.

Of the brands you mention, only Giant hasn't released an updated Trinity. The others are all 3-5 years away from a new bike based on normal life cycle
Though the BMC Speedmachine has been launched but isn't really available yet
Expect life cycles to stretch as tri bikes get relegated further down the list for a lot of brands as we go through a global recession

Most brands haven't nailed normal extensions, rushing to do poorly executing arm fairings wouldn't be a great idea.

It's curious as to why. Maybe the pandemic slowed development or production start up but its interesting for a bike design that is 10 years old now (and hugely popular in the UK) has now allowed itself to be caught so far behind. Even if they rely on the Cadex arm to do the heavy lifting for them, they're still going to need a new TT bike for the worldtour pro's.

True, however I heard that Argon 18 will launch the next gen E119 in 2024. The Canyon Speedmax is dated back to 2021 with a small upgrade in 2022. Next year is feasible maybe :)

Some of the bigger brands might want to buy up 3rd party cockpit makers and integrate into their offering. That has been seen before.
Argon 18 is already working with and shipping the E119 with 51 Speedshop bars.

It would be nice to find any decent bike with a stack of 450mm (pad Y of less than 500) so smaller people can be fit properly.

I mean just raise the Bottom Bracket for fxck's sake.

They improved the 119 by 1 watt after 5 years (16-21)

I wonder what a new model will bring. I would be very surprised they do something in 2024, but hey who knows.

One thing I would like to see is manufacturers put some smarts into their bike, as Argon has envisioned back in 2016. Who knows, maybe that's what they will do.

Do you think spesh will come out with another attempt at a tri bike in the future ? Or just lean on its TT rig?

And I’m suprised we haven’t seen a trinity disc yet

Was it not a bit more than 1 watt ? They mention 10w here. Well, the base frame in the 2021 model is the same as the 2016 model (which I am still on), so not surprised.

Argon 18 has always (think E114 back in the day) been at the forefront of design innovation, but not much new has come to the table lately, not even their aero-roadbike SUM was really up-to-date with competition. I think they got burned hard by the whole Grand Tour team adventure maybe.

.002 in CDA (as per their whitepaper) , between the 2021 Rim and their latest and greatest disc version of the 119.

0.002 at say 40km/h is about 1.6watts.

At 36km/h, ie 5h IM bike split, it's down to 1.18watts

BTW, the founder left 2019ish, so I suspect they are a different company today. Different owner, different managers, different R&D.....

I have mixed feelings on the good and bad of the World Tour experience.



But back on topic, I wonder where tri bikes will go.

The market is not huge.
The big brands have to maintain UCI legal bikes for their WT teams.
A non UCI bike is not really faster or should i say a UCI legal bike can be made as fast.

At the end of the day,

if they put all their effort into optimizing UCI legal bikes,
instrumenting them to tune performance,
gave us innovative aero ways to deal with triathlon specifics,

We would be faster and by a lot

I'm not seeing much in the way of "all" effort, mostly incremental improvement. The last big wave of innovation seemed to be integrated, easily-adjustable mono-post style front end with forearm-cupping. But that wave is a few years old now.

The aero-stick wave that was imminent for a few years never really broke from a swell into a proper surfable wave. Still the domain of aerogeeks, mostly.

Specialized tried with the wide fork thing and big tub of liquid in the back, but that doesn't appear to have taken the world by storm.

I'm still confused by Cannondale. The EF pros have been riding something slick-but-not-earth-shattering for a few years, but I sure can't figure out how one can actually buy that frame.

Couldn't you mount a 2nd bottle between the arms to achieve a similar outcome?

Like this but higher and further back. You could even go wild and get one of those longer bottles that hold 1.5L

Just chug in a big fat milk gallon in there maybe? :)

I would like to see something where I put in the watts I would like to hold and the bike does the rest, kind of like ERG mode on the trainer. That might take some engineering, but that would be a game changer. Im sure its sci-fi for now, but maybe in the future? It would be some sort of different cassette technology and would be integrated to the power meter. Advantages would be huge. It would make the bike leg of longer races more efficient and be able to better predict perfect nutrition strategy and eliminate spikes which are less than ideal in long TT races. Of course at times you would want to turn it off or adjust it. Something maybe you could do with your bike computer. Just dreaming.

You're in luck, that's the current state of affairs!

