Has anyone been able to quantify any improvement in going to a relatively new TT bike (e.g. recessed brakes, hidden cables, sleek front end, aero head tube, etc) from a TT bike say 4-5 years old? I have a Cannondale Slice that I bought 2nd hand that must be 4-5 years old and I’m curious of the difference the newer breed of “high tech” TT bikes (e.g. Shiv, Trinity, P5, etc) would make for a typical 40k TT. Cancellara was smashing it years ago on the old Cervelo P3 and he doesn’t seem to be much quicker on the current state of the art TT bikes.
Work your weaknesses.
If you cannot hold an aero position for the duration of your bike ride then tackle that.
If you cannot ride at your potential FTP then train more/harder.
Learn how to ride smooth, hold an optimal line, corner without losing (much) speed, flatten your power output.
Obviously the toys help: great bike fit, tidy bike, aero helmet, aero clothing, aero wheels, tunnel time to optimise position.
Practice getting on and off your bike efficiently.
Hydrate and eat effectively, no point losing time trying to get your bottles back into their cages.
After that, the differences between the old and new frame come into play (assuming fit is identical).
Buy yourself some tririg brakes and do the above brief calculation…
Really, do you want to go faster? Then get on your bike…
Sorry don’t mean to be harsh, and the above is just as much a reminder to myself as anyone else.
The marketing is so damn seductive! We’re only human after all.
SteveMc
Work your weaknesses.
If you cannot hold an aero position for the duration of your bike ride then tackle that.
If you cannot ride at your potential FTP then train more/harder.
Learn how to ride smooth, hold an optimal line, corner without losing (much) speed, flatten your power output.
Obviously the toys help: great bike fit, tidy bike, aero helmet, aero clothing, aero wheels, tunnel time to optimise position.
Practice getting on and off your bike efficiently.
Hydrate and eat effectively, no point losing time trying to get your bottles back into their cages.
After that, the differences between the old and new frame come into play (assuming fit is identical).
Buy yourself some tririg brakes and do the above brief calculation…
Really, do you want to go faster? Then get on your bike…
Sorry don’t mean to be harsh, and the above is just as much a reminder to myself as anyone else.
The marketing is so damn seductive! We’re only human after all.
SteveMc
I agree. If you have a great fit the difference is one is paid for and the other is cash out of the pocket. With a great fit on the old bike probably best case scenario is a hand full of seconds.
I asked a similar question between a P2 and P5 and the answer was around 4-6 minutes over 180km
Depending on how each are set up, and how good the old and new bike are - around 50 to 100g of drag
Or 0.5 seconds to 1 second faster per kilometer on a perfectly flat, straight course.
Has anyone been able to quantify any improvement in going to a relatively new TT bike (e.g. recessed brakes, hidden cables, sleek front end, aero head tube, etc) from a TT bike say 4-5 years old? I have a Cannondale Slice that I bought 2nd hand that must be 4-5 years old and I’m curious of the difference the newer breed of “high tech” TT bikes (e.g. Shiv, Trinity, P5, etc) would make for a typical 40k TT. Cancellara was smashing it years ago on the old Cervelo P3 and he doesn’t seem to be much quicker on the current state of the art TT bikes.
Fastest TTs I ever did were on a Cervelo P3 sl with 650c wheels. Since that bike, I’ve owned a P2c, a P3c, a P4, a Speed Concept and now a P5. I’ve never gone faster than on that P3 sl. BUT, I was already 50 when I PR’d on the P3 sl. I turn 58 on Monday. Three years ago I came closest to matching that PR when I was racing the P4. I also like to relay long course triathlons and I had my fastest 112 (113.1 actually) last year on the Shiv TT.
Don’t know if this really answers your question at all. I think that day I PR’d on the P3 sl I might have been faster if I had a P4 on that course. I think the Shiv TT was by far the best long-course TT bike I’ve ever had. Still wrestling with trying to dial in the P5 and wrestling with age-related issues. Can’t judge it yet (but wishing I hadn’t sold the P3sl, the P4 and especially the Shiv TT).
For a 10 mile to 25 mile TT, I’d say the differences are quite small and your position is most important. Are you aero? Can you stay aero? Can you generate power? For long course stuff, other considerations enter in. Couldn’t imagine doing 112 on that old P3 sl. I’d be beat to death. Also, there are horses for courses. I’ve found some bikes seem better on flat courses, but just don’t feel good on hilly ones. And vice versa.
Work your weaknesses.
If you cannot hold an aero position for the duration of your bike ride then tackle that.
If you cannot ride at your potential FTP then train more/harder.
Learn how to ride smooth, hold an optimal line, corner without losing (much) speed, flatten your power output.
Obviously the toys help: great bike fit, tidy bike, aero helmet, aero clothing, aero wheels, tunnel time to optimise position.
Practice getting on and off your bike efficiently.
Hydrate and eat effectively, no point losing time trying to get your bottles back into their cages.
After that, the differences between the old and new frame come into play (assuming fit is identical).
Buy yourself some tririg brakes and do the above brief calculation…
Really, do you want to go faster? Then get on your bike…
Sorry don’t mean to be harsh, and the above is just as much a reminder to myself as anyone else.
The marketing is so damn seductive! We’re only human after all.
SteveMc
Very good point, you just motivated me to push harder. One question, what do you mean by “flatten your power output”?
By flatten I mean no spikes, or worse 1 to 3 mins segments slightly above FTP as you pay a high price.
So basically “ride your own race”, “keep to your plan”, “conserve energy”, “don’t go too hard too early”…
All ways of saying the same thing but with a Power Meter you can target a number.
It’s amazing how many people “go out too hard”, try to “hang with better riders”… Stuff that negates hours training sensibly, much expenditure on kit etc.
