Running a Z5 Large (not the LT). 17.4 if memory serves for the HT. Don’t have my bike in front of me as I am in Georgia, but no spacers, and the Cane Creek S3 headset cap stack is either 15mm or 9mm—I forget if I am using the short or regular stack.
Stem is an Edge/Enve 120 -6mm. Bars are the Edge/Enve 85/145mm reach/drop.
I’ve done the comps vs the S5, and aside from the HT length, and the 1/2" difference in TT, they are fairly close.
Wow, for as slow as you are, you certainly are a condescending prick.
Considering my meager talent level, I think I do OK 
Besides, based on what I can tell, I’m pretty sure I’m faster than you 
So…are you implying that on a bike with a 17d stem that you’ve had problems with that you switched to a 6d stem (or whatever) AND kept your bars in the same position relative to the saddle and BB and the problem went away?
But no one’s suggesting everyone should raise their bars: many have spacers they can leave out, and there’s always a -17 stem (though it gets an undeserved bad rap these days).
The ironic thing about the apparent “17d stem phobia” that seems to have cropped up amongst amateur AND pro riders (assumedly) with the introduction of the S5 is that back in the quill stem days, the basically default stem angle for a racing bike was 17d. Very rarely would you see something with a different rise angle…
Not necessarily a major factor, but a factor. Let’s say that everyone in a race has a somewhat equal balance of fitness, weight, tactics, etc…, so perhaps they each have statistically equal chance of victory. Giving one rider an extra 9 watt benefit (or even just a tiny portion of that if he’s drafting) will increase his chance of success. Aero is just one of the variables, each rider does not have the same fitness, skill etc…, but since aero is proportional to efficiency - I think that frame design can save 9 watts under the right conditions.
I’ve not checked their math, but when Specialized released the Venge, they claimed that it’s aero advantage was worth 3m over a 200m sprint (I guess compared with a Tarmac) - I think that’s a neat way of expressing the data, quite relevant to this discussion.
It’s difficult to extrapolate how poor ride feel (lack of stiffness, harsh ride, etc…) might diminish a bike’s efficiency, but I believe there are circumstances where that will happen. I guess you could study this with power meters, by accurately measuring any extra distance covered when not accurately following the racing line and probably a whole lot of other methods. I don’t know of any data that suggests that this efficiency drop would be equal to 9watts (when comparing a Venge/AR/S5’s to Tarmac/F1/R5’s), but I’m interested to know if this has been studied.
Because (given my current understanding) the aero argument relies on thinking, whereas the ride feel argument relies on belief, it’s hard for me to reconcile these.
btw: I love your Atlas Shrugged quote, I don’t race, I can’t (won’t) sprint, and I didn’t mean to be snarky; I apologize if you were offended. My intention was to explore whether the “sole exceptions of solo breakaways” clause might be more significant than it seems at first glance.
I don’t think poor ride feel soaks up energy, go back to your not sprinting. I’m not big on it either, but if somehow you found yourself having to sprint at the end of a sprintstage in the tour (and assuming physically you were up for it), Which would you prefer a bike that was a little faster, or a frame that you felt a little more confident on?
For tour riders they seem pretty spIit. Some like the aero option other don’t. If you are a Star like Tom Boonen, you just keep having them make you new bikes until they get it exactly right.
Obviously fit matters to Pro riders. One Shleck has a seatpost that can adjust on the fly, Eddy M was notorious for being finicky, as were Hinault, Kelly, Lemond, Armstrong, etc.
Styrrell
Styrrell
Considering my meager talent level, I think I do OK
Besides, based on what I can tell, I’m pretty sure I’m faster than you
Tom,
You are a Cat IV. And a rather slow one at that. A quick glance at SCNA results shows you coming in 8th in the state TT this year. I certainly don’t believe that qualifies you as an expert in anything cycling related, much less gives you license to personally attack the author of an argument you disagree with, but hey, its ST & the net so anything goes (come over to the LR sometime where I can be a major prick).
My point about you being a condescending prick considering how slow you are is valid–I ride with Cat I/Pros at least 1-2x a week, and none of them are anything but nice, yet you CONSTANTLY come across as a Cervelo/ST wanker, flexing your internet muscles. Why is that?
As to your comment re being faster than me…lets just say that if you want to find out, come on down to the CBR state crit championships later this year, or the Everest Challenge on 9/25—I’ll do the CBR as a IV and ditto the EC. One of the guys who beat you at the state TT I know that I’m considerably faster than, and the other who crushed you…well lets just say that Dana is pretty damn good at TT’s…of course at the end of the day it doesn’t matter, b/c we are both friggin Cat IVs.
So…are you implying that on a bike with a 17d stem that you’ve had problems with that you switched to a 6d stem (or whatever) AND kept your bars in the same position relative to the saddle and BB and the problem went away?
No. What I’m saying is that when I’ve setup a tall HT frame with a 17d stem to achieve the same positioning that I’m used to (or as close as I can get), the bike’s ride characteristics & feel are (to me) weird/non confidence inspiring.
Lance’s nickname with his mechanics was Milimeter Armstrong…
I’ve been doing this a long time, and have known quite a few pros…some, simply don’t care — they’ll just go ride whatever bike they are told to & if their setup is off a cm or two, well f*ck it…others are completely anal about everything. Both sides seem to have equal success…though I will say that the ones for whom it comes easy/huge natural ability seem to take quite a bit for granted (up to a point).
Maybe the S5 will change that.
I have said it several times in the last weeks and I will say it one more time. The S5 is a bike designed in a way that fit wise, it will provide an outstanding pedaling plataform for >95% of those interested in an aerodynamic high performance bike.
I am sure, as a result of personal conversations in the windtunnel and also in small group presentations (the type you have to sign a paper that limits what you can say/show after 
) given by Phil and Gerard on how Cervélo takes engineering decisions, that you will have no stability problem riding on the S5 with a -17° stem.
As a matter of fact, my guess is that most riding their S3s with -6° stems should give the -17° stem a try on the S5.There is long thread on the Cobb’s “low” (or “ultra low” for some) road positon that I started a few weeks ago, where John explained why his position (pun intended) is neither more painful nor less stable despite appearences.
Sergio
However those were also the days of short HTs, non-sloping TTs, and VERY deep bars (remember the Cinelli 66 & 67 bars—those were DEEP).
Most track bikes then were also running -25d stems as well, just to get low.
btw: I love your Atlas Shrugged quote, I don’t race, I can’t (won’t) sprint, and I didn’t mean to be snarky; I apologize if you were offended. My intention was to explore whether the “sole exceptions of solo breakaways” clause might be more significant than it seems at first glance.
No worries. I don’t spend a ton of time on ST & when I do its mostly in the LR, so my internet fuse tends to run a bit short.
Not necessarily a major factor, but a factor. Let’s say that everyone in a race has a somewhat equal balance of fitness, weight, tactics, etc…,
Ok, back to the bubble—what you just described doesn’t exist in racing in reality.
so perhaps they each have statistically equal chance of victory.
To quote Mike D. “and you think that the same players that make it to the final WSOP table are there because they are simply luckier than everyone else?”
Giving one rider an extra 9 watt benefit (or even just a tiny portion of that if he’s drafting) will increase his chance of success. Aero is just one of the variables, each rider does not have the same fitness, skill etc…, but since aero is proportional to efficiency - I think that frame design can save 9 watts under the right conditions.
I AM NOT DISPUTING THIS. However, what I am absolutely disputing is that in 99.5% of real world bike races, the opportunity for such an edge does not exist. Thor’s race today, of course, doesn’t help my argument ;-).
I’ve not checked their math, but when Specialized released the Venge, they claimed that it’s aero advantage was worth 3m over a 200m sprint (I guess compared with a Tarmac) - I think that’s a neat way of expressing the data, quite relevant to this discussion.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe this (even though I think the SL3 Tarmac is a POS bike). If ANY bike gave a rider a 3m advantage over another in a 200m spring, EVERY pro sprinter would be riding rebadged Venge’s. Cavendish, by far the best sprinter in the world & with the best lead-out team in the biz, is winning races by 1/2 wheels----and Marketing wants Joe Consumer to believe that their bike is going to give them a 3m advantage? Bullshit.
It’s difficult to extrapolate how poor ride feel (lack of stiffness, harsh ride, etc…) might diminish a bike’s efficiency, but I believe there are circumstances where that will happen. I guess you could study this with power meters, by accurately measuring any extra distance covered when not accurately following the racing line and probably a whole lot of other methods. I don’t know of any data that suggests that this efficiency drop would be equal to 9watts (when comparing a Venge/AR/S5’s to Tarmac/F1/R5’s), but I’m interested to know if this has been studied.