I think you mean something more like automated shifting to keep you in your preferred sweet spot of force application/cadence regardless of wind, slope, etc?

exactly. it controls the gear shifting for you, and its more of a continuous shift sort of thing like a CVT on a UTV. tall order I know.

 
unless the course was pan flat with no wind that's a recipe for slow splits

OK, then a dual clutch linear gearbox on an F1 car. :)

Yes, I picked up on that. I was just referring to the stillborn aerostick revolution of the past. Fully agree there's room for other tech things.

I think an important area to look for improvement is wherever current builds are limited by materials. Carbon fiber has come a long way from the early days but is still improving (slowly).

A low hanging fruit is tube size, width specifically. With a strong enough material the head tube can be arbitrarily thin, likewise for all other tubes, specifically fork legs and seatstays.

I would expect disc brake covers to become a thing in the future as well. There's a consumer safety issue to overcome (they will overheat if dragged on long downhills), but it could be possible to use the hub/caliper/cover as a heat sink. Not to mention dragging you brakes in a TT is antithetical to TT-ing.

Not flashy, but I would expect to see more improvements (in terms of watts saved) in the wheel/tire area. Tubeless is a big improvement over tubular, latex is a big improvement over butyl, 25 is a big improvement over 19. It was only 15 yrs ago that everyone knew you run the skinniest tires at the highest pressure you can. IMO we've only scratched the surface on this front.

Unfortunately big swings on tri bikes are usually muted by the need to make a UCI-legal bike by any company with big money.

I wouldn't be surprised if manufacturers start dropping weight but not improving much else on the latest aero frames. What's old is new again.

---

My Strava | My Instagram | Summerville, SC | 35-39 AG | 4:41 (70.3), 10:05 (140.6) | 3x70.3, 1x140.6 | Cat 2 Cyclist

Canyon work on a six year life cycle, so you can figure out when the next generation will come....

Brands may work with one of the newer cockpit makers to develop next gen. But most of those 3rd party bars are designed as addons and are less suited as an original spec.

is it so far behind though? There are a few options with Giant
- they know their tri volumes as well as Trek and Scott, so don't see an ROI in redoing the TT version
- they haven't been able to design a faster bike so don't see the point in a new release
- pandemic put them under so much pressure they haven't had time for working on a niche product (I know the new Liv and the Cadex were well behind schedule)

Given the way they're retracting on so many fronts and what they've told sponsored athletes, I'd be surprised to see much from them.
I've found their approach odd though, went from the Shiv Tri being a full price spectrum bike, to the Shiv Tri Disc being weird and expensive
Part of the reason they don't see Tri paying off is because they made the development of the Shiv Tri Disc so expensive with proprietary parts.
If they did a nice frame and used available parts they could have a nice option for their stores and fanboys.

20k+ price tags are the most likely feature we will see. Other than that, I can't see much improvement over designs from 10 years ago.

Trek and canyon likely won't be putting anything out for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if Cannondale disappeared from tri. Giant just needs to get rid of that dumb cable sticking out of the front fork.

I really don't see a need for bikes to get much crazier in design. We need to put in some good ol training and actually be fast cause we worked hard. Honestly, the aero claims are getting silly too.

As has been discussed, the prices are just getting plain stupid. These companies need to drop the prices and make bikes regular ppl can afford with a 3-5 k tag, 5-7k tag and maybe a random dumb bike of 10k capped. I know that won't happen, and I know ppl are working hard on R&D, but selling bikes for 10k with hardly an improvement in overall performance and aero benefits isn't worth the money from consumers. Especially if they can simply change a helmet and trisuit and get double the performance benefits for $500, total.

That's why I just 'upgraded' from a 2012 P5 to a NOS 2013. It's still the fastest frame so with new generation bars it's a great bike for not much $$.

fastest bike Bro, Integrated proprietary parts and systems you cant't work on without an engineering degree and parts which can't be replaced to save 4 watts on a bike in a wind tunnel with no rider on it.

The way a significant percentage of bikes I see in the transition area are set up is antithetical to TTing (and usually by the types who drag their brakes…)

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

What is a NOS 2013?

New old stock 2013 P5
Main reason was a size change to be able to use my new bars

Ne thing for sure...given Giant's appalling attitude to customers and warranty, based on this experience discussed at length on the Singletrack forum (Singletrack is a long established UK based mountain bike magazine and its forum populated with very fair minded folks from experience) I'd not be touching a Giant with a barge pole, if (IF, not when) it comes out.

https://singletrackworld.com/...ipped-the-bike-down/

When they say you've got to use an approved dealer for every single change or repair, and the warranty is voided if the bike is raced or used to train for a race, then they can foook right orf about having any of my ££. FFS it's a bike designed, intended and marketed for racing !!
Good luck when you change your tyres or go to latex tubes folks, your bike warranty is void according to Giant t+c.

