Ku TF 1 vs Cervelo P5 aerotest

Triathlon Forum
1

I’m trying to educate myself more into this whole aero testing stuff, might want to pick this up at a certain point since I believe it will be a part of professional bike fitting in the future.

Recently Ku Cycle displayed a new aero comparison test that raises some questions.
https://www.ku-cycle.com/…-p5-vs-ku-cycle-tf1/

So, if you want to show that your bike in this case their own bike is faster than that of a competitor brand wouldn’t it be fair to set up both bikes similar. If this is not like in this test how much value can be taken from it?
If I look at the test I see so many different things like not the same power meter, not the same wheels, not the same saddle, bottle cage behind the saddle on the P5, not the same position but could be better on the P5 with the EX10 cockpit and even with the EX11 cockpit the bars could be lower more compared to the TF1 fit.

Also the data seem to be as in wattage vs speed vs displayed time ‘ improvement’ as far as my knowledge now is.
But maybe I’m totally off so wonder what experts have to say.
I have a hard time figuring out that a 10 watts saving is 6 min faster.

I think it is cool that companies are trying to do aero tests but if you are saying bike X or Y is faster than Z from another brand shouldn’t at least all variables as mentioned above be the same?
So, let’s assume I have several bikes in my possession that I can set up the same for a fit customer to test and to see what tests best for the rider it need to have same wheels, tires, pressure, power meter at least? To make it a fair comparison. Because that is what I’m trying to set up with a few companies at this moment.

Jeroen

1 Like
2

I’m trying to educate myself more into this whole aero testing stuff, might want to pick this up at a certain point since I believe it will be a part of professional bike fitting in the future.

Recently Ku Cycle displayed a new aero comparison test that raises some questions.
https://www.ku-cycle.com/…-p5-vs-ku-cycle-tf1/

So, if you want to show that your bike in this case their own bike is faster than that of a competitor brand wouldn’t it be fair to set up both bikes similar. If this is not like in this test how much value can be taken from it?
If I look at the test I see so many different things like not the same power meter, not the same wheels, not the same saddle, bottle cage behind the saddle on the P5, not the same position but could be better on the P5 with the EX10 cockpit and even with the EX11 cockpit the bars could be lower more compared to the TF1 fit.

Also the data seem to be as in wattage vs speed vs displayed time ‘ improvement’ as far as my knowledge now is.
But maybe I’m totally off so wonder what experts have to say.

I think it is cool that companies are trying to do aero tests but if you are saying bike X or Y is faster than Z from another brand shouldn’t at least all variables as mentioned above be the same?

Jeroen

Didn’t we have a thread on this topic already?

When testing you can go in a few directions. All take time and $$

Path 1. You take the rider & optimize their position on Bike A vs Bike B. Bike A set up to the customer’s spec vs Bike B set up to customer spec. This gives the customer the lowest drag numbers on their preferred set up. Yet this doesn’t tell you anything about the bike itself.

Path 2. You take stock specs, maybe you/you probably should control for saddle/wheels/tires/anything else you can. You now get a controlled Bike A vs Controlled Bike B and find out which of those is faster.

Path 3. You take them out of the box and test them and find out which out of the box bike is faster. i think this would be horrifying, revealing and awesome all at the same time. So many companies make fast frames then stick shit parts on it to help get it to a certain price point. I suspect, based on some OEM specs I see, many brands have spec managers that don’t care or don’t know about aerodynamics, reducing crr, eeking out any and every watt they can before it gets to the customer.

Path 4. You take Path 2 and/or Path 3 and add a rider onto it after testing bike vs bike. This is more comprehensive, gives good data but also doesn’t let the rider/customer know which is The Best bike for their particular body morphology and how they ride the bike.

