P3 vs S-Works Transition vs?

Triathlon Forum
1

I’m this close —><— to picking up a new ride and am considering the Cervelo P3, the Specialized Transition (S-Works), and a geeked out Orbea Ordu. Money is only a minor factor (I’m not rich, but I decided I want a sweet bike and I don’t want to look back and say “I wish I would’ve…”)

Anyone have any data available (seems hard to find anything about wind tunnel testing or weight of bikes on the web) or have ridden more than 1 top-end bike and can offer their 2-cents? I’ve done lots of reading online but can’t seem to find a lot of data. Rode both the P3 and the S-works, both amazing rides. S-works seemed a bit more responsive, especially when climbing, but I would say top-end speed was quite similar.

P3 is much more proven (in my opinion), so I’m curious how the aero. of the Transition truly stacks up?

I’m all ears…

2

I wager you’ve included this in your research, but if you haven’t, it is worth a look (I wrote it):

http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/cerveloP3C2008.shtml

You’re not going to see accurate drag numbers from wind tunnel testing in the public domain very easily unless they are publised by one of the manufacturer’s and, therefore, somewhat (or perhaps very) subject to marketing hyperbole.

If you are looking for a sweeping endorsement of the P3C you may consider that Slowman (Dan Empfield) himself races on one and considers it the best tri bike he has ever owned. This is significant considering the following:
He invented the popular triathlon bike. He founded a (now) competing bike company (Quintana Roo). He invented the first systematic approach to triathlon specific bike fit. He has ridden damn near everything. Cervelo doesn’t pay him to say that. He could have any bike he wanted.
To me that endorsement is worth considering. I would suggest he is one of the more qualified guys to make a buying decision.

3

I’m this close —><— to picking up a new ride and am considering the Cervelo P3, the Specialized Transition (S-Works), and a geeked out Orbea Ordu. Money is only a minor factor (I’m not rich, but I decided I want a sweet bike and I don’t want to look back and say “I wish I would’ve…”)

Anyone have any data available (seems hard to find anything about wind tunnel testing or weight of bikes on the web) or have ridden more than 1 top-end bike and can offer their 2-cents? I’ve done lots of reading online but can’t seem to find a lot of data. Rode both the P3 and the S-works, both amazing rides. S-works seemed a bit more responsive, especially when climbing, but I would say top-end speed was quite similar.

P3 is much more proven (in my opinion), so I’m curious how the aero. of the Transition truly stacks up?

I’m all ears…

I’m assuming you mean the P3C since the P3 is out of production…unless you’re thinking of picking up a used one.

Of the 3 you mention, the only one that has any drag data “out there” is the P3C (and the P3). I haven’t seen anything yet on the Transition, which is especially curious to me despite the availability issues. From what I’ve seen, the Ordu suffers from “fat tube-itis”…along with external cabling…I’m not seeing how that can be a good thing.

I don’t know if that’s helping any…

4

P3C probably fastest
Specialised ugliest looking
Orbea… meanest looking

5

It is curious we haven’t seen drag data on that bike. I did a little investigating of race results and came up with this analysis:

“What is the relevance of race results? Consider this: In 2006 Chris McCormack lost the Ford Ironman World Championships to Normann Stadler by 71 seconds. If the use of a Cervelo P3C frame instead of the bike McCormack did ride in '06 saved him only a second per mile he may have won by 41 seconds. McCormack needs the help too, as his bike split at Kona in 2007, the year he won, was his slowest in three years and only 9th overall. He was faster on the bike in 2005 at Kona when he posted a 4:37:06 bike split and faster still in 2006 with a 4:29:24 bike split. It’s a good thing McCormack is such an excellent athlete and runner: In 2007 his bike split was a rather pedestrian (for the pros) 4:38:11. Tactical considerations and weather play a primary role in these outcomes, but one has to wonder: What if McCormack had a more aerodynamic bike? If McCormack had a faster bike perhaps he wouldn’t have to run so fast. Perhaps…”

6

It is curious we haven’t seen drag data on that bike. I did a little investigating of race results and came up with this analysis:

