Have the opportunity to buy a new 2009 Ordu frame/fork for a killer price, however, I’ve done some searches here and seems the aero attributes of this bike are quite a topic of controversy. No wind tunnels numbers that I’ve found and certainly goes against conventional (read = “teardrop design”) wisdom. Many of the other bikes that I’ve been looking at (even the uber expensive ones) don’t have a stack/reach that fit me and the Ordu does nicely.
Bit on my background - typically top 25-30% MOP - so I recognize the bike will not be the difference between a podium appearance or not. At the same time don’t want to buy a new bike after 7 years on my old one, only to have it be a complete dunce. I know Crowie rides it, very successfully but then again look at what Scott/Allen and other rode. Unlike them I’m not sponsored so won’t be switching frames again for many years if ever.
Do I sound torn/confused - I am. Really, I have a brain and once in a while, I’ve even been called decisive.
I love my Ordu. When you get into this level of bike, there really isn’t much of a difference, despite what the wind tunnel weenies will say. If it fits you great, it’s the bike for you. I’m a top FOP’er, ride 5 flat in IM and 2:20 Half, so I ride fast. But the bike isn’t the issue, you are. It’s not the arrow, it’s the Indian at the end of the day.
If you can find the Cervelo data, the original Ordu(now the Ora) did quite poorly. Now, I suppose the questions that remain are:
Does Cervelo’s data well represent the Orbea’s actual aerodynamics?
Is there a significant gain to be made from the Ora to the new Ordu?
I don’t think Cervelo has any reason to make the Ora to look particularly bad, as it’s not really it’s competition. Felt, Trek and Specialized are much bigger competitors, Orbea not so much.
Again, much of the design transferred over from what I could tell except a slight change to the headtube and seattube. The seattubes actual aerodynamic advantage looks questionable.
Here is my thinking… Bryan is right, you can ride fast on that bike, or just about any bike that is constructed soundly and gives you a good position. However, when I went from a bike that is not particularly aero to on that is, I went faster. There is a lot of variables there, but it’s true. In addition, I haven’t once said, “I want a new bike” since I got this bike, in part because I am fairly sure it’s aerodynamic but also cause it looks good, it rides well, etc…
I don’t know what size you are looking at but Specialized’s stack and reach looks pretty similar in the upper 3 sizes.
Can the Ordu go fast? Sure. If you’re going to spend a couple thousand dollars is it probably worth getting those few seconds sitting there to be had from aerodynamics?
What is the purpose of buying the new bike? If you just want something new then the Ordu will probably work just fine. If you want to upgrade from your old bike then that particular frame is not very competitive against its “peers”. I really depends on why you are buying it. With all the info out there, it’s no secret which bikes are aerodynamically fastest.
I would be careful taking the stack/reach formulas too literally. Is the problem that the stack is too low? I would try to buy a larger size of say, the P2C, and adapt your position as necessary. I would normally, by reach/stack numbers, ride a 56 or a 58 P2C, but a friend loaned me his 51 and I put a long stem on it and it was just fine.
Chad
the current urdu is a cool-looking design, a little like the stealth fighter.
but, unfortunately, also like the stealth fighter, it is likely highly un-aerodynamic. the stealth fighter was not designed for aerodynamics (it flies only with the help of a bunch of onboard computers and a lot of power), it was designed to evade radar detection.
and the urdu, with all the sharp edges in all the wrong places, was not designed for minimum drag, it was shaped for someone’s idea of ‘good looks.’ i am not sure what you are riding now, but i am not sure this would be much of an upgrade.
“Really isn’t that much of a difference”? Sure I agree. “There is a difference” Well I would agree with that as well. Problem with those two statements is that they are both opinions about a quantifiable fact. So if a P3C frame will save you 7 watts (for instance) over an Ordu frame than that is the quantifiable difference. Those two statements above are opinions about a measureable difference in the frames.
As to fit, seats go up and down and back and forth. Stems come in 7 cm 20 degree rise and 13 cm 20 degree drop. Aerobars adjust in every plane and parameter imaginable. Spacers exist. Your position is important, but the assertion that it is only achievable on one manufactureres frame is not accurate. Get FISTed and come away with stack and reach numbers that would put you on an Ordu (rare but it happens). Ok so go buy a P3 or TTX or Transition anyway and make the appropriate adjustements here and there and you are faster than on the Orbea.
Aero is aero. It is real and quantifiable. I ride a 54 minute flat 40k so I’m faster than Bryancd, which isn’t the point. The point is I ride a P3SL. I could achieve my exact position on an Ordu, but then I would ride a 54:15 or so 40k.
