That would be too funny if they announced info today...I just got an email that my S5 frameset is here :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

oh no, "easier geometry"

guess no p5 in my future...

WTF is an easier geometry? More stack?

Lame.

What are the other options? Shiv and Speed Concept are tall too. Used P4????

p4 is pretty much the only super bike that will fit me.

At least my gf and dad will be happy that I won't be trying to figure out how to sell half my apartment to get the new one haha.

If the P5 is tall enough it will save me some money... when I buy a used P4.

P3 ... with custom bars and brakes ... especially if your race at 10-20 degree yaw.

I use a custom bar set up, so options are P3 or P4 ...

or maybe ... http://lavamagazine.com/...-info/#axzz1gGrJgr1X

the p3 would do pretty well with the p4 fork and a behind the stem cable port.

just speculation so far:

"But the inkling is that Cervelo may be making two iterations of the bike: A time trial version (perhaps with slacker seat angle geometry, perhaps with UCI-limiters with regard to tubeset shapes and depths) and an �unlimited� triathlon version Ths one, absent the UCI�s 3:1 tubeset ratio and seat position limitations, may have a steeper seat angle and could be unencumbered by UCI rules in terms of tubeset location, shape and depth."

Considering they already jack up the stack with that huge spacer instead of the shorter one I could see them raising it more.

The 2012 P3 has a FK25 fork (similar to P4 FK26) and with Di2 and a small hole at the top tube, the cables can run internal and the battery can be hidden as well

Also with an eeBrake rear and Tektro centerpull front, you can build a set up a reliable stopper, can carry a usable bottle if required, and rivals the P4 at race condition higher yaw angles

The P4 is a good enough bike as well, I have owned two of them, lets see how adjustable the P5 is

at what point will a bike company say "we can't make the bike faster, but you can if you train harder".

any guesses on cost?

As long as they keep selling

http://www.bikeradar.com/...ats-the-point-32350/

Looks like they are following the Shiv model with a UCI legal version as well http://www.trimes.org/...iciel-le-18-janvier/

They said "two models". I assumed that meant two different models of the same frameset, not two different framsets. Like the S5 has the S5, S5 Team, and S5 VWD. I guess it could be two different tri and TT models, but that's just not how I read it over. We'll find out soon enough I guess.

the latest round of superbikes is quite a bit faster than the p3/transition era bikes.

I don't think we will ever see that much of a jump again.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I don't speak le french, but it appears to be saying an official announcement about the P5 will happen Jan 18th:

Translated text:

Does the French mess up your months too :)

Wonder if there are any actual race results that can substantiate that "fact."

Doh!

It was a Freudian slip-confusing the announcement of the P5 with Christmas ;^)

I'm not sure how a race result could even speak to that. I mean you could claim craig's kona record suggests it is true.

except the orbea wasn't as fast as a p3

I mean do you do you not believe wind exists in real races? =)

and of course by "a lot" I mean "40 seconds per 40k" which is only a lot to time trialists really...though I have had multisport events come down to less time than that!

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Damn it! This was going to be my next bike. Easier geometry = turn off

---

---

http://www.frostyjunction.com/
https://twitter.com/FrostyJunction

We don't even know what easier geometry means.

Why? Given the stack height of the new "super bikes" sounds like they are just following suit. Specialized, Trek, Scott, all have taller stacks than the P4.

Where is the wind tunnel data that says you guys have to have your faces closer to the front wheel?

The all new Cervelo P5. Geometry so aggressive, you can lick the front tire!

This is not a bad question. It seems like having your head down and out of the wind would be faster... but is there any data out there? Has anyone measured their drag at various levels of drop?

Lots of people lots of times. In a nutshell having your head not sticking up is good, as long as it doesn't effect power much. Its possible to go too low but thats much less common.

---

Styrrell

This is not a bad question. It seems like having your head down and out of the wind would be faster... but is there any data out there? Has anyone measured their drag at various levels of drop?[/quote]
Yes, at LSWT

Easier geometry means opening the geom. up to as many buyers as possible either by nailing a better average fit or buy making the fit more flexible and adjustable . I believe the 'easy' can be apportioned to it being easier on their bottom line.

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

Maybe not with the P5, but I think we will see that kind of jump again. Just give it some time.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Agree. My fear is they are taking the same route Specialized did with the new shiv. Lot's of stack. Hoping I am wrong as I have been waiting for this bike for a long time.

---

---

http://www.frostyjunction.com/
https://twitter.com/FrostyJunction

Sounds like increased stack http://triathlon.competitor.com/...oon-cervelo-p5_44617

any idea of the consequences associated with having your bars at like the middle of the head tube? I have a -30 deg stem on my p3 already !

I somehow remember someone (i think jens) saying that he found that spacers didn't significantly affect drag, only able to tell the difference when modifying the torso's angle of attack wrt the wind.

the reason I think not is there isn't much difference between a p4 with disc rear firecrest front, aero front brake, and no bike at all =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

perhaps there will be a low stack and high stack model. like the p3/p2 are (in some sizes)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I agree, but my guess is it'll have to be some wild beam style bike a-la the ZIPP or softride frames. I'm guessing they're maxing out the double diamond frame given the rules they currently operate with.

---

-------------------------------
Ignorance is bliss until they take your bliss away.

I'm not certain the softride design tested faster than a P3

Yes, I've established from field testing on several different occasions that there is an optimal level of drop for me, and going lower increases my drag. It's quite easy to see why in a picture from the side, because my upper back just ends up facing the wind when I take my shoulders down too low. Once your shoulders are lower than your hips, you're in danger of being too low, IMO. I'd need something like 8cm of spacers on a P4 to achieve my optimal position, so more stack might finally give me a chance of being able to make a Cervelo fit me. I'm currently on an SC and the full stack of aero spacers between base bar and pads is just enough to get me to my most aero position.

heres some perspective
a p3 with old zipp 808s on it is about 5 minutes of drag per 40k

a p4 with new 808s drops that by like 20%, so 4 minutes of drag per 40k

if the frame and wheels and components all were 0 drag you would only save 4 minutes per 40k

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

What a bunch of crap spewing that is. The P2 isn't that much less aggressive than a P4. The P2 is more aggressive than the Trek Speed Concept and way more than the Shiv.

right on the excel document sitting on my computer. i suspect others have it through golden cheetahs aerolab.

That is quite low. I don't even think Bjorn on his P3 and a negative stem ever got that low. Do you have a pic of yourself on the bike with that much drop? Would be fun to see as that is a crazy amount of drop. Also curious how you determined that you current position is optimal. 8 spacers is a lot of spacers.

Btw, I am not asking because I am looking to argue. I am simply just curious.