“What is the relevance of race results? Consider this: In 2006 Chris McCormack lost the Ford Ironman World Championships to Normann Stadler by 71 seconds. If the use of a Cervelo P3C frame instead of the bike McCormack did ride in '06 saved him only a second per mile he may have won by 41 seconds. McCormack needs the help too, as his bike split at Kona in 2007, the year he won, was his slowest in three years and only 9th overall. He was faster on the bike in 2005 at Kona when he posted a 4:37:06 bike split and faster still in 2006 with a 4:29:24 bike split. It’s a good thing McCormack is such an excellent athlete and runner: In 2007 his bike split was a rather pedestrian (for the pros) 4:38:11. Tactical considerations and weather play a primary role in these outcomes, but one has to wonder: What if McCormack had a more aerodynamic bike? If McCormack had a faster bike perhaps he wouldn’t have to run so fast. Perhaps…”

OK…but without power numbers and taking into account course conditions and/or race tactics, that really is a stretch to make a conclusion with that data set. On top of all that, what about the rest of his equipment and/or his position?

Interesting analysis…but not really helpful in this case IMO.

7

I agree with you- it is all I had to look at. I thought it was interesting though.

8

P3C probably fastest
Specialised ugliest looking
Orbea… meanest looking

Aah…you are correct about the Orbea, I was thinking of the older model, the Ora. The Ordu has internal cabling but looks like it was designed to appear like a stealth fighter.

Guess what, stealth fighters weren’t designed with aerodynamic efficiency as the main design driver of their external form :wink:

9

Any ideas on why I felt like I climbed so much easier on the S-works? Maybe it was becuase subconsciously I knew I was riding an $8.5k bike? :slight_smile:

10

Quote: What if McCormack had a more aerodynamic bike? If McCormack had a faster bike perhaps he wouldn’t have to run so fast. Perhaps…"
**
**What if? **
**What if? **
**What if? **
**What if? **
What if?
What if?
What if?
What if his swim was good, his bike was good, his run was good, and it all came together on the day and he was better than everyone else at the time.

Seriously, if you are as fit as you can be, as strong as you can be, as supple as you can be and have the lowest body fat % that you can get, THEN worry about frame aerodynamics - until then - **STFU **and work on the rest. If you have the cash and want to splash it, then do so, if not buy a ike that fits you to the best you can and smile at the fatter, slower, flasher bloke/blokess that you go past.

Rant over…For Now…

11

As Tom stated, the only wind tunnel “data” available is on the P3C. That claims it to be the fastest bike out there in terms of aerodynamics. However, if that is what you are looking for, there are several factors to consider. This test only tests the frame and fork. It does not take in to consideration wheels, aero bars, cables, cranks, etc. Once you actually assemble the bike, the only downfall of the P3 may be the routing of the cables. Specialized claims that in their testing (but not published) that the P3 frame itself may be faster, but once assembled the Transition wins out because instead of cables being exposed on the front end, they go in directly behind the stem and are out of the way. Same with brakes, the cables are almost non-existent, so all things considered it may be a little more aero. Also, when the virtue bottle becomes available, it makes a very smooth transition from the down tube to the seat tube, again improving aerodynamics.

I have ridden both, and honestly cannot tell much of a difference in terms of aerodynamics between them. The Transition does have a shorter cockpit depending on seat position, and a larger range of seatpost angles. In terms of stiffness and climbing, I have also heard from Specialized reps that the Transition is the stiffest bike they make. A lot has been made of the SL2s BB stiffness, but they claim the BB on the Transition is even stiffer because of all of the material around it. That may lead to a more responsive feel there.

If money is any object, also look at specs. While a lot more expensive, the Transition comes pretty much race ready. P3C stock has much cheaper wheels, aero bars, cranks and cassette, so you are looking at dropping some more coin to get it as nice as the Transition.

12

Well when you’ve been consistenly winning your age group for several years, your body fat is 6%, and you’re trying to qualify for Kona, you do start worrying about frame aerodynamics… thanks for the input, but i’m not a 200lb. slob who’s trying to shave 30g for $1k when really I should just get off my ass more than twice a week.

Ok, end of my rant…

13

*Seriously, if you are as fit as you can be, as strong as you can be, as supple as you can be and have the lowest body fat % that you can get, THEN worry about frame aerodynamics - until then - **STFU *and work on the rest.