I wonder if some of the relaxed UCI rules are intended to allow manufacturers to have a single bike that works well for Tri and TT? This would mean that the UCI is actually trying to be helpful, which would be a first, but you never know.

Definitely not the intent. But at this point there isn't much reason to have a dedicated TT and Tri version. You can save a few watts with the super low chainstays, deep sections, and integration.

But:
1. The aero differences are tiny
2. You can see on something like the Speedmax CF, Aerium TT, new BMC, and even the Shiv that all the integration can be a removable add-on.
3. Nothing preventing you from modifying the TT cockpit to get into UCI illegal tri position.

I'd rather have the Shiv TT with a BB box and BTA bottles vs the integrated Shiv.

Kind of lame to say, but more is not allowed.
But this year a major bicycle brand will introduce a unique innovation in the field of aerodymics. And I don't mean a faster bike.

The Giant thing ?

Nope, It is not a novelty that has already been in the public eye. At least not in this form.

So, can you give more details. A bike brand will be designing something for...?
-cars?
-trucks?
-planes?

Just ignore it and wait. It's clickbait for attention. No point in saying "I know something but I can't share anything about it yet"

There's negligible and then there's optimal. If anything, TT and Tri bikes have now splintered away from each other over the last 5 years and if you try and accommodate the needs of both, you end up with some level of compromise. Typically in terms of geometry (you'll see pro'd are now getting what they want with TT bikes which isn't what you want for a tri bike). The Shiv TT isn't optimised for the kind of yaws or priorities tri requires but I wonder if we'd be having this conversation if the Shiv Tri's looks hadn't been quite so polarising.

Nope, no inside intel. Canyon just released their bike a year ago-maybe two? I expect they will hold on to that design for another 3 years or so. Just me though.

OK. So far, I've hat every Speedmax model since 2016 (3 Speedmaxes in total) All frames & the rest was completely different, each 2 years apart.

The latest model came out in 2020, I got mine in 2021, I think it's time for the new model.

---

Follow me on IG: @Commandersnake

Frame didn't change in that time. The last rim brake model was launched in 2015 for 2016 year, stayed the same until the disc model. The bars got a mid-life refresh.



No, that is not how Canyon work.

Canyon still can't make enough supply to meet a demand for speedmax, why would they need a new bike, unless it will cost $15,000. Thus, they can earn additional $3k profit. I know at least dozen people who got tired to see "out of stock" and went to another big brand.

I'm surprised we haven't seen fully textured frames for better aerodynamics. Like a dimpled bike frame for example. Or with Ganna's hour record-breaking bike they 3-D printed humpback whale inspired aerodynamic features onto the seat stay. I would guess bikes of the future will have aero textures, features and designs as part of the the production molds in the future.

Now that is cool. I had not seen or heard anything about that. I like the idea.

Why would you be surprised? The first time we saw it was very recent and no new bike has been launched since then. If a brand decided today to incorporate that, it wouldnt hit mass production for at least 2-3 yewrs. Are we even convinced it's faster yet? Zipp's texturing sure doesn't seem to help in the tunnel comparisons.

Hopefully they got something for budget boys like me

Honest question: What do you think is the major bottle neck in Canyons supply chain?

Maybe somebody actually KNOWS (then chip in), but I can imagine several scenarios:

1. Frame raw materials - not super likely. They have a very high markup on the frames and hence, can buy carbon at a high price (outcompeting other industries)

2. Frame (and other own sourced partns) manufacturing capacity - Could be machine capacity or mold capacity, not very likely FTE capacity. I know production capacity is in many cases (not necesarily Canyon) prioritized on bike categories with a higher turn-over and margin, example eMTB frames, where bike manufacturers are making MUCH more EBITDA, than on Triathlon bikes.

3. Third-party parts supply: Shimano & SRAM are examples of suppliers who has been hit hard during Covid19, but I guess they should be able to catch up faster. Very likely

4. Overall badly managed supply network - if you just miss ONE part in assembling the 100s of parts that makes a bike, you cannot deliver. Very likely

5. Artificial Scarcity, the same way as Sony has always held back over-supplying Playstations to meet the huge demand. This will bring up the demand and hence the price point. Certainly an option.

