That’s what I was asking, thank you.
I know there’s great value in the aero testing Ku offers to their client, but I do not see much talks about how the actual bike stacks up agaist other modern bikes. How’s the handling, how it climb, how it descend. Much of the contents I find online is somehow pushed by Ku itself and I do not see actual user reviews or forum chats.
This is a pretty wild position. What’s to stop someone from filling up that space completely? Heck, just get rid of the saddle as well and turn the whole top tube into a waterbed. Are there rules against this?
As you can see at the start of this thread I worked for them during the development process.
Richard being one of the nicest people in the industry.
The bike, I think is still very cool, but it needs to grow on you. We are just so used to seeing bike design ‘lines’ in a horizontal plane and the Ku TF1 lines are more in a vertical plane.
To be honest the thing as described above about the creaking steerer box, I have never had that during the months I ride the bike.
Is it fast, yes, as fast as most other good bikes in the market. Is it faster in the range as they claim it is like 20-25 watts. No, not at all.
I have analyzed a shit load of my rides with the Ku, compared them to the data I have from other bikes on the same courses over the years, being 1st and 2nd gen Speed Concept, Felt IA, Cervelo P5 and Cadex.
It is just all the same, the courses I did on the TF1 never were significant faster (or slower).
I did the same for a couple of their next gen athletes, bike times in history are so easy to find, same result.
My gripe with their testing is that they get CdA results and wattage improvements that are just never happening in the real world.
I have a few of these results published here in other threads and they proved to be totally incorrect or just not true. Killed by the real experts.
And how they do some this testing.
Interestingly the owner was on a podcast very recently, he gave a solid explaining of aerodynamics, how they translate this to their bike and their aero testing to completely making a fool of himself saying the their current 70.3 world champion rode and i quote ‘ Rico rode 400 plus watts NP at the T100 on Ibiza and that are massive watts’. Well, if you need over 400 plus watts to ride 80 km with a speed of 44.67 km/ph you are not aero…at all ;-).
I know a couple of other users and speak to them once in a while and asked them in all honestly if they compare their 70.3 or ld distance bikes times if they were faster with the Ku or their previous bikes and both are in the same range. Not significant faster or slower, certainly not the gain as they were shown during the testing.
This could be an issue from the testing protocol as in indoor testing can be different from outdoor as in people not used to it and looking not forward but to the ground to stay in between the lines creating much different head positions, just a guess. I’m not present.
What I admire from them is that they creating this community feeling, doing a lunch and social ride at Kona by example. They had 24 bikes at Kona, true, 11 sponsored or semi-sponsored athletes but 1 more then Cadex so I think that is very cool for a small brand.
If you like the bike get it, but don’t think you will gain 20-25 more watts compared to any other good bike, all things equal and being optimized on each bike in fit and hydration / storage which is fairly easy those days.
Can you be equally fast on bikes a third of the price, sure, no problem. But if this is your dream bike and can spend the money why not. Be happy with the bike you like :-).
Jeroen
4 Likes
‘Killed by the real experts.’ 
Thanks Jeroen! passive aggressive much?
Happy to put my credentials up against any of the other real experts.
FWIW, I have a data set of an aero test done between the KU and the Argon119 disc.
It was done by someone with zero bias. They did a very good job of controlling things like wheels, tires, powermeters…
They did a very thorough job of replicating fit with those “wands”, retul system etc.
The argon119 is a good bike.
It was a tie.
3 Likes
Just to make sure, with a rider on it ?
yes.
tested on road
3 Likes
The data of these aerotests was killed by the real experts in aerotesting, providing aerotest data that makes sense and not marketing bs. I’m happy to refresh the links of the previous threads on this topic.
Those threads show enough about the quality the aerotesting done.
But to clarify, you are one of the nicest people I worked with and believe it or not quite happy to see how the brand is doing, but……that can’t be an excuse to provide aero claims / gains that are just not true, incorrect or whatever you want to call it.
You guys are doing so much good that there should be no reason to make incorrect aero claims.
Wish you the best 
Jeroen
1 Like
I’m the Ku fitter in the Mid Atlantic / near South. I met Richard at the last Xantusia camp, saw his presentation, and was excited when asked to be a part of Ku. I haven’t been disappointed.
To those present at that workshop, there were never any wild claims made. For me it has always been a bike that is likely on par with the fastest bikes on the market aerodynamically, in a unique and forward thinking package, very nearly custom, with an unrivaled fit first philosophy. And for me the kicker was ON THEIR FIRST TRY.
Richard’s aero credentials are literally 2nd to nobody, best I can tell. On his 1st attempt at bike design, after making Schumacher’s Ferrari’s win for a long time, he made a Cervelo P5 rival. I’m pretty optimistic about this bike, their process and customer service, and what comes next.
Alex was personally available to me as needed, and always seems to be both very busy with the business, while caring a lot about each individual bike and rider.
I’ve delivered two bikes to happy customers. Hope to do many more in 2025 and I will be including a half day of aero testing to anyone picking up a Ku through me.
my .02
Good news is the snap didn’t lose this
The bad news is it mangled stuff so it’s harder to follow
Maybe not “wild claims” but I think the problems with the comparisons with the P5 are pretty obvious
their CEO responded this, you can see all the information on the validity of these tests above it
1 Like
I have the first Ku TF1 sold in the USA. I have used it for three seasons, with a lot of racing/training. All of my observations are anecdotal, and not based on any testing:
— the bike is faster than my former Trek Speed Concept 9.9 (last rim brake edition). I also loved that bike, but I consistently have been faster on the TF1 without any improvement in fitness— that’s actually declining 
— the bike is super comfortable. I still use the Trek and a QR PR5 when I am away from home, and it is a pleasure to get back on the TF1
— the Ku team (Alex, Richard and others) are accessible and supportive. They are present at WC events, build community, stand by the product with evolving features, etc.
— I know plenty of brands have bought endorsers and put them on inferior products, but for a young company, this bike has been validated by a slew of pro (Rico Bogen) and AG world champions. It’s certainly not holding them back
— there are patented design features that have been validated by arguable intellectual theft from rival brands
— everyone has a right to their taste in aesthetics, but I like the looks
— at a time when many companies are de-emphasizing triathlon, these guys are bringing innovation and passion to the sport. At Kona last week, there probably were half as many industry people pitching their products vs five years ago. Ku was there getting their 20+ riders ready to go
4 Likes
Hi Jeroen,
There’s clearly nothing we can do or say to prevent your petty passive aggressive program of spreading the poison you have been spreading for some years now and seem intent on continuing.
So sorry but no more Mr Nice Guy.
This poison is disrespectful to me personally and to the test team including coach Jo Spindler. It is disrespectful to my professionalism, to my testing capabilities and to the test results we achieve with the Kú TF1. Test results that are achieved in open and ‘available to all’ testing sessions. You have been invited many times to attend an aero camp to learn something. Remember I’m the engineer I don’t do marketing BS 
You always mention how you were involved in the early development as if this gives you some special insight into where we are now some 3 years later. I do wonder what you tell people if they ask why you stopped working with us?
Do you tell them we realised your input was not useful to our development? In fact holding us back?
Do you tell them you only ever rode one velodrome test for us in February 2020? A test by the way that was run independently by Gebiomized/Staps/Hysys who were at the time the go to group for aero performance testing.
Do you tell them of your struggles riding the track and how they skewed the results of that test in favour of the P5 you were much more used to riding and despite that we were close to matching the performance with the pre-production TF1 you were riding? A result that validated all my CFD on the TF1 concept from years before?
Do you tell them the results you published that ‘real experts killed’ were not of an aero test in the sense we run them but from a customer experience day, where we demonstrate what they would get attending an aerocamp? Do you mention the customer did not approve of you putting them here in the forum?
Do you tell them that customer bought a TF1 after a full test where he saw it was not marketing BS? A customer who has since attended additional camps after seeing the performance gains?
When asked why you criticise our testing methodology and what exactly it is about it you take such vehement dislike to; do you mention you’ve never seen it or experienced it? Unlike the 90 athletes that have been through the aero camp experience all of whom went away faster, and yes BECAUSE of the fit tuning and because that tuning is specific to the characteristics of their personalised, and built to order TF1.
You don’t have access to the data of riders that have independently taken their TF1’s into wind tunnels and come away even more convinced.
