When you guys figure it out let me know I need a new bike.

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

you need a new tri bike right? get one of the ones in the P4 test. those were all awesome.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Yes I do but insurance Co (I mean extortion co.) just backflipped and said they are not covering it ;0( so might contact calfee about fixing. No $$$ to spend na new bike now. Had it all tied up this one.
It is a very sad day in the Manners household ;0(

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

"So let me respectfully ask: what other properties of a bike, besides aerodynamics, do you consider to be important in road racing? You've hinted at some in your post (above) where I've cut away some words to hopefully get closer to the heart of your meaning. But if you could list specifically the bike characteristics you look for I'd appreciate being given the opportunity to address some of them if I can. Thanks."

I'm not the guy you asked but,

First, how the bike feels is important. Sure thats hard to quantify, I definately don't think the stiffer the better. But some bikes just feel right. My training riding time greatly exceeds my racing time, so a bike that feels nice is important.

Seconds is handling. I ride in the N Georgia mountains quite a bit. I've got a AL race bike and a heavy steel touring bike. With the long wheel base I just feel more confident in the downhills. I'm sure there are more reasons than just the WB, but If I were to race a technical DH I'd much rather have that bike than my other one.

Third is weight. Not over aero, but more than most think based on the classical math on this formula. Whenever weight is brought up the first thing that gets said is aero shouldn't be sacrificed for weight. Well it doesn't have to be, you can, to a great extant have both. The reason I think its more imporatnt than people tend to think is in the dynamics of how rides typically go. In most of my faster group rides, I can keep up with guys way stronger than me, until we hit the climbs. Just draft more, pull less, stay lower, etc. The climbs are where I need the help. Sure an aero frame will help keep me fresher as we get to a climb, but my sense of things is that I'm better off being a bit less fresh and dragging less weight than vice versa.

Keep in mind none of this is a direct complaint about Cervelo. I've always been a fan, but never ridden one, and Cervelo is as much of a weight weenie company as an aero weenie company.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

In a road race a lot of details matter. It's not always easy to decide which ones are most important.

So let me respectfully ask: what other properties of a bike, besides aerodynamics, do you consider to be important in road racing? You've hinted at some in your post (above) where I've cut away some words to hopefully get closer to the heart of your meaning. But if you could list specifically the bike characteristics you look for I'd appreciate being given the opportunity to address some of them if I can. Thanks.

Ok, lets look both at a typical road race and at the overall issues I personally value. As I've said, I have no doubt that the S5 is more aero than my Parlee Z5 or most other road bikes. However, speaking again for me personally, and in real world racing situations, 99.5 or whatever % of the time it simply doesn't matter. Road racing & crits are NOT TIME TRIALS, with the sole exceptions of solo breakaways, and frankly, with the exception of grand tour events and one day classics, the benefit that someone MIGHT get from having an aero frame in a solo breakaway is miniscule, and when breakaways succeed, at least at the amateur level, 99.5% of the time it certainly wasn't because the person was on an aero frame & it saved them the 2 seconds or whatever the benefit would be in a theoretical 20-30 mile solo effort.

Aside from the very rare successful breakaway, having an aero frame in the pack simply does not matter. In a bubble environment, where a theoretical pack in a road race doesn't have to brake, corner, climb, descend, etc...en mass, I'm sure that a miniscule advantage could be gained by having the most aero bike in the pack....but to what benefit? I've done road races where my buddy & I had the latest/greatest Reynolds carbon wheels with ceramic bearings from my buddy Richie at Wheelbuilder---guess what--we ended up waiting at the bottom of the descents for the rest of the peloton to catch-up. The technology was great, but it gave us absolutely no practical advantage in MOST typical road races. So getting back to the theoretical advantages of the S5 frame in a pack----when its go time in a race, it simply won't matter whether you have saved a watt or two b/c of any slight aero advantage you may have over the other riders---MOST typical amateur bike races aren't won or lost b/c of 1-2 watts that might have been gained (and like the wheel analogy, if the frame is that much faster than the rest in the pack, you are going to be braking more anyway, completely negating any watt gain you just "earned"). Crits are even worse from an "aero-need" standpoint. Just look at the typical sawtooth of watts from a crit race---between the out-of-corner accelerations and the relatively short time frame that most crits run (45-90 min), aside from the breakaway scenarios, your performance & placing in crits has as much to do with your bike handling skills, w/kg, recovery ability, etc. I would put aero WAY down the list of "needs" when evaluating my theoretical crit/road racing "wants".

