Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept
Quote | Reply
I have been trying to find aero data on the Shiv TT. Does someone have a link to such data?

Shiv TT vs Speed Concept - which is a better option for TT?
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [roa11] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pure bike I believe the SC is faster however that doesn't mean its faster for YOU. Fit plays a huge part into what is aero/faster. A "faster bike" that doesn't fit you = slower.
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [roa11] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I haven't seen much on the Shiv TT since it came out... 2009 or so? It's probably not the most aero, and yet it's still ridden to more high placings in elite level TTs than any other bike. Some of that is Specialized sponsorships, but still... the bike isn't slowing them down for sure. And none of them have Tririg brakes mounted even!

Also note that the two most dominant pro TTers of the last decade rode the Shiv... and immediately sucked (relatively) when they changed teams and bikes. One of them switched to the SC.

I'd buy the Shiv....
Last edited by: rruff: Jan 28, 19 11:10
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [Scottxs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Scottxs wrote:
Fit plays a huge part into what is aero/faster. A "faster bike" that doesn't fit you = slower.


Based on watching how pro TTers are set up, there appears to be a consensus that the fastest frame is one that is way too small.
Last edited by: rruff: Jan 28, 19 11:10
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Isn't that likely linked to the UCI limit?
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [TiCass] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You can always use a bigger frame and still meet UCI reach. But for some reason they nearly always pick a small frame and stack it up.

This "get a bike that fits you" nonsense annoys me sometimes. Unless the bike has some serious adjustability restrictions (and many do!) then it should be easy to hit your fit coordinates.


Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sorry for hijacking this thread, but why do TTers use a lot of stack? I don’t think I know of one triathlete that uses as much.
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [dhoose] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I honestly don't know. As TiCass mentioned, the reach is restricted somewhat, and the saddle position as well, so the large sizes are not needed for reach. Aero gains with a smaller frame seem like they'd be tiny, but maybe that's enough? Maybe handling on technical courses? Weight on climbs?

BTW, the Shiv TT in S-XL sizes share the same stack. Only the length changes. It's the only frame I know of that is like that, though.
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I only do UCI TT (no Tri) and use BMC TM02 in medium-short size. I'm already at the 80 cm reach limit, so there is no reason to go for a bigger/longer frame. I guess the pros are in a similar situation.
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
Scottxs wrote:
Fit plays a huge part into what is aero/faster. A "faster bike" that doesn't fit you = slower.


Based on watching how pro TTers are set up, there appears to be a consensus that the fastest frame is one that is way too small.

I have no idea why they do that.....I road a smaller frame for a little while by mistake and it sucked. I went up a size and it fixed a lot of problems. A smaller bike with a lot of stack makes no sense to me unless you like hunched back but I'm not a bike fitter
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [roa11] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Anecdotally, AeroCoach Jim@EROsports has said the three bikes they most consistently see the best results with are the Speed Concept, the P5, and the Shiv TT. Speed-wise, it appears to be, more or less, a wash. So pic the one you like better for other reasons (price, LBS support, fit, general brand affinity, etc).

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"
Last edited by: gary p: Jan 28, 19 12:46
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [gary p] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gary p wrote:
Anecdotally, AeroCoach have said the bikes the three bikes they most consistently see the best results with are the Speed Concept, the P5, and the Shiv TT.

I saw in the video that the P5 and SC were mentioned but not the Shiv TT. Do you have a link?
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
gary p wrote:
Anecdotally, AeroCoach have said the bikes the three bikes they most consistently see the best results with are the Speed Concept, the P5, and the Shiv TT.


I saw in the video that the P5 and SC were mentioned but not the Shiv TT. Do you have a link?


I had that wrong, it was Jim@EROsports who said that in the ST thread about that AeroCoach video. My previous post has been updated to reflect the proper reference.


Link to ST thread is here.

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"
Last edited by: gary p: Jan 28, 19 12:47
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:

This "get a bike that fits you" nonsense annoys me sometimes. Unless the bike has some serious adjustability restrictions (and many do!) then it should be easy to hit your fit coordinates.

You're a TT'er mainly right?

Triathletes are notorious for riding bikes that are either too small, large, setup completely wrong for them, or on a bike that doesn't fit them at all. Mostly due to lack of knowledge and/or the LBS/fitter having the stance "fit the person to the bike". Hence the "get a bike that fits you" stance on here.

