Just saw cyclingnews coverage of eurobike and noticed the more basic version of the Giant Advanced; the lower priced model comes in under $2200 apparently:
http://kozy.com/product/12giant-trinity-composite-2-131025-1.htm
The headtube looks pretty large without the nose cone in front of it, but the rest of the bikes looks pretty slim.
Still botched it by no main triangle bottle cages but, none-the less it looks like a good option to Cervelo’s P2.
I can’t find a lot of user reviews about the older Trinity/Aeryn. Wonder if there’s anything new about the 2012 model.
Looks like a very solid offering for that price. Decent spec (I like the fact that it says compact 50-36 instead of the 34 small ring) and a nice looking bike.
The older Trinity was Alu/Carbon frame I believe. Also had sloping top tube and seat stay brake placement. There are obvious differences between the new Trinity Composite and the Advanced SL, but this sure LOOKS aero and at $2,200, well thats just mind blowing.
why is 50/36 better than 50/34?
you get the same lack of top speed with less hill climbing goodness.
I’m not a botanist or anything but that seems senseless.
Looks like a very solid offering for that price. Decent spec (I like the fact that it says compact 50-36 instead of the 34 small ring) and a nice looking bike.
I guess I don’t need the extra hill climbing goodness or would rather do it with the rear cogs. I find that whenever I shift down to a 34 it feel like I’ve climbed onto a spin bike. My experience has always been that the closer the rings are in size the better the shifting so if I can get a little smoother shifting and still have decent gears for climbing then it seems like a good idea.
I see, first time I have seen a preference for shifting smoothness over range of gear selection.
could always go 51 or 52 x 36 though. it does sometimes help to have more than a 50!
I guess I don’t need the extra hill climbing goodness or would rather do it with the rear cogs. I find that whenever I shift down to a 34 it feel like I’ve climbed onto a spin bike. My experience has always been that the closer the rings are in size the better the shifting so if I can get a little smoother shifting and still have decent gears for climbing then it seems like a good idea.
My pref is 48/34…the 48 tooth chainring on a guy with 4W per kilo is pretty well identical to the 54 tooth on the guy wtih 4.5 W per kilo if you look at it on a Watts per kilo/ tooth perspective.
Dev
My pref is 48/34…the 48 tooth chainring on a guy with 4W per kilo is pretty well identical to the 54 tooth on the guy wtih 4.5 W per kilo if you look at it on a Watts per kilo/ tooth perspective.
Dev
How to you manage to keep up with the pack going down Blacks? I top out a 53x11 at +/- 65 Km/h (110-ish rpm), and that’s only at the top. I wish I had a 54. Or maybe that’s your CX bike gearing?
That looks so much like a p3.
Also, hasn’t front brake to the rear of the fork been shown to be slower?
I wondered the same thing, I thought air moves up the back of the fork towards the head tube. Has any kind of conclusion been established?
Nice. I assume it isn’t being offered as just a frameset?
I don’t know the real answer to the ‘brake behind the fork’ question. However, you have to consider that most testing in the past would have been done using traditional road brake calipers. The new Trinity bikes are equipped with a new TRP v-brake. The profile of the brake looks much cleaner than your standard dual-pivot brake. So, past wind-tunnel testing may not apply here. The v-brakes should offer pretty good braking power too.
In some of the photos it looks like there are cage mounts on the downtube.
I wonder more about the geo, but none of the sites I have seen thus far have stack and reach. Also, the largest size listed is only a “54.” if that is the lathers size the they must run really small.
The sizing is hard to determine without stack and reach, you are right; these pictures look like a bottle mount on the seattube:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/eurobike-2011-giants-new-lower-priced-carbon-models/189432
For those asking me questions, I know nothing. I just thought ST land would like to see another budget carbon option. Assuming it fit, I’d take this over a Slice or Felt B16; not sure about a P2 though.
I like it! An affordable price, possibly enough to replace my road bike which I use for everything.
My pref is 48/34…the 48 tooth chainring on a guy with 4W per kilo is pretty well identical to the 54 tooth on the guy wtih 4.5 W per kilo if you look at it on a Watts per kilo/ tooth perspective.
Dev
How to you manage to keep up with the pack going down Blacks? I top out a 53x11 at +/- 65 Km/h (110-ish rpm), and that’s only at the top. I wish I had a 54. Or maybe that’s your CX bike gearing?
Easy, just get on your wheel.
No it hasn’t.
As I understand it, Cervelo said that for their particular designs it was faster to have the brake in front of the fork. I think from that, people took it as gospel in all cases it is faster.
Plenty of bikes that were designed, not just verified, in the wind-tunnel have brakes behind the front fork. I can’t imagine that they put them there knowing it would be slower. Certainly some of them might’ve since it is popular, but not all of them. I like this explanation:
“i see they still havent figured out a brake behind the fork is slower.”
I’m trying to answer this as a question, but I don’t know what question your statement is asking (hopefully I made sense here). We have never claimed that our front brake placement is more aero than any other design with a brake in hidden different places. We have chosen to place the brake in a pocket of high turbulence. When we ran different tests, we found that placing the brake we chose to use where we located it didn’t have any statistically significant drag numbers from having no brake at all.
Let me further explain. When you ride on a rainy day, what do you have on the back of your jersey? A line of road grime that attaches itself to water and trails the tire as it rotates forward. The exact same thing is happening when it is dry out - you just don’t see the wet, muddy result. When a tire is rotating, the trailing turbulence being pulled into the fork opening is pretty messy place - wet or dry.
We chose to place the brake where we did, mounted the way we did, with the design we created so that it made sense based on our test results. We aren’t shrouding, building up, or modifying the fork blades dramatically to claim any aero benefit from the location. We are choosing to place it in a pretty dirty area as opposed to the front of the fork, which is a much cleaner area. I hope his helps explain the rear mount of the fork.
Mac
I think everyone agrees completely hiding the brake is best (ala Trek).
“I think everyone agrees completely hiding the brake is best (ala Trek).”
I don’t. I think its a very good method as log as you don’t have to compromise the aer shape of the fork to stuff the brake in. Aside from that I wonder if you couldn’t get away with a brake in front or behind that blends so well you get some aero benefit. For instance the illegal fins on the Transition could be the very top portion of a rear brake. much like lots of companies tried to get around the 3;1 ratio be putting the fork tube infront of the headtube instead of in it.
Styrrell
As always styrrel, excellent point.
I spoke too hastily.