I’m looking for some feedback on a question that’s always been bothering me…why are there no bike frames such as the Zipp, Hoooker, Lotus, Hotta, Trek Y-Foil, even the Softride?
Granted, I understand they aren’t UCI leagal, but they’d still be legal for us - tri and duathletes, correct? Are they just not that aero? Granted, depending on whose study you ready, bike A is more aero than bike B, but the next week maybe not.
Is it a cost issue for the manufacturers? Too expensive and difficult to make? So, if someone was making one, for a reasonable price, they’d be selling like hot cakes?
Are they inherently flawed? If so what is the flaw?
I just am really curious, hopefully some people will chime in and give their opinions. Perhaps people who own Zipps or any of the others mentioned above. I’d sure appreciate it.
Previous attempts at aerodynamic design include the Miyata Aero, the Trimble, the Lotus, the Cheetah Cat, the Corima Fox, the Zipp 2001 the Kestrel 4000 and the GT Project 96 Superbike, the Hooker Elite and others. None of these designs approached the commercial or competitive success of the Cervelo P3C. Reasons for this include lack of demand at the time of introduction- multisport wasn’t that popular when most of these bikes were introduced, difficulty with production, poor marketing, mechanically impractical design features, cost and unverifiable aerodynamic benefits along with overall poor competitive record. These early bikes hadn’t won enough big races in enough sports to capture the consumer’s imagination and didn’t have the testing to back them up or, more importantly hone their design.
Click to Enlarge
Early attempts at aerodynamic design produced bikes with mechanical, supply and other issues.
Thanks Tom. I just read your article after posting. I’ve got a P3C, though a couple years old.
I still wonder, what if a “Zipp” or “Trek” were to produce something like they had back then today - how would it do? Based on reading your post, not sure that everyone would be that interested in such a (aero) frame. But, IMO, I look at that Zipp frame, Corima, and even the Trek and just think the design is better - but what do I know. Even the Hooker, take that design, produce it with today’s products and technology and I’d think you’d have one aero / fast frame. Wasn’t the knock on it that it was about the same rigidity of a wet noodle? Think I recall reading that Zipp quit because of UCI rules, but since they have so many sponsored and non-sponsored multi-sport athletes, why not bring it back in 2008 trim? Zipp + SRAM + aero frame = success?
I guess I’m just trying to figure out the “why”. Other than Natasha, and Lori, who rode a frame like these? Other than Cheetah, do any of them still produce frames?
I think the UCI compliance factor is significant. Manufacturers shy away from making bikes that won’t be compliant because they immediately cut out part of their market. And I think some multi-sport athletes would like their bikes to be UCI compliant (or to be able to be configured in a UCI compliant way), “just in case.”
I normally rock my racewheel equipped P3 Alu, Now recieving a Jamis T2…but,
across the room is what has ALL5 of MY LIFETIME BEST IM SPLITS… a Lg/Lg 650c Zipp2001…in perfect shape with modern cockpit and wheels…I may bring it to the Persona Oliver Half, rolling fast, perfect benchmark set last year on P3al.
I will keep you posted…yes 6-3 on 650c, 56/42 instead of 53/39…the bike has never done a 5hr split…always 4:xx…mmm
