Right after the launch as we have a shooter there. Later this month.

Not aimed at Dev...but his post peaked my curiosity -
I have a P3SL currently, but the bike prior was a 2003 P2k and it fit great (better than the SL).
I tried to look up the stack & reach for the P2k and the geometry table did not list them.
Anyone know how the 3 compare?
I will be 'really' interested in the new P3 if it fits like the P2k.

one could easily build up a P5-3 with ultegra for less than $5400. so why would anyone get a P3 -DA for $5400?

Why would you come out with a new bike a few months after you launch your latest superbike that contributes nothing to your product line and costs 90% as much as the superbike? From a consumer standpoint, I don't get it. Cervelo is filling a hole in their line-up that doesn't seem to exist. At least throw us a bone and offer a frame-only option. I just wonder, honestly, why anyone would choose to buy this bike instead of a P5?

Dude.

Shut up James. Its new bike tech. Plus its currently a secret and I don't like those.

---

"One Line Robert"

Anybody else feel like the new ”p3” looks more like the p2 than the old p3? Where is the curve for the rear wheel?

And as someone else posted...$5400 is a lot of coin, when a p5 is doable at that price.

Why I think they're doing this:

This is a simpler mold that tested well in development but not up to snuff as the ultimate high-end bike, but is easier/cheaper to make than the P5 mold.

So they're rolling this out to stop defection sales while the harder-to-make P5 is in short supply.

Cervelo is pricing it like the demand exceeds supply, which it probably will.

the old p3 curve around the wheel design is old busted.

the new p3 and p5 and s5 is the new hotness.

look, guys, this isn't hard. you are making much ado about nothing, as usual.

The new p3, equalizing for aerobars equipped on it, is within like 5-10 grams of the p5. Which makes it about as good or better than any superbike on the market depending on your yaw angle histogram.

and it is cheaper than the sram red P5 with a more expensive dura ace 11 speed and hydro brakes.

its not like dura ace 11 and hydro brakes is going to be the only option for long.

us poor people just hang on a few months and pick up a frame or ultegra build later.

---

---

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

They might has well have just ran the rear brake all the way along the top tube. Seriously, WTH were they thinking there?

they were doing math and wind tunnel testing and decided it was good.

---

---

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

It's also a bike that appears super easy to wrench on, as compared to many super bikes that are a giant pia. It's nice to be able to wrench in the field, too.

Riiiiiight. Because entering the frame behind the headset with the derailluer cables and exiting anywhere further back than that ungodly loop of cable hanging there in front of the seat tube would not have been more aero? But having a straw sticking up out of a bottle vs. a BTA mount costs you how many watts?

I guess when Cervelo releases the white paper we will know :-)

If that is the case though, they just lost me as a potential P5 buyer...

The straw is much larger in diameter and perpendicular to the flow of air, with less interaction going on.

the rear brake cable is not perpendicular to the flow of air.

The interaction of things can sometimes be non intuitive. For instance, a brake housing perpendicular to the flow of air, but in front of a head tube can actually reduce overall drag at certain yaw angles as compared to no brake cable at all.

Given strange interactions like that, are you confident in asserting that the way the brake cable enters the top tube is a downside of any import?

---

---

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

I am confident in asserting that it is fugly and could have been cleans up very easily. Outside of that, I really don't give a crap.

I really like the fact that the frame has a number of aero advantages, but remains easy to work on and more importantly easy to pack. After recently building a Shiv and spending hours on the aero-bars and getting the brakes set up I can tell you I have zero interest in every traveling with that bike. To have to disassemble the bars to pack into a box makes me frustrated just thinking about it.

I think they have done a great job improving the frame yet retaining the ability to choose whatever aero-bar the rider likes best.

x2. I love bikes that you can do all your maintenance and packing and unpacking for races with nothing but a folding tool and get it all done and shoved into the bike case in 15-20 minutes on either side of the trip

I was thinking about this a lot last night... What makes any of us feel entitled to an "affordable" bike that's designed for performance at the top end of the sport?

What's more, why do so many of us seem to think that we're being inconvenienced when we look at a bike and scream "Those stack and reach numbers are AT LEAST a centimeter too long/short/high/low!"?

For decades, professionals rode heavy, flexy bikes with quill stems and "sub-obtimal" geometry -- and they did it faster than any of us can dream. Now, companies like 3T make their money on offering stems and bars that can get 99% of people to "fit" on any size bike (within reason) -- yet we don't cry that their stems only come in 100, 110, and 120 instead of those necessary in-betweens like 105, 113 and 118 to REALLY get us dialed.

Where's the line? We all make choices. Dev mentioned a high-spec VW vs an Audi. I'd argue that 99% of us only need a Honda Accord. You know why? Because we are not professional drivers. Should we start begging auto manufacturers to measure our arms and legs and install the driver's seat and steering wheel so that we no longer need adjustability? No. Like bikes, adjustability (and resale value) are king.

If any manufacturer put everything that every consumer wanted into its product, we couldn't afford to buy it, because they couldn't afford to produce it, and they go out of business. Then we're back to start-up companies that offer a utilitarian product designed to fit the masses. That's the way it's always worked, and I predict that within our own competitive lifetimes, that's not going to change in regard to bike production.

/rant.

By the way, tgarson, that wasn't directed at you -- just my thoughts on the situation in general :) I'll shut up and go ride my P2 now....

Pity the rear brake cable enters the frame so far down the top tube. Almost only 1/3 of the top tube length is internal cable.

Can someone explain how/(if) the geometery has shifted from the old p3 to this one?

x2

Old geometry: http://www.cervelo.com/...c-31529b507db8-0.pdf
New geometry at bottom before comments: http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Cervelo_P3_3530.html

The geometry is the same as the P5. In short, each size is shorter in reach and higher in stack that the older P3. That's a generalization, you'll have to look at the geometry charts to get the specifics. I can only give our example. That is that Amy and I both rode a 54cm P3/4 and she now rides a 51cm P5 (same as the new P3) and I ride a 54cm P5. The reach that she needs is a bit shorter, so the 51 works better for her. But either of use could have ridden a 51 OR a 54 P5.

Bobby11 was asking on another thread about the old 51cm P3 vs the new 51cm P3. The new 48cm P3 is close in stack to the old 51cm P3 but shorter in reach.

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

P2k geometry w/ stack, reach: http://www.cervelo.com/...5-9c0dda643b03-0.pdf