Sorry if this was posted already, but here are some more pics of the new Team Radio Shack Speed Concept bikes…
http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/news_the-new-team-radioshack-prototype-trek-speed-concept/
Drew
Thanks for posting.
That frond end continues to change. It looks like the production version will lose the stem/top tube transition seen on the earlier prototypes.
might be allowing for more adjustability, but that looks horrid, and we know that is what counts ;^)
looks like a really big after thought, kinda like oops, we need to allow for changes, and the molds are done.
Do you think they are setting the bikes up with a regular stem to get position 100% and then move to the more aero bar/stem? Or the rider needs to be lower than the lowest bar/stem?
I know this is just a mock-up but, if they are showing it with a hed3, which they very well may ride, why would they not throw on the hed3d…they certainly can maintain the necessary speed to make it beneficial
.
Do you think they are setting the bikes up with a regular stem to get position 100% and then move to the more aero bar/stem? Or the rider needs to be lower than the lowest bar/stem?
This is what I would guess they are doing. But it does make me wonder what the final production Speed Concepts are going to look like.
I know this is just a mock-up but, if they are showing it with a hed3, which they very well may ride, why would they not throw on the hed3d…they certainly can maintain the necessary speed to make it beneficial
Because most of the pros don’t race H3’s in the TT, and no one but a pro is gonna ride this bike for about a year.
Edit: And J.H.C., that is one UGLY disc. Bontrager’s, as well as the Shack’s, graphic designers need to be fired. And now that you mention it, their advertising guys, too…
.
Do you think they are setting the bikes up with a regular stem to get position 100% and then move to the more aero bar/stem? Or the rider needs to be lower than the lowest bar/stem?
This is what I would guess they are doing. But it does make me wonder what the final production Speed Concepts are going to look like.
I would guess that final “production” bikes will look similar to this (standard stem) and that the “prototype” bikes will have the custom front end.
To each his own. I actually like the graphics on the bike (not loving the disc, but don’t hate it). That being said, I enjoy the loud/busy look on bikes and clothing. What can I say? I’m a little bit of brand whore.
Drew
They mentioned the front end stem thing being really expensive to produce earlier. Also, wasn’t there some stupid UCI rule being broken?
Thanks for posting.
That frond end continues to change. It looks like the production version will lose the stem/top tube transition seen on the earlier prototypes.
What a nightmare! I surprised they let these pictures out. There’s a pic floating around of Lance’s bike that has the integrated stem. Maybe Jani needed a lower stem than what the integrated on would allow?
We know that the stems were custom made CNC pieces. I would guess they are either experimenting with position, or it wasnt finished in time for assembly. Its going to be interesting to see how they work the production version, I would expect it not to look like that!
I have to confess I like the look of the disc…
Kevin
Ding Ding Ding!
There’s a handy bit of hardware under that standard stem which allows the team riders to dial in their positions on the actual bike they’ll be riding.
The mass-market solution is pretty slick, too. Unfortunately, I have to go Gump on you beyond that.
Carl
Trek Speed Design
Whew! Thanks for clearing the air, Carl. It was depressing to think of a mass-market Speed Concept without all that front end loveliness. I hang on every bit of SC news that’s out there … I can’t wait to see the finished product.
Is the logical next step a fully integrated brake pad that is only exposed (from the frame/fork) while actually in the act of braking? I am bit surprised after looking at this that they didn’t just jump to that solution instead of this which appears to be a short lived intermediate step.
Sounds good in theory, but I wonder if it’s really the best idea. Trek chose to have a wider-legged fork, citing its aerodynamic benefit with this particular frame. So, it doesn’t make sense to bring the legs in closer. The other alternative would be to open the brakes out wider, but then that makes it a problem to brake, as you’re going to lose lots of power. Plus, it would be tough to make an “integrated” pad system while still making the system compatible with third-party pad manufacturers (Swiss Stop, Zipp, etc).
But their frontal area, combined, is about the size of a nickel. I don’t think this is merely an “intermediate” step. I’m very impressed with Trek’s solution.
EDIT:
The other thing to consider is this – a brake always consists of arms, and pads. The Speed Concept fork integrates fork + arms, and the pads stick out. If you wanted to integrate the pads, then either the arms would stick out, or the fork itself has more frontal area … aerodynamically worse.
Here it is in action on the Queen K. Lance is also sporting some nice shag carpet to look at aerodynamics.
Note in that video the positioning of the bottle/cage. Never seen one so high on the down tube. Would seem to be problematic on smaller frame sizes for removing the bottle. I rarely use one on the down tube, anyway. Just seems different. I wonder if there’s an aero reason behind it? Carl?
This is what happens when you work through the various considerations that go with putting two bottle locations inside the main triangle. You’d like one location to represent the best combination of aero & weight distribution for those riders who only want to run a single bottle, but you need to do it without making the other completely unworkable for the 2-bottle folks. Since there’s more DT than ST to work with on every size, that made a low ST location the driver.
That and how the Speed Bottle angles fit up cleaner in a low ST vs low DT position on this bike.
I don’t remember which came first 
Carl