Anyone find it ironic that a bike "optimized for winds of Kona" debuts in the year the wind didn't play a factor at all?

The irony wasn't lost on me.

It's a gamble to debut a brand new bike design at Kona. You maximize your media exposure, as interest in the sport is at it's peak in the lead-up to the IMWC. You also have ~2400 of the most eligible potential customers/influencers in one location who'm you can try to impress face-to-face. The flip-side is that any weakness or shortcomings that emerge under racing conditions are exposed quite publicly. The Shiv reservoir lid that wouldn't stay shut was an embarrassment, but it's something that, presumably, can easily be redesigned before the retail launch. The difficulty for athletes who will consume more than the reservoir's capacity and also need space for some sort of liquid nutrition/electrolyte is less easily solved without compromising the bikes core aerodynamic properties.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

Irony noted, but they did have a bike at the front of the women's race for most of the race, and the second-fastest women's split in history.

Lots of arguments and mitigations can be made for why that was the case, but them's the facts.

But...as also noted....the stupid hydration solution is also just the blaring facts. Four high-profile pros, ALL exhibiting issues with the hydration design, and one probably showing issues with the bento insert.

As good as this bike may be, I would not even remotely consider it right now until I see significant practical racing design improvements. Seems like the Spec design team needs to hire an old curmudgeon to keep them straight when they get ahead of themselves. As someone else noted...all the wind tunnel and CFD numbers in the world don't mean a thing when the part is damn near unusable under the duress of race conditions. It's a real issue that those pros felt the need to mount a traditional behind-the-seat bottle solution to cover their hydration needs, given the clear intent of the bike to address hydration in an integrated, streamlined manner.

Swing and a miss.

These athletes will do whatever the F Specialized "asks" them to. They don't even have to argue. None of them would ever consider using the legacy Shiv even if they think this one sucks balls.

You completely missed the point of the hydration system.

---

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

Any new bike that debuts in 2018 with a single set of handlebars will not be the worst new bike of the year.

It's probably literally written into their sponsorship contracts that they have to use whatever Specialized gives them. We've seen this a lot on the mountain bike world cup circuit a few years ago when the Epic was launched. Even on courses where everyone was justifiably on hard tails, the Specialized riders were all on full suspension rigs.

I think it's more likely that Specialized missed the point of what the market wants and is trying to jam a square peg in a round hole.

Thanks to sticking to whatever script it is you're using.

Yes, we all get that aerodynamics were the primary function but it's most important use for the majority of people who will buy the bike was a joke and it was embarrassing for Specialized. Do you think that MOP Timmy and Tammy Triathlete really give a rat's ass that it's a second or 10 faster when they just want something they can easily drink from and refill. Aerodynamics may have been priority #1 for the designers but it's not priority #1 for their customers.

Did you not see the many comments made during the FB feed about that tank? Not a single one was positive. Same goes for other social media comments not directly on the FB page and here for that matter.

I know you're stumping this product for some reason but the whole tank as a hydration system was a disaster for Spec on Saturday.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

"You completely missed the point of the hydration system."

You're going to have to explain how.

It's pretty simple to me. Hydration has to be simple and executable during race conditions. It was clearly not so for the four top pros on that bike on Saturday. Each of them had problems and/or extraneous riggings to deal with its shortcomings.

If the hydration system is not enough to cover the needs of the course, then it should have simple provision to refill, under race conditions duress. I didn't see that, and I saw these pros using other rear hydration that disrupted airflow. I saw Lucy try more than once to close the rubber flap and not get it done.

When I look at this system as it currently stands, and I put it up against my hydration requirements during longer races, it's not a good fit as currently designed.

I'm not saying scrap the whole thing. It just isn't ready for prime time. It needs refinement.

I could be wrong but I never saw a hose / tube on Charles or Gomez - maybe on all the S riders - so either the tank has issues, riders have strong hydro set-up preferences or it's purely a fairing.

There was a tank on the first Shiv? How did I miss that? Damn.

I remember watching her drop that bottle live, but I didn't see the part where she tried to refill the tank with the bottle given the course set up it doesn't look bumpy enough to force the tank to open so she tried to refill the cell with her bottle and also couldn't reach back with her left and close it.

As I previously said I felt the location of the tank is a safety issue since Athletes will attempt to refill it and I liked the downtube integration.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

It was never supposed to be refilled. It was only supposed to be a 1 time use in a race. 2 bottles, hidden in a frame, that gets you through at least 2 hours of racing. Add a BTA and a behind the saddle if you want.