---

---

http://www.frostyjunction.com/
https://twitter.com/FrostyJunction

Per STJay,

@ bikerumor.com

http://www.bikerumor.com/...p;utm_medium=twitter

Note that I didn't say my shoulders are as low as my hips, just that in general I find it hard to see how it's more aero once you get that low, even with a flat back. My back tends to curve quite a bit, so I have my upper back facing the wind before I get that low. This picture doesn't show it all that clearly, I'd have to do a lot of searching to find one from side on, but basically, my optimum position has the horizontal line bisecting the angles of the front and back of my torso. If I go up, the front generates more drag, and if I go down, the back generates more drag. I've found this to be my optimal position by doing field tests on several different occasions with the same result every time, nailed down to 1cm up or down being less aero:
http://www.onlinepictureproof.com/...264/?w=625&h=525

how's the fit with that smart skinsuit? nice set up

I'll bet you're REALLY tall and/or have long legs relative to your torso, huh?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I've sold that suit now, I was never happy with the fit around the neck, you can see gaps in that photo. I never formally field tested it back to back against my PBK suit, but I had plenty of TT comparisons on the same course where the PBK gave me a lower aerolabbed CdA, and none where it ever worked out the other way round.


Yes, long legs short torso. So I'd need a small size Cervelo to get a short enough reach, but then the stack is crazy low for me.

Yes, at LSWT[/quote]
I did a WT session. We found that at a certain point there wasn't anything, other than discomfort, to be gained from going lower.

The funny thing is that looking at the pictures (front view) from the wind tunnel demonstrates that reducing frontal area was the best predictor of drag (i.e., less A = less drag). Other than raising the bar angle slightly, there weren't any changes that made me faster that you couldn't figure sitting in front of a mirror on your trainer (i.e, not much I could do to change the Cd of CdA).

Looking at the picture on this ad, it appears to be a seat tube/snippet of top tube/seat stay. If the picture is accurate, it looks like the S5. The surprise would be more in the front end of the bike/steering as a guess. Possibly a sloping top tube like the S5 as well. Gerard must be getting a kick out of the guesswork on what it will look like in this forum...any other guesses?

My guess is a S5 rear with horizontal DO and BB brakes. Front similar to S5 in stack and design but the fork has a dedicated brake. I expect a dedicated aerobar assembly. No nosecone, no inframe hydration but a widened downtube to fair a waterbottle. Tradional forward geometry, UCI compliant, tradional steering no hinge, no hydraulics .

---

Styrrell

My guess is a brake like the Tektro Aero V-brakes that have been popping up lately and that have been integrated into a few new frames. Designed into the chainstays and not sure about the front brake. I can see it designed into the fork but I am not sure if it is the front or back.

Whatever they do, it will be interesting.

I had a similar experience at the UWAL tunnel with regard to head height. Pushing my head down as low as physically possible compared to where I would comfortably ride added 17 grams of drag to baseline @28 mph and 29 grams at 30mph. My repeat runs were within 4 grams of each other as far as statistical significance. I would disagree slightly with the mirror and Area principle. I found significant interactions between my arm, elbow, thigh, and hand positions that would not change frontal area overall. Also found significant differences in helmets and skinsuits (that all fit well). What looked fast wasn't always so. All total I was able to reduce my tunnel drag by 7.5% at 30mph, 0 yaw, through minor position tweaks and equipment choices. Overall fantastic experience. Yet to see if it will translate to the road as this was at the end of this season.

Better not be too much stack over a 51cm P3. Anymore than 10 or 15mm would rule it our for me.

What bars are you using? Part of the reason for my figure of 8cm was comparing against my Transition where I used USE Tula bars. Compared to many bars, they put the pads several cm lower.

Vision alloy's, not sure what size spacers but the pads touch the bar.
Currently running a -6 stem with 1, 5mm spacer, so I could get a lower profile top cap , drop the spacer and get a -17 stem if I needed to, except that Im still thinking about dropping a bit lower as I havent found my point fo diminishing returns yet, so if the P5 has a whole lot more stack I could be in trouble...

That's exactly my point. The SC and Shiv are less aggressive yet they are faster. So why do we have to have such aggressive positions?

Frames shape affect cyclist's drag so there is more to do than "simply" building 0 drag bikes, the Litespeed Illicito is a good example

---

http://cds-0.blogspot.com

I think we can certainly count on a faired water bottle, and an asymmetric bottom bracket.

Personally, I think the issue with geometry isn't necessarily abut aggressive position. True, you can get a more "aggressive" fit with a P4 than a SC, etc, but some of us just don't fit on the new super bikes. I'm an outlier (?sp) on the fit scale, with short legs and very long torso. To get anywhere near horizontal (notice I said near, not to), I'd have to run a ridiculously long stem on all the super bikes. With the integrated front end that companies are going to, that makes impossible to replicate my P3 fit on most new models. I was hoping the P5 would stay in the same geometric range. For people like me, it's necessary. For everyone else, you can add spacers if you need a higher stack, or just get a different bike.

What can I say, I'm a selfish asshole. But I'm happy with my current ride and can always find a P4 on the cheap, or move to a felt or Shiv TT. This move would mean Cervelo is out for me, but I'd be surprised if, at the end of the day, there is a significant amount of added stack to the P5 vice P3/4.

not that much under even triathlon rules, and Litespeed didn't make the Illicito, and the Illicito doesn't have any astounding rider interaction that we know of anyway.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

My mistake, Quintana Roo Illicito. Jackmott, you shouldn't be so categorical, there are many design choices yet to be improved/discovered

---

http://cds-0.blogspot.com

Aren't QR and Litespeed under that same umbrella?

---

Styrrell

So that means to update to a P4 with new wheels from my P3, assuming a cost of about $10,000, I would be spending $167 per second? I would expect any reasonable performance number by the P5 would still work out to be over $100 per second saved. Not the best bang for the buck.

That would be very tough to get past the wife! :(

given usat and uci rules, and modern fluid dynamics software tools, I'm not sure that is really true =)

I'm sure bikes will get faster, but the p5 isn't going to drop ~40 seconds off the p4 like the p4 did to the p3, etc.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

But it might if it has a downtube that shields a standard water bottle, and you compare a P5 with water bottle to a P4 with water bottle like what CA used at the 70.3 worlds. This would actually be an important consideration to me because I like to have a frame mounted water bottle even if it is not Slowtwitch approved. Don't even get me started on Total Immersion, Powercranks, or functional strength training :-)

No bike will get down to zero drag, so that is a hard limit that can only be approached but not exceeded. Of course, it will require increasing levels of engineering effort to do so.

Expecting a lot of improvement from bike/rider interaction is unrealistic unless we start allowing fairings as part of the bike.

Why would we compare bikes as they are actually ridden vs bare? Performance in a race isn't nearly as important as who wins the WT testing;-)

Seriously though, as more and more testing becomes available it seems to open up more questions. Specialized has said that repeatability in a one tunnel in the same day is very difficult, let alone comparing different tunnels with different testing protocals on different days. I don't know that we will see a big jump in just frame drag, but frame / body / wheel / accesories in total, in real world situations are just starting to be explored.

Look at the speeds that HPVs attain. Obviously fully faired bikes wont be allowed in tri, but things like the down tube shifted over to sheild the drivetrain, fork legs designed to move the air around your legs, gearbox transmission hidden in the frame, etc have all been barely examined.

The other issue is yaw angle. Right now makers are looking for bikes that perfrom well at all reasonable yaws and some of the best bikes do better a low and worse at high. What happens when a company says to hell with it, we are coming out with a high yaw bike and a low yaw bike along with a simple wind guage and guidlines as to what to ride in various conditions.

