Why the high seatstay? UCI? I would think a lower one like Felt, Cube, etc would be faster.

Probably for a place to put the rim brake

It still looks like narrower tubing than everyone else too. Just because a couple companies do it one way doesn't mean Cervelo is going to do it that way. I'm sure they feel that they have got the best bike with disc brakes that they can for UCI racing...

---

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

If that image is at all representative it will be a similar fork/headset integration to the new S5 disc. If that's the case, Cervelo will likely have a stem adapter available for it allowing you to use regular bars etc.

Check out the S5 disc whitepaper if you're not sure what I mean https://www.cervelo.com/.../s5_tech_paper_1.pdf (page 16). I've not seen one of these in use though and even the likely candidates of Team Sunweb are just using the std integrated v stem so far.

I am just guessing though...!

You're never going to see a cervelo pro on anything but the v stem

As long as they can get the right fit/bar preference... they're certainly more likely to make this compromise than any regular punter who's dropped $$$$ on such a flash looking bike!

But we digress. My point was only that I hadn't seen one so far and it'd be nice to get an idea of what this sort of setup would look like IF it appears on the new P5 too.

Yes, UCI restrictions

---

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

It was lower on the UCI P5-3 and also very thin. I'm sure they know what they're doing, just seems counter intuitive to raise it further.

Aerocoach comments on the Cervelo P5 rear end design.
Basically, it's a bike design for a UCI position.

Edit: Exact quote at 8:13

Sloped top tube. Interesting.

Does anyone know why this is?
Zo me the sloped top tube killed the Giant Trinity design. I liled the trinity more with the straight tt but it doesn't look that bad on the P5.

I recall some old research which indicated a slightly sloped top tube was actually more aerodynamic but I don't recall exactly why. I find it interesting that one of the more contemporary rim brake TT bikes (which nobody ever seemed to take note of) also used a sloped top tube: the Diamondback Serios

I imagine that a bare bike would test faster with a horizontal top tube. However, when one adds a rider with his/her bent over torso, that local airflow is significantly altered, such that a slightly sloping top tube would seem to be more compatible with the new airflow patterns.

Just an educated guess ...

Greg @ dsw

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

 
IMO slope is because most peoples do not have horizontal torso (front face of the torso), so airflow is going slightly down under the torso.
Same thing under the butt, air is compressed down.
In both cases, sloped tube are more in airflow direction, so more aero.

Same principle applied on the Pinarello Bolide.

is it raised further? the uci requirements revolve around a horizontal toptube. it might still be higher, but definitely looks higher by default with a sloping toptube even if it isnt(i dont know)

I'm guessing guys won't ride the S5 for that reason... can't get long or low enough with the V stem

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

I'm not a fan of the seat tubes or the sloping top tube... I was excited about this bike but not so much now

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

if i ever race again, i will be happy to do it on my 2014 p3, especially with 2 kids about to enter college

Your set up on your P3 is more than inspiring...you are not losing much with that bike. Inspired me with my 2015 P2.

---

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

At 8:13, I heard them say they can almost always get a good cda with the P5. I didn't hear anything about a specific position or what the UCI rule is that requires the high seat stay attachment. What did I miss?

Keep listening another 30 seconds or so. They talk about how the Speed Concept is better with a steeper seat angle and the P5 better with a slacker seat angle.

---

Alex Arman

Strava

Thank you. That helped me understand the difference between design approach of the two bikes.

I think what I misunderstood in the earlier posts was that the higher attachment of the seatstays was likely designed to better support the rider's position based on UCI rules and not specifically for UCI frame rules.

ARTICLES 1.3.020 AND 1.3.021 INCLINATION OF SEAT STAYS The front line of the 8 cm seat stay box must cross the area of intersection between the horizontal 16 cm-high box and the 8 cm seat tube box. The rear wheel axle must be contained within the seat stay and chain stay boxes. This regulation, illustrated by the diagram below, is the same for all road, track and cyclo-cross frames. Figure 25: Illustration of the rule on the inclination of seat stays MULTIPLE ELEMENTS Multiple elements are authorised for the frame (top tube, down tube, seat tub

fwiw, I believe that assertion was challenged by Jim@ERO in another thread.

Edit: Not sure of the exact wording. But I vaguely remember Jim saying he's seen both bikes test fast over a wide range of positions. Which he has some credibility there.

Thanks. I had read the both 1.3.020 and 1.3.021 in the 12.06.2018 version of the UCI rules. Figure 25 associated with these 2 articles seems clear. But Figure 21 shows a seatstay that attaches at a much lower point. Both the Shiv TT and the Speed Concept have seatstays that appear to attach to the seatpost quite a bit lower than the P5, more like figure 25. Both appear to vote the example in Figure 25, but both are UCI approved. I'm confused by all of this.

What else have I missed?