What is the opinion for best tri bike that places more emphasis on climbing and handling than pure aerodynamics?
I typically race more hilly courses like Wildflower and Donner Lake tri. Additionally, I train in the SF Bay Area where there are a lot of climbs required.
Would really appreciate your thoughts.
I currently ride a Fuji D-6. Very stiff but heavy. Great on the flats, slow on the climbs.
Previously rode a first gen Scott Plasma; noodly frame. Ok on the climbs only if the cadence was high. Didn’t respond well to pushing bigger gears.
I would say a road bike with clip-ons. There’s a few reasons TT bikes are not ideal for climbing when compared to a similar caliber road bike: The aerobar/bullhorns, steep geometry, gearing, and weight. Changing a couple of those means you’re left with a road bike, so I think it’s a matter of “taking the good with the bad”. The TT bike will be fast on fast to rolling terrain but not climb and descend Diablo that well (since you’re in the Bay Area).
As for the races you’re doing, I don’t know about Donner lake, but I’ve always been told that Wildflower is a TT bike course. Even a race such as Auburn is iffy from what I understand on whether the climbing ability of a road bike offsets the aerodynamics advantage of a TT bike.
Curious as to what made you go to a Fuji from a Scott?
Two things that will make a big difference in hilly terrain; first, electronic shifting, being able to shift from both positions makes climbing a whole lot easier; second, lighten up your tri bike without compromising aerodynamics too much.
Here in SW PA, there’s lots and lots of hills, constantly rolling terrain and although not really any long climbs, they tend to be steep, adding Di2 to my tri bike made an enormous difference in how I can use my bike, and then I replaced my tri bike with a Parlee TT, which is now built up with Di2, in full race set up (with disc, 90mm front, etc.) is still only 18 lbs, which is pretty darn light for a tri bike. In training set up, it’s even lighter (due to the weight of the race wheels).
Like said above, because of a tri bikes geometry and characteristics there are not ideal for climbing. With that said it is very rare a road bike would be more beneficial than a tri bike unless you’re doing alpe d huez triathlon. I recommend lightening up your bike a little. 18 pounds is a good weight to shoot for. Although the logical answer is climb more in training and you will be faster up those hills. Also dropping weight yourself is equal to dropping weight on your bike. It’s all about the total weight you’re carrying up a hill
What is the opinion for best tri bike that places more emphasis on climbing and handling than pure aerodynamics?
There’s no reason those features should be mutually exclusive. I think this is a myth that is perpetuated by bike companies with inferior aerodynamic designs. They play up “handing” and “ride quality” to distract from poor aerodynamics and to imply that more aero frames are somehow lacking in these respects.
The most aero frames are likely the product of the most sophisticated design process, with few exceptions. If the top aero performers are spending countless hours in the wind tunnel and on CFD, I bet they are also out-competing other companies on pretty much every other design feature. In other words, I believe that good design isn’t limited to one aspect of bike performance.
99% of the climbing difference between bikes is in people’s heads or in ill conceived positions.
Slide back on the saddle, come up on to the ‘drops’ and you have a good climbing position. At that point the only thing slowing you down is the extra mass of the tri bike, which often isn’t much. For some people their tri bike isn’t any heavier than their road bike!
If you have a base bar where the drops are angled down, or located super low with big risers for the elbow pads, as many basebars do, you might have problems.
I expect if you ignored the subjective feelings of your D-6 and Plasma, and actually timed yourself up some climbs with a power meter vs your road bikes you would find only tiny differences which would be 90% explained to any mass differences.
The really isn’t much more to it than power out divided by total mass. The frame flex doesn’t permanently rob any appreciable power even if it feels bad. So if you are doing TTs/Tris with lots of climbing, put some thought into your base bar location and design so that you can climb and descend comfortably.
What is the opinion for best tri bike that places more emphasis on climbing and handling than pure aerodynamics?
I typically race more hilly courses like Wildflower and Donner Lake tri. Additionally, I train in the SF Bay Area where there are a lot of climbs required.
Would really appreciate your thoughts.
I currently ride a Fuji D-6. Very stiff but heavy. Great on the flats, slow on the climbs.
