so specialized’s claim about how the sloping top tube was a superior solution for the transition was actually just BS … ?
That’s not clear. The UCI has a very strong preference for level top tubes. In fact, for the bikes with the extended nosecones, I think it may have been mandatory. So, in theory, the Shiv perhaps should have had a sloping top-tube, but was not allowed to because of the UCI. At the very least, the UCI “prefers” a level top tube, and I think when you are pushing the envelope elsewhere, then it’s best to obey those “preferences.”
Bottom line, you cannot ignore the influence of the UCI in the design of the Shiv.
I don’t think you can fairly draw any conclusion from the fact that the 2 bikes have different shaped/angled top tubes. I could be convinced, with data, that one orientation works best with a specific head tube and seat tube and the other orientation with the other design. Likewise, I could be convinced its all marketing bs. I just think its myopic to compare the top tubes and ignore the interaction with other, very different, parts of the bike. Wouldn’t it be interesting, as Rappstar mentions, if the sloped tube was in fact faster and Specialized had to forego that advantage for other reasons? I can see where getting the top tube away from the seat and rider’s thighs COULD be superior, but I have no evidence to prove or diprove such a theory.
Word from a Specialized rep was that some of the riders on Saxo Bank did not really like the Transition and wanted something with cleaner and simplier lines and stiffer like they felt the P3 was. Also, a known factor with R & D was the incorporation of the new headset fairing integration with fork that many other bicycle companies were developing. Hence the Shiv was born. The Shiv was designed for the team and at the time was not considered a replacement to their successful Transition sales. In fact, last I heard, the Shiv will be sold in very limited quantities. Don’t be fooled. The Shiv is a very different animal than the Transition.
Word from a Specialized rep was that some of the riders on Saxo Bank did not really like the Transition and wanted something with cleaner and simplier lines and stiffer like they felt the P3 was. Also, a known factor with R & D was the incorporation of the new headset fairing integration with fork that many other bicycle companies were developing. Hence the Shiv was born. The Shiv was designed for the team and at the time was not considered a replacement to their successful Transition sales. In fact, last I heard, the Shiv will be sold in very limited quantities. Don’t be fooled. The Shiv is a very different animal than the Transition.
Mark Cote related a somewhat humorous story to me at Interbike. He’s very proud of how the downtube on the Shiv turned out, both aerodynamically and structurally. When they first started the project he was given the design requirement that the headtube/downtube structure needed to be as stiff as the SL3. At first he protested, saying that it wasn’t needed…that it’s tough to do with an aero shape…etc., etc. He was then shown a slow motion video of Cancellara coming out of the start house and cranking on the bars to get up to speed.
His response after seeing the vid…“OK, the downtube needs to be as stiff as the SL3”
In fact, last I heard, the Shiv will be sold in very limited quantities. Don’t be fooled. The Shiv is a very different animal than the Transition.
This doesn’t really make any sense from a marketing/return on investment perspective. People who see Cancellara win the Tour prologue and the world championship tt don’t want to run out and buy a Transition. They want what Fabian has. If specialized chooses not to/can’t produce it for the masses then what did they really gain from the whole situation?
In fact, last I heard, the Shiv will be sold in very limited quantities. Don’t be fooled. The Shiv is a very different animal than the Transition.
This doesn’t really make any sense from a marketing/return on investment perspective. People who see Cancellara win the Tour prologue and the world championship tt don’t want to run out and buy a Transition. They want what Fabian has. If specialized chooses not to/can’t produce it for the masses then what did they really gain from the whole situation?
Chad
The goal is to sell more bikes (in general). Lance winning sold a lot more Treks (in general), not just the bikes he raced on. The goal with the Shiv is the same. It’s about net profitability, not the profitability of a single bike/frame. Even if Specialized does sell the Shiv, I’d wager there is more profitability in a Tarmac Comp than in whatever they sell the Shiv for.
Neither is faster because the lamener airflow is so disrupted by the time it gets to the rear wheel. If you want a fast bike go find a Softride Rocket…
The goal is to sell more bikes (in general). Lance winning sold a lot more Treks (in general), not just the bikes he raced on. The goal with the Shiv is the same. It’s about net profitability, not the profitability of a single bike/frame.
There are a couple of differences here, though, if you want to use Lance as an example. Nobody cares what road bike Cancellara uses, because everyone saw him get dropped on the climb to Arcalis. When Lance was winning, you could buy the very bike that he was using to drop people in the mountains and and then, later, the one he used to dust them in the time trials.
Right now, I could not tell you a thing about Fabian’s road bike. And I doubt other triathletes could either. I doubt very much people are going to be lining up suddenly to buy Specialized Tarmacs because they saw Cancellara crush people on his Shiv. They are going to want the same bike and if they can’t get it, they won’t be hanging around the Specialized dealer afterwards looking at non-aero road bike.
Here are some basic facts about a Softride vs. P3 comparison:
I owned both for several months during which I did significant power meter based testing.
I no longer own the P3. I took a loss of several hundred dollars just to get rid of it.
I do still own an older P2 model though I have TRIED to sell it. Nobody else has the inseam to ride that damned thing.
Zero yaw isn’t actually where the Softride shines, primarily because of the ultra-wide head tube and terrible trailing edge of the downtube/beam interface. For tall riders (especially those with the longer inseam), there is a lot less disruption (read none) on the trailing edge of the thighs than on other bicycles. That improvement is over ALL yaw conditions.
