Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Dimond has some A2 data!
Quote | Reply
http://rustersports.com/blog/

https://rustersports.com/...on-Savings-Watts.pdf

http://rustersports.com/product/aero-beam-box/







The pictures are hard to see because they are so small but they claim 5W for their aero box to fill in the gap between the aerobars and frame.







I can give you 25% off Roka Sunglasses! Message me for details! Currently 1 code left! Code must be be redeemed by December 31!
Powered by All Out MultiSport - http://www.aomultisport.com/

Last edited by: BryanD: Aug 1, 16 8:45
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's great but 150$ for a piece of plastic which should have come with the bike anyway?

Also looks like you have to re-cable your bike to install it?

Maurice

http://www.multisportsolutions.com
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [mauricemaher] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, I test rode this bike at IM Wisconsin last year. The bike felt great but honestly, I felt like I was test riding a car without a hood. Looked very unfinished and they agreed. They told me they were working on a solution which is what this appears to be. It should be included with the bike.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is so embarrassing.

So now we are supposed to believe that, prior to them finding another 40 grams of drag savings, this bike was faster than anything else on the market. There should be a slowtwitch support group called "lies that jordan rapp told me"
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
romulusmagnus wrote:
This is so embarrassing.

So now we are supposed to believe that, prior to them finding another 40 grams of drag savings, this bike was faster than anything else on the market. There should be a slowtwitch support group called "lies that jordan rapp told me"

x2. Couldn't have said it any better myself.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [mauricemaher] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mauricemaher wrote:
That's great but 150$ for a piece of plastic which should have come with the bike anyway?

Also looks like you have to re-cable your bike to install it?

Maurice


That's 5W at 30mph.....so 1.5W at 20mph (a more typical IM speed).

Looks like you could cut a slot to avoid recabling (then just tape over the slot).

Given that it's non-structural, could have just molded it with cheap plastic or 3D printed.

Personally I'd love to see someone put a 3D print file out there that anyone could use.

The Shiv has a similar plastic "box" that comes in several sizes with the frame so you can adjust depending on your spacer stack.



__________________________________________________
Powered by: Hat Tip - the power of thanks
http://hattip.com http://locations.hattip.com
Last edited by: Titanflexr: Jul 29, 16 16:29
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Titanflexr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're completely missing the point. The speed they calibrated to is an industry stand to quantify deltas in product on a consistent basis, even as that measure (grams of drag) is itself incredibly stupid and inaccurate for real world application

But for instance, the difference between the DA and IA is about 50 grams of drag (from memory?). The industry quoted difference between the P5 and SC is similar

So before they added this critical component to find such a massive discernible difference in drag, we are supposed to buy that this completely impractical, offensively expensive bicycle was already very fast (I.e. According to Rapp, faster than the shiv). Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

Also, the bike looked like shit without this piece of hardware (if you weren't running that specific p5 front end, which is itself ridiculous because it's UCI legal...why Cervelo and 3T combined can't do better than some asshat in Highlands Ranch Colorado is beyond me)

This bike is shit
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
romulusmagnus wrote:
You're completely missing the point. The speed they calibrated to is an industry stand to quantify deltas in product on a consistent basis, even as that measure (grams of drag) is itself incredibly stupid and inaccurate for real world application

Yes, 30mph is a standard (a reasonable speed for TdF FOP TTers like Fabian and Tony). I was just pointing out what the watts savings is likely to be for a "typical" Diamond owner who's considering cost/benefit.

My pref. is reporting time saved over 40K....since that at least scales up a bit for slower riders. CdA is ideal....but not really usable for the non-engineers.


__________________________________________________
Powered by: Hat Tip - the power of thanks
http://hattip.com http://locations.hattip.com
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Titanflexr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Titanflexr wrote:
romulusmagnus wrote:
You're completely missing the point. The speed they calibrated to is an industry stand to quantify deltas in product on a consistent basis, even as that measure (grams of drag) is itself incredibly stupid and inaccurate for real world application

Yes, 30mph is a standard (a reasonable speed for TdF FOP TTers like Fabian and Tony). I was just pointing out what the watts savings is likely to be for a "typical" Diamond owner who's considering cost/benefit.

My pref. is reporting time saved over 40K....since that at least scales up a bit for slower riders. CdA is ideal....but not really usable for the non-engineers.

Cost/benefit analysis behind buying a part that absolutely completely should be included in this absurd bicycle? There's no empirical analysis to be mace...you bought the wrong product to begin with. You're already $6k+ into this awful frame, might as well bring it up to par with the Ventum One. Don't even get me started on the Super Fork.

The only people I know who are happy with their Dimond purchase are dentists.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just curious, why so much hate for Dimond and Ventum? Don't give me a troll answer, give me an honest opinion.

I can give you 25% off Roka Sunglasses! Message me for details! Currently 1 code left! Code must be be redeemed by December 31!
Powered by All Out MultiSport - http://www.aomultisport.com/

Last edited by: BryanD: Jul 29, 16 18:33
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My antipathy isn't limited to those bikes. I went on a hate filled rampage about the Giant trinity advanced just yesterday. I'm equal opportunity like that
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That doesn't answer my question.

I can give you 25% off Roka Sunglasses! Message me for details! Currently 1 code left! Code must be be redeemed by December 31!
Powered by All Out MultiSport - http://www.aomultisport.com/

Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wow, they have the balls to charge 150 dollars for a 3d printed spacer?!? its like 5-6 dollars of high quality filament, and 4-5 hours of print time...
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The Dimond is one of the most impractical bikes on the market. You can't ride it on a modern trainer. You have to cut the seat post to size, which limits your flexibility to change the fit, to lend it to a friend in a time of need, or to ever sell it. Only 2 bottles for training? Not practical. The head tube/steerer junction looks ridiculous, and the expensive super fork doesn't solve the aesthetic issues without this new piece.

The Ventum One: well, the whole front end. At least Dimond figured out the front brake...Ventum didn't even get that far. Complete China carbon trash.

They are both SO expensive. I mean, way way more than a Speed Concept expensive.

Both companies have incredible aero data -- I say that literally. Ventum continues to go to a shit wind tunnel and refuse to release data; Dimond's release here stinks to high heaven...oh great, fantastic news, now it's much much faster than a P5-3!

Given all this, why would anyone buy one? Well, dentists need to show off their uniqueness. That's about the only reason I can think of. If you have that kind of money to spend on being unique, why not just custom paint a P5?

I saw this classifieds ad the other day for a Dimond. The guy said he not only bought the bike because of Jordan Rapp, he also bought the same size (dude was 6'3") and couldn't get the bike to fit. Perfect Dimond / Ventum customer: complete idiot sheep.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I forgot to mention my suspicion that lots of people are buying these bikes because it is trendy to have these bikes...which is just such an embarrassing thing. For being such insufferable egotists, most triathletes have little capacity for independent thought when it comes to their consumerism. Roka Aviators OMFG I want to be like Jesse please take my money!
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
romulusmagnus wrote:
The Dimond is one of the most impractical bikes on the market. You can't ride it on a modern trainer. You have to cut the seat post to size, which limits your flexibility to change the fit, to lend it to a friend in a time of need, or to ever sell it. Only 2 bottles for training? Not practical. The head tube/steerer junction looks ridiculous, and the expensive super fork doesn't solve the aesthetic issues without this new piece.

The Ventum One: well, the whole front end. At least Dimond figured out the front brake...Ventum didn't even get that far. Complete China carbon trash.

They are both SO expensive. I mean, way way more than a Speed Concept expensive.

Both companies have incredible aero data -- I say that literally. Ventum continues to go to a shit wind tunnel and refuse to release data; Dimond's release here stinks to high heaven...oh great, fantastic news, now it's much much faster than a P5-3!

Given all this, why would anyone buy one? Well, dentists need to show off their uniqueness. That's about the only reason I can think of. If you have that kind of money to spend on being unique, why not just custom paint a P5?

I saw this classifieds ad the other day for a Dimond. The guy said he not only bought the bike because of Jordan Rapp, he also bought the same size (dude was 6'3") and couldn't get the bike to fit. Perfect Dimond / Ventum customer: complete idiot sheep.

That guy ^ is me. I'm glad you know so much about me based on my bike purchasing habits.

You must have misunderstood as I said got the Medium based on Jordan Rapp's fit as he and I have identical body sizes and I wanted to see if I could adapt to a more aggressive position. I didn't buy the Dimond because of him. I bought it because I liked the way it looked, the ease of maintenance/and travel, and that it is made in the USA. I didn't need it as I already had a great bike that led me to a KQ last year but I wanted try something new. This bike is faster based on both subjective and objective measures but ultimately the sizing wasn't sustainable for me for IM distance. I'm sorry this caused you so much concern and anguish.

I'll head back out to pasture with the rest of the sheep now....
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
romulusmagnus wrote:
The Dimond is one of the most impractical bikes on the market. You can't ride it on a modern trainer. You have to cut the seat post to size, which limits your flexibility to change the fit, to lend it to a friend in a time of need, or to ever sell it. Only 2 bottles for training? Not practical. The head tube/steerer junction looks ridiculous, and the expensive super fork doesn't solve the aesthetic issues without this new piece.

The Ventum One: well, the whole front end. At least Dimond figured out the front brake...Ventum didn't even get that far. Complete China carbon trash.

They are both SO expensive. I mean, way way more than a Speed Concept expensive.

Both companies have incredible aero data -- I say that literally. Ventum continues to go to a shit wind tunnel and refuse to release data; Dimond's release here stinks to high heaven...oh great, fantastic news, now it's much much faster than a P5-3!

Given all this, why would anyone buy one? Well, dentists need to show off their uniqueness. That's about the only reason I can think of. If you have that kind of money to spend on being unique, why not just custom paint a P5?

I saw this classifieds ad the other day for a Dimond. The guy said he not only bought the bike because of Jordan Rapp, he also bought the same size (dude was 6'3") and couldn't get the bike to fit. Perfect Dimond / Ventum customer: complete idiot sheep.


First, the Dimond is impractical in the sense that you can't use it on a trainer. I won't buy a bike I can't use on my Kickr. The Ventum can be used on any trainer. You can also change out the aerobars on the Ventum to anything you want.

Next, small companies have to charge more to recoup research and development costs. They don't have the large capital that Trek, Specialized, Cervelo, and Felt have. I bet when these companies first started their bikes were expensive as well. Costs are high at first but they will come down over time. Most companies start with high end and work their way down to middle and lower end models. Shimano Dura Ace to 105 is a great example of this.

All of the top of the line bikes with similar equipment to the Ventum and Dimond are close in price.

Next, Ventum has sent a bike to Jim@ERO for testing. We are all waiting on the data and analysis from Jim.

People want to stand out. There is nothing wrong with Ventum and Dimond bikes. People don't want to always have what everyone else has.

The next generation of tri bikes are going to be even more expensive.

I can give you 25% off Roka Sunglasses! Message me for details! Currently 1 code left! Code must be be redeemed by December 31!
Powered by All Out MultiSport - http://www.aomultisport.com/

Last edited by: BryanD: Jul 30, 16 9:06
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
romulusmagnus wrote:
The Dimond is one of the most impractical bikes on the market. You can't ride it on a modern trainer. You have to cut the seat post to size, which limits your flexibility to change the fit, to lend it to a friend in a time of need, or to ever sell it. Only 2 bottles for training? Not practical. The head tube/steerer junction looks ridiculous, and the expensive super fork doesn't solve the aesthetic issues without this new piece.

The Ventum One: well, the whole front end. At least Dimond figured out the front brake...Ventum didn't even get that far. Complete China carbon trash.

They are both SO expensive. I mean, way way more than a Speed Concept expensive.

Both companies have incredible aero data -- I say that literally. Ventum continues to go to a shit wind tunnel and refuse to release data; Dimond's release here stinks to high heaven...oh great, fantastic news, now it's much much faster than a P5-3!

Given all this, why would anyone buy one? Well, dentists need to show off their uniqueness. That's about the only reason I can think of. If you have that kind of money to spend on being unique, why not just custom paint a P5?

I saw this classifieds ad the other day for a Dimond. The guy said he not only bought the bike because of Jordan Rapp, he also bought the same size (dude was 6'3") and couldn't get the bike to fit. Perfect Dimond / Ventum customer: complete idiot sheep.


romulusmagnus wrote:
I forgot to mention my suspicion that lots of people are buying these bikes because it is trendy to have these bikes...which is just such an embarrassing thing. For being such insufferable egotists, most triathletes have little capacity for independent thought when it comes to their consumerism. Roka Aviators OMFG I want to be like Jesse please take my money!


I've always liked the look of the Dimond but two things turned me off... the original fork was just hideous looking and didn't match the bike and the space behind the steerer tube. The solved both of those issues for me with the Super Fork and this Beam Box widget. I like to buy a new bike every three years or so and my recent history was a 2009 Felt B2, 2011 Trek Speed Concept, 2014 Trek Speed Concept (bought in 2013), and most recently a 2016 Dimond. I just wanted one so I got one.

To address some of your points and how they pertain to me:

1. The trainer issue. I never ride my tri bike on a trainer. I can ride in the aero position for 99% of an Ironman but can't ride for 10 minutes in aero on a trainer so I scrapped riding a tri bike in favor of a roadie on my trainer many years ago.

2. Seat post. I didn't have to cut mine.

3. Two bottles for training. I agree this is far less than ideal but there are ways around it. A double bottle holder behind the seat option would give you four bottles (with BTA and down tube options). I'm only training for 70.3's for the foreseeable future so not much of a concern for me at this point.

4. Yes, it's expensive but it's my money.

5. Aero data. Dimond has been doing a lot of testing in the A2 tunnel the past few months. I'm interested to see what gets released. I actually saw this data about the Beam Box several weeks ago but I don't think it was for public consumption at that point. Obviously, this data was released to sell the Beam Box. Nothing more, nothing less. Dimond has done a bunch of other testing far beyond this widget though. My understanding is there's some good data coming but I guess we will wait and see. I hope they just release everything (or most everything) and let us dissect it up. I just hope they don't do what Ventum did and say we have this awesome data and never release it. At least Dimond went to A2 and not Faster.

6. I bought one because it is different from other bikes. Bikes are my one guilty pleasure in life. It's also a very comfortable riding bike. I have it setup fit wise almost identical to my Trek SC, and it does ride smoother than the Trek. I'm not sure people are buying them because they're trendy... wouldn't that be why everyone and their grandmother has a P5 or SC or Shiv. Dimond is a boutique bike, and comes with a boutique price. All and all, there are not a lot of Dimonds out there. I live in the Houston metro area and I know of four of us that have them.

7. Height is certainly only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to fit but all things being equal I don't see how someone 6'3" tall as Jordan or the other guy can fit on a Size M Dimond. I would think that frame is too small for someone that tall but with the many different bar and stem configs it's probably a workable solution. Jordan seems to make it work. The other guy couldn't. I'm 6' and I ride the M size and it fits me perfectly. I knew it would fit me great going in since the size L Trek SC and size M Dimond have identical geometry.

2018 Races:
Oceanside 70.3, Oceanside, CA, April 7th | Ironman Texas, The Woodlands, TX, April 28th | Finland 70.3, Lahti, Finland, June 30th | Jonkoping 70.3, Jonkoping, Sweden, July 8th | Waco 70.3, Waco, TX, October 28th

Gear: Dimond Bikes | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One
Last edited by: The GMAN: Jul 30, 16 9:05
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [The GMAN] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The GMAN wrote:
5. Aero data. Dimond has been doing a lot of testing in the A2 tunnel the past few months. I'm interested to see what gets released. I actually saw this data about the Beam Box several weeks ago but I don't think it was for public consumption at that point. Obviously, this data was released to sell the Beam Box. Nothing more, nothing less. Dimond has done a bunch of other testing far beyond this widget though. My understanding is there's some good data coming but I guess we will wait and see. I hope they just release everything (or most everything) and let us dissect it up. I just hope they don't do what Ventum did and say we have this awesome data and never release it. At least Dimond went to A2 and not Faster.

Dimond's wind tunnel data on their website comes from Faster.

