Bike choice help (Scott Plasma LTD vs. Cervelo P3 Carbon)

Triathlon Forum
1

I have been researching the Plasma LTD and P3 Carbon for quite some time. Both bikes are in stock at my local bike shop. Both fit quite well (10 mm Spacer in the Cervelo headset). I like the way that they both look.

Before I throw down my hard earned cash - wanted to get the opinions of the group - to see if I am missing something.

In general here is where I am:

Plasma Pros:
Lighter
Don’t need a headtube spacer
Great Trade In Program (although 4 year warranty)

Cervelo Pros:
More “Aero”
Proven design
Probably a stiffer Bottom bracket
Lifetime warranty.

Note that I only do races on the East Coast and the travel case issue is not an issue for me.

Just curious about the experiences and opinions of people on the board concerning these 2 bikes.

Thanks.

2

Hi - I have a Plasma and you will not be disappointed. I was able to get one very early (Dec) and have put in over 2k on it and it is by far the best most comlete bike I have ever thrown a leg over. I have had a chance to ride their CR1 road bike and the Plasma is essentially the same but in a 76degree config. Cervelo makes a very good bike and I would not take anything away from the P3. That being said, the Plasma is right there in performance and quality. I would be careful of your assessment and say the Plasma is as every bit as aero as the P3 and the bb is just as responsive. Everything being equal go with the better fitting bike - you will never go wrong. If all things are equal - go with the Plasma - you won’t be sorry. Hope this helps and good luck!

3

It sounds like both bikes fit you pretty well, and that is the most important as the others have said. Even when you do decide to race your (future) Plasma on the Left coast, you won’t have a problem traveling with it.

As a Scott dealer I am of course a little partial, but if you look at some results of the last couple of IM’s top finishers are riding Plasmas. Best bike splits…Plasma, illegal at Tour of Cali…Plasma, second in IMNZ and Kona Cam Brown (Plasma). This bike and the CR1 technology are the future of cycling both road, and mountain.

If you do get a Cervelo, make sure you take out the spacer before you post a pic :slight_smile:

4

I suspect I’ll catch some flame for this given all the Plasma fans in this thread but, the original poster is requesting info so, her it goes.

I considered the Plasma and the P2C. I placed my order for the P2C. Should get it in mid April.

Why ? I have short legs and long torso and sitting on a 52 Plasma and a 54 P2C I was more comfortable in the P2C. Hope to fit OK on the 51 P2C I ordered.

Also I read somewhere in the web that Scott frames were very stiff. Something to do with the stays being straight on the back. Maybe I was predisposed and had this in my head, but when I took the Plasma for a spin I could swear you could feel more of the road coming through the frame. I felt like the old Cannondale R700 alu frame from many years ago.

I also had some issue with the 105 crank on the Plasma. I like the FSA crank on the P2C.

And the most stupid reason to pick the P2C is that I currently ride an old QR Kilo 650 wheels with the black/yellow color scheme. The Plasma is black/yellow and the P2C is blue/black. After so many years, I’m due for a color scheme change …

I seriously considered the Plasma. I think it’s a very good bike, specially for the price. I would actually recommend it to someone given the right reasons (that’s why I detailed mine above, your case might be different). I think Plasma is a good bike, but I think the P2C fits me better.

Carlos

5

It sounds like both bikes fit you pretty well, and that is the most important as the others have said. Even when you do decide to race your (future) Plasma on the Left coast, you won’t have a problem traveling with it.

As a Scott dealer I am of course a little partial, but if you look at some results of the last couple of IM’s top finishers are riding Plasmas. Best bike splits…Plasma, illegal at Tour of Cali…Plasma, second in IMNZ and Kona Cam Brown (Plasma). This bike and the CR1 technology are the future of cycling both road, and mountain.

If you do get a Cervelo, make sure you take out the spacer before you post a pic :slight_smile:

Look, I like Scott, and I like what Scott has done at that company and previously at Cannondale. But let’s not get carried away.

I don’t know why race pedigree should matter that much to this customer, but if it does, Cervelo has won more Ironman races and more ProTour time trials in 2005 than any other manufacturer.

If illegal at the ToC is a selling feature, I don’t know what this world has come to. Obviously that bike was specifically built to be illegal as a stunt, otherwise how come the $6900 Plasma that is sold to regular folks is 1.2 lb OVER the UCI weight limit? Are you telling me that for $6900 you get components that are vastly inferior to what Simoni had on his bike? For $6900, you can get EXACTLY the P3C spec’d the way Dave Zabriskie rode it when he set the fastest ever TT in the Tour, actually, you can get something a bit lighter than his bike.