Previously rode a first gen Scott Plasma; noodly frame. Ok on the climbs only if the cadence was high. Didn’t respond well to pushing bigger gears.
anything with electronic shifting, so that you can shift with your hands on the basebar when climbing.
high-end tri bikes ($10k+) might offer some weight savings, but you’re not gonna see them at 14 lbs, even w/ climbing wheels. more aero frame shape, means more carbon, which means more weight.
Regarding measuring climb times on road vs tri bikes, there is a local benchmark climb called Old La Honda.
PR on Cervelo S3 is 18:28
19:14 on the plasma
19:45 on the fuji d-6
Maybe more specifically, I am interested in the BMC TM01, Cervelo p5, Specialized Shiv, and Trek Speed Concept.
Any idea which of these handles & climbs best?
99% of the climbing difference between bikes is in people’s heads or in ill conceived positions.
Slide back on the saddle, come up on to the ‘drops’ and you have a good climbing position. At that point the only thing slowing you down is the extra mass of the tri bike, which often isn’t much. For some people their tri bike isn’t any heavier than their road bike!
Thanks
+100. FWIM, most TT bike have super stiff bottom brackets, seat stays’ etc. so power transfer is excellent. While a tri bike might wegith 2lbs more, remember, “what goes up, must come down”. So superior aero is big on descents if you have the confidence to stay aero.
I’ve never found that cornering is a problem with my tri bike either. Brakes are brakes, they waste energy you worked hard for, avoid using them at all costs, learn ot take a smooth line and sight through corners and you find you won;t need them very much.
Even on very hilly courses, you’re still over 12mph most of the time, which means you better off with superior aero dynamics. I think Rapp’s wind tunnel test show that even as low as 12mph, being aero vs. sitting up was significant.
However, if you can afford a 2nd bike and aren’t a confident bike handler, you might consider a light aero road bike with clip-ons. But I find my TT bike is way more comfortable than my road bike ever was in that configuration.
I would say a road bike with clip-ons. There’s a few reasons TT bikes are not ideal for climbing when compared to a similar caliber road bike: The aerobar/bullhorns, steep geometry, gearing, and weight. Changing a couple of those means you’re left with a road bike, so I think it’s a matter of “taking the good with the bad”. The TT bike will be fast on fast to rolling terrain but not climb and descend Diablo that well (since you’re in the Bay Area).
As for the races you’re doing, I don’t know about Donner lake, but I’ve always been told that Wildflower is a TT bike course. Even a race such as Auburn is iffy from what I understand on whether the climbing ability of a road bike offsets the aerodynamics advantage of a TT bike.
Curious as to what made you go to a Fuji from a Scott?
+1 on an aero road bike (my pick: Cervelo S5). Almost as aero as a tri bike, but lighter/quicker handling.
FWIW I have a Shiv Tri and love it (disc and 90mm front), but it’s not the climbing bike you’re looking for (though I’ve taken it up OLH and Kings). It’s stiff, heavy, and handling is so-so…but it’s super aero and I’ve racked up some nice PBs on it. It doesn’t “feel” great on the climbs, but produces faster overall times.
So if you knew the weights of those bikes, and your power output each time, you could do the math and find out if the entire time difference is explained by mass, position, or some combination of the two.
Assuming it is just mass, then all bikes climb as fast as their mass indicates.
Assuming it is power, then you need to look at how you set yourself up on the bike.
Other than mass and position, nothing about the bike is going to change how fast you go up.
and of course, use the same tires any time you try to compare things like this =)
Regarding measuring climb times on road vs tri bikes, there is a local benchmark climb called Old La Honda.
PR on Cervelo S3 is 18:28
19:14 on the plasma
19:45 on the fuji d-6
Maybe more specifically, I am interested in the BMC TM01, Cervelo p5, Specialized Shiv, and Trek Speed Concept.
Any idea which of these handles & climbs best?
+1 on an aero road bike (my pick: Cervelo S5). Almost as aero as a tri bike, but lighter/quicker handling.
Almost? More like faster than everything but the P5 at relevant yaw angles.
All the published data I’ve seen suggests that the Shiv Tri isn’t faster than the old Cervelo P3.
The data I’ve seen has it about equal to the P4.
The Shiv Tri is hard to test apples-to-apples, since it’s such a high stack bike (and the P3/4/5 is low stack). A lot is going to depend on the cockpit differences.
