It was just a matter of time. I've actually been surprised it's taken this long.

very nice....I suggest they give me one for a season to test it ;-)

I'd be interested in the head tube length on their bigger frames. And is it 1.125"? I'm also curious about that seat angle - it looks pretty slack.

It's great to see manufacturers pushing the envelope, but I agree that the P3 still beats it in the details.

"If a Kestrel KM40 can't match a P3 for aerodynamics"

Au contraire senor lizard... the claim is that the P3 is the most aerodynamic bike that is UCI LEGAL... not that it is more aero than the KM40. I believe, as per John Cobb, that the KM40 and Softride are still the most aero bikes made. "what would make you think that adding additional material (i.e., a seat tube) to such a frame would reduce drag?" Poor logic... adding material in the right places can reduce drag... but put another way, if you build a carbon P3 copy, you have something with the same drag as a P3, just made of carbon. You make a point, though with the external routing and seatpost. Think of it this way... the P3 is a pretty stiff riding bike compared to a KM40, for example, so making a carbon P3 copy you get an aero UCI legal bike that is comfortable. Not a bad idea, if UCI legal is important to you.

FROM AEGIS:


The new T2 specs 72.5 head & 78 seat tube angles (hardly slack, quite the
contrary)- & will be offered in both 650 & 700c.

Also, it features track style drops for ease of wheel adjustment into the
seat tube, an 1 1/8" head tube and standard 27.2 seatpost- both with unique
air foil design post.

FYI-
the T2 head tube is foiled= more aero/faster. (see accompanying images)
the seat tube is also foiled= more aero/faster
the 78 degree seat tube will accept ANY 27.2 carbon aero seatpost (i.e.
Corima, Profile, USE, etc.), as opposed to the P3 that necessitates the
mandatory Cervelo post. Bottom line - lighter= faster. Also, it's more
user friendly.

In the past, Aegis did employ internal cable routing. In fact, we were one
of the first companies to do this almost 15 years ago! However, as a result
of these experiences, we learned that over time it proved to be a source for
many owner/dealer/mechanic frustrations. We believe internal cable routing
offers little to no benefit. It is often hyped as more aero, yet there is
little to no real data to back up this sizzle. Most importantly, most of
our customers travels often to compete with their bicycles. Bottom line- we
designed for ease of use & maintenance.

Also, it must be stated that John Cobb had a strong hand in the design of
this bike. To boot, the T2 is now being tested in the Texas A & M wind
tunnel by John Cobb and his staff. The goal- we all wanted to improve upon
a good idea.

As for any comparison with a Kestrel km 40......it is less aero, absolutely
because it does lacks a seat tube; hence the P3 or T2's aerodynamic
advantage. A well designed aerodynamic seat tube will channel air flow.
Also, a down tube mounted water bottle also helps as well.

Finally, the most important reason to consider a T2 is simply because it's
hand made carbon fiber. The natural shocking absorption characteristics of
carbon means the rider will feel better in the saddle & more fresh for the
run. As for the P3 offering better "details", at your request, I'll offer
the attached images for your perusal and consideration.

FYI -we are now accepting orders for the 54cm with delivery in the next 3-4
weeks.

52 & 56cm to follow in the next 3-4 months.

If you should have any other ????s, drop me a line anytime.

I look forward to helping you! For now, enjoy the ride.

Best Regards,
Keith Baumm, President/Owner
Aegis Bicycle

One question--If Aegis can copy the design of the P3 without repercussion, then what is to stop anyone out there from doing the same thing? I thought it was a patented design. If not, I'm sure we'll soon see a whole fleet of bikes that look exactly the same.

In the end I think the whole design is absurd, since even Cervelo's own website says the P3 might make you between 10-30 seconds faster compared to their much cheaper P2. Compared to a round tube you may gain three minutes. I say may because we don't ride in a wind tunnel and that makes all the difference.

Riders need to be reminded time and again that your bike only contributes a small portion of your wind resistance. You can't buy a piece of gear that will gain you as much drag savings as having a position with a flat back and yet race after race I blow by people whose position is so upright they may as well throw away their aero gear and put up a sail. Either that or they don't spend much time actually riding on their aero bars, which means they are catching even more air.

Last year I bought Visiontech bars (used) and an old Cervelo P2 on which I raced this year. Beyond helping me achieve a very low position, did it make me Superman on the bike? Of course not, I still didn't train enough. Until 10-30 seconds really makes a difference we should all keep our old bikes and make the engine faster.

Of course... but don't rain on our parade ;-( ... the gadgets are what make it fun for some of us.

I won my age group at a duathlon this year by :04...