Now, getting back to me, and my "wants" in a road bike--its been touched on, but for me personally I need to be able to get low--I'm 6'3, an ex-swimmer, and built more like a NFL tight-end than a Contador. Every additional inch that I'm upright is at least 15-30 watts more that I have to put out to hold speed. The S series simply doesn't work for me b/c of the relatively tall head tube. A friend has an S3--I've ridden it--and it simply doesn't work for me, the same way that the Specialized SL3 doesn't work for me. Touching on the SL3 for a moment b/c it also relates to the overall "feel" of the bike that I personally value VERY highly---the SL3 should have been the "perfect" bike for me. I value stiffness in the BB. I value a tighter cockpit. However the SL3 was a disaster--like riding a piece of wood. Just zero enjoyment, not to mention a too high front end. I was measurably slower on the SL3 (well not "measurably"--lets just say that I was hanging on vs comfortably pulling in the local weekly WC's). Feel of a bike matters. It matters for enjoyment of riding (which should lead to more training, which is MUCH more important than aero). It matters for matters of confidence---descending GMR or any of the other local San Gabriel mountain roads, having ultimate confidence in the handling, tracking & line of my bike is key. I got rid of a Time RXR that I LOVED on the flats, b/c at 42mph it got a case of the shakes that was scary. I look at the geometry of the S5 and I just know that it isn't going to work for me---yes, maybe I can get a pretty close fit to what currently "works" for me, but its going to require a -17 degree stem, and in my experience, especially on descents & tight turns, that does not lend to my personal confidence in the bike. And for me, personally, confidence in my bike & its feel far outweigh any miniscule advantage an aero frame may have---especially for the type of riding/racing that I do.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

I do not see why -if positioned correctly- having a -17° stem instead of the usual -6° stem takes away confidence from you on the bike on descents and tight turns. Can you please explain why is this so?

Sergio

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: English is not my first language. Please read this translated post considering that.

It doesn't. In fact, that whole post made my head hurt...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

When you say "solo breakaways" aren't you including that moment when one guy moves ahead of the pack and crosses the finish line first? That part's really important in determining who wins the race.

---

______________________
"du or du not, there is no tri" - Was Yoda a duathlete?

Hi Styrell,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm oversimplifying a bit no doubt, but in summary it sounds like you propose:
Feel, handling and weight (in that order?).

You anticipated my next question: how to quantify these characteristics?

Starting with the easiest one: Weight. Just weight it.
Next is handling: a combination of geometry you like and the right amount of stiffness (in all components).

I think feel is more difficult to quantify, but probably depends a lot on both the measurable aspects of any given bike (stiffness, frame geometry, weight, etc.) and also on what bike you've just gotten off of and how long it's been. I'm suggesting how any bike feels is relative to whichever bike you rode last and how long ago it was.

I have two Cervelo S3s (I know, I know; I have an excuse). They feel different, not because the frames are different (they're not), but because I'm trying different parts on each: bars, saddle, crank length and pedal cleats aren't quite the same. But either bike feels natural after a few minutes riding. Then the other one feels a little funny ... until a few minutes riding it.

My point is, the way a bike feels can change depending on each rider's recent past riding experience. With enough experience on different bikes (in a short enough time period), each rider develops a personal preference (which may change over the years).

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this theory.

Thanks,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Hi mopdahl,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Forgive me for editing so much of it out, like w/kg, etc. which of course are critical for best performance, but not really about the bike itself and can be trained regardless of which bike you select. I left in what I think are your key words about bike preferences. Many of them depend on components other than the frame, such as braking, etc., so I'll leave those to others if they care to address that part. These are important but can be had on any frame by choosing your preferred components.

So here's a list of frame related characteristics I think you're building (I've left off confidence, which I hope you'll agree will come with time on any bike that's right in the other aspects):

Feel, fit / riding position, BB stiffness, "tighter cockpit"(related to fit or stiffness?), resistance to speed wobble, not a 17 degree stem.

Sorry to deconstruct your sentences so literally but I want to address each characteristic in turn.

Feel: As I wrote to Styrell above, feel is a result of many bike (and rider) characteristics and experience which I hope we can dissect below.

Fit / riding position: Sounds like you have a strong preference for very low handlebars, and a dislike of 17 degree stems. I'm not going to try to talk you out of your position here (that's a different topic), but I want to point out that 17 degree stems are good. For the same bar position (whatever yours may be), more head tube and a -17 stem is stiffer than less head tube and a -6 degree stem. We've confirmed this in the lab as part of our Project California "Lab vs. Reality" strain gauge ride testing. This knowledge went into the development of Cervelo's new geometry which first appeared on the R5ca in 2009. How does it work? Sure, the 17 stem is a touch more flexible, but the increased bracing distance between the top and down tubes at the head tube stiffens the frame against torsional loads enough to swamp the tiny difference in stem stiffness. So the system is stiffer. System stiffness contributes to good feel, good handling, holding a line and thus confidence. So don't be afraid of a -17 stem.