Path 5 which I’m sure there is but I can’t think of right now

I will say with field aero testing there is so much that can go wrong. Speed sensor dropping out, brake rub, power meter drop outs although this also allows you to dial down and help the customer. Hey test A is great but when you swap to wheels B there is brake rub somewhere. Let’s spin the wheel slowly and listen or Test A was great test B was shit bc your crank started to fall off midway through the run (true story).

If you’re a manufacturer, the educated/care about my race times/bike split/want to go as fast as possible for the least amount of kJ customers want to see the data. Yet it’s not really telling the customer the entire story.

Just as in this case KU isn’t really telling the entire story. Their bike may be slower without a rider yet do a phenomenal job managing airflow making it faster than other bikes with the rider on like the P5x. The KU story is from what I’m gleaming, for rider X the KU when set up like Y is faster than the other bike set up like Z for rider X. That’s a long arse headline though and doesn’t get as many clicks and eyeballs.

Or you could be like QR which came out with some unbelievable number (iirc 13w, maybe it was 8, either would be in a new ballpark) faster than the P5 disc. Yet no one in the industry believes it bc they’ve been mysterious about the data itself, specifically columns V,W & AC on their data sheets they got from A2.

Now, I do think their bikes are fast, I’ve helped several riders get on their bikes, they are at a good price point yet the question remains how fast is their Vpr/Xpr and if someone took both those bikes to the tunnel would it be independently verified?

I’ve been eyeing one of their road bikes. Anyone know how they ride?

3

Didn’t we have a thread on this topic already?

The thread you are referring to was misleading information that their executives came in and said this was not a real aero test. Their CEO said
These results are not published by us, we are not making any claims based on these very limited comparison tests.

In this case it’s their marketing material.

4

I’ve been eyeing one of their road bikes. Anyone know how they ride?

I saw one in person and it looked really nice. The reason I didn’t consider one is that the head tube angle / trail suggests less racy handling. IIRC Slowman mentioned this in a review and intended to follow up as to why he thought the slack angles worked for QR, but I don’t remember seeing it.

5

I’m trying to educate myself more into this whole aero testing stuff, might want to pick this up at a certain point since I believe it will be a part of professional bike fitting in the future.

Recently Ku Cycle displayed a new aero comparison test that raises some questions.
https://www.ku-cycle.com/…-p5-vs-ku-cycle-tf1/

So, if you want to show that your bike in this case their own bike is faster than that of a competitor brand wouldn’t it be fair to set up both bikes similar. If this is not like in this test how much value can be taken from it?
If I look at the test I see so many different things like not the same power meter, not the same wheels, not the same saddle, bottle cage behind the saddle on the P5, not the same position but could be better on the P5 with the EX10 cockpit and even with the EX11 cockpit the bars could be lower more compared to the TF1 fit.

Also the data seem to be as in wattage vs speed vs displayed time ‘ improvement’ as far as my knowledge now is.
But maybe I’m totally off so wonder what experts have to say.
I have a hard time figuring out that a 10 watts saving is 6 min faster.

I think it is cool that companies are trying to do aero tests but if you are saying bike X or Y is faster than Z from another brand shouldn’t at least all variables as mentioned above be the same?
So, let’s assume I have several bikes in my possession that I can set up the same for a fit customer to test and to see what tests best for the rider it need to have same wheels, tires, pressure, power meter at least? To make it a fair comparison. Because that is what I’m trying to set up with a few companies at this moment.

Jeroen

but in fairness like for like ie the base line test the cervelo was faster … so in a way what this test says aero testing helped to make a slower bike faster and did not help to make the slightly faster bike at the baseline faster .
and they could have used a felt bike as control bike lol
ie what the test shows aero testing helps .sometimes very little sometimes more … and different bikes can be faster depending on certain positions .
i get what you mean but who is to say that wheel a will perform the same way in bike a and b . so the fastest set up might not be the same wheel for bike a and b and neither might be the same position.
so by if we want everything the same we might not get the best system. as differetn parts work differently together.
so i guess you cant make a conclusive answer if this test was fair or not based on the data presented. as we have no idea how we did come to the final position and gear choices.
and it would appear the interaction of the whole system works differently in different positions.
and maybe they even changed the wheelsets during the test… and maybe the rider wanted another wheelset based on looks etc.
we need more details.
also its good they used perceived comfort … does not mean a lot over a short distance but its not wrong.

