Wow I’d completely missed they had been released then!
It feels like Canyon finished the new CF and only then realized they needed to wire in a front brake so they drilled a few hole and sent it away hoping no one would notice. In the same motion they killed off the rim brake version of the CF SLX because it would have looked super slick in comparison.
I was actually really hoping they would put the rim brake SLX’s on sale as they would have sat very awkwardly in the price range. Looks like they have just eliminated them entirely, including from the outlet, which seems a shame given how good they were.
I think whether the bike has enough reach or not depends on your fit
Let’s compare it to the P5D
- The reach is around 40-50mm shorter for an equivalent size for Cervelo
- Minimum seat height is much higher on the Speedmax, limiting your ability to size up (if you are a shorter rider with long reach, which I am, so I am looking at this)
- Pad reach adjustment is the same as the default P5D cockpit, but much less than the P5X cockpit.
Eitherway, I won’t be able to duplicate my triathlon fit coordinates on the Speedmax, and only able to duplicate my UCI legal position. So, for me, the new speedmax is lacking in reach.
I can definitely make it work (decrease stack further, to compensate for reduction in reach), but I’d like to to see more reach adjustment possibility on the bike
Update: for what it’s worth, Canyon’s height / inseam calculator seems to work. It’s telling me You are exceeding the recommended adjustment range of the specified seatpost. Unfortunately, we cannot ensure a proper fit on this bike.
Please select a different model.
So this new model SLX is heavier than the old but the bento is more Aero Is think & were they weighing the old SLX without the bento at 8.7 kg? Being ST it seems weight is a tad less on the ladder than “aero†if that is indeed where the 9 watts savings (claimed) is coming from.
so you can run wider tires and wider wheels. if you still run latex its nice to not pop your tires on a steep hill. Yes I have done it before with latex.
How wide do you need to go for a Tri/TT bike?
The Aerocoach tyre tests show little between the 23mm and 25mm Corsa Speeds for rolling resistance. I am not sure any event I would need 30mm+ tyres that a TT/Tri bike would be the go to bike. I haven’t done to many Tri bike friendly courses where prolonged braking has occurred at an amount where rim heating would be a huge issue, though I guess there maybe some courses. Not sure the modulation etc is a game changer on a tri bike. The opening TT in the Giro had a very high-speed decent with some technical elements but we didn’t really see the disc brake bikes advantages shine through.
The move to disc brakes and the price hike involved does seem to be killing the good value aerobike with leading aero credentials. Here in the UK the Giant Trinity, Trek Speedconcepts and old rim brake P series Cervelo’s have been very popular as they are more reasonably priced (around the £2k to 2.5k frameset point) and when setup well are pretty clean cable wise and give great aero performance. The current wave of disc bikes there are fewer options in this price bracket and those around the same price like the P series cervelo and SL Canyon seem the have a lot of exposed cables.
That computer mount looks like some kind of weird periscope.
What power meter does the disc model come with? I don’t see it listed in the components section.
And is it just me or all the pros riding the new bike seem worse fit wise than on the prior model?
I think whether the bike has enough reach or not depends on your fit
Let’s compare it to the P5D
- The reach is around 40-50mm shorter for an equivalent size for Cervelo
- Minimum seat height is much higher on the Speedmax, limiting your ability to size up (if you are a shorter rider with long reach, which I am, so I am looking at this)
1: The Canyon reach chart is the BACK of the pads. Are you factoring this in when comparing fit co-ordinates which are often to mid pad (i.e. 40-50mm more)? Cervelo specs this the same way of course so it is a bit shorter
2: Min seat height - I used to have the previous Speedmax and the min seat height was dictated by the rear bottle adapter attachment. If you ran with a conventional aftermarket saddle mounted version, you could get the seatpost lower. I don’t know if this is the same on this new version but since the bottle mount looks the same, I assume it might be.
What power meter does the disc model come with? I don’t see it listed in the components section.