6. The overall GTM/supply model - that you can ONLY buy fixed/set configurations. This puts some constraints throughout the whole SC. This is a fact.

By all means Canyons owners must be bleedning in the unsustainable supply situation, losing sales and losing customers (forever?)

T

No one that actually knows is going to say much.
I did comment on some of what you mention earlier in the week https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...st=7896355#p7896355+

Point 4 extremely unlikely, given how thorough their PM team is.

I dont think its frames, here in Europe theres almost always stock on Sram ones. And given how even LBS's have issues getting Shimano parts id say Shimano is one them.

If I have to bet, is because they actually dont want to sell that many. Might sound silly and give the feeling that they are loosing money, but when they sell everything they've got no matter the price, they dont need more. If you have too much offer the demand will decrease and hence the product will be harder to sell. Im almost sure they have a business analysis behind on how much to produce for this sweetspot also considering other costs

At the same time, many LBS's here have entered this loop of not selling-can't sell because no sizes-not ordering because noone buys. Many shops cant afford having too much stock on their shelves that are not being sold after COVID, so they are not buying more, and as they are not buying more because they just have too many, they dont order because its not worth for the supplier, and then you find that people cant buy these bikes because there are no sizing for them. Im starting to see heavy discounts on top end bikes here ( like 30% less on a Tarmac SL7 ) and its not being sold, at all

I guess that at some point it will be more stable. But canyon as it stands right now, in terms of TT bikes are much much cheaper than any other brand for the same quality. You would easily have to pay 2k more for same package on other brands

Apologies if it has been discussed, but how does Canyon get away with a 2 year warranty on their bikes? $17K AUD for their top of the line CFR Speedmax, and Canyon's faith in their quality extends to a 2 year warranty? I am in the market for a new bike and I am wondering if there is any point in looking at a manufacturer that can't provide a lifetime warranty on their frames and forks, i.e. Trek, Cervelo

It's a two year warranty, but a six year "guarantee" on the frame. But neither cover the classic caveat of "wear and tear", which is always open to different interpretations. When the current batch of Speedmax came out the prices also jumped pretty substantially, and that with the poor warranty put me onto a Cervelo.

I’m still riding a 2011 Felt DA. I figure eventually that frame, bikes with no integration and rim brakes will be cool and considered aero again and I’ll have saved about $5000😉

I honestly think that bike would have been a world beater if they made it even remotely affordable. I think the cheapest trickle down version was still $9k, right?

When the Shiv tri came out and could be purchased for anywhere from $2500ish to $10k, you saw nothing BUT Shiv Tris at all your local races.

I think the next revolution in super bikes is making super bikes that people can adapt on a large scale.

---

___________________________________
MS: Exercise Science
Your speed matters a lot, sometimes you need to be very fast, where sometimes you need to breakdown your speed.

Agree.

I think when I got into Tri not long ago the Felt IA was new. Same concept you mention. Many different models with different group sets and carbon lay up. AND PRICES. But something for everyone. IA16 to FRD.

crazy to think what a new bike costs (yes, we can debate on whether anyone “needs” a new bike, but they all are $$$$)

IMHO we’ll see more of:
- monoblock cockpits (helping both comfort and chest-gap closing)
- integrated fueling systems
- classified rear hubs allowing to run monster 1x 58T or bigger

I'm not so sure.

- Monoblock cockpits or super extensions require a fair degree of adjustability built in (that many of the aftermarket ones don't allow once set up) so whilst possible, I suspect we're more likely to see more hybrid set ups.
- Integrated fueling systems already exist anyway for those that want them.
- Classified rear hubs are all hype and is mechanically more inefficient. It's pretty hard to improve on the traditional derailleur systems. Yes, it could be argued that the inefficiencies could be offset by drag savings but some of us are already running 1x systems anyway.

I was thinking about drivetrains and how there has to be a better way. The chain and sprocket has been used for over 100 years. It's ubiquity and optimization are two huge advantages, so anything to compete needs to come out of the box measurably faster.

Ceramicspeed had a neat idea for a shaft driven ( https://granfondo-cycling.com/...oad-bike-drivetrain/ ) but I don't trust their internally tested data. (It's shown in a pristine state, presumably their comparison to dura-ace was done with famously slow factory grease, their bearings all appear to be unsealed. Not to mention the wear on those ~12 roller bearings must be insane. Effectively 10x that on a regular ~120 link chain.

