in the spirit of my earlier post about reynolds wheels and their “interesting” aero rim design, i am again questioning the marketing of aerodynamics.
some of the earlier replies to my thread seemed to be of the “different solutions can still be aerodynamic” type. well, in the case of the giant horse watering trough in the middle of the reynolds wheel sidewall, i very much doubt that type of answer actually applies.
but for these bikes, is this a case of the “different solutions” logic? below are 2 bikes marketed and sold by specialized. both are designed by the same company with the same philosophy and both are claimed to super aero, even faster than the P3. so regarding the sloping top tube of bike no. 1, if that is such a great solution to aero “airflow management”, why in the heck didn’t specialized also use this wonderful solution for bike no. 2?
or, as i suspect, is someone just pulling our leg here about “airflow management”?
Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You’re on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you’re on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
but when you get down to specifics and, say, compare the p3 and p4, you can see how cervelo took all the essentially good features of the p3 and then refined them a lot and put them into the p4.
but when you look at these 2 bikes, there is nearly nothing in common. it seems that many of the supposedly aero features of the transition were just tossed out entirely when sbi made the shiv.
unless, of course, those features were never that aero in the first place …
i think in a way some of the ideas were retained in a non obvious way.
the recess in the top tube was intended to improve the aeroness of the steerertube/stem sticking up
the new bike doesn’t HAVE that stuff at all, so no more recess
the integrated fork remains, basics like bladed tubes remain
top tube is now level like it shoulda been.
bike number 1 was good
bike number 2 was gooder
sure, i can agree with that in general.
but when you get down to specifics and, say, compare the p3 and p4, you can see how cervelo took all the essentially good features of the p3 and then refined them a lot and put them into the p4.
but when you look at these 2 bikes, there is nearly nothing in common. it seems that many of the supposedly aero features of the transition were just tossed out entirely when sbi made the shiv.
unless, of course, those features were never that aero in the first place …
I think a Specialized engineer has made some very thinly-veiled comments which suggested that marketing and aerodynamics where both considerations in the design of the Transition. That’s reasonable, since they’re not only trying to make a fast bike, they’re trying the sell them, too. That’s reality. I thinking trying to prod and pry manufacturers to come out and blatantly admit it is, well, annoying.
The fact remains, I’ve seen multiple people with Transitions in the windtunnel and I’ve never seen it test slower than a similarly equipped P3C, Felt or Trek, so I have no question that it’s a fast bike. I also think the Shiv is faster, and I doubt that marketing considerations really entered much into it’s design. Then again, I’m guessing it’ll be a limited-production bike and they’ll sell everyone they make without need to market the bike.
so specialized’s claim about how the sloping top tube was a superior solution for the transition was actually just BS … ?
Not totally…the “bump” behind the stem (to fill in that low pressure area a la the “magic water bottle”, or a bento box) makes the top tube look more “sloped” than it actually is…but, much like the “kink” in the Look 596 top tube, there was obviously a fair amount of “styling cue” influence in the curved top tube (i.e. to make it look like part of the road bike “family” from Spec.)
Personally, I never was a fan of how that top tube looks on the bike…but, it’s not going to prevent me from considering riding one
so specialized’s claim about how the sloping top tube was a superior solution for the transition was actually just BS … ?
Not totally…the “bump” behind the stem (to fill in that low pressure area a la the “magic water bottle”, or a bento box) makes the top tube look more “sloped” than it actually is…but, much like the “kink” in the Look 596 top tube, there was obviously a fair amount of “styling cue” influence in the curved top tube (i.e. to make it look like part of the road bike “family” from Spec.)
Personally, I never was a fan of how that top tube looks on the bike…but, it’s not going to prevent me from considering riding one
The Look or the Specialized?
Well, actually…both. But, it’s probably more likely I’d be on a Transition due to financial considerations
I’ve pondered a number of times, while rolling about on my five year old aluminum tri bike, what bikes I would choose if given three bikes to use for a winter of comparison. If you included the new crazy bikes then I’d have to say P4, Shiv and the Trek. If I was limited to readily available bikes I’d say P2, Look and TTX.
Unfortunately, I will not be in the market for a new frame next spring since either choice would probably be faster than what I am riding.
Chad
Saw a early QR yesterday in transition lookes alot like bike 2 but in yellow. Some stand out differences but the similarities are obvouis.
Not exactly one I saw but close.
so we, the ST geniuses, are going by how aero a bike LOOKS now??? sheesh where have we been degraded to!!!
Wasn’t the Specialized Shiv created in response to the pending UCI regulations for Time Trial bike design?
For one, top tubes must be level and some rule exists about how the aero bars must integrate into the base. Watching the last three Grand Tours and the current UCI road championships, I think every TT bike had level top tubes, even from companies renowned (despised?) for their typical compact geometry. The Specialized Shiv and the new Giant TT bike (with Di2 shifting) had level top tubes. This general design should pervade through the TT bikes of the UCI. The new Scott Plasma TT looks somewhat similar at the front end. It is the pending UCI regulations forcing TT bike design, not some ginormous error in the wind tunnel forcing a redesign.
