[reply]Isn't "fit", or lack therof the problem with your Aegis?

Haven't you been fitted on a P3 or P3C by the Cervelo folks and you liked it?

Haven't you found a shop that will have one by mid November?

You're considering buying a bike "assuming it would fit"?

I don't get it... you've been at this so long it's already almost mid-November ;-)

And you don't "NEED a bike for thanksgiving week-end... (your) offical start date for training for IMAZ"... use whatever you have until your bike comes in. Lord... lots of pros use single-speeds, road bikes, mountain bikes and probably there's one out there who uses a unicycle during the winter... my point is, if you know it fits and that's why you're getting out of your new bike, wait for the P3C, otherwise you stand a chance to be in the same boat you are now with your Aegis...[/reply]

This is quite possibly your best post ever on this forum. Congrats on being "a contributor".

---

<If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough>
Get Fitter!
Proud member of the Smartasscrew, MONSTER CLUB
Get your FIX today?

This is quite possibly your best post ever on this forum. Congrats on being "a contributor".

==========================================

I just got to this thread and thought the exact same thing when I read that post.

---

"How bad can it be?" - SimpleS

"The strong point of the Cervelo is the seat tube part. But I'm not totally sure that having the seat-tube be "one" with the disc wheel is a strong point. The rotation of the disc and the shape of the seat-tube region make me think that flow is heavily stagnated in that region, and more than a traditional frame"

Holy Crap! Now you did it. The Cervelo Zombie Brigade will probably be ou picketing your house soon!

---

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

My "best post ever on this forum" is one where I point out how a chick is being a chick?! Give me a break...

well ok, I don't NEED a bike by thanksgiving but remember, I don't HAVE a bike right now. I am going to phoenix and would like to bring the bike there and leave it there. But if it doesn't happen, I will definitly manage. About the P3C, would it really come in mod november? that's another issue.

"My point was NOT that the Lucero is not an aero-bike. It very well may be, and I certainly have a lot of confidence that is much more aero than the Cannondale and other bikes of that ilk. It was more along the lines that there's nothing published. Of course, such "published" works are to be taken with a grain of salt. But I do like the idea of presenting such data to the consumer. I think it does force some level of accountability into the mix and prevents "aerodynamics" from becoming the next iteration of the "comfort-improving" carbon rear triangle."

Can I ask why you are so confident that it is "much more aero" than the Cannondale. Can you quantify that? We all have heard by now the list of what's important aerodynamically, and frame was last after position, wheels and helmet. So as the last thing what is "much more aerodynamic" mean. I bet it's a lot less than you think. It's funny how we are all aerodynamics experts after reading papers published by a bike company. Don't get me wrong, the guys at Cervelo are great and they do lots of work in the wind tunnel, but their "published papers" have also been a tremendous marketing strategy as now every MOPer in transition can talk about how well his bike did in the wind tunnel. There are other ways to build and design bike frames without going to the wind tunnel, and by the way I believe Cannondale was one of the first companies to hit the tunnel during their early work with SAECO.

This wasn't meant to be an attack on you, just a general rant.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

Yep, says something about the quality of your posts huh? :-p

And relax I'm just kidding.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

Marisol, I ride a Lucero and absolutely love it. From reading the posts I think you get the idea that for the extra money you get a full Dura Ace kit (cranks, deraillers, brakes...etc) the vision tech brake levers, fiziik tri saddle, and the real design carbon wheels. Very nice parts package and well worth the extra money. I wasn't too excited about the wheels at first either, but after riding them I have grown to love them. They are so light compared to other wheels. Plus now I have an extra set of carbon training wheels. They look pretty darn nice too. The thing that sets the Lucero apart for me is the tried and true Quintana Roo geometry. The bike fit me right out of the box, no joke. Quintana Roo makes triathlon bikes, and triathlon bikes only(well wetsuits too but oh well). As much as the P3C is marketed to triathletes, in the end it is a Time Trial bike at heart. You will never see a QR in the Tour de France, but you will see cervelo bikes. Remember, you have to reverse the seat clamp to get "triathlon geometry" on the P3C. The Lucero is a very light bike as well. I picked up a P3C at IMFL and it felt a little bit heavier to me. It was a 56c and my bike is a M (~55c). I cant speak for the actual weight value though. Just by what is feels like. In the end, it is your decision, and I wouldn't let these posts influence your decision too much. Go with whatever FITS you best. You will never go wrong with a bike that fits you and that you are happy with. Both companies put out great products and have fine customer support. I dont think you will be disappointed with either bike, providing it fits you properly. Good luck in your decision Marisol. Take care.

