He states it was tested as the most aero road frame and behind a few TT/tri bikes “a few years ago” but this would mean the aluminum soloist was probably included(which is as aero as many tri bikes on the market, less than some obviously). In the writers words, the numbers were “shocking”. Anyone heard this before? Anyone have info regarding the aspect ratios(width/length) of the Talons tubes?
I have to admit I haven’t seen a Talon up close in a while but I know Kestrel tells us the Talon is 1:10 per 40k slower than the airfoil(which if true is not impressive), but they charge twice as much for airfoils as they do Talons so they have an interest in the numbers being different.
DT 75x37 AR 3.0 (horizontally) - Egg shaped
ST none
HT 50/34 (bearing/midsection)
SS 49/14 AR 3.5 - Blunt airfoil
SP 27.2 round
Fork - all ARs 2.4 - 2.5
Don’t have Talon numbers (there were none in the shop that day).
That site is the one that raves about feather calipers - guys on WW (who have of course immediately bought the latest and lightest) said that they’re rubbish.
Except those guys had never ridden Feather Brakes, just a cheap imitation, so their comments were the rubbish. Feather’s are the best after-market brake I’ve ever ridden, and since they’ve only been available for two weeks, and only to a select few shops, they were speaking out of ignorance.
The numbers on the Talon came from a manufacturer who tested in the last three years, and they were done on frame sets only, not with a rider aboard, so I guess that needs to be kept in mind. Everyone was reportedly surprised at the results, and I can only go by who was there and what they stated regarding the testing as no numbers were released (it wasn’t Kestrel, so no need for them to skew the numbers). Still, the Talon is a slippery bike, despite being long in the tooth - it beat the Airfoil that day. LSWT in SD was were the testing took place.
My Talon has been the fastest road AND tri bike I’ve ever owned. Probably the main reason is that it’s the best fitting and most comfortable bike I’ve owned. I could never find neck/crotch comfort on my dedicated tri bikes. The Talon is also the most stable descending road bike I’ve ever owned and it’s still fairly stable in the tri position.
I wouldn’t doubt that it’s as slippery as the Soloist or the new Felt road bike.
But what does that mean? Imagine a rolling Olympic distance race with an age grouper who averages 20-21 miles per hour on a Talon road bike with clip-ons at 74 degrees. If he switched to a tri-bike at 78 degrees and stayed in the aero position for 80-90% of the ride, how much of a difference would there be?
(I ask this question partly because I did an Olympic distance race on a Talon yesterday and missed 3rd place in my age group by about 4 seconds.)
Almost certainly would have been at least 5 seconds. You’re overthinking this. You specifically mention the following:
-rolling
-olympic distance
-age grouper
-20-21mph average
but more aerodynamic == faster on all terrain, over all distances, for all race divisions, at all speeds.
No amount of frame aerodynamics will make up for the fact that it’s built at 74deg of STA.
It’s funny–that’s exactly what I think when I see wonderbikes with 80 degree STA’s…
The Talon has been the bike that Slowtwitch loves to hate ever since it came out. It got creamed on the old ST front page and everyone chimed in on the forum. ‘‘It’s not a real tribike’’ It’s not a real Kestrel’', but when I traded in my 96 QR KILO, a real Dan and Ves tri bike for one in 2002 I found out how good a tri bike could handle, how smooth a bicycle could be, and how fast I could be when I could stay in the aero position at all times. I still have it, still race it, and will for a long time. I ride it with the saddle 2cm behind the BB and 9cm drop to the pads. That position is perfect for me, and it takes my battered old body through everything I can throw at in in the Hudson Valley around Woodstock and Hunter. Climbs like my real tri bike never did and descends like a great roadie. First time I rode it, I had to laugh at all the bad press it got in QR land, and I’m as happy with it today as I was six years ago.
“No amount of frame aerodynamics will make up for the fact that it’s built at 74deg of STA.”
You should have warned Macca about that.
The same Macca who never won Kona on a Kestrel, and didn’t really have a good race at Kona until he got off of the Talon and onto the Airfoil, and who Dan and I recently fit at 78deg? Yes, I’d mention it to him if he hadn’t mentioned it himself when I last spoke with him.
@Sweeney - there are exceptions to every rule. However, in the bike business, it’s generally a much safer and sound business model to build something that will work for the vast majority of people, rather than the small minority. Beyond that, maybe you were just fit well on the Kestrel, and you weren’t on the QR. Saddle 2cm behind the BB is not exactly slack (depending on your seat height). I always laugh at stories, because N=1. Bottom line, there is a reason that Kestrel isn’t dominating (or even really present at) something like Kona bike count. It just doesn’t fit a lot of people. Now, it does fit you, and that’s great. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good tribike.
Is that also the same Macca of which you speak who won numerous other IM on his Talon?
Is it only about the bike you ride at Kona? When was the last time a P3C won?
If Macca blows up in 2008 Kona will you and Dan blame it on his new 78 degree seat angle. Not likely. If he wins again no doubt you’ll take full credit.
Aren’t you a pro triathlete? More than anybody you should also know it’s more than just about the bike at any given race.
You’ve obviously got some pickle up your butt against Kestrel. The original poster was only talking about the Talon’s aero credibility as a road/dual purpose bike compared to a Soloist.
"anyone can see from his posting history that jordan hates kestrel "
I waste enough of my life on this forum already without trying to hunt down some other guy’s last few years posts about a particular bike manufacturer.
“I waste enough of my life on this forum already without trying to hunt down some other guy’s last few years posts about a particular bike manufacturer.”
you’d waste a lot of time trying to find evidence of that kestrel-shaped pickle up jordan’s butt. which is why you won’t look. because you know that, and probably realized it right after you pushed the “send” button.
neither jordan nor i ever said anything bad about the kestrel talon. the only comment i believe i ever made about the bike is that it’s a road geometry bike. i love road bikes. i’ve got quite a few of them; ride them all the time. but i don’t ride them in triathlons or time trials. i ride triathlon/tt bikes in those sorts of races.
Question: Would a Talon-shaped pickle make it further into a butt? I mean, if it’s aero and all… (hmmmm…stercodynamic?) gross, huh?
Anyhow, I too have a Talon. I like it, no clue if it’s good or bad for anyone else. After I wear the components out on the ALU roadie, the Talon will be re-rebuilt as a road bike again, and a new tri rig acquired. I’ll let you guys see the results in about 3-5 years.
Well…as a Talon SL rider since 2003, I concur with Jordan’s assessment. I have it set up full-aero with the Hed aerobars. My effective STA is about 77 deg and that’s about as far forward as I’d ever want to ride it. It is a road bike that masquerades as a tri-bike. The head tube is also quite tall at 11cm (+ a standard headset). I have ~13cm of drop and would have to resort to an adjustable stem at an extreme angle to get the bars lower.
Its suitable, comfortable and fast. But I have no doubt I could achieve a faster, more aerodynamic position COMFORTABLY and SAFELY on a purpose-built TT/Tri frame.
Regarding Macca’s sub-8s at Roth, or string of Australia wins…about the only thing we can conclude about the Talon from those performances is that if you and I don’t do sub-8 at IM distance…it isn’t about the bike! On the other hand, we cannot…in fact SHOULD NOT…conclude that Macca would not have been faster on a purpose-built frame, ridden in a 78(+) degree position…
“On the other hand, we cannot…in fact SHOULD NOT…conclude that Macca would not have been faster on a purpose-built frame, ridden in a 78(+) degree position.”
The only thing that makes Macca faster on the bike is whether or not the guy he’s following is faster. Macca changed his seat angle, he didn’t change his tactical approach to racing.
Now, if you want to argue that he may run faster with his new setup, that’s another thing. But that’s not what you’re saying.
As for Jordan and Dan, I’m sure you’ve done a great job with Macca’s fit. But he hasn’t raced an Ironman yet, so in the words of The Wolf-“let’s not start sking each other’s dks just yet.”
