I am considering buying a new tri bike, and the Shiv is near the top of the list for many reasons except the internal bladder. My concern that it is gimmicky and the frame construction was, perhaps, compromised by designing it to provide for the bladder.
see official shiv thread. I think the most recent post by MITAerobike (one of the principal engineers of the bike) addresses the structural concerns. But you’d have to believe those guys are truly stupid for them to compromise the bike structure for a camelbak bladder. And given the bikes they design, it’s pretty clear they’re not stupid.
As for whether internal hydration is a gimmick that’s something only you can answer. If it’s not something you want then a) get the bike anyway and don’t use it, or b) buy a different bike.
You’re right. Don’t buy it.
Just buy TT Shiv or a P4
.
just curious - since the SHIV is “near” the top of your list, then what is at the top of your list?
2nd - go with the bike that fits you best and meets all your needs. If the SHIV is the best fit for you, then just choose to use or not use the bladder, it’s not mandatory.
I didn’t design the Shiv but given some of the developments that have come from Specialized in the last few years I would be surprised if they compromised the structural integrity of the frame to insert a bladder. It’s not complicated to alter the load paths in the top tube to allow for the water pouch “hole”. With all the modeling programs the engineers have at their disposal these days and using finite element analysis itwould not be difficult to redesign a bike’s top tube.
They’re not going to design a bike that’ll fall apart just so they can put a bag of water inside. That kind of class action lawsuit would put them out of business.
I currently ride a Cervelo R3. It’s a great road bike, but it’s time to buy a tri bike. I’m looking at Cervelo (because I have 1 and think it’s great), Felt (because 2 friends ride Felt) and Specialized (because 2 friends ride them and I can get a good buy). So not a perfect or exhaustive search but I’m also not looking to make this a lifetime project.
I am considering buying a new tri bike, and the Shiv is near the top of the list for many reasons except the internal bladder. My concern that it is gimmicky and the frame construction was, perhaps, compromised by designing it to provide for the bladder.
Whether the bladder is gimmicky or not, you gotta admit that it is a pretty clever idea. But whether or not there are any design issues still to be ironed out is another matter.
(As a side note, all of the bike companies that are following UCI frame design rules are forced to leave many, many such good ideas by the wayside. Frame design is probably at least a decade (or maybe decades) behind where it could be because of those great geniuses at the UCsillyI. A sad state of affairs.)
And actually, due to the way composite frames are manufactured (some can use internal mandrels during the molding process), having a good-sized hole in the frame can actually lower the costs of manufacturing and result in a stronger composite lay up in the area of the access hole.
A clever idea, albeit not a new idea…see the cat cheetah…which is what? 15 years old now?
It’s like the ‘new integrated front end’ on the super bikes, that have been on look bikes for 20yrs.
A clever idea, albeit not a new idea…see the cat cheetah…which is what? 15 years old now?
It’s like the ‘new integrated front end’ on the super bikes, that have been on look bikes for 20yrs.
Of course, it’s not a new idea. The Cheetah’s design just shows that, with an open mind and a more open arena, this idea could have been widely implemented (and refined) decades ago. But your post just proves the point that following the UCsillyI’s dumb guidelines does no one any good. And following them even has some pretty harmful environmental consequences.
if you don’t want the bladder get the shiv tt
I am considering buying a new tri bike, and the Shiv is near the top of the list for many reasons except the internal bladder. My concern that it is gimmicky and the frame construction was, perhaps, compromised by designing it to provide for the bladder.