What a hot bike! Sounds like a great deal on a well designed frame. Hmmmm. Must resist upgrading my road bike.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/major-revamp-for-2011-felt-f-series-and-da-platforms
Whoa- James Huang got the scoop- it’s the first photo I;ve seen of it. That is super cool.
Yea great pics and one sick looking frame. Love what Felt has done lately. Wish my local team was sponsored by them instead of C-dale. 
Oh well.
HAWT. I’ll miss my current F3…
How did they get these bikes to stand up!!!
How did they get these bikes to stand up!!!
…very carefully positioning when the moon is right overhead. (LMAO, nice posts!!)
If the frame price is actually $2800. That has my interest. I find the idea of a $12000 bike without an engine to be repulsive.-and I could afford one if I wanted.
Whoa- James Huang got the scoop- it’s the first photo I;ve seen of it. That is super cool.
He must know someone.
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=211895&d=1285653306
Any chance you can discuss the geometry sizing, perspective, philosophy for the F1? Why the difference in geometry between the F series and AR series?
It appears the geometry is much more aggressive when compared to most other manufacturers: Cannondale, Specialized, Cervelo, Look, etc. Seems like there is a push towards comfort, yet the F1 seems to go against the grain. Interested to see what the geometry is for the 2011 Cervelo lineup as they appear to have tweaked their old numbers slightly.
For example:
58 Felt F1: Stack = 56.9 Reach = 41.2
58 Felt AR: Stack = 58 Reach = 39.9
58 Cannondale Super Six: Stack = 57.9 Reach = 39.9
58 Specialized S-Works Tarmac: Stack = 60.6 Reach 39.7
2010 58 Cervelo R3: Stack = 58 Reach = 40.3
I think something that may be sort of helpful is all of the Trek literature on their three different geometries. http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/story/madone6/fit/h1
H1 (formerly “Pro”) is very close to the Felt at 58 with S:56.7 R: 40.0. H2 (formerly “Performance”) at 58 is S:59.6 R:39.1. However H1 is only available on the 6 series
I actually chose a Felt F5 (same geometry as F1) because the geometry is aggressive even at the entry level pricepoint (no Cannondale dealers in my area).
Any chance you can discuss the geometry sizing, perspective, philosophy for the F1? Why the difference in geometry between the F series and AR series?
It appears the geometry is much more aggressive when compared to most other manufacturers: Cannondale, Specialized, Cervelo, Look, etc. Seems like there is a push towards comfort, yet the F1 seems to go against the grain. Interested to see what the geometry is for the 2011 Cervelo lineup as they appear to have tweaked their old numbers slightly.
For example:
58 Felt F1: Stack = 56.9 Reach = 41.2
58 Felt AR: Stack = 58 Reach = 39.9
58 Cannondale Super Six: Stack = 57.9 Reach = 39.9
58 Specialized S-Works Tarmac: Stack = 60.6 Reach 39.7
2010 58 Cervelo R3: Stack = 58 Reach = 40.3
My marketing guys are going to kill me, but it basically comes down to four design ideas:
F = agile, long, low, fast handling, STW bike
AR = stable bike with as much aero frame under you that we can reasonably use, taller head tubes, horizontal top tubes.
Z = euro angles, a more relaxe bike. Light, comfortable, great climbing and descending bike.
ZW = women’s sizing and proportions with a Z-like ride.
Having one geometry makes getting a broader audience on our bikes more difficult. The AR was indended to be more stable so long solo efforts could be done with less focus going into the stability of the bike. Just drape your arms over the tops and hammer. Oddly enough there is a discussion of how “foolish” the F-series geometry is right now at WW. The F-series is really our oldest road bike with its roots in the early 90s with geo tweaks made by Jim with feedback from guys like Horner, etc.
-SD