6

I think it’s a little more misleading than that

The script goes like this

We tested bike A and bike B. They were configured differently (wheels, bottles) but they happened to come out with a similar CDA

We modified the persons position on bike B. We didn’t modify his position on bike A.

Their words : “The initial position of the rider on the TF1 was based on the copied fit data of his P5 and in Daves case represented his final possible position on the P5. During the indoor test, several position adjustments were made to the rider based on the test data results of each individual test run.”

The new position on bike B is faster than the original position.

So the new position on bike B is faster than the original position but we didn’t apply it to bike A.

But since our two bikes had the same CDA at the beginning, bike B is faster.

Kind of misleading IMO. The title should be “we made the rider 10 watts faster by changing his fit”.

Going to see Brian for the same results (or more) sounds a lot less expensive :slight_smile:

7

If nothing else, irrespective of the protocols, the comparison between a market leading UCI legal design vs an unrestricted radical design - using contemporary technologies and both designed by credible engineers has shown that there really isn’t much performance enhancement left - if any.

8

I’ve been eyeing one of their road bikes. Anyone know how they ride?

I saw one in person and it looked really nice. The reason I didn’t consider one is that the head tube angle / trail suggests less racy handling. IIRC Slowman mentioned this in a review and intended to follow up as to why he thought the slack angles worked for QR, but I don’t remember seeing it.

Not meaning to derail the thread on Ku. A good friend is flying to the Netherlands to get one in June, so will know in a bit how someone likes one.

I have an SR5, and have had it for around 18 months now. I don’t do any bike racing with it, so it does what I need in terms of being a fast, all around bike. Handling is great for what I want. I was coming from a CAAD10, which was a bit more agile. I added a different saddle, wheels, and crank-based power meter, and overall really like the bike.

9

If nothing else, irrespective of the protocols, the comparison between a market leading UCI legal design vs an unrestricted radical design - using contemporary technologies and both designed by credible engineers has shown that there really isn’t much performance enhancement left - if any.

Kinda my thoughts here as well. We’re looking at < a handful of watts for new bikes. I mean look at how much Argon spent to save a watt. Hardly seems worth it.

My other thought is 8-10yr ago the bike was a higher % of the total drag package. In the past the rule of thumb was the rider was ~ 80% of the drag package. Today it’s more likely the rider is ~ 90% of the drag package.

That’s going to make aero testing your range of comfort within your position even more important if performance in races is your goal.

10

Almost identical positions???

Position1.jpg
Position2.jpg

11

Almost identical positions???

Basically this. I’m willing to bet that dropping your head and shrugging your shoulders like that is going to be worth at least a .015 CdA reduction. Also their power saving to speed to time savings numbers seem off. Or at least they’re quite generous when it comes to rounding up!

It’s not all bad though as having seen the bike in the flesh/carbon there’s a lot about it that makes a lot of sense. Especially when you look at it head on like in the photo above you can see how the airflow management is likely to help. I think I read that one of the founders is/was a F1 engineer so you can see some of the motorsport thinking coming through in the design.

12

Didn’t we have a thread on this topic already?

The thread you are referring to was misleading information that their executives came in and said this was not a real aero test. Their CEO said
These results are not published by us, we are not making any claims based on these very limited comparison tests.

In this case it’s their marketing material.

Except they are making claims, those claims are explicitly based on these tests, and those results were (re)published by them on their own website? Take a look at the link and tell me if this looks like “marketing material”. Plenty of companies push the boundaries of fudging aero data, but this

The full text explaining their ‘aero test’. I’ll let you be the judge.

The ‘test’ was a customer event to enable prospective Kú TF1 customers to try out a Kú TF1 demo bike versus their own bike. Testing was done on the customer bike as presented, in the absence of time to perform a proper bike fit their position on their current bike was replicated as closely as possible onto a Kú demo bike. The Kú TF1 is built to order based on a very specific fit performed by a Kú authorised fitter and so the fit to the demo bike is compromised.Some riders fits transcribed to the Kú TF1 demo better than others, in some cases, such as with this client, deficiencies in their current fit were corrected as much as possible to suit the Kú TF1. The purpose of the test was to see what potential gains the client could see by switching bikes. We were not aiming to replicate what their current set up but to show what they could have with the Kú.All Tests were carried out using the Aerolab Tech sensor and we had an independent Aerolab field engineer with us at all times.The same Aerolab sensor was used on customer and TF1 bikes for each test.We used Assioma powermeter pedals switched between customer and TF1 bikes for each test. Crank lengths and calibration performed before each test.We used the same wheel speed sensor switched between customer and TF1 bikes for each test. Both bikes were tested one after the other on the same out and back course according to defined Aerolab Tech test protocols.Time constraints meant each rider was restricted to 4, 800m out and back laps (2.4Km) on each bike. A full aerotest would be at least 7 out and backs. Tests were performed in gusty conditions with a variable wind strength and direction, this is measurable with the Aerolab sensor. This will not produce the CdA figures you all expect to see from wind tunnel tests!The Kú TF1 has been designed from the outset to perform in these real world conditions, as Waingro alludes to below, it performs very differently in cross wind conditions to a conventional bike. In the test Jeroen refers to here https://www.ku-cycle.com/performance-test/ he seems to forget we also tested an older Felt iA and saw an improvement of CdA from 0.234 to 0.217. This and Jeroens test on his P5 were on the very first two production TF1’s back in August 2020. Development of the TF1 did not standstill between then and now! Since that very first velodrome test with Jeroen we have beaten a 2021 Sunweb team spec P5 by 7%. These results will all be published over the next few weeks on our website. Our watch word is transparency, if it wasn’t we would not have Jeroens result back in 2020 on the website as at that time he was still very marginally quicker on the P5!This was only one of 16 such comparison tests we performed over two days and the results were presented to each customer individually. They are all welcome to contact us and discuss their results.These results are not published by us, we are not making any claims based on these very limited comparison tests.For a better insight to our full current testing regime and the performance of the TF1 have a look at this video (english subtitles!): COMPARAISON : ANCIEN vs NOUVEAU vélo de triathlon - Présentation du TF1 de KÚ CYCLE - YouTube

13

Plenty of companies push the boundaries of fudging aero data, but this

Fudging aero data is one thing.

Publishing how you fudged them is a whole new level.

14

I think it’s a little more misleading than that

The script goes like this

We tested bike A and bike B. They were configured differently (wheels, bottles) but they happened to come out with a similar CDA

We modified the persons position on bike B. We didn’t modify his position on bike A.

Their words : “The initial position of the rider on the TF1 was based on the copied fit data of his P5 and in Daves case represented his final possible position on the P5. During the indoor test, several position adjustments were made to the rider based on the test data results of each individual test run.”

The new position on bike B is faster than the original position.

So the new position on bike B is faster than the original position but we didn’t apply it to bike A.

But since our two bikes had the same CDA at the beginning, bike B is faster.

Kind of misleading IMO. The title should be “we made the rider 10 watts faster by changing his fit”.

Going to see Brian for the same results (or more) sounds a lot less expensive :slight_smile:

Yes, this is what I mean. We are currently exploring the opportunities with a couple of brands that are willing to supply a few bikes in different sizes to use to do aero testing as a next step after a bike fit. Set aside if the Notio, aerolab or any other sensor can help with that or not. For now I assume that in the near future that these devices will so improve that they will.
Wouldn’t it be fair and logic if you want to get the customer the right advice in terms of frame and set up choice to set up the bikes with similar wheels and power meter and/or cockpit when they are interchangeable or by example just the same wheels and power meter when the cockpit is proprietary for the brand/bike.

In this recent Ku TF1 comparison to the P5 there were adjustments made to the TF1 set up to optimize the riders position but not to the P5 but technically they could have been done to the P5 quite simple by adding the EX10 cockpit and using the same wheels, saddle and bottle cage set up. So the question remains if this improvement is at least a little colored if you make the right improvements to your own product but do not do this to your competitors model if you can call it an improvement.
It might be even possible that if you also adopt the same positional and material changes the P5 might be even faster.

This recent test has nothing to do with my test with the P5 and the TF1. With that test we swapped wheels, power meter and in the end even the cockpit. This test is no longer on the website but still floats online

https://www.ku-cycle.com/performance-test/

TF1 is still the same bike just now with the added nutrition and bottle holder. But that’s the point, if you would add these items in a similar form on that P5 in that test that could or would change the result.

So back to what we are discussing with these couple of brands my idea is that we would need to equip all bikes with the same wheels, prefered saddle, power meter amd if/when possible cockpit and using the customers clothing helmet.
Unless a bike own certain characteristics like the Cadex, Canyon Speedmax CF SLX/CFR or Shiv disc with integrated hydration than an option could be to have the discussion how much you need to add to bike models X to have the same hydration which model Y already has integrated.

But maybe we are making it to complicated and should testing be just done to the chosen bike and just optimize to that chosen bike. Or thought was actually to help that choice post fit to see if any of preferred bikes would test better than another which could help in bike choice.

Jeroen

15

I think it’s a little more misleading than that

The script goes like this

We tested bike A and bike B. They were configured differently (wheels, bottles) but they happened to come out with a similar CDA

We modified the persons position on bike B. We didn’t modify his position on bike A.

Their words : “The initial position of the rider on the TF1 was based on the copied fit data of his P5 and in Daves case represented his final possible position on the P5. During the indoor test, several position adjustments were made to the rider based on the test data results of each individual test run.”

The new position on bike B is faster than the original position.

So the new position on bike B is faster than the original position but we didn’t apply it to bike A.

But since our two bikes had the same CDA at the beginning, bike B is faster.

Kind of misleading IMO. The title should be “we made the rider 10 watts faster by changing his fit”.

Going to see Brian for the same results (or more) sounds a lot less expensive :slight_smile:

no disagreement here but here is the but , a lot of triathletes dont want to travel to the testing etc and then dont do it.
as it is . the tester bought cervelo with a bike fit, and the way ku sells him the bike seems to be faster. ie while this might not be the optimum it seems to faster then how the p5 was sold to him. so to me thats a step in the right direction,
i think everybody here will agree it does not make much sense for ku to spend money on the competitors bike to make it faster ie after all they have to pay the guy that does the testing ,

i am on the fence here,i of course see the shenanigans but i also see its a better ways of selling bikes to do some aero testing before the sale so thats better than most bike manufacturers . ie you are certainly not going to sell me a 8 k or whatever bike without showing me that iam faster on this bike,and of course in this case i would stick with my cervelo p5 given that the baseline test was faster on the bike i already own and improve on it . if i had not bought the p5 already i would likely go with the ku it would depend on the after sale service i guess .

16

Looking at those results it seems the P5 was marginally faster when comparing apples to apples with no position changes. The results are not surprising.

At this point in time, I think testing a bunch of bikes against each other keeping all parameters equal (a la bike shootout) is not the best use of testing resources.

I think it had to be done once, it was incredibly well done and the result taught us a lot. It taught us that well designed bikes are going to be incredibly close to each other. It taught us that even the next level down can be almost as fast.