Because (given my current understanding) the aero argument relies on thinking, whereas the ride feel argument relies on belief, it’s hard for me to reconcile these.
Agreed. But aren’t discussions such as this why the internet exists?
I’ve not checked their math, but when Specialized released the Venge, they claimed that it’s aero advantage was worth 3m over a 200m sprint (I guess compared with a Tarmac) - I think that’s a neat way of expressing the data, quite relevant to this discussion.
I thought they said most of the venge’s benefit was at high yaw and not low yaw? I would imagine the yaw be pretty low in a 200m sprint. Imagine how bad Greipel would have beaten Cav without the venge.
A quick glance at SCNA results shows you coming in 8th in the state TT this year.
Oh sure…pick the one TT I drastically underperformed in (as in power significantly down) this year to do your analysis on…thanks :-\
BTW, I’ve beaten the guy who took 2nd in that TT (he finished only 45s in front of me over ~38K) before by ~45s over 20K on a flat TT…and by my figgerin’ of power vs. speed, I would have been giving Mr. Skriver a run for his money if I’d been able to put out the power I was capable of in recent training at that time. And don’t forget that HIS time would’ve placed him 8th in the Cat 1,2s
Try again…how about if we compare road race and crit finishes as recorded on the USAC website? Got any podiums on there?
I certainly don’t believe that qualifies you as an expert in anything cycling related…
I don’t think I ever said it did.
…much less gives you license to personally attack the author of an argument you disagree with…
Ummm…could you point out that “personal attack” I did that caused you to call me a prick? (Which is, ironically, the actual first personal attack in this exchange)
As to your comment re being faster than me…lets just say that if you want to find out, come on down to the CBR state crit championships later this year, or the Everest Challenge on 9/25…
Not going to happen (for a couple of reasons). I promised my family that my racing for the year was done after the district TT. I’ve got too much other stuff to do right now to even “train”…
of course at the end of the day it doesn’t matter, b/c we are both friggin Cat IVs.
Actually, no…one of us isn’t any more. I got tired of other 4s crashing and taking me out (which happened in 2 of the last 3 Cat 4 races I’ve done). I’m too old for that shit.
No. What I’m saying is that when I’ve setup a tall HT frame with a 17d stem to achieve the same positioning that I’m used to (or as close as I can get), the bike’s ride characteristics & feel are (to me) weird/non confidence inspiring.
Yeah…and what I’m saying is that there are a heck of a lot more variables in your “analysis” than just the head tube heights and the stem angle, so saying that those 2 things are the cause is highly questionable.
Ok, lets look both at a typical road race and at the overall issues I personally value. As I’ve said, I have no doubt that the S5 is more aero than my Parlee Z5 or most other road bikes. However, speaking again for me personally, and in real world racing situations, 99.5 or whatever % of the time it simply doesn’t matter. Road racing & crits are NOT TIME TRIALS, with the sole exceptions of solo breakaways, and frankly, with the exception of grand tour events and one day classics, the benefit that someone MIGHT get from having an aero frame in a solo breakaway is miniscule, and when breakaways succeed, at least at the amateur level, 99.5% of the time it certainly wasn’t because the person was on an aero frame & it saved them the 2 seconds or whatever the benefit would be in a theoretical 20-30 mile solo effort.
Aside from the very rare successful breakaway, having an aero frame in the pack simply does not matter. In a bubble environment, where a theoretical pack in a road race doesn’t have to brake, corner, climb, descend, etc…en mass, I’m sure that a miniscule advantage could be gained by having the most aero bike in the pack…but to what benefit? I’ve done road races where my buddy & I had the latest/greatest Reynolds carbon wheels with ceramic bearings from my buddy Richie at Wheelbuilder—guess what–we ended up waiting at the bottom of the descents for the rest of the peloton to catch-up. The technology was great, but it gave us absolutely no practical advantage in MOST typical road races. So getting back to the theoretical advantages of the S5 frame in a pack----when its go time in a race, it simply won’t matter whether you have saved a watt or two b/c of any slight aero advantage you may have over the other riders—MOST typical amateur bike races aren’t won or lost b/c of 1-2 watts that might have been gained (and like the wheel analogy,** if the frame is that much faster than the rest in the pack, you are going to be braking more anyway, completely negating any watt gain you just “earned”).** Crits are even worse from an “aero-need” standpoint. Just look at the typical sawtooth of watts from a crit race—between the out-of-corner accelerations and the relatively short time frame that most crits run (45-90 min), aside from the breakaway scenarios, your performance & placing in crits has as much to do with your bike handling skills, w/kg, recovery ability, etc. I would put aero WAY down the list of “needs” when evaluating my theoretical crit/road racing “wants”.