BB stiffness: this can be measured and compared. Cervelos have always had very high BB stiffness, and incorporating BBright into the S5 helped increase it by another 12%.

I don't know what you mean by "tighter cockpit"?

Resistance to speed wobble: mainly comes down to (1) torsional stiffness of the frame, (2) lateral stiffness of the fork and wheels. These can be measured, and the S5 has 12% more torsional stiffness than the S3. (I'd love to talk more about speed wobble, maybe in another thread.)

Descending, handling, tracking & line: are a product of the frame's geometry and stiffness, both of which are straightforward to quantify. The S5 has perfectly normal road bike geometry (listed on the S5 web page's "Geometry" tab at http://s5.cervelo.com/...es/2011/S5/geometry/ ) and I"ve already mentioned the 12% increase in the S5's torsional stiffness. I suspect you'd be happy with the descending handling and tracking of the S5. Have you ridden one?

Would you mind giving me your thoughts on these ideas?

Thanks,

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Damon,
Thanks for the reply. I recognize that feel,comfort and handlind are a difficult concept for a manf, mainly for the reasons you outline. Its different for each rider, and frankly for each ride. My requirements are different for a crit vs a 600Km brevet.

I'm actually surprised by the geometry of the S5, as its certainly easier to make a bike bigger than smaller. There are quite a few threads here where people espouse using any frame as long as you can get your hands, feet, butt in your preferred position.

The funny thing is most of us are watching the TdF. I'm sure the rider that went off the road on the decents yesterday would've liked to a "better handling" bike, just not sure if it possible to give him one.

Keep in mind that if I was buying a top end bike for racing less than say 100 miles I'd give a very close look to the S5, but I would also look at a couple other aerobikes, and if one felt better, particularly cornering, I'd likely go with it.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

There was freaking grease on the road! lol
Actually Levi said it was cow or horse shit. Either way good geometry and tires go out the window once you have no grip at all.

Plus it was a pinarello dogma which should be the best riding bike on earth, saw it on another thread ;)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

is it just the aerodynamic drag with the bike alone? I could believe that. However I think if you put a rider on there it all goes out the window depending on bike fit, rider size etc etc

the 9 watts over an S3 claim is with a rider on board in identical position on each bike.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Yeah, but after that the rider was still tentative. Really its hard to believe that people thing paying attention to how a bike handles when we are talking about possibly riding down swtichbacks as fast as possible in the rain, shouldn't be paid attention to.

Didn't one of your recent race reports talk about the gusting wind making the riding a bit tense? Under those conditions you don't think a poor fit or changing a bikes geometry could effect how the handling felt?

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

Wow, for as slow as you are, you certainly are a condescending prick.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Sergio, it goes back to personal preference & experience with similar setups. For me, they never have felt "right"; much more incidents of high-speed wobble at 40+ mph and the tracking thru turns just isn't the same. Why this is I can't say and admitedly I've probably thrown in the towel & switched frames if one doesn't "fit" me the way I would prefer.

My travel bike is a Holland Ti w/ S&S---it has almost the exact geometry as the S5--and I use a -17 with it & it just doesn't carve the turns like my Parlee or previous Conago CX-1 do. Yes, different frame material & I know I'm not comparing apples to apples here. However, getting back to the "feel" of the bike & personal confidence/personal preference, I've never been happy with a tall HT frame and the inherent compromises I feel I need to make in setting one up to achieve my ideal geometry. Maybe the S5 will change that.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Nice snark. And are you implying that an aero frame will be a major determining factor in sprints?

Really?

Race much?

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

you must be kind of a big deal if tom a is considered "that slow"

=)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

At the very least a taller HT vs a shorter HT would act as a longer lever on the front of the frame.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

Damon,

I don't have the time today to do another War & Peace level post on bike fit but a few quick comments on your reply:

Sounds like you have a strong preference for very low handlebars, and a dislike of 17 degree stems. Correct

I'm not going to try to talk you out of your position here (that's a different topic), but I want to point out that 17 degree stems are good. For the same bar position (whatever yours may be), more head tube and a -17 stem is stiffer than less head tube and a -6 degree stem. We've confirmed this in the lab as part of our Project California "Lab vs. Reality" strain gauge ride testing. This knowledge went into the development of Cervelo's new geometry which first appeared on the R5ca in 2009. How does it work? Sure, the 17 stem is a touch more flexible, but the increased bracing distance between the top and down tubes at the head tube stiffens the frame against torsional loads enough to swamp the tiny difference in stem stiffness. So the system is stiffer. System stiffness contributes to good feel, good handling, holding a line and thus confidence. So don't be afraid of a -17 stem. Interesting. My experience with both Ti & carbon bikes hasn't been favorable.


