well, maybe almost …
There’s already one on ebay. Ouch! $$$$$$$
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3635257484&category=7298
What a rip-off. If I were Aegis I would be ashamed. Unbelieveable. Never underestimate the depths to which people will sink.
Tom,
From what I’ve seen of the copy cat P2k’s, I gather there is no copyright protection on design in the bike industry? I’m an attorney, but know nothing about copyright law. It would seem that since Cervelo was the first to do the rear cut out (in the P3), then they would hold a patent. Unless, the didn’t get a patent for time restraints?
Mike
“There’s already one on ebay. Ouch! $$$$$$$”
And it’s in my size!! Anyone want to buy it for me.
From the previous discussion, I recall that Cervelo wasn’t the first to use a curved seat tube. My '99 Ultimate can attest to that and there were other bikes prior to it to do the same thing. Cervelo got it right though, but I’m not sure if it’s something they could patent. Still, I think most people will see the Aegis for what it is, a P3 clone. Unethical? Maybe, but like the other poster said, how many P2/P2K clones are out there as well? Part of this and every other business I suppose.
–ashayk
My 95 KHS zH2B Aero Turbo also had a curved seat tube as well
.
Cheesy move? Yes. Good business move? Probably. Most good designs are “borrowed” in one form or another, and no, Gerard didn’t seem all that flattered at the bike show.
An aluminum version would be total knock-off city, but I think the key feature here is “carbon”.
My '99 Ultimate can attest to that and there were other bikes prior to it to do the same thing
.
An aluminum version would be total knock-off city, but I think the key feature here is “carbon”.
Pretty, but what’s the functional point here?
The P3 already has a great ride, is very light, and is extremely durable (I’ve got a 2000 model, and have raced it in all kinds of conditions from ideal to hideous).
Simply a way of spending nearly $4,000 more (E-bay listing says MSRP: $6,800) – to no practical effect whatsoever?
Strikes me as a very, very expensive “solution” in search of a non-existent “problem”. 
I’d have to agree that there would be no “functional point”, if Cervelo had come out with a carbon P3. But most of the bike industry is rather dysfunctional, point wise, (e.g.-otherwise Zipp etc would phase out discs now that Renn is on the scene, 1/3rd the price, 99.8% the performance).
The problem that was solved is the one where Cervelo had a P3, and Aegis didn’t.
heard that aegis is expecting to double their sales with the release of their new bike… hope the dropouts are prettier than thier old bikes though, they’ve got the ugliest rear dropouts on the market.
Not exactly sure of the date they were produced…but I recall Vitus making a carbon frame that had a rear wheel cutout as well. Pretty sure the model was called the ZX-1 and I think it came out in the early 90s.
I’d have to agree that there would be no “functional point”, if Cervelo had come out with a carbon P3. But most of the bike industry is rather dysfunctional, point wise, (e.g.-otherwise Zipp etc would phase out discs now that Renn is on the scene, 1/3rd the price, 99.8% the performance).
The problem that was solved is the one where Cervelo had a P3, and Aegis didn’t.
bobo – if we assume for the sake of discussion that the design and structural properties are similar, my q. really was “why does doing this in carbon, rather than Al, carry any advantage?”
Weight, ride quality, and durability (putative assets of carbon) are already terrific on the existing real P3.
But your Renn/Zipp case makes a second point – aside from the ethical issue of Aegis doing what looks like a pure frame design ripoff, aren’t knockoffs supposed to cost a lot LESS, rather than absurdly MORE?.
You could buy 2 P3s for the MSRB of $6800 for a single one of these – and still have $800 left over.
What’s the appeal or added utility here?
If it’s just for eye-catching conspicuous consumption, why not lacquer forty $100 bills onto the frame of an existing P3 instead? Wait – not enough room. How 'bout four $1,000 bills?
It comes right back to what I have been saying for a little while now: the UCI has relegated all of the manufacturers to make very boring bikes.
I am not saying that the P3 is a boring design, as I feel it is the exact opposite. The P3 is still fresh to me, in my opinion. However, between the propensity to latch onto what has been selling, along with the very tight restrictions that the UCI has imposed on the manufacturers, this is what we have to look forward to: one out-of-the-box design that meets within the small parameters of creative design mandated by the ultimate retro-grouches (and even pushing the envelope) that will be copied ad-finitum.
As far as the other details of the Cervelo line, many had appeared on other bikes. The key is that Cervelo put all of those details together on one bike, executed some of them in their own way while solving many of the problems associated with those details, and in effect, came up with their own original design dancing on the edge of breaking the silly UCI rules.
My comment on the “carbon P3”: oooh boy. whoop-di-do.
“…heard that aegis is expecting to double their sales with the release of their new bike.”
If that is true, they are in for a rude awakening.
Also note that GT and Litespeed did the rear wheel cut-out thing before Cervelo.
" If it’s just for eye-catching conspicuous consumption, why not lacquer forty $100 bills onto the frame of an existing P3 instead? Wait – not enough room. How 'bout four $1,000 bills? "
How 'bout this for a paint job on a P3: fake carbon weave fading in and out of $100 notes all over the bike. I would even incorporate the Aegis logos (or hints thereof) and have “not” next to them. And on the down tube: Cervelo P3, never duplicated, but carbon copied often". Maybe Gerard’s picture on the $100 notes. That’s what Gerard should do for next year’s interbike display.
It does not have a fully aero seatpost or internally routed cables and the fork/headtube interface looks abrupt and uneven in the pictures I’ve seen, so I’d put it behind the P3 in aerodynamics. Sweet bike but in my book the P3 is still faster. If I was going carbon I’d buy a Kestrel, Corima, or Cheetah.
-Marc
You could buy 2 P3s for the MSRB of $6800 for a single one of these – and still have $800 left over.
The $6,800 is for the whole bike (and perhaps then some). The frame itself is about the same price (~$2,300) as the P3. From what Aegis has told me.
Rick, what would you recommend as a TT frame for $2,000, let’s say with Ultegra but not bars or wheels? Getting fitted at Brielle tomorrow, but still don’t know what to get.
You all recovered from the state TT?
Ken Lehner
bobo – if we assume for the sake of discussion that the design and structural properties are similar, my q. really was “why does doing this in carbon, rather than Al, carry any advantage?”
Weight, ride quality, and durability (putative assets of carbon) are already terrific on the existing real P3.
My point is that if Cervelo sells a gazillion P3’s, it’s of no advantage whatsoever to Aegis. Different companies. Competitors. No-likey each other.
And I won’t be shocked if Aegis sells a bunch of their knock-offs, carbon sells to the MMTS (more money than sense) crowd. They’d by carbon chains. The tri-market isn’t logical, but it is predictable.