"EDIT: I'm not saying Kestrel did or didn't do anything shady here. I highly doubt they would have done something so drastic as use deep dish wheels on their bike, and box rims on the others. The cynic in me just thinks that any company will do small things to make their bike come out on top in testing"
Well...for you cynics...I think you're trying to glean too much out of reported data. Given the design elements of this Kestrel, its entirely believable that this bike belongs in the same grouping as the P4, Shiv, etc....and that the apparent gap to the previous generation of bikes (of which the Fuji D6 belongs by virtue of its premier design elements)...is entirely believeable.
So you're probably safe in choosing the 4000 over a P3, just as the graph indicates.
However...even if you had the data from Kestrel of a P4, Shiv, etc...included in this graph...
You'd really have to take examples of those bikes set up specifically for you to a windtunnel to determine which might be faster.
For one thing, AC, Tom A., Steve Hed, John Cobb, and others have all said or at least concurred that comparing wind tunnel results from one event to another is VERY tough to do, if not just downright inadvisable given the numbers of variables that would have to be controlled for to equalize the data sets.
These companies all use many of the same facilities...which are open to whomever is willing to fork over the $ for time in the tunnel. No reputable company is going to risk their reputation in a low margin marketplace by reporting false data.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that most of us don't have the time or inclination of guys like Tom A., AC, etc...to go do in depth field testing. So the next option is to gather as much reported data as you can find...and look for trends. Right now, the trend is for the serious players to be producing bikes that are clearly going a step ahead of the P3C generation. Without paying for my own wind tunnel time with multiple frames...I can't say that the Kestrel is definitively among that group. But I think its a pretty safe move to believe the Kestrel data showing a break with the previous generation in this instance. On the other hand...if the data included a P4 and showed a similar break with that frame....I think we'd all be correct in raising the "Huh?" banner.
Don't let your cynicism lead you to inaction if you're looking for a new bike.
"The cynic in me just thinks that any company will do small things to make their bike come out on top in testing."
So my question is, given Kestrel's statement on the graph that the bikes were spec'd as sold, then if Kestrel's chosen front end configuration is tested more aerodynamic than Cervelo's...is Kestrel doing "small things to make their bike come out on top in testing? Or couldn't you also just say that Kestrel is being smart selling an all-around better piece of gear? In other words...maybe Kestrel is just trying to sell the consumer a better piece of equipment...and gaming the test data isn't the goal of the chosen tested specs. (I have no idea whether Kestrel's spec'd front end is better...just using it to illustrate the greater point).
Well...for you cynics...I think you're trying to glean too much out of reported data. Given the design elements of this Kestrel, its entirely believable that this bike belongs in the same grouping as the P4, Shiv, etc....and that the apparent gap to the previous generation of bikes (of which the Fuji D6 belongs by virtue of its premier design elements)...is entirely believeable.
So you're probably safe in choosing the 4000 over a P3, just as the graph indicates.
However...even if you had the data from Kestrel of a P4, Shiv, etc...included in this graph...
You'd really have to take examples of those bikes set up specifically for you to a windtunnel to determine which might be faster.
For one thing, AC, Tom A., Steve Hed, John Cobb, and others have all said or at least concurred that comparing wind tunnel results from one event to another is VERY tough to do, if not just downright inadvisable given the numbers of variables that would have to be controlled for to equalize the data sets.
These companies all use many of the same facilities...which are open to whomever is willing to fork over the $ for time in the tunnel. No reputable company is going to risk their reputation in a low margin marketplace by reporting false data.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that most of us don't have the time or inclination of guys like Tom A., AC, etc...to go do in depth field testing. So the next option is to gather as much reported data as you can find...and look for trends. Right now, the trend is for the serious players to be producing bikes that are clearly going a step ahead of the P3C generation. Without paying for my own wind tunnel time with multiple frames...I can't say that the Kestrel is definitively among that group. But I think its a pretty safe move to believe the Kestrel data showing a break with the previous generation in this instance. On the other hand...if the data included a P4 and showed a similar break with that frame....I think we'd all be correct in raising the "Huh?" banner.
Don't let your cynicism lead you to inaction if you're looking for a new bike.
"The cynic in me just thinks that any company will do small things to make their bike come out on top in testing."
So my question is, given Kestrel's statement on the graph that the bikes were spec'd as sold, then if Kestrel's chosen front end configuration is tested more aerodynamic than Cervelo's...is Kestrel doing "small things to make their bike come out on top in testing? Or couldn't you also just say that Kestrel is being smart selling an all-around better piece of gear? In other words...maybe Kestrel is just trying to sell the consumer a better piece of equipment...and gaming the test data isn't the goal of the chosen tested specs. (I have no idea whether Kestrel's spec'd front end is better...just using it to illustrate the greater point).