In the horizontal dropouts, there is a hex screw you can use to "push out" the depth. It will offset the wheel a bit, allowing you to use the wider parts of the Maugra brakes.

Downside, it' doesn't look symmetrical around the down-tube cutout for the wheel.

you don't have to file anything, you just need to adjust number of spacers. hopefully your 19mm wheel is carbon also. if not get another set of pad holders and replace carbon pad holders with those with spacers when changing between wheelsets

Thanks for letting me know the good trick.
Yet, I don't like to hear the break squeaking after having removed all of the spacers for Zipp FC.
Only if some supplier releases a thinner break holder with angle adjustable spacer, your method would work fine.
Now that it's not available in the market, I think that I have to file the break pad, right ? So, my question is how I file them effectively.

...its an iterative process, you file check - if not happy file again

i still have rotational adjustment, did not take that spacer out

Oh, it's great to hear that. I would like to follow you.
Which supplier's break holder and pad are you using, with attaching angle adjustment washer, without filing pad, for using Zipp 404 and 808 FC tublar ?
It would be great to use black prince pad.

I would have to look at home to tell you, can only say I use the zipp platinum pads right now

Have a race coming up and need a way to mount Garmin 500 on P5 while using bottle between arms. Prefer DIY approach. I am using Low bar and was considering just drilling a hole in the cap and then attach Garmin mount with a screw. But prefer to not drill a hole in my cap :)

Other approach is maybe using some really strong double sided tape but boy I don't want this thing to go flying. I did some searching on the forum but nothing really jumped out so thought I would just ask. I did see a post from Veloflyte on a product but when visiting web site I did not see the product. Also looked at the Alden solution but really prefer something a little cheaper and something here quickly.

Also, probably a dumb question. But it appears there is only one screw hole for the cage. I assume we just use the one and good to go. Is this what others are doing? In the past I just attached with zip ties which would just do in the front but thought I would ask.

Thanks in advance for any help!!

you have a flattish plate that goes under armrests that has second hole, flattish in that it is lower in the middle than the ends that go under armrests

Is this true on Low and X-lo bar? I will look again when I go home but did not notice. I right now have the X-lo bar on the bike but also looked in the box at the low bar and did not notice a second hole.

there is a separate plate that is ~5" long and 1.5" wide that has a hole in the middle and 2holes on either end for armrest bolts to go through. I don't kow if it works on xlo due to mounting location of armrests(then again the xlo is deemed unsafe currently to use) the plate is about 5mm thick and higher on ends than middle. there is a pic somewhere in this thread, but I am not searching for it, too many pages

Thanks!. I will find the second hole this evening. My LBS has made aware of the issue with the X-lo bar and this is why I am swapping out to the low.

Update. Re-read your response and now see the issue. I do not think I installed the plate but I think I saw it in with the extra parts. I purchased a P5-3 and 6 upgrade kit so there are lots of extra parts with the bike :).

post 2643, it is even called out in the pic

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=4589647#4589647

Hey did you happen to post pics of the splicing of the cateye wires and the soldering to the circuit board? This is the part I'm most nervous about!

Can anyone tell me what the two small plastic pieces in the lower left hand corner of the photo below are for and where they go?

There are 2 small holes on the top surface of your handlebar, visible in the photo. These plastic pieces snap in these holes to plug them.

Anyone have to size up from P3 classic due to the shorter adora bar? I use a Brezza II bar on a 56 classic. Not having the longer stem option is making me nervous.

I am certain I can get the aero bar to fit on the 56, but felt really cramped on the Base bar, and on the aerobar (aura) for that matter, I was test riding a P5-3, will buy the P5-6.

I am 650mm pad without the cushys (those are almost 15-20mm) to BB, and 495 Pad center to BB, reach is on the edge for the 58. I don't want any spacers either so the 58 has some appeal there, if I ever go back to short course I can use the lower bar. It feels if I put any spacers under the stem, the bike gets too short.

Also the effective top tube length is listed different for the new P3 vs the P5, I thought they were the same. Is there a mistake there? The 58 P5 lists the effective top tube length in Tri mode the same as the 56 P3 classic, which has me real concerned I should go the 58, especially with the adoro looking that short.

We put a 70mm stem on a 58 P3 to test it, that seemed to get the aero bar pads with the aura in the same as the rear most position on the adoro.

I know the standard answer is stay in the aero bars, I don't use them when climbing or descending mountains sorry...

Can you build 10-20mm of slack hose and cable to move the spacers around?

Hi Mdfletcher,

Sounds like you understand the differences perfectly. You've done good work trying the different stem and comparing arm pad stack & reach.

Sorry, yes there must be a typo in the top tube lengths. In fact the P5 and P3 fit identically, as you mentioned. I appreciate you pointing that out so we can look into making a correction.

Instead of looking at top tube, consider looking at frame stack and reach. Compare the new numbers to your P3 classic. Notice, from your classic P3 to the new P3, for a given frame size the stack is increased by ~24mm and the reach is decreased by ~8mm. These two changes combine to effectively increase the head tube length (as if adding spacers) by exactly 25mm. (The actual length of the head tube is now shorter, from the bottom, because the bottom bracket is lower.)

Knowing the difference has the same effect as exactly 25mm of "spacers" should help you choose the best frame size for you.

