You shouldn't notice any difference in difficulty inflating the tyres with valve extensions versus without.
I'm guessing your problem was a very simple error in how you used the PTFE/Teflon (assuming that's waht you used).
If you wrap teflon past the end of the valve before screwing them together, the tape may have ended up covering or partially covering the opening. This would make it difficult or impossible to inflate the tyre. Why else would a valve extender make pumping up the tyre difficult? It's just a short length of pipe. Seems like a simple problem to trouble shoot. To be honest it would have been far quicker and easier to solve the problem than to buy and install new tubes with longer valves.

Did you have the valve cores in the open position?

Yes, it would've been quicker and easier had I known what I was doing and not having the leaking problem. Valve cores were open. When I revisit tire/tube choice for rolling resistance and aero, I'll make sure I know what's going on with the extenders. It's just not something I had focused on as I've been building up my new bike.

---

2017 races: St. George 70.3 May 6 | Madison 70.3 June 11 | IM Zurich July 30 | Chicago Marathon October 8

Curious piece of advise about Cervelo for the OP. Would you say the same for Trek, Felt, or Specialized?

OP apparently has the budget for a $2k used Cervelo P2 or P3 tri-bike which would obviously make more of an impact/difference than a new set of wheels. And to the OP, getting the right valve length to fit your wheels is probably considered best option but you should have no issues if you get a good set of extenders and they are installed correctly. I use Enve extenders with my Enve wheels (without teflon tape) and have had no issues. Also, if you look around, you can find brand new entry level tri-bikes (Cannondale, Giant, Specialized) for around your $2k budget that would probably be a significant performance upgrade to your current bike (hard to say without knowing how old and condition of your current Felt roadie).

I'd go with a pair of DT Swiss R32 Splines for less than one Flo60, and call it a day. In a 45kph velodrome test, they tested out to within 10 watts of Swiss Side Hadron 625's and Roval CLX64's. Translated to normal mortal speeds (35kph), that's probably 3-4 watts of difference.

I'd have to imagine that would be faster than a mix-n-match set of flo/stock wheels in all but some very small, unusual window of yaw angles.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

I think it differs a lot between different models of bikes. Felt is generally very expensive regardless of model. The Felt IA w/ Ultegra Di2 is $7000 compared to Giant's equivalent with is 5k. I'd say that trek is also expensive, although the Emonda seems to be priced quite nicely. Specialized is also pricey but the Shiv isn't so much anymore as the bike is not keeping up with their competition. (Not making an integrated super bike) I think it's always best to look at bikes with similar components and compare them price wise. (Speed concept vs IA vs Trinity vs p3 all with 105 mech or some groupset)

Fuji is also a bike company that is priced pretty well. It just doesn't come with all the flare of the company's name.

Huh? What currency? In the US, the Felt IA10 with Ultegra Di2 has been $5K since introduction. Felt is a value leader as well as a top-end halo player with the FRD models. Their IA2 with Ultagra Di2 has been on a long-term sale at $7K with aero wheels and their higher end carbon-- that is also a major value leader over competitors.

The Felt equivalent of the Giant Trinity Advanced Pro 1 (Ult Di2) is the Felt IA2 w/ Ultegra Di2. It's not "higher end carbon". You're a marketer's wet dream. The modulus's of carbon are pretty consistent across the board of frame manufacturers. Multiple types of carbon go into every bike frame. There is no frame on the market that uses the same type of carbon throughout the whole frame. No bike manufactures actually make their own carbon fiber. It's all purchased from suppliers just like how Boeing uses Dupont composites in aircraft. The IA10 is not comparable to the Trinity Advanced Pro because it doesn't have an integrated cockpit/brake. That is really the only big difference between the IA10 and IA2 frame. And the Felt house wheels are nothing to lose your mind over. They're similar to Fuji's Oval wheels. I don't know a ton about them, but I'm pretty sure that they just made a licensing deal with a 3rd party wheel manufacturer similar to Novatec. Not to mention that the Giant comes with an ISM saddle, Dura Ace bar end Di2 shifters, and a hydration system.

