Fair point.

My bad, bad math!
sigh....

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

1) Tririg Omega
2) Cervelo NP2 or NP3 (aren't these aerodynamically equal?)
3) Dimond
4) SHIV
5) FELT IA whatever

It gets easier the more often you do it, but yes...it's nice to have an independent voice or three noting what it's like to do comparative product testing in as fair a manner as possible, vs just one-person equipment or position optimization.

---

Carl Matson

Shiv TT
Shiv tri
Dimond
Plasma
Slice
SC

Darn it that's 6.

I'm particularly interested in how my bike compares (Shiv tri) because it is repeatedly criticized here for being old and in need of a refresh. Would be great to see how it compares to something made recently. Would be hilarious to see little or no difference at all.

I have six on my list:


Dimond Marquise
Felt IA FRD
TriRig Omni
Trek Speed Concept 9
Canyon Speedmax CF SLX
BMC TM01 (2017)

---

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

 
1). Cervelo P5

2). BMC Timemachine 17' TM01

3). Scott Plasma Team Issue

4). Felt IA

5). Canyon Speedmax

I'd like to see say a 2009 cannondale slice to see how far bikes have advanced; and a modern aero road bike with clip on bars to see the difference between road and tt

I would rather have an "era" bike shootout. Such as... take your TBA "winner" from this past aero test and compare that to something like the Cervelo P1, throw in an aero road bike with aerobars, and then a round tube road bike.

Honestly, I'd like to see what that spread is to compare the generational improvements that have come to our sport. It should be substantial, otherwise we should all start scoping out the classified and save our $$ over the new designs. :)

If the Felt is within 1-15w of the others I think you'll already have your answer at least with regards to modern tri frames. That's sort of the genius of the first test.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

QR PR 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1.) control bike from round 1 (doesn't matter which one)
2.) Felt IA
3.) shiv nosecone
4.) Dimond
5.) tri rig Omni
6.). P2/3

QR PR6
Louis Garneau Gennix Tri Elite
Trinity Advanced Pro
Cube Kona
Cannondale Super Slice

1) Tri rig omni
2) Dimon marquise
3) Scott plasma rc
4) trek speed concept 9.9
5) Argon 119/giant trinity pro

I have six on my list:


Dimond Marquise
P2/P3
TriRig Omni
Trek Speed Concept 9
Canyon Speedmax CF SLX
Control from test 1

Rather than choose specific bikes, I'd like to see one of them be the 'winner' of the first test. Re-testing that bike will help calibrate the results and go some way to arguing that point at least (ie arguing about temperature, humidity, pollen differences between test one and test 2.

The other thing I'd like to see is bikes other than just high end bikes at the pointy end of the spectrum. I'd like to see the 4 most common bikes from the Kona bike count, that weren't already tested in the first test (assuming the winner bike from test 1 isn't one of the bikes in the first test)

Alternatively, (maybe for a future test) a test of the progression of tri bikes over the ages. Say a QR Kilo from the early 90's, a Cervelo P2K, an ali P3. a P3C, then a current P3. The reason I'd like to see this range of bikes is due to my old coach Walter Throburn here in New Zealand. He held the race record for the long running Port of Tauranga half ironman, for about 12 years I think it was. He set that riding a round tube frame bike, budgie smugglers and a flapping running singlet, and a bobble head helmet! When his record was finally broken, it was in modern (but a few years old now) whizz bang go fast bike and all the gear (plus much improved training techniques, hydration and nutrition). Given that it's taken so long to beat those records set back in the day (not just here in NZ) and that the squillion dollars of R&D doesn't really add up to much, it would be nice to see in the repeatability of the tunnel, just how much difference it makes to ride a $15,000 go fast wunder-bike, vs a round tubed steel bike with square section wheels.

I know the number crunchers among us (including the companies selling us the latest go fast gear) will tell us how much time we save with modern gear, but it would be nice to quantify that in the tunnel. Then I could bring my P2K out of retirement maybe, or even my Kilo :-)

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

I actually had this same thought. Now this would be cool. But I think you'd run into logistical issues with equipment by going that far back in time. Can you imagine trying to get all those built up the same way component wise? What a nightmare.

YES!!!

Don't make it a bigger problem than it actually is :-) If you can manage your first test, testing old bikes would be relatively easy.

As long as the old bike is the right size, and the rider position is identical, then it is what it is. We rode the bikes the way they were back in the day. For my old QR Special Edition for example, it came with 650C wheels, Syntace C2 aerobars and Gripshift 8 speed. Set that bike up with your position, and see how it compares. No need to worry about putting 808's on it or a power meter, just test what it was to see how much we've advanced, or how little :-)
As long as it's the same rider, same position, in the same tunnel on the same day, you'd get interesting and very useful information. It's not just testing frame against frame, but complete bike against complete bike.

FWIW, I'd like to see one of the Cheetah bikes tested against both bikes from that era, as well as modern bikes at some point but I suspect that could be a bridge too far.

I'd offer my old bikes (assuming the sizes are right) but shipping would put it out of my ability to cover the cost. You can probably find same or similar bikes closer to where you are.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Yes, I would like to see some 'normal' bikes thrown in the mix.

It's OK (and very interesting !) to compare superbike A to superbike B and quantify the difference, but how big is the gap to a 'normal' bike ?

Having that information would be really interesting when looking at the true cost per watt based on bike selection.

My guess is that it would make the gains quoted above for a bit of tunnel time seem like an absolute bargain / no brainier ... ?

'Make the very best out of what you have got' v 'get the very best'

WD :-)

If people really want to do this, I'll offer my Canyon up. I offered it to Kylieyay, but he rides a tiny bike... err, doesn't fit a Large. If people want to do another shootout, I'm local to A2 and will happily take a PTO day to do a new test.

Still no love for the Giant Trinity. Solid bike at a solid price, but the white paper on it from Giant is exaggerated.

This!!! Of all the bikes the have been unveiled in the past year or two I think the Cube Kona is by far my favorite from an aesthetics standpoint.

They tested a Felt B-series in the tunnel this week. I see a 2013 in my size, for sale in a facebook group with Ultegra for $850. So IMO that's the normal bike.

I think at some point testing older frames becomes redundant. A lot of advances are made every few years and it's a bit like having an iPhone 7s vs. iPhone 4 shootout.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

I have noticed that wheel companies have finally, more or less eliminated aero comparison to 32-hole box rims.
...but it would be fun to see the comparison to an optimized rider on good, old, round steel tubes.


...and get off my lawn!