I can give you 25% off Roka Sunglasses! Message me for details! Currently 1 code left! Code must be be redeemed by December 31!
Powered by All Out MultiSport - http://www.aomultisport.com/

Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BryanD wrote:
The GMAN wrote:

5. Aero data. Dimond has been doing a lot of testing in the A2 tunnel the past few months. I'm interested to see what gets released. I actually saw this data about the Beam Box several weeks ago but I don't think it was for public consumption at that point. Obviously, this data was released to sell the Beam Box. Nothing more, nothing less. Dimond has done a bunch of other testing far beyond this widget though. My understanding is there's some good data coming but I guess we will wait and see. I hope they just release everything (or most everything) and let us dissect it up. I just hope they don't do what Ventum did and say we have this awesome data and never release it. At least Dimond went to A2 and not Faster.


Dimond's wind tunnel data on their website comes from Faster.

I think he was referring to subsequent testing. TJ lives in Tucson part of the time for training and with Ironman Arizona it was just easy to go to Faster. Not being totally happy with the experience and data may have driven them to A2.


Save: $20 on Air Relax Recovery Boots| $100 on Normatec| 15% on The Most Absorbable Magnesium | Best $50 Indoor Cycling Desk | NEW HED JET 6+
Wheelset - $1049 or less


Blogs: QUICK Air Relax Travel Case Review | Q2 Blood Test Results | Why Latex Bikes Tubes | Vittoria Corsa Speed Aero Data | Best Cheap Aero Sunglasses | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BryanD wrote:


Next, small companies have to charge more to recoup research and development costs. They don't have the large capital that Trek, Specialized, Cervelo, and Felt have. I bet when these companies first started their bikes were expensive as well. Costs are high at first but they will come down over time. Most companies start with high end and work their way down to middle and lower end models. Shimano Dura Ace to 105 is a great example of this.

I would be curious to see exactly how much R&D Trek/Cervelo/Specialized is spending versus Dimond/Ventum. Now, the one thing Dimond has is crazy-ass, obsessive triathlete, who rides bikes professionally and wins Ironmans on less watts / kg then pretty much anyone I know, who is also heading up the company and playing an active role in the design, development, and refinement of the bike. That is worth a lot in my book.

With that being said, I have said the before, how does anyone expect a bike to perform when a company spends $100,000 on R&D versus $10,000,000 compare. Sure the smaller startups should be more nimble and have better efficiency outside of scale, but when it comes down to it, do you want a bike that maybe has $100,000 into it or $10,000,000? No idea on the number, but I know the R&D spent is not even close and is likely easily 100x at least.


Save: $20 on Air Relax Recovery Boots| $100 on Normatec| 15% on The Most Absorbable Magnesium | Best $50 Indoor Cycling Desk | NEW HED JET 6+
Wheelset - $1049 or less


Blogs: QUICK Air Relax Travel Case Review | Q2 Blood Test Results | Why Latex Bikes Tubes | Vittoria Corsa Speed Aero Data | Best Cheap Aero Sunglasses | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BryanD wrote:
The GMAN wrote:

5. Aero data. Dimond has been doing a lot of testing in the A2 tunnel the past few months. I'm interested to see what gets released. I actually saw this data about the Beam Box several weeks ago but I don't think it was for public consumption at that point. Obviously, this data was released to sell the Beam Box. Nothing more, nothing less. Dimond has done a bunch of other testing far beyond this widget though. My understanding is there's some good data coming but I guess we will wait and see. I hope they just release everything (or most everything) and let us dissect it up. I just hope they don't do what Ventum did and say we have this awesome data and never release it. At least Dimond went to A2 and not Faster.


Dimond's wind tunnel data on their website comes from Faster.


That data is two years old. The new data is coming from A2. They have been testing in A2 since early this year. There's a secret Dimond Facebook page that teases us from time to time with testing pics from A2.

As I said before, I'm interested in what gets released.

2018 Races:
Oceanside 70.3, Oceanside, CA, April 7th | Ironman Texas, The Woodlands, TX, April 28th | Finland 70.3, Lahti, Finland, June 30th | Jonkoping 70.3, Jonkoping, Sweden, July 8th | Waco 70.3, Waco, TX, October 28th

Gear: Dimond Bikes | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One
Last edited by: The GMAN: Jul 30, 16 10:24
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
romulusmagnus wrote:
You're completely missing the point. The speed they calibrated to is an industry stand to quantify deltas in product on a consistent basis, even as that measure (grams of drag) is itself incredibly stupid and inaccurate for real world application

But for instance, the difference between the DA and IA is about 50 grams of drag (from memory?). The industry quoted difference between the P5 and SC is similar

So before they added this critical component to find such a massive discernible difference in drag, we are supposed to buy that this completely impractical, offensively expensive bicycle was already very fast (I.e. According to Rapp, faster than the shiv). Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

Also, the bike looked like shit without this piece of hardware (if you weren't running that specific p5 front end, which is itself ridiculous because it's UCI legal...why Cervelo and 3T combined can't do better than some asshat in Highlands Ranch Colorado is beyond me)

This bike is shit


Wow. I had no idea I had generated such rage in someone. I've got probably roughly 8,000mi on a Dimond. I do a lot of the same workouts. On a lot of the same roads. Based on what I've seen, the Dimond is faster than the Shiv. That's with the same wheels, sometimes the same tires and sometimes not, same tubes, different bottle configuration (BTA + downtube vs BTA + behind the seat, which is certainly a noticeable difference), same saddle bag, different brakes (Magura vs Tektro), virtually identical position, same helmet, sometimes different clothing but sometimes same, different shoes, and of course the huge variance of weather. Is it a LOT faster? No. I'd say that I see pretty much what the data TJ got from FASTER showed - they are close. For a different rider, with a different setup, might they see something different? Of course. But for me, I believe the Dimond is faster.

As far as the 25g of savings from the aerobox? I don't know about that one way or the other. With rider or without? With what bars? How many spacers? Etc, etc, etc. Do I think it's faster? Almost certainly. 25g faster? Who knows. Do I agree that it was probably something they should have included in the design from the outset. Yes. Absolutely.

The new fork is demonstrably faster on the Dimond than the old one. At least at low yaw - which due to the nature of the topography where I train is typical. TJ said it stalls more quickly, which is not a surprise. How that will play out in various races, I do not know.

I had my first chance to get into the tunnel on the Dimond with Zipp at ARC. Unfortunately, comparing different tunnels is generally a bad idea, so I'd be reticent to compare CdA numbers on the Shiv at Specialized to CdA numbers from the Dimond at ARC. Further, the data from ARC seem bad anyway as there was tire rub on the platform due to - IMO - the ARC roller system being not the most ideal. But we didn't catch that until later in the day. So basically all the morning runs were way high for a number of athletes. The data was so off that it's basically garbage. Unfortunately.

There are a lot of great bikes out there. I do not believe that the Dimond is dramatically faster than any of the very good ones - P5 or Trek SC or Scott Plasma 5 or Specialized Shiv or... Nor do I believe it is measurably slower. Or, more specifically, that the variance between bikes largely will come down to fit, bars, other equipment (bottle placement), etc. And that ultimately it's likely nearly impossible to determine the "best" bike for you without significant time and expense. So just pick one of the very good ones and be happy.

Does the Dimond have flaws? Yes. And, in my experience, so does every other bike. The Shiv has flaws. The SC has flaws, based on not only what I've seen but discussions with athletes who ride it. Etc. Etc. Etc. At any given moment, I'd say the "fastest" bike is likely the one that came out most recently. The new Canyon certainly seems like it might hold the title, though at the requirement of an electronic groupset. Though it's hard to know how much is the fact that it's under Jan Frodeno...

Anyway, if you feel there needs to be a support group for people I've lied to, feel free to start one. I'm happy to chime in to try to clarify where I can. Or simply to let people bash me. In the meantime, I'd simply say this:



"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | Facebook - Rappstar Racing | @rappstar | I work @ Zwift

Ask me about: DiamondBack Bikes | Zipp | 1st Endurance | Normatec - $100 off RAPP2017 | Quarq | SRAM | MatchRider | Kiwami | ROKA
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My experience with the Dimond bikes was pretty disappointing. I test rode one from a local dealer and was shocked at how harsh the ride was compared to my 2016 P2, especially considering that the selling point of a beam point seems to be the added comfort. This was with the stock Profile deep dish wheels, so perhaps those wheels are harsh as compared to the 808s on my P2, but my bike felt like a magic carpet ride next to the Dimond.

Still, on a whim, I bought a used Dimond bike sans wheels from someone on the forum here last Spring. It was a killer deal with a Di2 build, Quarq power meter, ceramic speed bearings, etc..., and I figured I could use my 808s to smooth out the ride. The bike arrived and the fit and finish was so poor that it looked like the very first attempt someone had at building a bicycle, or anything for that matter, in their life. The paint was flaking and chipping to the touch and there were cracks all along the bottom bracket that were impossible to discern whether they were structural or not. The bike was still under warranty to the original owner but Dimond was basically worthless in addressing my concerns. According to the seller, Dimond said they would take care of me if the cracks turned out to be structural, but I never got anything in writing. Plus, the offer was worthless in that they evidently said they would give me a tiny discount on the full retail price of a $4,000 Xpress frame if mine failed. In other words, they refused to warranty their workmanship on the frame, knowing full well that the paint was problematic on a ton of their frames. I even offered to pay them to repaint it properly and they told me they were too busy. I asked them how much to upgrade to a Superfork and they told me those were only available to 'customers', i.e. not me because I didn't buy the bike new from them. So much for standing by your product.

It was so apparent to me that this company was not headed in the right direction that I sold it immediately and am happily riding my heavily upgraded P2, at a fraction of the cost.

Finally, does no one else seem to care that the Dimond wind tunnel testing showed no measurable improvement over a Shiv or a P5-three with the rider onboard? That fact alone tells me that there is no real reason to buy a Dimond other than to look cool. You aren't going to be faster on it, hell, you may even be slower than a P5-Six, you can't ride it on a trainer, the resale value is terrible, and the company doesn't appear to stand behind their work.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I (dis)like how they test at non standard yaw angles to potentially make it harder to compare their bike vs other bikes that have tested data from A2.

All in all If I was going to spend money or my athletes money (oh wait I've helped 6 with the should I buy Bike A or Bike B or Bike C decisions in the last 4 mo), there are 2-4 other brands I'm sticking my athletes on before the Dimond.

Although damn it, I do love me some of the paint schemes they've been coming up with. Love, love in fact.

Brian Stover
Accelerate3 Coaching
twitter & IG = @accelerate3
Last edited by: desert dude: Jul 30, 16 13:21
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Titanflexr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Titanflexr wrote:

That's 5W at 30mph.....so 1.5W at 20mph (a more typical IM speed).

Ummm...no. They're quoting ~40g of drag when tested at 30mph. That is ~equivalent to a power difference of 4W at typical bike racing speed, NOT at 30mph.

That's ok though, both the 30mph caveat for the test and the "at typical race speed" for the power estimate are commonly left off and cause confusion. Context matters ;-)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [chrisgrigsby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chrisgrigsby wrote:
My experience with the Dimond bikes was pretty disappointing. I test rode one from a local dealer and was shocked at how harsh the ride was compared to my 2016 P2, especially considering that the selling point of a beam point seems to be the added comfort. This was with the stock Profile deep dish wheels, so perhaps those wheels are harsh as compared to the 808s on my P2, but my bike felt like a magic carpet ride next to the Dimond.

Still, on a whim, I bought a used Dimond bike sans wheels from someone on the forum here last Spring. It was a killer deal with a Di2 build, Quarq power meter, ceramic speed bearings, etc..., and I figured I could use my 808s to smooth out the ride. The bike arrived and the fit and finish was so poor that it looked like the very first attempt someone had at building a bicycle, or anything for that matter, in their life. The paint was flaking and chipping to the touch and there were cracks all along the bottom bracket that were impossible to discern whether they were structural or not. The bike was still under warranty to the original owner but Dimond was basically worthless in addressing my concerns. According to the seller, Dimond said they would take care of me if the cracks turned out to be structural, but I never got anything in writing. Plus, the offer was worthless in that they evidently said they would give me a tiny discount on the full retail price of a $4,000 Xpress frame if mine failed. In other words, they refused to warranty their workmanship on the frame, knowing full well that the paint was problematic on a ton of their frames. I even offered to pay them to repaint it properly and they told me they were too busy. I asked them how much to upgrade to a Superfork and they told me those were only available to 'customers', i.e. not me because I didn't buy the bike new from them. So much for standing by your product.

It was so apparent to me that this company was not headed in the right direction that I sold it immediately and am happily riding my heavily upgraded P2, at a fraction of the cost.

Finally, does no one else seem to care that the Dimond wind tunnel testing showed no measurable improvement over a Shiv or a P5-three with the rider onboard? That fact alone tells me that there is no real reason to buy a Dimond other than to look cool. You aren't going to be faster on it, hell, you may even be slower than a P5-Six, you can't ride it on a trainer, the resale value is terrible, and the company doesn't appear to stand behind their work.

I appreciate your candidness regarding Dimond's warranty failure.

Makes me appreciate the two Trek SC paint issues I had that Trek swapped out for FREE including shop disassembly of old frames group sets, shipping, assembly of group sets on new frames and some free upgrades.

Few things are worse than a company that doesn't care about their customer following a sale. Shame on them.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Bryan0721] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I found Dimond's customer service to be excellent. That's been my experience.

2018 Races:
Oceanside 70.3, Oceanside, CA, April 7th | Ironman Texas, The Woodlands, TX, April 28th | Finland 70.3, Lahti, Finland, June 30th | Jonkoping 70.3, Jonkoping, Sweden, July 8th | Waco 70.3, Waco, TX, October 28th

Gear: Dimond Bikes | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Don't feed the turd.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [The GMAN] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The GMAN wrote:
I found Dimond's customer service to be excellent. That's been my experience.

Pre-sale? Or in what respect exactly? Because Chris' experience post-sale speaks volumes. And that's exactly where it counts and matters most IMO.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [chrisgrigsby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're not the first person to experience quality issues, and that has scared me off from getting one. Too bad, I think they look awesome. Sticking with my SC9 for now and hoping that cervelo or trek come out with something cool soon - a lot to be said for buying a bike that your LBS will offer full support and warranty on.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Bryan0721] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bryan0721 wrote:
chrisgrigsby wrote:
My experience with the Dimond bikes was pretty disappointing. I test rode one from a local dealer and was shocked at how harsh the ride was compared to my 2016 P2, especially considering that the selling point of a beam point seems to be the added comfort. This was with the stock Profile deep dish wheels, so perhaps those wheels are harsh as compared to the 808s on my P2, but my bike felt like a magic carpet ride next to the Dimond.

Still, on a whim, I bought a used Dimond bike sans wheels from someone on the forum here last Spring. It was a killer deal with a Di2 build, Quarq power meter, ceramic speed bearings, etc..., and I figured I could use my 808s to smooth out the ride. The bike arrived and the fit and finish was so poor that it looked like the very first attempt someone had at building a bicycle, or anything for that matter, in their life. The paint was flaking and chipping to the touch and there were cracks all along the bottom bracket that were impossible to discern whether they were structural or not. The bike was still under warranty to the original owner but Dimond was basically worthless in addressing my concerns. According to the seller, Dimond said they would take care of me if the cracks turned out to be structural, but I never got anything in writing. Plus, the offer was worthless in that they evidently said they would give me a tiny discount on the full retail price of a $4,000 Xpress frame if mine failed. In other words, they refused to warranty their workmanship on the frame, knowing full well that the paint was problematic on a ton of their frames. I even offered to pay them to repaint it properly and they told me they were too busy. I asked them how much to upgrade to a Superfork and they told me those were only available to 'customers', i.e. not me because I didn't buy the bike new from them. So much for standing by your product.

It was so apparent to me that this company was not headed in the right direction that I sold it immediately and am happily riding my heavily upgraded P2, at a fraction of the cost.

Finally, does no one else seem to care that the Dimond wind tunnel testing showed no measurable improvement over a Shiv or a P5-three with the rider onboard? That fact alone tells me that there is no real reason to buy a Dimond other than to look cool. You aren't going to be faster on it, hell, you may even be slower than a P5-Six, you can't ride it on a trainer, the resale value is terrible, and the company doesn't appear to stand behind their work.

I appreciate your candidness regarding Dimond's warranty failure.

Makes me appreciate the two Trek SC paint issues I had that Trek swapped out for FREE including shop disassembly of old frames group sets, shipping, assembly of group sets on new frames and some free upgrades.

