And there is no proof that they no longer maintain their advantage

---

http://cds-0.blogspot.com

I agree with your statement totally. Specialized is the largest bike company. If they are truly building a bike specifically for competing in triathlons then they have made a huge step forward. They can build a bike with all the engineering they have learned to go fast without the UCI limitations on design. All companies that build TT bikes follow these limitations. How many bikes do you think they sell to cyclist that compete in TTs' as opposed to the bike sales to triathletes. Gerard Vromeen of Cervelo said when they built the C5CA that only weighed something like 600 grams, "We built a light bike because we can, we didn't build it for UCI because we don't sell bikes to racers that race UCI." He is right, they give those bikes away but they sell bikes to regular people that don't race UCI. Build them what they want.

If Specialized has realized that the market is with triathletes then build them what they want. A complete go fast machine with all the bells and whistles because they can.

---

.........................__0.............0
...................._.-\ <,_.........</\_
.....~_.o^,....(...)./.(...)......._/\...

I think they are both great looking bikes. I wish I could afford one!

Dang...that new bike sure is optimized for the "sit up and beg" riding position...wow...

Well, at least they're providing it with reasonably shaped aerobar extensions ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I can only imagine that these are going to be much cheaper than the Shiv, with many price levels (think SC or the new BMC). There are elements that make it "cheaper" and I believe it was said that there was a large void to fill price wise.

It will be interesting to see where it falls price wise.

Brent

---

DFRU - Detta Family Racing Unit...the kids like it and we all get out and after it...gotta keep the fam involved!

Agreed. That is one of the first things I noticed as well. The center pull front brake looks so much cleaner, it seems like a they made a step backwards here (perhaps not not in aerodynamics, but for sure aesthetics). Not sure how this could be better than the center putt transition brake or even the integrated shiv one - go figure :/

hey have a stupid question to ask. i am trying to upload a picture from my computer to show you guys and i can't figure it out how. "insert image" only does URL.

You have to upload it somewhere else first, ST does not host images. Try imgur.com. It's free and easy, and you don't have to register for anything.

Look at the frames side by side. They are really close but makes me wonder if Crowie's bike is really the new Shiv. First off, the small black lines on the red frame are missing on the bike Crowie is on as well as having different color pattern on the seat stays. Also on his seat tube, right above the seat clamp, there is a silver "dot" which is missing on the red frame and not to mention the seat clamps look slightly different too. Crowie's clamp looks shorter.

I know those are small issues to point out, however I think the bigger issue is the cables coming out of the top tube. On the red Shiv, they are coming out from the extra piece of the frame which extends up past the top tube and not to mention AFTER the hydration tube. On Crowie's bike, the cables look like they are coming out from the top tube WITH NO extra piece of the frame sticking up. Also I would think the hydration tube would get in the way of seeing the cables.

Also interesting is the increased distance between the seat tube / down tube and the wheels. I believe it was Look who did a lot of talking about how more space around the wheels actually decreased turbulance and drag. Wonder if Specialized found the same thing or if there is another reason for it.

I'm more interested in seeing how that front brake operates. It looks like a side pull which would be some cabling sticking out into the wind. Has this been discussed and I possibly already missed it?

I cant help but look at that and think Ceepo and QR. Maybe there is something to be said for their designs never making into the bigger manufacturers wind tunnel data.

I'm also curious how this whole hydration system works. I assume its a removable bladder which would allow cleaning but how does it feel while riding?

The design itself is a bit fugly and better test significantly faster to warrant such an ugly design. If it is faster, fugly up the bike all you want!

---

"One Line Robert"

Maybe it's just an illusion caused by the lack of nosecone in the newer model, but doesn't the reach on the new Shiv appear considerably shorter?

Well...the slightly larger gap at the rear is most likely due to the fact that the new bike has vertical dropouts instead of the older bike's adjustable horizontal dropouts.

