Your two criteria are aerodynamics and price. That's ok.

But you should not forget an important criterium, which becomes very important at the long distance (which you have not done yet): hydration and nutrition.
Everyone has another strategy on nutrition and hydration. It is however very much dependent on the bike you have which strategy you can follow.

Say you want to have two bottles in the frametriangle, but you only got one bottleholder in the triangle?

Say you do not want to mess around with filling an onboard hydration system but there is one on the bike?

Or the other way around, you want an onboard hydration system but the bike does not have that?

It all depends on what and how much you eat and drink during 180 km: think about that and then look if the bike will give you the possibilities for that.

(At least for me this was one of the most important criteria).

I've got a Felt IA14 since January 2016.
I really like it but if it was a choice between a 2017 IA16 and a Speedmax CF 8.0, I'd go with the Speedmax. Incidentally my Roadbike is a Canyon Ultimate, with which I've been extremely happy for the last 3 years!

The Felt aerodynamics are good at low yaw but not spectacular and I doubt there's much difference compared with the Speedmax. I haven't seen figures and I'm not sure which is faster at low yaw (frame only). The Felt is intended to have an advantage at higher angles of yaw where the deeper aerofoils of the frame should provide some advantage. Do you often race in windy conditions? Either way, I doubt there's much advantage for either bike in terms of aerodynamics. Setup of the cockpit (spacers etc) may be the deciding factor there.
Where there is a big difference is weight. It's not the most important factor, especially for a tri bike but it's not irrelevant either. The Canyon is listed at a pretty respectable 8.6kg. I'm not sure the list weight for the Felt IA16 but it's well over 9kg. I think my IA14 was about 9.5kg stock and the IA16 is heavier. It's a bulky frame which no doubt accounts for much of this but the stock Felt wheels are no lightweights either. If you'll upgrade the wheels you can reduce the margin a bit but the Canyon will still be significantly lighter.

On the subject of wheels - The Canyon ships with considerably better wheels than the Felt. If you already have the HEDs, perhaps you could sell the new Mavic Comete wheels and get back a good portion of the purchase price. The Mavic Comete Pro Exalith wheels sell for about €1100 in Europe and the US$ list price is $1499. They're somewhat comparable to the HEDs (although I'd take the HED Jet 6 for preference!) The Felt wheels on the other hand will do fine for training use but they won't make you much if you sell them on. I'd say they're worth one tenth as much. Absolutely no competition.

The Groupset spec is also much better on the Canyon. It's Ultegra R8000 throughout and DuraAce levers. From memory, I think the IA16 is a mix mostly made up of 105 with Microshift levers. I've had no problems with my Microshift levers but I'd happily take DuraAce.

The bento box on the Canyon looks much better than the "Calpac" on the IA16. There's been a new version of the IA Calpac released in the last month or so which aims to improve on the universally criticised original design (the original will almost certainly come on any 2017 IA16 unless you do a deal). Don't get me wrong, the original can be used. But many of us find it clumsy and annoying. The main downfall of an otherwise very nice bike.

The B14 is a nice bike too. My main training buddy has one and I very nearly bought one. The same weight and wheel spec comments apply to it as the IA16. It's probably a little less aerodynamic but still not bad at all if you can set it up well. There are no provisions for storage which may be a factor.

In summary, I have and like the Felt IA. But I think the Canyon is a much better deal and quite possibly a better bike too. If I was you, I'd probably eliminate the IA from the list and choose between the B14 and Speedmax CF 8.0 based on budget.
In fact, I might consider the Speedmax CF 7.0 as an alternative if you want to reduce the price and the wheels on the 8.0 aren't of interest. It's 105 rather than Ultegra but the same frame, still pretty light and good aerodynamics and a fair amount cheaper.
I think the 7.0 is more comparable to the IA16. The 8.0 is definitely a level up.

All 3 are good bikes. Enjoy whichever you go for!

My overall ranking based on aerodynamics, practicality and weight:

1. Canyon Speedmax 8.0
2. Canyon Speedmax 7.0
3. Felt IA16
4. Felt B14

My ranking if budget is of high importance:

1. Canyon Speedmax 7.0
2. Felt B14
3. Canyon Speedmax 8.0 (move up to 1st you'll sell the wheels and cranks!)
4. Felt IA16

P.S.
Of course the other very important factor that no-one else can speak to is whether there's one you just like the look of! Aesthetics, whether it's the shape, the paint scheme or both can be important too!

You could walk into your Trek dealer and look at the SC 7.5. Same price as the Canyon before haggling. Same Component, similar wheels.

The SC is probably a bit more aero, easier fit, storage options, you can angle the aero bars easily, probably a bit lighter, and the first thing I would do with the Canyon would be ordering a TriRig Omega front brake.

Really? There's a collossal price difference this side of the Atlantic.

Thanks for the replies already!

Solely based on looks, I would probably go for an all-black Speedmax.