It will become increasingly impossible to keep all components identical. Integrated cockpits are the first step, integrated nutrition is another…Bikes are becoming more and more a system. It won’t be long before you are told the new Zipp wheel is super wide and is optimized for the super wide fork and the new super wide GP6000 29.2 tire none of which will fit on bike B.

If you are going to aero test to make a bike purchase decision, use the aero testing to put them in the optimal position and then buy a bike based on that. Sometimes you’d be better off Cervelo PSeries with a certain cockpit than a P5 with the proprietary cockpit. Test helmets and other accessories.

I guarantee you, if a customer has a fixed budget, 99% of the time he will be faster on the 2nd level bike with the right accessories than the top level bike with no budget left over for the right finishing touches.

I still believe the manufacturers that are going to assist the customers in getting to their fastest position will have a serious competitive advantage. There are ways to do this, you just need a manufacturer with the right mindset. There is a long list of things they can do.

I do believe manufacturers should do their aero homework and provide the results of that work. Their protocols are results should be scrutinized and when they don’t add up be called out.

That article would have been far more credible if it would have been about how an athlete gets faster and all the things they do to support athletes to get there. Using it as a comparison to the P5 was not a great idea.

17

I think it’s a little more misleading than that

The script goes like this

We tested bike A and bike B. They were configured differently (wheels, bottles) but they happened to come out with a similar CDA

We modified the persons position on bike B. We didn’t modify his position on bike A.

Their words : “The initial position of the rider on the TF1 was based on the copied fit data of his P5 and in Daves case represented his final possible position on the P5. During the indoor test, several position adjustments were made to the rider based on the test data results of each individual test run.”

The new position on bike B is faster than the original position.

So the new position on bike B is faster than the original position but we didn’t apply it to bike A.

But since our two bikes had the same CDA at the beginning, bike B is faster.

Kind of misleading IMO. The title should be “we made the rider 10 watts faster by changing his fit”.

Going to see Brian for the same results (or more) sounds a lot less expensive :slight_smile:

Yes, this is what I mean. We are currently exploring the opportunities with a couple of brands that are willing to supply a few bikes in different sizes to use to do aero testing as a next step after a bike fit. Set aside if the Notio, aerolab or any other sensor can help with that or not. For now I assume that in the near future that these devices will so improve that they will.
Wouldn’t it be fair and logic if you want to get the customer the right advice in terms of frame and set up choice to set up the bikes with similar wheels and power meter and/or cockpit when they are interchangeable or by example just the same wheels and power meter when the cockpit is proprietary for the brand/bike.

In this recent Ku TF1 comparison to the P5 there were adjustments made to the TF1 set up to optimize the riders position but not to the P5 but technically they could have been done to the P5 quite simple by adding the EX10 cockpit and using the same wheels, saddle and bottle cage set up. So the question remains if this improvement is at least a little colored if you make the right improvements to your own product but do not do this to your competitors model if you can call it an improvement.
It might be even possible that if you also adopt the same positional and material changes the P5 might be even faster.

This recent test has nothing to do with my test with the P5 and the TF1. With that test we swapped wheels, power meter and in the end even the cockpit. This test is no longer on the website but still floats online

https://www.ku-cycle.com/performance-test/

TF1 is still the same bike just now with the added nutrition and bottle holder. But that’s the point, if you would add these items in a similar form on that P5 in that test that could or would change the result.

So back to what we are discussing with these couple of brands my idea is that we would need to equip all bikes with the same wheels, prefered saddle, power meter amd if/when possible cockpit and using the customers clothing helmet.
Unless a bike own certain characteristics like the Cadex, Canyon Speedmax CF SLX/CFR or Shiv disc with integrated hydration than an option could be to have the discussion how much you need to add to bike models X to have the same hydration which model Y already has integrated.

But maybe we are making it to complicated and should testing be just done to the chosen bike and just optimize to that chosen bike. Or thought was actually to help that choice post fit to see if any of preferred bikes would test better than another which could help in bike choice.

