subtract another 3.5% for Mexico in Superman position.

Hi PT,

Well said. As a career (lowly) Cat 3, it seemed every season there was one of those guys. He'd just started riding, but was winning every Cat 3 race for a few weeks, then gone. Upgraded to the next level. No doubt winning there as well.

Some riders are just naturals.

I remember experiencing this very clearly several years ago. I showed up at a local crit and saw an unfamiliar rider in the parking lot, wearing our club jersey. Must be a new member. I like to think I'm a friendly guy, so I introduced myself and asked what strategy he was thinking of.

He answered: We'll attack from the gun, and keep counter attacking until we establish a break. Then we'll attack the break until one of us gets away for the win. The other will keep attacking the break for second.

To me, a veteran Cat 3, this was a shockingly bold plan but I thought the new guy could learn a humbling lesson, so I said, "Okay, I'm in."

Little did I know, he was a natural. He did exactly what he said he would: repeatedly attacked, made the break, attacked the break and soloed to victory.

After two or three more races he'd upgraded. Within a few more, he'd been poached by a "real" (local) team, and wan't in our club any more. Amazingly talented guy.

There's always a natural.

Cheers,

---

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

Sooooo, did you get second? :)

No, I'm not that good. :-(

I "blocked" as best I could while the Natural and his buddy (almost a Natural) executed the plan up front. In the end, the Natural got first, his buddy got worked over by the two teammates in the break and he ended up in fourth.

---

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

See if you can rent one (or both). I rented the "old" R3 (from 2012 or 2011) and rode it for three days ~200 miles while on vacation. Loved it. When I heard about the 2014 R3 with the trickle-down technology, I bought it and have been very pleased (sold my 10-year old bike and built up the R3 frame).

The S3 looks great too and with the narrow seat stays looks similarly comfortable. It is maybe a few seconds faster -- and those are a few seconds I will never care about. I love the comfort of the R3.

For me: I am likely to do lots of long rides where comfort matters. I am not likely (ie: I will never) race it and wonder what could have happened if I were a few seconds faster. So the R3 is great for me.

Indeed...it's the rider not the bike.

That said there are a few ideas floating around in this thread that I would like to comment on.

#1. The aero benefits to a road bike are far overstated in this thread in my opinion. Unless you ride like Jensie, you are riding in a pack for most of your race. The nominal benefits of an aero bike are really not a factor in this environment...only a supercomputer could detect the difference...for those of you who will say...aero is still more aero...well.....

#2. I think the MOST important information is the very information bike manufactures seem reluctant to publish...stiffness. Yes yes, 20% stiffer than last year's frame etc etc....how about uniform data across the industry. I realize different test measure different things....well...come up with a host of tests and protocols...I want to know how many newton meters of torque a BB can withstand before bending....then I can make informed choices about what is REALLY going to make a tangible difference when I ride...stiffness. Numbers please cycling industry....I'm tired of the paint schemes, kamm tails, etc etc... WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? Ahhhh...informed consumers who are not as easily manipulated by marketers!

Agree with point one. How many times do you see a superbike at a race, sculpted and honed by CFD and wind tunnel hours, only to have gels and foam canisters electrical-taped all over it.

Point 2 is more difficult as stiffness isn't always the determining metric. It is bit one facet of overall ride quality and an arms race to produce the stiffest bike purely to pump up a published number, whether industry standardised or not, wouldn't benefit the consumer.

Journalists play a huge part here as most of us don't ride such a wide variety of bikes, especially back to back, to be adept at appreciating the nuances in a frames characteristics. Plus often the overall package dominates a bikes character. I like Marcel Wurst's tests for Procycling. My 2c.

Ha, point number two is just some really well planned trolling, right?

No, I'm not trolling.

I know a guy here in Taiwan who designs bikes. If you ask him what makes bikes great...stiffness....everything else is window dressing in comparison aside from aero....and on that...he has data that shows most aero bikes aren't very aero...with the exception of Cervelo, which he says are truly aero. But as I pointed out in #1, that is largely a moot point for the kind of racing the OP is interested in.

I have seen lots of stiffness data on frames(nm/mm at headtube, bottom bracket and such) but never any which quantifies actual time gains from stiffness. I wonder why?

Runless. I'm not here to debate you. If you think stiffness does not affect performance and efficiency of power transfer as well as handling, you don't know very much about mechanical objects. The nice thing about living here in Taiwan is the number of people I know who build design and manufacture bikes as opposed to simoky marketing them. Comparing what they say and know against what the marketing types say has been a real eye opener.

But you do know as stiffness is so often vaguely represented in marketing terms. Eg. 10% stiffer than old frame etc. The limited comparative data that's out there is from tour magazine. If you have the data for the new s5 vs r5 I would love to have it since for me that would be a huge part of the equation I would evaluate to determine which bike I would want.

All the best.

Some reading for you:


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...atest_reply;#3194547

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...g=stiffness;#4273942

http://forums.cervelo.com/...383.aspx?PageIndex=1

The best argument though is that plenty of models bicycling and can accurately predict the performance of a rider on a certain course (see bestbikesplits.com for example). Notice that none of those models have any input for frame stiffness. How could they accurately predict the performance if stiffness is important?

Be careful with that tour test though. The test rig they were using did not apply constraints similar to what would happen to a bike on the road, that means that a frame that did well on the test or designed for that test, would be stiffer than another frame that was designed for real loads.

http://www.cervelo.com/...standards-part2.html

I cannnot offer a comparison as I haven't ridden the R bikes.
I have first generation S2 and love it. Have had it for a year. Previous 6 years had been spent on P2 and an alloy/carbon Scott speedster.
This year I have been focussing on road biking and road racing.
Things I like about the S2: very aero; comfortable, handles like its on rails downhill, gives nothing away on the climbing; pretty light (whole set up with training wheels, powertap and pedals is 7.5kg).
Oh and did I mention AERO. This thing leaves other road bikes for dust on downhills and on high speeds on the flats and rollers.
If I do lose 30metres or so on a climb to a really good climber I'm always confident I'll get them on the downhill. When you crank it up on the flat to ~40kmh the aero watts you save are going to come at high cost to someone on a less aero frame who's near their threshold.

I ride in hill areas with chip seal roads most of the time and this is the most comfortable bike I've ridden. I do bunch riding with guys who podium at regional races so have to work hard on most rides with them, but this bike gives me ample opportunity to get my own back especially on downhills.

Basically, this is one of my favorite toys ever.

I said nothing about handling. I think stiffness can have an effect on ride quality, but overall speed?

I wasn't necessarily trying to debate you, I was inviting you to insert some objective measure into the stiffness debate. I've never seen data suggesting stiffness is actually faster. Until I do, I remain skeptical that the decision between two frames that are 100 grams different in drag at 30mph should be decided by mm of stiffness differences.