I think the point I'll concede is that usually the classic airfoil shape is altered on takeoff/landing with flaps to change the flight dynamics significantly. Maybe that'll be on the P6....speed-modulated airfoil shapes.

Any chance that something with flexible trailing edges would be a gain at bike speeds? ;-)
I think it has some potential to extend stall angles, but maybe at too big a penalty at low yaws?

Years of experience riding different bikes has proven to show ... for me, a zero degree post is the only "Realistic" option. The Specialized Romin saddle has a maximum adjustable of approximately 7.5cm of available rail (not including the amount taken up by the post).
A Thompson post is 4cm wide ... thus reducing the adjustment to 3.5cm of "Maximum" rail adjustment. If your clamp is half that width, I would have to wonder how that would effect the structural aspect of the saddle rails.
My saddle has just under 2cm (1.8 to be exact) of space behind the rails for forward adjustment (or a laid back post) and 1.5cm of post in front for forward adjustment.
With that said, it's not recommended to use the "Maximum rail extension of a saddle due to the stress put on the rails, it can also have an effect on the ride quality of the saddle since you are no longer getting as much damping from the rails since you are near the more vertical portion of the rails ... thus effecting ride quality.
Realistically you should be leaving at least .5cm of rail in front or behind the clamp mechanism.
Your post dimensions have 5cm of separation from rear position to the front ... most saddles are going to have 2.5cm of "Usable" adjustment ... if you are using a 1cm shorter clamp mechanism that moved to 3.5cm of usable adjustment ... if you are using 2cm wide clamp (again, I'd be worried about structural effects on the rails, especially for bigger riders like my self ... 190+ pounds in shape) that would give 4.5cm of adjustment ... still not enough rail adjustment to fit everybody as you suggest.
Basically, I don't need to see the bike to make a judgement as to whether it fit's or not ... without a zero degree post ... it won't. Experience and the math tells me so.


Ummm .... have you looked at the Foil? It has a "Propriety" seat post ... it's far from round, triangular would be a much better assessment of it's shape. It's an Aero bike and one of the top models ... hence the need for an aero seat post, not a round one.
Not knowing what your competition is doing makes me wonder a lot about whether you are just trying to sell a bike and if you actually know what you are talking about.



Yup ... seen it ... yet, running a wide rim (23 mm) and lowering your tire pressure by 5 psi or so will make a much bigger difference in ride quality. As it is, I'm just fine with the ride of my CAAD10 and Thompson zero degree post ... I just want to switch to an aero road bike down the road.

The reality is not every bike is going to fit everybody and trying to state that one will is, what I would consider, false advertisement ... hence the differences in geometries from manufacturer to manufacturer and why one bike will fit better than another. If you are a pro with long legs, long femurs, long arms and a short torso ... the number of bikes are going to be huge.

If however, you have short legs, short femurs, long arms and long torso ... that number drops substantially.

It's OK if your bike doesn't actually fit everybody ... not every bike will ... it's a beautiful bike that I'd love to own (if it had a zero degree post option) ... but as it stands, it won't fit. Such is life ... that's why there are other options out there.

I'm very excited about this new AR. I was surprised to see the very good numbers vs. the S5, which has up to this point been the benchmark for the AeroRoad category. It seems the whole key to the new AR's performance is the low drag when the wind is at an angle. Could it be that the cutout that looks so aero on the S5 is actually a hindrance at high yaw angles and only great head on?

Could it also be that Cervelo's downtube shape is getting a little old being based on a NACA shape? Don' know, but I bet there is some magic in Felt's shaping of that downtube.

SuperDave, I have a serious fit question - sorry if it has been asked before: I like to run my seat canted to the left a bit. Will this be possible with the new AR's post?

Thanks!

I'm not sure how you can be certain you need a zero offset seatpost regardless of seat angle. I don't doubt your previous experience but I also doubt you've had much experience with the new AR. The UPPER clamp is very narrow, but the lower clamp of the seatpost which takes the bulk of the load when supporting the saddle rails is much wider and similar to the Thomson you have. You needn't be concerned with the integrity of the saddle rails using the AR seatpost clamp.

The AR has great low drag numbers at low yaw, just not quite as low as the S5 from -5/0/5 based on identical set ups although a much lower handlebar position is possible with the AR so if non-identical set ups were part of the aerodynamic development it may be possible to close the small gap here. We had to stack up the bars of the AR to reach the S5 position which added frontal area not required for function - just required for a fair apples to apples comparison.

Indeed we've got new tube cross sections - over a dozen of them actually and we've employed what we've learned here on both the AR and the IA.

The VM (variable mount) seatpost allows some small amount of rotational adjustment to the saddle.

-SD

Not to beat up on you, but saying an air foil shape is getting old because it used a NACA air foil as a starting point is the equivalent of saying "Algebra is old and therefore we shouldn't use it while doing calculus anymore." NACA air foils are an idealized starting point. Like any other idealized concept they leave something to be desired when you start messing with the design parameters. Bike foils are designed for significantly lower speeds and higher yaw angles than anything created for aerospace (the last A in NACA). Could Felt have figured something out in the shaping that Cervelo didn't? Very possible. Could Felt be designing their foils/bikes to a different optimal yaw angle? Very possible and I would guess pretty likely. Variety is the spice of life and depending on what their white paper says the Felt could be a better choice for some athletes while the Cervelo for others. I am really happy about the clean lines and focus placed on ride, something the S5 has been disparaged quite a bit about. I'm less enthusiastic about the different frames for electronic and mechanical shifting but understand why they made those choices.

But the visual appearance of the bike is important too... a -17 degree stem on a larger frame simply does not look as nice as a standard -6 degree stem on a smaller frame, in my view...