Few things are worse than a company that doesn't care about their customer following a sale. Shame on them.

It wasn't their customer he bought it used. If you bought a used Cervelo and it had a warranty issue they'd tell you to go pound sand too.

-----------------------------------------------------------
De Soto Sport Athlete
Formerly Draketriathlon
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [chrisgrigsby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chrisgrigsby wrote:
My experience with the Dimond bikes was pretty disappointing. I test rode one from a local dealer and was shocked at how harsh the ride was compared to my 2016 P2, especially considering that the selling point of a beam point seems to be the added comfort. This was with the stock Profile deep dish wheels, so perhaps those wheels are harsh as compared to the 808s on my P2, but my bike felt like a magic carpet ride next to the Dimond.

Still, on a whim, I bought a used Dimond bike sans wheels from someone on the forum here last Spring. It was a killer deal with a Di2 build, Quarq power meter, ceramic speed bearings, etc..., and I figured I could use my 808s to smooth out the ride. The bike arrived and the fit and finish was so poor that it looked like the very first attempt someone had at building a bicycle, or anything for that matter, in their life. The paint was flaking and chipping to the touch and there were cracks all along the bottom bracket that were impossible to discern whether they were structural or not. The bike was still under warranty to the original owner but Dimond was basically worthless in addressing my concerns. According to the seller, Dimond said they would take care of me if the cracks turned out to be structural, but I never got anything in writing. Plus, the offer was worthless in that they evidently said they would give me a tiny discount on the full retail price of a $4,000 Xpress frame if mine failed. In other words, they refused to warranty their workmanship on the frame, knowing full well that the paint was problematic on a ton of their frames. I even offered to pay them to repaint it properly and they told me they were too busy. I asked them how much to upgrade to a Superfork and they told me those were only available to 'customers', i.e. not me because I didn't buy the bike new from them. So much for standing by your product.

It was so apparent to me that this company was not headed in the right direction that I sold it immediately and am happily riding my heavily upgraded P2, at a fraction of the cost.

Finally, does no one else seem to care that the Dimond wind tunnel testing showed no measurable improvement over a Shiv or a P5-three with the rider onboard? That fact alone tells me that there is no real reason to buy a Dimond other than to look cool. You aren't going to be faster on it, hell, you may even be slower than a P5-Six, you can't ride it on a trainer, the resale value is terrible, and the company doesn't appear to stand behind their work.

To me, it sounds like you should be pissed off at the guy who sold you the bike, not Dimond.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grant.Reuter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grant.Reuter wrote:
Bryan0721 wrote:
chrisgrigsby wrote:
My experience with the Dimond bikes was pretty disappointing. I test rode one from a local dealer and was shocked at how harsh the ride was compared to my 2016 P2, especially considering that the selling point of a beam point seems to be the added comfort. This was with the stock Profile deep dish wheels, so perhaps those wheels are harsh as compared to the 808s on my P2, but my bike felt like a magic carpet ride next to the Dimond.

Still, on a whim, I bought a used Dimond bike sans wheels from someone on the forum here last Spring. It was a killer deal with a Di2 build, Quarq power meter, ceramic speed bearings, etc..., and I figured I could use my 808s to smooth out the ride. The bike arrived and the fit and finish was so poor that it looked like the very first attempt someone had at building a bicycle, or anything for that matter, in their life. The paint was flaking and chipping to the touch and there were cracks all along the bottom bracket that were impossible to discern whether they were structural or not. The bike was still under warranty to the original owner but Dimond was basically worthless in addressing my concerns. According to the seller, Dimond said they would take care of me if the cracks turned out to be structural, but I never got anything in writing. Plus, the offer was worthless in that they evidently said they would give me a tiny discount on the full retail price of a $4,000 Xpress frame if mine failed. In other words, they refused to warranty their workmanship on the frame, knowing full well that the paint was problematic on a ton of their frames. I even offered to pay them to repaint it properly and they told me they were too busy. I asked them how much to upgrade to a Superfork and they told me those were only available to 'customers', i.e. not me because I didn't buy the bike new from them. So much for standing by your product.

It was so apparent to me that this company was not headed in the right direction that I sold it immediately and am happily riding my heavily upgraded P2, at a fraction of the cost.

Finally, does no one else seem to care that the Dimond wind tunnel testing showed no measurable improvement over a Shiv or a P5-three with the rider onboard? That fact alone tells me that there is no real reason to buy a Dimond other than to look cool. You aren't going to be faster on it, hell, you may even be slower than a P5-Six, you can't ride it on a trainer, the resale value is terrible, and the company doesn't appear to stand behind their work.


I appreciate your candidness regarding Dimond's warranty failure.

Makes me appreciate the two Trek SC paint issues I had that Trek swapped out for FREE including shop disassembly of old frames group sets, shipping, assembly of group sets on new frames and some free upgrades.

Few things are worse than a company that doesn't care about their customer following a sale. Shame on them.


It wasn't their customer he bought it used. If you bought a used Cervelo and it had a warranty issue they'd tell you to go pound sand too.

Not exactly...the frame was under warranty at the time of the sale, and it was the seller who was trying to work out a solution with Dimond, not me. Unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that the quality of the frame was abysmal for a supposedly premium product. Sorry if that doesn't fit your preconceived narrative about Dimond, but that is a fact. They do look cool, I'll give you that!
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [chrisgrigsby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dude I've rode Cervelo for 10 years and have no plans buying a Dimond. I have no narrative on Dimond just stating facts.

From their website

"Dimond Bike Return and Warranty Policy

All Dimond framesets are warrantied against manufacturing defects for a period of 6 years from the date of purchase. This warranty is available only to the original owner and is non-transferrable. Paint, graphics and Dimond forks are warrantied for 1 year from the date of purchase."

Once you purchased it you were SOL. The warranty doesn't transfer. I'm sorry your preconceived notions of how a warranty should work don't match how it actually does.

-----------------------------------------------------------
De Soto Sport Athlete
Formerly Draketriathlon
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [chrisgrigsby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chrisgrigsby wrote:
My experience with the Dimond bikes was pretty disappointing. I test rode one from a local dealer and was shocked at how harsh the ride was compared to my 2016 P2, especially considering that the selling point of a beam point seems to be the added comfort. This was with the stock Profile deep dish wheels, so perhaps those wheels are harsh as compared to the 808s on my P2, but my bike felt like a magic carpet ride next to the Dimond.

Still, on a whim, I bought a used Dimond bike sans wheels from someone on the forum here last Spring. It was a killer deal with a Di2 build, Quarq power meter, ceramic speed bearings, etc..., and I figured I could use my 808s to smooth out the ride. The bike arrived and the fit and finish was so poor that it looked like the very first attempt someone had at building a bicycle, or anything for that matter, in their life. The paint was flaking and chipping to the touch and there were cracks all along the bottom bracket that were impossible to discern whether they were structural or not. The bike was still under warranty to the original owner but Dimond was basically worthless in addressing my concerns. According to the seller, Dimond said they would take care of me if the cracks turned out to be structural, but I never got anything in writing. Plus, the offer was worthless in that they evidently said they would give me a tiny discount on the full retail price of a $4,000 Xpress frame if mine failed. In other words, they refused to warranty their workmanship on the frame, knowing full well that the paint was problematic on a ton of their frames. I even offered to pay them to repaint it properly and they told me they were too busy. I asked them how much to upgrade to a Superfork and they told me those were only available to 'customers', i.e. not me because I didn't buy the bike new from them. So much for standing by your product.

It was so apparent to me that this company was not headed in the right direction that I sold it immediately and am happily riding my heavily upgraded P2, at a fraction of the cost.

Finally, does no one else seem to care that the Dimond wind tunnel testing showed no measurable improvement over a Shiv or a P5-three with the rider onboard? That fact alone tells me that there is no real reason to buy a Dimond other than to look cool. You aren't going to be faster on it, hell, you may even be slower than a P5-Six, you can't ride it on a trainer, the resale value is terrible, and the company doesn't appear to stand behind their work.

#1 - Who in their right mind test rides a bike, doesn't like it and then goes and buys it anyway????

#2 - You say later on in another post that you didn't deal with Dimond, that the original buyer did. But yet in your original post you say Dimond wouldn't address "your" concerns

#3 - You complain about the aerodynamics of the bike, yet you still went ahead and bought the bike????

I don't get it, but that is me. The warranty belongs to the original owner - Dimond doesn't owe you anything. In addition, I have more to say about this if you purchased the bike from who I think you may have purchased the bike from.


Save: $20 on Air Relax Recovery Boots| $100 on Normatec| 15% on The Most Absorbable Magnesium | Best $50 Indoor Cycling Desk | NEW HED JET 6+
Wheelset - $1049 or less


Blogs: QUICK Air Relax Travel Case Review | Q2 Blood Test Results | Why Latex Bikes Tubes | Vittoria Corsa Speed Aero Data | Best Cheap Aero Sunglasses | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [chrisgrigsby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I will respond to rappstar later, but your experience is not unique. Sam Gyde (aka sgy or one of the fastest age groupers in long course triathlon) had very similar quality and customer service issues with Dimond.

I don't know why TG is trying to step in and discount your experience...oh wait, I do know: he's a lemming and wants to march in support of rappstar even though rappstar thinks he's a dolt.

<3
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grant.Reuter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's simply not true. I bought a used P4 and had it replaced with a p5-3 at 0 cost.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [davews09] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Then you got very lucky or someone lied during the process.

https://www.cervelo.com/en/support/warranty

Also only original owner.

-----------------------------------------------------------
De Soto Sport Athlete
Formerly Draketriathlon
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grant.Reuter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sure, a policy can day one thing, but a company can choose to act in a differently. Sounds like dimond has taken a hard-lined approach in this regard.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [davews09] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well of course, but I don't think you can disern that from the given information. I'm guessing there is a lot more to his story. Out of curiosity was yours the original p4? 2009?

-----------------------------------------------------------
De Soto Sport Athlete
Formerly Draketriathlon
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In the 1990s the similarly looking Zipp beam bikes were all the rage. If you went to USA Traithlon nationals you saw quite a few of these. What goes around, comes back around.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
chrisgrigsby wrote:
My experience with the Dimond bikes was pretty disappointing. I test rode one from a local dealer and was shocked at how harsh the ride was compared to my 2016 P2, especially considering that the selling point of a beam point seems to be the added comfort. This was with the stock Profile deep dish wheels, so perhaps those wheels are harsh as compared to the 808s on my P2, but my bike felt like a magic carpet ride next to the Dimond.

Still, on a whim, I bought a used Dimond bike sans wheels from someone on the forum here last Spring. It was a killer deal with a Di2 build, Quarq power meter, ceramic speed bearings, etc..., and I figured I could use my 808s to smooth out the ride. The bike arrived and the fit and finish was so poor that it looked like the very first attempt someone had at building a bicycle, or anything for that matter, in their life. The paint was flaking and chipping to the touch and there were cracks all along the bottom bracket that were impossible to discern whether they were structural or not. The bike was still under warranty to the original owner but Dimond was basically worthless in addressing my concerns. According to the seller, Dimond said they would take care of me if the cracks turned out to be structural, but I never got anything in writing. Plus, the offer was worthless in that they evidently said they would give me a tiny discount on the full retail price of a $4,000 Xpress frame if mine failed. In other words, they refused to warranty their workmanship on the frame, knowing full well that the paint was problematic on a ton of their frames. I even offered to pay them to repaint it properly and they told me they were too busy. I asked them how much to upgrade to a Superfork and they told me those were only available to 'customers', i.e. not me because I didn't buy the bike new from them. So much for standing by your product.

It was so apparent to me that this company was not headed in the right direction that I sold it immediately and am happily riding my heavily upgraded P2, at a fraction of the cost.

Finally, does no one else seem to care that the Dimond wind tunnel testing showed no measurable improvement over a Shiv or a P5-three with the rider onboard? That fact alone tells me that there is no real reason to buy a Dimond other than to look cool. You aren't going to be faster on it, hell, you may even be slower than a P5-Six, you can't ride it on a trainer, the resale value is terrible, and the company doesn't appear to stand behind their work.


#1 - Who in their right mind test rides a bike, doesn't like it and then goes and buys it anyway????

#2 - You say later on in another post that you didn't deal with Dimond, that the original buyer did. But yet in your original post you say Dimond wouldn't address "your" concerns

#3 - You complain about the aerodynamics of the bike, yet you still went ahead and bought the bike????

I don't get it, but that is me. The warranty belongs to the original owner - Dimond doesn't owe you anything. In addition, I have more to say about this if you purchased the bike from who I think you may have purchased the bike from.

It is pretty obvious that you don't get it since you didn't mention anything about the facts I stated with respect to the quality control issues on the frame and Dimond's own aero data that shows no discernible advantage with a rider on board vis-a-vis a Shiv and a P5-three.

But to address your cross examination...

#1. I was pretty bought in to the marketing of the Dimond and thought they looked cool as hell. As mentioned, on my initial test ride I found the bike to be extremely harsh, but wasn't sure if that was due to the stock Profile wheels or the frame. When a used one came available in my size I decided to try it out with my Zipp 808s, knowing I could probably sell it and get my money back if I preferred my Cervelo, or even use the Di2 and Quarq and just sell the frame.

#2. The seller dealt with Dimond as he was a friend of the company and the bike was actually shipped by Ruster Sports. We both were in contact with them. Again, I even inquired about paying them to check out the frame for structural cracks and repaint it as well as pay them to upgrade the fork, to no avail.

#3. To be honest, it wasn't until after I bought the bike that I started to realize that frames are pretty low on the totem pole as far as aero savings, when compared to clothing, helmets, wheels, etc...upon realizing that the aero savings were likely negligible, I couldn't justify the hassle of not being able to use the bike on my computrainer.

Thomas, do you now or have you previously owned a Dimond? Just curious why you seem to be so dubious of my shared experience? I don't have an agenda, but it kind of seems like you do?
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [chrisgrigsby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chrisgrigsby wrote:
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
chrisgrigsby wrote:
My experience with the Dimond bikes was pretty disappointing. I test rode one from a local dealer and was shocked at how harsh the ride was compared to my 2016 P2, especially considering that the selling point of a beam point seems to be the added comfort. This was with the stock Profile deep dish wheels, so perhaps those wheels are harsh as compared to the 808s on my P2, but my bike felt like a magic carpet ride next to the Dimond.

Still, on a whim, I bought a used Dimond bike sans wheels from someone on the forum here last Spring. It was a killer deal with a Di2 build, Quarq power meter, ceramic speed bearings, etc..., and I figured I could use my 808s to smooth out the ride. The bike arrived and the fit and finish was so poor that it looked like the very first attempt someone had at building a bicycle, or anything for that matter, in their life. The paint was flaking and chipping to the touch and there were cracks all along the bottom bracket that were impossible to discern whether they were structural or not. The bike was still under warranty to the original owner but Dimond was basically worthless in addressing my concerns. According to the seller, Dimond said they would take care of me if the cracks turned out to be structural, but I never got anything in writing. Plus, the offer was worthless in that they evidently said they would give me a tiny discount on the full retail price of a $4,000 Xpress frame if mine failed. In other words, they refused to warranty their workmanship on the frame, knowing full well that the paint was problematic on a ton of their frames. I even offered to pay them to repaint it properly and they told me they were too busy. I asked them how much to upgrade to a Superfork and they told me those were only available to 'customers', i.e. not me because I didn't buy the bike new from them. So much for standing by your product.

It was so apparent to me that this company was not headed in the right direction that I sold it immediately and am happily riding my heavily upgraded P2, at a fraction of the cost.

Finally, does no one else seem to care that the Dimond wind tunnel testing showed no measurable improvement over a Shiv or a P5-three with the rider onboard? That fact alone tells me that there is no real reason to buy a Dimond other than to look cool. You aren't going to be faster on it, hell, you may even be slower than a P5-Six, you can't ride it on a trainer, the resale value is terrible, and the company doesn't appear to stand behind their work.


#1 - Who in their right mind test rides a bike, doesn't like it and then goes and buys it anyway????

#2 - You say later on in another post that you didn't deal with Dimond, that the original buyer did. But yet in your original post you say Dimond wouldn't address "your" concerns

#3 - You complain about the aerodynamics of the bike, yet you still went ahead and bought the bike????

