Bike Radar Article
Wow, really poor choice.

Has anyone seen any pictures of the bar/stem separate? The stem clamp bolts are going directly through the bars. Seems like an interesting design.

We know it's a big claim and along with that a lot of bullshit meters will be going off. Frankly, if that weren't the case we'd be surprised. We're here to be transparent. If something doesn't sound like its adding up, hopefully we can explain.

The 5 min claim is for the larger cycling audience that doesn't fully grasp the impact of aero. The vast majority of riders are still buying into the idea of a lightweight setup, whether that's the bike, wheels, helmet, etc...By comparing against basically last year's TdF winning setup, we wanted to drive home the point that going full in on the aero *system* can net a substantial amount of time saved in the vast majority of riding conditions. The point wasn't to conceal the aero breakdown among the pieces of the system. In fact, where possible, we've given that breakdown - which you'll see in various media write ups as well as on our site.

---

Chris Yu
Applied Technology
Specialized Bicycle Components
@chrisyuinc

I'm thinking along the lines of a cylinder with a round "plate" (sealed on the edge) separating the 2 fluids. Pressure and movement are transferred through the "plate". Just need to be able to bleed the 2 fluid systems.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Don't you need different types of seals for mineral oil vs. DOT fluid? At least that's the argument I've always seen against just swapping fluids.

Your idea would still work, you just need two plates solidly connected with two different seals.

Possibly...like I said earlier, I'm just brainstorming "out loud"...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

http://velonews.competitor.com/...ve-minutes-over-40km

I will say, that irrespective of the truth of the stat's - that bike looks amazing - I don't think i'd ever ride it, just stick it on the wall

If the advantage were 5 seconds, I think many consumers would be sold. The magnitude adds up if the frameset is indeed as slippery as a UCI legal TT bike.
Would you believe aerobars would make 5:00 of difference vs. riding a 40km Merckx style?

-Dave

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

http://lavamagazine.com/...g-gear-2/?cbg_tz=240

Well, Specialized stacks up that five-minute savings (actually, five minutes 32 seconds) over a 40-kilometer ride, with the new Venge ViAS as a big chunk of that time savings. The rest? With tunnel data to back (as tested at 50 kilometers per hour), they break that savings down among a collection of new products as:
• S-Works Venge with the new Roval CLX 64 Wheelset: 120 seconds (2 minutes) (compared to Tarmac SL-4 with alloy wheels)
• S-Works Turbo 24mm Tire: 35 seconds in rolling resistance (compared to Continental GP4000 II 23mm tires)
• S-Works Evade Skinsuit: 96 seconds (compared to a standard bib short and short-sleeved jersey)
• S-Works 6 road shoe: 35 seconds (compared to S-Works 5 road shoe)
• S-Works Evade: 46 seconds (compared to S-Works Prevail & Giro Synthe helmets)

---

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

It would not be a crazy solution. It could be used to to address different brake levers using different fluids and also address if the brake levers are based on using a different amount of fluid exchange (equivalent to different cable pull ratios).

One issue will still be that there will be some fluid that leaks across the seals, so the fluids will mix (probably more from the fluid from the brake lever side to the brake caliper side since it will probably be higher pressure momentarily compared the fluid on the brake caliper side). This is because dynamic seals either leak or burn up. I would assume they would not want the seals to burn up, since this will be latent failure (the brakes will still work until the seals on the caliper piston are destroyed by the fluid and you have no indication until then).

Second would be additional friction. I do not know if this will be an issue, but leakier seals will have less.

Bleeding could be done on the brake lever side with a bleed valve at the brake lever that appears standard. Then this adapter could have an integrated bleed valve to bleed the run to the caliper, since this adapter is probably going to be higher than the caliper.

Then you have the other concerns like needing to have two different types of fluids around. Also more packaging concerns. And more complicated bleeding.

It is probably the best solution short of having Sram change their fluid. But it is still not great.

"50s/km faster than our closest competitor"

probably the s5.