All of this to say it's a really neat idea, and there's definitely opportunity for something faster than the traditional chain/sprocket. Maybe something hydraulic if the losses can be limited, then the entire drivetrain can be internal.

It all comes down to consumer cost.

The tech is there to build whatever anyone wants - I mean they can self land rockets, cars can drive themselves, multiple space tech companies, all require tech + material science. The matter just comes down to cost for the consumer and durability.

I think the integration of graphene may be next for materials and tech will come into play (auto shifters, gimbals to keep the front wheel perfectly straight to alleviate used energy from the wind, etc) anything that helps the cyclist simply pedal and not think as much or use as much energy but not yet on the border of forward assistance.

So you don't think big brands (Spec., Trek, Giant, Canyon, Cannondale, BMC, Wilier, etc.) try to recoup R&D and production costs?

Do you think analysis and sales projections are done to get a model of bike sales volume needed to recoup the cost of a single frame mold in a single size?

To make the math easy, development of a mold for a single frame model with 4-5 frame sizes (XS, S, M, L, XL) costs ~$US100,000. This is exclusive of materials, parts/components, non-related R&D, employee payroll, and other operational costs of dev. and prod. even by established factories, etc.

Now, consider the observed trends in event participation and registration.
And now, consider where other trends are pointing (hint: gravel, ebikes).

So, are the costs consumer demand driven or manufacturer supply driven?

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

All I'd like to see for other ppl is a disk brake tririg omni. For the life of me I cannot understand why this isnt one of the more popular bikes, it is already coming with a good cockpit, is very aero adjustable and has all the after market storage etc already include. It is easily assembled and transported with one set of Allen keys set up for 1x out of the box highly position adjustable.

And it's relatively cheap.

For me I'm fine with rim brakes but if we are going disk across the industry it's hard to imagine many more changes can make a bike much more aero than this.

When US$5995 for just the frame is "relatively cheap"... this sport has issues.

 

https://tririg.com/...oducts/omni-ultimate

No, they won't, lol. But I'm guessing you heard that from a reliable friend or pro team mechanic.
Every time someone on this forum has 'inside' knowledge of something new, it either never happens, or happens 3 years later.

UCI had some rule changes 1/1/2023 so we were all waiting for that to be published. A typical product cycle is 2 years. All the data I've collected on 3:1 airfoils and learning from Felt, 3T, Specialized, etc has largely been outdated. We're not using 3:1 for UCI bikes anymore, fork blades are now over 8:1 in functional cross section. a 8:1 foil is about 600% more efficient than a 3:1 "airfoil". With 3:1 you basically reduced frontal area as much as the rules would allow (1cm minimum width for fork blades) and added depth where you needed more width for strength.

Hopefully we'll get the new bike raced at Worlds so it can be used at the Olympics. It's been mindblowing how much faster the new rules allow (UCI legal) bikes to be.

-SD

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

I want to finish up a project I'd conceived to maintain legal-but-in-the-draft space for riders. Think of the Gamin Varia tech but mounted on the front of your bike so you can ride up into the draft of the rider ahead of you and stay in the legal distance. Like a range-finder it can also be tweaked to determine closing speed, etc.

It could be mandated equipment as well so there would no longer need to be a judgement call for a penalty.

I gotta get that thing up on kickstarter.

-SD

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

that's how https://www.raceranger.com/ is getting used - Pros are finding it easier to legally draft

Wow, I'd missed that. I guess no good idea goes undeveloped.

-SD

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

That sounds like you're working too much and cruising ST too little

i just want to say i'm glad to see superdave here. you show up for a whiskey and a cigar every now and then, but not often enough. just in the last couple of days i've seen jens, chung and superdave. the forum's average IQ went up noticeably.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

https://www.cyclingnews.com/...e-romandie-prologue/

Is the BMC related to this ?

