Cervelo P2K vs. QR Cliente… Can someone (surely there are a host of Slowtwitch people that have opinions) tell me the differences in these two tri bike frames.
Quality?, Ride?, Geometry?, Paint?, Aero?, Etc.?
I like the P2K for two reasons 1) wider range of adjustability with the flip around seat post 2) honest to God genuine aero tubing.
I’m not familiar with the Caliente but I did have very briefly a Kilo as my first tri bike which was consistantly slower than my Giant TCR. It had a fixed 78 degree seat tube so if you prefer riding in a more slack TT or multisport position you’ve been painted into a corner with the fixed degree seat tube.
Long top tube vs. short top tube.
“I like the P2K for two reasons 1) wider range of adjustability with the flip around seat post 2) honest to God genuine aero tubing.”
I don’ know… 1) Maybe, I’ll give you that one if you had evil thoughts about riding it slack 2) I doubt the difference in the aero tube sets of the two amounts to jack, probably less.
-mike
All I can say is that I’ve been VERY happy with my Caliente. Though I don’t have much to compare it to (first tri bike after finally upgrading from a 34lb. Murray Sebring!), I have had no complaints. The paint job is awesome, the ride quality is excellent, and it’s very comfortable.
I had actually planned on getting a P2k for quite some time, but when the time finally came, the Caliente was hard to beat. The two seem quite comparable, but when I considered the carbon stays and the component packages, the Caliente was what worked for me.
In reply to…
“Long top tube vs. short top tube.”
Tom,
All due respect - but this is a bit of an over simplification. I’ve made these observations from their respective web sites.
With out going into comparisons of all the sizes - in my size I find I need a 54cm top tube on a 78 degree tri bike. I ride a P3 (same geo as p2k) in a 55 which has a 54 cm top tube. If I rode a 55cm QR it would also have a 54cm top tube. All other dimensions for this frame are fairly close save for the shorter chain stays on the cervelo. Just glancing down the charts the relationships of top tube lengths seems pretty much the same through the range. There are some differences for example QR has a 57 with a 55.5 cm tt but Cervelo only offers a 58 with a 56 cm tt. But I don’t think this is such a major difference that it could not be worked around in most cases.
So what is long and short?
I think the only point that can be made is that size names like “55cm” are stupid and you need to look at the geometry chart to find the “true size”
gerard posted about a week ago that the p2k is not being discontinued.
which is fantastic news since it’s hard to find a better tri bike (fit considerations aside) than the p2k for under $3,000.
RE: Mike G and Tom D exchange…
I went through the comparison of these two bikes last winter. If each bike is set up with the saddle in an identical position over the bb, the Caliente ends up with a shorter effective top tube, or reach. In the case of the P2K, that would mean (for me) the seat post flipped forward; in the case of the QR, that means a Profile forward-tilted post. But, the reach ends up shorter on the QR. The QR also has a longer front-center than a similarly sized P2K. In my view, these factors make the QR more suited for the tall, yet short-torsoed, rider (like me).
I bought the QR, but I’m still not happy (I need the top tube even shorter, but a smaller frame will have too short a front-center for my taste). So, I’m off to see Ves at Yaqui this Friday to order up my new Mariola (perhaps in the “DE” geometry, but Ves will tell me what I need).
Mike - it’s not apples to apples…
In a P3, I’d ride a 52cm
In a Caliente, I’d ride a 55cm
The TT lengths listed aren’t worth the lousy html of their sites…
In Tom’s case, I’d venture a guess he could size your bike within about 5 seconds of walking in his shop.
Ha! You caved, Rick!!! You’ll love your bike from Ves. (Lots of talk around here about Yaqui today) I bet you’ll be getting those snazzy shaped tubes too. Scandium rules! You won’t believe it.
Dude,
Don’t take offence to my questioning – just playing devils advocate and trying to learn a few things.
If QRs tt lengths listed on their geo charts are off then fine. Point – I’m trying to get at is that if the listed size is not important but the effective tt length is. Now maybe QRs geo chart is off – I don’t know. But… given the sizes available you should be able to find a P2K and QR with the same or very similar “effective” tt length or “reach”. As you said “you” could ride a 52cm P3 or 55cm QR. To me these bikes are the same size. But both would fit – right? I’d like to know what the actual reach measurements are on these bikes. Is it possible that some one who could be fitted on a P2K could not fit the caliente?
I just find the it is a bit of a misleading statement to suggest that a particular brand has “short” or “long” top tubes. This suggests to me that one brand would fit but the other would not. Dan addresses this much more eloquently than I ever could in his article on stack and reach.
Anyway my bike fits just fine – I’m just trying to help our mate out here with finding the right bike.
No offense taken…
But, you’re missing the point. The TT IS too long…over simplification? Yes. True? yes.
Why? You need to consider all the other measurements…mostly concerning headtube length. You can’t simply skim across every companies geos until you find one that says “54cm” on the TT length.
In your case, I’d venture a guess you’re P3 is too big…no offense, of course.
In reply to
In your case, I’d venture a guess you’re P3 is too big…no offense, of course.
I’m not sure why you think my bike doesn’t fit? Or why that matters to you.
Funny thing is I think we are arguing many of the same points…about the confusion of frame sizes and as you brought up the clarity of the published “actual” top tube lengths.
Mostly, I’m just trying to help our friend goodtime find the right bike and I think that the differences in the geometry between the two bikes deserves a little more than the simple answer of one has a long top tube and the other is short. Because I’m pretty sure that we could find one of each of those bikes that has exactly the same (effective) top tube length. The only good explanation of this I’ve come across is Dan’s Stack/Reach article.
And yes I am very confident that Tom would fit goodtime (or anyone) on the right bike if he walked in his shop. And – no it wouldn’t take 5 seconds.
Anyway – to answer goodtime. I think the Cervelo is a great bike in terms of quality, ride and aero. The paint – my first Cervelo eyre (97) did chip a lot, my second eyre was much better - my new P3 is much much better. But I like paint chips – it shows that I ride my bike. And geometry – first off Cervelo is very clear on the stack and reach of their frames. These measurements are on their website. And I can tell you if you PM Gerard with your specific fit questions he will get back to you. That’s what I did. I then used that as a starting point to work with my (fist) bike fitter. My Cervelo bike fit has taken 7 years so far and it has worked out very well for me.QR might help you with fit as well but they didn’t get back to me when I asked them a couple years back. And apparently the tt measures on their web site have been rumoured to not be accurate 
I do however think that their bikes have improved a lot over the past couple of years and do deserve a long hard look! I’d sure like to see them or someone post the stack/reach figures though.
Ha! You caved, Rick!!! You’ll love your bike from Ves. (Lots of talk around here about Yaqui today) I bet you’ll be getting those snazzy shaped tubes too. Scandium rules! You won’t believe it.
Yup, I’m spending the money. I have to give up Starbucks and deli lunches for a year, but it’ll be worth it.
Should I get the blue or that awful purple color?