$2,4K?

No thank you,
but I am probably in the minority.

The first thing I saw was the cables and I thought... step forward?

But agree, it's a nice looking bike.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

I counter with

That's nice too!

---

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

I don't know where you got the $2,400 number from, but that would be an improbably cheap price for a high-end bike like this. Heck, the wheels alone cost more than that...

Those wheels are $3500, to be precise, per the link on Zipp's own site above. I would buy two of those bikes today at $2400, just for my own use. And I normally can't stand Specialized...

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

$2,4K is chump change for a bike like that, if you can find one at that price.

Does he mean $24,000? That bike is not $24,000

---

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

Saw a disc Venge in the flesh for the first time on Friday. Generally think that disc brakes don't look great on road bikes, but that bike is beautiful. Might have helped that it was filthy. I also nearly cried when I saw the Armadillo tires. If you can afford that bike, ride good rubber!!

Also the bike looks WAY better with the Power saddle.

Oh and what's the point of the wheel "upgrade"? Last I checked the Rovals were just as fast. Only advantage for Zipp is better braking with the fancy brake tracks. Oh wait.

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

It's a Zipp promotional article.

---

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

Rode behind someone on the BMC road bike with hydros- that bike was well designed and put together.

The huge brake levers with the fluid reservoirs and that bar and stem definitely ruin it for me. It is supposed to be an aerobike, correct?

I know SRAM owns Zipp, the the SRAM levers are an aero abomination compared to the Shimano levers.

And yet, by inference, it's not any faster than this:



Oh wait...I forgot, it's just about "looks", and not so much performance and "looks"...never mind

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Who cares if it's not faster by a lot. Bikes aren't getting any faster. You'll be just fine.

---

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

I forget, did you "reverse" the profile on the downtube?

You just didn't get that it was playing on the ironic motif of the bike in the first place ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

You're right...but that's more a function of the current vogue of "mis-optimization" than whether or not they could be faster...

edit: And, I should add, you're also right about "who cares" if all that matters to someone is "looks"...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I highly doubt rim brake bikes can get much faster.

---

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

Ultimately, or on average?

Besides, where's your confidence in the engineers being able to figure it out? You always seem to mention that otherwise :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

wow, please never post a picture of your bike in the small ring again.

embarrassing.

Wind tunnel studies, Kiley's study, etc. Even the P5-X was barely faster. The days of massive aero gains are over. The focus is now better braking. Pretty easy to see.

---

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

GreenPlease wrote:

I forget, did you "reverse" the profile on the downtube?

Yep...simplified downtube CFD (similar to what Trek did in the initial Speed Concept development) implied that narrow-edge-forward was faster, especially with a bottle behind it...and even more so with the Virtue bottle in place. That side makes for a nice, parabolic leading edge. The chart below represents an estimate of the total drag of the downtube, with and without bottles, with the tube placed "frontwards" and "backwards" (also compared to a round - "RND" - tube of the same size):



"The "front" and "back" nomenclature refer to running the Columbus tube with the wide end forward ("as designed") or with it backwards. There are some neat takeaways from that exercise...one of them being that the Columbus DT run "backwards" and WITH a bottle is faster than the equivalent round tube with no bottle at all...and another being that above 5 deg yaw, the same configuration ("backwards", w/bottle) is as fast or faster than the same tube configuration with no bottle. This was looking good!"

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/...ot-rod-american.html

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Can you point me to the aero test of a P5-X equivalent without the separate braking discs?

"Better" braking? Better than what? Braking on carbon fiber with poorly designed calipers?

Violet here wants to remind us all how horrible braking was allowed to get over the last 25 years that people would now think that adding a separate braking disc is "required" for excellent braking. Believe it or not (and I'm sure you won't), but that bike brakes BETTER than any road bike (rim OR disc) that I've ridden (power, modulation, lever feel, etc).

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Am I seeing a post-to-flat mount adapter on the fork, or am I crazy? If so, this isn't quite a model of what bikes should look like... spec it with a caliper native to the frame (or vice versa).