I don't get it, but that is me. The warranty belongs to the original owner - Dimond doesn't owe you anything. In addition, I have more to say about this if you purchased the bike from who I think you may have purchased the bike from.


It is pretty obvious that you don't get it since you didn't mention anything about the facts I stated with respect to the quality control issues on the frame and Dimond's own aero data that shows no discernible advantage with a rider on board vis-a-vis a Shiv and a P5-three.

But to address your cross examination...

#1. I was pretty bought in to the marketing of the Dimond and thought they looked cool as hell. As mentioned, on my initial test ride I found the bike to be extremely harsh, but wasn't sure if that was due to the stock Profile wheels or the frame. When a used one came available in my size I decided to try it out with my Zipp 808s, knowing I could probably sell it and get my money back if I preferred my Cervelo, or even use the Di2 and Quarq and just sell the frame.

#2. The seller dealt with Dimond as he was a friend of the company and the bike was actually shipped by Ruster Sports. We both were in contact with them. Again, I even inquired about paying them to check out the frame for structural cracks and repaint it as well as pay them to upgrade the fork, to no avail.

#3. To be honest, it wasn't until after I bought the bike that I started to realize that frames are pretty low on the totem pole as far as aero savings, when compared to clothing, helmets, wheels, etc...upon realizing that the aero savings were likely negligible, I couldn't justify the hassle of not being able to use the bike on my computrainer.

Thomas, do you now or have you previously owned a Dimond? Just curious why you seem to be so dubious of my shared experience? I don't have an agenda, but it kind of seems like you do?

For the record, I don't own a Dimond. I have trained with TJ a few times and I consider him to be casual friend at best. You can be assured that even casual friends - or even friends for that matter - I hand it to if they pitch things I don't agree with.

Also for the record, I am not a Dimond fanboy by any stretch of the imagination, with that being said, I do occasionally stick up for brands/people/products that I think are not getting a fair assessment, in which case your's was. Again, I see you admit the seller has some relationship with Dimond. Do you know their agreement, he/she very easily could have taken a frame with issues for a steep discount and they are trying to pass it off on you. Regardless, Dimond knows you are not the original purchaser. Maybe the standard should be different, but when you buy things second hand that is a risk you are taking. That is why the resale value of bike parts is a fraction of what the initial cost might have been.

I think I understand your situation, maybe I don't, but it seems like a classic case of buyer's remorse. You should be dealing with the original seller not Dimond.

As for the aero gains, Dimond, didn't put that whitepaper out and candy-coat it like some others bike companies - frankly you should applaud them for trying their best. As I said, Dimond is not Trek, they don't have the same R&D and will never, but they were open and honest, even if it didn't reflect their bike the best. This wasn't some sort of secret. They don't promote their bike in my opinion as the absolute fastest, they take a different approach highlight "made in america" or "comfortable". As Rapp said, before, teasing out which bike is faster is useless when the body accounts for 70-80% of the drag on a bike. Maybe you didn't know this, but this isn't Dimond's fault. The bike is plenty fast and I am confident I could ride it to splits within seconds of my current bike given the same positions, equipment etc over a 70.3.

Knowing the legitimate backstory of TJ, including the expiration of his Specialized deal, and his own back issues, I feel confident the Dimond bike is comfy bike. I have talked to other riders and friends who ride Dimonds and will give me the real story. I also have friends who ride bikes, and are paid to ride bikes and complain not stop about the bike. I'm sorry you didn't find the bike comfy.

Again, I apologize if your experience with Dimond is frustrating, but please understand it is only in my opinion that I think you are being a little biases. You can see earlier in this thread where I attacked certain aspects of Dimond as well as compared to Specialized/Cervelo/Trek


Save: $20 on Air Relax Recovery Boots| $100 on Normatec| 15% on The Most Absorbable Magnesium | Best $50 Indoor Cycling Desk | NEW HED JET 6+
Wheelset - $1049 or less


Blogs: QUICK Air Relax Travel Case Review | Q2 Blood Test Results | Why Latex Bikes Tubes | Vittoria Corsa Speed Aero Data | Best Cheap Aero Sunglasses | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dimond calls their bike the fastest in the world....

I can give you 25% off Roka Sunglasses! Message me for details! Currently 1 code left! Code must be be redeemed by December 31!
Powered by All Out MultiSport - http://www.aomultisport.com/

Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BryanD wrote:
Dimond calls their bike the fastest in the world....

The unfortunate reality is the general public doesn't understand that it is a system and not just a bike. Ventum "World's Fastest Triathlon Bike" claims they are the fastest, Dimond, Cervelo (simply faster), Trek (the fastest bike just got faster). All the bike companies do. Until the public, of some governing body says otherwise companies will continue to do so. I am not suggesting this is ok, just an unfortunate reality.


Save: $20 on Air Relax Recovery Boots| $100 on Normatec| 15% on The Most Absorbable Magnesium | Best $50 Indoor Cycling Desk | NEW HED JET 6+
Wheelset - $1049 or less


Blogs: QUICK Air Relax Travel Case Review | Q2 Blood Test Results | Why Latex Bikes Tubes | Vittoria Corsa Speed Aero Data | Best Cheap Aero Sunglasses | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
chrisgrigsby wrote:
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
chrisgrigsby wrote:
My experience with the Dimond bikes was pretty disappointing. I test rode one from a local dealer and was shocked at how harsh the ride was compared to my 2016 P2, especially considering that the selling point of a beam point seems to be the added comfort. This was with the stock Profile deep dish wheels, so perhaps those wheels are harsh as compared to the 808s on my P2, but my bike felt like a magic carpet ride next to the Dimond.

Still, on a whim, I bought a used Dimond bike sans wheels from someone on the forum here last Spring. It was a killer deal with a Di2 build, Quarq power meter, ceramic speed bearings, etc..., and I figured I could use my 808s to smooth out the ride. The bike arrived and the fit and finish was so poor that it looked like the very first attempt someone had at building a bicycle, or anything for that matter, in their life. The paint was flaking and chipping to the touch and there were cracks all along the bottom bracket that were impossible to discern whether they were structural or not. The bike was still under warranty to the original owner but Dimond was basically worthless in addressing my concerns. According to the seller, Dimond said they would take care of me if the cracks turned out to be structural, but I never got anything in writing. Plus, the offer was worthless in that they evidently said they would give me a tiny discount on the full retail price of a $4,000 Xpress frame if mine failed. In other words, they refused to warranty their workmanship on the frame, knowing full well that the paint was problematic on a ton of their frames. I even offered to pay them to repaint it properly and they told me they were too busy. I asked them how much to upgrade to a Superfork and they told me those were only available to 'customers', i.e. not me because I didn't buy the bike new from them. So much for standing by your product.

It was so apparent to me that this company was not headed in the right direction that I sold it immediately and am happily riding my heavily upgraded P2, at a fraction of the cost.

Finally, does no one else seem to care that the Dimond wind tunnel testing showed no measurable improvement over a Shiv or a P5-three with the rider onboard? That fact alone tells me that there is no real reason to buy a Dimond other than to look cool. You aren't going to be faster on it, hell, you may even be slower than a P5-Six, you can't ride it on a trainer, the resale value is terrible, and the company doesn't appear to stand behind their work.


#1 - Who in their right mind test rides a bike, doesn't like it and then goes and buys it anyway????

#2 - You say later on in another post that you didn't deal with Dimond, that the original buyer did. But yet in your original post you say Dimond wouldn't address "your" concerns

#3 - You complain about the aerodynamics of the bike, yet you still went ahead and bought the bike????

I don't get it, but that is me. The warranty belongs to the original owner - Dimond doesn't owe you anything. In addition, I have more to say about this if you purchased the bike from who I think you may have purchased the bike from.


It is pretty obvious that you don't get it since you didn't mention anything about the facts I stated with respect to the quality control issues on the frame and Dimond's own aero data that shows no discernible advantage with a rider on board vis-a-vis a Shiv and a P5-three.

But to address your cross examination...

#1. I was pretty bought in to the marketing of the Dimond and thought they looked cool as hell. As mentioned, on my initial test ride I found the bike to be extremely harsh, but wasn't sure if that was due to the stock Profile wheels or the frame. When a used one came available in my size I decided to try it out with my Zipp 808s, knowing I could probably sell it and get my money back if I preferred my Cervelo, or even use the Di2 and Quarq and just sell the frame.

#2. The seller dealt with Dimond as he was a friend of the company and the bike was actually shipped by Ruster Sports. We both were in contact with them. Again, I even inquired about paying them to check out the frame for structural cracks and repaint it as well as pay them to upgrade the fork, to no avail.

#3. To be honest, it wasn't until after I bought the bike that I started to realize that frames are pretty low on the totem pole as far as aero savings, when compared to clothing, helmets, wheels, etc...upon realizing that the aero savings were likely negligible, I couldn't justify the hassle of not being able to use the bike on my computrainer.

Thomas, do you now or have you previously owned a Dimond? Just curious why you seem to be so dubious of my shared experience? I don't have an agenda, but it kind of seems like you do?

For the record, I don't own a Dimond. I have trained with TJ a few times and I consider him to be casual friend at best. You can be assured that even casual friends - or even friends for that matter - I hand it to if they pitch things I don't agree with.

Also for the record, I am not a Dimond fanboy by any stretch of the imagination, with that being said, I do occasionally stick up for brands/people/products that I think are not getting a fair assessment, in which case your's was. Again, I see you admit the seller has some relationship with Dimond. Do you know their agreement, he/she very easily could have taken a frame with issues for a steep discount and they are trying to pass it off on you. Regardless, Dimond knows you are not the original purchaser. Maybe the standard should be different, but when you buy things second hand that is a risk you are taking. That is why the resale value of bike parts is a fraction of what the initial cost might have been.

I think I understand your situation, maybe I don't, but it seems like a classic case of buyer's remorse. You should be dealing with the original seller not Dimond.

As for the aero gains, Dimond, didn't put that whitepaper out and candy-coat it like some others bike companies - frankly you should applaud them for trying their best. As I said, Dimond is not Trek, they don't have the same R&D and will never, but they were open and honest, even if it didn't reflect their bike the best. This wasn't some sort of secret. They don't promote their bike in my opinion as the absolute fastest, they take a different approach highlight "made in america" or "comfortable". As Rapp said, before, teasing out which bike is faster is useless when the body accounts for 70-80% of the drag on a bike. Maybe you didn't know this, but this isn't Dimond's fault. The bike is plenty fast and I am confident I could ride it to splits within seconds of my current bike given the same positions, equipment etc over a 70.3.

Knowing the legitimate backstory of TJ, including the expiration of his Specialized deal, and his own back issues, I feel confident the Dimond bike is comfy bike. I have talked to other riders and friends who ride Dimonds and will give me the real story. I also have friends who ride bikes, and are paid to ride bikes and complain not stop about the bike. I'm sorry you didn't find the bike comfy.

Again, I apologize if your experience with Dimond is frustrating, but please understand it is only in my opinion that I think you are being a little biases. You can see earlier in this thread where I attacked certain aspects of Dimond as well as compared to Specialized/Cervelo/Trek

Thomas, I appreciate your thoughts in the matter but would like to point out a few aspects of your posts that make it hard to believe you are not a bit of a fanboy.

You are absolutely correct that Dimond should be applauded for putting out a white paper that didn't necessarily represent their bike in the best light. I couldn't agree more, however the paper clearly concludes that the bike is the fastest on the market and suggests that the bike with rider tests aren't as accurate. You state that Dimond don't market their bikes as being the fastest, but rather 'comfy, when that couldn't be further from the truth. Dimond clearly markets their bike as the fastest and to assert otherwise is bizarre. You state that you know the bike is 'comfy' because TJ has a bad back and you have some friends that told you so, but how can you state this as fact if you have never actually ridden one?

My original post was merely meant to offer some perspective to would be purchasers based on my own experience. I'm not losing sleep over this. For me, personally, I would not consider a Dimond for the following objective reasons, plain and simple.
1: I'm not convinced by the aero testing against a basic Shiv and a P5-Three that the Dimond is any faster than a conventional frame. If I'm not mistaken, the frame was not designed in a tunnel. They built the frames and then had the bike tested hoping it would put up good numbers.
2: My own experience riding a Dimond did not lead me to conclude the bike was more comfortable. It revealed the bike to be harsh, at least with Profile wheels and the stock 3T fork.
3: The Dimond frame I purchased, while used for a few months, was not representative of a top tier bike in terms of fit and finish. Not even close.
4: Dimond didn't stand behind their product because it wasn't bought new from them, nor would they stand behind the product for the original owner. This is certainly their prerogative, but shortsighted at best. Again, I offered to pay them to check it out and fix the faulty paint as well as buy a new superfork, but was told in no uncertain terms that I was not a 'real' customer. For a new company trying to build a brand and reputation for quality and customer service, this is moronic. When someone is trying to pay you money to fix and upgrade a bike your company built, they are a customer in my mind. Yes, I do know the circumstances of the original seller. His frame was not sold as a blem model. He didn't know there were cracks in the bottom bracket until I received it.

I sincerely hope the company continues to grow and innovate. I wouldn't even discount owning one of their bikes in the future, but not until they mature into a company and product worthy of the pricing. I still regularly follow their bikes and still believe they are the coolest looking thing on the market.

Best,
Chris
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [chrisgrigsby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chrisgrigsby wrote:
The paint was flaking and chipping to the touch and there were cracks all along the bottom bracket that were impossible to discern whether they were structural or not.

Sounds like impact from using in a rear-clamping trainer.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is hilarious. Everyone seems that frame drag is pretty arbitrary when you haven't tested and perfected your position or wheels as translating both across won't give the best result.

I know a lot of people with CdAs under .180m^2, as well as a few under .170m^2, and none of them are on Dimonds. Is the Diamond fast? On the right person, probably. Should you buy one? No, get a P4 instead and be faster still.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grant.Reuter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is why I skip over most things on this forum. I took delivery on a new Dimond last week and it is drop dead beautiful. Fit , finish was the best. Do your own homework, to many jerks on this forum.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
There are a lot of great bikes out there. I do not believe that the Dimond is dramatically faster than any of the very good ones - P5 or Trek SC or Scott Plasma 5 or Specialized Shiv or... Nor do I believe it is measurably slower. Or, more specifically, that the variance between bikes largely will come down to fit, bars, other equipment (bottle placement), etc. And that ultimately it's likely nearly impossible to determine the "best" bike for you without significant time and expense. So just pick one of the very good ones and be happy.

This is one of your best points -- not just in this thread, but ever. People who obsess over the minutia of these frames need to entirely understand the above.

By the way, I'm not actually mad at you. Part of being an internet troll is exaggerating things. It's for effect rather than sincerity. Of course, the underlying sentiment rings true, but I'm glad you clarified with your post.

(Not sure I understand the Callum Millward retweet at the end? For someone who routinely quotes Nietzsche and extemporaneously integrates obscure latin phraseology into posts, this was one of your odder external references.)
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [rhudson] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rhudson wrote:
This is why I skip over most things on this forum. I took delivery on a new Dimond last week and it is drop dead beautiful. Fit , finish was the best. Do your own homework, to many jerks on this forum.

Seems like you are really qualified at this point to make an assessment on the durability of this bicycle.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
This is hilarious. Everyone seems that frame drag is pretty arbitrary when you haven't tested and perfected your position or wheels as translating both across won't give the best result.

I know a lot of people with CdAs under .180m^2, as well as a few under .170m^2, and none of them are on Dimonds. Is the Diamond fast? On the right person, probably. Should you buy one? No, get a P4 instead and be faster still.

This qualifies as the dumbest post I have read on Slowtwitch this month. Congrats -- you are the July forum dunce.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
romulusmagnus wrote:
Grill wrote:
This is hilarious. Everyone seems that frame drag is pretty arbitrary when you haven't tested and perfected your position or wheels as translating both across won't give the best result.

I know a lot of people with CdAs under .180m^2, as well as a few under .170m^2, and none of them are on Dimonds. Is the Diamond fast? On the right person, probably. Should you buy one? No, get a P4 instead and be faster still.

This qualifies as the dumbest post I have read on Slowtwitch this month. Congrats -- you are the July forum dunce.

Explain.

Fact is you cannot translate identical position and wheels and expect to have the optimum setup for different frames. If you tested you would know this.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I just want to know why the Dimond wasn't tested against a P5-6?

I can give you 25% off Roka Sunglasses! Message me for details! Currently 1 code left! Code must be be redeemed by December 31!
Powered by All Out MultiSport - http://www.aomultisport.com/

Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Strange considering they discontinued the P5-3 and the P5-6 is the natural competitor given they're both tri bikes...
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not only that, TJ's position on the bike is one that most can't ride in. Notice how he is looking down in the pictures?
http://www.rustersports.com/...eport-11.14.2013.pdf

I can give you 25% off Roka Sunglasses! Message me for details! Currently 1 code left! Code must be be redeemed by December 31!
Powered by All Out MultiSport - http://www.aomultisport.com/

Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think that may have been for consistency. What's more worrying than that is the bars they used. The Shiv is the only one with flat base bars and I suspect this has more to do with the superior performance than the frames.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowtwitch is obsessed with beam bikes but I have yet to see how they are faster. I've heard that you better use a disc when riding one or you are going slower than a regular double diamond bike.

I can give you 25% off Roka Sunglasses! Message me for details! Currently 1 code left! Code must be be redeemed by December 31!
Powered by All Out MultiSport - http://www.aomultisport.com/

Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A couple fast testers on this side of the pond were on Falcos last year and have switched to a Trek SC and Giant Trinity TT and they're going no slower. If someone gives me one of these I'll test it against my Plasma, but I already know the Dimond will be slower.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The biggest thing most people think is that by removing tubes a bike is faster. That is not always true.

The Shiv is a slow bike from what everyone on here says and if the Dimond is comparable to that, then the only reason to buy a Dimond is because it looks cool.

I can give you 25% off Roka Sunglasses! Message me for details! Currently 1 code left! Code must be be redeemed by December 31!
Powered by All Out MultiSport - http://www.aomultisport.com/

Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
A couple fast testers on this side of the pond were on Falcos last year and have switched to a Trek SC and Giant Trinity TT and they're going no slower. If someone gives me one of these I'll test it against my Plasma, but I already know the Dimond will be slower.

No, you believe the Dimond will be slower. Belief is not knowledge.

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Power13] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Power13 wrote:
Grill wrote:
A couple fast testers on this side of the pond were on Falcos last year and have switched to a Trek SC and Giant Trinity TT and they're going no slower. If someone gives me one of these I'll test it against my Plasma, but I already know the Dimond will be slower.

No, you believe the Dimond will be slower. Belief is not knowledge.

It is when you've tested as much as I have. The delta in performance between wheels tested on their own as opposed to different frames/forks is massive and doesn't correlate. I know not only the fastest wheels for my bike, but also which tubs work best with the wheel and fork in question, and that alone let's me confidently state that the Dimond will not be faster given the same equipment and position. As I said before, it's possible the Dimond could eventually be quicker, but the cost of the frame plus a couple thousand for testing make it a foolhardy, and not to mention risky, proposition.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Power13] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Power13 wrote:

No, you believe the Dimond will be slower. Belief is not knowledge.

Sure, but that goes both ways. Rappstar, above, says, "Based on what I've seen, the Dimond is faster than the Shiv." But then doesn't explain what he's seen - just offers justifications for not explaining it. To his credit he did water down the claim in the same paragraph, "But for me, I believe the Dimond is faster." (emphasis mine).
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
Power13 wrote:
Grill wrote:
A couple fast testers on this side of the pond were on Falcos last year and have switched to a Trek SC and Giant Trinity TT and they're going no slower. If someone gives me one of these I'll test it against my Plasma, but I already know the Dimond will be slower.


No, you believe the Dimond will be slower. Belief is not knowledge.


It is when you've tested as much as I have. The delta in performance between wheels tested on their own as opposed to different frames/forks is massive and doesn't correlate. I know not only the fastest wheels for my bike, but also which tubs work best with the wheel and fork in question, and that alone let's me confidently state that the Dimond will not be faster given the same equipment and position. As I said before, it's possible the Dimond could eventually be quicker, but the cost of the frame plus a couple thousand for testing make it a foolhardy, and not to mention risky, proposition.

Yup....that is called "belief".

That doesn't mean your belief is wrong.....but it is not the same thing as knowledge.

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
As I said before, it's possible the Dimond could eventually be quicker, but the cost of the frame plus a couple thousand for testing make it a foolhardy, and not to mention risky, proposition.

Only if your main concern is optimizing your ROI. It's interesting otherwise. With so many people emotionally caught up in the idea of beam bikes (on both the hater and fanboi sides) it'd be good if some set of affluent age groupers with no financial interest in the company subjected themselves to a rigorous, respected process (A2, LSWT, ERO) and posted the data publicly.

I'm kind of a beam hater, but there's a valid point made several times in this thread that some people like to having something unique and different. Boutique brands are OK. The Cervelo/Trek/Specialized/Felt/Cannondale/Giant hegemony is pretty boring. And it's probably good for the industry when manufacturers try new and different things. Even if the the idea doesn't pan out.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I came to read this thread because I didn't want to see another thread filled with hate in the LR, and it ends up being a thread just like those discussing how badly Trump and Hillary suck.

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

http://www.fmcoaching.com
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Francois wrote:
I came to read this thread because I didn't want to see another thread filled with hate in the LR, and it ends up being a thread just like those discussing how badly Trump and Hillary suck.


I've been out of the LR for a month. Might dip a toe back in around February. :) So I have to get my fill in the beam bike threads.
Last edited by: trail: Aug 1, 16 9:09
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Only if your main concern is optimizing your ROI. It's interesting otherwise. With so many people emotionally caught up in the idea of beam bikes (on both the hater and fanboi sides) it'd be good if some set of affluent age groupers with no financial interest in the company subjected themselves to a rigorous, respected process (A2, LSWT, ERO) and posted the data publicly.

By 'subject themselves', do you simply mean 'pay for themselves' to test?
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
romulusmagnus wrote:

By 'subject themselves', do you simply mean 'pay for themselves' to test?

Yes.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Grill wrote:
As I said before, it's possible the Dimond could eventually be quicker, but the cost of the frame plus a couple thousand for testing make it a foolhardy, and not to mention risky, proposition.

Only if your main concern is optimizing your ROI. It's interesting otherwise. With so many people emotionally caught up in the idea of beam bikes (on both the hater and fanboi sides) it'd be good if some set of affluent age groupers with no financial interest in the company subjected themselves to a rigorous, respected process (A2, LSWT, ERO) and posted the data publicly.

I'm kind of a beam hater, but there's a valid point made several times in this thread that some people like to having something unique and different. Boutique brands are OK. The Cervelo/Trek/Specialized/Felt/Cannondale/Giant hegemony is pretty boring. And it's probably good for the industry when manufacturers try new and different things. Even if the the idea doesn't pan out.

It's not. My main concern is lowering my CdA, but spending 8k on a frame and testing (plus a new front wheel and probably bars) that probably won't achieve that is just stupid.

As I said I'll happily test it if Dimond or an enthusiast wants to send me theirs, but no sane person is going to jump from a sure thing to a big fat maybe based on marketing and super weak tunnel testing done with rubbish protocols.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [rhudson] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Let me start out by pointing out that I'm not as smart as most of the people on this forum. I'm an old guy that's been doing triathlon for about 5 years, the first 4 on a cervelo P3 and this year on a Diamond I bought from someone without any connection to rustersports.com. The frame was untouched as it was a replacement for a frame that had been replaced under warrantee?? It cost me a lot less than a new P3 Six would have and for years I'd fought the bike/human interface on my P3. I'd tried a butt load of saddles on my Cervelo and the idea of a 'softer' ride interested me, so I bought the Dimond. I understood it was an unwarranted purchase and don't expect TJ to give me anything if it craps out today. I would be impressed if they would stand behind all of their frames, but don't expect anything. So far this year, I've trained and raced on this thing 3 times and am happy with the ride, no bike/human interface issues. Like I said earlier, I'm not smart about coefficient of drag, yew angles, etc. but I'm enjoying this bike and its that simple. I have also learned in the last 5 years that the longest distance in triathlon is the 6 inches between your ears.
Last edited by: ernieinky: Aug 1, 16 9:55
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
It's not. My main concern is lowering my CdA, but spending 8k on a frame and testing (plus a new front wheel and probably bars) that probably won't achieve that is just stupid.

I think you're saying there that ROI *is* your main concern. :)
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Grill wrote:

It's not. My main concern is lowering my CdA, but spending 8k on a frame and testing (plus a new front wheel and probably bars) that probably won't achieve that is just stupid.


I think you're saying there that ROI *is* your main concern. :)

Touche.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Power13 wrote:

No, you believe the Dimond will be slower. Belief is not knowledge.

Sure, but that goes both ways. Rappstar, above, says, "Based on what I've seen, the Dimond is faster than the Shiv." But then doesn't explain what he's seen - just offers justifications for not explaining it. To his credit he did water down the claim in the same paragraph, "But for me, I believe the Dimond is faster." (emphasis mine).

Most consistently, it's been on my measured TT course. Speed on that course - which is a rolling course with a net ascent that is relatively sheltered from the wind - is higher for a given power output on the Dimond than on the Shiv. And that's reinforced by a lot of rides on a lot of the same roads over and over. As I said, there are a LOT of variables. I have not made an effort to isolate every one of them. For example, the Dimond MIGHT simply be faster because 1X is faster than RED22. Or because the Dimond does better at low yaw relative to the Shiv which was admittedly designed (rightly or wrongly) for high yaw, which I rarely see where I train.

Before I signed a five year contract with Dimond, I talked to David Morse - who I knew from Zipp and who largely designed the Dimond and who is now back at Zipp - and several other of the Zipp engineers who were a part of the Dimond project (many of them contributed their time/expertise to helping "revamp" the Zipp 3001/2001). And I've continued to talk to them since as many of them have put the bike into the tunnel.

In terms of "explaining what I've seen," I wouldn't say that it qualifies as highly empirical. I did not take out both frames and "Chung" them with identical (or as close as possible) set ups. I've just seen, consistently, that I go faster on a given power output on the Dimond than on the Shiv. This isn't from "testing." It's just from riding. I don't want to present riding as testing, but I also don't want to discount that things can be apparent when you spend enough time doing it... I promise I'm not trying to be deliberately obscure here.


"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | Facebook - Rappstar Racing | @rappstar | I work @ Zwift

Ask me about: DiamondBack Bikes | Zipp | 1st Endurance | Normatec - $100 off RAPP2017 | Quarq | SRAM | MatchRider | Kiwami | ROKA
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Titanflexr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Titanflexr wrote:
romulusmagnus wrote:
You're completely missing the point. The speed they calibrated to is an industry stand to quantify deltas in product on a consistent basis, even as that measure (grams of drag) is itself incredibly stupid and inaccurate for real world application


Yes, 30mph is a standard (a reasonable speed for TdF FOP TTers like Fabian and Tony). I was just pointing out what the watts savings is likely to be for a "typical" Diamond owner who's considering cost/benefit.

My pref. is reporting time saved over 40K....since that at least scales up a bit for slower riders. CdA is ideal....but not really usable for the non-engineers.

Late to this thread by 30 mph is speed of airflow over the bike and rider. Really easy for mid pack age groupers to hit riding at 18 mph into a 12 mph wind. 30 mph is not ground speed. Ground speed is irrelevant!
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:
Titanflexr wrote:
romulusmagnus wrote:
You're completely missing the point. The speed they calibrated to is an industry stand to quantify deltas in product on a consistent basis, even as that measure (grams of drag) is itself incredibly stupid and inaccurate for real world application


Yes, 30mph is a standard (a reasonable speed for TdF FOP TTers like Fabian and Tony). I was just pointing out what the watts savings is likely to be for a "typical" Diamond owner who's considering cost/benefit.

My pref. is reporting time saved over 40K....since that at least scales up a bit for slower riders. CdA is ideal....but not really usable for the non-engineers.


Late to this thread by 30 mph is speed of airflow over the bike and rider. Really easy for mid pack age groupers to hit riding at 18 mph into a 12 mph wind. 30 mph is not ground speed. Ground speed is irrelevant!

You sure about that Dev? Unless they were drafting someone or riding downhill I'd be pretty impressed.

Hugh

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not so much. Ground speed is very relevant. The power to ride 18mph into a 12mph wind is pretty close to 30mph power with no wind. Slightly lower because of Crr but not massive.

The problem with your assumption is that "12mph wind" is rarely 12mph when measured at 1m off the ground. And of course the likelihood of zero(ish) yaw even when it is windy.

But really the biggest factor is that reported wind speed is measured quite high in the air. Not at ground level.


"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | Facebook - Rappstar Racing | @rappstar | I work @ Zwift

Ask me about: DiamondBack Bikes | Zipp | 1st Endurance | Normatec - $100 off RAPP2017 | Quarq | SRAM | MatchRider | Kiwami | ROKA
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
Not so much. Ground speed is very relevant. The power to ride 18mph into a 12mph wind is pretty close to 30mph power with no wind. Slightly lower because of Crr but not massive.

The problem with your assumption is that "12mph wind" is rarely 12mph when measured at 1m off the ground. And of course the likelihood of zero(ish) yaw even when it is windy.

But really the biggest factor is that reported wind speed is measured quite high in the air. Not at ground level.

Sure, I realize the power is almost the same (only delta at 18+12 is Crr should be lower). It's not an irrelevant air speed for an age grouper. Age groupers can his 30 mph air speed on a flat with a decent amount of power or slight downhill with low power. It happens a fair amount on a rolling course. Agreed to some degree that 12 mph wind is harder to achieve at 1 m off the ground, but it's not uncommon either.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
The power to ride 18mph into a 12mph wind is pretty close to 30mph power with no wind. Slightly lower because of Crr but not massive.

Power to overcome drag is v_air^2 * v_ground. Power to ride 18 mph into a 12 mph headwind is therefore not really that close to riding 30 mph in no wind.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Having completed a TTT with someone riding one I was surprised by how much the rear wheel moved / flexed about. It was a bit disconcerting at 1st. Don't know how much this effects speed. Guessing slight pay off for enhanced comfort / fatigue resilience.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [MTM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MTM wrote:
Rappstar wrote:
The power to ride 18mph into a 12mph wind is pretty close to 30mph power with no wind. Slightly lower because of Crr but not massive.


Power to overcome drag is v_air^2 * v_ground. Power to ride 18 mph into a 12 mph headwind is therefore not really that close to riding 30 mph in no wind.

Aside from ground speed affects Crr related Power requirements, there can't be any difference between 30 mph airflow over a rider and bike whether it comes from 30 mph rider speed vs ground + 0 air speed relative to ground or 18 mph rider speed vs ground and 12 mph air speed against rider direction vs ground. Help me on what I am missing. Your head, arm or shoulder going through the air does not feel how fast your bike is moving over ground, only how fast the air is moving over you.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Enough with the nerd talk. Let's get back to arguing about why my super expensive new bike sucks.

2018 Races:
Oceanside 70.3, Oceanside, CA, April 7th | Ironman Texas, The Woodlands, TX, April 28th | Finland 70.3, Lahti, Finland, June 30th | Jonkoping 70.3, Jonkoping, Sweden, July 8th | Waco 70.3, Waco, TX, October 28th

Gear: Dimond Bikes | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:
MTM wrote:
Rappstar wrote:
The power to ride 18mph into a 12mph wind is pretty close to 30mph power with no wind. Slightly lower because of Crr but not massive.


Power to overcome drag is v_air^2 * v_ground. Power to ride 18 mph into a 12 mph headwind is therefore not really that close to riding 30 mph in no wind.


Aside from ground speed affects Crr related Power requirements, there can't be any difference between 30 mph airflow over a rider and bike whether it comes from 30 mph rider speed vs ground + 0 air speed relative to ground or 18 mph rider speed vs ground and 12 mph air speed against rider direction vs ground. Help me on what I am missing. Your head, arm or shoulder going through the air does not feel how fast your bike is moving over ground, only how fast the air is moving over you.

While I agree that there intuitively seems to be some sort of logical fallacy in this, the way to calculate power the way you describe can't be correct. By your definition going 0 mph (i.e. standing still) on the bike with a 30 mph headwind would require the same power (aero drag wise) as riding 30 mph with no wind. Going 0 mph obviously doesn't require any power. You will have the same drag force (v_air^2), but no power requirement.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [MTM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MTM wrote:
devashish_paul wrote:
MTM wrote:
Rappstar wrote:
The power to ride 18mph into a 12mph wind is pretty close to 30mph power with no wind. Slightly lower because of Crr but not massive.