Why buy an expensive bike and get your pace wrong?
For some a more expensive bike is the wrong tool as they try to justify it by riding above their abilities… All things being equal the “super bike” should be faster than the “good aero bike” but only if you ride it with the same degree of humility.
SteveMc
I would not believe that claim for a 4-6 minute time saving.
Try and read the ST article of the wheel shoot out done by mavic. And the end he mentions a discussion where unamed testers tested a top end frame against a older oval tubing frame, without rider a difference, with rider, no measurable difference.
not all data is real world applicable. And until they figure out how to do their frame tests with a real rider, cramping out 250 watts at 37km/h they should be taken with a truck load of salt.
Also worth noting in an ironman that most people are drafting for a portion if the race that further negates the benefits. Even if you are a strong rider you are sling shotting past people.
I’m 53 yo and have been concentrating on TTs for about 8 years now, setting 40km PRs each year. Went from a P2C to P5-6 this year and PR’d by ~20 seconds on same 25 mile course (57:06). Same wheels/tires, similar very low setup on same frame size. It took quite a few attempts to break my P2C PR, and I was worried that it wouldn’t happen. So while I will certify that the P5 is faster, it ain’t by much. I love my P5, but don’t buy it if you are sacrificing in some other area because of the cost of the frame. Bottom line is that all of the Cervelo TT bikes are very, very fast bikes.
The top bike makers have being doing tests with real and mannequin riders for years, as well as verifying wind tunnel results outdoors via field testing.
Without knowing the details of the testing protocol Mavic used, it is impossible to say what the test means. Lots of ways to screw up a test like that.
Plenty of local STers have field tested bikes themselves and measure differences, one example:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1802183#1802183
As well Alphamantis tech has been used by Trek and EroSports to do outdoor and real world field testing:
You can go do an velodrome field test at ERO-Sports yourself if you like.
I would not believe that claim for a 4-6 minute time saving.
Try and read the ST article of the wheel shoot out done by mavic. And the end he mentions a discussion where unamed testers tested a top end frame against a older oval tubing frame, without rider a difference, with rider, no measurable difference.
not all data is real world applicable. And until they figure out how to do their frame tests with a real rider, cramping out 250 watts at 37km/h they should be taken with a truck load of salt.
Gotcha, I’m definitely guilty of this and need to iron it out for next season. What %FTP is best for going through hard sections (hills/wind) during IM or HIM? I think that in the last couple of HIM that I did I hit the long uphills (20-30min) at about 110% FTP and paid the price for it towards the last 5-10 miles of the bike. Generally I think that I rely too much on my strong running ability off the bike to compensate for killing myself on the bike, but doing full distance this year I would like to not want to shoot myself by the end of the bike.
we just got a velodrome professional tester here in DK.
A friend of mine is there testing a bucket of gear, i will ask how many different frames they have been thru. Its a really cool testing tool, and the one i would trust the most at the moment.
For me, P4 vs P1, same position. the increase in speed for a given power has been easy to see in my data.
Gotcha, I’m definitely guilty of this and need to iron it out for next season. What %FTP is best for going through hard sections (hills/wind) during IM or HIM? I think that in the last couple of HIM that I did I hit the long uphills (20-30min) at about 110% FTP and paid the price for it towards the last 5-10 miles of the bike. Generally I think that I rely too much on my strong running ability off the bike to compensate for killing myself on the bike, but doing full distance this year I would like to not want to shoot myself by the end of the bike.
I’m not a coach but for IM or HIM it’s best to know your first lactate point rather than the second (i.e. FTPish) as that is what you want to target in your training and pace your race off. You definitely don’t want to go close to your FTP in a long race. Yet many do.
I’ll let others expand on this as I’m really not sufficiently qualified.
SteveMc
Try and read the ST article of the wheel shoot out done by mavic. And the end he mentions a discussion where unamed testers tested a top end frame against a older oval tubing frame, without rider a difference, with rider, no measurable difference.
Yeah…and I remember some of us taking Greg “to task” for that anecdote he tacked onto that article. Those results say more about the quality of that particular testing than anything else :-/
not all data is real world applicable. And until they figure out how to do their frame tests with a real rider, cramping out 250 watts at 37km/h they should be taken with a truck load of salt.
Your assertion is a non-sequitur. None of those things you list affect the frame aerodynamics and the person will still be faster than they would have been otherwise on the more aero frame. That’s what is meant by “all other things being equal”
*And the end he mentions a discussion where unamed testers tested a top end frame against a older oval tubing frame, without rider a difference, with rider, no measurable difference. *
It would be interesting to know the details on that one. I suspect they were not too precise in replicating positions and taking multiple data samples.
Plenty of field tests and wind tunnel tests have shown that the aero difference on a frame typically remains when you add a rider.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Cervelo_P4_in_the_Tunnel_1929.html
I would love to know the details as well. Someones sitting on a lot of data… possibly.
We need someone to cough up a mother of a velodrome bike test with same rider same fit… Now thats some data id pay to see.
I would love to know the details as well. Someones sitting on a lot of data… possibly.
We need someone to cough up a mother of a velodrome bike test with same rider same fit… Now thats some data id pay to see.
That first link that Jackmott posted to my field test results is as good as, or sometimes better than, most velodrome testing. Same rider, same fit, same wheels/tire/tubes.
It seems that you just don’t want to believe the result that yes, with careful testing, the differences are fairly easily measurable.
I’m not the only one to show this either…I find it somewhat humorous that there’s a set of folks that latch onto that single anecdotal report saying “the couldn’t detect a difference with a rider” and ignore all the other cases of actual data showing that the differences are measurable, rider or not… Oh well… :-/