“For most of the production models introduced by Cervélo the material of choice was Aluminum or steel, but for 2003 many projects return to our original calling of carbon fiber”
Cervelo Introduction on the 2003 R-2.5 Carbon.
Does this move herald a signal that we may see a carbon version of the P3?
I’m guessing Gerard is going to say something about how certain materials are best in certain applications. The R2.5 is built for the mountains, with weight being a primary concern. Just the same, the Super Prodigy is built “Ford tough” from steel and makes an excellent platform to build a classics bike out of. I’m guessing that for aero, aluminum will remain Cervelo’s material of choice. Besides, carbon in the amounts necessary to produce Cervelo’s airfoil shapes will be mighty expensive! Cervelo seems to be a company about getting the best tools in as many hands as possible. Close Gerard?
“Does this move herald a signal that we may see a carbon version of the P3?”
Other than a guaranteed much higher price and a likely slightly smoother ride, do you see any other benefit of a carbon P3?
I honestly think you would yield a heavier bike out of carbon if shaped like the P3.
Unless Gerard has something to share, he would have made the P3 out of carbon years ago if he thought that it would work well made of carbon. It would have had a different shape, as some of the abrupt ends of shapes would not have worked and the resulting shapes would have probably rendered the bike UCI-illegal.
Lotus Sport 110 frame and fork: nearly 5 lbs.
My Corima Fox with Lew front and Renn rear: 20 lbs.
Not a bad weight for an aero bike with aero equipment, but certainly not the lightest thing out there. I could lighten it up with an Alpha Q fork and lose the disc, but it would not be quite as aero (okay, the fork may be MORE aero than the Giant w/carbon steerer I use). Almost everything else I use on the bike is pretty close to being the lightest available (including the Bici Pidasso aerobars); maybe I could lighten it up by using triple-butted cowhorns. I refuse to use Ti pedal spindles (I would flex them). I am unsure of magnesium stems, for now.
Round-tubes, lugged frames and more traditional shapes for bikes make the best use of carbon for characteristics of lightweight; shapely aero bikes made of carbon are light for what they are (imagine the Corima Fox or Lotus Sport made of steel- ouch!!!). Aluminum can be made relatively inexpensively into good, UCI-legal shapes at a light weight.
Or perhaps you hit the nail on the head with the P3 Carbon…
-SD
are you the matrix?
Wow . . . how did this old e-mail get dredged up!!!
Lucky guess, I guess.
I’d like to see a carbon Soloist. That would be a hot bike. But not too soon. I have just done laundry after all those P3C postings…
Yep, totally agree with you, a carbon soloist would be fantastic.
I think the only problem is that it might eclipse the R2.5 as a model. Except, as I like to point out, if you optimize for aero, then structural dynamics must play second fiddle. So perhaps a carbon Soloist would be more aero and trick, but the R2.5 would be a more effective machine in terms of power transfer and comfort…
Although, most the same comments were made about a carbon version of the P3, and yet it seems that Cervélo found a way to make that bike worth the move. It may prove the same with a carbon soloist being the all-around bike that it already is (good for flats, aero, but also good for the mountain, power transfer and light), when the R2.5 would be the super light dedicated to mountain stages bike (a bit like the difference between a Madone and a 5900, both made out of carbon, but with the added benefit for the Soloist to be turned into a triathlon machine).
There the tubes stayed mostly same. My point is more that the if you design the frameset & tubes with aerodynamics as your PRIMARY consideration, the structural design and power application takes a secondary role. This isn’t to say that it can’t do it well, maybe even 99.9% as well (I have no idea as to the actual amount), but there are always some trade-offs for aero optimization, and the R2.5 may not only be lighter, but more comfortable by virtue of being round-tubed. The P3C vs. P3 changed the geometry of the “tubes” some, but not to the same extent of the round-tube R2.5 vs. a carbon Soloist.