Power to overcome drag is v_air^2 * v_ground. Power to ride 18 mph into a 12 mph headwind is therefore not really that close to riding 30 mph in no wind.


Aside from ground speed affects Crr related Power requirements, there can't be any difference between 30 mph airflow over a rider and bike whether it comes from 30 mph rider speed vs ground + 0 air speed relative to ground or 18 mph rider speed vs ground and 12 mph air speed against rider direction vs ground. Help me on what I am missing. Your head, arm or shoulder going through the air does not feel how fast your bike is moving over ground, only how fast the air is moving over you.


While I agree that there intuitively seems to be some sort of logical fallacy in this, the way to calculate power the way you describe can't be correct. By your definition going 0 mph (i.e. standing still) on the bike with a 30 mph headwind would require the same power (aero drag wise) as riding 30 mph with no wind. Going 0 mph obviously doesn't require any power. You will have the same drag force (v_air^2), but no power requirement.

OK, now I remember...drag force is proportional to the cube of the velocity through the fluid, so b v^^^3 where v is actually split between V1 (speed through air), V2 (speed over ground) so V1^2 (air speed) x V2 (ground speed). I think I was thinking about aircraft flying through the air where there is no connection against the ground like a wheel has so you can use ground speeds to get to your final air speed, but all that counts is air speed. For the aircraft the thrust is relative to the air, whereas for a bike the thrust is against the ground....so I stand corrected. I see where you are coming from.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:
MTM wrote:
devashish_paul wrote:
MTM wrote:
Rappstar wrote:
The power to ride 18mph into a 12mph wind is pretty close to 30mph power with no wind. Slightly lower because of Crr but not massive.


Power to overcome drag is v_air^2 * v_ground. Power to ride 18 mph into a 12 mph headwind is therefore not really that close to riding 30 mph in no wind.


Aside from ground speed affects Crr related Power requirements, there can't be any difference between 30 mph airflow over a rider and bike whether it comes from 30 mph rider speed vs ground + 0 air speed relative to ground or 18 mph rider speed vs ground and 12 mph air speed against rider direction vs ground. Help me on what I am missing. Your head, arm or shoulder going through the air does not feel how fast your bike is moving over ground, only how fast the air is moving over you.


While I agree that there intuitively seems to be some sort of logical fallacy in this, the way to calculate power the way you describe can't be correct. By your definition going 0 mph (i.e. standing still) on the bike with a 30 mph headwind would require the same power (aero drag wise) as riding 30 mph with no wind. Going 0 mph obviously doesn't require any power. You will have the same drag force (v_air^2), but no power requirement.


OK, now I remember...drag force is proportional to the cube of the velocity through the fluid, so b v^^^3 where v is actually split between V1 (speed through air), V2 (speed over ground) so V1^2 (air speed) x V2 (ground speed). I think I was thinking about aircraft flying through the air where there is no connection against the ground like a wheel has so you can use ground speeds to get to your final air speed, but all that counts is air speed. For the aircraft the thrust is relative to the air, whereas for a bike the thrust is against the ground....so I stand corrected. I see where you are coming from.

Yes, you are correct. So 30 mph air speed still happens even if you are not necessarily going 30 mph, but the power requirement is still pretty dependent on the ground speed.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [BryanD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I wish the UCI would allow this!
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [glennf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why? UCI legality doesn't matter for triathlon.

I can give you 25% off Roka Sunglasses! Message me for details! Currently 1 code left! Code must be be redeemed by December 31!
Powered by All Out MultiSport - http://www.aomultisport.com/

Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [MTM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MTM wrote:
devashish_paul wrote:
MTM wrote:
Rappstar wrote:
The power to ride 18mph into a 12mph wind is pretty close to 30mph power with no wind. Slightly lower because of Crr but not massive.


Power to overcome drag is v_air^2 * v_ground. Power to ride 18 mph into a 12 mph headwind is therefore not really that close to riding 30 mph in no wind.


Aside from ground speed affects Crr related Power requirements, there can't be any difference between 30 mph airflow over a rider and bike whether it comes from 30 mph rider speed vs ground + 0 air speed relative to ground or 18 mph rider speed vs ground and 12 mph air speed against rider direction vs ground. Help me on what I am missing. Your head, arm or shoulder going through the air does not feel how fast your bike is moving over ground, only how fast the air is moving over you.


While I agree that there intuitively seems to be some sort of logical fallacy in this, the way to calculate power the way you describe can't be correct. By your definition going 0 mph (i.e. standing still) on the bike with a 30 mph headwind would require the same power (aero drag wise) as riding 30 mph with no wind. Going 0 mph obviously doesn't require any power. You will have the same drag force (v_air^2), but no power requirement.

How about riding 2mph into a 28mph headwind or 4mph into a 26mph headwind? You're getting hung up on just sitting in one spot rather than considering the forces acting on the moving cyclist.

Hugh

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [sciguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sciguy wrote:

How about riding 2mph into a 28mph headwind or 4mph into a 26mph headwind? You're getting hung up on just sitting in one spot rather than considering the forces acting on the moving cyclist.

Looking at just aero drag alone, it takes twice as much power for the second scenario (i.e. 4 mph into a 26mph wind) than the first (2 mph into 28mph wind).

The drag force in each of these scenarios is equivalent (since the relative wind in each case is 30mph), but the rate of doing work (Force x distance/time) against that force, or power, is not.

In the case of being stationary in a 30mph wind, no work is being done (the force is not being moved through a distance)...and hence it takes zero power.



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
sciguy wrote:


How about riding 2mph into a 28mph headwind or 4mph into a 26mph headwind? You're getting hung up on just sitting in one spot rather than considering the forces acting on the moving cyclist.


Looking at just aero drag alone, it takes twice as much power for the second scenario (i.e. 4 mph into a 26mph wind) than the first (2 mph into 28mph wind).

The drag force in each of these scenarios is equivalent (since the relative wind in each case is 30mph), but the rate of doing work (Force x distance/time) against that force, or power, is not.

In the case of being stationary in a 30mph wind, no work is being done (the force is not being moved through a distance)...and hence it takes zero power.

I stand corrected but need to ponder this a bit more to solidify my ownership of the understanding;) Perhaps all those year flying airplanes has clouded my intuition. Both land and taking off a seaplane vertically into 60 knot winds during hurricane evacuation of oil rig workers seems to have somehow brought me to an incorrect solution.

Thanks,

Hugh

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [sciguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sciguy wrote:
Tom A. wrote:
sciguy wrote:


How about riding 2mph into a 28mph headwind or 4mph into a 26mph headwind? You're getting hung up on just sitting in one spot rather than considering the forces acting on the moving cyclist.


Looking at just aero drag alone, it takes twice as much power for the second scenario (i.e. 4 mph into a 26mph wind) than the first (2 mph into 28mph wind).

The drag force in each of these scenarios is equivalent (since the relative wind in each case is 30mph), but the rate of doing work (Force x distance/time) against that force, or power, is not.

In the case of being stationary in a 30mph wind, no work is being done (the force is not being moved through a distance)...and hence it takes zero power.


I stand corrected but need to ponder this a bit more to solidify my ownership of the understanding;) Perhaps all those year flying airplanes has clouded my intuition. Both land and taking off a seaplane vertically into 60 knot winds during hurricane evacuation of oil rig workers seems to have somehow brought me to an incorrect solution.

Thanks,

Hugh

I think you may be confused by frames of reference ;-)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [romulusmagnus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
romulusmagnus wrote:
Rappstar wrote:
There are a lot of great bikes out there. I do not believe that the Dimond is dramatically faster than any of the very good ones - P5 or Trek SC or Scott Plasma 5 or Specialized Shiv or... Nor do I believe it is measurably slower. Or, more specifically, that the variance between bikes largely will come down to fit, bars, other equipment (bottle placement), etc. And that ultimately it's likely nearly impossible to determine the "best" bike for you without significant time and expense. So just pick one of the very good ones and be happy.


This is one of your best points -- not just in this thread, but ever. People who obsess over the minutia of these frames need to entirely understand the above.

By the way, I'm not actually mad at you. Part of being an internet troll is exaggerating things. It's for effect rather than sincerity. Of course, the underlying sentiment rings true, but I'm glad you clarified with your post.

(Not sure I understand the Callum Millward retweet at the end? For someone who routinely quotes Nietzsche and extemporaneously integrates obscure latin phraseology into posts, this was one of your odder external references.)

The bike industry's head will explode if people realize that. Shh
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [sciguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sciguy wrote:
Tom A. wrote:
sciguy wrote:


How about riding 2mph into a 28mph headwind or 4mph into a 26mph headwind? You're getting hung up on just sitting in one spot rather than considering the forces acting on the moving cyclist.


Looking at just aero drag alone, it takes twice as much power for the second scenario (i.e. 4 mph into a 26mph wind) than the first (2 mph into 28mph wind).

The drag force in each of these scenarios is equivalent (since the relative wind in each case is 30mph), but the rate of doing work (Force x distance/time) against that force, or power, is not.

In the case of being stationary in a 30mph wind, no work is being done (the force is not being moved through a distance)...and hence it takes zero power.


I stand corrected but need to ponder this a bit more to solidify my ownership of the understanding;) Perhaps all those year flying airplanes has clouded my intuition. Both land and taking off a seaplane vertically into 60 knot winds during hurricane evacuation of oil rig workers seems to have somehow brought me to an incorrect solution.

Thanks,

Hugh

Yeah, I had the same airplane analogy problem from the airforce days. Think about it this way from a purely practical sense. If you have to ride at 5 mph into a 25 mph headwind, your power requirements are going to be really low. The airplane does not have a solid connection to the ground so can technical move backwards when you blow on it hard enough (certainly an aircraft with a super low stall speed that is a high drag aircraft, so all that matters is air speed). The bike has a connection to the ground.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I wonder if a plane could take off from a giant treadmill.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [jet black] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jet black wrote:
I wonder if a plane could take off from a giant treadmill.

With airflow over the treadmill going faster than aircraft stall speed, then indeed yes, the aircraft can take off and the treadmill can be going at zero mph too!
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [jet black] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jet black wrote:
I wonder if a plane could take off from a giant treadmill.

LOL...I remember that...



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
devashish_paul wrote:
jet black wrote:
I wonder if a plane could take off from a giant treadmill.


With airflow over the treadmill going faster than aircraft stall speed, then indeed yes, the aircraft can take off and the treadmill can be going at zero mph too!

Back in my younger years I spent many an hour up in the Maine bush debating in what situations was it better to takeoff upstream or down stream on a river with a float plane. One gets "up on the step" of the floats based on their velocity relative to the water but the plane flies off the water due to its air speed and you can't make decent airspeed without being "on the step". So often we would begin a take off headed upstream but down wind, get on the step and make a turn back around and takeoff upwind.

Hugh

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [sciguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sciguy wrote:
devashish_paul wrote:
jet black wrote:
I wonder if a plane could take off from a giant treadmill.


With airflow over the treadmill going faster than aircraft stall speed, then indeed yes, the aircraft can take off and the treadmill can be going at zero mph too!


Back in my younger years I spent many an hour up in the Maine bush debating in what situations was it better to takeoff upstream or down stream on a river with a float plane. One gets "up on the step" of the floats based on their velocity relative to the water but the plane flies off the water due to its air speed and you can't make decent airspeed without being "on the step". So often we would begin a take off headed upstream but down wind, get on the step and make a turn back around and takeoff upwind.

Hugh

I wonder if a float plane could take off from an Endless Pool?

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Power13] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Power13 wrote:
sciguy wrote:
devashish_paul wrote:
jet black wrote:
I wonder if a plane could take off from a giant treadmill.


With airflow over the treadmill going faster than aircraft stall speed, then indeed yes, the aircraft can take off and the treadmill can be going at zero mph too!


Back in my younger years I spent many an hour up in the Maine bush debating in what situations was it better to takeoff upstream or down stream on a river with a float plane. One gets "up on the step" of the floats based on their velocity relative to the water but the plane flies off the water due to its air speed and you can't make decent airspeed without being "on the step". So often we would begin a take off headed upstream but down wind, get on the step and make a turn back around and takeoff upwind.

Hugh


I wonder if a float plane could take off from an Endless Pool?

What about a float plane in an endless pool on the deck of an aircraft carrier? Just jack up the water speed of aircraft carrier as high as you can directly into a gale force wind to the point that you exceed the stall speed of the aircraft, and you should be good to go. No need to even spin up the props of the aircraft....it will take off and hover right on top of the endless pool for a moment until it decelerates and hits stall speed and then crashes to the deck of the carrier (so you better turn on the props and generate thrust equivalent to the carrier speed relative to the water after that).

Now we got water in the ocean, water in the endless pool, a sea plane, a carrier deck, motion of the carrier in the x axis (we left out y and z and we left out rho-theta-omega). Can someone ride a Dimond on the carrier deck to see what else happens?
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I wrote a really long post disagreeing with this and suddenly realized I think I was wrong.

The super short version - in all cases the Force required to overcome wind resistance is 27.6 N (given certain assumptions about rider CdA)

Force required to overcome rolling resistance (given certain assumptions about rider weight and tires is 2.4 N.

My mistake was then using apparent wind velocity to multiply force to overcome drag, and bike velocity multiplied with rolling force when I should have used bike velocity for both!!

So the answer for 2mph in a 28mph wind is: 26.7 W

for 4mph in 26 mph wind: 54 W



-------------
Ed O'Malley
http://www.motivengines.com
@EdwardOMalley

-------------
Ed O'Malley
http://www.motivengines.com
@EdwardOMalley
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sorry to keep replying to you! I want to do a little thought experiment about power (or not) to keep a bike and rider stationary in a 30 mph wind:

Without a force applied, the bike will roll backwards. If the force is applied by a rigid structure and nothing is moving in order to generate the force, then yes, power is 0. But if it is held in place by a human applying force to the pedals, power is definitely required, even though the bike's power meter would read 0 because cadence is 0. Things are moving - your heart is pumping, electrons are flowing through neurons, muscle fibers are contracting...

Think about it as if it were an electric motor, rather than a human, connected to the crank. Just enough current is supplied to the motor to keep it from turning backwards. The power in that case is easy to measure - voltage * current.

Comment? Disagree? Agree?

-------------
Ed O'Malley
http://www.motivengines.com
@EdwardOMalley
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Sorry to keep replying to you! I want to do a little thought experiment about power (or not) to keep a bike and rider stationary in a 30 mph wind:

Without a force applied, the bike will roll backwards. If the force is applied by a rigid structure and nothing is moving in order to generate the force, then yes, power is 0. But if it is held in place by a human applying force to the pedals, power is definitely required, even though the bike's power meter would read 0 because cadence is 0. Things are moving - your heart is pumping, electrons are flowing through neurons, muscle fibers are contracting...

Think about it as if it were an electric motor, rather than a human, connected to the crank. Just enough current is supplied to the motor to keep it from turning backwards. The power in that case is easy to measure - voltage * current.

Comment? Disagree? Agree?

Force is being applied to the pedal, but since it isn't moving, then by definition no power is being "used"...but, in the case of a muscle supplying that force, electro-chemical energy will be "spent"...but, as you say, a rigid link could also easily do the same job.



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: Aug 3, 16 7:30
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Sorry to keep replying to you! I want to do a little thought experiment about power (or not) to keep a bike and rider stationary in a 30 mph wind:

Without a force applied, the bike will roll backwards. If the force is applied by a rigid structure and nothing is moving in order to generate the force, then yes, power is 0. But if it is held in place by a human applying force to the pedals, power is definitely required, even though the bike's power meter would read 0 because cadence is 0. Things are moving - your heart is pumping, electrons are flowing through neurons, muscle fibers are contracting...

Think about it as if it were an electric motor, rather than a human, connected to the crank. Just enough current is supplied to the motor to keep it from turning backwards. The power in that case is easy to measure - voltage * current.

Comment? Disagree? Agree?


Tom A wrote:
Force is being applied to the pedal, but since it isn't moving, then by definition no power is being "used"...but, in the case of a muscle supplying that force, electro-chemical energy will be "spent"...but, as you say, a rigid link could also easily do the same job.


