Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: New Scott Plasma Confirm! [aesops02267] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
aesops02267 wrote:

Well done, Scott! The sky is the limit!
I love seeing engineers really pushing the bar on how ugly triathlon bikes can truly be.
Why stop at the monstrosity that is the S-Works Shiv Disc?
Why limit oneself to the disaster that is a Cervelo PX?
Let's not forget the Ceepo Shadow-R!

If I'm gonna have to pay $12,000 for a ugly fuckin' eyesore, I'll just spend 3,000 more and get a Hope/Lotus Track bike for my local group/cafe rides.
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott Plasma Confirm! [Jim@EROsports] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jim@EROsports wrote:
If you look at the Instagram pics from the link below you'll see two straws and also notice the frame storage near the bottom bracket is actually a hydration bottle.


https://www.instagram.com/p/CFJ9uq7hsFI/

Wouldn't surprise me if they offer different solutions for that area. If they don't, someone will eventually.


I am not sure if this has been seen elsewhere but saw this one the other day.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGBlwG_hQhE/
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott Plasma Confirm! [lassekk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I believe the gap between the front wheel and tube follows the same logic surrounding the gap between the fork legs and the wheel. In fact the forks are also interacting with downtube so the spacing between the forks and down tube is equally relevant. You either want total air separation followed be re-attachment which requires as large a gap as is viable (think new LOTUS track bike) or want zero air separation which requires the gap be as small as possible (like the P5 or new Orbea Ordu).

Steve Hed did tunnel testing ages ago that showed in the tunnel you can begin to achieve one of the two ideal conditions above but the results were hugely sensitive to wheel and tire combos. Moving to the real world things appeared to get every murkier but I believe HED concluded thta on a Track bike bigger separation was better because the lack of a front brake and very narrow tires meant you could really blow out the dimensions. On a TT bike where you need a front brake and are running bigger tires the conclusion was go narrow. The caveat is most testing has assumed a UCI legal bike so you can't have a headtube junction like Scott has put on the Plasma.
Quote Reply
Re: New Scott Plasma Confirm! [FasterTwitch] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FasterTwitch wrote:
aesops02267 wrote:


Well done, Scott! The sky is the limit!
I love seeing engineers really pushing the bar on how ugly triathlon bikes can truly be.
Why stop at the monstrosity that is the S-Works Shiv Disc?
Why limit oneself to the disaster that is a Cervelo PX?
Let's not forget the Ceepo Shadow-R!

If I'm gonna have to pay $12,000 for a ugly fuckin' eyesore, I'll just spend 3,000 more and get a Hope/Lotus Track bike for my local group/cafe rides.

LOL but the last price I saw on this thing was $18,000. You're just a little bit short. And the Shiv Disc and Ceepo are tied for the "Most Ugly Bike" award.
Quote Reply

Prev Next