Suppose Cervelo comes out with (we’ll call it a P5), to answer the new Trek 2010. Integrated stem & front brake like the Trek, no cables, yet keeping familiar Cervelo tube shapes. That would be a nice match up. I have been buying parts for a new bike (P4), because Cervelo just makes a solid machine, though Gerard Vroomen & crew put a dorky looking water bottle that really wouldn’t be very easy to fill in a triathlon of distance…I’ve seen them up close (I’ve ridden a P4). With the new Trek though, it appears they have 1-upped the P4 not only on looks, but features in hiding from the wind. I’m sorry I started buying the components now because now I’m not 100% behind the P4 mostly due to the dork bottle. Even Cervelo Test Team had to scramble with modifying the P4’s water bottle area for UCI rules (so I’ve read), for Le Tour. Cervelo needs to hop on the bandwagon & either alter the P4 (even P4 owners I’ve talked with aren’t thrilled about the dork bottle–and it seems like it would hinder fluid replacement logistics during an Ironman race), and come out earlier with a P5 (like within a year), or the numbers of Cervelo sales may take a downward spiral. Trek, Giant, Specialized, and soon others will be raising the bar (or have). Cervelo needs a P5 SOON or something different–the P4 isn’t as Holy Grail as it was made out to be (to me) now that I’ve seen the other players in TT machines recently.
On another note, SRAM needs to anty up & get a SRAM 11 speed gruppo released to keep pace with Campy & FSA. The change is inevitable.
What were they thinking with that water bottle? It is impractical and an obvious fairing. Guess that is what happens when you base your bike design only on wind tunnel and computer modeling and not real world application.
Yeah, it is quite impractical indeed. I heard they were making a “Bento Box” to replace the water bottle so owners could carry tubes, co2’s & other junk (like a trunk…junk in the trunk). At Ironman CDA, I stopped by the Cervelo tent where they had no less than 10 new P4’s lined up, and no word from the guy in the tent as to when the bottle replacement Bento-style box will be released. I haven’t even seen a picture of it yet (the box). I’d use that in place of the water bottle, and go with a Profile or Jet Stream & then a Beaker Concepts seat mounted bottle setup, and use the Bento-style box for tires, co2’s, etc. for an IM. Mainly because using tape/velcro & strapping all the “flat repair” equipment is time consuming & a pain in the butt. Cervelo seems to be dragging their feet on on that one (sorry so critical Gerard…but this is reality). That said, the P3 is a more useful setup for Ironman competition than the P4 at this point. Per recent LeTour pics on Velo News, looks like the Cervelo TT (as I mentioned), is having P4 issues too.
Second note, I talked to four P4 owners at Ironman CDA, and 2 of them had seat post slippage issues, and a third had slippage AND was on his second P4 frame because his first one cracked on part of the frame. A fourth P4 owner didn’t have any complaints because he only got it 4 days before the race. Not sure why I wanted this bike in the first place, I guess because it was the latest incarnation of an obviously successful P3. After seeing the new not_for_public_yet Trek 2010/2011, I don’t really want a P4 all that much anymore. Any new Cervelo TT bike should also get on the BB30 or pressed in bearing setup for the BB area, hide all cables, integrate the front brake in the fork, maybe incorporate a speedometer sensor/odometer (or power meter) into the frame–take the best of all current top bikes & make a new ultimate frame. Sorta like Trek did…only better.
It’d be a nice looking bike if the dork bottle went away…maybe just the bento would be better.
actually chubbly its got a great real world application for storing your spare tire kit for us triathletes
which is a great thing since so many people totally ruin their beautifully aero bikes by strapping stuff all over it.
What were they thinking with that water bottle? It is impractical and an obvious fairing. Guess that is what happens when you base your bike design only on wind tunnel and computer modeling and not real world application.
I was originally impressed with the P4, but after seeing it up close, hearing about the issues, and seeing how TOTALLY IMPRACTIBLE the water bottle (joke) is, I think it is a waste of millions of dollars of research. I love the trek, and was looking to get a 2008-2009 version, but think I might just hold on and wait. I think Trek, specialized and giant did great jobs with their latest bikes. I will admit they were trying to catch up to cervelo, but think they have flown right on by them.
I think this just goes to show that maybe people that bought the P4 to have the latest and greatest new bike at the time, miss the whole point and design principles of the P4. If you do not ride it the way it was supposed to be ridden and with the supplied design goods you might as well have just bought a P3C.
All I keep thinking about when I hear all this complaining about the design is that the people voicing their complaints would probably want to put roof racks on a Ferrari.
Ride the bike the way it was designed to be ridden or sell it and buy something else. I think the P4 is for a very select few.
I think people just don’t think logically. It is an emotional reaction.
“oh the water bottle looks dumb, i wouldn’t want to deal with a custom water bottle, this is shit”
well, it DOES look goofy, but you don’t have to use that as a water bottle.
I’m SURE your current bike has a saddle bag or wing hanging off it somewhere with spare tire kit, throw that crap in the p4 water bottle and you have a much faster bike.
But the P4 is not just a P3 with a water bottle in the main triangle
its not even just a p3 with a hidden rear brake.
Theres a massive difference in the P4 and P3 up front, and how the p4 wraps around the front wheel.
I don’t know how much that is worth in terms of speed, maybe very little, but seeing the two in person its very striking.
we are lucky to have this bike, and we will be lucky when the Shiv and Trek come out as well. all very neat stuff. Some people will hate the p4 water bottle, some will hate the nose cone on the shiv, some will hate trick cable routing and custom stem on the trek.
cest la aero
All I keep thinking about when I hear all this complaining about the design is that the people voicing their complaints would probably want to put roof racks on a Ferrari.