I wouldn't be surpised at all if its possible to come up with a bike 40s faster than the P4 under certain conditions, heck the SC is pretty close at high yaw.

---

Styrrell

http://twitter.com/tomfowler2
All I can say is, it better damn impress me with all the hype

Trouble is I don't think anything will impress most peple these days if its a UCI legal design. I'm assuming its UCI legal and I'd be surpised if it has any design feature that makes anyone go Wow. That not a criticism, just the realities of building anything to a narrow set of specs.

I would like to see an all out non UCI TT bike, but i don't think thats the P5s goal.

---

Styrrell

Yeah I agree. Pretty much every UCI-legal superbike looks almost the same besides a couple different lines and curves here and there.

It depends on what you mean by "impressed". I was impressed by how bad the Argon E118 is, for example.

even round water bottles on non shrouded frames aren't 40 sec per 40k =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I have seen varying estimates of the drag for round bottles. But, I agree that a round bottle on the downtube of a P4 would not cost 40s/40 km. That's not what I was suggesting though. I was suggesting that the drag savings for the P5 vs P4 both with a round bottle on the downtube could be 40s/40 km - some of the time savings coming from shielding the round bottle on the P5 and the rest of the time savings coming from other improvements on the P5. If the P4 is ~ 40s/40 km faster than the P3, and the P5 with a round water bottle on the downtube is another ~40s/40 km faster than a P4 with a round water bottle on the downtube (the configuration I would use), then going from a P3 or P2 to a P5 could be pretty darn significant.

it wont be that much, the p4 shields round bottles really well already.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

More insight here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/...january-debut--32698


.

That was kinda fluffy. I really doubt the P5 wont be UCI compliant at least in some form. I also wonder how far various triathlon federations will allow bolt on fairings. Hopefully no one pushes thing so far in that respect that UCI type frame specs are issued.

My guess is the front fairing, if its real, will be a very integrated water bottle.

---

Styrrell

Booo! 2.5cm more stack, 8mm less reach vs the p4

I ride a 54 cm P2 with about 2 cm of spacers and a 100 mm stem. I could actually use a touch more reach. A 56 cm P5 might be just about right with a 90-100 mm stem and no spacers.

They can not build a bike that will suit every single rider. So with that being said, those who do not think the P5 will fit them keep riding your P4/P3. For those that can ride the new P5, please let me know when you are selling your P2 in a 54cm size and I can maybe help you out with funding your new purchase.

that depends Jack, my data showed an arundel on my old frame was 59g at 10deg.

or 24sec for an "aero" bottle onteh seattube

Isn't that effectively the same as riding a at P3/4 with a conical top cap at 1cm and 1.5 cm of spacers with a 72 degree head tube angle if you have a flat top cap on the P5? I have not done the trig, but it seems close.

---

Suffer Well.

wait . . . 'easier geometry' AND 'revised' brakes?!?!

christmas is comin' early this year! go ahead and bill me $15 000 for the frameset; i'll pre-pay.

-mike

---

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

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

well 24 < 40
=)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

not round, which might ne worse?? ;)

edit:nevermind 8 MILLImeters less reach.

i could still ride that, just need a slight downangled stem.

almost everyone can still ride it in the good ole p3 position

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I don't think seasonschange rides with either of those.

That would def put me out of business for one. I'd have to move up to a 56 to deal with the reach and that'd add even more that the 2.5cm stack.

or just get a really long stem.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Ventus :)

It was more of a generic question rather than directed towards seasonschange.

---

Suffer Well.

yeah good point, i wonder if the p5 + vision > p4 + ventus?

although I really am curious if the ventus is that vastly different with rider and torpedo mount bottle on the bike.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

use tula with custom steel pipe extensions if you need the mantis/semi mantis (i do) seems like the best option.

i found the lowest headset cap that i could get my hands on AND i have to use a -35degree stem and a relatively low stack bar, vision with hed clip lites.

i guess ill have to stick with my p3sl alum for a bit longer.

I should say I'm sure I could get on one and get probably within the margin of error with something like vision or zipp. But i surely would have to test the sizing out first where now its pretty much 54 and i'm good with whatever I do on the front end. But really ventus >>> than the others in cool look faster so that totally over rides everything anyways ;)

Is there a nice summary somewhere of the stack / reach / aero tradeoffs of the various bars? Is the vision the lowest?

My current position on my P2 + vision has the stem going slightly downward. I guess this is not a big deal particularly if there's a horozontal water bottle in there, which would be blocking the whole stem area anyway.

At some point this changes handling though as your body weight shifts forward. My nose is already well forward of my front wheel hub even with a 105 stem. I assume a stem < 120 and you're still within the limits of reasonable handling? (gulp)

After reading the BikeRadar site, the front end sounds very interesting if they are correct. The way that I read it is that it will have a front end that is not unique to the rest of their frame (i.e. it might be adaptable to other frames). If you put a very aero front end onto some of the more vintage bikes (including the bolt on nose cone), this might be a very interesting combination for those who love their softrides and zipps, but which were not getting any updates since they are no longer produced. The only caviat would be that it needs to be a 1" steer tube (although I am not sure if some of the late model softrides were 1 1/8). Personally I ride a titanflex and would love the option of a more aero front end. Right now I use a reynolds ouzo pro aero with a ventus, but would love to have a cleaner looking nosecone/ 'integrated' front brakes look of the speed concept.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

I doubt it's going to be bolt on for just any old bike. I'm sure it's specific to the P5

I would like to see an all out non UCI TT bike, but i don't think thats the P5s goal.

Indeed. It will be interesting to see how the new Specialized Shiv catches on. Specialized, clearly threw down the gauntlet and said, "forget the UCI. Triathletes here is a bike for you"!

If we are the believe some of the words spoken here and elsewhere in the business triathletes always go for the companies making product for them!

But Cervelo, has been HUGELY successful in the triathlon bike market, making UCI legal bikes, that in many cases don't even fit the "average" triathlete that well!

Consequently it will be interesting to see what Cervelo comes up with. They have always said, that they will not just change things for changes sake, but wait until they have innovations that really improve things.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Well, here's the standard being established, and if Cervelo wants to make a true superbike....

1) Fast across a wide swath of wind angles. Good on megacrosswinds (IM cozumel, arizona, sometimes wisconsin).
2) Integrated storage: The Trek SC has the rear-wheel storage, and a module designed for the usual bento box that is better designed and (AFAIK) doesn't constantly flop to the side like the typical bento box. When are they going to put mounting screws on this area so we can get more secure mounts?
3) Integrated hydration: The P4 had a largely unusable water bottle, really that would have only been usable for storage. The Shiv has the fluid bladder. The Nosecone shiv would probably have perfectly fit a customized aerobar keel water bottle of some sort, that could be a more flexible alternative to what the Shiv is doing.
4) and the latest round of bikes have fully internal routing, although at the cost of bar customization
5) there's the front brake cabling problem, which Cervelo seems to have specifically targetted and we've seen with the centerpull front brakes coming out.