In your electrical example, you are correct that there would be a measurable voltage and current and, therefore, electrical power would be going somewhere. However, by definition, as Tom points out, there is no motion and, therefore, no net mechanical power (electrical energy was not converted into kinetic energy and is one bad ass trackstand if the rider could stay that steady!). The electrical power, rather than being converted to mechanical power, is being converted into the torque holding the crank in place for some duration of time (as well as some amount of residual heat).


Equivalently, bringing this back to physiology, the rider doing that bad ass trackstand is burning calories doing it, but no mechanical work is being done (by definition), since none of those calories are being converted into kinetic energy of the machine. All of those calories are going into the holding torque for the duration the the bike is kept from rolling backwards (as well as some amount of residual heat...and various biochemical reactions).

ETA: Interestingly, with a few other parts of the electrical system appropriately specified, if you just connected the motor coil leads together, you could likely achieve the same static condition with no voltage applied because of the fact that no mechanical power is being generated.
Last edited by: Koz: Aug 3, 16 8:47
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Koz wrote:
RowToTri wrote:
Sorry to keep replying to you! I want to do a little thought experiment about power (or not) to keep a bike and rider stationary in a 30 mph wind:

Without a force applied, the bike will roll backwards. If the force is applied by a rigid structure and nothing is moving in order to generate the force, then yes, power is 0. But if it is held in place by a human applying force to the pedals, power is definitely required, even though the bike's power meter would read 0 because cadence is 0. Things are moving - your heart is pumping, electrons are flowing through neurons, muscle fibers are contracting...

Think about it as if it were an electric motor, rather than a human, connected to the crank. Just enough current is supplied to the motor to keep it from turning backwards. The power in that case is easy to measure - voltage * current.

Comment? Disagree? Agree?


Tom A wrote:
Force is being applied to the pedal, but since it isn't moving, then by definition no power is being "used"...but, in the case of a muscle supplying that force, electro-chemical energy will be "spent"...but, as you say, a rigid link could also easily do the same job.


In your electrical example, you are correct that there would be a measurable voltage and current and, therefore, electrical power would be going somewhere. However, by definition, as Tom points out, there is no motion and, therefore, no net mechanical power (electrical energy was not converted into kinetic energy and is one bad ass trackstand if the rider could stay that steady!). The electrical power, rather than being converted to mechanical power, is being converted into the torque holding the crank in place for some duration of time (as well as some amount of residual heat).


Equivalently, bringing this back to physiology, the rider doing that bad ass trackstand is burning calories doing it, but no mechanical work is being done (by definition), since none of those calories are being converted into kinetic energy of the machine. All of those calories are going into the holding torque for the duration the the bike is kept from rolling backwards (as well as some amount of residual heat...and various biochemical reactions).

ETA: Interestingly, with a few other parts of the electrical system appropriately specified, if you just connected the motor coil leads together, you could likely achieve the same static condition with no voltage applied because of the fact that no mechanical power is being generated.


Right - I get all of that. If you draw a boundary around a system that ends at the surface of the pedal no power is required. But what if you define the system more broadly? If you go back far enough in the chain, in both the motor and the human element - can you not say mechanical power is required? Back at the power station, a turbine is being turned with steam to create the electrical current required to hold the bike steady. Inside your body, all manner of things are contracting, expanding and pumping to generate the force your feet are applying to the pedals (but all of that is much harder to measure than in the power station). The human experiences this in just the same way he experiences applying mechanical power to the pedals. Even in the case of a solar powered motor, the sun is accelerating particles in its fusion reaction.

Sorry for taking this thread so far off-topic....

-------------
Ed O'Malley
http://www.motivengines.com
@EdwardOMalley
Last edited by: RowToTri: Aug 3, 16 9:04
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Speaking of the sun, if you want to get really off topic, let's think about the energy expenditure to do a track stand inside an air conditioned stadium versus outside under said sun... Wink


"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | Facebook - Rappstar Racing | @rappstar | I work @ Zwift

Ask me about: DiamondBack Bikes | Zipp | 1st Endurance | Normatec - $100 off RAPP2017 | Quarq | SRAM | MatchRider | Kiwami | ROKA
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Koz wrote:
RowToTri wrote:
Sorry to keep replying to you! I want to do a little thought experiment about power (or not) to keep a bike and rider stationary in a 30 mph wind:

Without a force applied, the bike will roll backwards. If the force is applied by a rigid structure and nothing is moving in order to generate the force, then yes, power is 0. But if it is held in place by a human applying force to the pedals, power is definitely required, even though the bike's power meter would read 0 because cadence is 0. Things are moving - your heart is pumping, electrons are flowing through neurons, muscle fibers are contracting...

Think about it as if it were an electric motor, rather than a human, connected to the crank. Just enough current is supplied to the motor to keep it from turning backwards. The power in that case is easy to measure - voltage * current.

Comment? Disagree? Agree?


Tom A wrote:
Force is being applied to the pedal, but since it isn't moving, then by definition no power is being "used"...but, in the case of a muscle supplying that force, electro-chemical energy will be "spent"...but, as you say, a rigid link could also easily do the same job.


In your electrical example, you are correct that there would be a measurable voltage and current and, therefore, electrical power would be going somewhere. However, by definition, as Tom points out, there is no motion and, therefore, no net mechanical power (electrical energy was not converted into kinetic energy and is one bad ass trackstand if the rider could stay that steady!). The electrical power, rather than being converted to mechanical power, is being converted into the torque holding the crank in place for some duration of time (as well as some amount of residual heat).


Equivalently, bringing this back to physiology, the rider doing that bad ass trackstand is burning calories doing it, but no mechanical work is being done (by definition), since none of those calories are being converted into kinetic energy of the machine. All of those calories are going into the holding torque for the duration the the bike is kept from rolling backwards (as well as some amount of residual heat...and various biochemical reactions).

ETA: Interestingly, with a few other parts of the electrical system appropriately specified, if you just connected the motor coil leads together, you could likely achieve the same static condition with no voltage applied because of the fact that no mechanical power is being generated.


Right - I get all of that. If you draw a boundary around a system that ends at the surface of the pedal no power is required. But what if you define the system more broadly? If you go back far enough in the chain, in both the motor and the human element - can you not say mechanical power is required? Back at the power station, a turbine is being turned with steam to create the electrical current required to hold the bike steady. Inside your body, all manner of things are contracting, expanding and pumping to generate the force your feet are applying to the pedals (but all of that is much harder to measure than in the power station). The human experiences this in just the same way he experiences applying mechanical power to the pedals. Even in the case of a solar powered motor, the sun is accelerating particles in its fusion reaction.

Sorry for taking this thread so far off-topic....

Well...to bring it back around, when we talk about the power required to go a certain speed on a bike (as was being discussed here), we talk about the power input to the pedals, and not the kCals required by the rider to do so, right? ;-)



http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
and when we employ a little kickstand to hold bike and rider upright, rider exerts no force to pedals anymore(if balancing all weight on saddle and bars with feet dangling) a 30mph wind is not going to move the set up.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [jeffp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Right well the kickstand would be the rigid structure I refer to above. It's more interesting I'd we do not include rigid structures.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
http://www.motivengines.com
@EdwardOMalley
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That is how we normally define the system, and when the bike is moving it correlates well to the rider's kCal requirement, subject to their metabolic and mechanical efficiency. But when we discuss a situation that virtually no triathlete ever finds themselves in things get more interesting :)

-------------
Ed O'Malley
http://www.motivengines.com
@EdwardOMalley
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
Speaking of the sun, if you want to get really off topic, let's think about the energy expenditure to do a track stand inside an air conditioned stadium versus outside under said sun... Wink

Is the outdoor track stand on a carrier deck with roll pitch and yaw and airflow generated by the carrier's motion? Are there Harriers taking off and landing next to the track stander causing some additional wind yaw angle that he has to counter act? Is she on a Dimond or a P5. Did she miss three drug tests in the leadup to Rio. Is the carrier going to get corroded by the foul water in Rio when it docks in the harbor? Will the deflection of the Dimond beam throw a monkey wrench into all the math to calculate the free body diagram instantaneous forces on the track stander?
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
Last edited by: SBRcoffee: Aug 3, 16 13:20
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If a duck barks at midnight, but the only person there to hear it is a mime, who give a shit! ;)
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
A couple fast testers on this side of the pond were on Falcos last year and have switched to a Trek SC and Giant Trinity TT and they're going no slower. If someone gives me one of these I'll test it against my Plasma, but I already know the Dimond will be slower.

I went from Plasma to Dimond. It's not.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
A couple fast testers on this side of the pond were on Falcos last year and have switched to a Trek SC and Giant Trinity TT and they're going no slower. If someone gives me one of these I'll test it against my Plasma, but I already know the Dimond will be slower.


I went from Plasma to Dimond. It's not.

That's good news. Are you willing to share your test data?
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
A couple fast testers on this side of the pond were on Falcos last year and have switched to a Trek SC and Giant Trinity TT and they're going no slower. If someone gives me one of these I'll test it against my Plasma, but I already know the Dimond will be slower.


I went from Plasma to Dimond. It's not.


Plasma 3 TT? Do you have tunnel or velodrome data to back that up? What front wheel are you using?
Last edited by: Grill: Aug 3, 16 17:23
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PubliusValerius wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
A couple fast testers on this side of the pond were on Falcos last year and have switched to a Trek SC and Giant Trinity TT and they're going no slower. If someone gives me one of these I'll test it against my Plasma, but I already know the Dimond will be slower.


I went from Plasma to Dimond. It's not.


That's good news. Are you willing to share your test data?


After you. You stated "I know it will be slower". I didn't think we were testing, just coming up with conclusions.

I loved my Plasma. Still would if I had it.

Arguably the Plasma looks better, I like the look of the Dimond but the Scott looks amazing.

The build on the Plasma is excellent although I had some paint issues and I also had to get it warrantied due to an oversized BB.

The build on the Dimond is very good although I had some paint issues and got it warrantied. It's a beam and a frame .... I am not sure what else about 'build' there is to consider. I have a TriRig Alpha X bar. Shimano Di2 'stuff' and triRig brakes. The brakes could do with being a little more firm but I think it's the cabling through the bars more than anything else as the same brakes were fine prior to me installing the bar.

Both Scott and Dimond warrantied the frame no questions asked. Scott took a while to sort but no complaints from me there.

Dimond's service to their customers is likely unbeatable in the sense that I just don't see how it can get any better. I can text them, Skype them, call them, email them whatever and get hold of them in minutes. Never had a question unanswered. Never had a problem unresolved within an hour or two.

The Dimond wins in handling .... in a straight line or smooth curves. The Plasma wins if you need to be more twitchy, but I never needed to be that intricate. The Dimond is simply balls out smooth and utterly in control. At speed the Plasma was always a slightly stressful experience by comparison. I wouldn't have noticed had I not ridden the Dimond after.

Comfort. No contest. Dimond. No beam wobble, just soaks up a bit of vibration. I added Hed Jet Blacks and 25mm tires and it's so sweet to ride. The Scott was harsh by comparison.

Speed. As Rapp said. The difference between very good frames probably isn't even worth considering. I am faster for the same power (than the Scott) whenever I look and conditions are somewhat even. Downhill I am considerably faster, all the time, every time. Likely due to confidence and handling though. Any speed difference may be bike fit, maybe the new bars.

One thing I preferred about the Scott. The wheel always went straight ahead. The Dimond has a tendancy to flop to one side if I walk it by folding the saddle. That may be the centre cabling out of the bars though. I think we're starting to split hairs now.

Paint schemes. Love the Scott's. Some of the Dimond's hurt my eyes but they're what the client wanted so .... I would like to see some really good standard paint schemes to choose from. I went with plain blue.

All subjective points, no testing. I have had a Dimond for over a year now.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Aug 3, 16 17:29
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
A couple fast testers on this side of the pond were on Falcos last year and have switched to a Trek SC and Giant Trinity TT and they're going no slower. If someone gives me one of these I'll test it against my Plasma, but I already know the Dimond will be slower.


I went from Plasma to Dimond. It's not.


Plasma 3 TT? Do you have tunnel or velodrome data to back that up? What front wheel are you using?


I was being flippant. See post above. It was a Plasma 3 Premium.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Aug 3, 16 17:31
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So different bars, still don't know which Plasma or its specs, and there's no data to support either.

As I've said I have a massive amount of data on my bike and what works with it, as well as many others, so my ascertain that mine is faster with everything else being equal is hardly baseless. I'm testing again come November so if you want to send me your Dimond I'll happily tell you what's what. As I've said, there are faster frames than mine, but the investment needed to get them there is untenable.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
so my ascertain that mine is faster with everything else being equal is hardly baseless.


Kind of is, a bit. Which was my point.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Aug 3, 16 17:42
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
All subjective points, no testing.

That was a lot of prologue for five words of substance.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
so my ascertain that mine is faster with everything else being equal is hardly baseless.

Kind of is a bit. Which was my point.

How? I have seen many of my peers change to 'superior' frames and post higher CdAs. Read my earlier posts, I've seen almost 20w swings between different front wheels in my bike just to see those reversed when tested in another. The fact that I know every part of my bike has been chosen and tested to work together in order to see the lowest CdA possible allows me to deductively reason that the likelihood that the chance these will work as well on the Dimond to be incredibly small.

If you find that to be baseless then you're free to scoff at my claim and continue to use your butt dyno to evaluate your equipment choices.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PubliusValerius wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
All subjective points, no testing.


That was a lot of prologue for five words of substance.

Which is a higher percentage than your paragraph.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I get it -- the pull of confirmation bias is strong when you have invested this much time and money into a bicycle that is no better than the one you had before it.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
so my ascertain that mine is faster with everything else being equal is hardly baseless.


Kind of is a bit. Which was my point.


How?

Because you are basing one against another without knowing the figures for another. If you're discussing scientific findings then I think most would consider a protocol that completely ignores the value of 50% of your subject matter (one vs another) as somewhat lacking.

Maybe you just don't know what the word ascertain means?

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Because you are basing one against another without knowing the figures

Sounds familiar.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PubliusValerius wrote:
I get it -- the pull of confirmation bias is strong when you have invested this much time and money into a bicycle that is no better than the one you had before it.


I don't care too much for the picky variables that make little difference to my total race time. I have been somewhat laughed at for not caring about drag or whatever (to a degree). I also am more than happy to spend my money how I like, it's really not that much of an investment. It feels quick, I love riding it. I like 'it' as an object. I ride well on it. I train hard on it.

There is no bias. I like both bikes. I like riding the Dimond more. Maybe I am biased because I like riding it more. I certainly am not biased because I spoent a couple of grand on it, it's hardly an 'investment' it's a couple of grand on a bicycle. I would happily say if I didn't like it. The Scott may be quicker. I don't know. You don't either though.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Aug 3, 16 18:03
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PubliusValerius wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Because you are basing one against another without knowing the figures


Sounds familiar.

It does. You're as bad as me. Or I'm as bad as you. One of the two.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
so my ascertain that mine is faster with everything else being equal is hardly baseless.


Kind of is a bit. Which was my point.


How?

Because you are basing one against another without knowing the figures for another. If you're discussing scientific findings then I think most would consider a protocol that completely ignores the value of 50% of your subject matter (one vs another) as somewhat lacking.

Maybe you just don't know what the word ascertain means?

Errr... no. Frame drag is a very small part of overall CdA, and good bar and/or front wheel choice more than make for the difference between them (it's no accident the P4 was tested with the Ventus or the P5 with the Aduro). Just take a look at Dimond's own data when you you put a rider on the bike, all those gains magically disappear! Plus based on how it performs against a poorly configured P5, it's easy for me to extrapolate how it will perform against my bike.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Grill wrote:
so my ascertain that mine is faster with everything else being equal is hardly baseless.


Kind of is a bit. Which was my point.


How?


Because you are basing one against another without knowing the figures for another. If you're discussing scientific findings then I think most would consider a protocol that completely ignores the value of 50% of your subject matter (one vs another) as somewhat lacking.

Maybe you just don't know what the word ascertain means?


Errr... no. Frame drag is a very small part of overall CdA, and good bar and/or front wheel choice more than make for the difference between them (it's no accident the P4 was tested with the Ventus or the P5 with the Aduro). Just take a look at Dimond's own data when you you put a rider on the bike, all those gains magically disappear! Plus based on how it performs against a poorly configured P5, it's easy for me to extrapolate how it will perform against my bike.