This age group winner did *not* train yesterday

Ken Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I don't think you can just come out and say that Aegis is copying directly from Cervelo. After all, (as I'm sure Gerard would agree) Cervelo didn't invent the curved seattube, they mearly perfected it. If you take a look at a lot of older steel bikes (Shogun, KHS, Nishiki, ect...) lots of them curved the seattube around the rear wheel. Aegis has never been known for extrodinary aerodynamics,but they always had a huge amount of comfort. I see this as an attempt to bridge the gap. Now I'm not saying Aegis put tons of creativity time into this design, but to say they're copying Cervelo isn't fair either.


-I'd ride Aegis if it were free, of course then again I'd also ride a tin can if someone gave it to me

I am with the Chameleon. My primary beef with Aegis and even Litespeed is not the steepness of the seat tube or head tube, but the length of the top tube.

I had a friend who wanted a carbon aero tri bike. He settled on the Aegis. When he called to order or work out the sizing they recommended a 53 instead of the 57 he normally rode.

Does the new T2 change this trait of earlier Aegis tri-bikes?

Craig

>>"I can name several bikes - some of rather conventional appearance - that have lower drag than the Softride or the KM40.">>

I'll bite. What are they?

OKay...time for me to piss people off again...



1. Aegis is a GREAT company, easy to work with, and supports their dealers as much as the consumers. I wish that there were more Aegis out there as they are AWESOME bikes built by awesome folks.

2. Copy of the Cervelo? Why dont you people stop swinging from Gerards sack? Cervelo is not the Messiah of all bikes...some of what I see about Cervelo is marketing snake oil...and people take it all as FACT...marketing is marketing. Others have posted that Cervlo was not the first and "Perfected" the curved seat tube...perfected huh? Cervelo are GREAT bikes, Gerard is a great guy...but this dogmatic view on Cervelos being made by Midas himself is getting old.

3. John Cobb....blah, blah, blah...make my bike more aero...I need to worry about making ME more aero first. I can take a good dump before a race and get more of a gain with weight loss than I will from a fancy widget or more aero spoke nipple.

4. People need to quit passing conjecture and marketing as fact...about frames...sure I will say a bike "has no soul"...I will not say "that bike sucks" or "that guy copied Guru" or anything of that sort...diffrent strokes for diffrent folks. They are all nice bikes - for the right cyclist.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

Senor Changingcolors... I guess I meant bikes in production now. Sorry ...

Mister Eyes-pointing-different-directions... "Comfort" is determined by fit, tires, saddle, etc., and not the material the frame is made out of. Paint that Aegis a solid color, or have Hottubes custom-paint a P3 with a faux carbon fiber scheme, and I'll bet you couldn't tell me which one was more "comfortable". You are a picky one aren't you? Yes... "comfort" is determined by fit, saddle, seatpost, frame layout and geometry, tires, wheels, forks, handlebars, stems, bar-tape, pedals (yada yada yada) AND frame material. There is a reason people speak of the "ride" of steel bikes, and the "harshness" of aluminum bikes... without being so anal and playing a game of semantics, bottom line is carbon is more comfortable than aluminum.

Say's who?

That's just 25 years of my body telling me this.

Do you have those drag numbers in print, or did you just get the numbers verbally? Since drag numbers aren't very "portable" from test to test, I would think you would have to have every one of those bikes tested on the same day in the same tunnel to get *accurate* results. You would also need the same size, same handlebar configuration, wheels, etc.

Do SB1 and SB2 count? They were never available to the public, and AFAIK, offered only as track bikes.

If the Hooker really beat the KM40 and Softride, I would imagine the double diamond Hotta Perimeter would as well. I have been told that the Perimeter had essentially the same drag as the "X" bike.

"There is a reason people speak of the "ride" of steel bikes, and the "harshness" of aluminum bikes... "

Yes, there is a reason - myths die hard.

OK, I'll bite...and I know this is really getting down into minutae here compared to the original topic, but...



from what I've seen (up close and in pics) the differences between the GT SB1 frame (they pop up on eBay every now and then...tho never an SB2 while I've been watching) and it's commercially available progeny - the Vengeance - are really small. so while you're right about the SB2, I think the SB1 characteristics probably didn't suffer too much in the trickle-down to joe avg. however good those characteristics were to begin with...especially compared to newer stuff...I won't argue over.



Carl - with a Vengeance

---

Carl Matson

Yes... the myth that aluminum is a "superior" material and that steel somehow is an "inferior" material still exists. Barb Lindquist kicking-ass on a round-tubed steel bike is always fun to watch.

I pretty much have the spectrum of bikes: steel, aluminum, aluminum/carbon, carbon (monocoque and lugged), and titanium bikes, and I like each one for different reasons.

It's so subjective... not one is better, just different. Whatever floats your boat.