BTW, at that ToC prologue, the Plasma may have been light but the best one finished 21st. Five P3Cs finished ahead of it (as did for example five Treks), and last time I checked, that’s the objective in bike racing.

Look, the selling feature of the Plasma is the low weight, but everybody knows that that’s not much of a factor in triathlon. And it is achieved with a downtube that is roughly twice as wide as on the Cervelos. And how big is the weight saving anyway? A Plasma with 105 costs about the same and weighs about the same as the P2C which comes with DuraAce. And with the latter, you have better aerodynamics and better components. It’s a win, win, win. And I am not even mentioning the extra performance of the P3C yet.

So let’s discuss on the merits.

6

Obviously a 10mm spacer is perfectly fine, I would say maybe even preferable since that at least still gives you the option to tweak your position after you get a bike. If you are already at zero spacers when you get the bike, that would be more difficult (though not necessarily that big a deal if you can find a stem with more drop).

If somebody needs a longer headtube (which obviously you don’t, on the contrary), then the P2C is an excellent alternative.

Good luck with your choice,

7

gerard,

when will the P2C 51cm avaiiable?

8

gerard,

when will the P2C 51cm avaiiable?

We have started to ship 51cm P2Cs.

9

Get the scott and ingore the flock of cervelo sheep.

10

Gerard,

Any chance of offering more than one colour per model in the future? Maybe? Please?

I like the p3c colour scheme, but not the price. I like the price of the P2C, but not the colour.

11

Lots of interesting stuff. Thank you

I am not sure if I applaud the participation of the owner of Cervelo or are turned off by his subsequent negative comments about the competiton. As a business owner myself, I think I would keep my public comments restrained to my products and their relative merits.

I could care less how many titles each bike company can win. Doesn’t help me. Frankly - the fact that a high profile cycling team like CSC rides Cervelo is a negative to me.

Also - parts specs are not important to me as I am building them both up from the ground up.

But back to the nuts and bolts of the bike.

The Cervelo has a higher re-sale value (Ebay). You are stuck with the Scott in spite of a second longer clamp. Obviously worrying about selling it before buying it is a tad bit irrational.

The Cervelo seatpost clamping system scares me a bit. I have read that there have been problems with the clamping mechanism stripping the circle in the seatpost. Could be an urban myth? To me the Scott seatpost binder mechanism is more secure. That is important to me.

When I decide and buy, I will post pictures - If I can figure out how?

Thank you for any info.

12

If you are making a decision solely on how others have performed on the bike… hands down Cervelo wins. Hey, even Ivan basso wins time trials on this bike. Dave Z smoked Lance… There are more Cervelo’s winning races than the Plasma any day.

Both bikes should work fine…

13

I believe I said that I didn’t see why race pedigree would be of importance. I didn’t bring it up, wouldn’t use it as a selling feature but it is strange if somebody else brings it up to sell against a P3C. That’s all the comment was about. I fully agree with your comment about talking about other products, I tend to stay away from it but if you look at my posts you’ll see that roughly once a year I can’t help myself. Darn, turns out I’m not perfect after all.

That said, I am also not going to tell you why you should buy the P3C, everybody will have to make their own decision. On the other hand, I will (and usually do) answer specific questions you might have with regards to the P3C. To that effect, I don’t recognize the issue you mention about the P3C seatpost clamp. I am not 100% sure what you are referring to as there really isn’t anything to strip, but the design as it is used on the P3C clamp is a pretty standard one and with small variations it is in use by many manufacturers. One thing we have seen is that people tend to use too low a torque on that clamp, with all designs of this kind the recommended torque is quite high compared to clamps of a different design. It is also important that this torque is applied with a greased bolt, as torque specs are specific to the greased or non-greased situation. But every dealer seems to be well-aware of this. If there is something else you are referring to (I really wouldn’t know what), just let me know.

14

I think the P3 Carbon is a fine product. I certainly was not soliciting the opinion of anyone commercially tied to the bikes. Rather, I was looking for neutral consumer opinion. Was I missing anything?

My older brother bought a P3 Carbon. Adhered to all of the torque specs, etc. Was playing with his position on the bike in his basement and the seat slipped forward. The seat binder stripped out the circle in the seatpost. Normally when installed it is tight and changing the angle of the seat requires removal and re-insertion. Now - his can almost rotate around.

