I'm surprised that fenders haven't made their way into cycling until now. Looks like a nice way to package it.

Just thinking a bit further, how would you get one of those into a bike box?

Holy moly.

I did a reverse image search on Google, and it came up with "best guess: bicycle".

I like it though. It's badass in it's dont-give-a-fuck-ery.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

That's the front fork...

It looks like you need to rotate the handlebars to get the front wheel off?...

Either way, would love to see some aero data/comparison. I like the creativity (and possible innovation) of it.

---

Strava

Assuming this is genuine then I don't think getting the front wheel off would be a problem, standard through axel. But the front brake cable will go through the fender so I cannot see how to detach it from the rest of the frame in order to pack it into a box.

In terms of aerodynamics it seems to be taking the Andean idea further in terms of making the lower part of the bike, starting from the front wheel, a tear drop shape.

I'd think that fork/fender would weigh a lot more than a traditional fork. Would there be that much aero savings by making it this way? I'd think there could be a chance the wheel/tire could 'bottom out' based on the design and how tight that tire looks to the top of the fork.

I think it would look a lot cooler without the elaborate fork.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

Unconventional? Yes
Ugly? Nah - You've just got a conservative aesthetic prejudice setting.

That is as ugly as my ex girlfriends personality....but I'll bet the ride is world class :-)

Good try, I got a twenty year old C4 carbon crono frame off eBay that I'm riding this year for the hell of it. I like weird, I just don't quite get the fender thing. The title of this thread is from the road.cc article which I though was worth plagiarising.

I agree with the other poster that with a more conventional fork this bike would look better (and possibly be way more practical).

If it makes you feel any better, Andy Potts will be banging out the miles on her in his pain cave...

Exactly

I'm curious about the stress points on that front fork design from an engineering perspective (I'm no engineer).

Is horizontal more structurally strong? What is the movement of the wheel when it hits a good bump or squirrley bit in the road?

Everyone loves a good hammering in their pain cave

If its fast, its pretty

Well, props to them for trying something new. Cool if it works.

---

Aaron Bales
Lansing Triathlon Team

It’s fugly to me, but I also don’t like the Dimond, Ventum or the new Cervelo.

Ya those bikes are horribly ugly. They also just look heavy. People like gradual change, not radical change haha

Here's the thing. I wasn't entirely kidding in my previous post. To a huge extent, what you find attractive or not is dictated by what is perceived to be functionally desirable and socially acceptable. Some are far more conservative than others and will balk at anything that doesn't closely resemble what they're already familiar with. You may have liked a 20 year old "weird" bike, but do you like any current ones? On the other hand, everyone's entitled to their taste. There's no right and wrong.
Surely the intention of eliminating the conventional fork legs and replacing them with the "fender" and horizontal wheel beams is to reduce drag? I hardly think they did it because they were unaware it would look strange!

The enemy of innovation, especially in engineering, is fashion.

No I get your point, and we're all human after all. It's not as if we don't have a catalog of fashion "faux pas" photos that we wish no one would know about. I like many of the new non diamond shape frames, I've been long hoping for their re-emergence . The old Hotta was my favourite. However we know so much more about frame aerodynamics that their added value is way less than the mid 90s, when they were up against round tubes.

I really like the basic frame of this Ceepo and it seems to be doing what the Andean is with regards to making disc brakes competitive, which is your point exactly.

The reason for the C4 was precisely because I know my next proper TT bike will need to have disc brakes, that's the way the world is going, and I need to start saving up for the whole shebang and not just a few bits and pieces.

However the fender looks like a nightmare for traveling but I suspect there is way more to it then the photo shows.

The perfect bike for a certain segment of the triathlete population:

Those with money to spend, and the desire to spend it to consume conspicuously. These people want others to give them attention, either by asking all sorts of questions, or by simply looking at it for a long time. Sorta like those who buy a custom Bentley or Aston-Martin, and who drive it down a busy street or park it with a valet (who will then park it prominently in front of the establishment), so they can see people turn their heads.

Those trying to buy speed.

A few pros who get these free AND get sponsor money.

How many of us have seen someone riding a $12K bike to a 14 hour finish?

OBVIOUSLY, it's awesome that people are out there working out, living a healthy lifestyle, setting goals, chasing dreams, but, HONESTLY: for these people, aside from making them happy or filling some void (retail therapy?), how much difference would this (or ANY "super bike") make to a 15mph average over, say, a $1000 bike with 105 all around?

This kind of thing just serves to raise the cost of "belonging" to the tri-world. It reinforces the idea that technology and cost are more important than the work. "Buying" the engine, instead of "building" the engine. Keeping up with the Jone$e$.

I know this is coming off as shrill and judgmental, but, come on. I got into IM because I liked working hard (above all), setting goals, and doing something to be proud of. I have a PR of 11:18 (and 11:5x on a 95 degree day), having ridden a $1600 aluminum Cervelo, with 105 all around, and stock wheels with clincher casings and $7 butyl tubes. I wore a basic swim suit in the water, changed to an old bike jersey and shorts in T1, and changed into old running shorts and singlet in T2. In short, I'm a cheapskate, a budget triathlete, and I did ok. I didn't lose sleep thinking I'd have been 6 minutes faster if I had spent $5000 more.

Congrats to CEEPO, though. "A fool and his money are soon parted." When should I start looking at Ebay or Craigslist for those outdated 2014 bikes?

OK, rant over. Deep breath. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Carry on.

It's an uglier copy of the P5-X. Cervelo is either pissed right now or laughing?

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

Who are these people who think spending money is a replacement for training?
Are they real or imaginary?

Easy tiger! "A fool and his money are soon parted" already exists in terms of tri bikes, most notably with the P5-X. Moreover we have no idea how much this CEEPO will cost. Also, we all know that a Cervelo P2 or Premier Tactical will be sufficient and ensure your bike is not the limiter but that's not the point. I also can wax lyrical about decent IM bike splits on round tubed alu 9 speed heavy bikes of 20 years ago, and that is more to the point, bikes have moved on and there is a notable trickle down effect. Even entry level bikes now days are way way better than what we were riding years ago. For pure time trailing aero is a limiter but I agree for IM this is not the case, getting the required hours of training is for most age-groupers. What we're starting to see is the next generation of top end tri bikes, 5 years later as you correctly surmised, entry level bikes will have many of these features. Starting with disc brakes...