I did take nutrition options into account, the B14 is disadvantaged here but with 2 cage options on the tubes and one behind the saddle this should be plenty for me. Though adding a bento box will always look sloppy in comparison with the more integrated ones of the Speedmax and IA.

I actually got things mixed up and its the 2018 Speedmax CF 7.0 (not 8.0) that is in competition with the discounted 2017 IA16. As both models are priced the same. Nonetheless your points still stand. Actually in terms of fit, the stack on the Canyon and B14 suits me a little better, with the IA16 I would probably need a spacer.

The weight of the bikes is also something I took notice of. The CF 7.0 is also listed at 8.6kg which is more than 1kg lighter than the Felt. Could be interesting in the more hilly races..

Conditions are often windy here but I also read the Felt is more vulnerable to crosswind handling because of the oversized tubes in profile. What's your experience in this?


For the Speedconcept, this bike is indeed out of range in terms of budget. Even when discounted the SC 7.0 is too expensive for me.

Canyon's website lists the CF 7.0 at 8.8kg, and Felt's lists the IA16 at 9.3kg. So the published difference is around 500g.

The crankset and wheels on the IA16 are extremely heavy. If you swap your crank to a DA crank, that will cut something like 350g. And, the IA wheels weigh in at a porky 2,100g, so you will likely save another few hundred grams with any other wheel choice. The IAxx cockpit is heavy too, but it is more aero than most other aluminum cockpits. If you swap the cockpit to a more aero carbon cockpit, that will save another 400g. The 105 FD and RD are about 100g heavier than Ultegra.

The IA frameset is heavier than many others, but a lot of the IA16's weight is due to the component choices. (Heck, you will save 50g going with about any other front brake on the market, and gain aero.)

Edit: I should add that I have an IA16 and a I absolutely love it. However, if I were buying a bike now, but with the budget constraints I had when I got my IA, I would probably would have chosen the Canyon CF 7.0. But, I paid $3K for my IA, because there were no discounts then. If the two were the same price, I would probably get the IA16. If I knew then what I know now, I would buy the CF 8.0 over any Felt. The CF 8.0 is a value monster.

We are in the same boat! I decided to wait for the Canyon. I do love the IA but the B14 can be had for SO cheap.
Speedmax firstly is a fast bike, seems the fit is there, they have the integration, quality components...Ill just use the "patience is a virtue" and wait for that.

I've owned a B14 for a couple years now and each time I see a new "Superbike" out there I just go back and look at this post.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...%20shootout#p6351660

The test did not include Canyon's, Felt IA's etc. but a big takeaway was the comment about bikes nearing the age of peak aero and that we should just go train.

I guess if you feel you might miss a Kona slot by one or two minutes it's worth the extra $$,

I'm quite happy with the B14, I weigh 195#, I've crashed a couple times, the frame is solid. I have a friend that does carbon fiber repair, he doesn't see many Felts. I do like the look of that IA however.

I've never had any real problem with the IA in the wind. I think the front wheel choice is more likely to be a factor than the frame and that's the same for any tri bike. I have found the IA stable and easy to ride in any conditions I've tried. I haven't ridden it in storms but I have had it up the mountains in pretty breezy conditions from time to time and had no real concerns.

Ditto above about crosswind. I think this is urban legend. The bike's geometry is designed to be ultra stable. I rode my IA16 last year in the New Orleans 70.3 that had 20-30 MPH winds and gusts. About 10 miles of the bike route was perpendicular to the wind direction. I honestly barely noticed and stayed in aero the whole time. And, I had only had the bike for less than a month and had no prior aero position experience prior to that. It was truly a non-issue.

Hi Thrust.

Have you decided what bike to go for?
I'm in a similar situation (I think!) although mulling between the Speedmax CF 8.0 vs Boardman Air TTE 9.2 (currently available for £2,499).
If you're in the UK did you also consider the Boardman - interested if you ruled that one out also based on some factors.

I did find an article that puts about 1 to 2 minute time difference for a 70.3 between a non-integrated (they use a Speedmax CF 8.0) vs integrated with best performance coming from a Cervelo P5.

I will use at Ironman Wales next year so weight (with the hilly course) and conditions in wind also a factor for me.

Thanks.

The integrated/non-integrated comparison is virtually impossible to quantify realistically unless you're really tying down what's meant.
If you simply mean integrated brakes versus standard brakes and EVERYTHING else is kept constant including the rest of the frame and the rider, then you could draw some conclusions, but I'm not sure they're very useful ones. The rest of the bike will differ too and it's impossible to take all variables into account. Integration or otherwise is unlikely to be the only, or most important 1-2W difference between any 2 bikes.

Is integrated water, food, repair kit storage being considered? Compared to what? Round bottle on the down tube, BTA or BTS bottles? Loads of options and a lot of scope to come up with hugely varying comparisons.

Is this about integrated handlebars/extensions? Again, compared to what? There's a broad range of non-integrated options, many of which would be VERY poor and others which would probably be competitive with a good integrated system.

Beware marketing "data"!