The integrated storage and hydration options are the most important design goals that superbike makers aren't chasing enough. I guess the ideal superbike I'd buy would be UCI legal, but have all the integrated storage options to make it non-UCI but triathlon legal:

- Nosecose attachment that can be storage or keel fluid holder, and provides the nosecone aero advantage for non-UCI events
- Trek SC's rear storage (although that is somewhat dependent on the Kamm blade design) for the spares/tools: another fairing for non-UCI
- Cervelo P4 integrated waterbottle or storage compartment, yet another non-UCI fairing
- Bento box screw mounts for a fixed bento box accessory
- Hell, throw in the shiv downtube bladder.

And make it all easily cleanable. That would be just an awesome bike for ironmans, half ironmans, long rides. That design isn't just for TT bikes. That's a recipe for aero road bikes too, that would be a pleasure to train with.

I think Fleck, Dragon and many of the voices I keep hearing illustrate what a difficult task bike manufacturers have in trying to make everyone happy. I'll throw my thoughts out there just as another opinion with the idea that I'm not alone in what I like. Dragon's idea of what makes a true superbike is the polar opposite to what I would be looking for. That description strikes me as a super SUV. A megatron like bike that has bladders and add-on's and storage compartments and relaxed geometry....don't need it, don't want it, revolted by it. I see this trend towards looking at the bike as the means to store a days worth of nutrition, tools, supplies more of a recreational athletes bike, not a race bike. Give me aggressive, light, clean and aero and leave the rest alone. Which, as I initially stated, makes for a difficult task for any bike manufacturer.

Totally agree with CowardlyDragon. I'm confident that even the latest superbikes with lots of junk hanging off, two seat mounted bottles and a bunch of gels taped on would have more drag than a bike a couple of generations back that is being run in a clean configuration. Designing a bike so that it can carry what is needed for a long race and yet STILL performs at or close to a "clean" bike would seem to be the easier engineering task. It would probably save a lot more time in a real race situation as well.

You have aid stations ever 10 miles what exactly do you need for a really long race?

The two halfs i did i had a between the bars bottle , aero bottle and on the top tube, with the spare jammed and hidden under the seat. Now that im running clinchers it would be even easier. I think you guys make this too complicated.

When you put it like that I would agree but you don't need to have either/or situation. You can keep things clean for any distance race (even the one or two IM distances one might enter each year) without having all the junk hanging off. I want my bike to be a stiletto others prefer a leatherman. Viva la differance

I see this trend towards looking at the bike as the means to store a days worth of nutrition, tools,

They make those bikes . . . they are called touring bikes! ;-)

Kidding aside, I thought one of the best innovations recently, germane to triathletes, was on the Trek SC with the aero storage places. At a bare minimum in a longer distance triathlon you'll have to carry some things. Now clearly many go over-board with this as noted, but for those minimal things that you have to carry, the Trek SC has some practical solutions for that.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I couldn't agree more. I half expect people to start complaining that "superbikes" don't include seat heaters, powered fit adjustments, and rear-view mirrors.

while I am quite fond of the minimalist approach to carry crap as well, the p4 and SC do offer a nice way to carry a spare kit, that you can't really duplicate on other bikes.

i would have been 5, 6 seconds faster at savageman with such a solution =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

This list is ridiculous.

This is a fault of the user, not the bike.

Not always.

For instance, say on my P3 I use a horizontally mounted bottle up front as recommended, and an aero bottle on the downtube. According to ST, this is a good solution. Now, where do I put a spare tube and C02? Currently I use a small bike bag that I put behind the seat so it is (more or less) shielded by the wind, but I don't think that is ideal.

If I had a bottle like on the P4 I would not only have a place to put my spare tube and tools, but it would also make the bike MORE aerodynamic, not less, at least according to Cervelo. The storage box the Trek's Speed concept uses is a similar idea. Of course now I am down 1 water bottle. The bladder in the new Shiv would fix that. Somebody who carried more stuff would have even more potential benefit.

PUT IT UNDER YOUR SEAT! GOOD GRIEF!

I don't understand why more manufacturers don't put aero bottles on the top tube, toward the front. It seems to me the easiest place to reach a bottle, and surely one like the Bontrager that's almost as narrow as a steerer tube would be fairly fast, right? If you were to do some sort of tubing system such that you didn't have to unclip the bottle to drink from it, the tubing routing would be similar to the Specialized Fuelselage system, but it would be a more flexible/ less proprietary system which should offer something from a convenience standpoint. Or perhaps this has already been done and I'm just behind the times?

I'm still not sold on the idea of a bottle between the bars, mostly because I lose my mounting point for my 310.

I think it's funny to see people "sabotage" their bikes aerodynamically with all the shit they think they "need" for an oly or a half (don't even get me started on people's setups for sprints!)

---

__________________________

I tweet!

I do the same on my P2 and carry my flat kit in a small saddle bag.The challenge is long training rides in the heat, when I often do need an extra pair of bottle behind the saddle and, even then, I will need to refill. Races have aid stations every 10-13 miles. Training rides on country roads, not so much. I remember one hot day (105+) I went through two bottles in less than 20 miles.

As for using the P4 bottle as a flat kit, I don't care for that approach, because then I am losing a bottle where I would prefer to have one. Also, having played around with a P4 bottle, I found getting it out to be awkward. I think my wife, with her smaller hands, would have had an even harder time.

tape it to your top tube immediately behind the steer tube or use a mini-bento. then it will fill in the low pressure area immediately behind the steer tube and improve flow through the area - assuming you're not running a ventus or other base bar with aero spacers.

A correctly engineered storage space like the P4 bottle or SC box increases the aspect ratio of parts of the bike AND MAKES IT MORE AERODYNAMIC THAN IF NO STORAGE SPACE WAS THERE.

Why do people think this is bad?

Why do you think that putting a not at all aerodynamic tool bag right behind the P3's nice airfoil shaped seatpost is a good thing? Don't you think Cervelo made the seatpost that shape for a reason?

You know he doesnt mean on the seat post right. He literally means under and behind the seat.

Don't use a tool bag. I put a tube, a tire lever, and a 5mm allen wrench into a baggie and then stuff that between the saddle rails and hold it in place with a piece of duct tape. My CO2 inflator get's taped to the top of my stem between my arms. The "baggie" taped up under the saddle fills in an open space and is likely more aero than a separate saddle bag.

That said, I've found that the new Lezyne "Micro Caddy S" saddle bags fit "up and under" an Adamo saddle REALLY nicely. You can wedge it up between the saddle rails fairly easily. The downside is that it then blocks off the "transition hook" of the saddle so you have to rack it under the "prongs" in front.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Well...the topube speedbox mounts on the SC are spaced the same as for bottle cages...might've even been on purpose ;-)

---

Carl Matson

The issue here is that common sense is not that common these days. There are many ways to keep things out of the wind while keeping a bike very aero but people are always trying to overcomplicate things.

Yep, that's my 100 mile TT setup on the SC - 3 x Bontrager aero bottles, 1 down tube, 1 top tube, 1 aerobars. The top tube mounts really should be standard on all bikes.

