In fairness, it looks to be good value.
<$5k for an Ultegra di2 model is in the same price/component bracket as the lower end Speedmax.

Now whether it's as aero etc as the speedmax remains to be seen...

Oh don't get me wrong, I ride a giant myself. It just that the Plasma was the first thing I thought of when I saw the cockpit of the new Trinity

I think that this style of integrated front end hydration and bento will become the new norm.

You only need to look at the new Canyon, new Cube, and now this Giant to see the trend forming.
Personally I like the look and utility of them, and so am happy with the way things are going. A lot of people find them ugly though.

I think I like Liv's bike way better.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Absolutely ugly!

I think aero integration is generally good for a brand new bike. But there are some exceptions, as many proprietary brakes do not work nearly as well as various standard (shimano) or aftermarket (eebrakes) brakes. But the bigger problems with proprietary integration will be later on.

Because, right now, you could take a steel road bike frame from, say, the 1980s and build it up with shimano 11 speed and the latest fast 11-speed aero wheels, and the bike will be like new (actually, it will be better than new if you think about the state of component tech in the 1980s).

However, with proprietary items, if the mounts are not standard or universal, then good luck finding replacement parts for those hydration systems, storage bentos, proprietary brakes, and proprietary aero covers in 5-10 years (or beyond). Especially any items with components made of plastic, rubber, elastomer, silicone, etc., these will break or rip over time and extended use. It is not a quality issue, it is just unavoidable. However, if the proprietary items use a standard mount (for example, top tube storage bosses per Trek, Cervelo, et al.) then it is less of a problem. You can remove the broken proprietary item and mount a universal item and you are still good to go.

When I get a bike or a frame, I never know for sure how long I will keep it. But I like to think that I will keep it for a while and then I consider all of the wear items and if and for how long they will be available in the future.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Agreed, fugly.

Spot

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

LBS was supposed to call me when they had the release dates for that bike. That explains the missed call.
It is good to see Di2 at that price point. Specialized is out of their damn minds with their pricing.

Specialized transition had a 1 night stand with a Plasma 5 and Giant adopted the bastard child.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

So for my purposes the P5 and SC are still better bets. Be interested to see if they publish numbers on the TT version when it's released.

Felt IA10 is similar price.

Unfortunately, there isn't any place that sells Felt within 150 miles of my house.

Wonder which tunnel they were at.
Shiv performance not as expected - normally it is great at high yaw
Similarly SC usually beats P5 at high yaw
So it's hard to give too much credence to their numbers. Though I'm comfortable with accepting that P5 and SC are faster in conditions that matter most of the time ;-)

Very specific on sizing - no overlap in pad stack between sizes so you have to choose very carefully.

That specialized transition-esque seat tube just looked terrible in my opinion. Everyone will be riding these with forward seatposts to get over the BB, it'd look like some kind of boomerang. They managed to have a straight-ish ST on the Liv Avow, what happened here? Do men need a curved ST for their junk?

Probably this one:

http://www.aero-ce.com/fr/pages/essais-en-soufflerie/protocole-materiel.html

---

http://cds-0.blogspot.com

It's a good move for Giant. They did not have a Tri specific bike before. Their previous version was an UCI approved TT bike that people adapted for tri. This one now has a Tri specific front end. I'd like to see a version with Sram Red Etap or frame and fork only.

Did anyone else notice this quote, in regards to their wind tunnel data:

"All bikes also received a BTA bottle, downtube bottle and storage box – again where proprietary components and accessories were not offered, the most-popular aftermarket accessories were utilized."
http://aerogeeks.com/...rinity-advanced-pro/




That is a tricky way of hiding test numbers...especially without photos, we don't know how those "aftermarket accessories" were set up.

Just a thought...not to mention the numbers that really matter are between 0-15 degrees of yaw

Keep in mind, the speed concept is beat the p5 in this data where one would expect 10-20. They just have really high yaw angle by going all the way to 30, which is dumb.

Some clues here (if by TT version you mean no boxes and bottles rather than UCI compliant). Unclear how they've averaged their 0-30 degree drag data, largest gains over the competition are >20deg, bare bones it is in line with the current best, a bit behind P5, and allegedly a 15W improvement over previous version.

Not really. The new TT version that Dumoulin is riding is completely to the tri version. They share the name, but that's it. They're as similar as the Felt DA is to the IA.

If this model is really $2250 retail, that's cheap.

I love your products.......but the fact that companies are installing proprietary storage and hydration products also cuts into your profits........couldn't help myself sorry. That being said, I totally agree with you. Let the customer choose which items he is going to bolt onto his bike. I much prefer the packs such as yours and XLABS to the silicone of most of the proprietary models.