You guys keep getting upset because you can't refill it. You make fun of pros who tried to refill it. And yet none of you can wrap your minds around the fact that it's never supposed to be refilled.

How much easier can I make this for you?

---

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

I think people are conflating a couple of different things here. First there are those that are upset about the apparent 'defect' in the Shiv lid. I'd simply like to point out that it's a plastic lid we're talking about here. In all likelihood, its a simple fix and will probably be addressed long before production units are shipped. Embarrassing? Yes. Reason to shit all over the whole concept and the bike? No. Let's get a little perspective here, folks. Then there are those who will jump in and start the hand-wringing about how it's not refillable. Arguably, that's not the point of it. Whether you like that or not, that's how it is. That feature may be useful to folks that carry custom hydration mixes, and can fit enough of a super-concentrated mix in the tank. For those (like me) that get by on what's served on-course, a non-refillable tank (or any tank, for that matter) is of limited value. That said, calling it a 'defect' because it doesn't meet your specific needs is a fascinating perspective IMO. It would be like me calling the Ventum 'defective' because it has a built-in hydration system that I don't need.

great post!

---

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

One other point to make here. This one is pure speculation on my part, but I'll throw it out here anyway. I don't see it as a coincidence that in the Youtube video on the new Shiv release, all the Specialized folks are sitting in the wind tunnel talking about the new hydration system. One could make the argument that this 'feature' is, first and foremost, an aerodynamic device and the fact that it happens to contain a hydration bladder is a convenient way for it to not be purely a cosmetic fairing. Independent tunnel tests will surely prove it's value from an aero standpoint.

I don't plan on buying the Shiv (or any other bike that's $15,000) so I'm not worked up about his bike one way or another. That said, I think the "outrage" comes from the fact that Specialized is advertising the thing as a fuel cell--thus, people are thinking "how can I refill it on the fly? Oh what?! I'm not supposed to?!!"

I think if Specialized had said "it's an aerodynamic fin/tail/whatever that'll save you X seconds over Y distance...oh and it also doubles as storage for your hydration" the response may have been different. When it's sold as being storage for hydration, everyone is going to ask if it works well as a storage device.

Yea, I think the most effective use of it would be to fill it with helium......

... and the answer would be... yes, it works just fine as a hydration storage device (once the lid issue is sorted out). Whether it's refillable or not, and whether that fits an individual athlete's needs, is a separate issue.

Marketing it as primarily an aerodynamic device would, IMO, send up some pretty big red flags from a rules standpoint, so can you really blame them for wanting to market it as a hydration device first and foremost?

I was with you all the way up to the BTS comment. It certainly appeared that the height of the fin-tank thingy interfered with typical BTS mounting, forcing the mounts to be extended farther behind the saddle and/or angled more acutely than normal, especially on the smaller sized frames.

Did that contribute to Lucy Charles dropping her Special Needs bottle at the turn around? Only she knows for sure and, as a sponsored athlete, she's not likely to admit it if so. But it sure looked like it.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

But whether you like it or not, it *is* refillable, the trademarked name is "Fuelcell," and most of their pros tried to use it for that purpose during the product launch race. BryanD keeps trying to push the narrative that everyone should only consider it as an aero device. But neither marketing, description by the engineers on this forum, nor demonstrated use in competition are consistent with that narrative.

If that's not the point of it, they should make a version with a bladder similar to a Camelbak's bladder, with it's rock-solid quarter-turn wide-mouth for filling. Something you'd never consider messing with while in motion. Vs. a lid that snaps open and the entire contents of your bladder is open to the air.

I remember Carl from Trek saying that their draft box was completely drag neutral.
I know it was smaller than the specialized, but same idea. If the trek draft box/fin offered zero aero gains, any reason why the specialized version would offer much?

The SC draft box was designed not to mess up an already slick design. The Shiv Fintank appears to be integral to the back-half aerodynamics. Look at the relative small size of the seat tube and seat post of the Shiv without the Finevoir. There's no rear wheel shielding, and the airfoil ratio of those tubes can't be much.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

What about the prior Shiv’s water bladder system is unusable? The Shiv clearly has its faults but in my experience the integrated hydration system isn’t one of them. I’ve found it extremely easy and quick to refill at aid stations during long races and it doesn’t leak. A little bit of a PITA to clean afterward but that doesn’t mean it’s not usable during a race.