Jeroen

are you sure they dont use the same power meter…
in the last test they used a peddal power meter .

and while i agree in the baseline everything should be as similar as possible you should also deviate and see if a certain bike interacts with a certain wheel better , or the user likes the handling better of a certain wheel.
at the end of the day you have to find a balance and in the end of the day you are most likely best of not selling people super expensive cadex bikes and then spend many many more hours on testing.

18

[quote pk

no disagreement here but here is the but , a lot of triathletes dont want to travel to the testing etc and then dont do it.

the best aero sticks are so small the tester can travel to you. No need for the athlete to go anywhere.

19

[quote pk

no disagreement here but here is the but , a lot of triathletes dont want to travel to the testing etc and then dont do it.

the best aero sticks are so small the tester can travel to you. No need for the athlete to go anywhere.

yes but at the end of the day its like retul its not the stick that makes the testing good its the operator that makes the testing good.

20

Hi Guys,

So publishing test data leaves us damned if we do and damned if we don’t!

On the various different paths, (thx @desert dude) to comparison testing our end goal is to make the athlete faster, not necessarily the bike. For example if your bike split is 5 minutes slower but we can make you more comfortable so you run 10 minutes faster of the bike we have fulfilled the promise of our tag line; ‘Athlete Performance Delivered’.

Athlete performance delivered is supported on three pillars;

  1. Innovative design.

The design philosophy of the TF1 was not to start with the idea making a faster bike. We started with a rider in an aero tuck, and then considered where the parts of a bike could be placed to make that aero tucked body shape more aerodynamic. Without telling you how it works the patented ‘FAST’ fork is the most obvious feature.

Getting a 2% gain from the riders body is considerably more efficient than trying to find a 10% gain in the bike. So those of you who spotted that in our test data are correct, bike to bike we may not be any quicker, but the bike doesn’t ride itself.

  1. Rider specific and personalised.

Now, if you place the parts of the bike to make a body in an aero tuck faster then you have to make the bike match every body in an aero tuck. To achieve that each TF1 is made specifically for each rider. We have athletes from 150cm to 204cm tall every one of which their positional relationship to the bike hardware is close to identical. Then you get to choose the paint job. Never underestimate the performance of a good go faster stripe :slight_smile:

  1. Fit first.

If we are going to build a frame specifically for you you’d better make sure you get a good fit from somebody who understands how the Kú TF1 works. before we start.

In this particular test we took an athlete on his P5, current race set up, and looked at how switching him to the Kú TF1, in a configuration that he would race, and asked which is faster? @Jeroen you will recall from your test with the P5 versus the TF1 prototype back in early 2020 the P5 reached the limits of where you could get to with your position. In that test in 2020 we tried very hard to match the two different bike set ups, and in doing so we restricted the position set up of the TF1. Same here, after a season of racing it Dave had reached the limit to where he could go with his P5. The TF1 allowed him to tune his position beyond that possible on the P5 but also in a way to maximise how the TF1 aerodynamic features worked for that position. It is not so simple as to replicate a fit on a ‘normal’ tri bike to the TF1.

Do any of us care if it was the bike or the position or the combination that made him faster? In this test he was faster on the TF1.

I’m getting dangerously close to marketing now but I believe we can make this work for anybody, I don’t care who you are and what you are riding I believe we can make you faster by getting you on board a Kú TF1. Our race results, aero camps, testing and Google reviews to date reinforce that belief.

@Jeroen, we have an aerocamp next week just down the road from you. Wednesday and Thursday from midday we will be on the velodrome in Apeldoorn and on Friday a day outside (Dutch weather permitting) on the dyke, you know the spot!

Full Kú aero test with the whole crew and six athletes, at least half of whom are Nice/Kona qualified and want to go faster. You are invited to come along, bring the CADEX we welcome the challenge! We will take you through the test, our protocols, and the results. Happy to help with the education and you can share the whole experience here for the benefit of everybody.