Just curious as I wonder if one could get the same aero benes and not worry about carbon dings and chips?
Yes, it’s less aero. You just can’t get the same shapes and transitions with welded Al that you can with C. That being said, it’s not that much slower, probably <30sec/40k to take a WAG.
Just curious as I wonder if one could get the same aero benes and not worry about carbon dings and chips?
According to Damon Rinard (when he was still with Trek), probably only *slightly *less aero. IIRC, the down tube, top tube, and seat tube outer shapes are identical, with just the seatstays being the notably different shape…and, of course the intersections, which are much smoother on the carbon TTX.
What about cable routing?
What about cable routing?
What about it? It goes in behind the stem on the Equinox just like the TTX.
Cool.
x2 on the seatstays and the welds. I don’t see any other significant differences. There is even a TTX at my LBS that is even spec’d worse than my E7.
I would think they are extremely close. (except in $$$)
Brad
I’d venture to say that the carbon TTX will have an aero benefit but i’m amazed at what TREK was able to do with an aluminum frame. There are noticeable differences between the two though. The alum version doesn’t have the hourglass headtube BUT the top tube does have something of an hourglass shape itself. The downtube is shaped similar to a cervelo P1. pretty cool in person:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_N4nDNIJ-5qI/S_sbapKIazI/AAAAAAAAABs/68zfDqJZp1g/s512/photo.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_N4nDNIJ-5qI/S_sb2-qt_mI/AAAAAAAAACE/VE5DJYwhUNQ/s512/photo.jpg
I’d venture to say that the carbon TTX will have an aero benefit but i’m amazed at what TREK was able to do with an aluminum frame. There are noticeable differences between the two though. The alum version doesn’t have the hourglass headtube BUT the top tube does have something of an hourglass shape itself. The downtube is shaped similar to a cervelo P1. pretty cool in person:
That’s really nice! Can you post some more?
According to Damon Rinard (when he was still with Trek), probably only *slightly *less aero. IIRC, the down tube, top tube, and seat tube outer shapes are identical, with just the seatstays being the notably different shape…and, of course the intersections, which are much smoother on the carbon TTX.
Tom,
Agreed. I had similar correspondence with Damon when he was at Trek( he’s now head Engineer at Cervelo!!), as my wife raced on an Alu Equinox for two years - with a number of IM podium finishes and winning the Canadian Master’s ITT Championship. Unfortunately, at the time, Trek did not make the TTX in Carbon in a small enough size for most women. the “Small” size was too big for anyone less than 5’7".
It was not a bad rig( the Alu Equinox) Crazy stiff, and a bit heavy would be my key comments.
It’s going to be slightly less aero but to the average rider won’t notice that much. Definitely creates a new option into entry level tri/tt bikes.
If you have a calipers I’d be curious to know the headtube width and downtube width, fork width and seatstay width. We could probably paint a better picture.
Yes, it’s less aero. You just can’t get the same shapes and transitions with welded Al that you can with C. That being said, it’s not that much slower, probably <30sec/40k to take a WAG.
more like <3 sec.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_N4nDNIJ-5qI/S_sbapKIazI/AAAAAAAAABs/68zfDqJZp1g/s512/photo.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_N4nDNIJ-5qI/S_sb2-qt_mI/AAAAAAAAACE/VE5DJYwhUNQ/s512/photo.jpg
Mmmmmmkkkkkkkk, so here is my official shout out: Anyone with a Large/58cm E7 like this one for sale please let me know:)
I’m right between a 56 and 58, but would rather have the extra stack and fewer spacers…maybe ride a 110 instead of a 130. Thanks!
I’d love to be able to get those numbers for you but i don’t have access to a caliper. Next time i’m at the shop i’ll see if i can’t get ahold of one though.
Porfirio: I’ll make time to get some more pictures later this week.