New. At least you know where it's been.

New lifetime warranty and not giving up much between the bikes.

What frame size? AS the bikes become larger the geometry diverges. The frame geometry of a 51cm P2C and a 51cm P3C are the same, but when you get up to a 58 cm the P2C has a 160 mm high head tube and the P3C only has a 145 mm head tube. Perhaps more importantly the 58cm has a reach of 44. 5 cm whereas the 58 cm P2C only has 44 cm.

Now, given, very small differences (only 5mm in reach actually) but it does beg the question: Do you sit low and steep enough to make use of the P3C if you are i the large frame sizes?

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I had to make the same decision two years ago between a used p3sl and a new p2sl. I opted for the p2sl and have been very happy with the decision, because even with the P2 i have to have some risers in order to be comfortable, with the p3 it would be even worse. Make sure your flexible enough to ride a p3..if your not then its no issue.

It would be a 51...

Oh. Well, I think it will boil down to whether you can trust the seller and the condition of the frame, the costs involved and- most importantly, which ne you really want.

There are some aerodynamic benefits to the P3C over the P2C, but they are relatively minor in the grandest scheme of things.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

a 0.5cm of reach is more significant than a 1.5cm of drop? come on.. i doubt many people would even know if i shortened/lengthened their stem by 0.5cm but you'd definitely know if your bars dropped by 1.5cm.

I've found that in the smallest 700c size, it's easier to get super steep on the P3 than a P2.

It's a result of 1cm of fore-aft adjustment of the saddle resulting in greater ST angle adjustment with a vertical seatpost versus a backward slanting seatpost. This was true of the aluminium cervelos but i'm not sure if it also applies to the carbon models.

new p2c.

Some people will likely disagree, but according to some reports I've read the P2C is so close in aerodynamics to the P3C and in fact might be better depending on rider and fit.

I agree with many others to go with new for warranty and you'll know the history.

It'll be a long time before I ever sell my P2C..even if a shiny P3C is available at a good price. The P2C might even be a better fit for you, that's something very important to consider first is the fit between the two bikes.

Either way you'll have a nice ride, just makes more sense to me to go with new.

Depends on which one fits you better. The P3 frame is definitely not for everyone.

If they are the same price- I would go for whichever one fit you best. If one is cheaper- go with the cheaper one- assuming you can fit yourself on it- in a equally aerodynamic position. As to aerodynamics- I saw this chart posted on another website... maybe it was posted somewhere on ST as well... but I didn't see it.

P3C = 690g of drag for a size 56 bike
Trek TTX = 690
P2C = 705g
Pinarelo = 705
Felt DA = 725
QR Lucero = 735
Kestrel Airfoil = 760
Kuota Kaliber = 780
Guru Crono = 790
Scott Plasma = 800
Orbea Oro = 810

I believe the above data was from the Cervelo brain bike meeting recently... maybe Gerard can chime in to confirm. Anyway- the difference in drag is in grams. 9 grams of drag = approximately 1 watt... so 15 grams of drag = 1.67 watts. If you are familiar with a powermeter, 1.67 watts is basically nothing in the terms of eventual time savings. Zipp says on their website that 1 watt = 2-3 seconds over a 40k course. So 1.7 watts = 4-5 seconds saved over a 40k course... that's THE difference b/t a P2C and P3C- assuming you can get in an equal aero position with both frames. I personally own a P3C- and love it- but if I knew the above data... BEFORE my purchase... there's no reason I would have dropped $1500 to save 4-5 seconds.

I could of used the $1500 savings for the following things that I personally bought/did in the last year!
1- $150- for an aero helmet
2- $450 front aero wheel- a Stinger is more aero than an 808 (according to Cervelo's independent data from the bike brain- as reported on insidetri.com)... and HED's website will tell you with their drag data that a JET is more aero than a Stinger, so a JET 90 is also more aero than an 808, and if you call up HED, HED recommends a HED3 for most condiitions- so a HED3 would be an optimal front wheel choice- and those are pretty easy to pick up used on ST or ebay (I bought an H3 here on ST)- and it's bomb proof, so far.
3- $60 CH Aero rear wheel cover to race with my PT
4- $690- 2 hours in the wind tunnel- to dial in my position.
5- $150 leftover for a nice meal with my significant other- b/c you just spent a boatload!

Here's me using all of the above... (except for #5 and #3)




I'm glad I got a Cervelo- b/c they obviously know how to design frames- really well. If the P4C- is 20% more aero than the P3C- per a comment by Cervelo- than that's an upgrade I would consider - as a 20% reduction in gram drag = 138 grams of drag or 15 watts- and that's equal to a savings in a 40k of 30-45 seconds... and that would probably cost similar to other Cervelo top frames 4.5k or so... but if it's just slightly better and slightly lighter- no reason to shell out new Benjamin Franklins for 4-5 seconds and a for a frame that's a few grams lighter. That being said... the P2C- is by *far* the best TT price to performance frameset. And if Chrissy Wellington had a P3C- maybe her bike split would have been... about 21 seconds faster for her 112 mile ride!

there is not fit differenre..... both bike are identical geometry.....

we are talking 51cm............

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

I don't mean to pick up a quarrel, but you seem really stretched out on the pic. Your front end is nice and low, but judging from your pretty shallow elbow angle I'd say you need a shorter stem and/or a shorter top tube -- for better support of your torso.

i was testing a bunch of different positions in the tunnel- that was #2 of 30+ tests. I'm very satisfied with the data- and I'm currently in a position- that's easy to maintain for a 4 or 5 hour ride- and very aero- not exactly like the pic- but similar flat back. that's the beauty of trying different stuff in the tunnel!

9 grams of drag = approximately 1 watt... so 15 grams of drag = 1.67 watts. If you are familiar with a powermeter, 1.67 watts is basically nothing in the terms of eventual time savings. Zipp says on their website that 1 watt = 2-3 seconds over a 40k course. So 1.7 watts = 4-5 seconds saved over a 40k course... that's THE difference b/t a P2C and P3C- assuming you can get in an equal aero position with both frames. I personally own a P3C- and love it- but if I knew the above data... BEFORE my purchase... there's no reason I would have dropped $1500 to save 4-5 seconds.

Using that information the difference between the best and worst is at most 24-39 seconds over 40K which is much less than some of these companies would probably wish you to believe. I'm pretty sure my old aluminum frame is much narrower in tube profile than the Scott or the Kaliber and would not be surprised if it fell somewhere in 750 range, which means maybe 12-18 seconds advantage to a P3 and less to a P2C. That is not info that would inspire me to put down nearly two grand for a frame and fork.

Which makes me say again, "It is not about the bike." :)

Chad

I've not seen those stats before. Thanks for sharing them. I don't feel quiet so bad now about the unaeroness of my Crono anymore.