Show meh teh data!

They forgot to add the shaved legs image and time savings....

I really don't trust anything that specialized reports out of their wind tunnels.

How does it stack up against the previous Venge in terms of aero?

I couldn't find comparisons of the previous Venge vs Tarmac.

Does anyone else find this fascinating........tons of numbers and compares, but no one here can decipher the basic question......how much better is it apples to apples to both its predecessor and comparable bikes? The reason is simple, if they wanted you to know that, they would tell you. Instead, its seconds instead of watts, its with clothing etc, instead of apples to apples, ..........so, if transparency is the goal here, then please be transparent! You know that internally they have these compares, so that the goal in development is clear.

Yeah. Let alone vs any other competitor. But they claim 50s over the closest competitor?

And the Tarmac they compare against probably was tested with standard round drop bars and a standard front brake (in addition to the alloy wheels). Swap each of those for aero versions (Zipp SL70 Aero and Omega X for example) and now the new bike now has a 40 second advantage? Over a tarmac which has tested slower than the R3/5.

Great job on the marketing though, Specialized!

---

"One Line Robert"

This is a test that we did comparing Tarmac, Venge ViAS, and a selection of the fastest current aero frames. Same build (DA9000) and wheels (CLX60s rather than CLX64s for clearance on some competitor frames) except where integrated components are required. Sorry about the quality of the chart image. Its original purpose was to illustrate the relative differences among classes. Y-axis is CdA and each division is 0.002 m^2:

---

Chris Yu
Applied Technology
Specialized Bicycle Components
@chrisyuinc

I can't find it either, but this video states the old Venge is 50 seconds faster than a steel tubed bike over 40k:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE_GKePa3CQ

So the new frame/bar module is 70 seconds faster over 40k?
That would be really nice!

I like the bike and the integration of clothes is pretty cool. The price tag puts it out of my range so let's hope for a less expensive Pro model next year.

I do have to call BS on the wheels. While I am sure they are nice, I bet they don't include watts to spin on the rear versus a disc.

FYI, for interested parties, here's how we wrote it up. i think there are some missed opportunities. but specialized is on the right track. and it's REALLY on the right track as to how its executing these launches.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Thanks for the graph. Now let me guess:
1. I am going to guess that the SL5 Tarmac was roughly 12-15 watts of additional drag over the Venge.
2. The bottom competitor is the S5 and one of the other bikes is a Propel. The AR might be in there, but I would think it would sit more or less on top of the S5.
3. The new Venge is roughly 8-9 watts better than the S5, which is pretty excellent.

I also like that the drag curve is flatter for the new Venge, which I assume you attribute to the new design of the lower half of the down tube.

IMO it looks sweet and of course looks definitely a lot more aero than the bikes out there. I wonder what their new TT bikes would look like and how it will perform.

Felts testing showed the S5 faster (barely) from -5 to 5 but then overtook it pretty solidly from there. None of those graphs detailed above represent that behavior.

What were the bike fit coordinates? Specialized could have easily manipulated the fit coordinates to be within a range that required all of the other bikes tested to use non aero spacers to stack the stem. They could have also used stems with a fair amount of rise.

They also tested with DA 9000. Bikes like the S5 and AR are known to test better with electronic drive trains (any bike would). But a clear advantage to specialized testing methodology considering they're able to route the cables completely internal. How do those numbers change if all bikes are using 9070?

So to Chris's point above, for those less aero inclined customers, they could more easily pick up those watts by picking up the new Venge and not having to think much else about anything. Those of us who are a bit more aero inclined would never run 20mm of stack and a 6 degree stem on the front end of our bikes.

---

"One Line Robert"

Were the competitors bikes that include aero bars in the package like Cervelo and Giant tested that way, or did they have standard round bars?

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

 I'm pretty sure I saw the cervelo data during a presentation.

I'm sure the frames were, I was asking if they used Cervelo and Giant's integrated/aero road bars or round one. That could be a HUGE part of the equation.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook