There is only a P5D, not a regular. As he said, fastest is a P5D. If more storage is needed than the beam Cervelos. Read a few posts above and Brian says this.
That was a very thorough response. Not for me, but just appreciate how detailed your response was. DD, how much difference are you looking at with regard to the p5 disc vs. the new trek speed concept?
Also, which category would the rim brake version (SC) go to?
Thanks!
You know I have a database of 30-40 rim brake bikes run as bikes only. The rim SC is the one bike I do not have. I would put it in same group as the cervelo P5-6, but behind it in the group.
If I was choosing between the Cervelo P5D and new Trek SC I would choose based on my fit coordinates. Then in no particular order availability, price, which is easier to wrench on, change stuff out (extensions/saddles) and which is easiest to travel with then I’d worry about aerodynamics.
Remember folks, today’s high(er) end bikes are slicker than 10 years ago. You and your position are much more important now. Then the choices you make about tires, tubes, wheels, clothing, helmets, storage etc all matter more.
We’ve all seen that dude on a super bike whatever where the saddle is tilted down, the risers are all the way up & they are higher than most road bikes.
That person would be faster with a slower bike that fit them better vs trying to make a faster bike work half way.
Your three tier system is good
Thank you.
All good points. I totally agree with you. I know you have a lot of time and experience with bikes and fitting people and testing, but didn’t realize you had so much data on so many bikes. That is cool.
We are lucky to have you!
Also, which category would the rim brake version (SC) go to?
I did see a tunnel test in 2016. SC against P5 against Argon 119. SC won at high yaw, worst at 0yaw. P5 won at 0 yaw, worst at high yaw.
119 was right in the middle in both tests.
Also, which category would the rim brake version (SC) go to?
I did see a tunnel test in 2016. SC against P5 against Argon 119. SC won at high yaw, worst at 0yaw. P5 won at 0 yaw, worst at high yaw.
119 was right in the middle in both tests.
The slower you are the better the SC is for you then!
Thanks for posting that. Filing it away
Trying to understand your list-is price a determining factor as you have the Speedmax and CFR in two different categories despite the same frame?
Or is one a CF and the other a SLX, in which case you are saying the CF is faster than the SLX/CFR??
Whoops, should have proof read my post. Double listed a bike. I wonder if that’s like double letters???
I’ll change that to the slower one being the Canyon rim brake bike.
I didn’t really take pricing into account.
I didn’t really take pricing into account.
So a quick search for a 119 disc vs 117 disc.
about $3000 difference for framesets. According to Argon’s puplished results : 4 watts.
How much do you charge for an aero test ? What is your average savings ? I suspect your are more aerowatts/dollar efficient 
Brian, I have probably come back to this post about twice a month since you posted last year. Slowly deliberating the pseudo-inevitable bike upgrade. So thank you, on behalf of myself and eventually the bike industry 
Out of interest you don’t list the Shiv Tri… is there a category you’d lump it into? I’m toying with speed vs storage and that big bladder at the back is compelling. Vs a P-Series or a Speedmax (which itself has iterated and improved storage). My average FWIW is approx 24mph though I would like to see that tick up a little with more trainings…
Shout out re: the Felt IA 2.0 in Trevor’s latest video: https://m.youtube.com/...amp;feature=youtu.be
*he’s ridden and raced on the P5d and Canyon. Will find out what his cda is on the Felt.
further, I’ve seen pros go from bikes like the Ventum and QR to the P5d and Canyon and their bike splits are the same, if not slower, over many races for good comparison.
crazy: if Trevor hadn’t spun out multiple times at Boulder due to the 60x10t being too small, 1:49 probably would have been within reach.
Out of curiosity what are your tiers based on? Strictly aerodynamics? Fit flexibility and storage?
I was assuming they were purely aero performance, with the assumption that you fit the bike.
I got one of the last 2 cfr in stock in my size, they were out of stock the next day, so I guess you have to be quick.
Only downsides of the canyon I can see
- headset was presumably assembled by a monkey with a sledgehammer and a brick. The bung was quite bashed about on top, loose and fitted sideways so the cable that passes through was in the wrong place. Fine if you are comfortable loosening this, readjust the headset, torq back up tight but it wasn’t the 30 second job the video implied!
- I still can’t find a how to video on bar adjustment for mine, the online help stuff is for similar Speedmax bikes with different bars. Again not a deal breaker, I don’t think I’m missing anything but it’d be nice to be sure what all the extra bolts are for!
- didn’t get any extra spacers or angled bits with my low spec bike but I understand you do with higher spec
- sram brakes took a while to bed in, though that’s my fault for racing it after 2 turbo and 1 outdoor rides!
- I personally find the seat angle a bit fiddly to set, you need 2 Allen keys to undo the bolts, one on each side, so can’t do it mid ride with a multi tool
- the rubber tool storage pouch is open on top which seems weird as everything will get soaked! I’ll probably get someone to make a small waterproof pouch to go in it
Apart from those quirks I love the bike, it’s fast, it looks good, but I think if I had a choice I’d buy something the lbs had and get them to do all the set up tinkering
wondering if anyone has recent insight on this. I have the opportunity to get an equivalent spec IaX for the same price as a Speedmax, so spec isn’t a concern
Fit and adjustability are both fine for me (I’ve been pre-fit for both bikes)
At this point is it just what I like? Any other variables to consider?
My vote would be neither and go with a Trek SC. 
2 Likes
I was in this dilemma recently…
I ultimately went with the Felt 2.0 for a few reasons…
- I had an IAx and so felt was the devil I knew. From what I can tell, they fixed a lot of the things that previously bugged me
- The 2.0 had a lot more front end adjustability
- I’m a bigger guy. (6’5") and I think the felts look better when adjusted for taller people. This is entirely subjective
- I knew the felt would fit me based on sizing.
The downside was that actually getting the Felt was harder than just having it show up in the mail.
1 Like
Sorry I know this thread is from 2023 but. Where did you get those watt numbers from? This tier system doesn’t make much sense as there’s nothing claiming that beam-like bikes are actually faster. 8W sounds a lot, even at speeds like 45 km/h. Plus it’s a heavy bike, weights like 10 plus kg, so if you’re running it in a Nice-like Ironman, which has ton of hills, what you supposedly gain on the straight lines might be lost on the climbing parts. Besides it doesn’t look like it would have correct cross-wind stability.
Speedmax alongside the Shiv Tri and the new BMC, Speedmachine still got sick integrations, even 5-6 years after their release I don’t see quite much brands coming up with better integration solutions. Felt IA 2.0 seems to have some cool integrations too, it actually has a visible bento box that fits their frame, but I’m not fan of their super wide frame and their cockpit. Has no monoriser and the gap between both risers is way too important. Despite the bike being sold at such a high price, it has standard aerobars, nothing really crazy about their cockpit.
Imho a good tri bike should have a tool box, a bento box an hydration box, and a clear and adjustable cockpit. With this being said I’m not either fan of Speedmax’s monobar, I’m thinking something like Wattshops (if you like to waste money), D2Z or FastTT should be decent alternatives.
If you want a beam shaped bike, look up Reap Vulcan, Elves Amanyar and Falco Big V.