Sure the fastest bike is the one that fits you. Problem with that is they all fit you and you are left then with, the fastest bike is… well … the fastest bike.
Problem with that statement is that ultimately, they all fit you. If my stack and reach numbers point me to an Orbea Ordu, do you really think you will be faster on that bike than on a P3C or Felt DA with the necessary adjustments in stem length or saddle setback? I’ll give you a hint, you won’t be faster. See post above.
What does that have to do with anything? Guys on round tube road bikes with clip ons could beat Crowie in a TT. Meaningless information.
Try to separate reality from opinion. Plenty of athletes have ok to stellar to world champion-like results on less than optimal frames, postions, equipment and strategy. That doesn’t mean that optimal frames, positions, equipment and strategy do not exist. They do. And all of those people would be faster if they utilized them.
Given the same power file, Crowie would have rode faster on a P3. Faster is the goal, right? Faster is what we are talking about here. It is primarily why this forum exists and you are reading this right now. To race faster. Orbeas are slow, or more precisely they are not as aerodynamic as the front runners at the moment. That is if you believe wind tunnel data. And if you are going to believe anything in your quest to get faster, science is a good place to start.
“Really isn’t that much of a difference”? Sure I agree. “There is a difference” Well I would agree with that as well. Problem with those two statements is that they are both opinions about a quantifiable fact. So if a P3C frame will save you 7 watts (for instance) over an Ordu frame than that is the quantifiable difference. Those two statements above are opinions about a measureable difference in the frames.
As to fit, seats go up and down and back and forth. Stems come in 7 cm 20 degree rise and 13 cm 20 degree drop. Aerobars adjust in every plane and parameter imaginable. Spacers exist. Your position is important, but the assertion that it is only achievable on one manufactureres frame is not accurate. Get FISTed and come away with stack and reach numbers that would put you on an Ordu (rare but it happens). Ok so go buy a P3 or TTX or Transition anyway and make the appropriate adjustements here and there and you are faster than on the Orbea.
Aero is aero. It is real and quantifiable. I ride a 54 minute flat 40k so I’m faster than Bryancd, which isn’t the point. The point is I ride a P3SL. I could achieve my exact position on an Ordu, but then I would ride a 54:15 or so 40k.
Sure the fastest bike is the one that fits you. Problem with that is they all fit you and you are left then with, the fastest bike is… well … the fastest bike.
LOL! What do you run off that? I’m a triathlete, I have never ridden a pure 40K TT. I have rode a 59min 40K followed up by a 38min 10K. I have also run 1:26’s off a Half and a 3:36 Marathon, finishing in 9:40 at Kona. So what are we talking about? Fastest TT bike or fastest triathlon bike for the OP? All that matters is the fastest you can ride and still run. So it is the Indian in a triathlon.
What does that have to do with anything? Guys on round tube road bikes with clip ons could beat Crowie in a TT. Meaningless information.
Try to separate reality from opinion. Plenty of athletes have ok to stellar to world champion-like results on less than optimal frames, postions, equipment and strategy. That doesn’t mean that optimal frames, positions, equipment and strategy do not exist. They do. And all of those people would be faster if they utilized them.
Given the same power file, Crowie would have rode faster on a P3. Faster is the goal, right? Faster is what we are talking about here. It is primarily why this forum exists and you are reading this right now. To race faster. Orbeas are slow, or more precisely they are not as aerodynamic as the front runners at the moment. That is if you believe wind tunnel data. And if you are going to believe anything in your quest to get faster, science is a good place to start.
I’m just sayin’. I personally know someone who regularly smokes people on P4’s, Transitions, etc etc on a 'less than optimally aero bike. Hell, even I occasionally smoke people on P4’s, Transitions etc on a bike that isn’t on the ST-approved ‘super duper aero’ list.
Look at ANY bike from the front - unless it’s a beach cruiser or a DH bike the difference between the ‘least aero’ and the ‘most aero’ is measured in millimetres in most cases.
Only two things REALLY matter - fit, and the engine. If you’re constantly sprinting for AG wins or kona spots that are decided by seconds, then fine, having the ‘most optimally aero’ frame makes a difference. But last I checked, in IM that basically never, ever happens.
Chances are you still won’t be as fast as Dave in a 40k TT event. Regardless, your argument holds no water. Like Dave stated, him going faster isn’t the point, but rather he is able to go FASTER on a Cervelo than an Orbea. Put aside the opinions and put numbers up. Last I checked, Cervelo was able to back up their claim with actual data.
As for being able to run after cycling, what does that have to do with choosing an Orbea over a Cervelo? If his position can be duplicated from the Orbea to the Cervelo(which I’m pretty darn sure it can), his run will not be affected when the frames are switched. Only thing that would change would be a drop in overall time.
