So I go into my LBS Cervelo dealer and they say the P4 is still the fastest bike. I then head over to the Trek LBS and those guys say Trek’s Speed Concept is hands down the winner. Now, I know that buying a bike is really about how it fits the individual, but is there any lab data that compares the two objectively anywhere yet?
If I missed it on here before, I apologize in advance.
Is there anyone objective who will be willing to spend the money?
I will say the difference between the top end bikes like these arent huge in term of speed, more of your legs…
Just buy one that you like in terms of design or other factors. Most importantly you must love the ride you are riding.
I will say the difference between the top end bikes like these arent huge in term of speed, more of your legs…
Just buy one that you like in terms of design or other factors. Most importantly you must love the ride you are riding.
Agreed.
Look at the cars people buy. Sometimes/often it makes no sense at all what they buy! Expensive bikes could possibly fall into the same category. However, there is a fit issue here that should not be over-looked. Read Dan Empfields articles on fit and his analysis of the various bike brands fit story and you should get a better idea of what brand will fit you better. Generally speaking Cervelo’s fit those who are longer in the torso and/or who have the flexibility to ride low in the front. Treks on the other hand historically have been shorter in length and higher in the front, and thus would fit someone with longer legs and a shorter torso “better”. Of course you can make any bike fit you and you see many of those oddly set-up rigs out there to.
So I go into my LBS Cervelo dealer and they say the P4 is still the fastest bike. I then head over to the Trek LBS and those guys say Trek’s Speed Concept is hands down the winner.
welcome to earth
Now, I know that buying a bike is really about how it fits the individual
they all come in different sizes with a lot of adjustability. unless you are funny shaped you can probably make them all work
but is there any lab data that compares the two objectively anywhere yet?
nope. but if it helps I suspect it would be splitting some pretty fine hairs so just get the one with the best paint job
If it were me, I really like what Trek has done with the Speed Concept. Aside from the “marginal” aerodynamic differences between the two, what I don’t like about the P4 is it’s lack of usability for triathletes in the real world.
The P4 has no water bottle mounts except for that odd shaped box located at the bottom bracket. Even if one wanted to convert the box to a cage, you have to modify the cage in order to fit. (This may have changed in 2010 models though.) To me, the P4 was designed more for a short individual time trial like a TdF prologue than an Ironman.
The Speed Concept has cages, a box on the rear for carrying CO2/spare/innertube and an integrated bento box on the top tube. Not great for a prologue, but really in line with what someone needs for doing an Ironman distance race.
The addition of water bottles on the Speed Concept might reduce it’s aerodynamic efficiency, but I have never ever seen aid stations hand up Cervelo P4 shaped water bottles. Some people might argue that it’s not hard to deal with refilling the P4 bottle on the fly, but seriously, why make things difficult on race day?
What I think is also really cool about the Speed Concept is that on the higher models, all the cables are hidden. It might be a pain in the ass to work on, but I can definitely would say that Trek made some outstanding efforts to improve the bike by thinking “outside the box”.
The only thing I think the P4 has over the Trek is that Cervelo has the mount holes on it’s line of bikes for an X-Lab rear cage which is really easy to use and install/remove as necessary.
I own a couple Cervelo P3’s, so it’s not like I’m biased against Cervelo or anything. I wasn’t too fired up over the P4 enough to warrant me upgrading, but now that I’ve seen the Speed Concept, it definitely got me thinking about a new bike for next year.
So I go into my LBS Cervelo dealer and they say the P4 is still the fastest bike. I then head over to the Trek LBS and those guys say Trek’s Speed Concept is hands down the winner. Now, I know that buying a bike is really about how it fits the individual, but is there any lab data that compares the two objectively anywhere yet?
I don’t know whether you would consider Trek’s own data objective or not. Based on it, however, it appears to me that the P4 is still the faster choice unless you routinely experience relatively high yaw angles when racing.
What I think is also really cool about the Speed Concept is that on the higher models, all the cables are hidden. It might be a pain in the ass to work on, but I can definitely would say that Trek made some outstanding efforts to improve the bike by thinking “outside the box”.
People have been building bikes with little-to-no exposed cable housing since at least the 1990s.
Andrew, what do you recon the upsloping stem and UCI legal bar is costing the P4 in the Trek Data(in terms of grams), as compared with say a downturned stem and a 3T Brezza, or even a 3T ventus?
Andrew, what do you recon the upsloping stem and UCI legal bar is costing the P4 in the Trek Data(in terms of grams), as compared with say a downturned stem and a 3T Brezza, or even a 3T ventus?
Compared to the Ventus? Lots. 
I never thought the 1990’s TT bikes were that cool looking. They always had those funny different sized wheels and looked like they were about to topple ass over tea kettle on the first pothole they hit.
what would you expect a cervelo dealer say? or a trek dealer say???
