Considering these two. Similar components and wheels. P5 around $1K more. Using for both Ironman distances. Coming off Trek SC.
Looking for any constructive feedback between the two.
Thanks!
Other than appearance, any reason by the P3X isn’t on your list?
BMC has the advantage of more handlebar adjustability. The P5D has great vertical granularity with the mast, but is weak on x adjustment and terrible on Z (width), it doesn’t tilt either (you can pay more to get the P3X cockpit to improve adjustability).
The BMC (needs to be 2020 with Evo brackets) has fine adjustment and big range for X and Z, with normal 5mm steps in Y. 10deg of tilt on the Evo bracket. Dual seatpost positions plus the sliding clamp give plenty of scope there too.
Graphically
and
Unless you are someone who suits flat forearms and very narrow elbows the P5D is crippled by the bars.
Also, the Tour Mag testing in 2017 showed the TM01 to be the only bike (of those tested) within 30s of the P5-Three over an IM so it’s a quick frame. That small disadvantage would be more than overcome for most people thanks to the bar adjustability.
Other than appearance, any reason by the P3X isn’t on your list?
The P3X is available and I can get a decent deal on the one he has had sitting around for months. The wheels would need to be upgraded.
The main thing I didn’t like was the weight… seemed very heavy compared to the P5 and BMC. I have read others stating that weight doesn’t it matter in Ironman Distance, but most of the courses I do are rolling to hilly and I didn’t want carry the extra weight. On the surface I like the look of the P5 better.
But I am not opposed to reconsidering.
Thank you for asking!
BMC has the advantage of more handlebar adjustability. The P5D has great vertical granularity with the mast, but is weak on x adjustment and terrible on Z (width), it doesn’t tilt either (you can pay more to get the P3X cockpit to improve adjustability).
The BMC (needs to be 2020 with Evo brackets) has fine adjustment and big range for X and Z, with normal 5mm steps in Y. 10deg of tilt on the Evo bracket. Dual seatpost positions plus the sliding clamp give plenty of scope there too.
Graphically
and
Unless you are someone who suits flat forearms and very narrow elbows the P5D is crippled by the bars.
Also, the Tour Mag testing in 2017 showed the TM01 to be the only bike (of those tested) within 30s of the P5-Three over an IM so it’s a quick frame. That small disadvantage would be more than overcome for most people thanks to the bar adjustability.
So to summarize to my simple understanding… The P5 is only slightly faster but limited to fit in the cockpit. I am broad across the chest and fairly flexible, but based on our comments the narrow elbows might be a challenge for comfort.
thank you for the insight!
We don’t know the aero comparison precisely. The Tour test was old P5 against rim brake BMC. The P5D is about the same as the P5-3 but we don’t know what Discs did to the BMC.
But the rim brake BMC was definitely fast, so even if discs were slightly detrimental it will still be fast.
As mentioned - paying a few hundred $ more allows you to get the P3X cockpit on the P5D, which is much more adjustable (but is increasing the price gap between the bikes you’re considering). Some will attest that you can purchase wedges to add tilt to the armrests on the P5D cockpit but that doesn’t address the narrowness.
The P5D is really narrow, I only have a handful of riders that can handle sub 160mm elbow width. If your setup is uncomfortable you will spend more time sitting up off the aerobars which wipes out any frame aero advantage really quickly.
I always advocate getting the bike with the best bar adjustability - getting your body in an optimal position is the surest path to speed (on the bike choice side of things, training well still more important in the grand scheme)
Other than appearance, any reason by the P3X isn’t on your list?
The P3X is available and I can get a decent deal on the one he has had sitting around for months. The wheels would need to be upgraded.
The main thing I didn’t like was the weight… seemed very heavy compared to the P5 and BMC. I have read others stating that weight doesn’t it matter in Ironman Distance, but most of the courses I do are rolling to hilly and I didn’t want carry the extra weight. On the surface I like the look of the P5 better.
But I am not opposed to reconsidering.
Thank you for asking!
I’ve got the P3X and live/ride in the Santa Mountains in LA. The bike is noticeably heavier, but it can climb pretty easily and is damn fast on descents/straights.
Thanks for the input. I think in terms of cost the BMC is the most complete for less money. If the BMC and P5 are so close in performance than it makes more sense to go BMC. Is there a site that compares/tests most bikes for aero dynamics?
I am curious why the QR PRsix2 doesn’t get much love? It seems top have a lot going for it.
