I have a lady friend who, partly on my advice (I know, I know, but I was quoting Tom D, really it made sense), bought a KFactor last year. At first there was happiness, her bike splits improved, very respectable mop/fop AG finishes, Stadler won Kona, etc. Recently someone in our group who used to be a weaker biker, appears to have become as strong or stronger after purchasing a tri bike (used to ride a road bike with shorty bars) . The only difference I see, outside the road/tri config, is the bike (dare I say it), a P2C. I find it hard to believe but it there that much difference between the bikes. But now I’m hearing “maybe I shoulda …” you can fill in the rest.
The only difference I see, outside the road/tri config
Seems like that’s a rather significant difference.
There’s always the engine of course . . . Nah, couldn’t be.
if she is seeing large diff and it is because of the bike, i would bet money most of that is due to the position and fit rather than one frame over the other, granted one may be slightly more aero, but i doubt it would be a huge diff.
I’m not sure, but you may not have the full story. Perhaps the lady on the Cervelo has a position that suits her better than her older bike. Maybe she was always stronger than your friend, but didn’t have the bike that suited her needs. Perhaps this lady has been doing some training on the side and was sandbagging her performance when she was with the group.
I don’t know, but I’m hesitant to say a bike is “faster” than another. All bikes stand still until the right rider gets on them.
Training is pretty similar, there’s a youth factor (15 yrs) but I’d expect that to take a little more time, I’m leaning toward bike fit. Just this year a guy in my AG (seniors only) jumped a couple of minutes on 20 mile rides just by updating his fit (you’d think the guy was old enough to get complacent dammit)
Mine is slow but I am pretty sure that is more attributable to my weaknesses rather than its. I know a guy with a P2C who is very slow, do you think it is the bike?
There are differences between the two bikes n terms of aerodynamics and I would expect that the same rider, set up in the same way would be slightly faster on the P2C than the K-Factor. If the rider with the new P2C is suddenly faster by a large margin it could be that the old road bike with shorty bars was not set up optimally and now the position is better and don’t discount the “Wow, I’ve got a new bike!” factor which tends to make you excited to get out on the thing and ride more … it is surprising how much this helps your speed 
My first inclination here is to say there is no such thing as a slow bike. This is what I mean- I wager Nromann Stadler would have had a great race- and likely won- Kona last year if he had been on a K-Factor *or *the Kalibur he was on.
Both bikes are similar in materials and construction, but quite different in design. For that matter, the Cervelo is different as well.
Now, bottom line, which is faster? That a really difficult question to answer empiracly, and that is not a side-step. Here’s what I mean:
Situation 1:
Flat course, fast athlete (avg. 22-24 m.p.h. bike splits), still day- no hills as I mentioned. Rider is comfortable in a powerful (first) aerodynamic position. In this situation I would suggest the more aerodynamic equipment would prevail. I purposely use the vague-ish term *equipment *(as opposed to “bike”) since the rider/bike package is an amalgam of things: The rider’s posture and position, ability to remain still on the bike, helmet, wheels and tires and finally the frame itself. But in this situation the more aerodynamic configuration will be faster.
Situation 2:
Hilly course, less fit athlete (18-22 m.p.h. average bike split), some real rollers and maybe a head wind going out, tailwind coming back or whatever… In this circumstance on this athlete I would suggest that the ability to remain *comfortable *on the bike for an extended period may prevail, especially if those rollers mean grinding uphill at 9-12 m.p.h. for any length of time. Bottom line here- ability to keep pedalling at closest to threshhold power even when the speed falls below the envelope where aerodynamic concerns prevail. This may infer that a higher head tube or other fit-oriented factors might serve the rider better than a set of aero tubes or a fit/position oriented toward lower drag at higher speeds.
I hope that helps.
Have you had this other rider tested for drugs ?
Last summer I rode a road bike with shorties and then switched to a P2C. My bike splits didn’t seem to get faster. 1/2 IM’s were around 2:35. Over the winter I switched to a Guru Aero’Ti. My bike splits are much faster now than they were last summer.
Thanks Tom, I probably shouldn’t have used the word slow in the subject line. I believe you’re right, there is no ‘slow’ with those bikes (actually any of the bikes in that market). And comfort was a big factor with the Kuota, this was a 1st time tri bike purchase and we rode a couple of different bikes. and comfort definitely played a role. Now I think she could ride faster with a more aggressive fit, a fit that probably would’ve been a deal killer initially. However, you’ve probably run across this sort of buyer’s remorse before 'If only I hadn’t been such a wuss and bought the (insert bike here)"
You raise an interesting hypothetical, I wonder if Stadler would’ve won on Kfactor?
‘‘Last summer I rode a road bike with shorties and then switched to a P2C. My bike splits didn’t seem to get faster. 1/2 IM’s were around 2:35. Over the winter I switched to a Guru Aero’Ti. My bike splits are much faster now than they were last summer.’’
Holy crap, now you’ve done it. The Cervelo police are gonna come and get you!
But seriously, as Tom has said and despite what some bicycle companies would have you believe, bicycle frame aerodynamics are the smallest factor in our quest for speed.
Number one; comfortable aero rider position. The rest is just icing on the cake, but the icing is the best part, isn’t it!
me too.
This may infer that a higher head tube or other fit-oriented factors might serve the rider better than a set of aero tubes or a fit/position oriented toward lower drag at higher speeds…
This may also infer using the more aerodynamic package with lower gearing.
I hope that helps.
Me too