More details at http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2005/news/06-10
.
Nah , still think the P3C looks better and will no doubt cost a lot less, TIME bikes are notoriously expensive (but that may just be in the UK)
.
Oh my god, definitely!!!
Vive la France!! (This one is for Record10carbon 
).
Just wanted to sound a bit cliché, Ok, I’ll get back to work.
It can be a Cervelo killer if the rider aboard it is stronger than the rider on the Cervelo. When you get to these super bikes, aerodynamics is chump change in the grand scheme. For example, in the first individual time trial of the Giro this year, David Zabriskie beat Ivan Basso by 17 seconds. Zabriskie was on a P3SL with a 404 front wheel; Basso had a P3 Carbon and an 808. It’s all about who’s the strongest rider.
Agreed Greg… Just trying to start some Cervelo controversy… thats all…
everyone here does realize that time makes some of the best bikes out there, and also some the most expenive.
Suddenly I am starting to like French more and more…and yes, IMO that is a Cervelo killer based on looks. What would be neat is to find out the angles on that…I am sure that they had to bow to the UCI and it is really a road bike in TT bike clothing…
Cervelo scores points for their unique design, but Time blows them away in the graphics and execution department.
But what’s the point of a bike like this if not to create the lowest drag possible for a given rider position? It’s impossible to know how the Time stacks up without wind tunnel testing, but just from the one picture, I have my doubts. It seems like the gap from the seatpost to the rear wheel is much bigger than it has to be under UCI rules (it looks like the rear dropouts are not adjustable); I’d be worried about the drag from the steps in the seatpost area below the saddle; and since the top tube is deeper where it meets the headtube than the downtube, I’d guess the downtube doesn’t have the highest aspect ratio allowed. All these factors suggest to me that the designers were working toward a bike that looked fast rather than engineering a design based on aerodynamics.
What is the point of any bike in the tour?
To look cool and fast so a consumer will go out and spend money on it.
You can debate aerodynamics til your blue in the face, but it doesn’t change the fact that that is a fast looking bike.
Definitely nice looking bike.
Is it me…or does the way the seat stay attaches to the seat tube look similar to the Kestrel Talon?
For some reason, that popped out when I saw the pic.
Dave
There’s no accounting for taste. Some people may be more concerned with appearance than performance, but for me being more concerned with performance, this bike doesn’t look fast. But as I said, until there’s reliable data, there’s no way to tell.
Looks like another P2K ripoff…
Speaking of which, is that the next bike to get carbonized?
My theory is that Time may have figured out a way to make a custom geometry/size super-tt machine. a lot of those parts look interchangeable.
Greg,
Will you stop it. You are making way to much sense!
Fleck