where is the battery placed?

When you sign with a new bike sponsor and you get two tri bikes...

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

I will be starting preliminary design work on a rear box for the new P5 this weekend. Will see what I come up with.

---

http://www.custombikexcessories.com
Instagram
Facebook

A sizing question to Slowman, the sizing is a bit different on the new P5 compared to the old P5.
I am currently on a 51 but if I read correctly I may be better sized on a new 54?
So new customers should check thoroughly .

Could not agree more (other than it being outside my budget), the lack of integration makes me want straight away. The draft box should really just be there for any high end tri bike.

Do you, or anyone else, have access to a little bird who might know whether a P3x is on its way?

Hey Dan

On the aero drag chart comparing the new P5 to the old, is this a comparison to the P5-3 (I think its is based on the 'TT' label in the chart) or P5-6? If the former, is it possible the P5-6 is still faster...?

Either way, it looks like a very nice bike and I suspect this will take a lot of sales from the P5X.

I am sure there could well be a cheaper version of the P5x in the future that will cater for your storage needs. Other than the P5x and some of the other beam style bikes I am not sure any other bikes on the market offer much more storage.

Maybe a toolkit option to fit in the bottle holder would be good for Tri's if it is not the most usable hydration solution.

This would give it the flat storage a Speedconcept gets from its draft box (Or the Premier and Felt) and a Speedmax in the hidden space on the toptube or that you get on the Plasma 5 (and now old P5) from the Drag2zero box. The Gaint Trinty would require either a similar conversion for its frame bottle or behind the sadfle solutions. Similarly the Cube Aerium doesn't appear to offer any built in toolkit storage.

Given the frame bottle is meant to be pretty much drag neutral this space is more useful than at least that of a Speed Concept which I have heard even an Aerobottle cost around 6 watts of drag.

The new P5 seems to offer a similar nutrition space to all of its main rival TT/Tri crossover bikes with the bento box. Front mounted hydration option seems to be the same as the Speedconcept with the between the Arms mount. Is the solution any better or worse than the built in bottles like the Plasma 5 or Speedmax? I would say it is arguable in both aerodynamic terms and useability. If you want a straw drinking option there are bottles available that fit standard cages. Then some like the ability to use standard bottles - once empty you can change with a bottle from behind the saddle holder or strange an empty bottle for a full one at aid stations.

All in all I think you should be able to cleanly set this bike up as well as most of its rivals to carry fairly similar amounts with only the real pack horse bikes like the 5x and the Diamondback offering more, but then they weren't designed around a platform that needs to fit in the regulations of the UCI.

Personally I would prefer if it had rim brakes and I am still not sure how these aero bars are UCI legal if the Speedconcept ones aren't now, but it looks like they have moved some of the TGB5 track bike into a good road going platform.

If I remember properly, the the P5-6 fork was like max 1-2W faster than P5-3 fork.
The real question should be, since the Aduro was not that fast to begin with, how much of the P5 Disc marginal improvement vs P5 is due to (probably faster) aerobar, since the P5-3 could be made quite a bit faster with Tririg, Tula or others.

---

----------------------------
Need more W/CdA.

I am just as underwhelmed by this as I was by the S5D release.

First problem - speed
Using their data I've modelled the advantage of the P5D for a 5hr rider at IMNZ over the years
I kept the weight the same for each bike as the frame weight loss will be offset by heavier brakes
(negative numbers mean P5D slower)


So not generally faster. More inclined to slightly slower.
Channelling TomA - this is what happens when brake style is a design input instead of an output of the optimisation process.
Of course, the P5 could take better bars and it will be a while before really good options show up for the P5D so it's very hard to justify the P5D from a speed perspective.

Second problem - the bars
Poor granularity on x
Poor range on z - neither narrow nor wide enough (I calculate it as ~180, 210 and 240 centres)
Pad bolt spacing doesn't match P5X - a bit of consistency would be nice
On the plus side - PD pads will fit so both x and z range and granularity can be enhanced

Base config is high stack (73mm from frame y to pad y) which limits fit a bit
No native tilt (at least there is an option for addressing this)
Dubious that the extensions will be long enough for tall people with the pads forward with only a 95mm length range (hopefully better fit data is forthcoming)


It does offer a fit range improvement over the P5, which was sorely needed as that bar was a shocker. I'd still class it as behind the current standard. Which is why I'm disappointed - as 'an unrelenting Cervelo fanboy' (Kileyays words) I expect a lot from them.

Other things I notice
riser isn't as long as the P5X one so swapping that in may be an option for extending Y if permitted

All that said, I may end up getting one when I can no longer resist the disc takeover as it's not too much slower and it looks good. Plus there is scope to improve the bars.

I'm dying to know what tilt and other options are coming at the end of the month...

---

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.”

what's wrong / slow about the new P5d bars?

---

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.”

Its too bad I am 6'9", so with this new size chart Cervelo took one of the two only bikes that fit me away (the other one being the Cheap Canyon Speedmax CF in XL). The Old P5 in 61 was just perfect, the limiting factor is always the saddle high, I have the seatpost exactly at the maximum on the P5 (my secondary bike Speedmax CF is actually 5mm above the max, but still OK).

