Overlapping pics from this year with pics of her on a Shiv (700c) (see below). It looks like 700c wheels (scaling the wheels in each pic, her torso looks to be the same length).

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Hey Dan, some day that 650's have more Crr that negate any aero benefits of the wheels (not the position attained), but does this statement only apply for heavier riders, meaning proportional wheel size on a smaller body at lower psi = faster ?

As for Emma Pooley, she's 153 cm, 48 kilos, built for races like Alpe d'Huez and Embrunman!

the 650c/700c discussion is very convoluted. we used to make our 650c wheels with flanges 20mm closer together, because we didn't need all that triangulation. if we had 90mm rims, and 650c wheels, the spokes were really short, so we could use narrower flanges, and THAT wheel was a whole different aero beast than a typical 650c with standard hub flange widths.

to the argument that 700c has better rolling resistance, fine. but if 700 is better for a lady who is 5'5", why isn't 800 better for a man who is 6'3". you can't have it both ways.

MTB riders understand this argument. road riders don't.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

i've got my feelers out. i'm 50/50 on this. i can't tell. she's 5'5". the P4 was 650c in its 48cm size, then 700c. it had a 110mm head tube in that smallest size, then 90mm in the 51cm, 105mm in the 54cm and so forth.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

here's what gerard says: " It’s a P5 but I think that’s 700c. The 650c and 700c have the same chainstay length so the 650c would have to have a lot of material behind the BB. Instead it seems about the same as on the mid-size frame on the Cervelo website."

so probably it's 700c, and i'm wrong about it being a P4. i can clearly see it's a P5, i was hallucinating.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

But my point is that all the discussion on poor 650 Crr"seems" to be based on larger men. If you put a 120 lbs woman on a 650 riding at 80 psi, should be pretty good. And then you have a proportionally sized wheel which should take less watts to push through the air. As it stands a 153 cm woman of 48 kilos has to us the exact same aero watts as a 193 cm male who is 78 kilos to move the same wheel at 40 kph. The problem is that 700 wheel is a larger percent of her top line watts than the 193 cm male.

I don't know, but it looks like Amber Neben could have used a smaller bike. Although I do like the unbranded everything, continuing the proud tradition of women ditching sponsor bikes for speed concepts.

You can't ditch something you never got in the first place.

---

Professional Athlete: http://jordancheyne.wordpress.com/ http://www.strava.com/athletes/145340

Coaching Services:http://www.peakformcoaching.com/

I can't answer that, but I can tell you that is a sweet paint job on the P5!

99% certain that disk is 700c. The guy she borrowed it from is 6'1".

Crr is independent of weight. The rolling resistance experienced is proportional to weight.
Also, 650c wheels have not been shown to create more aerodynamic systems. The bike needs to be proportionally taller, and the wheel needs to spin at a higher rpm for a given speed. The last testing I recall seeing (gotta go find it) showed 650c wheels to be slightly slower than their 700c counterparts.

Update: Here's some data from Zipp on 700c vs. 650c firecrests: http://www.slowtwitch.com/...ide_Report_3855.html
The 650c is slightly (1-1.5W) more aero, but that's before you add the extra rolling resistance, and taller bike tubes.
Either way it's probably pretty close. The compelling reason to go with 650c would be bike fit vs. very minor aero costs.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

"The 650c is slightly (1-1.5W) more aero"

as noted, however, this is with the penalty of the wider hub flange. if zipp made wheels of equal STRENGTH (narrower hub flanges, fewer spokes) then let's see the comparison.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Which is funny, because the Speed Concept does come in a smaller-wheeled XS as well...

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

You know what's funny Dan?

The world's leading fitters are complaining that the Long And Low tri geometry is sorely missed, bike companies won't listen.

There's an increase in female triathlon participation, but small-wheeled options are dying out. People who need a pad stack under 530-540mm have very few options these days.