Bike radar lists it as 4iiii, or SRAM/quarq on the SRAM models.
Bike radar also lists the crank lengths I was looking for,
XS 165
S and M 170
L 172.5
XL 175
Shorter, but arguably not short enough.
And is it just me or all the pros riding the new bike seem worse fit wise than on the prior model?
Probably they are not fitted on them at all due to not being able to just take them anywhere until today.
Seems like a pretty will thought out bike:
- Discrete flat kit storage above the bottom bracket
- Well integrated hydration and bento box that don’t add area onto the frame
- Looks like easy adjustability in the cockpit
- Ample tire clearance (for triathlon)
9-10 watts faster than the old Speedmax is impressive. Though I’m not sure we ever really had a clear picture of where the old Speedmax was compared to the Speed Concept, P5, etc.
Like all the top end bikes it doesn’t come cheap. But I imagine plenty of dentists will be riding this bike in 2021
Like all the top end bikes it doesn’t come cheap. But I imagine plenty of dentists will be riding this bike in 2021
I’ll be interested to see how many of these are sold. When the prices were lower it was almost a no brainer, and any warranty issues were the risk you took for value. I think a lot of people that have been holding out for these, myself included, are a bit disappointed. They are still better value across the entire range, but not so much that you instantly overlook the other brands anymore. I was literally poised waiting to buy, but sorry Canyon, I’m gone.
I agree it’s well thought out but I’m not sold on the execution of the in-frame bladder:
I have five… six?.. years on my Shiv Tri with integrated bladder. The Shiv bladder is much more “straight” without the weird kind the canyon bladder has. It also went into a much larger down tube through a much larger opening. The Shiv’s bladder is a pain to get in place and get unkinked so you can fill it up all the way. After you do it a number of times you get a feel for the process. I’m quite confident that the Speedmax bladder will be a nightmare to install and that you’ll almost never get the full capacity. Further, the Shiv’s bladder cannot be filled super quick. The weight of fluid at the bottom of the bag puts tension on the top of the bag partially closing it. I see this being way way way worse with the Speedmax bag.
The bento looks a bit small for me. YMMV
I’ll give them props on increased rear tire clearance. So long as that tire is on a wide disc wheel and shielded by the seat tube there should be no measurable increase in drag but with potentially improved compliance.
so you can run wider tires and wider wheels. if you still run latex its nice to not pop your tires on a steep hill. Yes I have done it before with latex.
How wide do you need to go for a Tri/TT bike?
For the front, narrow is still aero. For the rear there’s no downside to going wider so long as the tire is mounted to a suitably wide disc and properly shielded by the seat tube. The air back there is quite turbulent and, if anything, a wider surface would be easier to attach to and possibly aero positive.
Interesting take on the bladder. These are probably things that people don’t notice until they’ve owned the bike for a while and are never really covered in reviews. It would be interesting to see how much can fit inside the bento. I like having cliff bars with me and not sure they would fit. Hence the open-ness of the Speed Concepts bento is nice. Though I have lost gels and things when hitting a bump…
Looks like mono spacers just like the SC:
.
Not saying it’s ugly…but this thing doesn’t give me “German” vibes. It looks like an amalgamation of a bunch of other bikes and honestly screams open mold to be honest.
Noticed another bike with internal hydration!
Yes, back of pad.
Also, I don’t think this changes the fact that this bike is lacking in reach. Cervelo, Scott, Orbea uses back of Pad. Specialized does use pad center. I prefer using back of pad
I am mentioning those bikes as they are recent updates. Scott, Orbea, and Specailized are able to build in 100mm+ of pad adjustment. Cervelo can get around 80mm of reach adjustment with the PX cockpit.
For me, the lack of reach adjustment is a miss from a fit stand point. and I am echoing a comment earlier where the bike is lacking in reach. I do love the hydration system (no idea how they got around the specialized patent, but it’s a win in my book), as it enables a narrow fore arm position.
Now I know what this made me think of…the Scott bike.