Not eveyone sticks to UCI legal designs.
get a cheetah

---

---

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 can think of a number of available non legal UCI designs - Softride, BP Stealth, Kestrel, Titanflex, etc. They don't seem to sell, suggesting they may be too radical for even trigeeks. Some triathetes such as myself, will also do the occasional TT, which needs a legal bike.

"My thought is that I'm wrong in assuming the North American market is similar to the rest of the world"


No...you and the other non-uci-compliant-frame dreamers are wrong in thinking dedicated triathletes are a large enough audience to support a major bicycle manufacturer's investment in such a frame. But yes...VERY myopic. Its a business decision.

Look at the sponsors and budgets for the ProTour-level teams... those are some multi-billion dollar companies shelling out millions of dollars on their UCI programs. Who the hell underwrites tri geeks anywhere near that level?

If nothing else, I would hope some of the top frame companies, like Cervelo or Felt, would do one-offs for their top triathletes. For no other reason than the desire to make the very fastest frame, rules be damned.

The hammer-head shark looking bike that Cervelo made 10 years ago, starting with the letter "B" (forgot what it was called) seemed pretty sweet.

I thought that some of the UCI legal bikes were as aero or more aero than the non UCI counterparts. I think Gerard was saying that the P3C was as aero as almost every other non UCI bike out there. Now if they can make the new Cervelo P4 20% more aero than the P3C would that not make it the most aero bike available UCI legal or Non UCI?

I think that you would have to do some pretty radical designs and change the position of the rider to get any significant gains from where we are today.

This truly is a business decision. This is even more so, when considering that USCF will be requiring UCI compliant designs for time trials in the coming years. It would be great to see one offs for top athletes. However, unless you use tube to tube construction (not many do for the aero shapes on tt/tri frames) in carbon, or use metal tubes, it just doesnt make financial sense. A monocoque mold costs on the order of $20,000; not to mention the cost of developing the laminate schedules, and processing. There just isnt enough draw from Tri alone to justify that expense.

---

-Pete S.

Long Standing Champion of the Training Trifecta

So what are the rules in triathlon? Assuming you don't need to be UCI-compliant, can you compete in a triathlon in a fully faired recumbant bike?

Considering that most of the non UCI bikes are pretty dated designs it doesn't surprise me that todays state of the art UCI bikes are as good. I would be surprised if Cervelo put the same effort into a non UCI bike as they did the P4? and couldn't improve it even a little bit.

The UCI rules are too random for them to have come up with a perfect aero template.

Styrrell

I just had the same question. Perhaps we're myopic. Perhaps the world-wide demand is greater for UCI legal bikes.
I just don't see that many cyclists in the US that own TT-specific bikes compared to the number of triathletes...I suppose that overall worldwide it could be completely different...or in those countries the triathlons enforce UCI rules?

Tri has rules. Essentially no fairings, no recumbents.

Styrrell

Simple. They don't do it because it isn't worth it. Not enough return on their investment to do it. After all, these companies are all businesses with shareholders and strive to maximize their return. Sometimes that means building a strong brand (Cervelo) and sometimes it means selling a lot of bikes (Trek). The goal is the same in both though, and that is to create value.

I understand this, but clearly more triathletes purchase tri/tt bikes than do licensed road racers, at least in North America - it's not even close. We've sold over 100 tri/tt bikes this year, and I can think of only one that was designated for road tt's. So, is I guess what manufacturers believe is that a UCI-legal bike under a pro rider sells more bikes overall for the entire brand than marketing a bike made strictly for the multi-sport athlete. In other words, there's simply not enough multi-sport types to go around to make it an overall worthwhile investment because you'll sell more of your entire line with the the right people riding a single bike. I get the business model, I just think it stifles innovation.

Based on the manufacturing costs, I also understand why we don't see more one-off designs for top-level athletes; no return on the investment. Unless, of course, you have someone like Tom Boonen who simply refuses to ride your bike and leaves you no choice. On the other hand, companies like Felt came to the public's attention by building bikes specifically for athletes and not the masses, so perhaps it is a possibility. Of course, Jim Felt was welding frames and not spending money on expensive molds!

The non-UCI-legal bikes of years past could easily be updated - I have little doubt that if you threw away the UCI rule book, and focused solely on multi-sport, you'd come up with a faster bike, but if it doesn't sell enough bikes for your entire brand, I also understand why it isn't worth it. Still, if you're a brand that will never sponsor a pro team, why not just make the fastest bike you can and get the smart athletes on your bike? Not saying I'm right, but no manufacturer has ever provided me with a clear answer.

---

Jim Manton / ERO Sports

Oh I agree it stifles innovation, big time but I just don't think it's going to change. It's an alright business but the margins are not extreme and the manufacturers need to capture as much of the entire bike market for their bikes as they possibley can. Pro cycling sells more bikes than triathlon. The hardest part of getting the top athletes on your bike in triathlon is countering the money that your competitors will throw at them to ensure that this doesn't happen. Otherwise you'd have 10 P3Cs in the top 10 at Kona.

Being mentioned as one of the non-UCI-legal bike manufacturers, I thought I throw in my 2 cents.

The TitanFlex design began as a one-off project in 1991. I wanted to replace my Kestrel KM40 with a more durable ride that shared its high-performance characteristics and incorporated suspension...not as much as the Softride and certainly not with the weight penalty of their design.

Over the next 5 years I built several more one-offs. My wife's objection to this "hobby" moved me to adopt a break-even business model I could afford to pursue (no investors or ambitions of dominating the multisport cycling world). I've been able to sell about 500 bikes over the last 12 years. The titanim boom suspension enables riders to sustain a more aerodynamic body position. I'm sure the frameset is as aero as any of the latest UCI-legal designs.