Ride the bike the way it was designed to be ridden or sell it and buy something else. I think the P4 is for a very select few.
Suppose Cervelo comes out with (we’ll call it a P5), to answer the new Trek 2010. Integrated stem & front brake like the Trek, no cables, yet keeping familiar Cervelo tube shapes. I don’t think Cervelo creates bikes to answer other companies. They refine and improve to make the best bike. Who says that an integrated stem and front break make a better bike?
That would be a nice match up. I have been buying parts for a new bike (P4), because Cervelo just makes a solid machine, though Gerard Vroomen & crew put a dorky looking water bottle that really wouldn’t be very easy to fill in a triathlon of distance…I’ve seen them up close (I’ve ridden a P4). **If you are not coordinated enough to use a complicated water bottle then I’m not sure you ought to be riding a bike with others on the road. Who cares what the thing looks like? They don’t give out awards for the coolest bike at the finish. **With the new Trek though, it appears they have 1-upped the P4 not only on looks, but features in hiding from the wind. I’m sorry I started buying the components now because now I’m not 100% behind the P4 mostly due to the dork bottle. Even Cervelo Test Team had to scramble with modifying the P4’s water bottle area for UCI rules (so I’ve read), for Le Tour. **Who cares what the UCI requires? We’re triathletes and the UCI is the dumbest rules organization that I have ever seen. **Cervelo needs to hop on the bandwagon & either alter the P4 (even P4 owners I’ve talked with aren’t thrilled about the dork bottle–and it seems like it would hinder fluid replacement logistics during an Ironman race), and come out earlier with a P5 (like within a year), or the numbers of Cervelo sales may take a downward spiral. **That is going to happen anyway because there are plenty of people who care about cosmetics more than they do performance. They will buy the other bikes just to be different. **Trek, Giant, Specialized, and soon others will be raising the bar (or have). **Maybe, maybe not. Just because peole think the new bikes are aero doesn’t mean they will be better. We ought to remember that Cervelo’s bike is available now. **Cervelo needs a P5 SOON or something different–the P4 isn’t as Holy Grail as it was made out to be (to me) now that I’ve seen the other players in TT machines recently. YOu are making the rather grand assumption that the other bikes will be available soon and won’t have their own problems. Or that they will have a better solution to fluids without ruining the aerodynamics. Frankly, I was curious about the Giant bike and checked out their site yesterday and that bike could very easily be confused with a P3 if you changed the decals and didn’t look closely. As for the Trek and Specialized, I shudder to think what those bikes are going to cost. Trek has never been a particularly good value because they charge way too much. While entertaining, these discussions are kind of silly for me because I’m racing five-year old aluminum and won’t be able to afford a new bike for years.
Can’t wait to see all these people bitching p4 getting an trek and Shev… and just realised how hard is it going to set up, brake, fit adjustement…
Have you seen andy shleck? he looks totally stupid with his elbow spacer… this bike is not for him… but they have to put him on the blake… with all this elbow spacers… I’m pretty sure he is losing all the aero benefit. the trek speed concept is going to be the same… if you are not flexible or with a strange proportion between leg and torso… these new bike are not going to work.
For the p4 bottle… sorry… but if you can’t grab the bottle… you don’t worth to get a p4. This is a serious bike. You should be enough flexible to get easily. Yes they don’t have that bottle in the TDF, but they grab it really easily… exactly at the same position than the former one, and the most ironic… the former bottle was a lot easier to replace…
Honestly, I just don’t get why people are spending so much time bitching P4.
If they build a bike that didn’t require those big elbow spacers, it would have a big head tube instead.
Those thin, aero shaped eblow spacers are probably more aero than a headtube.
it looks silly but it may be the most aero way to do it
ideally the extensions should exit there too though…that would look even sillier!
Have you seen andy shleck? he looks totally stupid with his elbow spacer… this bike is not for him… but they have to put him on the blake… with all this elbow spacers… I’m pretty sure he is losing all the aero benefit. the trek speed concept is going to be the same… if you are not flexible or with a strange proportion between leg and torso… these new bike are not going to work.
If they build a bike that didn’t require those big elbow spacers, it would have a big head tube instead.
Those thin, aero shaped eblow spacers are probably more aero than a headtube.
it looks silly but it may be the most aero way to do it
Have you seen andy shleck? he looks totally stupid with his elbow spacer… this bike is not for him… but they have to put him on the blake… with all this elbow spacers… I’m pretty sure he is losing all the aero benefit. the trek speed concept is going to be the same… if you are not flexible or with a strange proportion between leg and torso… these new bike are not going to work.
…
we are lucky to have this bike, and we will be lucky when the Shiv and Trek come out as well. all very neat stuff. Some people will hate the p4 water bottle, some will hate the nose cone on the shiv, some will hate trick cable routing and custom stem on the trek.
cest la aero
Agree 100% - design engineering is all about managing/mitigating trade-offs. For all of us, those trade-offs will arrive at different points, some of which we can live with or embrace, while others are deal-breakers. It’s good to have choices.
One of my concerns about the Giant/Specialized, etc. front ends is the lack of flexibility in terms of bar placment and angle.
For some of us we don’t care. Ive barely changed my position in 3 years of riding. If i can fit on it on day 1 ill be able to fit on it on day 1000 assuming i dont hurt something.
I can’t imagine the the whole front nosecone concept will be judged legal by UCI in the long run
Also for 99.99 percent of people UCI doesnt matter, It matters for me once a year maybe two times a year. If its going to be an issue ill ride a different bike. Throw me on a bike thats close to my dimensions and im fine. At this point all we are talking about is extra speed from decressed drag. Thats more important then some dumb UCI rules especially one that isnt even a rule yet.