Cheers,

Damon

---

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

Damon,

Thanks for the weekend reply.

I run 20mm under the pads on my brezza, so on the P5 they put the 20mm under the stem, which really shortened it way more short than the classic.

From what I can tell with a tape measure the brezza ii is about 1-2cm longer than the aduro. Thinking that I should be able to tolerate a longer bike. Between the low and high V bar I am thinking the 58 is a better choice.

If the reach is correct on the chart it matches New P3, the 58 P5 is only 4mm longer than the classic 56. I will check with my retul fitter about that since I am on the edge there, he has been slowly raising me up as I aged and moved to full distance as the focus.

I am sure I can get the aerobar in a correct place, on a54 to 58 my concern is the reach of the base bar, if I add spacers at all on the 56 it feels too short. Yes I want to be able descend as close to a roady as I can, I am a slow swimmer and free time going on courses that it matters helps. The width also makes me a little nervous, I assume I will get used to it like I did going from 42 vision to the 40 brezza. Maybe its just mental, but more than 1/2 this sport is mental....

Hi Mdfletcher,

Yerwelcome. :-)

Good on ya for trying it out beforehand. FYI, you can run spacers under the pads on the Aduro as well, though the extensions don't rise with the pads. Ski-tip extensions work well with this.

Rule of thumb: As you add spacers on the fork, you reduce reach by about 1/3 of that. Example: add 21mm of spacers, reduce reach by ~7mm.

Spacers, Negative reach
15, 5
18, 6
21, 7
24, 8
27, 9
30, 10
etc.

Good idea to confirm with your fiter, but it sounds like you have a very good understanding of the various differences and how you anticipate adapting to them.

The 38cm bars are a piece of cake. Just ride lots, pretty soon your brain doesn't even notice. Plus they're faster (less frontal area).

Definitely agree with you! Yogi Berra could have been describing triathlon when he said, "Baseball is ninety percent mental and the other half is physical."

Cheers,

---

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

Damon,
I have a question if that's OK please.

We have a P5-3, size 51 (we need to be UCI compliant). We want the lowest pad stack height possible in order to do some aero testing. I am fully aware that lowest isn't always fastest, but I want to achieve the lowest pad stack height I can for the purpose of aero testing. We can always go higher at the front later if testing shows we should do so.

Using the Cervelo stack and reach charts, for the P5-6, the X-Lo bar in its lowest config gives a pad stack of 545mm. I think this is pretty low and seems to be the same as can be achieved with a Shiv TT. In another post on here Damon, you suggested people try bars such as the Felt Devox to replace the X-Lo Aduro bar (is the X-Lo Aduro still unavailable?). In order to achieve a pad stack height of 545mm with a bar like the Felt Devox (or any other bar where the pads sit directly on top of the base bar) do I need a negative stem? Or a flat (minus 17 stem)?
In other words, what would be the lowest pad stack height I can achieve for a P5-3 size 51 using UCI legal parts? What bars and stem would I need?

If anyone else would like to help answer the above as well as Damon I would be very much obliged.

Many thanks.
John

xlo(can't get)

look ergostem and any bar if just looking to get range of drops

I have a P5-3 size 51 and use USE Tula handlebars along with a 130 mm -24 degree Specialized stem and the stock FSA dust cap. This gives a stack of ~548 mm (without pads, just as the stack is measured on Cervélo's chart). I think something like the Felt Devox has a tiny bit less stack than the Tula and I know the Pro Missile (old one, not the new) also has a bit less stack, on the order of 3-5mm IIRC. If you ditch the dust cap, use Pro Missile (or perhaps the Devox, which I would think is a touch more aerodynamic) and find a -17 degree stem with a low stack height (on the steerer) you can probably get roughly the same stack as I have, i.e. around 545-550 mm.

Of course, you can get lower with a negative rise stem. If you don't want to go with an adjustable stem I think the lowest you can go is with a -40 degree stem, which should give you 25-30 mm less stack (depending on stem length and steerer stack height) so you will end up at around ~520 mm.

Hi Johnny,

Nice to hear you are planning some aero testing! You've gotten some great advice already from jeffp and MTM. One of the reasons Cervelo likes this forum!

Not sure what size 51 has to do with being UCI compliant; the other sizes are also legal. Maybe you were referring to the P4-Three (not -Six).


When we test with our pros, we nearly always use a Look Ergo stem, as MTM mentioned (after taking a baseline run with the normal stem first of course).


Once you have results, it would be interesting to compare your data to this chart. More information about that can be found in the related article here:
http://www.cervelo.com/...aller-cyclists-.html

We recommend getting your best position from testing. After you've chosen your arm pad stack height, then look at stems. The Aduro X-Low is unavailable and will be so for the foreseeable future I'm afraid. MTM has good experience here.

Cheers,

Damon

---

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

Thank you for your advice everyone.
MTM - I very much appreciate your specific advice, fantastic stuff. What a brilliant post :)
Jeffp - thank you too.
Damon - Thank you too. Kristen Armstrong's figures are interesting on that graph. She seems to have a sweet spot for pad stack height. By the way, I didn't mean the size 51 is needed to be UCI legal, I just meant that the P5-3 (not P5-6) is needed to be UCI legal as I'm sure we all know.