I said under your seat. Not "under your seat in a toolbag". I don't think a toolbag is ever a good idea. Are you absolutely sure a speed concept's draft box is advantageous in all wind angles?

There's this thing called a 100 mile training ride, and I don't know about you, but I don't have support stations every 10 miles for that. Also, I carry a phone, possibly keys, credit card/cash. Maybe some glide if something starts chafing. Maps/Directions. And maybe some tools. Oh, and multiple spares.

You see, if you do long course, you have to train long course in the position. Sorry, can't afford/don't want a separate training and racing bike. Sure I troll craigslist for the mythical clone for $1000, but that isn't happening.

The Trek SC showed you can have your cake and eat it too. A stripped down bikes sans accessories, and one with lots of mount points. Yes, it's fun dumping a lot of the training junk for a sprint. But that's a very limited use. I'm not dumping 5k-10k on a couple days a year bike.

If you don't want those options, there are a ton of bikes out there, and there is little to improve on those from a UCI standpoint. However, even the stripped down single bottle "use case" still benefits from an integrated system.

As for behind the seat, it's apparent there's a lot of design that goes into the seat tube and seat post over the last five years. Most people have the dual hanging bottles, but I see that right in the airflow that's channeled by your thighs after it passes around the aero seat tube. That's gonna drag. So is that tire and two air canisters.

What I described provides UCI and non-UCI aerodynamics options, integrated hydration up front, integrated fluid storage for refills, integrated spare kit storage. And some people think that's excessive? Crap, there's people who's entire careers are spent on the ergonomics of phone buttons.

Cervelo, Specialize, and Trek have shown a willingness to put design effort and thorough wind tunnel testing into their bikes. The market has showed interest.

Don't even get me started on Torhans vs Profile keel bottles.

you can mount your bottles and food however you want for training rides, aero doesn't matter then.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I was typing out a nice long reply but said screw it, this pretty much sums it up anyways.

Touche...is this a common use of those mounts, or are they typically used for something else? I don't believe I've seen anyone with a top tube-mounted bottle on a SC, but then again, most people in my neck of the woods ride Cervelo so I don't see a large variety of SC configurations...

---

__________________________

I tweet!

The obvious problem with that is you have to mount it so the bottle is backwards (the spout is facing the seat post and not the stem).

Plus, there's a high probability you'll rack yourself on the water bottle at some point. Not that I'd know from experience or anything. ;-)

---

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

I like this guy!

Based on that long list of requirements, this is what image popped into my mind.

...the Homer.


The fastest bike doesn't need all the bells and whistles.

You have to wonder how roadies (myself included) can survive training rides 100-200 miles on a bike with only two bottle mounts. If you're the thirsty kind, slap on two behind the saddle bottle mounts and you're golden. You see, a while ago somebody invented this 'pocket' thing on the jersey. It's very convenient.

I don't wonder. I know them. They ride 2 hours, stop, have a coffee and food, get back on, ride 2 hours, stop, have a coffee and food etc....

OR

The really hard core roadie types who do ride the 6 to 7 hours simply stop and refill bottles along the way.

Keep in mind, it's fine and dandy to ride 6 or so hours on little food and water. get off and relax and rehydrate and refuel.

But for triathletes - they might want to consider conditioning their stomach a little better so they can tolerate the consumption required to get off the bike and continue moving for another 3 or more hours.

Best method I've heard for getting it past the wife was "okay darling, it cost closer to three thousand than two" Indeed it did, but it totaled six thousand!

Don't know if anyone has posted this, but it shows what the front end and back may look like on the new P5...they were being a bit evasive about saying with any certainty but it sure looks like it may be the next progression: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6vUY5RE3VI

I remember watching this when Nick first posted it. Really great video and thanks for raising it again. That Canadian accent cracks me up every time too!

You have to wonder how roadies (myself included) can survive training rides 100-200 miles on a bike with only two bottle mounts. If you're the thirsty kind, slap on two behind the saddle bottle mounts and you're golden. You see, a while ago somebody invented this 'pocket' thing on the jersey. It's very convenient.

Martin,

Careful. Dev's going to come on here and slap you down for talking down to triathletes. Not sure why, you are just suggesting the obvious, or perhaps the not-so-obvious.

I agree with you. I can ride over 100 k with two bottles on the bike, and food and whatever else I need in the pockets of my jersey, before needing to stop.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Common, no. We put them in for a clean attachment of our SC SpeedBox accessory. Making the spacing appropriate for accessories which otherwise use bottle cage mounts just seemed like a nice option to offer. Avoids some of the hackery that goes with trying to put something on a bike when either the thing or the bike wasn't designed with that item in mind in the first place.

---

Carl Matson

We triathletes tend to over complicate things. I agree with you Fleck as two bottles is normally more than enough. If I am doing a ride where I know I might be without water for a longer period of time then I just have the two on the frame, one between the aerobars and a saddle bag for my flat kit. Mini pump, phone and ID in middle pocket and food in the outer pockets.

In the old days it was just two bottle on the frame, saddle bag, ID, frame pump and some food.

I looked into reworking the existing stock of Speed Bottle cages to add a set of holes which would allow the forwards orientation, but it was a no-go. Besides, I'm not sure the backwards orientation of the bottle is a bad thing...I find the angles I have to bend my wrist & elbow very awkward if I want to grab the bottle "thumb up" when it's oriented valve-forward. Particularly if I want to do this while keeping my other arm on the extensions.

---

Carl Matson

hell I have done 100+ mile rides with roadies on a p2k

ONE BOTTLE MOUNT!

I do kind of look like a missile launcher with all the bottles in my jersey though

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I have a bottle b/w the bars and have a mounting spot for my 500/310 right in the bend of the j-bends, which is the easiest place to see it. They're not mutually exclusive.

Avoids some of the hackery that goes with trying to put something on a bike when either the thing or the bike wasn't designed with that item in mind in the first place.

Carl,

What are you saying - triathletes don't know what they are doing? Dev is going to get you for that! ;-)

In all seriousness, I applaud you and the designers at Trek for coming up with some elegant and practical ( and aero!!) solutions on the SC's addressing the dilemma of where to put stuff on the bike( you do need to carry a few things). I agree with you that if you walk through the transition zone of a big IM race, it's an aerodynamic horror show on many bikes!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Correct me if I am wrong, but you live in Canada right? I would be willing to bet that the heat and humidity that some others experience more often than our friends to the north might require more and two bottles every 100k.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you live in Canada right? I would be willing to bet that the heat and humidity that some others experience more often than our friends to the north might require more and two bottles every 100k.

Indeed. But it does get hot up here and my strategy does not change.

Last winter we flew to to Tucson for a week of training. First ride due to timing we headed out the door for a 3 hour ride at 12:00 noon. It was in the high 80's by that point. Two big bottles on the bike, and a few gels, made it round the loop just fine.

Many (newer) endurance athletes seem to either grossly over or under-estimate both their caloric and hydration needs. I chalk this up to experience. I have been doing this for a very long time and know exactly what my body needs.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I live in Iowa and two bottles is fine for 100k even in summer. If you are that dehydrated that quickly you are most likely dehydrated before you start. You don't need 100 percent replenishment of fluids and fuel on the bike ride. If its really bad I freeze another bottle and put it in my jersey pocket to exchange. Its really not that difficult.

