Just spotted this on CyclingNews, a number of riders were on a new UCI-legal Shiv TT for the Giro’s opening time trial.
It’s basically exactly as anyone would anticipate from the recent Shiv and Venge models; low seatstays, fat-blade forks, aero seat post and dun dun dun DISCS BRAKES. Thank goodness it doesn’t have that ludicrous fairing thing though.
I wonder if they’ll try to charge $20000 for this one…
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/new-specialized-shiv-spotted-at-giro-ditalia/
The seattube and rear end look very odd. In a bad way.
The rear stays and seat tube look similar to the Shiv Tri Disc. Need some better pics.
The seattube and rear end look very odd. In a bad way.
I wonder why the seat tube area under the seat stay junction isn’t more “filled in”?
Speaking of the seat stay junction…that looks really low as compared to the UCI regs (at least by my eye)…
edit: Hmmm…I’m now wondering if they’re utilizing the “fillet triangle” at that junction? That seems a bit “against the spirit” of the specification to me…
Speaking of the seat stay junction…that looks really low as compared to the UCI regs (at least by my eye).
They must have gotten it approved somehow and it looks really low (too low).
The Shiv Tri has the box on the back, so the seattube doesn’t need to be deep. But on the TT it just looks wrong. I suspect this was kinda cobbled together for teams using disc brakes and won’t see production.
Speaking of the seat stay junction…that looks really low as compared to the UCI regs (at least by my eye).
They must have gotten it approved somehow and it looks really low (too low).
The Shiv Tri has the box on the back, so the seattube doesn’t need to be deep. But on the TT it just looks wrong. I suspect this was kinda cobbled together for teams using disc brakes and won’t see production.
…except, on the Shiv Tri it actually is “filled in” with seat tube in the area between the BB, seatstays, and rear tire. The “fairing box” behind the seat post appears to begin right at the seat stay junction on that…so, dunno…
The seattube and rear end look very odd. In a bad way.
I wonder why the seat tube area under the seat stay junction isn’t more “filled in”?
Speaking of the seat stay junction…that looks really low as compared to the UCI regs (at least by my eye)…
edit: Hmmm…I’m now wondering if they’re utilizing the “fillet triangle” at that junction? That seems a bit “against the spirit” of the specification to me…
My first thought after seeing that open area below the stays was wondering if it was done to allow the seat tube box to be moved a bit forward, therefore allowing the seatstays to connect a little lower to the actual seat tube. I didn’t even consider the “fillets”, but in combination that could allow for some pretty low stays…
It definitely doesn’t share much with the Shiv Tri. The top part of the seattube is shallower on the Tri, and I’m pretty sure the wide Kamm downtube from the Tri isn’t used either. Wish someone had gotten better photos. Maybe this really is the new Shiv TT? If so, I don’t get it… but I didn’t get the Shiv Tri either. Seems like they could have just put aerobars on the Venge and it would have been better.
The seattube and rear end look very odd. In a bad way.
I wonder why the seat tube area under the seat stay junction isn’t more “filled in”?
Speaking of the seat stay junction…that looks really low as compared to the UCI regs (at least by my eye)…
edit: Hmmm…I’m now wondering if they’re utilizing the “fillet triangle” at that junction? That seems a bit “against the spirit” of the specification to me…
That cutout is for the battery on the Turbo Shivevo TT that will be sold to consumers…
Speaking of the seat stay junction…that looks really low as compared to the UCI regs (at least by my eye)…
edit: Hmmm…I’m now wondering if they’re utilizing the “fillet triangle” at that junction? That seems a bit “against the spirit” of the specification to me…
My first thought was that it looks low too. Going against the spirit hasn’t worked well for them before (Nosy Shiv)
Speaking of the seat stay junction…that looks really low as compared to the UCI regs (at least by my eye)…
edit: Hmmm…I’m now wondering if they’re utilizing the “fillet triangle” at that junction? That seems a bit “against the spirit” of the specification to me…
My first thought was that it looks low too. Going against the spirit hasn’t worked well for them before (Nosy Shiv)
Except this time there’s a pre-approval process…which it had to go through before being used (no sticker, no ride). Would love to see the explanation.
Except this time there’s a pre-approval process…which it had to go through before being used (no sticker, no ride). Would love to see the explanation.
Pre-approved under the current rules doesn’t preclude a later amendment. Refer Transition and Nosy Shiv. With their history I’m surprised Specialized would want to push the boundary again.
I wonder if they found something in the tunnel regarding spinning legs and the use of a disc wheel that that space doesn’t need to be filled or something. To save weight or it’s better aerodynamically. I have no idea just a crazy theory.
Just as an aside, they would be due for a new
Lid soon you’d think too
.
Interesting stuff!
I don’t usually comment on new rigs any more, since I’m way biased. But I truly feel like anything without a telescoping front end is just outmoded. As in, big props to the P5-disc and P3-X, those are very very nice rides. Everyone else should be licensing the tech from Cervelo (or TriRig) or otherwise developing their own telescoping front end. Once you’ve used one of those, everything else is just wrong – like trying to go back to a 73-degree seat tube on a tri bike.
I would love to see a mono riser/ telescopic bar with the custom aero extensions like speedbar one or the ones on Yates’s TT rig at the Giro.
Curious, do you and Cervelo have different patents for telescoping cockpits? If yes, are they publicly shared?
The tubes all look extremely thin (and lightweight) to me. If it is as light as it looks it would be great for that stage. It’s really interesting to me because it actually looks less beefy than the pre-2013 Slice.
maybe they’re going to put a giant “race number holder” back there in the shape of a Shiv Tri water fairing…
Speaking of the seat stay junction…that looks really low as compared to the UCI regs (at least by my eye).
They must have gotten it approved somehow and it looks really low (too low).
The Shiv Tri has the box on the back, so the seattube doesn’t need to be deep. But on the TT it just looks wrong. I suspect this was kinda cobbled together for teams using disc brakes and won’t see production.
…except, on the Shiv Tri it actually is “filled in” with seat tube in the area between the BB, seatstays, and rear tire. The “fairing box” behind the seat post appears to begin right at the seat stay junction on that…so, dunno…
Speaking of the seat stay junction…that looks really low as compared to the UCI regs (at least by my eye)…
edit: Hmmm…I’m now wondering if they’re utilizing the “fillet triangle” at that junction? That seems a bit “against the spirit” of the specification to me…
My first thought was that it looks low too. Going against the spirit hasn’t worked well for them before (Nosy Shiv)
Didn’t the nosecone Shiv win world championships? That seems to be a good measure of success