Now, getting back to me, and my “wants” in a road bike–its been touched on, but for me personally I need to be able to get low–I’m 6’3, an ex-swimmer, and built more like a NFL tight-end than a Contador. Every additional inch that I’m upright is at least 15-30 watts more that I have to put out to hold speed. The S series simply doesn’t work for me b/c of the relatively tall head tube. A friend has an S3–I’ve ridden it–and it simply doesn’t work for me, the same way that the Specialized SL3 doesn’t work for me. Touching on the SL3 for a moment b/c it also relates to the overall “feel” of the bike that I personally value VERY highly—the SL3 should have been the “perfect” bike for me. I value stiffness in the BB. I value a tighter cockpit. However the SL3 was a disaster–like riding a piece of wood. Just zero enjoyment, not to mention a too high front end. I was measurably slower on the SL3 (well not “measurably”–lets just say that I was hanging on vs comfortably pulling in the local weekly WC’s). Feel of a bike matters. It matters for enjoyment of riding (which should lead to more training, which is MUCH more important than aero). It matters for matters of confidence—descending GMR or any of the other local San Gabriel mountain roads, having ultimate confidence in the handling, tracking & line of my bike is key. I got rid of a Time RXR that I LOVED on the flats, b/c at 42mph it got a case of the shakes that was scary. I look at the geometry of the S5 and I just know that it isn’t going to work for me—yes, maybe I can get a pretty close fit to what currently “works” for me, but its going to require a -17 degree stem, and in my experience, especially on descents & tight turns, that does not lend to my personal confidence in the bike. And for me, personally, confidence in my bike & its feel far outweigh any miniscule advantage an aero frame may have—especially for the type of riding/racing that I do.
Do you see the contradiction between the bolded statements arguing against aero frames and wheels, but for aero positioning? You say aero doesn’t matter in a road race, but you also seem to understand that putting out less wattage to maintain speed is a benefit. Why do you shun the 30 watt benefit of an aero frame, but accept the benefit of a more aero position? Aero advantages aren’t always about being able to go off the front in a solo break (I realize that you likely grasp this concept, I’m just making a point). A saved watt is a saved watt whether it’s saved in a breakaway or putting out less effort sucking wheel all day in the pack (and I don’t know about you, but I tend to put out less watts when I’m braking and coasting all day behind people in a pack. It would be a nice problem to have.)
BTW, I’ve beaten the guy who took 2nd in that TT (he finished only 45s in front of me over ~38K) before by ~45s over 20K on a flat TT…and by my figgerin’ of power vs. speed, I would have been giving Mr. Skriver a run for his money if I’d been able to put out the power I was capable of in recent training at that time. And don’t forget that HIS time would’ve placed him 8th in the Cat 1,2s
IF you can compete with Dana than we are close. Dana is a GREAT time-trialist and he & I are close in lots of local rides. His w/kg is better than me over short distances. His performance at San Dimas’ TT was actually better than his state effort.
Try again…how about if we compare road race and crit finishes as recorded on the USAC website? Got any podiums on there?
Depends on how far you want to go back to compare podiums & Cats…I’ve been fighting a serious Afib problem the last 7 years—so serious that I basically had to quit riding for 3 months this year prior to my latest procedure at the end of May & each of the last 3 years have been seriously abreviated seasons b/c of it. Now that is (finally) fixed (4 procedures in the last 3 years). I’m a Cat IV now b/c I downgraded myself in 2007 from a legacy 1-2 after not racing for 12+ years b/c I checked out of the athletic scene to concentrate on business back in 1993. I’m sure we know some of the same people in SoCal----talk to them if you think I’m full of shit.
**Ummm…could you point out that “personal attack” I did that caused you to call me a prick? (Which is, ironically, the actual first personal attack in this exchange) **Fair enough. Lets just say full snark with the “my brain hurt” comment.