Race Ranger will be used at Ibiza in the WT Long Distance World Champs (Pros). Those racing that as opposed to the PTO race will benefit from that experience as RR starts being used in more races (pro). Likely the variation in standard will mean the display will 'light up' in the long MPRO train rather than in the WPRO penny packets.
https://www.ibizamultisport.org/...THLON_ENG_V10.04.pdf
(page 29 of 42) fair bit of climb and descent.
https://www.tri247.com/...za-2023-announcement

well that's... interesting. a data point.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Maybe some of the features from $10K bikes trickle to the $2000 range (does that range even exist other than on facebook marketplace ???). Not sure if the sport needs more expensive cuttting edge gear. That's just pricing the sport out of the range of 20 somethings who are our future life blood. It is pretty bad when 50-59 age groups combined are larger than 20-29

I feel like prices on entry level tri bikes is mostly staying the same or coming down slightly. Consider the 2016 Felt IA10 at 5000 compared to the 2023 QR X-PR at a "permasale" 4600. A better bike in every way and inflation adjusted A LOT cheaper. The QR PR4 disc is still available at 3k. Felt still makes an excellent B series usually available closer to 2500.

Very much appreciate you saying so Dan.

The balance of online interaction being a source of information vs. a source of frustration has limited my screentime the last few years. Some people simply have forgotten how to interact with other humans. Some good info here lately and I'm trying to get fully up to speed on the latest iron-distance equipment needs and expectations. I think there's a massive hole for a B16/P2/QR/Shiv Comp product that isn't serviced anymore. I suspect a <$2500 bike would do well in today's market and with the new UCI shape rules could be made to incorporate the few road/TT cyclists as well.

-SD

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

i was just talking about you to a friend the other day. I'm really thankful for how well you treated our little 3T/Panaracer gravel team years ago. I still love (and ride daily) that original exploro bike. It was fun to see how many people started racing it once our team was on it. It was a bike that essentially sold itself. It was so well designed...people just needed to see it in person. Thanks for putting your trust in us back then. I hope life has been treating you well since then.

Good to hear from you Rob. I was catching up with the Panaracer folks at Sea Otter and talking about your squad and how your approach of riding as a team was unique back in the early days of gravel. The Exploro was a fun project to be a part of. I've got another bike I'm getting ready to launch that will be another disruptive design; although intended for a different surface.

All the best,
SD

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

in my opinion, it isn't product we lack. the bike industry has forgotten america's biggest export to the world, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad: convenience. it has become inconvenient to get a bike that fits you and is ready to ride, the way you want it, in a timely fashion, at a fair price.

when i think of the bike transaction of the future, it's like this: you order a bike, it's sent to you built to fit coordinates that you provide the seller. you can change the stem and/or the handlebar without fuss. the bike is handed to you by a delivery driver. if you want to sell a bike, that delivery driver shows up and you hand it to him.

our industry has proven out what the entry level tri bike price is, and it's high because the base set of features and spec are high. so, the secondary market becomes critical. TPC has priced itself out of that market because you can't easily buy a $2,500 tri bike there. perhaps we invest in our classifieds forum and beef it up into that place where that transaction can take place.

my point is that there almost isn't a product i want that i can't buy these days. but i play hell trying to get it and if i do get it it's another headache trying to get it adjusted to my coordinates. the only product problem i have these days is the road/gravel saddle. today's saddles suck. otherwise, i have no beef with product; my beef is with process.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

hear hear - bring back the working man's tri bike! as a kid in the 90s i remember the crazy deals on built-up fujis and scotts. gimme a good frame with a 105 mix, and i'll take the aero penalty on slightly more pragmatic aerobars. box-section wheels and i'll upgrade later or ride my own aero wheels.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Just picking this up, as I just saw this "new" UCI legal TT bike from Canyon, that I haven´t seen before.

Hinting anything new on the Speedmax range from Canyon?

I sold my 2011 Felt B12 back in 2020 when prices were so high. With flo wheels (rear disc) and a perfect bike fit, I feel like that was one of the slipperiest bikes ever made. I was always top 10 in the bike segment

Now that I’ve returned to triathlons after a three break (I’ve only done one) I look at all these superbikes and they look so complex. Lol. Makes me miss my B12. Wish I still had it. I find myself searching for an older bike that I can just upgrade with better components.

I’m so out of touch with current bikes, It will be interesting to see what happens in the next year. The one tri I’ve done this year I took fourth overall on the bike using a Salsa Warbird gravel bike. Lol.

---

_________________________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

Most interesting in that new Canyon listing is the extensions! Those appear to be referred to as "New premium Zipp Vuka Shift extensions", and that's a major move towards modern style arm-conforming extensions. They look REALLY good here.