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [dhoose] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dhoose wrote:
Sorry for hijacking this thread, but why do TTers use a lot of stack? I don’t think I know of one triathlete that uses as much.


I always assumed they wanted a very low frame stack, then pedestaled up the pads/aerobars, so that when they had to go to the basebars for a corner, they weren't raising their upper body any.

In all the discussion I've ever seen here and elsewhere about setting up the cockpit of a bike for triathlon, virtually 100% of the talk is about fitting in the aero position, with little to no mention ever given to how you fit when on the base bars.

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"
Last edited by: gary p: Jan 28, 19 13:11
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [roa11] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The Gen 1 SC was tested against the Shiv TT by Velonews and they were close. If my memory is correct the Shiv was a couple watts better at low yaw and then the SC was better at >5 degrees. The gen 2 SC is faster still, so it it probably a couple watts better everywhere.

I have/had both bikes. The SC is easier to set up in terms of reach because of the different stem lengths and the fore-aft bar and pad adjustments. The SC also allows some bar angle adjustment. Pad width and width of the hands is more limited on the SC. There are also lots of SC parts floating around.

I would say the SC is targeted toward people with less aggressive setups. The seat tube angle and stock saddle are steep and there isn’t much setback. This is complicated by the short stem. You have to do some part swapping to get stretched out. The Shiv is just long and good luck finding the forward offset seat post. Make sure the Shiv frame you get is the correct length because there isn’t a lot of length adjustability
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
You can always use a bigger frame and still meet UCI reach. But for some reason they nearly always pick a small frame and stack it up.

This "get a bike that fits you" nonsense annoys me sometimes. Unless the bike has some serious adjustability restrictions (and many do!) then it should be easy to hit your fit coordinates.



Main reason for stacking is : UCI rules, as when you are tall, you are very compressed horizontally by the 75/80 cm rule
Between my UCI position and WTC position, aerobar moves 9cm forward.


If you let the guy on the picture move to a more confortable / aero / steep / longer position (typical tri), his hands will move around 10cm forward (BB wise). Typically he will use a much bigger frame, and reduce the "riser stack".
Last edited by: Pyrenean Wolf: Jan 29, 19 1:06
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [grumpier.mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
grumpier.mike wrote:
I have/had both bikes. The SC is easier to set up in terms of reach because of the different stem lengths and the fore-aft bar and pad adjustments. The SC also allows some bar angle adjustment. Pad width and width of the hands is more limited on the SC.

One "advantage" I believe is true of the Shiv TT, is that you can use a different stem and bars, because the bars/stem aren't integrated to the fork. That would open up a huge range of adjustment possibilities. Is this the case?
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Also I don't have a source, but I have read a few times that risers are faster than a taller headtube, thus riding the smaller frame
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
grumpier.mike wrote:
I have/had both bikes. The SC is easier to set up in terms of reach because of the different stem lengths and the fore-aft bar and pad adjustments. The SC also allows some bar angle adjustment. Pad width and width of the hands is more limited on the SC.


One "advantage" I believe is true of the Shiv TT, is that you can use a different stem and bars, because the bars/stem aren't integrated to the fork. That would open up a huge range of adjustment possibilities. Is this the case?

Well it looked like you could swap stems if you could find one with the clamp bolts offset to the side or with very very tight clearance behind the stem. I don't think you average everyday stem would work. USE made an adapter to put their basebar on the Shiv and there was someone else looking to make a custom spacer, but I have no idea if you could actually find any of these parts anymore.
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [grumpier.mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I thought I read that the Tririg stem would fit, and there are several others that are pretty tight to the steerer. I don't recall seeing a Shiv with different stem and bars though.
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Don’t forget that the Shiv has a 1 inch steer too.
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [Ohio_Roadie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Looks like the Pro and Tririg stems will work anyway:https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ks_Shiv_TT_P6549465/
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
Looks like the Pro and Tririg stems will work anyway:https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ks_Shiv_TT_P6549465/

I can confirm that
Quote Reply
Re: Aero data - Shiv TT vs Speed Concept [jakesdk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Any idea whether the Alpha One might work? I guess the integrated stem might be close in dimensions to the TriRig stem.
Quote Reply

Prev Next