I know it’s an older bike, but thoughts? I read somewhere it can be “twitchy”. Although lots of good reviews. Looking for something for short, pancake flat courses. Tks!
I know it’s an older bike, but thoughts? I read somewhere it can be “twitchy”. Although lots of good reviews. Looking for something for short, pancake flat courses. Tks!
It was a fast frame for its time and it still keeps company with today’s bikes, if storage isn’t an issue. I never found it twitchy, in any situation. (Except when I was run over by a truck, which is a different story.
1 Like
…rear brake sux and is very hard to adjust.
…rear brake sux and is very hard to adjust.
If you are using brakes in a triathlon or TT then you are doing it wrong…
1 Like
Thanks for the replies!!!
I race on this. Seems fast to me, but no comparison to other tri bikes. As others have mentioned, the rear brake, mounted below the BB, can be a bear to dial in. I do almost all of my own maintenance but gave up and had the bike shop set the rear brake up. It works ok, does not drag (job 1); the actual braking power is still pretty weak, but fine for flat courses even with my full carbon brakes with pretty suspect braking under ideal circumstances. I’ve never found it to be twitchy. Probably depends more on your setup than the frame…
Thanks!!!
As others said, it’s fast and not twitchy at all. I had one for several years and liked it.
Looking much better than newer models; if it fits you, I don’t think it’s slowing you down either. Tri bikes of that era (Cervelo’s, Felt’s etc.) all look much better nowadays’ ergometers
I’ve raced on this frame for the last 7 years and really really like it. As others have mentioned there is no storage, but if you’re racing short or Olympic it really doesn’t matter. I’m sure I could make race a 70.3 on this without too much issue though. The bike is built for aggressive positions ie: it’s long and low and if that doesn’t jive with you this might not be the one.
I run a 90/disc aluminum rim setup and don’t find the bike to be overly twitchy and I mainly race on relatively tight and technical sprint courses with the occasional OD. I have a mechanic and he seems to find the brakes fine. Not good, not bad… just fine.
It’s worth upgrading the brake levers to dura ace as they can pull more cable and bite the brake tract a bit better than the stock levers. Ditch the carbon rims for aluminum to take away any lingering rear brake issues. Keep the frame clean and use BTA and a seat bottle if you need more water or storage or whatever.
The frame is fast, make no mistake. For reference, at nationals this year I went 1:03 on 209 AP/213 NP.
1 Like
Got mine in December 2013 and have had no issues with being twitchy. Have used it primarily for sprint tris since 2017 (not because of the bike but because my running is limited).
Great value. Looks good. Maybe not as “clean” as newer versions because of exposed cables.
I really liked mine. It’s one of few “long and low†geometry bikes, so if the fit is right, go for it. If you are disinclined to use the stock rear brake, you can replace it with a TriRig using their direct mount adapter.
On the twitchyness, I believe the opposite to be true. this had a long wheelbase and a fair amount of fork rake, and I experienced it to be less twitchy than other tri bikes I tried during its time.
I don’t think you’re giving up too much to modern bikes(see tri bike shootout), but you might experience difficulties with adequate clearance for a rear wheel running 25mm tires. I remember this being pretty close when I used a conti 5000. I imagine that this would vary depending on the rim choice.
Thanks for all the replies! Getting a fit to see what size, at 5’9" 31.5" inseam seems I can go 52 or 54, so a “real fit” is in order!
…rear brake sux and is very hard to adjust.
If you are using brakes in a triathlon or TT then you are doing it wrong…
If you man up and do a hilly tri or TT you might need a rear brake - not to mention training rides. The next model of that bike the mfg advertised “vastly improved†braking?
…rear brake sux and is very hard to adjust.
If you are using brakes in a triathlon or TT then you are doing it wrong…
If you man up and do a hilly tri or TT you might need a rear brake - not to mention training rides. The next model of that bike the mfg advertised “vastly improved†braking?
I rode mine from 2011-15 (it’s actually still hanging in the garage). Raced IMC Penticton on it, Leadman Bend, and a ton of training rides in the Cascades. Yes the brakes sucked to adjust, but I don’t recall having issues while riding/racing. It was a fast (for me) and fun bike to ride.
As several others have commented, it has a “long and low” geometry that is fast and stable. I used both Reynolds 60mm and Williams 88mm wheels usually with 22mm Conti Attack front and 24mm Conti Force rear in places like Oceanside and Couer d’Alene where wind and varying elevation were factors without any twitchy issues. Same with training rides, and I rode mine regularly for 8 years and would still be riding a CD0.1 today if I wasn’t taken out while aboard mine by a careless driver a couple years ago.
It is true that the rear brake is a PITA, but some of that can be mitigated by using a heavier duty brake cable and housing, and also cleaning and lubricating the mounts/pivot pointss regularly. Also, I’m not sure how much wider than 23mm Conti 4000S or 24mm Conti Force (which had almost the same width) that frame can accommodate, so double-check if that will be an issue for you. -c
ðŸ‘ðŸ‘ðŸ‘â¤
.
I bought mine in 2016, I’m 5’8†and on a 54. It’s got close to 30k miles on it. I have used it in 2-70.3’s that were pretty flat (Arizona). I have done all the maintenance myself and never had an issue with the rear brake. I take it down South mountain and have no concerns with braking. I am running Dura-ace C50’s with a 23 on the front and a 25 on the back (both conti - 4000’s now 5000’s, TT on the rear for races). Needed to add a washer in the brakes for clearance for this setup. I was able to get a 25 on the front but it does not meet the 105 criteria. I was looking at putting newer wheels on so I could go tubeless, so I contacted QR to see what I could squeeze on. Here was the response I got.
“ You want a narrow rim in the 21-22mm range. We don’t have a compatibility chart.
You would also want to use a 23c tire which is the recommend max size for this frame.â€
Thanks,
Jack Kopeski
American Bicycle Group
423-803-9970 office
423-994-2309 iPhone
This is my biggest issue. The second issue as someone else mentioned earlier it doesn’t have storage. Here is what I have done and works well for 70.3’s. XLAB Torpedo Versa for Hydration and the Garmin mount. The Aero Pouch 300 for a bottle and or tools/tubes, and the Rocket Pocket XL plus strap mounted top tube storage. For centuries, I have been able to carry 4 water bottles and 2 tubes with tools and a phone. Or three bottles, 4 tubes patches Co2 and extra tools. Also carry a small hand pump attached to the Aero Pouch. I always carry extra as I have gotten 3 flats on a ride.
That 23c max may be a deal killer, thanks! Guess I’ll look at a PR5/6.
That 23c max may be a deal killer, thanks! Guess I’ll look at a PR5/6.
That 23mm guideline is likely based on the 4mm clearance standard and will actually fit 25mm GP5000. Especially given that the latest tires (e.g. GP5k) are almost a size smaller than last gen (e.g. GP4k). I doubt the P5-6 will fit 28mm tire, so clearance on these two bikes may be identical in practice.