OK, I need a new bike and I do a lot of USCF Time Trials in addition to tris, so no one chime in with any softride or zipp advice (I have a Zipp and am pissed pissed pissed about the USCF banning beam bikes next year - don’t get me started).
I want it all - light, aero, but above all I want a good climbing bike for those tris where I won’t use the Zipp. Should I go with the Kuota, or P3C? I know there are other options, but I’ve been working the problem for awhile and have narrowed it to these 2. I especially would like to hear from other Cervelo owners about how well they climb - I know a lot of you have done Placid. Give it to me straight. Don’t blow any sunshine around now, ya hear?
Nope. Need a steeper geometry. I have a great road bike (Litespeed Ultimate) but no matter how I set it up, I can’t get a forward enough position. Like many, I basically want the aerodynamics and position of a TT bike, with the weight and stiffness of a road bike. I go back and forth between these two bikes.
As you will be racing UCCF sancioned TT’s, you should take into account the USCF/UCI rule of having the nose of your saddle 5cm behind the center of your bottom bracket, can you achieve this with these forward geometry bikes?
I prefer a slacker seat angle (74.5 degree Arcole) to keep the bike within UCI rules while allowing me the ability to get low enough and comfortable.
As you will be racing UCCF sancioned TT’s, you should take into account the USCF/UCI rule of having the nose of your saddle 5cm behind the center of your bottom bracket, can you achieve this with these forward geometry bikes?
I prefer a slacker seat angle (74.5 degree Arcole) to keep the bike within UCI rules while allowing me the ability to get low enough and comfortable.
Great point about the 5CM rule. I can barely get that accomplished with my Trek TT using the standard seatpost and the saddle pretty much as far back as it will go.
I’ve also read that the more forward position was not as good for climbing, so it would seem less desirable if the intent was to optimize the bike for climbing.
I was able to check out a friend’s Kuota at IMFL in November, and was pretty confident I could get the seat back 5cm. I’m not sure if this is possible with the P3 though. It’s one of the reasons why I’ve been leaning toward the Kuota, but that P3 sure looks like a sweet bike.
I’m not looking to race this over mountains, but I want a bike that works well if I have to climb out of the saddle for any appreciable distance. I guess another way to ask would be, which bike would you prefer at Lake Placid (assuming you can get the P3 saddle back 5 cm). The P3 claims to be UCI-legal, but I guess they could simply be referring to the double diamond design and not saddle position (I’m assuming UCI and USCF have the same saddle nose restrictions, but I could be wrong).
I thought the P3 had the reversible seatpost which would effectively give you forward or traditional road position based on which way it was installed.
Just checked seat angles for each:
Kuota - 76 degrees.
Cervelo 75 degrees in rear position, 78 degrees in forward position
For this kind of money, why not just get exactly what you want and get a custom bike (like a Guru Aero Ti). Would be light, Titanium (ride like your Litespeed), very aero, excellent craftsmanship and you can set the set tube at like 75 degrees and maybe a shorter top tube. Then use a set-back seat post for the road?
Neither of the bikes you mentioned have particularly climber friendly geometry (though either would work okay with the seat jammed way back, might handle like a dog though).
The Colnago has a more roady geometry, so it should climb better. And, it’s about the same money ($2400 frame, give or take; you could probably find it cheaper from one of the Euro websites like Total Cycling).
Both bikes looks nice…I have not seen the P3C in person but it appears to be a little sleeker…more narrow tubes…not that that will affect anything aero wise…I am leaning toward a P3C for next season…gotta see one first!
" I’m not sure if this is possible with the P3 though."
Uhh…if it weren’t possible…you wouldn’t see CSC riding Cervelo P3s.
I think the point is that you aren’t going to be able to meet the 5cm rule with a steep setup. By the time you meet the 5cm rule, you will be riding at a geometry that you should be able to EASILY accomplish with your Ultimate.
“Neither of the bikes you mentioned have particularly climber friendly geometry”
Not true. The Cervelo has particularly short chainstays that shorten the rear end up enough to make it climb decently even in the forward setup. You can find threads somewhere here where Gerard speaks to this.
With the saddle setback then you’re fine for climbing - although TT bikes climb just fine too - although it’s generally better on a TT bike to keep the rpms up for climbs.
There is an exception to the 5cm rule for people under a certain height.
The P3C is UCI legal, and with the seat in the rear position you should have no problems with the 5cm rule.
The Cervelos have short head tubes for a very aggressive aero position, not exactly comfortable for extended climbing. Maybe you can hold the position. I can’t and no one I know can, for climbing that is. Short chainstays aren’t the only thing that makes a good climbing bike. A more conventional geometry is going to climb better. For flat to rolling courses, the Cerveloi’s awesome … for sourses with lots of climbing there are better choices I think.
re: the 5 cm rule. Didn’t some of the CSC riders chop the tips off their saddles to comply?
roughly i would say the cervelo requires one higher gear (23 vs 21) for the same effort on a STEEP climb in my experience. but once you get to the top of the hill, then can recoup some of it on the downhill
It’s position. I can’t climb worth a crap on a bike with that short of a headtube/aggressive position. But then some people might say I can’t climb worth a crap anyway.
Maybe I missed what the guy was asking about. I just noticed s/he has a Litespeed road bike.
roughly i would say the cervelo requires one higher gear (23 vs 21) for the same effort on a STEEP climb in my experience. but once you get to the top of the hill, then can recoup some of it on the downhill
Are you saying this because of weight differences? Does anyone know the weight of the P3C frame/fork? All I’ve been able to find is that it’s “a 1/2 pound lighter than the P2”, but that isn’t terrible helpful since I can’t find a weight on the P2. I’ve seen the Kuota frame/fork weight.
Any Kuota riders that can comment on climbing, both in a out of the saddle? By the way, thanks to previous posters on the Cervelo comments. It’s giving me a lot to think about.
“The Cervelos have short head tubes for a very aggressive aero position, not exactly comfortable for extended climbing.”
We’re not talking about climbing specific bikes. I’m sure the original poster would be on his Ultimate if the course had extended climbing. We’re talking about moderate inclines on a TT course. Your Colnago suggestion isn’t going to be any better than a P3 when ridden in a TT position. What we’re really talking about here is position…NOT frame. Either bike can be set up in a similar position. Is the position good for climbing? That’s rider specific. Ullrich did pretty well up Alpe d’Huez in a modified TT position last year…
As for your note about the 5cm rule and CSC…they cut off the noses because they wanted a more forward position…NOT because the frame was limited…They could have pushed the saddles back even further, alleviating the need to cut off the saddle.
same weight…again this just my rough experience using P3. the cervelo’s in my experience just don’t climb well. i’m not a great climber but live and train in an area where there are more hills than flats, so i get the chance to evaluate quite often.