The graph you want is:

Hi Sloth,

lamby nailed it. The chart shows stack and reach for each model and size.

You can see from the three data series that the new Cervelos have a little more stack than the classic P2 and P3. What we did was effectively add some virtual spacers to the old bikes to get the new bikes. Adding real spacers on a real bike moves the bars up and back along the fork, which we mimicked in designing the new bikes. That's why the reach decreases a bit when the stack increases, as you saw in the geometry tables.

For your P2 specifically, if you transfer your old parts onto any same-size new Cervelo (P5, P3 or P2), it will fit the same if you just leave out one centimeter fork spacer.

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Thank you for your response. If I were to go with the all new setup, is it basically a judgement call on my part on whether I want to reach further or not compared to my old model? Am I understanding this correctly?

Not quite. Go and look at your bike, specifically, do you have 1cm of spacers below your stem?

If so, then buy a 54cm of any of the new bikes and leave out 1cm of spacers and leave everything else the same.

If you have no spacers then let us know the length of your stem, if its up or down and the angle, as well as your aerobar type and if you have spacers under your arm rest.

Hi Sloth,

Runless explains it well above. I love the members of this forum!

Cheers,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi Damon
I'm not sure whether this has been covered in other forum topics, but was the general increase in stack due to Cervelo believing that this will give a better position, or is it just because the market is moving that way (i.e. lack of athleticism of new athletes)?

I'm not in the market right now as I love my 2012 P2, but if I was I'd have to reconsider bike brands. I've got my front end as low as I can get it, including a -17 degree stem. Unless the new thinking is that higher and a less flat back is better?

Thanks for your help.

Regards

CH

OK, just for grins and giggles....I had a P2 with a slammed stem that was -25* ( whatever the stock length was for a 54 P2...100mm?)

What would my options be with the new geometry?

---

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

The implementation of the new geometry is one based on popularity and misrepresentation rather than optimization.

Cervelo has eloquently stated (with data) that lower is generally faster. The guys from ERO favor frames with lower stack. And personally I cannot replicate my tunnel derived position without a very long, negative rise stem with Cervelo's new geometry (a market-wide trend).

I'm pissed that Cervelo changed their geometry, I ride their longest and lowest model, the P3SL, but I can't say that I blame them. The geometry Cervelo has adopted does capture the vast majority of athletes. My problem is that misinformed salesmen and bike fitters poison athletes' minds with BS.

I'm sick of hearing positions described as "aggressive" and "unsustainable" simply because the torso angle is approaching level. Athletes can be low and comfortable even for an IM duration. I'm even more tired of piss poor bike fitters setting saddle heights much too high and consequently increasing the amount of stack.

What I'd like to see from the industry, a long/low geometry, low yaw angle superbike with standard brakes and non integrated stem. There's not a single bike on the market that meets that criteria.

While I can understand the idea, the geometry change has been a sad one for some long time cervelo riders. I went from a 54 P4 to a slammed 51 P5 with a -17 stem and extremely low stack bars. If I decide to move my position any lower (a significant possibility), my next bike will likely not be a cervelo (which would be a sad day for my 5 current cervelos) as I'm dubious about riding a size 48 or going to a stem lower than -17. I hope someone (hopefully cervelo!) does something to help potentially fill this gap in the market over the next few years.

51cm with approx -17 120mm stem?

Now that the P3/P2 have been revised to be really fast and well suited geometrically and mechanically for the bulk of the market it would be really nice if the P6 went super low to give variation.
One of the biggest problems I have in fitting is the paucity of fast, low stack bars to go with the high stack frames. The trends of high stack bars and frames coinciding is not helpful. But now that there are so many high stack bars around there is no reason for frames to not go back to lower stack and give riders a good range of options.
Basically I totally agree about what the market is missing (except I don't mind hidden brakes). I tried a more forward position on the P5 recently and the handling became scary as there isn't enough front centre for me to move my C.O.G forward to a 78deg STA.

Can you comment on the new cervelos being taller? Is what you mean by increased built in stack in the new bikes? Thx