Now this limits the choices for really tall guys even more - such a shame, I basically liked the bike

This is my fit sheet I think i read it right.?

6'9!

Seriously, you're in like the 0.001% height bracket of people who do triathlon... You can't really expect manufacturers to build a frame that maybe 2 people in the whole world will buy.

On the plus side, you can probably find 61 P5s for cheaper now... ;)

I think it will probably just be using the P5x bars which are meant to be compatible and allow tilt but are heavier.

Slowman, So . . . I've been waiting. I love my P5 but 6 years is the longest I have ever been on one bike . . . I've got the itch! The question is, now that it is out, P5 disc or P5X???? Assume price is no object.

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

Answer seems to be more convenience based than performance.

- do you want easier packing when travelling
- do you want better repairs storage options
- do you want easier adjustment options

Above is p5x.

Or

- do you want a lighter bike with similar performance?
- do you want uci legal options?
- do you want to spend a few dollars less?

Or

Which do you prefer the look of?😁
Perhaps the most important of all 😎

Cant you just stay on the P5 you have now then? Otherwise would the scott plasma 5/speed concept size 61 not fit?

I wonder if the p5x bars will also allow lower stack somehow? The 48 p5 frame is actually lower stack than the small p5x, but one look at the overlayed parallelograms on Dan’s article shows that the p5x pad stack can be lower. Trying to achieve 520 stack and 405 reach for my wife who will be riding cervelo this year. Clearly she is appropriate for 650c wheel bike but we all know that story. I’m open to any and all suggestions to help get a good position for her.

the entire base bar? Or just the mono riser and the rest?

CycleNutNZ is correct... people with long forearms who max out pad reach will likely not have enough extension left... I see this all the time with the Trek Speed Concept mono extensions.

Why they shipped the P5d with a 30 degree ski bend when the pro tour guys are going with 50 degree bend is beyond me. 50 degree bends are cuttable and modifiable, 30 degree, at least at the length I'm seeing on the internet are not.

---

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 seeing that fit sheet.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Based on the aerogeeks article, the DA build new P5 disc is 8.41kg, which is around 1.5kg lighter than the P5x.

Does anyone know if there would be really any advantage with the P5 disc on a hillier IM course vrs the P5x?

In the past, I did some modeling in Best Bike Split increasing the bike weight by 1-2kg in hard courses like IM France/Canada/Lanzarote/etc, and there was almost no difference (it wasn't even a minute). I'm 67kg body weight if that makes a difference.
Have others done this type of bike weight comparison? similar results?

you raise some legitimate issues. but i think you omit some others. where you're definitely spot-on is in the lack of adjustability in the aerobar in the z plane (armpad width) and in the whole aerobar's lack of rotational adjustment. for these - again - wait about a week and a half, and some more options will present themselves. beyond this...

no. disc brakes were not a design input. better braking was a design input or, better said, a design imperative. more wheel and tire clearance was a design imperative. if you had to shave down the brake pads on a P5-6 magura brake to get a zipp firecrest in there, you appreciate the fact that you can slap pretty much any wheel, any tire up to 28mm, front and rear, in there. and, it stops when it's supposed to. i rode my test ride on this bike in rain and hail. i like that i depress the brake levers and the bike slows down.

the current engineering and product management crew at cervelo is predisposed toward ride quality. this is a throwback. i've felt and said that, prior to 1985, bike building was a craft engaged in by artisans. from 1985 to 2010, build building was a materials science exercise, sort of, let's build the wings out of this material, the tail out of this, with no real thought to whether or even if the plane would fly. as a fit and geometry expert, you recognize how this negatively affects the customer when you're trek, and you have a world leading materials science road bike, but it's only built in H1 geometry. all science, no craftsmanship.

trek has stepped back from that approach, and over the last 10 or 15 years you see what happens when a company notes that you have to actually ride the darned thing. we're getting our craftsmanship back. ride quality is becoming a thing again. whether the cervelo folks execute this well, i'll have this discussion with anyone who's interested. but the bike industry taught us, between 1985 and 2010, not to be interested. so, not many are.

on this bike, versus the old P5, the aerobars are a big improvement. pursuit bar placement and ergonomics: big improvement. braking, wheel and tire clearance: big improvement. frame stiffness and overall ride quality: hard to say. there are big claims made in overall frame stiffness. but it's hard to judge ride quality without having the old and new, side by side, for A/B testing. hydration and storage: moderate improvements. aerodynamics: minor improvement. braking: big improvement. fit range: moderate improvement. aerobar comfort: moderate improvement. ease of changing the fit coordinates: massive improvement!

value: is this bike a better value, or of lesser value, inflation adjusted, than the P5 as introduced in 2012? this i don't know. i don't have the price and spec in front of me of that bike, so i can't say. what i can vouch for is the quality of the ride. you can try to decide if someone has quality based on his or her match.com profile, but you won't really know until you go on a date. there is nothing disqualifying about this bike based on its match.com profile. there is much that is qualifying about this bike when you take it on a date.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

hold your horses for a week or two. then ask me that question.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman