After reading the editor’s latest essay on tri vs road bikes, and the mistake of mixing a shallow angle frame with an aero front, I have to wonder about the Kestrel Talon. According to the specs, it has a very shallow seat angle, yet is set up and sold as a tri bike. Can anyone comment on this? Why would this bike be any different than a Kestrel EMS with the same setup? JH
because it has a reversable seatpost which allows the rider to set it up as a steep angled tri bike, or a shallow angled road bike.
tommy
I am with Dan on this. The Talon is a road bike first and foremeost, but may make a serviceable “multisport” bike for people who need a slacker seat tube angle. Dan put up an interesting piece on determining seat tube angle today on the home page here. If you are considering a Talon, which is a very well-made bike, this is mandatory reading. The Talon is a good bike, whether it is a good bike for you is a question for your bike fitter.
When I went to buy a new bike last weekend, I was looking for a Cervelo P2k. I knew I wanted steep seat angle, dedicated tri bike. The scum sucking LBS, after screwing me on something else, tried to show me a Talon. It looked like a decent bike but it was, as others are saying, more like a road bike with a tri front end. If you want a dedicated tri bike, get the P2k and save yourself $400.
If you want slacker angles with a tri front end, the talon looked like it was well made although a little expensive @ $2400
my opinion…nice bike, I looked at them, but my fitter recommended a QR Caliente because it fit better…
I am with Dan on this. The Talon is a road bike first and foremeost, but may make a serviceable “multisport” bike for people who need a slacker seat tube angle. Dan put up an interesting piece on determining seat tube angle today on the home page here. If you are considering a Talon, which is a very well-made bike, this is mandatory reading. The Talon is a good bike, whether it is a good bike for you is a question for your bike fitter.
Maybe this should be a subject of another thread, but I think the thing that gets lost in the whole seat tube angle debate is the rider’s position in relation to gravity. Granted, each rider theoretically could have an ideal hip angle, upper arm to torso angle, etc. and rotate that position forward around the bottom bracket to get the desired, most aero horizontal torso, but the slacker seat tube angle, more rearward riding position would seem to offer a position that puts more stress on the glutes when the rider uses his/her body weight to supplement the ‘power’ part of the pedal stroke. In a more forward position, even though the relationship between hands, saddle, and pedal hasn’t changed, there would seem to be more of a quad emphasis during the bodyweight/gravity assisted power part of the pedal stroke.
A position that puts more stress or emphasis on the quads may be more powerful in the short term and offer biomechanical advantages, but a position that unloads the quads a bit and loads up the glutes would seem to be much more fatigue resistant due to a typically greater predominance of those fatigue resistant, slow twitch muscle fibers in the good ol’ butt muscles. I’d enjoy hearing the comments on this from any of you fit experts out there.
Hope that made sense…
From the Slowtwitch article, June 2002,
“The results of this test are, to me, startling. These were road racers riding a road race bike, and they in general rode with considerable economy at 80 degrees versus their usual angle of 74 degrees. Oxygen consumption at the given rate of exertion was about 37 ml/kg/min at 80 degrees versus about 38.5 at 74 degrees (if you’re consuming more oxygen to do a given amount of work, you’re working harder, i.e., you’re less efficient).”
Another related question/comment…
If we’re to believe the above statement, wouldn’t we all be pedaling at 50 to 60 rpm’s due to the lower aerobic cost of lower rpm cadences? Isn’t it true that we sometimes naturally sacrifice economy in terms of VO2 consumption to gain more fatigue resistance?
I’m just trying to gain my own understanding related to why I can ride strongly all day with a slacker seat tube angle, and I fatigue quickly with a more forward riding postion.
First, the rpm question. I think (and I don’t know about specific references to cite that support my humble opinion) that the lower rpms don’t work well in endurance events because the increased muscular force required per revolution to maintain a race speed tends to recruit more fast-twitch fibers…which really suck up the glycogen compared to the slow twitchers…very bad strategy to use in a long race. But, if you don’t have a perfectly efficient pedal stroke (and who does?), the higher your rpms the more inefficiencies you produce per mile. So, there is a tradeoff somewhere for each individual. It’s generally thought that this optimal rpm is somewhere from 80-100. You will find articles that say even lower is better…it just depends upon the individual and the event. Personally, I KNOW I am faster on a bike at the lower range of the 80-100 guess, but, I can ride much longer without burning up at the higher end of that range.
Secondly, I have a Talon and really like the bike. It’s as solid a bike as you may ever have the privilege to ride…but, for me, as I move the seat angle forward, I start to have handling issues somewhere right about 76 degrees. Sprint, Olympic, Half Ironman, and pure TT bike? It just doesn’t cut it for me in those races. Ironman bike? Probably would be OK for me, as I would like the front end higher anyway. Road bike? All day long.
John, I’m relatively new to triathlon and am purchasing my first ‘tri-specific’ bike. I chose the talon for a number of reasons not the least of which was the ride quality. I think one of the things you have to consider is the comfort at which you can reach t2. The carbon fiber frame is very good at absorbing the road shock.
Another thing to consider might be this:
I assume your reference to the article implies that the talon must be good b/c someone won the race on one? Number 2 in the race was riding a P3, a very different bike than the talon. In fact, scanning down the list in the article proves that it is not about the bike.
If steep works for you, then you probably don’t want the talon. If you don’t like steep angles but you want a little steeper than a road bike and more of a tri front end than a road bike, then look at the talon.
Having enough money I was able to purchase my second Kestrel last year. The first purchase was the KM-40 and the second was the Talon. IMO the Talon is more of a road bike than a tri-bike. The KM-40 is all about triathlon. That bike is wicked aero and great at reducing road shock. I bought the Talon because I wanted a good bike to ride with the roadies (For the money an amazing deal). The KM-40 rocked when I was in the flats, making breakaways was almost easy when riding with the roadies, but with 650 wheels and an aero bar it got sort of sketchy on fast descents and turns. The setup I have on the Talon (700 wheels and road bars) seems a lot more stable and I feel I can corner better. I opted to nix the seat post that comes with the Talon and get a nice carbon post. The talon’s seat post is rather heavy and I couldn’t seem to get myself in a normal road position with it. Kestrel has an insert that will accept regular round 27.2 seat posts. My Talon frame I believe weighs in around 3.2 pounds. The new 2.4-pound Kestrel Talon SL is way lighter. At some point I will buy the Talon SL frame, I mean a carbon frame at 2.4 pounds is sick
I agree about the value of the Kestrel Talon. WHere else can you get a bike with a lifetime frame guarantee that rides this well for about 2 grand? Don’t listen to those that say nonsense such as “yeah, but it isn’t one piece…better watch out for the epoxied areas”…it’s a bunch of bull. The epoxied areas are stronger than the frame itself. AND, so what if it does degrade (which it won’t)…there’s the lifetime warranty…