What if those radical designs were not any faster?

---

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

From the limited photos of the front of the Cervelo and what you can see of the Omni, they will be faster because they reduce frontal area. All the aero bikes have head tubes shapes that have a low Cd. These were designed by very smart people!

The big area for improvement is A. My guess is that optimization for higher angles probably helped sell bikes and it is easier to integrate a rim brake on a wider head-tube bike and build a stiffer frame, which the ProTour guys wanted (Specialized put an extra half pound of carbon into the Transitions and the Pros still wanted a new bike).

While I probably won't be riding one of these anytime soon, I am excited to see the industry move forward.

I'll be buying a new bike in 2018 more than likely. I'm really looking forward to seeing the P6 as I love my Cervelo P2. I'm also really curious to how Felt, Specialized, and Trek respond to the disc brake tri bikes.

---

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

2018 sounds like great timing. All the next generation bikes will be out and I would think that through axles, hydraulic discs and rotor specifications, wireless groups, and tubeLess ready wheels will be standardized.

My prediction is that the one thing they won't have figured out is how to break one of these things down and put it in travel case without a PhD and hours of swearing. Oh, and they will save 12 speed for 2019 just to make your new bike obsolete..:-)

Shimano has already tested 12 speed

---

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

Wiith a rider onboard, most likely not. Without a rider, sure the results will look good by removing bits of furniture.

It's more about grabbing market attention and selling!.

---

Training Tweets: https://twitter.com/Jagersport_com
FM Sports: http://fluidmotionsports.com

Personally I love classic road bikes and the S5 was a classic from day one. Maybe the last one without disc brakes. Bike design is limited by human body design, as long riders in typical races sit upright on a saddle with the head in front, shielding is not allowed and a common safety wanted. The baracchi shape hits the limit in there because they followed the rules for aerodynamics. This rules didn't change, just the circumstances of human perception ..

---

*
___/\___/\___/\___ the s u r f b o a r d of the K u r p f a l z is the r o a d b i k e .. oSo >>

The thing is, in terms of designing a really good bike, attractiveness or radicalness are outputs not inputs. Most bike customers are very ignorant on this fact. Look at all the criticisms and abuse that get thrown at unusual looking bikes. I'm both a mechanical engineer and an aerodynamicist. For me form should always follow function and to be honest, when done well, this usually produces something I'll find beautiful anyway. However, the majority of the market are very slow to accept anything radical and others are determined to accept radical concepts even if their radicalness is all they have going for them.
I'm relieved to see that we finally have some innovation happening but I'm a little concerned that if it's just a marketing trend rather than good engineering, the opportunity for free thinking will be squandered and the ignorant will just write off anything "different" as a gimmick.
There's certainly a strong tendency among pure cyclists to scorn anything distinctly new and non-traditional and the UCI's rules tend to reinforce this for various reasons. Not so much with triathletes. However it does seem to me that a lot of people feel the need to define some sort of allegiance with either more traditional or more radical bikes rather than just discussing them on their (engineering/aerodynamic) merits.

You have a great point! These new bike designs should be about the design and engineering and not a marketing hype trying to sell bikes. The sales should follow if the bike does what the marketing claims. It's a great time for Triathlon with the new developments and with new ideas comes new competition.

I would love to see one of the Magazines or Tunnels to do more independent testing to see what is faster in real world scenario (I know this has a lot of different opinions). Thinking what an athlete needs during a race and the fact that the front wheel is not perfectly locked inline with the down tube to ride along a road.

The fact that triathletes now have a growing range of bikes that are thinking outside the box its a great time to be in a sport that is open to new ideas.

---

JImmy Seear
Co-Founder Ventum
http://www.ventumracing.com

I think there are so many triathletes out there that would love to try 'radical'. However, this window of time has the 'radical' bike becoming available only to those who have the most cash to drop or who wants to pay for it for 2 years. It kind of reminds me of how many years ago you would show up to a local trash talking sprint or oly and you would see road bikes with clip ons all over the place while the 'serious' triathletes had bikes dedicated specifically to triathlon. So, over the next few years, those of us with very fast double diamond rides will assume the role of "oh, that's a cute bike".

The 'radical' is now the 'top of the line' for a brand. Those who can, will. Those who can't, wait for the used versions. Just business. But, it will be nice when there are some tiers of these radical designs that may allow someone who doesn't want to drop 7k (just a random number trying to fall somewhere in the middle of those ranges we all know), cash or financed, on a new bike. EDIT: Jimmy, before you roast me, I just saw your thread about the price of the Ventum and I applaud your entry point. (HA! I better edit that statement, too, cuz the perverts around here may have a field day with it!!!) Let me restate, I applaud that starting price point to get into the game with a bike that is so 'radical'!

*if I sound jealous, it might be because I am!