Well…I know you’re just ranting to rant…but SERIOUSLY, why does this HAVE to be a serial process? Why can’t a person be concerned with frame aerodynamics AT THE SAME time that they’re working on the other stuff? If your going to buy a bike, why not go for the one with the better aerodynamics? Why would you ignore that?

Yes, there are better “bang for the buck” areas to concentrate on for your performance, but I still don’t get why some people discourage others to overlook certain details. IMO, going “fast” on the bike is about paying attention to a whole slew of seemingly inconsequential details that add up to some significant consequence.

If you have the cash and want to splash it, then do so, if not buy a ike that fits you to the best you can and smile at the fatter, slower, flasher bloke/blokess that you go past.

Who says that a faster bike can’t “fit you best”? Sounds to me like there might be some jealousy at play here…:wink:

14

Great post eBike - very helpful!

I have come to some similar conclusions… The nice thing for me is I can sell the wheels (already have a set), so that helps bring down the cost. I think we’re definitely splitting hairs between these bikes. I think my only hesitation at this point is that one is proven (P3C) while the other is not. Just because the Specialized is modeled after the P3, doesn’t (necessiarily) mean it will perform as well. The P3C has been around for a while, and has had a lot of tweaking done… but like I said we’re splitting hairs. Thanks for your input!

15

I totally agree we are splitting hairs here. I wouldn’t discount the Transition just because it is new. Companies like Specialized, Cervelo, Trek and what not do years of research and development before releasing their bikes, thats why you don’t see them changing so often. Just because the Transition hasn’t been in the retail market for very long doesn’t mean it has been proven. It’s been ridden for at least 3 years with constant feedback from riders to create this bike. Not to mention a win at Hawaii in it’s deput. That being said, I’m on a P3C this year, but everyone has one. Very few people have the Transition, you would definitely stand out if that helps the decision at all.

16

As Tom stated, the only wind tunnel “data” available is on the P3C. That claims it to be the fastest bike out there in terms of aerodynamics. However, if that is what you are looking for, there are several factors to consider. This test only tests the frame and fork. It does not take in to consideration wheels, aero bars, cables, cranks, etc. Once you actually assemble the bike, the only downfall of the P3 may be the routing of the cables. Specialized claims that in their testing (but not published) that the P3 frame itself may be faster, but once assembled the Transition wins out because instead of cables being exposed on the front end, they go in directly behind the stem and are out of the way. Same with brakes, the cables are almost non-existent, so all things considered it may be a little more aero. Also, when the virtue bottle becomes available, it makes a very smooth transition from the down tube to the seat tube, again improving aerodynamics.

Hmmm…IIRC, some of the P3C data is on bikes with cables AND with a rider aboard (I’m thinking of the Trek “White Paper”). Besides, that also sounds like something that would be easy for a particular manufacturer to “sandbag” the P3C by not doing a diligent routing of the cabling. Also, one of the things about the Transition that makes me scratch my head is that it has a big freakin’ rear brake cable popping out halfway down the front of the downtube and routed into some sort of big bracket for the rear brake? I’m not seeing how that sort of routing is “better”…

I also don’t think that the test data was “frame and fork” only…

These sort of “allusions” about the aerodynamic performances is really frustrating. Show the data and how it was collected. Let us make up our own minds.

I have ridden both, and honestly cannot tell much of a difference in terms of aerodynamics between them. The Transition does have a shorter cockpit depending on seat position, and a larger range of seatpost angles. In terms of stiffness and climbing, I have also heard from Specialized reps that the Transition is the stiffest bike they make. A lot has been made of the SL2s BB stiffness, but they claim the BB on the Transition is even stiffer because of all of the material around it. That may lead to a more responsive feel there.

It’s not surprising to me that you wouldn’t be able to tell any differences just by riding them. In my own P2K vs. P3C testing, I couldn’t honestly tell from a “seat of the pants” standpoint which was faster. In fact, if I had to guess, I would say that the P2K “felt” faster…but guess what? The power meter and stopwatch don’t lie.