And on a final note, I wish people would stop putting ability of cyclist and superior equipment as though it’s one or the other kind of choice. Just because you’re physically able to go fast does NOT mean you cannot have the more aerodynamic frame. Guess what? You would be FASTER if your equipment choice was better. Yes, we’re taking into account that the position of a cyclist is THE SAME and both fit. CETERIS PARIBUS-google it.
No one is arguing that the engine does not matter. Of course it does. However, that does not mean you should not choose the most aerodynamic frame. And your anecdotal “evidence” does not prove anything. It’s like saying Lance Armstrong could smoke most of us using a tricycle.
You were offering up your bike splits to lend credibilty to your bad advice. Only reason I brought up times. Race results are irrelevant here. Guys make better or worse choices than you and you beat them or they beat you. Doesn’t change the fact that an Orbea is among the least aero ‘aero’ bikes at the moment.
Opinions don’t make any decison any less good or bad. Going fast on a bike resides at a nexus of training, position, strategy, equipment and execution. Within those parameters are multitudes of sub parameters you make decisions upon. Making one or more bad decisions doesn’t preclude success. But all bad decisions slow you down. An Ordu is a bad decision. A P3 is a good one.
3 watts or 7 watts or 11 watts is not going to help H20fun take down Rappstar at IMAZ. It is simply 3,7 or 11 watts.
I think I have said everything that I can here, other than I look forward to toeing the line with you someday.
No one is arguing that the engine does not matter. Of course it does. However, that does not mean you should not choose the most aerodynamic frame. And your anecdotal “evidence” does not prove anything. It’s like saying Lance Armstrong could smoke most of us using a tricycle.
For a triathlete, when comparing a good bike to another good bike, ‘which bike is most aero’ matters the same as ‘do I like the color’. Both of these matter a LOT less than ‘does it fit me’ or even ‘how much does it cost’ or ‘what is the stock component spec’.
When you’re comparing an Ordu to a P4, the aero difference between the two bikes matters on race day as much as whether or not you did a good swim warmup, or if you ate an extra half bagel at 4:30am. And when it comes to reaching your goals in triathlon, in the real world, having the ‘most aero’ bike matters not at all.
Yes, some bikes are ‘faster’ than others in the wind tunnel. But this variable is just one tiny one in a sea of equally tiny as well as way larger ones. As far as anectodal evidence goes - the guy I know who rides an Ordu got it because it was the right price, it fit, and he liked how it looked. And he uses it to lay down absolutely wicked IM bike splits (which are followed by wicked run splits).
As soon as he starts losing AG podium spots by seconds to guys with identical swim and run splits, I’ll reconsider my argument.
FIST Stack: 539/Reach: 384
Current bike 2003 Kestrel Talon, with aero clip-on bars
Concerns about going with something like the p2 or p3 is that I would have to have something like 50mm of spacers and go with 100/110 stem, depending. The Felt DA would require 40mm of spacers and similar longer stem, according to the handy ST stack/reach data. And we all know, with that amount of spacers, I could never have display my bike pjorn here for fear or ST fashion police as I’d be subject to public humiliation, flogging, and having my account deactivated by slowman.
Incidentally, I can pick up the Orbea for $1600. If any shop owners want to give me a “special deal” (shameless plea) on another comparable bike, I’m not too proud to decline.
Your opinion is that the quantifiable and verifiable wind tunnel results showing aero differences among bike frames is not important to you. And that’s totally cool. But it’s an opinion. You have nothing to dispute those tunnel results with. They exist. Your opinion is that those differences don’t matter because they are small. You can’t argue with them because I don’t think you have you own wind tunnel.
I said above I would be 15 seconds slower over 40k on an Ordu compared to a P3. That’s conservative. You’re saying that in the context of an Olympic distance triathlon, those 15 seconds don’t mattter to you. Can’t argue with that. If they don’t matter to you, who am I to say? But you can’t argue that they don’t matter to me, cause they do. And you definitely can’t argue those 15 seconds don’t exist, cause they do. Nor can you say that they don’t effect the outcome of races. Races are decided by smaller margins than that all the time. But I don’t think you are arguing against tunnel results. You are opining that small gains aren’t worth worrying about. To which I would say that riding a bike fast is all about small gains…in 50 different areas, and frame selection is one of the bigger ones.
I mean, what if I do a good swim warm-up, eat an extra half a bagel at 4:30 am AND ride a P4. Is all that allowed?
Bottom line is, wind tunnels say frame selection makes a difference, you agree that frame selection makes a difference, but having a cool color is more important.
Opinion of science arguing against science itself. Talk about a demon haunted world…