Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

2004 v 2005 Tiphoon
Quote | Reply
What are the differences in the 2004 and 2005 Tiphoon? I know the seat post, color scheme, and some items of the build kit are different. What are the ride/performance differences for those that have ridden both? What difference does the different forks and fork rake provide, if any? Is the new "aero" seat post better and, if so, why?
Quote Reply
Re: 2004 v 2005 Tiphoon [cjw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have a 2004 Tiphoon with the Reynold's Ouzo Aero pro fork. This has a carbon steer tube. I'd much rather have this fork than the stock "Real Design Aero HP fork." Real Design is American Bicycle Group's own branding of bike components such as forks, seatposts, and wheelsets. Reynold's has been around a while and is quite proven. While there may be nothing wrong with Real Design, their parts simply haven't been around long enough to develop a reputation. I will tell you this much, I had a set of Real Design Supersonic carbon wheels, 2004 model, and they were complete junk. I couldn't give them away. Real Design is trying to compete against Zipp and no question in my mind, most seasoned triathletes would choose Zipp any day over the Real Design wheelsets. As far as ride quality, the titanium is the same grade 6AL/4V and 3Al/2.5V on both year's models and the tubing shapes (i.e. seat stays, chain stays, top tube, and down tube) have stayed the same with the exception of changing the seat tube to an integrated seatpost/seat tube system. Overall, this will not change the ride characteristics of the 2005 vs. 2004 at all. Yes, it looks a little "cooler" to have the integrated seatpost and every tri-bike manufacturer seems to be following this trend. Does it change the ride quality? I doubt it. I like the flexibility of choosing my own seatpost in that I can choose zero setback, rear setback, fast forward, etc. The integrated post locks you into minimal fore/aft adjustment of your saddle as I have discovered with my integrated seatpost on my Lucero. The integrated seatpost on my Lucero is a zero setback and I believe that is the case with the '05 Tiphoon as well. Overall, the ride quality of the Tiphoon is more forgiving than most aluminum bikes I have ridden but not quite as forgiving as my carbon Lucero. The advantage of a Tiphoon would be indestructable frame and great for standing up to the abuses of transporting your bike to and from races. I hope this helps.



Team Endurance Nation
Quote Reply
Re: 2004 v 2005 Tiphoon [cjw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CJW,

QRooster is exactly right, i had both bikes (2004 and 2005). I prefer to have a seatpost that can be moved at 2' to the left for "comfort". The bladed seatpost that are coming on so many bikes now do not allow this "positioning". The Real Design forks are nice and they have changed the wheels quite a bit but they are still overpriced.

I would highly encourage you to look at the Guru Tri'Ti or the Aero'Ti (which is what i am switching to). At least as nice a bike and better price point with custom geometry no extra charge (if even needed).







Keep in mind we sell both brands so hopefully i know what i am talking about,


John Teeters
866-508-4676
john@triumph-multisport.com
http://www.triumph-multisport.com



Quote Reply