17

Just thought I throw this out there… the s-works has some unique features, like the narrow seat stays, sunken head tube in relation to the top tube, the fairing type pieces between the fork and frame and similar pieces behing the seat tube, and lastly the brakes. The rear brake is behind the BB and the front brake looks very aero with a center pull and a sharp construction. Even the barrel adjuster on the s-works is aero. These features wouldn’t show their aero results if the frames weren’t assembled. For example the sunken head tube would show no results without the aero bars on and the brakes should net some good results themselves. Maybe the best comparison would be to obtain a rear wheel power meter and do some small scale testing when test riding…This may be hard to do, but if you have a accomadating bike shop (that has the s-works, since they are hard to get) it might be possible.

18

“I think we’re definitely splitting hairs between these bikes.”

you may be one very unhappy cowboy if you choose the wrong bike. you may not know you’re unhappy, because you may not know what happiness is, in which case it’s all moot.

chris mccormack was up at my place about three months ago, and i fit him aboard a fit bike that holds no opinions. my fit bike doesn’t care. it doesn’t prefer cervelo, or specialized, or orbea. it just doesn’t care. when you get yourself positioned aboard a fit simulator like mine, and if your fit session goes as it should, the output is the list of bikes that fit you best, down the list, eventually ending up with those bikes that are the worst possible match for you.

happily, for chris, and really this was just freak luck, when we were done with his session, the specialized s works transition was the very best fit for him. this, even though the position we ended up with was marginally different than the position he “rode in on.” in other words, had i just taken his position he was riding on the specialized, and reproduced it on my fit simulator, and then checked the calcs and “found” his “best” bike, i don’t know that it would’ve been the specialized. but the position chris and i found together during that fit session was a perfect match with the specialized.

now, me, i am not a perfect fit on the specialized. i’m a perfect fit on a cervelo, or a qr, or the kuota kueen k, or the jamis, or a felt, or a kestrel airfoil pro. i’d be okay on a giant trinity alliance. i could ride a trek equinox or a specialized s works transition or a c’dale slice but it would not be ideal. it would be okay. i absolutely could not ride an ordu at all. not even close.

the specialized is sort of in between, geometrically, the ordu and the p3c. macca might be able to ride an ordu. he probably could. he would be able to ride the p3c as well, but it’s not the bitchin fit for him that it is for me.

so, the question for you is, are you a morphological and positional match with craig alexander? get yourself an ordu. are you a morphological and positional match with mccormack? get a specialized. are you more like me? or rappstar? get yourself the p3c, or bikes that fit like this one does.

19

Who says that a faster bike can’t “fit you best”?

Especially since bikes are highly adjustable.

20

What is the relevance of race results? Consider this: In 2006 Chris McCormack lost the Ford Ironman World Championships to Normann Stadler by 71 seconds. If the use of a Cervelo P3C frame instead of the bike McCormack did ride in '06 saved him only a second per mile he may have won by 41 seconds. McCormack needs the help too, as his bike split at Kona in 2007, the year he won, was his slowest in three years and only 9th overall. He was faster on the bike in 2005 at Kona when he posted a 4:37:06 bike split and faster still in 2006 with a 4:29:24 bike split. It’s a good thing McCormack is such an excellent athlete and runner: In 2007 his bike split was a rather pedestrian (for the pros) 4:38:11. Tactical considerations and weather play a primary role in these outcomes, but one has to wonder: What if McCormack had a more aerodynamic bike? If McCormack had a faster bike perhaps he wouldn’t have to run so fast. Perhaps…

First off the point you are tying to get across is ridiculous macca time at 4:38 pedestrian by pro standard get your facts straight only 3-4 guys rode faster. When you get off the bike in Hawaii in 4-5 place your ride is not pedestrian! Second off there is maybe 1-2 guys on this entire forum that MIGHT gain from a more areo bike. What are the numbers 1minute difference for 112 miles at 26 mile’s per hour! Are you kidding me, people will spend 2-3k more for a bike that will save them at best 2 min in a ironman! IF 2 minutes matters you are getting bike for free! Save the money get a cheaper bike and a race wheels and go get a coach and train every day then you will have no regrets. Why is it that the never show real data like actual time saved for a certain distance! The will say are bike is the fasted in the wind tunnel wow 2-3secs