Called Cervelo and they told him "that they have seen this problem and just had a customer service meeting where it was brought up and to their credit were willing to replace it at no charge.

Obviously it could be user error and installed incorrectly. But my brother is a PHD engineer from Cal Tech and builds advanced robotics - a little beyond bicycles. Doubt he would make a mistake but it could happen.

As I have you as an audience - why is it that he has to return the part to Nytro (we live on the East Coast) in lieu of sending it direct to Cervelo? It is going to cost him 2+ weeks of training.

Thanks again.

15

Haven’t seen that but if customer service says they know what you mean then that no doubt that’s the case. As for sending it to Nytro (I assume that’s where he bought it), that is likely faster and cheaper than to Canada. All our shipments from the US get colladed in Buffalo and then brought up in bulk, by sending it to the dealer we don’t have the wait for that. That said, he shouldn’t have to wait two weeks for that, let me look into that.

16

The problem is that we live in Washington, DC.

Bought it online via Nytro.

Have to ship it to Nytro in CA.

Then Nytro to you.

Then from you to Nytro.

And then Nytro to DC.

Lots of shipping. Would be a lot easier direct but Dwayne in Customer Service did not have the “authority” to do it.

I guess that is the problem with internet sales but it would be easier for the paying customer to send it to you.

17

Hello Gerard

You indicated the downtube was wider on the Plasma. Are your new carbon versions of P series bikes still around 28mm wide? Is there a linear relationship regarding aero vs width? In other words is a 20% wider down tube 20% less aero or is that just too simplistic a way to look at this?

Thanks,
Mike

18

Actually it doesn’t quite work like that, it will be faster than that. When Nytro receives it we send out the part, we don’t wait for it to get back to us. And from you to Nytro is quicker than from you to us. That said, I still want to see if we can do it better than that. Probably too late for your brother, but something good may come out of it anyway.

19

Hey Carlos,
This weeks’ Cervelo shipping report bumped up the 51 P2’s. Yours should ship this week.

As a long time Cervelo dealer I have learned one thing (maybe 2 or 3), not everyone is going to buy a Cervelo even if it is the best product. As a new Scott dealer, it is nice to have a competitve alternative that customers can also look at. Some will buy Cervelo. Some will like the Scott. They both have broad size runs that will fit 95% + of the triathletes on the planet.

For the record, as a retailer, I am not a fan of the fixed seat post incorporated into the Plasma frame. For the end user it is fine. But when you have two guys trying to test ride a size 54; one with 71 saddle height, the other with 77, I run into problems that start to involve a sawzall. On the plus side, it is an ingenious seat clamp; easy to use and very adjustable for and aft and nose tilt.

I was ready to not like the Scott Plasma … but after building several and riding it a little … I do like. There are a lot of pretender carbon tri bikes out there but this is the real deal. My wife and I are going to continue riding P3C’s (I still think it is the best or I would be on something else), but the Scott will attract its share of riders also (its a great looking bike for what thats worth).

We weighed a 54 P2C and a 52 105 (yellow) Plasma with their standard “out of the box” build. They were within about 1/20th of a pound of each other; both being ± 18.6 pounds (without pedals.

20

Hello Gerard

Are your new carbon versions of P series bikes still around 28mm wide? Is there a linear relationship regarding aero vs width? In other words is a 20% wider down tube 20% less aero or is that just too simplistic a way to look at this?

Thanks,
Mike

Yes, the width of our tubes hasn’t changed, they have become a bit longer so the aspect ratio chord to width has improved. Frontal area is in the equation linearly (Cd*A) with Cd the coefficient of drag and A the frontal area. But aerodynamic drag is not linear ad infinite, if you would have a tube that is a million times wider its drag would not be a million times bigger, scale plays a role. Also, with bikes you have the issue that, at least if you stay within the UCI rules, the tube can not be deeper than 80mm.

So if you have a 28mm wide tube, you can make a tube that is 28x80 which for the downtube in the direction of the airflow (the downtube is roughly at 45 degrees) works out to around 4:1 (80/28*sqrt(2)). So you can see that even though the tube fits within the 3:1 ratio (80/28) of the rules, aerodynamically it has a higher aspect ratio of 4:1 because it is at an angle, which is very good. But you can understand that if you were to make a tube much wider without the ability to make it deeper, that aspect ratio goes down.If the width were to be 56cm and the length still only 80, then the aspect ratio is down to 2. So not only A is doubled, the Cd of that shape will also be worse.