Why they didn't go with the closer mate to the front wheel is a bit of a head scratcher though...the S5 and P4 tunnel data shows that's a good thing...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I agree. Which would be a good thing. I sat on a medium Shiv last year and at 5'11" the bike felt tooooo long.

---

____________________________________________
I only believe what I read when I agree with it...

That's what I was getting at...shorter reach and higher pad stack = "sit up and beg" ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

It apparently looks like they went with the sidepull actuation version of the Tektro brakes...which IMHO is a step backwards if it entails routing a brake housing alongside the frame "out in the breeze".

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Considering the amount of spacers most people have to use to get a proper stack height on the other Shiv, I'd bet this isn't much of an issue.

True...I guess it's sort of like the frame version of the "wide wheel" trend...optimize the frame (or the wheel) for how people are going to use it anyway ("sit up and beg" position, or in the case of wheels, wide tires), rather than for what is actually "faster" ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I seem to remember reading somewhere that photos like this of new, unreleased bikes on white backgrounds are often just pictures of the frame with wheels photoshopped in. If that's the case, the spacing between the frame and the wheels could be more a result of the way the artist 'shopped in the wheels than anything else.

Dang...that new bike sure is optimized for the "sit up and beg" riding position...wow...

Tom,

Interesting.

I find the Old version more aero - just based on looks, but I do know that looks can be somewhat deceiving when it comes to aerodynamics.

As to your comment above, perhaps Specialized did come to the realization that everyone is not built like nor can ride as low in the front as Fabian Cancellera or other top road racers with a big drop in the front. Indeed, very few triathletes can or want to, hence a more reasonable stack and "head-tube" height for the front end of the bike. And clearly, any bike with a built in hydration system is being made for triathletes and not roadie TT'ers, although they could take some advantage of this in say a 40K ITT in warmer conditions.

Plus much of the Cervelo testing seems to indicate that having the front brake there in the "normal" position is no penalty and some of these funky front brakes on the highly integrated front ends of the super bikes are, well . . funky to operate and adjust. Sometimes simple is good!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

One reason the reach appears shorter is that the new bike is clearly a steep seat angle (78?) vs the older Shiv's more relaxed angle. It would appear to conform closely to the Transition's stack/reach, but we'll only know when the numbers come out. Frankly, it is perfect for positions like Crowie's. Those who really like to push the envelope may find it too tall, especially because the proprietary stem config is going to make it hard to get lower...unless Specialized offers an adjustable front end stem module.

I hope hope so. These super priced, super bikes are killing me. I think that Felt, Trek, BMC have the right idea by bringing the majority of the technology to a more affordable price point. I have a better chance of convincing the wife for sub 4k bike than an 8k one. Not a much better chance but still better.

I hear that. Super loud. I'm going to have at least two more years LOVING my Slice (and I do - i really feel that it is a fast, fast bike) but within 2 years it will be way behind the times. I mean, it really already is...

But, the companies are figuring it out (C'dale is probably behind on this) and Specialized is making a QR type bike that is a good stab at the tri market only. Good sign, forcing more progress and hopefully with such progress, prices come down as competition increases!

Brent

---

DFRU - Detta Family Racing Unit...the kids like it and we all get out and after it...gotta keep the fam involved!

Whoa.. I didn't even say that. I'm sure the bike is fast. Not saying it's slow at all.. How would anyone know that anyway?

I would just expect it too look more "different" than it does - I mean it's got the ugly game cornered, sure, but it's not a significant deviation from the standard in my opinion.

I think the other replies to my post hit the nail on the head, I'm sure the engineers were under some sort of restrictions and those resulted in the design that was put forward.

Specialized are in the busisness of selling bikes, not making bikes. Perhaps, and its a big perhaps the bike could be a tad faster with a non double diamond configuration, but then you run into the issue of it looking too different to sell in the store. Back when I was still riding my Softride Power V I wish I had a dollar for everybody who asked me how I was still riding an "illegal" bike.