**Actually, no…one of us isn’t any more. I got tired of other 4s crashing and taking me out (which happened in 2 of the last 3 Cat 4 races I’ve done). I’m too old for that shit. **I’ve got 3 years till Masters & I’ll do 3s next year. We can settle this then :-). Of course neither of us is going to catch a 60 y.o. Thurlow.
Yeah…and what I’m saying is that there are a heck of a lot more variables in your “analysis” than just the head tube heights and the stem angle, so saying that those 2 things are the cause is highly questionable. I’m not saying that these are necessarily the cause—what I’m saying is that a tall HT, based on my personal experience of years of riding/racing, doesn’t work for me personally & IMHO the geometry of a tall HT bike, even when “modified” to “fit” my configuration (which may very well be outside of the 95% “norm” as defined by Sergio) with a -17d stem, actually rides worse.
I’m a cat4 too can I pile on?
Not until mopdahl builds his own frame that is faster than the S5
http://www.bikeschool.com/classes/frame-building-classes/titanium-frame-building
.
Running a Z5 Large (not the LT). 17.4 if memory serves for the HT. Don’t have my bike in front of me as I am in Georgia, but no spacers, and the Cane Creek S3 headset cap stack is either 15mm or 9mm—I forget if I am using the short or regular stack.
Stem is an Edge/Enve 120 -6mm. Bars are the Edge/Enve 85/145mm reach/drop.
I’ve done the comps vs the S5, and aside from the HT length, and the 1/2" difference in TT, they are fairly close.
Agreed, pretty darn close. I added the Cervelo S5 dimensions, subtracted them to show the difference, followed by a brief comment in bold.
Parlee Z5 L - Cervelo S5 58cm = Difference. Comment
Top Tube Length 57.5 - 58.1 = -6mm. S5 is a touch longer in the top tube.
Head Angle 73.5 - 73.5 = 0. No change to handling here.
Seat Tube Angle 73 - 73 = 0. No change to fit or handling here.
Chainstay Length 41 - 40.5 = 0.5. S5 is a touch shorter in the chainstays; not detectable while riding.
Bottom Bracket Drop 7 - 6.8 = -0.2. No significant difference.
Fork Rake 4.3 - 4.3 = 0. No difference in handling here.
Head Tube Length (Integrated) 17.4 - 20.6 = -3.2. S5 has a longer head tube.
Let’s look at handling, then fit.
You mentioned handling and confidence, and looking at the relevant dimensions I see no reason these bike should handle noticeably different, all else equal.
But to fit you we want to look closely at handlebar height.
Parlee’s Enve forks are the same 367mm as the S5’s, so no head tube corrections are needed there.
Since the BB drop is 2mm less on the Cervelo, correct the head tube difference by the same 2mm, leaving 30mm to lose.
From memory, changing to a -17 stem will get you about 25 of that, leaving the S5 just 5mm higher than your Z5. If you have the tall headset top cap, then there’s the whole difference.
But if the S5’s 6mm longer top tube is too much for you, consider a size 56cm S5. Its 56.4 cm top tube is about 1.1cm shorter than your Parlee and the 179 head tube is only 5mm taller, so a 130 x -6 stem also gets you within 5mm of your current position.
You can fit well on two sizes.
Hope you get a chance to try one out.
Thanks for the analysis. Given my dimensions (6’3 208 lbs, 32-33 inseam, 37" sleeve, long femurs) would you go 58 or 56? 5mm is liveable either way. Fwiw 57.5 is about as tight as I want to go given current configuration. 130 stem on a 56 scares me. Thoughts?
Arev you showing up on 9/25 or not?
Hi mopdahl,
On paper your current fit coordinates work equally well on both sizes. Whatever is in stock give it a try.
But I didn’t realize you’re 6’ 3". With all due respect, and without seeing you, I wonder if your position might not be giving you your best potential performance. I’m thinking here of the experience we’ve had fitting pros in the wind tunnel (Fabian, Thor, etc.) (yes, on their road bikes) and the counter-intuitive (to some) results of different hand and arm positions on the handlebar, and thus handlebar location to facilitate that.
Though “fitting-by-internet” can work it isn’t nearly as good as in person, but nevertheless I would encourage you to consider experimenting with your bar position a bit at some point in the future when you’re ready (post-season?). Too low bars could be one reason a 130 stem scares you. Lots of pros (and not only the good bike handlers) do fine on 130, 140, even up to 160 or 170 (yes those last two were custom). If you’re willing to try that you might end up leaning toward the 58cm.