Haha they are if you have a tiny bike/cockpit. My aerobars are so short that a standard water bottle takes up the whole bar + the part of the ski bend that my hands don't occupy #T-RexArms

I have seen a mount for the 310 that bolts into the top cap. I could do a bottle between the bars if I got that special mount.

---

__________________________

I tweet!

Well 3 bottles would be about right during a summer ride of around 100k here in Atlanta too. Of course 3 bottles is 50% more fluid than 2 bottles. I am not looking to keep my hydration levels topped of, but I am also not looking to be super dehydrated when I'm done because after most rides like that I am running off the bike too. Even if I wasn't, keeping a good hydration level (not totally depressed) has no drawbacks in recovery nor does it have potential drawbacks for my workout the next day.

well theres one of your problems you're running off the bike all the time ;)

The point isn't that it takes three bottles the point is you don't need three bottle holders on the bike to carry three bottles which seems to be what a lot of people here (triathletes) think.

If anything, that's what most bikes look like without the design suggestions I'm making. Crap bolted, taped, mounted on everywhere, without clean design of integrated components. Notice how it all sticks out of the basic frame? Yeah, it's a joke. But it's not...

Others: great, a pissing match over how long people go without hydration. Oh yeah? My dad once did 400 miles drinking his own piss. As someone pointed out, running 10 miles after doing a 100 mile bike means not risking bonking.

Here are the aero stuff recently done by "people with windtunnels": nose cone (Specialized), lower triangle bottle (P4), rear compartment (Trek SC). All of which are UCI illegal if permanent. They all are separated enough in the airflow that they won't interfere with each other as a whole. Why not do them all? Why not do them aero? Why not make all of them dual-purpose for storage? Why not make them detachable for UCI vs not UCI?

BMANX: Seriously? Writes: "In the old days it was just two bottle on the frame, saddle bag, ID, frame pump and some food." Signature: "AERO & LIGHT is RIGHT"

Not sure if I missed it guys, but any news if it will have 2 water bottle mounts (down tube and seat tube)???


I know all the talk about bottles and aero, etc. I like to have 2 bottles and do not like to bother with aerobar or seat mounted stuff for racing.

Thanks

To the dude who wants to go on training rides with a lot of stuff...

what about just using a camelbak? That way you can store all of your keys, tires, tools etc. in there. They make a fairly slim one. Check them out...

Unlikely since Cervelo hasn't done a TT/Tri bike with 2 frame bottles in at least 6 years - probably longer.

 



"Why not make them detachable for UCI vs not UCI".
They do. Trek / Cervelo make detachable aero features that have been used for different purposes. I don't know what more you really want in a SC. Stuffing a bladder in a frame requires certain dimensions. As seen in the Specialized Tri Shiv, those dimensions make it 'not' dual-purpose.

I think that your dilemma is that you want the fastest bike with the most integrated stuff. That's great. But consider this:
- The fastest bike in a race doesn't need all of this stuff (assuming that there are food/water hand-ups when the race is long enough).
- Speed is less relevant during a training ride. If a round bottle slows you down a bit, who cares? I'm all for strapping a behind the seat bottle cage on if it means that I can stay hydrated during a training ride.

You need to look into getting yourself a Racebak for those situations...especially since you can freeze the bladder to help you handle the Texas heat ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

i hinted strongly to the wife that they were on sale at REI the other day.

maybe santa will bring it

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

The fastest bike in a race doesn't need all of this stuff (assuming that there are food/water hand-ups when the race is long enough).

My strategy for a IM race is to get 1 hand up, maybe 2. 1 aerobottle on the frame I bottle on bars and one at about 60-70 miles seems to work fine. A pitstop, tubular Co2, allen wrench, razor blade and a races worth of Gus will all fit in bento or taped in between the seat rails. You have to look very carefully to see any of the supplies other than the Bento, which is hidden when I'm actually riding.

---

Styrrell

I have the same problem...so I just use a short (500ml) bottle :-)
PT LYC is still mounted in front of the bottle as I dont have to look down so much to see it.

Oh and can we please get this thread back on topic?
KTHNXBYE :-)

p5 will fit my wife about perfect, hmmmm

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I think I could fit a P5 as well with a stem swap :-)

Now to convince the wife I NEED one...

me too but I already have a p3, she has a p2

thats THREE more for her, only TWO more for me =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Lucky for me my wife is already telling me I should get one.

Well seeing as how its only TWO for you, you should get one before her :-)
Then again, if you offered to post pics of your beautiful wife in a bikini on a P5 if all the STers got together and pitched in to buy a bike for her.
Maybe that shoudnt be in pink font....

Ive got a P3 as well and she just has a roadie, but luckily (for me) she isnt interested in a tribike.
I suppose I could tell her how much it would cost me to retrofit Di2 to my P3, at retail of course, compared to a new P5

You sir, are one lucky man

I don't think Jack wants to go down that road of another ST poster...

If you're clever, you can jam a spare tube and CO2 under your seat between the rails and hold it in place with gaffer's tape. That area is completely out of the wind.

---

-------------------------------
Ignorance is bliss until they take your bliss away.

Is the geometry chart listed yet?

No but there has been reports of 25mm more stack and 8mm less reach (see links in other posts) across the range

I read that on Bikeradar ... was not sure if there was some other confirmation

That's not much of a change, a little longer stem and one less spacer under the stem would compensate

With the P3 set mount in the forward configuration, almost all of the space between the rails is bisected by the P3 seatpost. At best I could jam a tiny amount of stuff on either side of the it. Only a couple inches in back are clear.

you can fit a tube, co2 cartridge, adapter, levers, and 2 hex wrenches with the seat all the way forward

I have it exactly this way on my p3

Thats exactly where I put my 2 Co2s and inflater for both my 1/2s, and it was on a p3

camelbacks and any backpacks are annoying as hell in aero position, and only gets worse on summer days.

Ah, bento boxes. They are a necessary evil on long training rides, but my knees (keep them in, right?) constantly hit it, especially since bentos inevitably flop to one side or the other, and disrupt my turning sometimes. The trek SC apparently has a solid mount to stop the flopping, maybe that's the sauce.

Taping things to rails sounds great, except tape falls off. Especially on crappy northern roads with constant freeze cracks.

The shiv bladder does ruin the downtube, so that's why I think a nosecone/integrated bottle would be better. I'd guess 75% of ironman bikes race with keel/aerobars bottles. Why do "kind of aero" when you can do "windtunnel optimized" aero keel bottle?

I think a lot of people are missing your point. Kinda like it took years and years for Detroit-based engineers to realize that real-world drivers who put miles on their cars wanted lots of compartments and cupholders in their cars, heck, many drivers were even willing to buy a car based just on those.

