I think yme is trying to justify to himself that the SC is better than the P5.

Both the brake and shifter housings are smaller than standard brake and shifter housings with the shifter housing very small. They have cable ends that fit a standard cable stop. I am running them on my SLC with little issues and they fit every cable stop on that bike. If you want to run the liner full length then you will have to drill out the cable stops just a bit bigger. If you like I could measure some of the I-Link housings when I get home later today. The nice thing about using them is that once you get the housing compressed, they work better than stock and do not have the issues that Nokon's have.

OR - I could just go to WW and get you the information in seconds.

Outside diameter of Mini's 4.25mm.
Outside diameter of reg's 5.44mm.

Weight includes outer housing and inner liner.
Brake - Alligator i-Links: 27g/m
Shifter - Alligator Mini i-Links: 15,5g/m


Check out this thread. It goes into a lot of detail.
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/....php?f=3&t=78656

areas?
there are only two areas really

drag (primary)
weight (distant secondary)

its either better or it isn't =)

---

---

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 do not think it is a lovers vs haters issue. I think you should have said "but when things do not line up with assumptions, I think it should be pointed out" because we have not seen the numbers.

I think hydraulics have a place on road bikes if you can make them work without having a very ugly conversion kit if you want to run standard road set up. I think they have done a great job on the TT/Tri bike set up. That being said, I think they would perform better than a standard cable actuated brake set up. I do not however like the fact that on the UCI version you still have a bigger cable housing coming down in front of the head tube and I think for the price they are too much. I believe and I could be wrong that the Omega/Hooker on the P5 with just the cable and no housing coming down would be maybe even more aero and cheaper. Like others have mentioned, I think you can have a more aero set up for cheaper but maybe you are sacrificing a bit of performs but not aero.

one downside of using an omega is you have to have a cable stop somewhere

in some cases that my offset the drag of the housing, or complicate your fit.

---

---

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 guess it depends on how creative you are in getting a cable stop designed. If you want to use stock stuff this may be an issue but then again who runs stock stuff.

That is not a lot. Did you mean "Just my $0.02?" Or, did you really mean what you wrote..."my two-hundreths of a cent?"

You have more patience than I do. I'm guessing yme is 16 maybe 18yrs old. If you think back to when you were that age didn't you think you knew everything too?

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

Depends on how generous I feel ;)

---

---
power2max
http://www.power2max.com/northamerica
official power meter of Movistar Team

Damon-

I have searched through this entire thread to look for these answers. I apologize if I have missed it.

I just ordered my 56CM P5 - Six Frameset (delivery in May). My dealer was not prompted when ordering what aerobar set up I required. I am assuming it does not come with all 3 setups, so when can I choose which one I need?

Also, can you confirm there will be no Cervelo made bento box to order?

 It is not rocket science to invision airflow, not everyone needs a wind tunnel to fiqure this out. Bumps in the airstream are bad for airflow. We are all capable of logic if we try hard enough. Most people are smart on this forum, you do not always need the offical response from a bike maker to tell you how good the bike is, you can figure some of this stuff out on your own you know. For all you know, I just might be that CFD Engineer that might know just a little something about airflow. ;o)

The issue I have with this is that I'm not sure I'll ever consider my position truly finalized. I've been working on it for 2 years and can easily see myself making further refinements for the next 3 years. So while I could use a different bike to test on the road on the tiny number of days each year that are good enough to do aero testing, I need to set the race bike up as best I can in the meantime, but I'd want to be able to transfer any refinements across as and when I make them. Even something as simple as trying out shorter cranks is going to be a problem if you can't raise the pads to keep the same saddle to pad drop when you raise the saddle.

So, I'm now considering a couple of options with the P5 as I don't think I can live with the Adura bars:

1. Go for the UCI legal P5 and put my Tulas on it, use cable brakes possibly the tririg Omega when it arrives. To be able to decide to go this route, I'd need to see a comparison against the P4 to know how much drag I'd be saving, i.e. UCI legal P5 vs P4 when both have the same bars/brakes/wheels fitted, graph of drag vs yaw for both bikes.

