I don’t need a particularly low front end, so I’m wondering how the S5 would work as a full-time tri bike with aero cockpit. I see that it has a 2-position seatpost, but the geometry table on Cervelo’s website only lists the numbers for the 73* option…
The P2 would actually be OK. It’s the P3 headtube that’s too low for me.
The S5 frameset seems to have more aerodynamic goodies happening than the P2 frameset, though. I’m wondering if it would actually end up being faster than a P2.
So what size(s) would you be looking at?
At the same size an s5 can have around 5cm more stack. That is a lot. You may not want to be that upright.
But yes, I agree that if you can get in your preferred position on the S5, and you probably can by sizing down and/or down-angling the stem, that its going to be more aero than the p2
Damn it! You beat me.
The P2 would actually be OK. It’s the P3 headtube that’s too low for me.
The S5 frameset seems to have more aerodynamic goodies happening than the P2 frameset, though. I’m wondering if it would actually end up being faster than a P2.
I ride a 58cm Dual (same geometry as 58cm P2) with a “flipped” 110mm/6* stem and no spacers with Profile T2 Wing/T2+ bars.
If I did go with an S5, I could make up whatever stack difference I needed to with low profile bars (Vision alloy base/Profile ZBS extensions, or the like) and/or a lower stem.
I guess I could also make up the P3 headtube deficit with bars with more stack (Ventus with spacers, or the like), but that would put the horns pretty low and those bars are damned expensive.
The S5 is an interesting option. I’m really curious if I could get steep enough on it, though. Since moving to shorter cranks, my seat is pretty high. Even using the forward position (78*) and an Adamo on my Dual, I’m running out of saddle rail to get more forward. The 76* forward position on the S5 (if that is, in fact, what it is) may not make it.
How come you need to be so far forward, if you aren’t very low?
an Adamo all the way forward on its rails on a dual puts your body REAAAALY far forward
I ride a 58cm Dual (same geometry as 58cm P2) with a “flipped” 110mm/6* stem and no spacers with Profile T2 Wing/T2+ bars.
If I did go with an S5, I could make up whatever stack difference I needed to with low profile bars (Vision alloy base/Profile ZBS extensions, or the like) and/or a lower stem.
I guess I could also make up the P3 headtube deficit with bars with more stack (Ventus with spacers, or the like), but that would put the horns pretty low and those bars are damned expensive.
The S5 is an interesting option. I’m really curious if I could get steep enough on it, though. Since moving to shorter cranks, my seat is pretty high. Even using the forward position (78*) and an Adamo on my Dual, I’m running out of saddle rail to get more forward. The 76* forward position on the S5 (if that is, in fact, what it is) may not make it.
I have long legs, which puts my saddle high. Even with a flat back I don’t need a headtube as short as the P3.
I probably over-emphasized the forward part. I’m not maxed out on the Adamo. I’m about mid-rail. But, for a saddle like the Adamo, where you’re sitting off the front, having it way forward on the rails seems a bit sketchy. (Not to mention that it looks bad, which is even more important!)
This was from last year before going to shorter cranks, but here’s a pic. There is still a decent amount of drop.
just be sure you do the math on the stack there, it might be more than you can make up for with cockpit changes.
Who said I wasn’t low?
I have long legs, which puts my saddle high. Even with a flat back I don’t need a headtube as short as the P3.
I probably over-emphasized the forward part. I’m not maxed out on the Adamo. I’m about mid-rail. But, for a saddle like the Adamo, where you’re sitting off the front, having it way forward on the rails seems a bit sketchy. (Not to mention that it looks bad, which is even more important!)
This was from last year before going to shorter cranks, but here’s a pic. There is still a decent amount of drop.
Personally I think any bike that you are comfortable on in the aero position would work for a tri bike. Take a look at the pro womens 2010 70.3 world championship winner at Clearwater, FL and you will see someone on a standard roadbike with clip-on aero bars. Might not be as sexy as a tri specific bike, but in the end its about moving from A to B, not the vehicle that takes you there, so long as it fits the regulations.
I would also be interested in seeing how this comes out, particularly with di2. Quick question–with the di2, will swapping out the front end (bars/stem) be easier than it would be with a conventional cable system?
For anyone that may be interested in this, here is the message I set to Cervelo and their reply…
Question:
I currently ride a 58cm 2006 Dual with no spacers and a “flipped” 110mm/6* stem. In looking at a possible upgrade, I’m intrigued by the thought of using the S5 as a full-time tri bike with aero cockpit.
I would love a P3, but I’d end up needing a bunch of spacers, killing some of the aerodynamics (and looks) of the frame. I suppose the P2 would be a logical choice, but the S5 seems to incorporate more aero features. So, I have a few questions…
Am I correct that the S5 is a more aerodynamic frameset than the P2?
Are there any drawbacks to using the S5 as a full-time tri bike with aero cockpit (handling, etc)?
I see that the S5 uses a dual-position seatpost, but only the 73* STA geometry is listed. I’m interested in the geometry of the steeper STA so that I can determine if the S5 will even work with my position. Can you provide the geometry table for the steeper setup?
Thank you.
Answer:
Thanks for contacting us. To respond to your direct questions the S5 is faster than a P2 on its own. However, a poor rider position can throw that benefit right out the window. A good fit on a P2 can definitely help pose a serious threat to your competitors.
In terms of fit, the S5 may not let you get far enough forward to get an ideal aero position for long course racing ( see below), but it will continue to offer the handling of a pro road race bike. As such, short course triathletes will still seek out its advantages.
While the S5 does have a seatpost that appears similar to the P-series part, it does not offer exactly the same function. The S5’s effective seat tube angle is 73 degrees in all cases. The forward post opening offers riders a “zero” offset saddle position and the rear opening offers a “set back” option. This is a feature not previously available in any S-series design.
I will encourage you to have a look at the P2 if spacer stack is a concern. You won’t be disappointed with this IM world championship winning bike.
A couple of things I found interesting were the fact that the S5 is, in fact, a faster frame(set) than the P2 and that 73* is actually the steepest STA available, despite the dual-position post. That pretty-much guarantees that I wouldn’t be able to get steep enough on the S5. Oh well, the P2 is a fair amount less expensive, anyway.
