Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

lamenting the demise of the original P2 (not the P2k)
Quote | Reply
let me start by saying that I have a new P2k that I really love. In fact, that's what drew me to the polished aluminum P2 (the precursor to the P2k) that I saw leaned against a semi truck at wildflower. I had seen pictures on the cervelo site, but up close in person some of the details stood out much more. I can't stop thinking about the way the downtube extended past the BB to create additional lower fairing for the rear wheel. why on earth wasn't that continued in the P2k or at least the P3? that is cool. Looking at the cable routing, I'm sure that had something to do with it, but come on, that's worth keeping for the coolness factor alone.

the other thing I noticed was the cutouts in the rear dropouts. I must admit that I feel the dropouts on my p2k are anything but delicate. I had a litespeed frankenbike that had the laciest dropouts back there. oh they were sweet. for some reason the P2k dropouts look better than the P3, not sure why the apparent backwards step here.

while I'm on the topic (or at least close to it), how about some additional wishes for the brains at cervelo - I get the versatility of the flippable seat post head, but I think it would be great if I could get the carbon post in a fixed configuration. this should allow the aero shape of the tube to extend higher and drop a significant amount of weight. I think the current head has all the elegance of a quill stem.

last thing (I had plenty of time to think about all this driving back up to WA after last weekend), carbon is sooo sweet. I'm not sure why, but I really lusted after all the carbon I saw this weekend. how about a monocoque P4 (with the down tube fairing extension from the P2!)? I don't suspect I'll buy a P3, but a carbon P4 could really do it for me. Maybe if they've had a good experience w/ the wolf fork, they'll consider this.

even with all that, I didn't see a single bike through the whole weekend that I wanted to trade my p2k for, including the P3. but it's that love that makes me want even more from it!
Quote Reply
Re: lamenting the demise of the original P2 (not the P2k) [brad in WA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
brad,

i own a p2 and love it! i think the reason for dropping the fairing under the bottom bracket was because the uci banned any fairings that were their for the sole purpose of making the bike faster (which, in this case, it was). i personally like the way all the welds are smoothed out and flow seamlessly into the tubes. you don't see it done quite as nice on a lot of the newer bikes. as far as perfomance, i know many consider the p2 to be the precursor to the p2k. however (and i could be wrong about this) i think it would actually fall somewhere in between the modern p2k and p3 from an aerodynamics standpoint (it is, however, a bit heavier of a frame than the p3 and even the p2k i believe). no matter, it's still a great piece of work!

____________________________________________________________
"I'm happy when life's good,
and when it's bad I cry.
I've got values but I don't know how or why."
- The Who
Quote Reply
Re: lamenting the demise of the original P2 (not the P2k) [brad in WA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm with you to a large extend, whenever I see a P2 (like when there's one for sale on Ebay) it feels special. Part of that is that back in the day it was special, I looked at the one on Ebay and recognized who it belongs to. I don't have that anymore with P2Ks, there are too many of them to know each individual customer.

The reasons for the changes from P2 to P2K however were hard to avoid:
- The P2 sold for P3 money, and the main reason was the bb fairing. Due to the heat distortion, this fin would move considerably during weldin, so we would cut the rear cutout while trying to estimate how much the fin would move. Very hard to do, and creating lots of scrap frames. If you look at a P2, you'll see that the fin is not in line with the downtube. That's because of that distortion.

- It was hard to predict whether or not the bb fin would be considered legal. In fact, we still don't really know since we don't want to ask the authorities and rock the boat for those who still use them.

- The seattube extension, while cool, is not very practical. Its frontal area is bigger than it needs to be, while a separate seatpost gives us the option to step down the frontal area. Also, travelling with a large P2 was excruciating, it won't fit in any bag or case without serious disassembly.

- The dropout screws on the newer P2Ks demanded for a bulkier dropout. We wanted the same strength in the dropouts, so adding the threads meant we needed more material around it. You'll see that older P2Ks without setscrews still have the P2-style dropouts.

As for your other questions, a P4 may not be coming anytime soon. But we have nothing against carbon, like the new R2.5. With the new processes were using carbon is quite exciting (the R2.5 is sub-1000 grams, yet it goes twice the required duration on the EFBe fatigue test without any problem whereas most frames, superlight or otherwise, don't reach the required duration at all.


Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle
Quote Reply
Re: lamenting the demise of the original P2 (not the P2k) [sydnrusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply] i think the reason for dropping the fairing under the bottom bracket was because the uci banned any fairings that were their for the sole purpose of making the bike faster (which, in this case, it was). [/reply]

Actually, I don't think we ever said it was aerodynamically, it was always done "for bb stiffness reasons" :-). Because even before the Y2K rule changes, fairings solely for aerodynamic purposes were not allowed.


Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle
Quote Reply
Re: lamenting the demise of the original P2 (not the P2k) [sydnrusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]as far as perfomance, i know many consider the p2 to be the precursor to the p2k. however (and i could be wrong about this) i think it would actually fall somewhere in between the modern p2k and p3 from an aerodynamics standpoint (it is, however, a bit heavier of a frame than the p3 and even the p2k i believe). no matter, it's still a great piece of work![/reply]

Actually, the P2 and P2K are very close. What you loose in bb fin and cutout depth, you're gaining in a narrower seattube and seatpost. as for the weight, the P2K is about 2/3 lb. lighter than the P2.


Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle
Quote Reply
Re: lamenting the demise of the original P2 (not the P2k) [gerard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thanks gerard! as i was typing, i had a feeling you'd be piping in at some point ;)

even with the added weight and age of the bike, i still like it better than just about anything else i see on the market today. nice work!

____________________________________________________________
"I'm happy when life's good,
and when it's bad I cry.
I've got values but I don't know how or why."
- The Who
Quote Reply
Re: lamenting the demise of the original P2 (not the P2k) [sydnrusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have to agree, I still like that bike a lot as well. But I also like my P3, or better, I like Steve Larsen's or Tyler Hamilton's P3. It looks best at a speed I can't attain personally.


Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle
Quote Reply
Re: lamenting the demise of the original P2 (not the P2k) [gerard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hi Gerard can i ask who the Cervello on ebay belongs to??Hes real fast,this i know.Thanks Randall
Quote Reply
Re: lamenting the demise of the original P2 (not the P2k) [randall t] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It looks very much like John Houghton's, with the Hooker front and Modolo rear brake.


Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle
Quote Reply
Re: lamenting the demise of the original P2 (not the P2k) [brad in WA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sorry, whenever I see a P2 all I can think is, "Wow, that looks like a very good imitation of a GT!"

Let the flames begin!

---------------

"Remember: a bicycle is an elegant and efficient tool designed for seeking out and defeating people who aren't as good as you."

--BikeSnobNYC
Quote Reply
Post deleted by The Committee [ In reply to ]
Re: lamenting the demise of the original P2 (not the P2k) [not a PCer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Very true, it all begins and ends with Chet Kyle. I had the fortune of meeting Chet Kyle in 1993 where he was my guest at a symposium, and without that meeting I never would have ended up designing TT bikes. People can say whatever they want about him, but without him very few of today's aerobikes would exist. As for GT, those are really Chet Kyle bikes with GT stickers, just like it was Gary Hooker's friendship with Chet Kyle that spurred the Hookers.

As for the Vengeance vs. the P2, the P2 was introduced before the Vengeance and made long after the Vengeance was gone, so there's little reason to join the flame. :-)


Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle
Quote Reply