I don’t know whether you would consider Trek’s own data objective or not. Based on it, however, it appears to me that the P4 is still the faster choice unless you routinely experience relatively high yaw angles when racing.
Unless you are riding your bicycle in a vacuum or at speeds above 40mph, you will routinely experience high yaw angles. At 20mph, a 5.5mph crosswind puts you at 15 degrees yaw. Trek’s white paper gives a good overview of this, as do many books on sailing.
The sad thing is most AG who are going to be riding these bikes probably shouldnt, think rev3 AG gallery. They would be just as fast on a lower end bike, but they are status symbols like a iphone, lexus or 80inch flat screen tv. Look at me, look at me. Its the latest and greatest. You can build a P1/P2(or equiv trek, felt, etc) that fits you and be just as fast if not faster. Luckily they buy these bikes so the rest of the rides go down in price for the rest of us.
I don’t know whether you would consider Trek’s own data objective or not. Based on it, however, it appears to me that the P4 is still the faster choice unless you routinely experience relatively high yaw angles when racing.
Unless you are riding your bicycle in a vacuum or at speeds above 40mph, you will routinely experience high yaw angles. At 20mph, a 5.5mph crosswind puts you at 15 degrees yaw. Trek’s white paper gives a good overview of this, as do many books on sailing.
For starters, I generally don’t any go slower than ~25 mph at any time during a TT. When I do, it is usually because I’m going uphill, which generally also means I’m more sheltered than on a flat, wide open road.
For finishers, a 5.5 mph wind at ground level is very high. Wind speeds are routinely measured/reported at 10 m off the ground, but are much smaller at the height of a cyclist, i.e., ~1 m off the ground. The exact conversion from wind speed at 10 m to wind speed at 1 m varies with “surface roughness” (terrain), presence of buildings, etc., but roughly speaking a 5.5 mph wind at 1 m height would correspond to a wind speed of 15-20 mph at 10 m. This would be classified as a “fresh breeze” (level 5) on the Beaufort wind scale, i.e., enough to cause small trees (not just branches) to move and dust to be picked up from the ground’s surface, and just below the point at which, e.g., the branckes of large trees move or overhead power lines begin to whistle.
To put it another way: there is a very good reason that companies like Zipp, Hed, Cervelo, Specialized etc., focus on minimizing drag in the 0-15 deg range, and not in the 15+ deg range (where the Trek seems to really shine).
Check out all these typical set-ups from another thread:
http://triathlon.competitor.com/2010/06/gear-tech/top-age-group-bikes-from-rev3-quassy_9934?pid=5004
Can you tell me, if anything, about what these people are carrying is unnecessary for a long course triathlon? What might have been very aerodynamic frames HAVE to be marred by the necessities of what one NEEDS to bring.
The Trek Speed Concept pretty much accommodates these needs in a very good solution that other manufacturers have yet to address. The Cervelo P4 may very well be faster in an individual TT where you do not need things like a water bottle, spares, and food. In a long course triathlon, it would be a very unwise tactic not to bring these items with you.
To me, this is why the Trek Speed Concept highly intrigues me while something like the P4 has not motivated me to purchase one.
Check out all these typical set-ups from another thread:
http://triathlon.competitor.com/...quassy_9934?pid=5004
Can you tell me, if anything, about what these people are carrying is unnecessary for a long course triathlon? What might have been very aerodynamic frames HAVE to be marred by the necessities of what one NEEDS to bring.
Unnecessary? I’d say most of it. You don’t see Jordan Rapp’s bike loaded down with all of that crap, do you?
He tends to do fairly well in long course triathlons, no?
The Trek Speed Concept pretty much accommodates these needs in a very good solution that other manufacturers have yet to address. The Cervelo P4 may very well be faster in an individual TT where you do not need things like a water bottle, spares, and food. In a long course triathlon, it would be a very unwise tactic not to bring these items with you.
To me, this is why the Trek Speed Concept highly intrigues me while something like the P4 has not motivated me to purchase one.
So…what you’re saying is that the SC “intrigues” you because it has, in automotive terms, a “spacious trunk”? Got it
“a “spacious trunk”?..”
and cup holders!
But I agree, it’s those design considerations that got me interested in the bike also.
+1
I would be embarrased if those were my bikes…
Dear God thank you Tom! Lets face it, there are many reasons we all like one bike over another but this reoccurring theme about the P4 not being practical for Ironman racing completely mystifies me. I admit I’m a minimalist when it comes to lugging crap with me in a triathlon but I consider the P4 frame bottle system and then one lying on top of the aerobars the PERFECT system for Ironman racing (which is part of the reason the P4 will be my choice next season). Viva la difference I suppose.