Nah. The Advanced Pro 1 is equivalent to the IA10. You are wrong on a crapton of other details too. You have been confused by the Internet and snowed by the marketers. That said, the Advance Pro is a sweet package and a huge value. But it is not the value you perceive.

"You are wrong on a crap ton of other details too"

Well thank you for your high level argument. I proved to you when the Advanced Pro 1 is the equivalent of the IA2. Yet, for some reason you think that a bike with a conventional front mounted brake and non integrated base bar is the same as Advanced Pro... I know a fan boy when I see one, and you my friend are a Felt fanboy. Don't get me wrong, they make sweet stuff. But you can get practically the same for less.

You did not prove anything. Here are some rhetorical questions and answers...

1. Do you believe that there is no difference between the carbon used in bikes? Yes, there is a huge difference between the carbon that bike makers use in their frames. And, as they use more expensive carbon, they also use more expensive layups to make the bikes both lighter and stiffer. You wrote a few sentences that seemed to say that there is no difference in the carbon between the IA10 and IA2 bikes. That is false.
2. How are the IA2 and IA10 lines of bikes generally positioned and generally received in the marketplace? The IAxx line is the everyman line of bikes based on a top-end frame design. They use cheaper carbon and cheaper bars to make them affordable, while sacrificing some weight. The IAx line is the premium line intended for pros.
3. Do you think there is a significant race performance difference between the IA2 and IA10 (assuming they had the same wheels)? Probably not. In fact, a lot of aero experts here favor the IAxx line over the higher-priced IAx models for their aero performance.
4. How do you think the market perceives the Giant Trinity Advanced Pro line? These are high-value, high-performing bikes. But, they are probably not viewed as top-performing bikes. If knowledgeable people were bike shopping based on race performance, it is likely that the IA would be on their short list (along with bikes like the P5, P5x, Speed Concept, Plasma, etc.) Giant wishes the Trinity Advanced Pro were in this class, but it is not yet.
5. How do you think the Giant Trinity Advanced Pro would compare to the IA2 & IA10 in a wind tunnel? I have not seen a comparison yet, but my bet is on the IA10 when configured with equivalent BTA hydration.
6. Why do you think the GTAP is priced so cheaply relatively to their competition? Because they have not convinced the market that they are equal or better than the competition.
7. Do you think that there is no performance advantage to the IA2's wheels? Yes, there is the same performance advantage over box/aero aluminum rims as with most deep dish wheels. Even if you perceive them to be" nothing to lose your mind over," they still have value and add performance to the bike.
   

The GTAP aligns with the IAxx models in both the market and probably performance. The IAx are premium models designed to capture additional revenue, and Giant does not have a play in this space.

http://www.bicycling.com/bikes-and-gear-features/how-its-made/carbon-fiber-peeling-back-layers


This article talks about how all bike manufacturers draw from the same carbon fiber manufactures. IT also talks about how all bikes are composed of multiple different types of carbon moduluses. Price is directly related to the modulus of the composite. However, higher modulus carbon is used on less than 15% of the bike for structural reasons. This, in turn, makes the cost of materials between different frame manufacturers virtually negligible when compared to the MSRP of the finished frame.


Giant is huge in Austrialia. Just because it's not big in the US doesn't mean that they're not top of the line bikes. You'll be hard pressed to find a Pinerello in the US. That doesn't mean that it's not a high end bike. The same goes for Cube.


The IAxx is in no way shape or form faster than the IA2. You're delusion if you think it is. I've already mentioned the differences between the two models which you didn't dispute. (You argued the composite is different which still wouldn't play into aerodynamics)


Once again, Trek, Cervelo, Scott, Dimond, Specialized are on people's wish lists because they come with the prestige of owning them. They have the flashy websites and marketing that draw people in. Their care for the customer also comes into play with these brands. Giant's customer service/warranty program blows.


Tom Domoulin, the best time trialist in pro cycling at the moment, rides a Trinity.


And you will never be able to do the wind tunnel test you're speaking of with the IA having similar BTA hydration. Felt hasn't released an integrated bottle for the IA and probably never will. There's a thread about IA accessories that was trending recently.

• That Bicycling article is technically correct. But your application is inaccurate. Just read Bicycling's article about catching counterfeit carbon frames. That counterfeit frame article helps explain the vast (and costly) differences that the carbon and layup make in a bike's construction. The carbon and layup affect the weight, stiffness, and cost of a frameset. That is fact. Whether you value that difference is up to you, but it is fact.
• Giant is a popular US brand too. I have a Giant mountain bike. I have Pinarello road bike. I am not sure I get the point.
• You are not current about IAx vs IAxx performance. Read through threads here to catch up. The IAx has a taller head tube stack, and the Vision brake on the IAxx is very aero. Those offset some of the IAx's integrated bars and brakes.
• Tom Dumoulin on a Trinity is apples and peanut butter. His Trinity is UCI legal. Many of the fastest bikes are not UCI legal. The Cervelo P5 is one of the very few fast bikes that is also UCI legal.
• You may also want to catch up on aero benefits of BTA. Cervelo proved a while ago that a BTA bottle actually reduces drag, whereas the other vertical systems simply add less drag. So, if you wanted to improve the GTAP, you would probably want to think about getting the base Trinity Advanced model without integrated water and installing a BTA. But, this would take some wind tunnel work to confirm. So, I would just recommend a Felt IAx which is probably faster and the same price. Oh snap, Tom Dumoulin's bike does not have the integrated water or bento box...
  

Edit: Double-snap... Tom Dumoulin's bike was built on the Trinity Advanced Pro TT frameset. That is different from all their other bikes. Giant boasts a higher grade of carbon on that bike. I guess the better carbon mattered to Tom. That frameset alone is priced higher than the GTAP1 full bike. Hmmmm. Could it be that the GTAP line is basic carbon gimmicked-up with lots of plastic up front, and that is why they are cheaper and positioned alongside the Felt IAxx models in the market? The answer to that rhetorical question is "yes."

To touch on your first comment: I'm not going to disagree with what you said. The layup of the carbon has a LOT to do with the quality of the frame. However, the sheets of carbon fiber (the fabric) is the same. The material in question is pretty much always going to be the same. The resin, layup, and where the different types of carbon are used will be different. I don't know this, but I'd guess that the layup amongst the frames of the same manufacturer are very similar.

What I was trying to say about the Pinarello is that they make SWEET bikes (as I'm sure you're more than aware) yet people aren't drooling over Dogmas or Bolides like other bikes that are much more showy/flashy in the US.

About the IAxx, I didn't know that they had a taller head tube stack. Thanks for letting me know that. I'm still reluctant to believe that an aero conventional brake is more aero than one hidden in the fork. I'm sure it's aero, just not that aero. Honestly, I think that the IAxx is a cool option for Felt to offer because it allows people to actually work on their bikes. My Trinity (as well as the IA FRD/1/2) are a pain to work on.

I'm aware that the Trinity that Tom Domoulin uses is UCI legal. I was using him as an example of a good pro who rides a Trinity. I think that the Plasma (without the sippy cup) is also UCI legal. Correct me if I'm wrong. I wasn't trying to say that it's the fastest Tri bike. My fault for not clarifying my argument. Also, I'm not sure where you're seeing that Giant Boasts a higher modulus carbon on their UCI legal frame. It seems to be the same composite and steer tube.

To get down to what I was originally saying when I posted: The GTAP is a stupid good deal. Would I rather own an IA, SC, P5, Plasma, etc.? Ya, sure I would. But I'm getting very similar performance for a price that's in a different zip code.

Correct me if I'm wrong, (which I'm sure you will do) but I'm pretty sure that Aerogeeks did a wind tunnel test that compared some of the traditional framed (double triangle) tri bikes. The GTAP was right along side it's competitors. I think thatthe P5 stood out as being the most aero though.