I don't know what you mean by "tighter cockpit"? I prefer riding a smaller size bike than what "standard" measurements would indicate I should be on. Prefer semi-sloped frames with "shorter" TT.


Resistance to speed wobble: mainly comes down to (1) torsional stiffness of the frame, (2) lateral stiffness of the fork and wheels. These can be measured, and the S5 has 12% more torsional stiffness than the S3. (I'd love to talk more about speed wobble, maybe in another thread.) Descending, handling, tracking & line: are a product of the frame's geometry and stiffness, both of which are straightforward to quantify. The S5 has perfectly normal road bike geometry (listed on the S5 web page's "Geometry" tab at http://s5.cervelo.com/...es/2011/S5/geometry/ ) and I"ve already mentioned the 12% increase in the S5's torsional stiffness. I suspect you'd be happy with the descending handling and tracking of the S5. Have you ridden one?

Would you mind giving me your thoughts on these ideas? This more than just about any other frame characteristic is where I've run into problems with frames. Part of it has to do with medium deep (46) carbon wheels that I prefer, but I've found that even the highest level frame producers sometimes can't get the front end geometry "right" (for me). Part of it is my size. Part of it is the wheels. But the difference b/t the Parlee Z5 & everything else I've ridden, with the exact same front end components, over the past 3-4 years has been profound. And that includes most of the (advertised) stiffest/fastest/most exotic frames. When asked we asked Time about the speed wobble problem a few of us were having on the RXR they said there wasn't a problem (and then completely changed the front end the next year). Specialized's Rep said it was the wheels we were running. Probably food for another thread.

I haven't ridden a S5 yet. I will. I'll give it a fair trial over at least a month at the end of this season & report back to you my impressions. As I stated early in the post--if it makes me faster I want one. It certainly didn't hurt Thor's ride today :-).....and as he & I are about the same size (I've got 1" and a few more kilos on him) I don't think he has any complaints (what a great 8 months he has had).

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

That's one way to look at it, if you raise your bars too.

But no one's suggesting everyone should raise their bars: many have spacers they can leave out, and there's always a -17 stem (though it gets an undeserved bad rap these days).

But if you keep your same bar position, then the input leverage is by definition the same as well. In this case, a taller head tube makes a stiffer system by increasing the frame's bracing distance between the top and down tubes. The frame is stiffer. Thus the system is stiffer (even accounting for the slight increase in flex in a -17 stem). The same effect stiffens the fork steerer by increasing the bracing distance between headset bearings.

We researched this as part of Project California, and is one of the reasons the R5ca introduced the new Cervelo road geometry.

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Me neither (currently planning a trip without speaking the language... meh!). Sorry, I tend to ramble at times. ;-) So let's cut to the chase:

What geometry do you like? What size is your Z5?
Stem rise and length?
Millimeters of spacers (including the headset top cap, basically everything between the frame and stem)?
Thanks!

Z5 geometry pasted from Parlee's web site (edit - sorry for the lousy formatting):

XSXS (tall)SS (tall)MM (tall)MLML (tall)LL (tall)XLXL (tall)
Actual Seat Tube (C-C)40.540.544444646484850505252
Top Tube Length515152.552.554.554.5565657.557.558.558.5
Head Angle71.571.572.572.5737373.573.573.573.573.573.5
Seat Tube Angle74.574.5747473.573.57373737372.572.5
Chainstay Length414141414141414141414141
Bottom Bracket Drop777777777777
Fork Rake4.34.34.34.34.34.34.34.34.34.34.34.3
Standover Height717174.474.476.176.177.877.879.679.681.681.6
Head Tube Length (Integrated)1012.512.314.81416.515.818.317.419.919.622.1
Front Center56.356.356.656.657.857.858.358.359.859.860.260.2
Wheelbase96.396.396.796.797.897.898.398.399.899.8100.2100.2

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

Isn't the total length of the system (fork steerer tube at lower race, to center of stem, to center of HB) longer when using a long HT, long 17 stem, Than with a short Ht shorter stem angled up. Both setting your HBs in the same position?

I'm honestly asking as I'm a bit dyslexic and have difficulties visually geometries without diagrams.

If I'm correct their is at least the potential for more flex with the longer tube lengths. I don't doubt the info you got out of the Project Ca testing, but at some point you had to to looking at a specific bike, HT for stem, rather then a universal system.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

Yes, the tubes are longer. That's the counterintuitive part: That the stiffer frame (top and down tubes bracing wider) more than makes up for it.

Here's my attempt at a (bad) analogy: hold a broomstick with two hands. Your arms represent the top and down tubes. Hold the broom with hands close together to simulate a short head tube. Hold your hands farther apart to simulate a longer head tube. Sweep. You can brace the broom better with hands farther apart.

Okay, the analogy isn't perfect but maybe it'll help with the general concept.

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)