In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Are we looking at the same document? The white paper hosted on this site shows the P4 only beating the TCT at 0 & 5 degrees, with the TCT winning at 10 or more. How does that equate to the P4 looking good at 0-15 degrees?
The "crossover point" appears to be between 5 and 10 deg...so if you average across the 0-15 deg range, it looks like pretty much a wash to me.
(Note that this conclusion is based upon Trek's own data, which relative to the P4 actually shows surprisingly little benefit as a result of the Ventus-like non-UCI legal bars and integrated brake found on the SC.)
Well, this seems to have a hint of a Cervelo-positive spin, but fair enough. I do hope you guys keep the same skeptical attitude towards Cevelo when they allow marketing to affect the reporting of data, such as the curious omission of the 15 degree yaw results in their charts for the P4, even though they report that result for their other frames.
It’s unfortunate that Trek apparently tested the P4 with a UCI legal bar, vs the non-legal bar on the SC, since that’s the chink in their armor that you’re driving a wedge into. I’m not sure what it would take to produce more than “surprisingly little benefit,” since the OCLV series, (which does have the integrated brake, unlike the TCT) seems to have a pretty clear advantage in their tests, even if we throw out the 20 degree yaw angle. I guess it comes down to how much of that advantage is attributable to the bars, which could be considered an unfair comparison; vs. the integrated brakes and front end, which is for now a Trek-only feature and gives them a legitimate competitive edge (albeit at very high prices). Then there’s the “wild card” of the illegal P4 bottle, can we consider it a reasonably fair tradeoff of the bottle for the bars, I would guess you’d say no…
I seem to recall a while back some Cervelo patent drawings showing a fork with an integrated brake, wonder when this will see the light of day.