Oh, and to address what you were saying about the BTA: I've seen mixed reviews about BTA being more aero than a sippy cup. Pretty much, whoever is doing the testing can manipulate the testing and results to show whatever they want to an extent. The hydration debate was a lot to do with Yaw angle which is affected by speed. You if you're traveling at 30+mph in a TT, yaw angle really doesn't affect you as much as if you're a 17hr ironman finished. (Vector addition)

Side note: I'm enjoying this discussion. Please don't think that I'm a condescending dick:)

Ditto... this is a fun sub-thread. Though, we have probably killed the OP's original question. :)

Bike frame makers are playing with both the layup and carbon. They mix 12K, 6K, 3K, 1K, unidirectional, etc. weaves based on economics and where it makes the most sense for strength. A cheaper frame will have more of the cheaper and heavier weaves with simpler layups. The higher-end frames will have more of the lighter and costlier weaves. And, those frames will also have more difficult layups. That is what drives the performance differences in the frames, and the bike makers market that and premium-price the frames because of it. For a TT bike, the light carbon does not make any sense to me. However, I just built a super light road bike for climbing, so it is a far more expensive frame that uses a lot more of the lighter and stronger weaves. (The super light is not a Pinarello, that is a Franco, though Pinarello uses a higher grade of carbon than Franco uses on my Franco frame. Franco's newest frame they just announced uses the same level of carbon that Pinarello uses on the F10.)

My original comment was that the performance difference between the IAx and IAxx is not that different. Though, because of the shorter head tube, it is possible that the two could be equals, depend on the bar and extension configuration. All other things being equal, just the brake of the IAx is probably faster than the IAxx's exposed brake.

Now I am going back and I cannot find the press release that describes the carbon difference on the Advanced Pro TT frameset from the other Advanced Pro frames. They have an Advanced SL carbon on their website, but the TT frameset page does not explicitly say it uses this carbon. However, the pricing does not make sense either... it is lacking the bento & hydro, yet the frame alone is $800 more than a Ultegra mechanical bike, so the frame is massively premium priced for some reason.

No argument that the GTAP is a stupid good deal. $3,100 for an Ultegra mechanical is one of the lowest on the market, regardless of the performance of the bike. If I were buying a bike right now, I would probably get the Premier Tactical, because it is an even stupider good deal for all the stuff you get. But, that did not exist when I bought mine.

I think I found Giant's chart on Aerogeeks The P5 and Speed Concept are better at low yaw, and then the Giant takes over at higher yaw. I may click more, to see if I can find an independent chart.

Cervelo's BTA finding was that the BTA fills the air gap between the arms and creates a better airflow overall. They wrote it as if they were surprised to discover that. Then they went back and simulated via CFD. So, the nut is that space between the arms is bad, so fill it with something. The vertical bottles typically position below the extensions, so they do not fill that space. It's an interesting read: http://mx.cervelo.com/...nd-aerodynamics.html

if you understand spanish, this is a very good article by drwl about the different wheels for road bikes and triathlon,

Just rent wheels when you race. Best economic decision.

https://www.trisports.com/...-105-tri-bike?sg=501

Here is a decent new entry level bike. Add in aero helmet, tri suit, aero disc cover, saddle, hydration, and you are still under $2k. As cool as wheels are, they are a very low return in investment.

---

Oui, mais pas de femme toute de suite (yes, but I am not ready for a woman straight away) -Stephen Roche's reply when asked whether he was okay after collapsing at the finish in the La Plagne stage of the 1987 Tour

To the OP you got the best answer very early:

The fastest of your options is to have a deeper rim up front and shallow rim out back

The better looking and easier to handle option is to have the back rim be deeer

The fastest-est but slightly more finicky is a disc cover on the rear and a deep front.

But it’s always smart to go through the low hanging fruit checklist:
- latex tubes
- position
- well fitting race clothes
- aero helmet

Good luck with the search. Have you considered these from bontreager? They might not be quite as fast as a flo 60 but should be close:
https://www.trekbicyclesuperstore.com/...bEAQYASABEgJ9nPD_BwE