We were looking at getting a TT bike for my girlfriend, who stands a proud 5"1 tall. When Giant announced the Avow, we were honestly excited - Ultegra Di2 at the right price-point, modern aerodynamics, and very low front-end - but when we tried to order one, Giant responded with:
What kind of ridiculousness is that? So much noise about their "dedication to women's fit and geometry", about the lengths they went to produce a bike with a small wheel - and then it's not even available.

When Quintana Roo announced the PR6, I remember very clearly that a small-wheeled Size 45 (IE, frame stack 450mm) was announced - but that option seems to have disappeared.

Funnily enough, when checking possible pad stack combinations, it seems like the Felt IA1x is the lowest option remaining.

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

I built a P3 45 with Pad Y of 485 a couple of weeks ago. 530-540 is for tall people (as far as some of my clients are concerned).
However, I totally agree with what you wrote - would be nice if the fit options were increasing with Tri bikes rather than shrinking.

True, the P-series are another option (though their local pricing is not competitive here).

Too bad about Giant, since it really ticks all the boxes for us. Oh well, together with the phantom aluminium Propel, they really have a knack for announcing desirable bikes and then not delivering...

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

You really think the concept of a 650c front wheel and a 700c back wheel is desirable?

Sounds really strange/impractical to me...

I'm neutral towards towards the wheel issue, and the rest of the bike is pretty much everything I'd want in a modern tri bike - so yes, I consider this bike desirable. In the context of a tri bike in our household, it's possibly even a better solution than 650c front and back: Compatibility with existing parts is a big plus, since we have a disc wheel, Powertap training wheel, trainer wheels and the trainer itself all set up for 700c wheels. None of which are big obstacles (well, sourcing a clincher 650c disc wheel might be) but it makes life easier to at least keep all drive wheels the same spec.

In terms of carrying spare tubes, that's not an issue either - you can stretch a 650c tube onto a 700c rim and fold a 700c tube into a 650c rim. I've done this often, also with 29er and 26er MTBs. If the bike's integrated storage can hold two tubes, we'll just mount one of each - if not, a single tube and patchkit will do.

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

Fair enough.

FWIW, though, the 'integrated storage' on the Avow is basically nonexistent. The bento box on top has the capacity for maybe two skratch packets or two Gus, plus your 3 port junction. It is pretty disappointing. So yeah, a 650c tube stuffed between the saddle rails or a saddle bag would be the only real option.

i don't see any reason to go 650/700. dual 650 makes more sense. but it's arguing between 2 options that aren't going to see daylight.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

You only need taller head tubes for taller riders. There is a height below which you don't need taller head tubes on 650's! As Dan said, build the 650 wheels with hub flanges for 650, not 700 and put them on a small riders riding lower psi (since they don't run the risk of a pinch flat) on a proportionally small bike and we're golden.

All the talk is skewed by the requirements of the average size male participant.

I outlined why I don't mind the 650/700 hybrid (or rather, how I rationalized it over a dual-650 bike, which I agree makes more sense to begin with). Regardless, it's just mind-boggling that company after company fails to deliver a bike that caters to the shorter end of the population. That's without considering the sub-5-foot females, who might not even get a proper fit on a 650c bike.

The MTB industry has it right for a change. Some companies offer 27.5 and 29er options across the whole range, some do 27.5 on the small wheels and 29ers on the medium and larger sizes - everyone can fit something without crazy compromises.

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

700c.

I've fit both Carmen and Amber. Amber has a unique set up in that she's limited from her ToC injuries. Her new position was the result of 3 days of fitting and aero testing (1 day in the tunnel, 1 on the velodrome). Interestingly, we tried many things with her, but she's a great example of you just don't know for sure until you test. Before her testing, I would have put some serious money down that certain things would have been far more aero on her, but she's "bizarro" girl when it comes to aero. For example, and referring back to the Giro Aerohead thread, she's the one athlete who that helmet was not fastest on.

She is, however, using one thing (I say "thing" because, for fun, I don't want to give away yet what it is), that could be one of the best aero deals in all of cycling. Bang for your buck, it's tough to beat. Anyone care to guess?

Both ladies are true pros, and I hope both punched their ticket to Rio.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

My guess: pedals. Specifically Speedplay aero.