About bikes, you are absolutely right, good design could make a bike a totally practical long-distance racing and training machine while still being super aero and super fast. Cervelo proved it with their initial bottle solution, Trek proved it with their rear draftbox solution, Specialized proved it with their integrated drink system. And our products (a few more are coming) are also trying to make streamlined and integrated storage solutions more of a reality, even for bikes that weren't necessarily designed for it. And, yes, we are going to be making some very sleek storage solutions for the P5 as well.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Fyi, our Speedpacks don't flop side-to-side at all. And we have a bolt-on Speedpack (Speedpack 480SC) that is compatible with top-tube mounting bosses, as currently on the Trek speed concept and a few of the Giant trinity tri bikes. The bolt-on 480SC is even more rigid in terms of side-to-side play.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

I am still waiting for someone to make a more aero trainer. I mean, the fan in my basement just slows me down.

The P5 is the equivalent of a race car, not a family sedan.

I'm happy with a purpose built race vehicle, not a compromise machine.

Admittedly I'm more of a cyclist than a triathlonist (for now) but I'd have said for something like an IM you'd want (to keep with the automotive analogy) more of a grand tourer than an out and out sports car…

The main problem is that having a variable mass in the steering mechanism is not secure and will affect a lot the manoeuvrability of the bike. Fork, handlebar, shifter, brake levers and brake weigh 1.5-2kg, if you add 1kg of water, the steering will become noticeably slower.

---

http://cds-0.blogspot.com

Not if you can bike under 5 hours.

Admittedly I'm more of a cyclist than a triathlonist (for now) but I'd have said for something like an IM you'd want (to keep with the automotive analogy) more of a grand tourer than an out and out sports car…

Indeed. With all due respect, many of the people doing the longer triathlons these days, Ironman's in particular, would if viewed through the lens of road cycling would be in the sportif category. It's the distance that is the challenge, and shaving every second or minute off their time is not a top priority for them. They want to finish it.

I ventured into this potential shark-tank recently in a blog I wrote suggesting that, for more than a few triathletes, they may be "better" off doing an ironman on a road bike!

http://stevefleck.blogspot.com/...on-on-road-bike.html

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I'm sure the WB on the bars changes the handling but not so much as I notice. I also have my bento there, behind the bottle on top of the stem. My knees hit it if its behind the stem.

---

Styrrell

How much does your bento box weigh?

---

http://cds-0.blogspot.com

The Speedpack ( aero bento box ) is 64g.

For a IM, which is the only time I use it whatever the box weighs, maybe 80 grams plus what ever a 2 CO2 cartridges and 4 gels weigh. My overall "front end" weight is still pretty low. My bars are custom, Al stem, basebar and extensions with 0 adjustablity, the Profile WB fit in between with no straps of adaptors.

It might be noticeable in a crit, but I don't have any issues with handling in a tri.

---

Styrrell

We are talking about 1kg of water. It's normal that you couldn't notice a tiny weight increase like that one. Rafael sells a TT bike with a nose cone/integrated bottle http://vonrafael.com/en/sports-r011.html# but it's pretty small, maybe a half litre capacity

---

http://cds-0.blogspot.com

I'm pretty sure the profile aerobottle is less than a liter, but I don't quite get what your trying to say. I'd like the weight lower on the frame in an ideal situation, but their isn't an easy way to accomplish that. The way I'm set up their is little if any aero penalty with liquids. I need to get a hand up once in a cool IM maybe 2x in a hot one.

Literally tens of thousands of riders have ridden with a bottle on the aerobars without mishap, so its not like the idea is untested.

---

Styrrell

Maybe I'm just not a delicate flower but having a full size bottle on my bars didn't make any noticeable difference tearing ass down big savage mountain.

and that is about as insane as tri courses get as far as handling. its usually a non issue.

I'll add it to the red herring list, the same one the "isn't that disc wheel tough in the wind?!" is on.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Steering on a bicycle is usually done without turning the handlebars very much, except at low speeds. Steering is done by leaning the bike. The mass of the handlebars (or things attached to them) shouldn't appreciably affect maneuverability at speed unless the mass is located way off-axis, and it's not necessary to put random shit really far off-axis because there are a plethora of convenient locations that are pretty close to the steering axis. Putting weight in a nosecone would slow down steering response, but not by much--the bigger question, though, is whether that's a bad thing.

How often do you spend going slow on a tri bike? The answer should be as little as possible. Therefore, the angular rate of rotation caused by a given torque applied to the handlebars is essentially irrelevant for the majority of riding conditions. The argument you're making is analogous to saying that a NASCAR shouldn't have a certain performance mod that will help out on the track because it needs to be able to handle 1% better on pit road. The mod won't hurt at high speed, in fact, it would definitely help. Stability in handling is important at normal riding speeds, and adding weight to the cockpit would help.

---

__________________________

I tweet!

So get a Trek--the bento is behind the seat tube... :-)

We've now covered how to attach as much crap as possible to your bike for long rides, why cars need more cup holders, and whether water between the bars slows the steering too much.

In a thread that's supposed to be about the world's fastest triathlon racing bike.

This thread officially sucks.

Perhaps one UCI-legal and one which is not after all:

"...one UCI legal and ready for World Tour competition, and a second version built to cater to the longer distances and less restrictive governing body of triathlon."

Updated: http://www.bikeradar.com/...january-launch-32698

Whoa, they UCI-legal will keep the drop in the front.


What the hell is that bread-and-butter part about at the end?

Bread and butter means they sell a hell of a lot more bikes to triathletes than people doing UCI race.

so much for everyone thinking that Cervelo was going to lose numbers in Kona. They ARE the PREMIER tri bike brand in the world and nothing that the others are doing is going to change that. Sure maybe the others are catching up but once they do and you waste your money on their attept at being aero Cervelo comes out to take it up another level.

I also like how people are saying that the new bike will not fit even though we do not have all the information. I love how more information keeps "leaking" and then you find out that they are going to have two versions which might fit the people saying no way.

This is going to be an interesting few months with more and more information "leaking" out.

Dunno, but in 8th Grade, "easier geometry" was our code name for Susie Marple. Nicely stacked, that one.

Later!

Brian

---

Swim. Bike. Run. Repeat as necessary.
Welcome to the Church of Briantriology!

Get over yourself Cervelo Boy, you sound like tool, this bike isn't going to make or break anyone's race. I'm sure it will be a nice bike, however, I highly doubt it will be a lot better than any of the new bikes on the market: Time Machine, Speed Concept, Shiv, Plasma, etc. Who wants to roll around like every other spode on the same bike anyway (well besides you)? I like the fact the manufactuerers have bridged the gap in performance of their bikes and people have choices. I think it really boils down to fit and looks, which is a lot different back when the P3 was revolutionary and a lot of the bike manufacturers didn't invest into the tt/tri segment like they are today. That is why Cervelo got big and cornered the market and I give them props for it. I'm interested in seeing what this bike will looks like...I'm sure it will be nice.

We'll see if the bridge is "closed" or not in one month. It could very well be that Cervelo is moving the goalposts WAY out there. If the choice is to be on what everyone else is on, but be on the fastest equipment, I'd choose that over knowingly choosing an inferior design just to be different EVERY TIME

I'm with you, if they smoked all the other bikes it would make sense to jump on board. However, do you really think that is going happen after all the advances lately? I highly doubt it.