Huge price tags

Had a chat with my LBS today while handing in my rim break Shiv to get it ready for Lahti and they told me to expect the new BMC Speedmachine towards the end of August and that it will feature an internal hydration system. BMC already has a prototype video on their side and it looks like the bladder setup might be used to fill a bit of space on top of what Specialized would call the Fuelcell.

Probably makes a bit more sense than the shared bladder / tools compartment of the new Cube. Am I supposed to make a call between taking a spare tube and my hydration? I still like the latest Plasma best but there appears to be no frame left in my size (XL, 58) in all of Europe...

Here is one example of some of the newer stuff I think we can/will expect in next gen. from the bigger brands - just won a world championship :)
Notice that fork design - much like Blu´s Cadex dutch bike:

look at that fork, probably can fit fattyre

AG´er doing 1h58m in Lahti 70.3 WC on same bike ... hmmm

Can't tell if that number is 807 or 307, but either way, the names/times I see on the IM tracker for them are not of a person doing a sub-2 hour ride...

Wrong race.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

I think, it is him doing 70.3 in Elsinore with a bike split of 2:02.

---

Слава Україні 🇺🇦✊

Yes true - This is Lars in Helsingør, not in Lahti. However he did 1h58m in Lahti. Does that clarify ?

I wonder if this business model (Build-to-Order), design (aero and new concepts) as well as price point will inspire some of the bigger brands? (or maybe even put them a bit under pressure?)

I'm not sure Lars participated in Lahti. 1:58 split is from 70.3 Duisburg.

---

Слава Україні 🇺🇦✊

But it's another mega-bucks (twelve thousand Euros) bike.

Looks like the track bikes concept getting into the TT/Tri bikes...wider is better.

Interesting?

"In collaboration with VORN, BMC presents Aero Motion: an exceptional device enabling precise, real-time analyzes of a rider's aerodynamic position and efficiency outside the confines of a laboratory. Especially for Speedmachine 00 users, the aerodynamics have been adjusted for the real world."

Just picking this up, since it´s been more than a year now, and (from my POV) I haven´t seen any new super bike launches and have not even heard any relevant rumours on same - maybe except lot´s of people speculating in the new Canyon Speedmax to be launched in Kona in October.

Has anybody any relevant rumours or news they wanna share?

My 2016 Argon 18 E119 is falling apart soon, so any info would be greatly appreciated :)

Not heard the speculation re: top end Speedmax, but they have just added a new front end to the lower end models. WAY cleaner, with added hydration. Closes the gap to the top end frame, which is likely why the cheaper spec top end ones appear to have gone from the range.

I think the recent rule changes will spur on some changes. More bikes with a very high headtube/nutrition storage like the Ku in an attempt to fill the gap that could previosly be filled with jersey bottles. It's hard to do with a stock bike and stock parts though, so many variables in size and position

Good catch, I've only spotted it now.

My take is, being Canyon fanboy, that the 2nd tier (3rd, if you count CFR version) Canyon Speedmax is now at the level of some other brands' top triathlon bikes. The only downside I see now is, that you no longer would have an option to lower down the basebar. This was possible with the stem design (and the spacer under it), but won't be available anymore.

Yeah and still stuck with the Canyon fit aka. lack of reach. Although having looked at the geo charts I think the pad reach has increased a bit with this new front end. I can see this selling really well now (prices down a bit as well). My impression of the outgoing model was that it didn't do as well as expected compared to the rim brake predecessor which was everywhere.

You're talking about two different ways of handling airflow. I've done minimal testing with a Ku, about 5 tests on two athletes. For both, the raised bento increased drag minimally, around 1% - 1.5%. I think there's some potential there, but it would take a re-design.

People understandably, but mistakenly, assume the bottle down the kit re-directed airflow around the chest. It did not, at least not directly. What our testing showed, and what CFD modelling confirmed, was that, when coupled with the right kit (people forget it was very kit dependent), an appropriately sized bottle reduced air flow to the lower trunk, or pelvic region. A raised bottle would not have that effect as air would collapse behind it long before reaching the lower trunk.

We plan on conducting some extensive testing on this in the next month or so and then releasing a video of the findings on the Fast or Fiction channel. Different sized bottles, different heights, different fore/aft positions, etc.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Very interesting stuff. Would it make sense that a bottle placement further back would have a similar effect? Possibly so far back that it's mounted above the frame instead of above the handlebars. Or even two bottles mounted in tandem, on in a traditional BTA and another behind it.

