wsrobert wrote:
PubliusValerius wrote:
Why aren't we testing the P5-X? Well, because we know from Rinard that a round bottle on the downtube of the P5 costs 3-5 watt. We know from Cervelo that the P5-X is only faster by 3 watts, and also that they tested the P5 with a round bottle on the down tube (plus gels on the stem). So, QED: an intelligently configured P5 is
faster than a P5-X. This isn't a debate. If you don't put a round bottle on the downtube of your P5, it's faster.
I like how you just passed over this above from PV.
You're funny.
You seem to miss fine details. P5-X was claimed to be 3 Watts faster AVERAGE from -15 to +15. I think you are smart enough to understand what average means.
Another fine detail you missed. Cervelo never claimed to put aero as #1 for this bike. You knew that right? The goal was to make as fast as the P5 minimum, and improve from there. Darn those pesky engineers.
Take the gu's off, the downtube bottles, and the aero pouch and re-test. Then, if it's truly slower, well then we can criticize some more.
EDIT: And I'm sure you will claim "oh but you missed the fine details of all the GU's." Well no I didn't. I posted the pictures to a thread and talked to Cervelo about their test protocol. The sky is not falling where I'm at so I'll just sit back and wait for the white paper to explain their reasoning. However, I'm sure there is a crisis support hotline you can call about the P5-X anger. High blood pressure over bikes is bad you know.
Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop!
http://www.insideoutsports.com/