"Paulo is a PhD level aero-engineer (not sure if the final stamp has been put on his thesis yet)..."


That's why I asked the question. I am a PhD level aero-engineer (who does have the final stamp on my thesis as of Oct. 27th ;) ) and I was kind of busting his balls a little.

I agree with most of his statements, I was just curious how in depth he could go...sorry to hijack.

---

---------------------------------------------------------

"What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind and body can achieve; and those who stay will be champions."

Marisol

That's the thing - your research had shown that even if you ordered now - the chances of getting one anytime soon was remote to none.

You wanted it with 650 wheels also - correct?

You know who on this forum can offer you worthwhile advice and who cannot - you know who has valuable input and who is just throwing their .02 cents worth in for the sake of it.

With IMAZ not THAT far off - your desire to get the bike soon is completely valid - not just from a logistics perspective - but also for your emotional well-being - I don't know of many people that would be excited about an IM race looming - with no current bike and uncertainty on which bike they'll end up with and when.

It's not like you can simply walk into your local Bike shop and pull a bike off the rack - you have every reason to be raising the issue.

My suggestion would be to open a dialog with both Gerard and Herbert (independent of this forum) - to explore timing and if nothing else - a location where you can try the Lucero - and find out a better timing on the P3C in your size



Hope you're doing well - AJ

No worries... I'm pretty secure about the quality of my posts, doode ;-)

I thought you still had your Aegis... what happened to it? Regarding the P3C... didn't you post that a dealer would have one in mid-November and others in December? If not, contact Cervelo to find out which dealers were shipped the 48cm (?) P3C's and then start calling...

The aegis frame was cracked. I went for repair. And I am not planning on rebuilding the bike, 9t got new paint job on it.

Eheheheheheh... we were playing the same game :-D

And I guess congratulations are in order Doctor!

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

The leading edge and trailing edge of the cannondales tubes are round. Totally round. As in semi-circular, like so:

(]]]]]]]]]]]]]]])

There is no debating that the shape of their tubes is total garbage from an aerodynamic standpoint.

The Cannondale is probably no more aero than a totally round-tubed bike. So, to quantify it, just invert the numbers on Cervelo's website as a reasonable starting point. I'd say for an elite TT'er, the Cannondale is probably 30 seconds slower per 40K, position and otherwise being equal. I don't have windtunnel data showing that, but I think that is probably a reasonable estimate, or roughly 2 minutes over an IM course. Even if it was 15 or 10 seconds, when you consider that grand tour TT's are won and lost by that easily, it really seems like a bad decision on Cannondale's part when they have the resources to change that.

Cervelo's published work is of geared towards marketing. The "full" data should they choose to publish it would require a large and complex matrix showing reduction in CdA for different riding positions, with/without rider, and different wind-angles. They show a composite average. But regardless, you can look at the head-tube and downtube of the Cervelo and look at the head-tube and downtube of the Cannondale, and immeadiately recognize which one is going to have superior aerodynamics.

Something of note, Faris's avg. watts were notably higher than Sindballe's to go slightly slower (280 vs. 270). They both have very aero wheels, both have aero helmets, and both generally have a good position. And of course there is a margin of error for the SRM. While I am not saying 100% (or even the majority of those 10 extra watts) was a result of the frame, it is surprising that Faris, who is notably lightly than Tobjorn, still had higher watts and a slower split.

I totally agree with what you are saying that most of us buy into what we want to hear to prove that we have the fastest bike. But I think Cannondale is a bit egregious in their design since they do have the pro-teams to work with, they do have the budget for tunnel testing, and they do produce their own tubes. I would venture to guess that most of the work they did with Saeco was on positioning, not comparing the IM frames to a competitors. You really don't need to be any sort of expert to see that the Cannondale frames are inferior to the other aero bikes on the market. A round-leading edge and trailing-edge is just wrong.

