flat storage pouches exist... they are not new. I use them instead of saddlebags.

What discomfort are you referring to? I normally carry my cell phone and a Silca Ti-Rachet in 2 of my back pockets, and a pretty extensive flat kit/spare parts in my saddle bag and forget it's there unless I need it. The only thing I'm not carrying that I could make an argument for is a chain breaker.

I like the fact that I can switch to Crit race mode with just taking a saddle bag and the rear light off and not put stuff in my pockets. We have wheel pits or neutral support for mechanicals. Not much point in bringing that stuff with you.

I also like the fact that I can switch my saddle bag between bikes and I'm good to go.

That's why roadies aren't huge on having integrated storage on the bike....because we have come up with other solutions that work as well or better in our clothing and other attachments. And we have N+1 bikes and don't really want a flat kit for each bike. I get why long course Tri geeks like the integrated storage....there is a different set of circumstances...primarily you don't want to swim or run with tools/tube/whatever in your back pocket.

This is a road bike but it's not for roadies since it is not UCI legal. People who buy this bike will not be racing it unless it's in a triathlon.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

The question that was asked was.....


I believe I answered it.

Having said that....I'm not sure this bike makes sense for either just riding around or racing it in a tri.

Racing in a aerobar legal Tri -> race aero bars...they will be faster for less energy expended

Racing in a non-aerobar legal Tri -> you are racing ITU....no need for a flat kit, if you get a flat your day is done, walk your bike back to transition and pack up your stuff.

Not Racing -> See my answers about moving flat kits between bikes and not having to own multiple flat kits.

If this is your only bike, and you don't race...then OK, I see the use in the storage. But I think that is a pretty small edge case, and I think something like the storage box on a Roubaix is arguably a better solution, and it is removable if you don't want to use it.

I was really only trying to remark on the strangeness of making a non-UCI legal road bike. I guess it's for weekend warriors who do not race and want to impress their non-racing bike friends with a cool-looking machine on their weekend 40 mile long rides.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I know its been said before, but that seat post is just off. Should of made it match the seat tube.

That's a completely valid point. I get the divergence of Tri bikes from UCI regs...but there seems to be plenty of innovation in the Road bike side within UCI regs. Ex. Domane, Roubaix, Vias, Madone, Aeroroad Disc, Propel Disc...etc, etc.

UCI legal only matters for UCI races. Doesn't matter at all for the vast majority of amatuer racers in USAC races.

Yup...I agree.

If I'm going to carry a flat kit on my road bike, I want it to be easily accessible when I flat. During road races, if I'm choosing to carry a flat kit it's going to be in my rear pocket because it's the fastest and easiest place to access. Yes, most times your race is over in terms of winning...but on some of the hilly races where things get shredded, a quick flat change means you still have a shot at a respectable finish. I've also had instances where I have tossed my flat kit to a teammate who was up the road but had flatted. One reach to my back pocket without missing a pedal stroke and I still got to hold onto 6th and he didn't have to walk 8 miles to the finish.

Or if I'm out on a training ride, I want my flat kit in my saddle bag, which generally is waist high when standing next to my bike. So when I flat, I have easy access to pull my flat kit out, put the levers/chuck and old tube/CO2 back in. Then when I get home to put a new tube and CO2 back in and throw away the old stuff. Last thing I want to be doing is bending down over to my bottom bracket to do all of this when I don't need to.

To me...this is the equivalent of putting pockets on jeans near your ankles. Sure, it may seem like a cool and innovative idea for more storage options. But does it really make sense to use those pockets when you can just use your hip or back pockets?

I dunno...to each their own I suppose.

You are absolutely correct about most races not caring. But if Nationals is happening in your region and you decide "What the heck, lets see just how slow I really am?"....do you really want your bike choice preventing you from participating in it? No, especially when this bike isn't any faster, lighter, or better in any measurable way than UCI legal bikes.

Just to be clear....I'm just stating that I don't understand who the ideal customer is for this bike...the decisions on this just seem weird to me. If this ticks all the boxes for you, then please spend your hard earned money on it, and then explain to me why you preferred this over all the other options out there because I'm curious.

I am just guessing, but I suspect that the majority of road bikes sold are not raced at all, so it matters even less.

Is nationals even a worry either? I had no bike checks at the Crit or Time Trial at the last Master's Nationals I was at and if you have no shot of hitting the podium does it even matter then? I'm pretty sure you could start and finish the race on this monstrosity if you don't plan on winning or being in with a shot. Besides, those in that capacity wouldn't be caught dead on this thing.

---

My YouTubes

Howdy folks,

Thanks for the interest in the IO. One thing that I think no one can dispute is that it's a different take on the road bike than what we've all grown accustomed to!

There have been a bunch of good questions posed on this thread, and I'd invite you all to tune in tomorrow for the Slowtwitch Ask Me Anything with the head of the the design team behind both the IO and the Andean, Kevin Quan.

The session will kick off at 1pm PST on this thread, which is sticky-ed at the top of the forum page for your convenience.

Hope to (virtually) see you all there,

MH

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

I think you're referring to THIS:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...chctr/frametube.html

He "reversed" the Easton "aero" downtube and it tested better at higher yaws backwards. It was that article that inspired my to analyze the Columbus tube in the reversed position...but, I took it one step further and looked at how it performed with a round bottle behind it as well :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Everybody seems to think the bike is not UCI legal, are we sure about that?

I'm pretty sure. Last I checked, the frame envelope and seatstay attachment dimension rules were still in place. This obviously violates both.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

But even at nationals I've never heard of any bike checks for mass start racing, and I don't think the full UCI spec is required by USAC.

I don't really disagree with that, this bike doesn't particularly appeal to me (I just got a Madone frameset for my road bike build). I just don't think lack of UCI compliance would be a reason for somebody interested in this bike to not buy unless they're racing on a professional team.

...or as an amateur in any nation in the world other than the US.

(When I lived in Canada, even the Tuesday night club TT followed UCI rules.)

---

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

Honestly I'm not sure. I think technically they should follow UCI rules....but enforcement is spotty. With my luck if I got a frame because it looked cool and then had a result they would start checking.

But circling back...nothing about this frame entices me....and there is a small possible drawback of being UCI illegal. So no benefit...small/possible drawback. The math is simple...I'll pass.

[/quote]





As a roadie, I kind of like the storage thing for races. I wear skin suits for road races (why get an aero bike and wear pocket-parachutes). And in amateur racing sometimes you can flat away from neutral support and be on your own. So it's nice to have a stash in that case. Also the convention is not to have anything attached to your saddle while racing, so the saddle roll/bag is out.

That's interesting. I didn't know you could take any wind tunnel graph and directly compare it to any other wind tunnel graph like that.

The SanRemo style kits work well in this capacity: two pockets that lay flat and no bulk anywhere. I too liked skin suits for road races and have Alé's version and love it.

---

My YouTubes

One should be able to, if both tunnels are well set up...which I believe the LSWT and the Specialized tunnel to be examples of that. That's one of the advantages of reporting in CdA. For example, wouldn't one expect rider CdA to be consistent across tunnels and/or field testing? If they aren't, then they're doing something wrong.

The only major uncertainty in this case is fixture tare, and if it is removed or not in the data (hence one of my questions on the "ask me anything" thread on the IO).

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/