good as the information given it to process (the assumptions). Hence the GIGO* statement. You must remember it was with CFD that it was "proven" that bees and hummingbirds were incapable of flight, again GIGO.

Typically the process goes something like this:design something, test it in CFD, modify design until it is the best or close to optimized in CFD, verify tests in tunnel (which should match CFD analysis if the assumptions are in fact correct), repeat as necessary to achieve goal(s).

Ancedotally, the bike in question (the look) I was more impressed with in person at interbike than what I had seen here and elsewhere online.

g

*GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out which simply means if you give a model (however accurate or inaccurate) bad information, it will give you bad results.

---

greg
www.wattagetraining.com

As Greg pointed out...this is NOT a wind tunnel pic, it's a screenshot from a CFD simulation. As someone who deals with similar simulations fairly often, let me just say that initial assumptions and boundary condition selections mean EVERYTHING...or as Greg put it, GIGO.

Anyway...looking at that top pic, I'm not convinced that the turbulence shown is a function of the gap and air being dragged forward so much as it is flow separation caused by a poorly shaped seatstay/seattube junction...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Hehe...I'll bet Cees would have something to say about that assumption... ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Somewhat along the same lines, I'm not convinced that air being dragged into the gap between the tire and the seat tube would increase the rotational drag enough to really matter in the first place.

The funny thing is...IIRC, the guy in the video repeated the same silly (IMO) claim...or did he just accidentally leave a word out too? ;-) I do remember that it's in the text accompanying the vid.

edit: I misremembered...the claim about the spinning wheels wasn't in the video...mea culpa. BUT, it IS in the accompanying text.

The video doesn't really add much, if anything, beyond what has been claimed in print IMHO.

BTW, I seem to recall actual drag curves on the P4 coming out after interbike. Now, granted, these weren't necessarily intended to be released by Cervelo (or were they??), but they're still "out there"...

Also, I take umbrage at your implication of holding manufacturers to differing standards...I'm an equal opportunity skeptic :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I did? Where? I said I was going to inquire with LOOK. And it wasn't a mistranslated piece of a marketing material, it was from James Huang's piece on the bike (bikeradar.com & cyclingnews.com) - "Unfortunately we have no easy way of verifying that claim (Look says its wind tunnel facility at the Magny Cours race track in France is perhaps the only place that can run a test with spinning wheels) but the idea is intriguing and might carry some merit. In fact, LeMans cars are fitted with fender louvres specifically to relieve the high pressure buildup that Look calls to attention here. Whether or not this matters at the slower speeds typically encountered in a time trial is another matter entirely but it’s an intriguing idea nonetheless." [http://www.bikeradar.com/...amp;SOURCE=BRGENNEWS]

I have the catalog in front of me, which says what Chas says it does. But nevertheless there is a press piece out there that says otherwise. I simply said I was going to contact LOOK to find out what was going on.

For the record, I really like this bike, appreciate the work LOOK has done on it, and have been spending a fair bit of time going back and forth with LOOK so that I can really understand the geometry of the bike in order to write up and article.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Yes...it's a place to store your Benito's Pizza slices...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Dang! Why didn't this come up before I did those fairing tests using my wife's P3C? :-)

Did you cut up a pizza box for your "fairing"? If not...perhaps that's why you didn't see much difference? :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

My apologies...Tom A actually made the "credibility" statement and you quoted his response when making your own. When I mess up, I admit it. So, my bad.

Bob

So then, to be accurate, I never...and I quote you... "dismissed in hand their statements about the wheel gap simply because a word was missing from a translated piece of marketing material" either.

I just said that if that was TRULY what they were claiming (i.e. not a typo, or mispoken marketing gibberish), then that would put a "big dent in their credibility."

So...explain to me how what I originally said was "juvenile"? I think you were reading more into it than what was actually there... :-P

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Although the pizza box would work too. Never heard of Benitos pizza before though.

Tom A, reading what you've added here I am inferring that you don't buy into Look's contention of the distance between the frame and the wheel as an aerodynamic benefit. It that a good read?

What do you think of what Look is claiming about the distance from the wheel to the frame and the airflow through it? Any validity to this?

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

No. I'm fairly convinced that for the design iterations they analyzed and tested that they ultimately went with the one that worked the best on that frame given the constraints of how they configured other features on it (i.e. the seatstay junction). In other words, it's most likely a benefit for their design and their constraints.

However, a lot of the presentation of this feature on the 596 (i.e. the large gap) has inferred that they discovered that for some reason everyone else is doing it wrong. Don't get me wrong...they don't come out and explicitly say that, it's just the general tenor of how it's been rolled out.

Granted, I can understand how a lot of the attention being paid to this is because they knew they would have to answer to why they used a big gap. So...they addressed it from the start. That's fine...and honestly, I give them credit for actually analyzing and testing it and going with what they thought is best for that bike. But, if the real reason they did it this way is because they had other design constraints they were working against (even if it was something like their ProTour sponsored teams didn't want horizontal dropouts or something), they shouldn't try to imply that how they did it is better than what is done in other designs that don't have those same constraints.



Honestly, I really don't know what to think, since besides some generic flow diagrams there really isn't much to judge by.

But, one thing the whole concept (as it's been presented) hinges on is that the wheel/tire interacting with the viscosity of the air "pulls" enough air into that gap to be a hindrance. I'm not convinced that is the case. After all, a simple thing you could do to "calibrate" yourself to the magnitude (if any) of the speculated effect is to just grab your P3C and put it in a bike stand and then time how long it takes to coast down your rear disc between 2 given speeds. Do this with a wide gap and then with a small gap and see if there's a difference. Now, I haven't done this myself (I don't have a bike with a significant wheel cutout...just my lowly P2K) but my guess would be that you wouldn't be able to measure a difference. If the wheel can't pull a significant enough amount of air into that gap when it's in still air, how would one expect for any to be pulled in there when air is flowing back across the frame?

You know...taking a look at that first flow image again...I wonder what the flow would look like if the space behind the seatstays was filled in with a tapering shape that continued to follow the curvature of the tire? Hmmm...now where have I seen something like that recently? ;-)

All that said, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Just "show me the data"...and the most important data in the end is how it stacks up overall to other TT/Tri frames. If it's as fast or faster than some of the other top end frames, who cares how big the gap is! ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

"I have a power point presentation (from Look France) that i'm trying to convert for the masses. It outlines the steps they took to design what they feel is a top level Tri/TT frame. There is plenty of empirical data so hopefully I can get this going soo."

Just curious if you ever got the powerpoint presentation converted?

That black cap is, I believe, the cable housing stop for the derailleur cable. One on each side of the frame.