I have a Pinarello FM1, I used to have a Cervelo P3C, and P3SL so I can give you a direct comparison.
The Pinarello is a much better bike in my opnion. It’s stiffer, the carbon is structurally better (Toyaca 1K), and it handles like a road bike, so you feel very confident riding it on all courses, whereas the P3C is great in a straight line but a liability on a technical course (remember Dave Z in TdF 05?). Don’t get me wrong, the P3C is a fantastic bike in a wind tunnel, and as aero as you like, but it doesn’t handle anything like the Pina does (or Trek TTX for that matter).
For those looking at Pina for triathlon, Cameron Brown rides a Pinarello FT3 (not the FT1), which is the triathlon frame using the same 1K Toyaca Carbon as on the Prince and FM1… Cameron used to ride a Scott Plasma before he got sponsored by Pina, best check with him his thoughts on those 2.
Do you actualy have any idea what most of the stuff you wrote actually means? First off, the carbon is Torayca. It’s made by Toray, Inc. Second off, 1K is twill carbon - it refers to the tow size. It’s the number of threads in each tow, which is the individual part of the weave you see going over/under/over/under, etc. So each “block” or tow has 1k fibers in it. That is what 1K fiber means. However, twill weave is used in bicycles purely as a cosmetic layer. All the structural layers are made of unidirectional fiber. So the top layer of your bike is the only one that is 1k. Now, you can argue that using Torayca fiber (and using the particular modulus of unidirectional they use) is better than what Cervelo uses, but since Cervelo does not, to the best of my knowledge, publish who makes the fiber they use, that would be a marketing-based guess at the very best.
I think you also have to be careful making vast generalizations about handling because DZ crashed in ONE time trial. That being said there are obvious differences between the Trek and the Cervelo (Pinarello gives pretty much no useful information on the geometry of the bike at all), the Trek has 2cm more BB drop than the Cervelo. That makes a difference in handling, but it’s not a “free” change. You can’t pedal through as many corners. The Trek runs a steeper (by .5deg - Trek: 73 v. Cervelo 72.5) headtube, so that can affect what you perceive in the handling as well. Total wheelbase is pretty similar, though I think Trek runs a bit more rear center and a bit less front center, as the Trek is meant to be ridden steep while the Cervelo is meant to be ridden REALLY steep. In either case, people who don’t like bikes like the Cervelo are people who don’t ride them the way they were meant to be ridden. So the weight distribution will be off from optimal. So, yes, if the Pinarello fits your position better, it will also likely handle better. But that’s purely a function of your position on the bike. If you like riding the FM1, then I would wager that the P3 was absolutely the wrong bike for you, since one is a 74.5deg bike and the other is 78(+) degree bike. Now, that may also influence your opinion of handling. Let’s say that you really didn’t have much of a concept of positioning. On the Pinarello, you’ll be set further back, meaning less weight up front, which can mean “better” handling, especially if you don’t like the feel of riding steep. But by that logic, an upright cruiser handles even better. It’s about being predictable for the position the bike is designed around. If you ride at 78/79/80/80+ degrees, you are going to have a LOT of weight on the front wheel. That’s the nature of the beast. But it’s a necessary requirement for the position. But of course it has it’s demons, and riding with a crapload of weight on the front wheel is one of them. But Cervelo does as good a job as anyone at mitigating the negative effects of that while also making a bike that still is “nimble.”
In any case, at 74.5deg of STA, I’d have a very hard time calling the FM1 “the ultimate tri bike,” regardless of how it performed in the windtunnel.