the one that fits?

---

Sr. Salitre

I think the IA is much better value unless you get a great deal on a P2

There is a whole thread here on what you can do to a P2, search "blue and white p2". You can get a P 2 for the low 2s and have a power meter and nice wheels for a reasonable price if you bargain shop.

As mentioned above, try them both out and get the one that feels and fits you better....... That's worth a whole lot......

When did $2500 become entry level?

I don't think there's much point in trying them out. You'll just be testing the difference in saddles, tyres, tyre pressures, setup, weather and road surface and how you feel on the day. Have a look at the spec. Check the geometry carefully. You just need to know if the geometry is right and the spec is what you're looking. After that it comes down to spec, price, availability and personal preference. But test riding is a red herring. You end up testing everything but the bike itself.

How would someone know that is what they need?

matt

If they already ride a tri bike and they're happy with the fit they can take their fit from that. Otherwise a bike fit would seem the obvious solution. You could rely on the LBS for this but I'd be inclined to get an unbiased opinion before choosing the bike. My point was that trying the bike won't tell you if the fit is right, or if it can be made right. If you already have this info, sitting on the bike adds nothing. If you don't have it, sitting on the bike adds almost nothing. As for spec, that's really down to personal expectations and preferences. I would argue that the performance difference due to using Dura-Ace, Super Record or Red as opposed to lower tier groupsets is negligible, especially in triathlon. You're paying for weight savings, maybe some ergonomic improvements and prestige more so than performance. Wheels are rarely a big factor in choosing a tri bike since they rarely come with anything above basic all rounder wheels. That may be fine for you or you may want something more exotic like a set of deep rim aero wheels - it's unlikely to be different for different bikes. If you know the chainring, crank and cassette sizes you'll want in the drive train that will be useful but I'm not going inot how you'd decide that here. Saddle - personal preference. I'd be delighted with an ISM Adamo saddle, others would hate one. Cockpit - personal preference in extension shape and pursuit bar shape. If you're not sure of your position you might want lots of adjustability, if you know what you want that might be unnecessary.

I still don't understand how you would know if the geometry right.

Get a pre-fit done. That'll give you your fit coordinates. Compare to frames.

There's two options:

1. You already have an aero position you're happy with. In this case, you're looking for a bike that will allow you replicate the position you already have.
2. It's your first tri bike or you're not happy with your current position. Start by getting a bike fit done. A fitter will be able to tell you the pad stack and reach. From this you will hopefully be able to determine which tri bike will suit.
Unfortunately it's not always this easy because geometry charts will tell you the frame geometry but not the geometry of the complete bike. So you'll know the stack and reach to the top of the head tube but then you need to work out your options for positioning the pads relative to this. I find it really strange that this isn't easily available info for all cockpits and certainly for stock bike configurations, but it's not. Yes there are lots of variables (stem angle and length, stem spacers, extension and pad mount orientations and pad spacers, but anyone with a dimensioned drawing and even a little intelligence could work it out. The problem is getting the dimensioned drawings.

The Felt rear brake is not an issue if you learn how to adjust it. Anyone who has worked on cantilever brakes should have no problems with it. If you really don't want to deal with it, you can change it out to a Shimano direct mount rear brake and be done with it. The you won't be able to use a Stages PM, but they seem to be one of the least accurate power meters so no problem there.

I don't think the P2 is in the IA16's league. If it didn't day Cevello on the down tube, you probaably wouldn't be looking at it either. It's a nice bike and it is cheaper, but the IA16 would be at the top of anyone's aero tests.

I am biased. I'm picking up an IA16. But I never considered the P2.

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

Which fits you the best. Some people can't get low enough with the stock setups of these bikes.
Which is faster? Probably about the same. The IA may be a bit faster due to integration.
Which is cheaper? Are they exactly the same price? Does one have better components?
Which has the best paint?

That's how I would decide.

