Dan…your comments about weight being well-taken, but notwithstanding…one small detail I’d add to the aero seattube and integral aero seatpost feature is that the post shouldn’t be a boat anchor…there is reasonable, and then there is the Kestrel aero seatpost…you could anchor a small cargo ship with that thing…
A good article but when can we see bikes with this level of consideration ? To me, aside from the real front runners (Cervelo being one) what the buyer needs is more choice and more tri bike commitment at most price niche’s. Lets see what happens…
Indeed it was a very good article and every product manager and every triathlete should read the full series. Dan’s been around the block a few times and knows what he is talking about. What I REALLY liked about the article was how Dan cut through some of the marketing/design hype that is out there:
I know in my heart of hearts, for example, that steel, round-tubed bikes I made 13 or 14 years ago were as fast as most tri bikes today.
. . . .half the bikes for sale today to triathletes are not as good as those I made fifteen years ago. They’re certainly lighter, and more complicated, but I’d sooner ride an Ironman on one of my old steeds than on many or most of today’s new ones.
- . . . .you’re a silly consumer if you’re buying bikes and parts based on weight.*
These comments may seem self-serveing at first, but the numbers bear things out - individually and collectivly triathletes are going not that much faster, if at all, today than they were 10 - 15 years ago.
When I look at the equipment available today, I still wonder, how many of us were able to ride 5:00 flat or under bike splits at IM races years ago on by current standards, heavy, round tubed, steel bikes who’s only concession to current aero-standards were the first generation of aero handle bars.
Fleck
**
There is much wisdom in your (and, of course, Dan’s) comments.
RP
Shhhhhhh…there’s folks being marketed to around here!
These comments may seem self-serveing at first, but the numbers bear things out - individually and collectivly triathletes are going not that much faster, if at all, today than they were 10 - 15 years ago.
Of course, a bit of statistical analysis would show that if as a group we’re not much faster than 10-15 years ago that would represent a huge improvement of the equipment. The cross section of athletes now is much less elite than it was 10-15 years ago. I would expect that despite equipment gains triathletes have gotten slower, simply because of the more mainstream appeal of the sport. As for the pros, I guess that is a topic that pops up every so often and there are many reasons for that. From exceptional talents to drafting off media trucks and several other factors, the pro racing 10-15 years ago is just completely incomparable to today.
an easy tell tale is that the running in triathlons has also gotten slower in general, and there is no meaningful equipment involved there.
But what about the average speed of the top 10 or 20 is it faster or slower over the last 10 years?
Without checking too many races, I would expect it would be faster. The gaps are much smaller now than before. But that is not a fair way to look at it either, as the depth of the pro field is much better than before.
last weekend, the top 18 guys in the 30-34 AG at IMCDA are under 10hrs.
that means, some guys under 10hrs don’t qualify for Kona…
Overall, the speed actually has decreased, but I think it’s because we are accepting 2000 athletes per race and when 10-15y ago the vast majority of triathletes were really training hard, now you have a lot of them that do it like people do a 5hr marathon…
now listen hear frenchy…you leave us 5 hour marathoners out this debate 
.
I guess I am only amazed at how long it took people to comment on Dan’s articles. I thought for sure it would create a faster reaction…
…then again…I’d tell Dan to put his mouth where we can find some money (ok, the other phrase didn’t work all that well either), and let’s rekindle a company focused on triathlon. Have some cajones…dare to dream…let’s build the bike.
“From exceptional talents to drafting off media trucks and several other factors, the pro racing 10-15 years ago is just completely incomparable to today.”
fleck, the person to whom you directed your post, saw the one and only sub-5hr ride by a woman at IM canada up close and personal. and she did it on a round tubed steel bike. 13 years ago. and all the IM hawaii winners (10 kona wins among them) with their fancy carbon and ti bikes haven’t been able to break this barrier. likewise very fast splits were turned in on these bikes at zofingen, IM hawaii, IM NZ, and so forth.
but these are anecdotal. i guess my point is the same now as it was 15 years ago. while trying to make a bike better than a round tubed steel bike, it’s pretty easy to make one that’s actually worse. “aero” tubes with 45mmm of minor diameter come to mind, or rear tires that hit the chainstays when one is out of the saddle (both of which i’ve seen by companies seeking to make bikes better than those i made).
used to be that for every “aero” bike that was better than a round steel bike, there was one aero bike that was worse (in my estimate). maybe what made it worse was bad geometry, maybe it was bad tubing spec, maybe it was even bad aerodynamics.
but today, that’s not the case. many companies make aero bikes that perform appropriately. there is no good reason nowadays to ride steel round bikes. at the same time, companies are outsmarting themselves. ti frames with carbon seat stays are silly. frames with funky wedge mechanisms (that don’t work) to tighten down seat posts are silly. plenty of silly stuff out there. and many of the components (carbon road bars) and worse than silly, when they break.
so, my point is, don’t just go for sexy frame spec. go for SMART frame spec. choose companies that do things that work, for the right reasons. in the case of your company, i haven’t noticed you doing anything stupid in order to be “outspec’d” by a competitor.
and guess what? the fact that you have never built an aluminum bike with a carbon seat stay doesn’t keep you from selling duals, p2ks, and p3s, does it? because down deep customers are actually able to tell silly hype from stuff that works.
There is one other reason I believe people are on average slower now than 10 years ago. I think that people simply are not in very good positions anymore. It amazes me every time I go to a race, the absolutely ridiculous positions people use.
People have no idea how to be comfortable and aero at the same time. At the Ironman expo we have our bikes set up with a pretty healthy saddle to bar drop, some would say “aggressive”, and many people taking a test ride comment that it is a much more severe drop than they are used to. But the vast majority comes back loving it.
It’s sad that so many dealers opt for the easy way out of setting people up high (which they erroneously equate with comfortable) instead of explaining what a good position is and working until they have a position that is comfortable and fast. And I mean fast for the individual, even BOP’ers can go fast or slow in their relative world.
… ti frames with carbon seat stays are silly. … never built an aluminum bike with a carbon seat stay …
Ok to show my ignorance — Wait, to once again show my ignorance, yes that is better.
Whats wrong with a Ti or Aluminum frame with a carbone Seat stay?
Really I have no clue not goating or fishing just plain dumb.
I for one am eating up the articles and the discussion. Truly a graduate level education…
And lucky me, looking for my next bike before next season.
“Whats wrong with a Ti or Aluminum frame with a carbone Seat stay?”
those are two different questions. as to the ti frame, the whole point of a ti frame is you’re getting ti. to then put in a carbon seat stay is to admit carbon’s better than ti. but if you’ve ever spent much time riding a ti bike (ti throughout) you’ll really very much like that bike (if it’s properly made and conceived). no reason to carbonate a ti bike.
as to aluminum, well, putting a carbon rear in the bike is okay, but not if that’s what you’re doing to fix a bike that otherwise won’t sell well. giving phyllis diller a boob job isn’t going to fix what’s fundamentally wrong. ciindy crawford NOT getting a boob job isn’t going to diminish what is fundamentally right. if it’s the right aluminum bike (P2SL, let’s say), then you’re wasting your time trying to fix that bike–there’s nothing to fix.
“the fact that you have never built an aluminum bike with a carbon seat stay … because down deep customers are actually able to tell silly hype from stuff that works.”
Just for clarification, then, Dan…does this mean you have reconsidered your comments some time ago regarding your Yaqui Carbo…If I recall you felt, at least in Ves’s case, he had added to the bike with the carbon stays in terms of stiffening the rear end.
“does this mean you have reconsidered your comments some time ago regarding your Yaqui Carbo”
go back and read the review, and read what i said about that particular bike and that particular sub-assembly, and the function it performed. then go find another example in industry of a bike like THAT, with THAT bike’s tubing, and that PARTICULAR sub-assembly.
then, without referencing the carbo, go to ANY of the companies putting carbon seat stays in their aluminum bikes, and email them and ask them what function that sub-assembly performs. wait for the reply.
then report back here.
Hey now, I wasn’t calling you out, Dan…just wanted to make sure you weren’t now calling all carbon stays silly. That wasn’t entirely clear in your previous post. You and I both know how most companies are marketing their carbon stays.
Gerard,
-
I agree with you that the cross-section of participants is much less driven or “elite” than it was 10 - 15 years ago. In certain areas of the field their has been a significant increase in the competition - say in the mens 35 - 39 and 40 - 44 age groups and the women’s 30 - 34. Some of the IM race fields in these categories are deep. Reason: Very fit vets who have been in the sport for many years are mixing it up with talented and fit newcomers who have quickly taken it to a high level. At IMC, the race that I am most familier with, I note that not much has changed at the sharp end of the field in the last 15 years - go close to 9 or under if you are a man and you will be in the top 10. Same for the women with the 10 hour barrier.
-
Agree with you on the marathon. Race participation numbers continue to surge, but average finish times get slower and slower. I think that some of the biggest marathons( NYC and Chicago) the average finish time is in the 4:40 range and it get’s a bit slower every year. My benchmark, because it is an unachieved goal of mine, and one that I may never reach, is the top 100 at NYC and Chicago marathons. The 100th place runner has been in the low 2:40’s give or take a few minutes at both races now for 15 years. In other words, the number of runners being able to run at 6:00 min/mile pace for 26.2 miles has remained unchanged for 15 years despite the field size in these marathons tripling to well over 30,000 runners!
Fleck