Considering the P4 is essentially on even footing with everyone's new bikes, yeah, and that we all know the P5 is going to be another level of development on the P4. It will absolutely be faster than the current iteration of the P4. Therefore, I'm certain the P5 will be one step ahead of the others. They didn't spend all this time on development to have no gains

Exactly.

Motoxxx is just upset with me because I just pointed out that he spent his money on an inferior product just before something much better comes out. As far as being a "CERVELO BOY" I actually do not race a Cervelo and am only on a Planet X Stealth. I understand that Cervelo is faster but until I am racing full time again I will not be on a cervelo and only racing cheap carbon.

If I was smart I would have converted my SLC to full aero and raced that as I would venture a guess that setting up the SLC would have been faster than the Stealth built up the same way.

The P5 will put Cervelo out in front yet again and while everyone else is playing catch up once again, Cervelo will already be planning the next awesome step forward. Everyone is aways playing catch up with them. THEY ARE THE TRIATHLON bike on the decade.

They are the triathlon bike of the decade. And they have been at the top of the Kona counts, and Dan has said a bit on this. An interesting stat would be to look at the age of the Cervelo bikes that are still in the count. How many are more than a couple of years old? And, how many folks are simply replacing a 2-5 year old Cervelo with another one vs. one of the other new bikes. I have a few athletes who have replaced a Cervelo with a Cervelo in the last year or so. I have an almost equal number who have opted for something else like a Speed Concept instead of a Cervelo. On our late start normal Saturday ride today of the Cervelos that were seen, only one was a newer model S5. We only saw one 2011 P3. The other tri bikes that I saw were all at 2010s at the newest...yes I am a bike dork and notice these things.

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

Cervelo saw a niche market, went after it and were smart enough to always keep evolving. They set the bar, and while eveyone else is playing catch up, they are just one or two steps ahead. They are just the best in this market. Other companies are just better at other more main stream applications in the bicycling marketplace and finally are catching up to the P4 in the triathlon side of things.

If you think that Cervelo is not already working on the Px and Pxx already then you are kidding yourself. Being a manufacturer in another arena, we see improvements while we are doing our Alpha and Beta versions and keep these ideas in our back pocket for the next version. Cervelo I am sure does the same thing.

Aerodynamically, the others are playing catch up. But outside of that there really isn't much 'catching up' to do with the P4 in most terms simply because it is not 'that' popular of a bike. Yes, it was a fast bike. I rode a 2010 and now ride the 2011, and it is very nice, and I think that it is a bit unfortunate that it is going away. But the simple fact is that regardless of how fast it is...you don't see many of them on the road. So, in some respects being 'that' fast didn't matter for the P4. The P5 will be faster and it will be more user friendly. Cervelo made that clear at Brain Bike in July.

My point is to not discount the impact that Cervelo has had on the tribike market or how fast or how revolutionary their bikes are. My point was more along the lines of while they are still at the top of the bike counts, etc. I would wonder what the breakdown is of newer vs older models in those counts. That may say a bit more about how much 'catching up' the other folks are doing in those counts. If the number of new Cervelos vs. new Treks or new Specialized bikes is not as strong, then some of those other manufacturers have 'caught up' to Cervelo in some of the metrics that really matter...new bikes on the road.

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

>you don't see many of them on the road.

x2. P3s and P2s all over the place. Seeing a P4 is still a rare event for me, even two years in.

My pure speculation is that Cervelo - along with more geometry flexibility - may have done some re-design for manufacturability, making the design elements of the P4 more cheaply producable. From the various delays and tweaks I suspect that there's something about manufacturing the P4 that's been kind of an albatross for Cervelo. Could be totally wrong...just guessing.

You are living in a dream world if you think Cervelo is going to be a big step ahead of the others. Look at the results of the P4 and how great it is for triatletes, the results are pethetic, do not really think for a second that the P5 is going to set the world on fire?. You will have the MOP'ers buying then and quess what, they will still be MOP'ers.

Your post was pethetic

This is just shocking, I mean I am shocked to the point of nearly fainting. That you would see significantly more of two bikes that have not only been out since 2006/2007 but also cost 61 percent and 39 percent of the p4 frameset.

I have a 58cm 2008 P2C that I love. I sold a QR Caliente when the frame went out of warranty, and I bought the Cervelo because of the lifetime warranty on the frame and the ability to ride in a more aggressive position. I haven't upgraded to a P3 or P4 largely because I can ride the P2C without any spacers under the stem, and I've heard that running a P4 with a bunch of spacers eats away at a lot of the aerodynamic advantage.

The new sizing of the P5, coupled with reduced pricing below the P4 means I'm very excited about this new frameset.

---

-------------------------------
Ignorance is bliss until they take your bliss away.

hmm, yeah mean the wind tunnel tests where it is the fastest? or do you mean when craig won the 70.3 world championship on it?

or the 2 or 3 or 4 (I forget) ironman races that amy marsh has won on it?

or james cunama winning races on one?



heeeeeeeeehehehe

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Just got some new pics of the p5 it looks promising.
http://www.google.com/...TtTpyhCcbb0QGp0OnDCQ

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

  

http://www.tririg.com/...Prototype&num=14

 
>This is just shocking, I mean I am shocked to the point of nearly fainting. That you would see significantly more of two bikes that have not only been out since 2006/2007 but also cost 61 percent and 39 percent of the p4 frameset.

Oh dear, I've upset a fanboy! :)

More like, you're just doing it wrong

What he wrote made a lot of sense to explain why you see more. How's that make him a fanboy, or upset?

Cheers to the Cervelo engineers! The new P5 looks sick!

zipp 1080?

C'mon these aren't cool anymore... we're almost in 2012. No one uses them anymore!

Got me? Its probably why you don't see a lot of nose-cone shivs. Along with the fact that you could not find them for the first year because they were sold out so they have really only been marketed for two years. Shivs were just as hard to find, it just takes a little common sense.

Guess I can use the old front shield off my uncles old Honda gold wing ;0)

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

 

>What he wrote made a lot of sense to explain why you see more. How's that make him a fanboy, or upset?[/quote]
The P4 is an awesome bike. It's OK guys. I'd probably take the P4 if I could pick any TT bike, cost no object.

This is why I love Slowtwitch :)

Nearly 22,000 views and 225+ posts about an announcement for a bike being announced in a month.

---

Rodney
TrainingPeaks | Altra Running | RAD Roller
http://www.goinglong.ca

And before you know it, the thread just dies! :-)

Is that not just accessories from the tj tollakson collection?

---

_________________________________________________

so some executive tweeted that the p5 is a BIGGER jump from the P4, than the P4 was from the P3.

Now, aero nerd that I am that makes me think - they dropped a higher % or amount of drag.

the p4 was around 17% less drag than the p3 per cervelo, or around 110 grams of drag less (depending on yaw angle)

So, lets place bets will the p5

1. Drop the drag from the p4 by MORE than 100 grams?

2. Or was his comment more about it being a big jump in terms of style, or engineering complexity, or some other such sillyness?

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

20% increase in stiffness with BBright, 70 fewer grams of drag at low yaw and 100 grams drag at high yaw, is what I'm guessing.