Everything else being equal I think both bikes should be similarly fast at low yaw. The Felt should be faster at higher yaw.
I rather like the P2 but went with the IA due to price, cockpit and overall spec. I couldn't find a good price on a P2 (I'm not in the US). The IA cockpit is very adjustable which appeals to me as I'm not that experienced and may end up experimenting quite a bit with position over the next year or two. I originally was also attracted to the IA due to the bento box and mounting bolts behind the seatpost although my views on the bento box changed. When I saw it in person I decided the bento box was poorly done and I'd prefer the top tube mount on the P2 but apparently Felt are working on an improvement to this that will be retrofitable.

Isn't the P3/P2 faster at low yaw (<5-7.5 degrees) than a Felt IA according to Felt white paper. The white paper is based off of the P5, but the P3/P2 is very close to the P5.

IA has the benefit at higher yaw >10 degrees, but how often is one riding at high yaw angles?

IA looks way cooler - thats the way i'd go

The P2/3 is not faster than the IA at 5-7.5 degrees.
And the IA in -7.5/0/7.5 sweeps is also very close to P5.

"The P2/3 is not faster than the IA at 5-7.5 degrees.
And the IA in -7.5/0/7.5 sweeps is also very close to P5."

Why does this even matter? What is the impact at various 0.5 km/h increments of average speed over the course, because it's hotter or colder than average on the day of the race. Are you going to buy a bike depending on whether your target race has winds that will cause the yaw to move predominantly between 0 and 5 or 6 and 10? And how the hell can you control the wind on the day of the race?

Unless you are at the pointiest end of the field (in which case you would be looking at a superbike rather than either of the very, very good bikes you are already considering), you would be just as well to buy based on your preferred colour scheme than worry about which bike performs best at 2.5 degrees of whatever.

Just buy the bike that feels best to you and get as aero as you can on it.

---

***

Considering wind speeds are reported at 10 meters or 32 feet off the ground, the yaw angle you will see at ground level is much lower. So yes, this stuff matters. You also don't have to be on a superbike and at the pointy end of the field. With the right modifications, most of these bikes get really close to a super bike anyway. At the end of the day, your Cda matters the most.

You can be the athlete that sticks his fingers in his ears and says "data doesn't matter! who cares" or you can be the athlete that says "I only have so much money to spend. I want to make sure what I buy is worth the money, the data is accurate, and I feel like this product will make me faster." Which one are you?

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

I would argue the opposite, how often are you riding directly into the wind, I would say very rarely in the grand scheme. roads twist and turn the wind shifts. In my opinion its better to be good at all angles then just great in one.

I would argue that before anyone is allowed to talk about yaw angles and Cda we should ask them to post a picture of themselves to judge their BF percentage and also their training logs to see if they are really going to gain from anything bike related. Some times we are talking to people who are 50 lbs overweight and we are talking about yaw angles.

Umm, they could still gain something even if they are 50 lbs overweight.

That sentence is, IMO, the most important part of your post. If you feel otherwise, show data that supports that the differences cited in the earlier post are relevant across a range of race days. It is very unlikely that there is a measurable and repeatable real world effect - by which I mean a bike with an actual non-pro rider on it, in a race environment that has constantly changing draft, wind, weather and road surface scenarios - for the minor aerodynamic differences pointed out earlier. They would be roughly equal to the psychological effect of saying "I feel hella faster on a red bike than a blue one."

---

***

smt asked a question: "Isn't the P3/P2 faster at low yaw (<5-7.5 degrees) than a Felt IA according to Felt white paper."
I answered it with the information I have available to me.

I'll try to answer your question although it's a bit more subjective.
Why does this even matter? For some consumers, they'll buy a product based on certain criteria. High yaw performance is one of the criteria used to sell and promote the IA.
Are you going to buy a bike depending on whether your target race has winds that will cause the yaw to move predominantly between 0 and 5 or 6 and 10? Yes, people who are targeting a particular race like Nice, may opt for the brilliant REVO bar from 3T. People that qualify for Kona may opt for a high yaw performer because 20 degrees of yaw at 40kph on the Queen K is not at all uncommon for an island in the middle of the Pacific.
You can't control the wind but you can predict it with historical environmental data.
Anyone who is concerned about their finishing time should pay attention to the factors that contribute to it. I'd sure like to know that I didn't leave 5 seconds out on the course of an Ironman if I finished in 9:00:04, or 12:00:04 or 17:00:04 and "DNFed".

-SD