Scott Molina is perhaps my most notable rider. He started riding a TitanFlex 8 years ago when he turned 40. I've never had the budget to compete for top-tier triathletes.

I agree with several things others have posted to this thread. The big players garner more market exposure/leverage with their UCI-compliant sponsorship programs. None of them are challenged to create a bike that "breaks the rules." The production economies don't pencil out. (They pencil for me only because I run small domestic production batches and sell direct.)

I think the multi-sport market is more fashion sensitive than any of us would like to admit. (Ever notice how many Slowtwitchers just don't like the looks of something?) If multi-sporters were more analytical, like you, more non-legal (superior) designs would be sought after. That doesn't seem to be happening. The reality is that these outlawed--and often ridiculed--designs find it very difficult to compete with the companies that can communicate their mainstream message--strut their stuff--loudly.

Tom Piszkin
Airo-Series, Inc.
UCSD Masters Triathlon Coach

P.S. Jim, I'll be helping in T2 at the Mission Viejo Triathlon this weekend. See you there.

Tom-have completed three ironmen and Muskoka half on the Titanflex I bought from you last October..The P3C has been left at home during those races.The fact that I feel great at the end of the bike portions is remarkable for me.Many thanks for your great product.

Your the man..uh...man. Your bike is super and good luck in the future. Any chance we will see something new in the future?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Tom,

Is there any chance you know of any wind-tunnel tests of your frames vs others? I know John Cobb mentioned some anecdotal evidence about it being 'as aero' with an aero seatpost or something, but I'd love to see some data. Especially comparing riders in the same position/gear.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

Stal, I agree that the data you desire would be very valuable. Unfortunately, it's quite costly to acquire.

John Cobb will tell you that a rider's body accounts for about 70% of the total drag forces at play. This leaves about 30% in the domain of "gear." Forks, wheels, tires, helmets, brake locations and handlebar setups--in toto--constitute most of this this 30%.

You can see where this is going. The drag savings of the slipperiest frameset, say a Lotus or Cheetah, could be more than offset by helmet choice and head position.

While exercises in drag reduction are academically tantalizing, I contend that they should be focused on the biggest contributor, i.e. body position. To this end one should explore the most efficient position that can be sustained--not in a 5 minute wind tunnel test run, but--for the duration of the bike segment. In most cases, instituting a backside stretching routine (to improve flexibility) can yield significant drag improvements. Granted. this isn't as sexy a proposition as bolting on a A921 Jetstream aerobarset. As in most human pursuits, we'd rather just "take a pill" instead of doing the work.

This brings me to the essence of the TitanFlex design (pill): the suspension aspect provided by the titanium boom allows you to sustain a more aerodynamic position longer than you could on any other bike. Many TitanFlex riders have echoed this characteristic in Slowtwitch Forum postings.

Speaking of what's new Mr. Tibbs...check out the graphics kit I'm working on. What do you think?


Cheers,
Tom Piszkin
Airo-Series, Inc.
UCSD Masters Triathlon Coach

---

Tom Piszkin
UCSD Triathlon Coach
@TitanFlexBikes
(619)334-7222
(619)328-1870 FAX

Tom,

I couldn't agree more with everything you said. Athletes first need to find an optimized position/balance between aero/power/comfort for whatever distance they're doing and take care of the lower $/watt savings (tight fitting clothing, aero helmet, etc) before pontificating about the aero benefits of X frame vs Y frame.

That being said, frames make a difference. I love my 2001 and based on the lack of data comparing a brand new $5,000 frameset (or any other frameset) with my $500 frame from 1997 I surmise that whatever tests manufacturers have done comparing these frames have been hidden with good reason. Call me a conspiracy theorist I guess!

Speaking of your frames...they're awesome. You were nice enough to let my try one out in the parking lot of the UTC Mall in 2006. If I could have afforded to buy one from you I would have, but got the aforementioned deal on the 2001 frame. That paint scheme is very sexy. Have you given any thought to adding bells and whistles to it...like 'carbon-ing' up the area between the stays, or putting the brakes underneath the BB (in vogue right now), etc?

If you are ever approached with the opportunity to put one of your frames in a tunnel...let me know and I'll travel or ship out my 2001 for comparison purposes.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

Hi Tom-

It's good to hear from you again on ST.

I'm very proud to ride one of your 500 bikes!

I'll probably never know how many seconds (if any) my frame gives up to the hundreds of P3's (and soon to be P4's) I see at races in the Northwest, but some things I know for sure:

1) I'm way more comfortable than those guys.

2) As I've become a stronger rider over the years, the design of your bike has allowed me to gradually adopt a more "aggressive" position (Sorry, Tom D...). I've incrementally moved from a 76 to an 80 degree seat angle, and dropped my elbows about 3 inches -- all on the same bike! The adjustability of the Titanflex is unmatched.

3) My Titanflex is distinctive! At races, it stands out in the sea of Cervelos. (Unlike in the jealous-cruel cyberworld of ST) it always garners positive comments when people see it in person.

---

---

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

What is the reasoning behind the dented-in side plates on your frame? Most of the other design aspects make sense to me, but that one I just don't get. I will be purchasing a titanflex eventually, and additionally, spending some time on a CF model with some improved shaping on the leading and trailing edges.

Do you have any interest in trading in the standard round post mount for something aero? I'm sure you could source someone else's OEM carbon aero seatpost pretty cheaply and modify the clamping mechanism accordingly.

Chris

Chris-

You can always use something like this:

---

---

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

I know, but why sacrifice anything if you don't have to?
The name of the game is not to give away free watts (if you call making a custom boom "free").

Chris