Giant Testing had the plasma5 about midway between group 1 (other brands) and group 2 (Cervelos) from this test. The Giant was of course close to P5. But Giant don't have a great testing pedigree so we'll just take this as an interesting data point.

The big thing between top bikes is adjustability so you can position the rider properly
Giant really limited
Scott quite limited
Canyon not bad but tricky
P5-6 limited
P5X pretty good
Trek amazing but really tricky

Cube will be very adjustable, probably very aero

If you look at the P5-X as the future of what is to come, I call it a win. It proved Cervelo wasn't lying. Cervelo's test had 4 Gus taped to the stem and 3 bottles and the P5-X won. Kiley had none of that and the P5-X still won.

Fast foward 5-7 years, and the P5-X will be known as the turning point of tri bike design just as the P3C and P5 was.

That's why I called it a win. From a financial standpoint, yeah it's expensive.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

Damn it, it is gospel!!!!

I've already thought of a few tweaks I'd make to the design of the test protocol. Especially now that we have a better handle on the time requirement(s) and what the pre vs post-testing timelines looked like.

My guess is there is no one who is really that interested in replicating this test with different bikes etc. The amount of behind the scenes work, the help we got from people in the industry, the amount of maths required, the amount of reading I/we did to make sure we didn't fuck this up was enormous. I'm pretty sure no one but those involved or those that have run manufacturer testing have any clue as to how much work went into this, especially on Kiley's part.

If someone has the time and desire we have the tunnel and expertise

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I'm a little surprised at the rider off numbers. Here is the Tactical (red) against the Felt IA from San Diego. That strange result on both the Tactical and Cervelo P5-X in the report is something I have not been able to square. Not from a values point of view - as there are differences in protocol but the overall curve.

---

Dan Kennison

facebook: @triPremierBike
http://www.PremierBike.com
http://www.PositionOneSports.com

Only because we get so little of this information
This test doubles the aero data we have about P5X (only had manufacturer data before)
There was nothing for Ventum publicly (that I know of)
Andean only compared to Serios, which had no comparative data
Tactical only their own data
B2 no data
P5 - heaps of data, it is the reference

So of course this test is going to be talked about a lot. It's hard, expensive and time consuming to test well. And a lot of bike company funded testing doesn't give the result they want so we never see it (or they don't want to undergo the inquisition about protocol).

I doubt Kiley will want to do this again, so this data may be sitting out there as the only independent testing for a long time.

To be honest, I think the original Speed Concept was the real turning point in tri bike design. It really doesn't get enough credit. And that was YEARS ago.

For the right athlete (wealthy, doesn't understand minimalist racing, travels a lot but likes to do things to their bike themselves) the P5-X is definitely a "win." There are athletes like that all over the place. I see them at every IM event I've done (especially lately, for some reason, maybe I just didn't notice them before). For me? No, I have no desire to get a P5-X. It doesn't do anything for me between T1 and T2.

That's fair. I do hope to own a P5-X one day. I'm slowly working on the savings to get one haha. However, by that point, the P6 will be out. But I'm definitely sold on disc brakes.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

If you have limited or even unlimited cycling funds, this test tells me a used P2 optimized with tri rig brakes and bars, aero wheels and the tactical chain, plus several hours in the wind tunnel optimizing position, fluid, helmet, and clothing will most likely get you much faster than buying any of these new bikes, at a much lower price point. When the correct helmet could save you more watts than these bikes will save... buying a new superbike seems like a very high money amount spent for minimal gain, unless you do all of the preceding, resulting in a huge cash outlay.

FIFY

so you are buying and andean tomorrow ....

What? I've never been interested in the Andean

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

I was thinking the same thing, hands are noticeably lower on the Tactical in the pictures, and while individual riders need to test to be sure, raising the hands to close the gap between hands/head seems to have an aero benefit for most riders (up to a certain extent). So with taller extensions I wouldn't be surprised if the Tactical was even closer to the Cervelos.


Really impressed by your responsiveness on these issues after listening to feedback from folks. Between the frameset-only purchase option, the new tilt hardware, narrower mounting options for the extensions, and the ability to use after-market extensions you've now addressed all the concerns I had when the Tactical was initially announced.

My plans to purchase a new TT rig have been postponed a bit, since I started racing on the velodrome and just built a new track bike; but later this year or early next when I can purchase the Tactical is now at the top of the list. The other main contender being the Canyon, but that would depend on what the US pricing ends up looking like. I suspect the Tactical will still be the better deal.

In general, I just think Kiley makes your butt hurt.

It deserves the air time it's receiving. It's the most comprehensive, transparent report the industry has seen. There, I said that. It's the be all end all because of those points. Having someone else on the bike - mannequin or not - wouldn't change the validity of this test. And it's nobodys job, involved or not, to ensure that dumb people understand the output correctly. Just as with any other test produced.

It seems that you might be attempting to undermine this testing by implying that someone could put together a better "be all, end all" test?

ETA: BTW, "be all end all" especially in the context of the trash that is manufacturer papers like Dimonds, Pinarello, etc.

---

"One Line Robert"

over the years we found that to be true < half the time in the tunnel. On the velodrome about 80% of the time it worked, maybe even 85%. At yaw those numbers start to shrink in the testing we've done in the tunnel. (N= ~ 60 I'd guess)

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

B_Doughtie wrote:
My only complaint is that this test seems like it's going to be taken as the gospel now of aero bike shooto


only people that are Bull sh.tter will use it as gospel the people that really read it will use it as a stepping stone for more.
well done to all the people involved
its a briliantly written report
and given the budget i guess its the very best what could have been achieved.

With this and disc brakes I sort of envision you do doing victory laps around TomA.

still, it's ironic that 2 or 3 years after i first broached the subject of disc brakes in tri bikes we're now saying, "give me some time; i think i can make rim brake bikes that equal the aero performance of the disc brake bike!"

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Fantastic job on the testing and paper fellas.

It's fascinating to me that people still want certain bikes tested even though it will almost definitely fall within ~10w of the others. I think the results are very, very exciting for budget-minded individuals like myself.

You triathletes can encumber your bikes however you like (and do so quite often, it seems ;-)

But, for TT bikes and fast road bikes...nope.

BTW, I'd like to point out that although this testing shows that a P5X might be slightly faster than a P5 (which is a previous generation bike mostly designed around UCI restrictions), it says nothing about how it would compare to a P5X-like design with integrated rim calipers.

Excellent write up and effort by the way Kiley, et al :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

All day every day

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

Ummm...why? Well designed frames/forks and most short-reach brakes can easily accommodate up to 28mm measured width tires, and some even 30+. Mid-reach brakes even more.

The fact that most CURRENT frames can't do so us just a lack of consideration of that in the design.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

You might want to consider that clip is a celebration from a rigged competition...just sayin' ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Don't forget he's talking about previous generation designed rim brake bikes that didn't use a non-UCI legal approach (unlike the P5X)...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I don't care at all about the results (though interesting), as I'll probably never buy a super bike or be fast enough to justify buying one. I do want to say, though, that the paper is really well-written. As one English major to another, Kiley, great work.

---

Attacking this day with enthusiasm unknown to mankind.