I have a new PowerTap wireless coming at the end of this week, that I feel will be a reasonable starting point for an entirely new data set of P2 vs. Softride vs. Zipp vs. Kestrel KM-40 vs. Felt B12 in high and low yaw conditions that I believe will be more reliable than the wired SRM tests I have done previously. I will be putting together and publishing the raw data after enough has been collected and satisfying results can be produced.
Are you talking Aluminum P3 and older orginal P2? FWIW, I tested an old P2 against my Yaqui which has no particular aero features other than a narrow, round headtube and a narrow, aero downtube. I could not determine if one was faster than the other; results were too close for a definative nod either way. If you believe Cervelo then the carbon versions of the P2 and P3 are significantly faster than their older brethren.
Either way, I’ll be interested to see what you find.
Chad
I’ve really wanted to jump on this thread but am really busy at the office post Interbike.
Yes, the bikes are very different animals (Transition vs. Shiv) and they were designed to do different things – thus, they look different.
To anyone who’s really worried about the curve of the Transition top tube, my answer is still the same – it’s skinny as can be for aero, flares up to fair the trailing edge of the stem/steerer and work with any bar setup. The TT is also curved for standover (standover on Shiv is pretty high…) and works pretty well for aero (because it’s so skinny and the curve is very gentle going towards the ST).
The Shiv leading edge is significantly different and more integrated than the Transition, so we have a lot better airflow to manage by the time it reaches the TT, farther down on the DT, etc. Basically, if a non-integrated barset/stem is going to screw up your airflow, it’s pretty hard to re-attach and clean it up as it continues backwards on the bike. With the Shiv, the entire bike works more like a wing – leading and trailing edges of each part of the bike manage airflow very effectively. Thus, you see at increased angles of attack (yaw), the bike works like a wing – super low drag at 10-15 degrees versus a very skinny plate (which also has very low drag) as with the Transition.
It’s two very different schools of thought (skinny versus a low speed wind) though the same goal of “low drag” is still there. It’s taken many years of studying surface flows on bikes for us to get where we are to design an effective wing with the Shiv. We’re not looking at CdA’s – we’re studying lift/drag ratios for different wing sections, understanding the net side force a rider would see on different courses, etc. If there are questions/disputes regarding the evolution of low Reynolds number aero shapes on bikes, I’d say looking at and touching them is the only way to really get an idea of what the shapes are like and what the flow could look like around them.
The 2D side views of bikes don’t tell what 3D flow will do. Case in point to the story Tom A mentioned – the Shiv DT (while fat and wide behind the brake) both helps crosswind aero (versus a very narrow shape) and significantly helps stiffness, while decreasing the carbon mass needed for stiffness. Best of all three worlds.
Specialized made a huge commitment with Saxo Bank that Cervelo could not or would not be able to do. I am sure it included development programs specific to the team, like the Shiv. The SL3 is also a major project that has brought the Tarmac possibly up to the likes of the Cervelo R3-SL with skinny seat stays and a stiffer lighter headset and much larger chain stays for power transfer. At least with the SL3 the public has availability. Here is a written comment from a spokesperson in a review of the Shiv at PezCyclingnews: http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/default.asp?pg=fullstory&id=7392
Yes, the old classic P2 and P3 aluminum model. Cervelo’s claim is that the P3 aluminum is approximately as aero as the P2C. I have no additional data on that comparison as all of my bicycles are 650c.
What I can tell you is that my data showed significant improvement over a round tube generic tisports frame and an Aegis Trident and even in many cases a Kestrel KM-40. The P2 classic was a fast bike in it’s day and will be again once I finish with it
Part of my testing will most likely involve a second rider (fiance) on a couple of the frames to do a comparison of leg length/size on two difference frames. She has an inseam of 30 inches and mine is north of 36, so the difference is likely enough to show whether or not there are interaction effects due to leg length at play.
I assert that having a significantly above average inseam can change the effectiveness of a particular aerodynamic design. Eventually I will get to UW to test it more accurately, but for now it’s going to be another round of PM stuff.
Yes, the old classic P2 and P3 aluminum model. Cervelo’s claim is that the P3 aluminum is approximately as aero as the P2C. I have no additional data on that comparison as all of my bicycles are 650c.
What I can tell you is that my data showed significant improvement over a round tube generic tisports frame and an Aegis Trident and even in many cases a Kestrel KM-40. The P2 classic was a fast bike in it’s day and will be again once I finish with it
Part of my testing will most likely involve a second rider (fiance) on a couple of the frames to do a comparison of leg length/size on two difference frames. She has an inseam of 30 inches and mine is north of 36, so the difference is likely enough to show whether or not there are interaction effects due to leg length at play.
I assert that having a significantly above average inseam can change the effectiveness of a particular aerodynamic design. Eventually I will get to UW to test it more accurately, but for now it’s going to be another round of PM stuff.
Chris
Chris,
I know I’ve mentioned this before, but have you ever thought that your combination of a “significantly above average inseam” with 650C wheels might be skewing your results?
Maybe someone with your inseam would be better off with a larger “splitter plate” behind you?
It is absolutely possible. I have been considering this possibility with a Softride FASTT, but they are pretty damned hard to come by. There is one on eBay right now that says it will accommodate either 650c or 700c wheels with a different fork and dropouts. I suspect my Zipp could be modified to do the same. I am not sure the splitter plate concept is really valid in a beam bike design however. Perhaps you have an opinion on that?
I honestly don’t know if there could be a different effect at work here. I am not an aerodynamics expert, just a guy who thinks and reads about it a lot and does as much testing as possible to determine what direction to go with my equipment given the 650c (self imposed constraint) due to both history (been on 650c for 14 years), and future (I have an unlimited supply of LEW carbon rims in 650c).