I guess the more fundamental question is if the bottle size/shape itself provided a benefit, or if the real benefit comes from the jersey shape surrounding it.

The directing air around the pelvis makes a lot of sense, the body shape at the hips in a TT position is literally shaped like a parachute. Getting any flow directed around there seems like a route worth trying.

That's definitely what I'd like to find out. What sized bottles? How far back? All of it.

One of the things I found interesting about the Ku was that, for one athlete, it allowed her to actually rest on the bento and BTA. It's a slippery slope, I realize, but a properly shaped and sized storage device that partially supports the athlete's weight is very compelling.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

That would be incredible, especially for longer distances. It may be a bit tougher for males to lean their sternum onto a hard plastic bottle, but there's certainly a way.

It would certainly need to be large enough to spread out the weight and have the desired aero effect. Add a little padding and bob's your uncle. I'm not sure if that would run afoul of any rules though.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Some really interesting ideas, looking forward to your testing results.

It seems the inevitable outcome of the current rules is a (heavy quotes)"hydration system" that effectively fills most of the area from the back of the arms to the front of the hips.

Starts off with Skipper-esque bottles behind the upper arms. Add in another bottle or two in between. Eventually someone will just make a bespoke liquid carrier that's all one piece. Not very far off from a complete upper body cover.

Yeah, that's the slippery slope and, at some point, it gets banned.

Hopefully we'll have that testing done somewhat soon. We just finished the TT5 helmet testing, the Rudy Project and Giro are in line next, we have a 12m and 20m drafting video to produce, and then we'll get to the bottle stuff.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

For what it’s worth, I stumbled on to a similar concept as this 4 years ago when I designed a prosthetic limb for a track cyclist at the last Paralympic Games. When we got them in the tunnel the gain was massive (and this was only when I did this for one arm (as they were a single upper arm amputee). The UCI initially approved my design from the drawings but then banned me a fortnight out from the games when they saw the prototype in the flesh.

to clarify - the new ones, correct?

---

DFRU - Detta Family Racing Unit...the kids like it and we all get out and after it...gotta keep the fam involved!

I guess its starting already, at oceanside quite a few athletes have the BTA bottle very high and back

My wife has been asking for this for years. As soon as she heard what RAAM was in ~2020, it started coming up.

---

Dr. Alex Harrison | Founder & CEO | Sport Physiology & Performance PhD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📱 Check out our app → Saturday: Pro Fuel & Hydration, a performance nutrition coach in your pocket.
Join us on YouTube → Saturday Morning | Ride & Run Faster and our growing Saturday User Hub

No offence to anyone on this, but no no no no no.

1st, that's what tri-bars initially were there to do. Your body was supported by the fixed point of your saddle at one end and then the upper arms were the other end that was supported by the elbow at 90 degrees. That and a strong core to resist the rotational reaction to your thighs rotating meant you were able to sustain the position for the duration of the ride.

My take is that at present there is a balance between the non-restrictive positional rules of triathlon to get a comfortable position and one that is all out aero. Start adding in supports and we rapidly acclerate to a full prone 'missile' position where the only limit is the shape of your forehead/eye sockets for visibility.

(and this is the bit I don't want to be taken as an attack on any individual) As it stands, then if someone is feeling that they need upper body support in a position the solution isn't a structural add on to the bike, but either changing position to bring the elbows back or spending more time doing pilates/strength work.

For me what I think would be awesome but won't happen for the next gen superbikes (we saw it briefly in early current gen) was improved packability. Had a discussion yesterday AM and I mentioned flying with my old titanium frame in a soft case without a lot of worry. This against someone's SC that got smashed in a SCION case.

I worry that proprietary integration of 'garmin' data into displays in the bars/frame with powermeter/DI2/CDa to get away from external mounts. I also suspect we'll see more work on vibration damping/suspension. Got that with Trek and the IsoMount, but see that beign expanded. And of course the ability to run 60mm wide tyres on rimless wheels at 15psi ;-)

Maybe you missed the RAAM part? You know, the event where a lot of the riders wind up wearing homemade halo devices because they can't hold their head up any longer due to the fatigue of riding across the entire darn country?

---

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/

Ok, didn't miss the bit about RAAM, but didn't see that this was specific and limited to that. Even then I think it's not a great idea and indeed potentially dangerous. But I can't see too many bike manufacturers coming out with a TT style frame built around the needs of the 100 sales they'll get from RAAM riders.