I don’t think we’ve ever said the bike is faster but I do believe the whole package will make any body faster than they are on their current ride. Marlene De Boer certainly recognised this when she recently switched back to the TF1 from the CADEX. If other brands can match our ‘fit to race’ performance promise then let them go ahead.
I’m sorry we are based locally to your shop and you are hurting from losing customers who understand the speed and comfort benefits of the TF1 over your stock brands. We are not for everybody, (for sure those who are aesthetics driven ) so there’s a place for us all without being disrespectful to things you know nothing about.
Apologies to other forum users for the long post but sometimes some light needs to be cast.
Richard
3 Likes
You chose to get very personal there, not sure that was needed
Let me try to explain where I see “marketing hype”.
The thread I posted was from 2022. It showed what seemed to be questionable results in comparing a FeltIA to the KU. Lots of debate, lots of holes in the data. We got to a point where the aerosensor company said they would look at it, but then “hold on, the data is private”. People are welcome to go that thread and make an opinion of how valid the data was.
The Ku CEO joined in and said “This was NOT an Aero Performance Test at all, it was a marketing event where nearly 20 athletes… Any one familiar with aero testing, knows so many riders in such a short time span can never be a proper test!”
He also said something (I paraphrase) : we will not do direct bike to bike comparisons since it’s fit, the whole process….bla bla bla….OK, he played his get out of jail free card.
Needless to say on March 2024 (almost 2 years later), on IG, when I came across this post I got a good laugh
Same athlete, same data.
Data is available on your website, published in 2024, although you do say “collected in 2022”: Kú Cycle TF1 vs Felt iA - Kú Cycle
So the data in 20222 was questionable, but that’s because it’s not a “real test”. But in 2024 it’s ok, with the label “KU vs IA”. In 2022 it’s “can never be a proper test”, in 2024 it’s “we are data driven”. Granted, IG is not pubmed.
I don’t want you to go full Hezbollah on me. Maybe just tell what part I got wrong
Do you see how this can be perceived as “marketing hype” ?
2 Likes
‘You chose to get very personal there, not sure that was needed’ I accept that.
‘Let me try to explain where I see “marketing hype”.’ Understood but a big part of doing these tests is for our marketing! We are a very small brand and do not make ‘worlds fastest bike claims’ anywhere. The focus on this one ‘marketing event’ from the 90 athletes/customers that have gone through our aerocamp testing is quite a distortion of what we are trying to do. We publish our data.
Here is an open invitation to attend an aero camp. Next one next week! Then three or four in first quarter of 2025. Bring the wife and enjoy Amsterdam for a few days!
That is a very contradicting statement LOL, just kidding…
4 Likes
The attack on Jeroen was based on him saying “marketing BS”, which if you follow the above is not far off. Let’s admit it, most vendors do it.
You took offence to “real aero experts”, when I think Jeroen was referring to the people that debunked the data in 2022, including the like of Robert Chung that wanted data. I would have said “real data exports, like Robert and ST keyboard warriors like marcag”
I said it earlier. I know of one unbiased test, that showed the bike to be as fast as a really good bike. But the fact some of the marketing is over the top is pretty obvious.
You guys are doing a unique stuff on the fit and test. I wish more vendors did that and/or consumers would get it done by themselves.
Maybe I’ll take you up on the test session. I am always curious to see what people are doing. I have team camps to attend early December and January so who knows
1 Like
If you need an impartial guinea pig to test on.
No equipment restriction, unbiased, pretty aero, data loving mid-pack pro got his hand up here 
Did notice in Robert Wilkowiecki pre Kona wind tunnel video. At points, he was testing with both his Kú TF1 & old P5. Ended up riding the TF1 in Kona.
Knowing he is a sponsored athlete, we have to take it with a bit of a pinch of salt.
But have to imagine that if that testing showed the P5 much faster, he would have ridden that at the world champs instead.
Not sponsored. We supplied Robert and his team with the bike but they can go their own way and you can see how they did that in the video.
Trying to decide between a Ku and Dimond Mogul. Leaning towards the Dimond because of comfort and looks but interested to hear about which one would win in the wind tunnel.
The answer is going to be the same as with any two similar bikes. It’s the one that fits you best and/or allows you to get into the fastest position. Rider is 80% of the drag