2. Go for the UCI illegal P5 and use different bars, but with conventional ends to be able to take the Magura levers and keep the hydraulic brakes. I can see something like the Tula being a nightmare in this scenario, as the hydraulic hosing will need redoing every time you move the bars up or down. So I'd probably need to go for some bars where the adjustment comes from aero spacers under the pads, e.g. the Ventus II, but then it would need cutting off right behind the stem attachment to cope with the very close top tube cable entry. From the drag figures mentioned so far, I think this option would be around 2W faster than option 1, but that gap might be reduced with a brake like the tririg Omega in option 1.

I'd be interested if you have any thoughts on these two options, particularly if there is any drag vs yaw data you can share on the P4 vs UCI legal P5 when all the components are the same between the two.

It might not be rocket science, but it does take 2.5 DAYS for a super computer to run a single CFD analysis. I'm really not sure why anyone would spend the time an money to do this let alone go into the wind tunnel to verify the simulations when there are people such as yourself with such finely calibrated vision.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

The stack/reach table shows that each bar has ~50mm of arm pad stack adjustment - is this achieved through spacers below the arm pads? Are the arm pads raised independently of the extensions, similar to say, the Zipp Vuka Aero? I assume the spacers will be included with each frameset/complete bike?

---

VALÄ’RE | YouTube

It really is rocket science. Its the whole airflow thing that makes rocket science hard =)

it gets pretty easy once you are out of the atmosphere.

---

---

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

So far I've seen mention of fork spacers that are shaped to match the stem. I haven't seen mention of pad spacers, though that should be possible even if not a 'factory option'

when you raise the pads independent of the extensions it changes your arm angle though. not always the best solution.

---

---

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

Can someone explain the "X-Lo"...it isn't a range like the other options and has a higher stack than the lower end of the range of the "Low"...

---

Coach at KonaCoach Multisport

looking at this chart:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/...0/p5-stack-reach.jpg

you will see that all 3 configurations have the same range of stack adjustment (via under-stem spacers)

the X-Lo configuration does not have the same reach adjustment however. You flip the bar upside down to get the x-lo configuration and I guess it only has one set of bolts instead of 3 on the back side.

---

---

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

The Tri Rig brake looks good. I think the biketechreview guy did brake tests in the San Diego tunnel with a modified John Cobb brake and the center pull style actually tested slower than a traditional Shimano brake at yaw. I think jumping on the Cervelo brake band wagon is just because it is new. Frontal area is important up to a point, but I think the industry has discovered that shape in relation to yaw angles is more important. In addition, yes the hydraulic brake produces more power, but the contact patch has not really improved in decades apart from Steve Hed's wider rim, so I think tire sales are going to go way up when everyone flat spots their tires.

Man, if only Cervelo knew anything about shapes and aerodynamics, and if only they had some input on how that brake was shaped! ;)


Wider rims do not increase contact patch area, they only change its shape. In a way that might actually negatively affect longitudinal grip actually. Though tires are not simple, never pretend to understand them!

---

---

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

But, to be clear, that doesn't mean you have to rig one up - the Omega has an option integrated stop that you can bolt on if you don't want to deal with the hassle of figuring out something else.

By the way, based on preliminary drag data from Cervelo - http://www.bikeradar.com/...e-full-details-32962 - and preliminary aero testing with my brake ... and making a couple assumptions that certain data are comparable ... it *LOOKS* like the Omega will close roughly the entire aero gap between the UCI and Tri versions of the P5. That is, UCI P5 + Omega ~= Tri P5. Again, take it with a grain of salt for now. But I'll have plenty of data to share with the Omega comes out.

---

---

TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide

20grams drag savings over standard brake only with the added cover. I think Tom A. got that with his modified centerpull. I *think* 2 watts is what he said.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

Right, but that's not what we're comparing here. We're trying to get the potential difference between two centerpull brakes (the Magura and the Omega), then compare that to the difference between the P5 UCI and P5 Tri.

Oh, and there's a lot of room for improvement with the Tektro, at least on the narrow forks Cervelo uses.

---

---

TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide

HI Damon,

So it's just the fork that is different (frame wise)? On Cervelo.co it says the seat post is Aero TT for the base frameset. For all the other setups it's Aero Tri.

It also say you don't get Magura brakes or 3T bars. Is that correct?

Cheers

Scott

I don't think the Omega is fast enough to close the distance to the P5 UCI illegal. If anything, it's about par with the Magura (but looks wider rather than tall). Considering the headtube of the P5 was specifically designed with the Magura in front of it. I highly doubt your statement.