Anyone have a general idea of aero comparison of the original Shiv to what is currently available? Still a worthy frame?
Check against the p4 shootout here on ST. I think that’s the nosecone version.
It’s pretty close to the Shiv, not as fast as the new SC or P5.
Specialized is due for a new aero bike.
FWIW according to Tour Mag testing Shiv TT (which is essentially the “nose cone Shiv without the nose cone”) is significantly faster than Shiv Tri and within a couple of watts from P5.
Cervelo, Trek, TriMag tests are all against Shiv Tri.
If you have one in a size medium, it’s a terrible frame. really truly awful. I’ll begrudgingly take it off your hands so you can get something different. I won’t even charge you for my time and effort, because I’m nice like that.
That is very kind of you. I would be willing to reward you for your kindness with a crisp $5 bill and by covering the shipping of the offending product to my house so it can be disposed of properly.
Very generous of you to offer, but I wouldn’t want to impose. I’ll suffer.
Thanks guys. Just trying to get an idea of how it compares against something like a P3 or a Felt DA. So from what you guys are saying, it is still a great frame, just not as current as something like the P5 or IA.
And, anecdotally speaking, it’s a bit of a wrench-monster. That, more than any ostensible aerodynamic differences, would have me reluctant.
But from what I have seen, it’s still pretty slippery.
It’s a good frame. Cancellara and Martin won a string of mens elite TT titles on it. As I recall, last year at worlds there were a slew of winners riding it.
FWIW according to Tour Mag testing Shiv TT (which is essentially the “nose cone Shiv without the nose cone”) is significantly faster than Shiv Tri and within a couple of watts from P5.
Cervelo, Trek, TriMag tests are all against Shiv Tri.
Interesting. So the original Shiv still seems to be somewhat decent even against the newcomers that have come the last couple of years.
http://www.labicicletta.com/clearance/specialized-sworks-shiv-tt-2013-module
All yours for the low low price of $4k
.
Anyone have a general idea of aero comparison of the original Shiv to what is currently available? Still a worthy frame?
It is virtually identical to the current Shiv, however it is MUCH more of a PITA to travel with. And in very strong crosswinds, the nosecone makes a material difference in handling.
I would take that bike back in a second though. I have never really loved any bike I’ve ever ridden. They were all just utilitarian tools for racing and training. But THAT bike? I LOVED it… I would still be riding it if I could. It’s definitely not a “better” bike than the current bike, but it just spoke to me spiritually…
FWIW according to Tour Mag testing Shiv TT (which is essentially the “nose cone Shiv without the nose cone”) is significantly faster than Shiv Tri and within a couple of watts from P5.
Cervelo, Trek, TriMag tests are all against Shiv Tri.
Interesting. So the original Shiv still seems to be somewhat decent even against the newcomers that have come the last couple of years.
That wasn’t quite a complete test as the bars were setup at very different stacks. From our testing - Shiv TT and Shiv, setup in similar stack and reach combos - have very similar aerodynamics head on and the Shiv (Tri) is a smidge faster at crosswind.
The nosecone Shiv is a bit faster than both but is a challenge to travel with.
Mark
Anyone have a general idea of aero comparison of the original Shiv to what is currently available? Still a worthy frame?
It is virtually identical to the current Shiv, however it is MUCH more of a PITA to travel with. And in very strong crosswinds, the nosecone makes a material difference in handling.
I would take that bike back in a second though. I have never really loved any bike I’ve ever ridden. They were all just utilitarian tools for racing and training. But THAT bike? I LOVED it… I would still be riding it if I could. It’s definitely not a “better” bike than the current bike, but it just spoke to me spiritually…
I got pretty efficient at packing/unpacking my nosecone Shiv. I am with you on the “spiritual” part - there is just something about this bike. I had mine customized with internal Di2 and have used it for a number of seasons. I switched late season to the Dimond, which I’m also really happy with, but I can’t bring myself to part with the Shiv. First world problems.
Agree on the crosswinds comment (I’m a 150-lb rider). That said, I rode it with 808s in the infamous 2012 IMStG race (and Honu that year was also very windy), so it wasn’t THAT bad. The Dimond, though, is noticeably more stable in crosswinds.
Ian
Dumb question,
But what was in the inside of the nose cone? Could you modify it for hydration/storage etc?
Maurice
Dumb question,
But what was in the inside of the nose cone? Could you modify it for hydration/storage etc?
Maurice
Seems like someone wants to go to the Plasma 5 route ;).
Dumb question,
But what was in the inside of the nose cone? Could you modify it for hydration/storage etc?
Mauricef
The nosecone has both the brake and the cable routing hardware. Parts like the cable hanger are some pretty complicated carbon fiber work. When all is said and done there would not be a lot of room for hydration.
FWIW according to Tour Mag testing Shiv TT (which is essentially the “nose cone Shiv without the nose cone”) is significantly faster than Shiv Tri and within a couple of watts from P5.
Cervelo, Trek, TriMag tests are all against Shiv Tri.
Interesting. So the original Shiv still seems to be somewhat decent even against the newcomers that have come the last couple of years.
That wasn’t quite a complete test as the bars were setup at very different stacks. From our testing - Shiv TT and Shiv, setup in similar stack and reach combos - have very similar aerodynamics head on and the Shiv (Tri) is a smidge faster at crosswind.
The nosecone Shiv is a bit faster than both but is a challenge to travel with.
Mark
When the Tri Shiv was introduced there was a graph of drag comparisons for all the Specialized aero bikes. If I remember correctly, the nosecone Shiv had about 1 or 2 more watts of drag at zero yaw than the TT Shiv. How much of this difference do you think would be attributed to removing the upturned ends on the base bar?
That graph was leaked from a press meeting and while correct was not complete. We don’t have a recent data set that would compare all of the bikes as robustly as I’d like - will very much add this to the list. Basically, I wouldn’t read everything from that graph. I hope that the public can trust us on the fact that we built the bikes in the order we did and never got slower, just more cost attainable. i.e. nosecone to TT to the non-UCI bike. We do our best to put out as much data as is possible these days and will strive to do more, including historic bikes for points of comparison.
A fundamental point I’d like to make here regarding aero graphs, data reporting, etc. While not as “easy” as many would like, we’ve done less and less data reporting in single graphs because so many questions come up like “when I saw that last graph X was faster than Y”, where X and Y represent entire “families” of bikes. The aero difference between a small bike and a big bike in a size range could change drastically depending upon the family, how the shapes scale, etc. So when we do our aero videos, we generally do a test that we know represents a good center of the bell curve - i.e. Evade versus Prevail. Over all of the athletes we’ve tested in a road position, we see an average of 46 secs saved over 40 km. Some more, some less. When we ran the test on Chris Yu and published a video on this earlier this year, we knew his results represented the center of this bell curve. So in general, our videos may seem simple (maybe sometimes too simple) but they represent real data on real riders (different than bike alone data we used to put out a lot) and generally is a composite showing a representative test that fairly well shows what we’ve gotten from a bunch of testing. Sorry, I know you didn’t ask this, but I feel it’s something I should point out as a lot of questions have come up lately.
On the up turned base bar “bar ends” versus flat offered no aero savings when we tested this with Cavendish last year at the Win Tunnel. Savings was small to negligible and I believe we only saw 0.0005 m^2 of CdA savings at a 10 deg crosswind angle using SRAM brake levers. I believe flattening and removing brake levers entirely only reduced the system aero drag by 0.001 m^2. So while visible, the savings would be mega small.
0.001 m^2 in CdA is ~4 secs saved over 40km per our “time saved over 40km” estimated calculation.
Mark