So anyway, I am sitting at home looking at my tri bike (a principia tt2 light). It’s getting a little old (well 18 months or so) so I’ve been thinking that maybe it’s starting to get a little dated. I’m running dura ace 9 on it, C2 bars on flat bull horns, but anyway, I digress.
So I have been looking on the net and in magazines, and to honest, all the frames look the same, or almost the same to me. With the exception of the P3 (which someone said was looking dated the other day) and the Softride, many of the frames have the same or very similar designs. What I mean by this is 76-78 degree seat angle, some sort of rear wheel air foil, straight bladed forks and so on. The materials may differ, and there may be small diffences, but when i look at the Principia, if I squint it could be an Elite or a Guru or whatever else.
Moreover, when I look at photos from the mid nineties (one of mark Allen springs to mind) he was riding a GT which was not dissimilar to frames now in many ways. Peter Reid’s Kona bike last year was different because it was so un-aero in design, with round tubes, but still the same basic idea.
So what’s my point? Well as I am thinking of dropping dollars, am I the only one who thinks that the basic design of all these tri bikes is much of a muchness? I mean what difference would there be in performance based on the subtleties in design? Like 2%? I ask this as a rider who regularly rides ironman in about 5 hours, and has a few ironman times under 9:10. I would love there to be a big difference, so I could go faster, because I may retire if i could pop 9 hours, but is there one?
I’m no aero guru or trawler, just a triathlete who wants to go faster.
If aero is equalized by design, say to your estimated +/- 2%, to all considered frames… Then maybe it’s time to consider the differences in overall weight of each bike design .
To be honest however, I’d say a new bike is not the solution to your desire to go sub-9 hours… Perhaps making adjustments to your training program is the first place you could/should consider before dropping another 2-3 grand on equipment. Define your “relative” weakness and attack it head on.
You’re almost correct, in my opinion. I think the differences in frame material/high tech features and all that crap is mainly just marketing. Aluminum, carbon, titanium, round tubes v. aero tubes – all that means little. What does matter is how the rider is positioned on a given frame. So finding a bike that fits is the most important feature of all. And different bikes do fit differently than others. A friend of mine bought a Giant carbon road bike this week. He was looking at several different brands, namely Bianchi and Kestrel along with the Giant. He really wanted a Talon, but eventually settled on the Giant because it fit him better. He was between sizes in the Kestrel, and recognized that and did not purchase it. (He eliminated the Bianchi because of price and fit.) The frame/components of either bike wouldn’t determine how fast he could ride the new bike; fit would determine that.
So yeah, many bikes may look the same. And some may offer more vertical compliance here, a stiffer rear triangle there, or some other proprietary thingamajig from the aerospace industry. But that ain’t gonna matter if the bike doesn’t fit. So look for fit first, then the proprietary thingamajig from the aerospace industry.
The difference is in the fit, not the frame features.