I went pretty much through the same dilemma a few months ago. Here’s the thread I created back then. Hope this may help you!
Jack compiled a list of a lot of the tunnel tests that have been done http://www.aeroweenie.com/data.html
I digitise any published tunnel data I find to include in my course modelling, which is how I derived the difference between bikes above.
There isn’t a resource where you can make useful comparisons between bike aerodynamics.
The QR PRSix2 is a very good bike, that deserves more attention.
In particular it resonates with a point I was going to make - that getting a Cervelo P-Series or BMC TM02 and putting good bars and the Profile Design* HSF Aeria bottle on the front may yield the fastest bike possible from those brands (also assuming you upgrade other bits to the level of the top bike). Most of the advantage for top model bikes comes from the integrated bar designs vs a modular setup on the entry-mid level bikes, there is not a great deal of difference in the frames and forks. So a good bar closes the gap markedly (and can give better fit options) and the bottle makes a big difference aerodynamically (more the difference between an low level frame and a top one).
Of course, the PRSix2 fits that bottle, has really adjustable bars and all the rest of the superbike ensemble. So there is a lot to like.
*Note, I am a consultant for Profile Design
Can’t comment on latest version of the BMC, but I’ve been riding a BMC for the last 14 years and the TM01 for the last 5. I’m 62 and my current tri bike will probably be my last.
I do absolutely love it. Very easy (for me) to get a good fit, and that fit has evolved over time as I’ve aged. I’ve brought my front end higher up and I now run a 20 degree mantis type tilt. This is quite a bit different than when I bought the bike. My fit is so comfortable now that I kinda forget what my road bike looks like.
I do most of my own wrenching and find it very easy to maintain, breakdown and reassemble. The bike is seriously and noticeably fast for the watts I put in. With my speed stuff (wheels, helmet, etc) 200 watts = 22+ mph.
Only thing I really can’t do is go to 25 mm tires but I’ve ridden 23s for seems like forever so no biggie.
I’ve seen the Cervelos (and my two road bikes are made by them) and I’m sure they are great bikes as well.
$1000 can buy a lot of beer so there is that!
I went pretty much through the same dilemma a few months ago. Here’s the thread I created back then. Hope this may help you!
Thank you for the link! Good info. What did you choose and why?
Thank you for the input! Great point on the $1K…
I chose the P3X over the P5d because it simply makes more sense for long course athletes. It’s got adjustability, integrated storage, and is incredibly smooth. The extra weight does NOT matter, I don’t care what the perception is…it just doesn’t really affect your race time. If you can convince yourself that objectively that is true you can ignore what people say about weight and aesthetics.
It’s like picking up a downhill mountain bike and say “wow that’s heavy!” Function over form. A tri bike - specifically a long course tri bike - needs to be aero, compliant, and store a bunch of shit in an aero neutral or aero positive fashion. And, since extra weight has been proven time and again to not be as big a factor as people believe it to be…
To me it’s a no brainer.
And I would always choose Cervelo over BMC because I am a fanboi and the resale value is significantly better.
Thank you for the input!
I went for the P5D. My LBS had a good deal for the frameset and I already owned a solid pair of wheels. I probably would have picked it anyways because I liked it more visually. What did you get eventually?
I went for the P5D. My LBS had a good deal for the frameset and I already owned a solid pair of wheels. I probably would have picked it anyways because I liked it more visually. What did you get eventually?
Still figuring it out. It would be helpful if I had a local fitter who could set up the geometry of each bike so I could see which fits my body best…if that is such a thing. Nashville, TN.
I like the P5 best
Concerns:
- Storage (flat kit) for full IM distance
- Aggressive fit? Don’t want out have to buy the P3 cockpit in addition to make it comfortable.
- Cost, the Ultegra build does not have decent racing wheels.
I like the BMC product and what you get for the $$:
Concerns:
- Integrated storage on top tube.
- about 1.5 pounds heavier than P5
- Older?
I have recently looked into the QR PRsix2 for the total integration of storage and hydration. Heaviest bike of the 3. Not sure of the performance vs the other 2.
What are your fit numbers?
What are your fit numbers?
Thank you for asking. The attachment is all I have from the original fitting @ the shop I bought it from. I hope the attachment works. This fit was tweaked as few times later, but I don’t have any notes. This was for a current model Speed Concept - Large. I had one shop tell me to get a medium and another a Large.
Thanks for any help you can offer.
Which saddle was that fit done with?
How many crank arm lengths did the fitter try?