The TTx
Our current TT frame was born in 1999 through intensive study and testing – so intensive that we recently learned it is very difficult to make it much faster. With the UCI rules limiting the parameters we have to work within and that the human body can only do so much work over a set time or distance, we have nearly maxed out the efficiency of our design. Compared to other designs we’ve tested (Cervelo P3 Carbon and Walser), we are all similar if there is no wind, but we are more efficient in cross-winds. Think about the last time you rode on a perfectly calm day or did a ride with no turns and you begin to see why cross-winds are a big part of the equation.
With the help of Computed Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Trek engineers redesigned the headtube, toptube and downtube shapes to make the old TTT frame a more efficient bike. CFD is a software program that basically does a huge amount of math to evaluate shapes in given mediums (air, in our case). We tell the computer what the shape and wind speeds we want it to run and it does the math to show us where problem spots could be. It doesn’t do the designing, but it can guide us in the right direction or show us where we are deficient. We could be the first bike company to use CFD to design a complete bike. CFD shortens our design schedule by allowing us to evaluate more ideas in less time. We can then take selected concepts to the wind tunnel for validation.
The New Aero Bar
To compliment the new head tube shape of the TTx frame we cut molds for a one piece TT bar. The main objectives revolved around aerodynamics and stiffness while keeping aesthetics in mind. The end-product is lighter than the prototype one piece bar Lance has raced for years but it’s significantly stiffer than previous models. It currently fits on any 1” steerer but that could evolve into other options as we carry the project into production. We’ve delivered 8 of the new bars to the team with hopes that all of the riders at the Dauphiné and Tour can put them to work
Could have been frame without wheels, for instance, where I bet the shape of the Trek seattube WOULD definitely be more aero than the P3’s “round/cut-out” seattube. But once you put a disc in, then it would be a different story, or maybe not, but I’d be inclined to say so. Not saying this is the case, just giving an example of an easy case where a frame like the Trek should outperform a P3C.
No rear entry dropouts, at least in that proto frame, which is kind of a shame.
But if Trek says it outperformed the other bikes they tested in the windtunnel, I am sure it did. What the exact test was and how relevant that test it, I’m not sure those details will be revealed anytime soon…
The TTx is Trek hoping to sell bikes. Just like the P3C. The time savings of these bikes over their predecessors is miniscule. They cashflow they generate is certainly not…
And I’ll always object to Trek building a bike to fit Lance and then trying to rework the frames after the fact to fit the masses. At least the Cervelos try to fit based on some standard they’ve devised. Still doesn’t work for me, but I feel better about that than I would about trying to rig my body to be like Lance’s when it just isn’t…
Yep, but I think the trek could do with a losing a few pounds by changing the weave lay up and density. Picking one up in my LBS the other week showed that compared to some newer frames this is still a bit of a fat boy…
Oh, and if someone says X is better than Y I’d need more details. I’m sure Gerard is laughing when he read that comment…
Very interesting reading Jason…I have the Equinox II frameset which is the Team Time Trial frameset with another name and another fork…
…maybe TREK should focus more on making the paintwork 100% better than it is…chips like anything…considering the price you have to pay it’s just ridiculous…
We’ve delivered 8 of the new bars to the team with hopes that all of the riders at the Dauphiné and Tour can put them to work
How can all of the Disco riders at the Tour put them to work if they have only delivered 8???
One of the 9 riders at the Tour would miss one unless Disco are planning to only send 8 riders to the Tour.
I hope Trek are better with numbers when they design and test bikes than when they count members in a Tour squad.
Re: Hincappie- I think he just rides a size large with a long stem and seatpost. They only make 3 sizes of that frame. He’s a big dude.
Although this is a cool bike, it’s geometry simply does not suit a triathlete. I don’t even think it suits time trialists all that well either. They have such short head tubes- all the Discovery guys (including Lance) ride with a big stack of spacers. That head tube would be appropriate if the bike had a steeper seat tube angle, but it does not. My shop is a Trek dealer, and I’ve ridden this bike (well, the regular TTT) several times- it’s a stiff, fast bike, but the geometry isn’t good for most people, in my opinion. We usually put a good 3 cm of spacers on them and a +6 degree stem. Slack-angled TT bikes are for a very small portion of the market. I’d rather have a P3C simply because it comes in many more sizes and has more well thought out geometry (even if it is 2 seconds worse on a windy day… but I’d probably be 40 seconds faster because the bike fits me…).
I’d be interested to hear Gerard’s response of the Trek outperforming the P3 in crosswinds.
That is doesn’t match Softride’s findings of P3 vs. Trek TT. Softride has a vested interest in making themselves look good, not in making Cervelo look good vs. Trek. And again, that was the standard P3, not the P3C. As somebody else mentioned, you can make the windtunnel show anything you want. Unfortunately it’s not so easy for a consumer to figure out which numbers are meaningful and which are not.
The Softride feels LESS effected by a cross wind - meaning that I have to lean the bike into a stiff cross wind to off set the wind trying to blow me across the road.
I did this just the other day…25-30mph steady wind from the east…was out on the P3 and off I went. The bike handled great and was not often made unstable by the wind (unless I got one of the many 35-40mph gusts).
I did about 3 miles out and back…went into the basement and took out a Rocket TT7 - pretty much same setup as the Cervelo. The Softride was pushed less, and maybe even felt like the air foil shape may have pushed me forward like a sail a bit.
In any case, this is not at all scientific, I cant say one bike was faster or slower than the other. I did use the same wheel set for both rides (Zipp 404).
So far I think that for a short race the Cervelo is faster under me…for a long race, my back feels much better after 6 hours on the beam than it does after 6 hours on the P3.
Softride has a vested interest in making themselves look good, not in making Cervelo look good vs. Trek. And again, that was the standard P3, not the P3C. As somebody else mentioned, you can make the windtunnel show anything you want. Unfortunately it’s not so easy for a consumer to figure out which numbers are meaningful and which are not.