I used to ride a Litespeed Sabre. The Sabre is a great bike, I have nothing but praise for it. I rode the Sabre with the tip of the saddle at the BB (effective seat tube angle of 78 degrees). I got the HED because I make more power when riding shallow. I have a long femur compared to my tibia, and was never able to get the leverage I wanted when riding steep. I was set up by Dave Bunce at Bicycle Sports in San Diego on the HED. I ride the HED with the tip of the saddle 6cm behind the BB (effective seat tube angle of 73 degrees). I make more power riding shallow (I have hours and hours and hours of power output data, it's not just a feeling, I make more power). If you pushed the saddle all the way forward, you could probably get to a 76degree effective seat tube angle or so. I have ridden the bike 3 times so far, including 2 bricks, one moderate, one a threshold brick. I notice that the first 100yds of the run feels more uncoordinated on this bike, but after that it's about the same. I've always wondered how much of the run benefit from riding steep is dependent on how hard you ride the bike. I race 40k and shorter races. I spend the entire bike at, or slightly above lactate threshold...my legs feel like crap when I start the run no matter what position I ride in. If you were saving your legs more, or if you were racing longer distances (and thus had to ride easier), I'd suspect the benefit would be more pronounced. In terms of my position, I don't know what it would be called. My back is flat, my torso-arm angle is 90 degrees, my elbow angle is a little more than 90 degrees and my armrests are 11.5cm below the top of my saddle (in comparison, on my sabre the angles were the same, but the armrests were 15cm below the top of my saddle). I may fiddle with lowering the front end a little. I'm dubious it will provide much, if any aerodynamic benefit though, and if I drop even a few watts, I'll go right back.

The head tube is huge. The frame uses a 1 1/8" steerer tube, but the headtube is even bigger than that. It bows out to accomodate the integrated cable guides. Most dedicated TT/Tri frames use a 1" head tube (in contrast to most road frames where the stiffness of the 1 1/8" wins out). A bike with a 1" head tube would certainly have a smaller frontal area, but it's hard to say which is more aerodynamic. I could see how this behemoth could provide a bit of a wind shadow for the knees, but if I were in Vegas, I'd put my money on the tube being huge just so they could add the integrated cable guides and increase the 'cool' factor.

The seat post slips. The inside of the seat tube is groved, but that alone is not enough to secure the seat post. We ended up having to rough the seatpost up with fine sandpaper, and grove it slightly with a file to get it to stay put. It is rock solid now, and all the 'damage' is hidden within the frame now. You also don't have the option of using any other seatpost, and there is basically no offset on the proprietary one. This limits positioning options. Due to it's shape, you can't turn the saddle slightly to one side or the other if you're used to doing that.

The fork is very interesting. It's UCI legal, so it's chord ratio isn't as ideal as the ouzo aero, or other non-conforming aero forks. There shape is pretty complex though. There are pronounced curves on both sides of each leg of the fork. Presumably they are using these curves to direct air flow in some manner. When I called HED they said the fork is at least as aero as any fork on the market, UCI legal or not...of course that's easy to claim =). I'm hoping they publish some data comparing it to some of the popular aero forks on the market (I wouldn't be suprised if they do, whereas the frames retail future is still up in the air, I believe they plan on adding the fork to their regular product lineup...just a guess though!).

The bike is incredibly stiff. The head tube, bottom bracket, and seat tube clusters are massive. There is no appreciable flex at all on this bike. The ride though is still pretty comfortable. I guess credit for that would go mostly to the carbon seat post. The frame does have carbon seat stays, but as has been pointed out here many times, any real world benefit from them is pretty dubious. When I say the bike is still pretty comfortable, I mean that in terms of what I plan on doing with it. The longest race I'll do on this bike will be a half-ironman. This bike is in a different, lesser, class of comfort compared to my Sabre. I have no reservations about racing this bike, but if I were thinking of doing an Ironman, I'd think twice.

Anyway, I love the bike. It sets up great for what I was looking for. It's plenty comfortable for the length race I'm planning on doing, and perhaps most importantly, it just plain looks good to me.

Scott

P.S. A note on my gearing... There have been several posts recently on gearing. I look at 2 things when deciding what gearing I want. I race at 90-95 rpms, that's the cadence that 'works' for me. I look at the course and see what the steepent grade is. I want to be able to maintain 90ish rpms at lactate threshold, in my lowest gear, on the steepest hill (It's ok if I dip to a lower cadence, as long as the duration is short, say less than 30 secs). I ride a 55/42 front, usually with a 11-23 cassette. I can maintain 90rpm with a 42/23 at LT on hills up to 10%. If a course has a long (it will take more than 30 secs or so) steeper hill, I use a smaller cog in back. The other thing I look at is making sure I have as straight a shot as possible from chainring to cog when on the flats at my goal pace (to limit chain deflection and drivetrain losses). Even in hilly races, you spend a vast majority of your time in your 'flat' gear. Drivetrain losses aren't much, but it costs nothing to limit them, just some planning in terms of your gearing. For me, using a 55/15, 55/14, and 55/13 (all 3 give nearly a straight chain) at 90-95rpms, at LT, puts me at goal pace. I don't worry about top end, once you get above 35 mph, spending energy to overcome wind resistance is very expensive energy wise, and gains you little (in a time trial/tri, now in a road race, being able to accellerate away on a downhill does matter...but that's a different story). Anyway, www.analytic cycling.com has some great tools for figuring out your gearing.