http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/62nd-criterium-du-dauphine-upt/stage-3/photos/125274
http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/62nd-criterium-du-dauphine-upt/stage-3/photos/125275
A couple of things:
There is definitely some new molds being played with at the Specialized factory. The bump behind the stem to connect the top tube is new AFAIK, and the ridge behind the fork takes a different line than the model 3. Agree on bottle placement, and yes, those are a second set of bosses.
EDIT: Here is a picture of the Shiv 3, showing a different ridge behind the fork:
Chris
I wonder what Zipp charges for the “Pistolero”-version rear disk?
There is definitely some new molds being played with at the Specialized factory. The bump behind the stem to connect the top tube is new AFAIK, and the ridge behind the fork takes a different line than the model 3. Agree on bottle placement, and yes, those are a second set of bosses.
Yeah…I saw the “doghouse” behind the stem and the dropped top tube in the Dauphine prologue pics…I just hadn’t noticed the bottle cages.
I think that the “shaping” of the downtube happened on the Rev3 version when the UCI told them to get rid of the fillet down there…it’s just easier to see the “lines” on the matte finish bike…but, I could be wrong.
edit: I just saw the pic you put up of the Rev3…hmmm…that looks pretty close to the same to me. If there is a difference it’s pretty subtle.
BTW, I REALLY hope that they don’t go with the “doghouse” configuration on the UCI legal version that’s eventually produced. It takes away from the aesthetics of the bike IMHO. Then again, if someone can show me that it’s faster than an inline tube, I might not mind so much 
Check the pic I posted a second ago, I’m ALMOST positive they’ve changed it to ‘fix’ some airflow problem or just as a splitting junction.
Chris
Check the pic I posted a second ago, I’m ALMOST positive they’ve changed it to ‘fix’ some airflow problem or just as a splitting junction.
I’m not convinced…I think it might just be a “trick of the light” with the 2 different surface finishes…
I wonder what Zipp charges for the “Pistolero”-version rear disk?
That would be the ZedTech “FingerBang” option
.
BTW, I REALLY hope that they don’t go with the “doghouse” configuration on the UCI legal version that’s eventually produced. It takes away from the aesthetics of the bike IMHO. Then again, if someone can show me that it’s faster than an inline tube, I might not mind so much
I’m betting that dropping the top tube slightly below the stem would ever so slightly improve aerodynamics, by increasing the aspect ratio of that section of head tube that is connected to the top tube to 22:1 or so, and still fairing in the rear of the stem.
I wonder what Zipp charges for the “Pistolero”-version rear disk?
I want the Floyd version…same design, different finger.
I wonder what Zipp charges for the “Pistolero”-version rear disk?
I want the Floyd version…same design, different finger.
ZING!!
.
BTW, I REALLY hope that they don’t go with the “doghouse” configuration on the UCI legal version that’s eventually produced. It takes away from the aesthetics of the bike IMHO. Then again, if someone can show me that it’s faster than an inline tube, I might not mind so much
I’m betting that dropping the top tube slightly below the stem would ever so slightly improve aerodynamics, by increasing the aspect ratio of that section of head tube that is connected to the top tube to 22:1 or so, and still fairing in the rear of the stem.
Hmmm…by my understanding, whether you drop it, or if it’s inline, you’re still limited by the 80mm height “box” that the shape of the top tube in that section needs to fit into. You can put that "extra material either above or below the main section of the tube.
Then again, if moving the intersection lower allows the top tube section “box” to intersect the downtube “box” further down, THAT *could *allow for an effectively deeper section since the allowable fillet is measured off of the intersection point…hmmm…but, I have a hard time believing that the slightly deeper section would make up for the possibly higher drag because the part behind the stem isn’t as deep…
I watched it live and he looked smooth and comfortable, with little rocking for the most part. I didn’t see him shift fore and aft on his saddle much.
“I wonder what Zipp charges for the ‘Pistolero’-version rear disk?”
It’s part of their new Douchebag lineup. Expect a press release during the first week of the Tour.
I watched it live and he looked smooth and comfortable, with little rocking for the most part. I didn’t see him shift fore and aft on his saddle much.
From the cyclingews live coverage:
14:57 BST
Contador doesn’t look that smooth on the bike, He seems to be moving around in the saddle more than usual. Perhaps his position isn’t quite right.
I read somewhere that this revision of the Shiv was on request from Contador for a more compact frame - that being the case, dropping the top tube was for practical reasons not a performance advantage.
I wonder what Zipp charges for the “Pistolero”-version rear disk?
I like how they highlight the “Con” in Contador…
I wonder what Zipp charges for the “Pistolero”-version rear disk?
I don’t think you will get an answer from Zipp although Carbon Sports might be in a better position to answer that question as latest rumors indicate that disc is not made by Zipp.
We couldn’t of been watching the same thing. I noticed him shifting around quite a bit, forward and back, at least 3-4 times.
In an hour? Is that really considered a lot?
Chris
“I wonder what Zipp charges for the ‘Pistolero’-version rear disk?”
It’s part of their new Douchebag lineup. Expect a press release during the first week of the Tour.
There’s a NEW douchebag lineup? I thought that was the standard group already.