So you don't know what ascertain means.

I am not saying it's quicker. I wasn't even responding to your post. I was responding flippantly to someone else. I couldn't give a shit if the Plasma is two farts faster than a Cervelo and I know any gains on frame are going to be obliterated by bike fit and whatever else .... which is why I don't give a shit.

You could categorically tell me (categorically, having actually ascertained) that the Plasma is the fastest and I would have believed you and then I would still have sold it because I wanted to ride another bike and at the end of the day me wanting to ride a bike is more important, and will likely gain me better results, than spending all day reading a white paper.

My flippant point was, until you know then you don't actually know. You can guess, you can extrapolate, or you can say 'the chances are very high that' ... but you don't know. If you went and ascertained, as you said you had, then you would know. If you do actually find out then I would be interested. Wouldn't affect my bike choice though.

I know you may find it stupid that I don't care much about that kind of thing, and maybe it is. But I don't. I want to ride a Canyon too, I might give them a go one day. I will not be told what I like and don't like by a wind tunnel.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Aug 3, 16 18:16
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And that's fine, because at the end of the day the only reason to buy a Dimond is because you want one.

If anything your flippant remarks look to be a defensive measure to justify your heart over head approach to your sport. You sleep better with a hideous bike in your garage whereas I just have to take comfort in knowing I'm not giving up any speed regardless of how my bike looks. Different strokes.

Edit- just saw you had a Premium with Hed Jet wheels. Do you want to know what the slowest wheels, by a large margin, I tested were? ;)
Last edited by: Grill: Aug 3, 16 18:25
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
And that's fine, because at the end of the day the only reason to buy a Dimond is because you want one.

If anything your flippant remarks look to be a defensive measure to justify your heart over head approach to your sport. You sleep better with a hideous bike in your garage whereas I just have to take comfort in knowing I'm not giving up any speed regardless of how my bike looks. Different strokes.


You are so amazing. How are you at counting matchsticks?

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Aug 3, 16 18:35
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Who keeps sich a bicycle in a garage? Not me.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My garage has been converted to an office/bike room. Not sure I've ever met anyone on this side of the pond that actually stores their car in theirs!
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
I want to ride a Canyon too, I might give them a go one day. I will not be told what I like and don't like by a wind tunnel.

The Canyon is definitely the fastest. I know this without a wind tunnel or data simply because Jordan Rapp said so.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PubliusValerius wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
I want to ride a Canyon too, I might give them a go one day. I will not be told what I like and don't like by a wind tunnel.

The Canyon is definitely the fastest. I know this without a wind tunnel or data simply because Jordan Rapp said so.

That's a misrepresentation of what I said. I said that, if you take a selection of top manufacturers, it *likely* that the fastest bike - in standalone testing - is going to be the newest one, because the goal is always to beat the previous benchmark set by existing frames. As the Canyon is the newest bike from a what I'd call a "thoughtful" manufacturer, it's reasonable to think that it's the fastest. Or, in the specific case of the Canyon, the fastest "when carrying X amount of stuff" because a primary focus of that frame was integration, and it inarguably does that very well.

And "when carrying X amount of stuff" is important, because while we like to forget it here, it is swim, bike, & run in triathlon. If, for whatever reason, you NEED to carry a bottle on the downtube - even an aero bottle, then it's important to consider - per (IIRC) Jim Manton's data - that the P5 suffers with a bottle on the downtube more than the Trek SC does. The P5s downtube really does not like anything on the trailing edge.

So think about what you need/want to carry. Think about what bikes offer solutions for doing so - e.g. Trek with its Speedbox, Cervelo which neatly integrates an XLab aerobag behind the stem, the Canyon which integrates storage for flat stuff, the Specialized with integrates a large fluid reservoir into the frame without adding weight to the front end and which still allowing aerobar choice, etc. Then just buy the newest bike that solves your problem because it's probably the fastest if it comes from a manufacturer with a reasonable engineering pedigree.


"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | Facebook - Rappstar Racing | @rappstar | I work @ Zwift

Ask me about: DiamondBack Bikes | Zipp | 1st Endurance | Normatec - $100 off RAPP2017 | Quarq | SRAM | MatchRider | Kiwami | ROKA
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree that manufacturers will try to outdo each other, but they cherry-pick competition and test protocol. The nosecone Shiv, P4, and TTX with the right bars are as fast or faster than anything available today.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That comment was meant to be tongue in cheek...

Although, by the line of judgment you've laid out in your response, maybe we should expect the new Diamondback to soon be the fastest ever? Kevin Quan Studios would seem to be of a "reasonable engineering pedigree", but I still expect this bike to attempt full integration and still be a piece of crap and an aerodynamic dog relative to the P5 in full "race trim", let alone the P6.

Anyways, for their unsurpassed sexiness, Canyon aero rigs still seem to lag offerings from Cervelo, Trek, Specialized, and Felt, per most publicly available independent test data. So I wouldn't be surprised if Frodo is fast in spite of his Canyon rather than because of it, even though I am certain the differences between these top end bicycles are so marginal that they can be offset simply by a something as minor as a slightly more disciplined head tuck. But what fun is that to split hairs over on a message board?
Last edited by: PubliusValerius: Aug 4, 16 8:19
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
well, this thread took a tangent! Unfortunately I only saw it now - I've been too busy outside taking KOMs on my Dimond

____________________________________

Race Reports | How to kill 4 hours on a trainer
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The old Canyon is fast. Even if the new one is no faster it's still top tier.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [robgray] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
robgray wrote:
well, this thread took a tangent! Unfortunately I only saw it now - I've been too busy outside taking KOMs on my Dimond

It wasn't the Dimond; it was the Continental Supersonics. Independent variables.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Grill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Grill wrote:
The old Canyon is fast. Even if the new one is no faster it's still top tier.

You misunderstood what I wrote if you think I don't agree with this statement.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PubliusValerius wrote:
Grill wrote:
The old Canyon is fast. Even if the new one is no faster it's still top tier.


You misunderstood what I wrote if you think I don't agree with this statement.

Not at all, just adding weight to your sentiment.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [PubliusValerius] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PubliusValerius wrote:
That comment was meant to be tongue in cheek...

Although, by the line of judgment you've laid out in your response, maybe we should expect the new Diamondback to soon be the fastest ever? Kevin Quan Studios would seem to be of a "reasonable engineering pedigree", but I still expect this bike to attempt full integration and still be a piece of crap and an aerodynamic dog relative to the P5 in full "race trim", let alone the P6.

Anyways, for their unsurpassed sexiness, Canyon aero rigs still seem to lag offerings from Cervelo, Trek, Specialized, and Felt, per most publicly available independent test data. So I wouldn't be surprised if Frodo is fast in spite of his Canyon rather than because of it, even though I am certain the differences between these top end bicycles are so marginal that they can be offset simply by a something as minor as a slightly more disciplined head tuck. But what fun is that to split hairs over on a message board?

I think the Canyon probably excels only if you say "bottle behind the seat, including spares, space to carry gels, and with Xoz of fluid on the bike (as I think that front hydration system is pretty large)." I think it lags the other bikes in "TT" set up for sure.

As far as the new Diamondback, my issue is that Kevin Quan got his start at Cervelo. And one relatively consistent theme is that bike design is iterative. There are some examples of huge departures in design that work out well:
- Scott Plasma 2 was, by all accounts, a POS. The Plasma 3 was outstanding. And the Plasma 3->Plasma 5 evolution is much more logical.

- The Specialized Transition was actually way faster than people thought. But the Nosecone Shiv looked almost nothing like it, and it was certainly very fast. I actually think that Specialized would have done better to iterate the nosecone design - Mark Cote would likely say that, in some ways, they did by moving the nosecone into a larger cross section downtube, but I disagree.

Quick note here - both the Plasma 3 and Nosecone Shiv were driven heavily by the demands of elite UCI teams. In both cases, I think that was the first really serious effort at an aero TT bike by either company. And they are both BIG companies with a strong history of overall engineering excellence, especially in composites. So it's not so surprising to see the big changes that resulted in a winning design. What is surprising is that Scott then followed a more traditional process from 3->5 while Specialized did not.

- the (carbon) Felt DA was a very fast bike. And the IA is/was an almost wholesale redesign and it is also fast. Jim Felt has a history of innovating. Felt is the sort of company where this kind of wholesale redesign is less surprising. Felt, because of Jim's leadership, has always been the sort of company to do crazy stuff and to scrap prior designs. So this makes sense

But you look at the Trek. The SC looks - to me anyway - like a somewhat logical evolution of the TTX. Obviously some big changes, especially geometrically and with the Kammtail design, but from just an overall "look," they both look like Treks.

The new Canyon looks a lot like it's predecessor. There is a sense that Canyon believes in it's fundamentals.

Cervelo is the MOST consistent. The P3->P3C->P4->P5 continuum is super consistent. You can see the refinement. And it's clearly fast. So that's what bothers me about Quan's designs. He came from a company that clearly believed there was a certain way to design a fast bike, and yet he has departed from that entirely. And that is an issue. I get the sense, a bit, that he's trying to say, "I'm just as capable as Phil & Gerard!" And so he doesn't want to copy them. But imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

That's a primary reason why I believed in the Dimond as a first pass. Because it wasn't a "new" bike per se; it was the evolution of a proven design - the Zipp bike - with a lot of input from people at Zipp. That's why, for instance, I trust the Dimond to be faster than the Falco. I always like "second (or third or fourth) generation" designs better than first generation ones, except in a few rare circumstances.

So, no, I don't think the new Diamondback will be the fastest. Mostly because Kevin has yet to demonstrate that he can make a bike outside of the Cervelo "envelope" that is really fast. But he's certainly smart enough to do it. I just wonder how much he feels the need to make a bike that is visually distinct from a Cervelo even if it pays an aero penalty.


"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | Facebook - Rappstar Racing | @rappstar | I work @ Zwift

Ask me about: DiamondBack Bikes | Zipp | 1st Endurance | Normatec - $100 off RAPP2017 | Quarq | SRAM | MatchRider | Kiwami | ROKA
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As usual, a few things to say on the aero topics.

The Canyon stalls like mad. Zero yaw through maybe 5 degrees should be good. There is probably a pretty specific angle at which is 'sails' really well if you learn to tack correctly. That is hard to predict though. Canyon, as usual, left too many flat surfaces in place to have a fast bike from 5-15 degrees.

Falco vs. Dimond: No too bad of a contest. I'd call it 5W on average in favor of the Dimond. The Pearson on the other hand, is faster at lower yaw in some cases. I do not have the SuperFork (which should help), but I have modified a Cervelo P5-3 fork to fit and fill in the gap behind the crown correctly. The Falco would be be so close, but Binny did a much better job with the bottle location and the fairing behind the stem. Those make up a lot of ground.

Fast bikes at varied yaw are narrow and provide a solid amount of curvature. They fill in gaps with material rather than a crappy trailing edge. Kamms help a ton to hide bottles and provide the possibility of higher strength with narrow tubes.

Some of it is rocket science, but mostly it is easy to understand the principles with just a little study and some CFD plots. Also SolidWorks w/ CFD package and processing time.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Really interesting stuff...thanks for the detailed elaboration
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [robgray] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
robgray wrote:
well, this thread took a tangent! Unfortunately I only saw it now - I've been too busy outside taking KOMs on my Dimond


Don't they all? Stop riding. It's uneccesary.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Aug 4, 16 13:06
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
robgray wrote:
well, this thread took a tangent! Unfortunately I only saw it now - I've been too busy outside taking KOMs on my Dimond


Don't they all? Stop riding. It's uneccesary.

Rob was getting his final 8 W per kilo surges done before IM Boulder so he is not tempted to do that on race day on Sunday. This is part of the proper ultraman Kona training plan, doing Mt. Everest style repeats on an IM race week to test how aero his Dimond is going up 10% grades with no air in Colorado.

Please feel free to call his cell phone at 3:19 pm Mountain time on Sunday to see if this training plan worked as it should and if he is in the beer tent at that point or not.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [chicanery] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This fits in with what I have heard from some wind tunnel tests on the Canyon. Evidently it was the fastest bike this specific company had tested though other bikes like the Scott Plasma 5 do better in strong winds / higher angles.

Still not sure if the current crop of bikes offer a big enough improvement over my Plasma 3 for Time Trials (though the integrated drink/storage solutions would be a plus for 50mile + TT's).

From watching one in action the lack of rear wheel stiffness / possible power loss would be a worry for shorter events with a Dimond or similar beam bike, but potential fatigue saving a plus for longer races.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [boing] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
boing wrote:
This fits in with what I have heard from some wind tunnel tests on the Canyon. Evidently it was the fastest bike this specific company had tested though other bikes like the Scott Plasma 5 do better in strong winds / higher angles.

Still not sure if the current crop of bikes offer a big enough improvement over my Plasma 3 for Time Trials (though the integrated drink/storage solutions would be a plus for 50mile + TT's).

From watching one in action the lack of rear wheel stiffness / possible power loss would be a worry for shorter events with a Dimond or similar beam bike, but potential fatigue saving a plus for longer races.

How do you lose power riding in a straight line even if there is BB flex. There will be no loss of power to the rear wheel when going in a straight line. You could literally ride on a noodle (anyone remember the slingshot) and have no power loss from the crank to the rear wheel. 99.999% of tri riding is straight line riding...there were even pros riding these things and racing competitively when they were out.


Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [boing] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
boing wrote:
This fits in with what I have heard from some wind tunnel tests on the Canyon. Evidently it was the fastest bike this specific company had tested though other bikes like the Scott Plasma 5 do better in strong winds / higher angles.

Still not sure if the current crop of bikes offer a big enough improvement over my Plasma 3 for Time Trials (though the integrated drink/storage solutions would be a plus for 50mile + TT's).

From watching one in action the lack of rear wheel stiffness / possible power loss would be a worry for shorter events with a Dimond or similar beam bike, but potential fatigue saving a plus for longer races.

2 questions for that:

1) How do you know any flex you are "seeing" is not the wheel?

2) As far as power loss for sprints go; how much power are you actually producing in a sprint? It's likely less than what TJ/Maik/Jordan/etc are producing in an Ironman...and they are fine as far as "lateral stiffness" and "power transfer" goes...
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [James Haycraft] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Having sat behind one in a TTT the movement whether wheel or otherwise was a little disconcerting to start with. Not noticed on other riders bikes using the same wheel. No idea if there is power loss or but I would have thought it had some influence maybe just handling wise hence bike manufactures bulking up BB area/chain stay area particularly if using skinny seat stays. If energy is going side ways would that be wasted energy?
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [James Haycraft] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Point 2- is why I suggested that the benefits over longer races probably out way any possible negatives.
Last edited by: boing: Aug 5, 16 11:32
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
So, no, I don't think the new Diamondback will be the fastest. Mostly because Kevin has yet to demonstrate that he can make a bike outside of the Cervelo "envelope" that is really fast. But he's certainly smart enough to do it. I just wonder how much he feels the need to make a bike that is visually distinct from a Cervelo even if it pays an aero penalty.

Thoughts on this now? I came across this thread while looking for that great conversation you and stan had about "the nature of yaw", which I still can't find.
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [kileyay] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pubes, your mind is an interesting place. I appreciate your ability to catalogue and/ or locate stuff like this. Keep these conversations going!

Aaron Bales
Lansing Triathlon Team
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [kileyay] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kileyay wrote:
Rappstar wrote:
So, no, I don't think the new Diamondback will be the fastest. Mostly because Kevin has yet to demonstrate that he can make a bike outside of the Cervelo "envelope" that is really fast. But he's certainly smart enough to do it. I just wonder how much he feels the need to make a bike that is visually distinct from a Cervelo even if it pays an aero penalty.

Thoughts on this now? I came across this thread while looking for that great conversation you and stan had about "the nature of yaw", which I still can't find.

Have you posted your data from the test yet? If so, give me some time to read it. If not, I'll hold off until after you do share.


"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | Facebook - Rappstar Racing | @rappstar | I work @ Zwift

Ask me about: DiamondBack Bikes | Zipp | 1st Endurance | Normatec - $100 off RAPP2017 | Quarq | SRAM | MatchRider | Kiwami | ROKA
Quote Reply
Re: Dimond has some A2 data! [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Estimated time to publish is 6 weeks
Quote Reply