Slowman wrote:
the IA, IAx, and PR5 share virtually identical geometries.
They share virtually identical geometry at the bigger sizes. But 10 or 15mm or 20mm differences at the small end of the spectrum is often the difference between me hitting my pad stack (545-550mm) or not being able to (565-570). This may not be applicable to the OP, but because a) I have an aggressive position and b) I am at the small end but slightly taller and I think a good bit longer (475mm) than the 650 set, so to me it matters.
Slowman wrote:
i would put it differently. i'd say the PR6 is taller because of its integrated stem that cannot go below a given height.
Agreed...My way of thinking about these things is more as follows: OK here is the frame or frame/integrated stem coordinates, now if I add my after market front end to same, can I get there? I personally use the Alpha C with the extensions under the bar, because that's the lowest stack front end I could find, and I still can't quite hit my ideal stack on my 51 B2 (I'm somewhere around 560 right now). If I had the money for a small IAx, I'd pick one up. But I believe I'd still be stuck at a 560 stack with the small IA FRD/1/2. I realize that most people don't think this way, but most people also don't have a problem hitting their stack with a stock setup. I do. In general, I am trying to hold the (non integrated part of the) front end equal in assessing these bikes.
Slowman wrote:
i would also say the PR6 and the IAx share a common virtue (vice): they have medium to long stem that can't be made shorter.
Yeah, although the PR6 stem is really a stem that can't be swapped...it's truly integrated. The IAx at least has after market options that work seamlessly (Tri Rig etc.) whereas with the PR6, you're stuck. With the PR6, consequently, you're also stuck with a junction box placement disaster. The calpac storage in the IAx is superior here. The junction box storage inside a Tri Rig stem is equally superior.
Slowman wrote:
"the PR5 isn't in the same class as those other two in my opinion"
i think the PR5 is a brilliant bike. it is aero, light, easy to adjust, easy to put in a bike box. it can be easily retrofitted with the Q Box (assuming the Q Box is in stock when you want to retrofit it).
I don't understand how everything you said above doesn't also apply to the IAx and/or the B2. The IAx has Q Box bolts too, and soon Felt will release their own storage jawn. I'll give you that the IAx isn't light, and the B2 (at least my 2013 B2) doesn't have the Qbox bolts or top tube bolts.
Slowman wrote:
I keep track of all the bike sales at all of our Road Shows. QR is so far the best selling bike, but this is partly due to which Road Show dealers sell which brands. still, QR #1, Cervelo #2, Felt #3. But, Felt didn't start activating at Road Shows until we were about halfway thru, so, you take a shop like Rocklin Endurance, they've been selling Felt after Felt after Felt since the Road Show.
I have no idea what this means. Sales don't have anything to do with quality. See: the number of Rudy Project helmets at the Kona count. Triathletes are consumerist sheep.
Slowman wrote:
these all have their virtues, but i think QR is (finally) in the same class as Felt and Cervelo.
We can just agree to disagree here, because I don't think QR is in the same league. Those frames aren't as fast or as refined as the offerings from Felt in Cervelo, in my assessment.