Likewise, this is not an attack on you, more a rant. :)

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

"In 1996/97, Cannondale took a giant leap forward: They began providing bikes to a top European professional cycling team, Saeco/Cannondale. Cannondale was the first U.S. bike manufacturer to sponsor a European pro team. How has this benefited their triathlon bike program? The experience Cannondale gained in sponsorship with the Saeco Pro Team was applied to future bike designs, road and triathlon. The bikes became more comfortable, stronger, lighter and more aerodynamic. Frames and rider positions were tested in the Pininfarina wind tunnel in Turin, Italy. More importantly, they were tested in the real world. Races were won and lost, materials and designs were changed. Cannondale accomplished what would take most companies at least a decade to achieve (if they ever did) in three model years. In the same way Ferrari, Porsche and Honda develop their high-end road cars (on the Formula 1, LeMans and Indy Car circuits) Cannondale refined their triathlon and road bikes. The results are obvious. The only other U.S. manufacturers to do this have been Trek and ABG (Litespeed/ Quintana Roo). Of those two, only ABG (Litespeed/Quintana Roo) has demonstrated a commitment to triathlon bikes and truly benefited from their triathlon sponsorships with Litespeed and QR. Trek paid lip service to triathlon bikes for a couple seasons, but has since essentially dropped their triathlon efforts, this year offering a (distant) version of the time trial bike used by Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France. Compared to both these companies Cannondale's racing development program seems to have yielded superior results on the sales floor (and at the races) for consumers."

That comes from the Bikesport Michigan website. Tom D. seems to like the P3SL and the P3C very much, he just ordered a Cannondale IM1 though, I would like to get his input on this.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

"More aerodynamic." But not by much. This is one area where you need to ignore the marketing. Perhaps the bikes are marginally more aerodynamic than the traditional round tube bikes, but it's also possible the bikes became "more aerodynamic" as a result of a shortened head-tube or a different fork. This is one case where you need to ignore the marketing. Just look at the downtube. No amount of marketing can change the fact that a bluff body is the leading edge of the tubes, and that is just wrong.

Tom D is a nice and knowledgeable guy. But I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to take his word on the aerodynamics of a bike.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

To be honest, I have no idea. You might be right, you seem pretty sure that you are so I will trust you. But I am not going to agree or disagree with you, because honestly, I do not know. I would rather admit that and appear unkowledgeable then talk out of my ass and have someone call me on it. I am in no way saying that's what you are doing, but occasionally it happens around here ;-) What you say makes sense about the shape of the tubes, I also know that a lot of our "knowledge" about what is the fastest or most aero comes from bike companies.

I was only attracted to your post because you seem so blatantly anti-Cannondale and I thought it seemed baseless. If you are positive that their bikes are slow and catch too much wind, then I will defer to you. However, they are a pretty large company, have invested a lot of time and money into R & D and many of the fastest bike splits at Kona have come aboard Cannondales. I am not saying that is totally relevant, but it's at least as relevant as your comment about Faris' watts and his bike split, I think there are too many other factors at work there and the difference of 10 watts isn't significant enough. That just my opinion.

And by the way, I wasn't saying Tom was an aero-expert, just curious to get the opinion of someone has has both bikes, and who has access to just about any bike, why would he buy one that was so terribly un-aero?

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

The man quoted Tom D, how dare you respond?

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

Hey hey hey, Rappstar and I are having a very cordial debate here, that doesn't happen too often on ST. I wasn't saying Tom D. was some sort of messiah, just said that I wanted his input. Don't go stirring up trouble or this will turn into anothe flame-fest.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

LOL... it's a joke...



Bottom-line is that you can't trust a person that is in business, for as much un-biased as he/she sounds. Just take a look at a couple of other thread here and you'll see what I mean.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

There are lots of good intro books so that you can learn some of the aero stuff and make your own conclusions. Race Car Aerodynamics by Joseph Katz is an easy read, written for the layman, and is relatively cheap. It's a great book. If you want to really get into it, "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by Anderson was the reference book for most of my classes.

I am blatantly anti-Cannondale because I feel they know better and have the resources to do better. They have a lot of really good innovations (like their excellent Hollowgram crankset), so this seems like a sore thumb to me, and it is also so easy for them to fix.

As to why Tom would buy X bike or Y bike. First off, he is a salesman, so it is good for him to ride lots of bikes so his customers don't feel he is too biased. That is the cynical point of view. The non-cynical point of view is that Tom is a regular AG rider, who might like the stiffer feel of the Cannondale, or might really like the position he can get into on it (which counts for a lot more than frame aerodynamics in terms of overall aerodynamics), or might just like the paint job a whole lot. If Tom rides two minutes slower for an IM, it isn't going to make a lot of difference. If he were in the hunt for the top pro-placing at Lifetime Fitness, his bike selection might be something worth studying more.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I knew you were joking, I was too, things just seem testy around here lately don't they? Maybe people aren't training their stress away so they are taking it out on fellow ST'ers.

And I agree 100% about what you said about unbiases opinions.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

We can't trust you then, either, because you will clearly say "it's not about the bike... IT'S ABOUT THE COACH!" :P

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

...because athletes are made, not born :-D

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com