**as long as I'm on my ''oh, that's a cute bike'', I'll be doing my damndest to train right, stay light, and race smart enough to stay in the same ballpark as the majority of the radical superbike but not quite as super triathletes!

---

"Outwork your talent." Kevin McHale

First off I will leave the entry point comment alone! ;)

Thank you and I hope the industry will also follow (or not). The super expensive bike is obviously a lot more cost involved but there will always be trickle down technology. Look at car with hybrid drive trains. I know most people might poke fun at a Prius but that was a leader in hybrids then Formula 1 and now we have cars like the Mclaren P1 which is insanely expensive but other brands like toyota, BMW, Mercedes and i'm sure a lot more now offer similar technology for a price point that is attainable.

It will come with time.

---

JImmy Seear
Co-Founder Ventum
http://www.ventumracing.com

I'd disagree with that statement a bit. Companies that consistently produce good-looking products tend to do so because they consider it is a factor from the beginning. Apple is the stereotypical example - the first to think that maybe the personal computer can be put in something other than a gray metal box. That was an input. Often the first expression of radical is on the proverbial bar napkin.


That's the stereotype. And there may be some truth in the professional peloton. But as a former triathlete and current amateur roadie, I find the roadie community to be very innovative in mentality. Particularly trackies, who still revere things like the GT superbike. I have roadie friends who hand-machine bike parts, who build their own wheels, who do regular "Chung-testing." One guy who machined his own left-side-drive track bike, complete with reverse threading and custom lock rings. Plenty of disc brakes, for what it's worth. They <gulp> own recumbents. I remember none of that as a triathlete, where the bike was more of a showpiece and appliance.

It depends what you mean by "designing a really good bike".
Admittedly it's open to interpretation and your interpretation is absolutely legitimate but it wasn't my meaning.
From a strictly engineering and aerodynamics point of view, a bike is a two wheeled man powered vehicle and it should be comfortable, fast and safe (the priorities between these 3 may vary considerably).
I don't consider public perception or tastes to be a factor. They're fickle, and often somewhat ignorant. The design could and in my opinion should be led by the physics. But of course, because the general bike buying public do not feel the same, the market is driven hugely by people's preconceptions. Therefore the requirements for a "really good bike" are not the same as those for a "really good product".

They have. Get a Hen House. I'm no mechanic but could have my B16 packed/unpacked in 30 minutes. Now I have a Dimond and it's even quicker! Plus the bike isn't half bad ;).

---

________________________________________________________
Taylor Rogers

2024: IM Hamburg

As another engineer, I will jump on board with Ai_1. Ai_1's comments are in teh context of physics. Usually, when you design to overcome a physics problem, the result is inherently beautiful. Comparison to Apple is apples-and-organges, because Apple is a marketing engine. Their hardware is beautiful, but their software sucks.

I get it, and I agree with you guys. The airfoil is shape is symmetrically pleasing and easy on the eyes. But that's just a pleasant byproduct of the process of seeking aerodynamic efficiency. The classic bicycle triangle geometry is pleasing. But that's just a byproduct of finding a mechanically rigid and efficient way to connect the 3 contact points on a bike with simple tubes.

But I'm sticking to my point. I won't argue for Apple's recent software quality. But they're far more than a marketing engine, historically. In a historical context they successfully engineered the desktop metaphor in software (even if they didn't invent it), a metaphor that now exists worldwide from phones to personal computers. The thumb dial on the old iPods was genius in design (back then you could rapidly move through songs and playlists while running, without taking your eyes off the trail - these days you have to pretty much stop and look at a touchscreen and it takes 10x as long to do anything music-player related).

So I agree about the solving narrowly-defined physics problems. But a bike is really a complex systems engineering problem, where those individual physics problems have mostly converged into a fairly small space.

I think some prominent bike engineer once said that amongst the top 5-10 TT bike brands you might as well pick the one with your favorite paint scheme. They're all working within 50g or so of drag such that choice of bars and wheels and interactions with your particular position might have more effect than even a 100g difference in pure frame drag. And the whitepapers with wind tunnel results are only valid if you're set up exactly the same as the wind tunnel setup. Who knows what happens if your position requires a different setup. Or different bars.

But there are huge differences in aesthetics amongst those top 5-10 performers.

I will eat my words if the Omni or P5x data, once we get it, approaches breakthrough-grade stuff. The Omni SLA wind tunnel results are intriguing.

In my opinion, and JUST MY OPINION..... I think the Omni takes that Gold medal for now. Yes, even considering the Andean and the P5x. The Omni just "APPEARS" to have cleaner, non-interrupted lines. Just MY OPINION.... Now if the Cervelo was actually the P6 beam bike that has the beam going to a point with the seat at the tip (as in several photos on Google), now that would be a clear winner for sure!!! But, since that "seems" to be merely a concept bike idea, and not what the P5x is, I am disappointed in the new P5x.
Your thoughts???

---

Team Zoot-Texas, and Pickle Juice

This