Interesting to see the integration that Trek has done on the SC for triathlon. The one thing that I’ll be most interested to see is if this is actually allowed for racing. Triathlon has a reputation for being a “race what you like” sport. But two noteworthy products along the same lines have been banned for use in triathlon by (IIRC) both USAT and WTC (though it may have been one or the other, similar to the wetsuit/speedsuit ruling).
In the late 90s (best recollection on the date) Zipp made a very similar product to the SpeedBox called the BumbleBee. It was a carbon underseat box (sort of like a NeverReach, only much smaller and actually pretty aero). Same thing as the speeedbox, it was designed to hold your tools, spares, etc. This product had a really short life, since the WTC banned it for use in Ironman races within 6months so Zipp stopped making it.
HED also made a very cool aero water bottle for between the aerobars, but that also was banned for use in triathlon as well. It was definitely a bottle, but there was a lot in the design that was “unnecessary” and the consensus was clearly “what is the best drinking system we can put in a fairing” as opposed to “what is the most aero we can make a water bottle.” And it was disallowed. Again, the product died out as a result.
So I’m very interested to know whether or not the add-ons to the Trek SC were developed with USAT and WTC. Or did they want to keep them so much a secret that they relied on triathlon’s history of allowing MOST (but not all) aero goodies. I dunno. But I’m interested to see how it shakes out. On the one hand, this opens the door for other manufacturers to start pushing out this sort of integration. But if other manufacturers wish to object to these add-ons, they do have precedence they can rely on.
Dan used to have one of the HED bottles that I may be able to find in the garage. And I will see if I can get a pic of the bumblebee from the Zipp archives next week.
There’s a picture of the Speedbox on the Trek website and on the ToC photos thread. But I’ll have to get a pic of the bumblebee. I doubt there are any photos out there. Maybe a very few, but definitely not digital. It was very short lived…
Its obviously integrated for aerodynamic purposes, but I think it also serves its purpose as good as any other saddle bag (unless it rattles). Hopefully they’ll keep it, but I put this in the same camp as the P4 integrate water bottle, so I’m just not sure.
Its obviously integrated for aerodynamic purposes, but I think it also serves its purpose as good as any other saddle bag (unless it rattles). Hopefully they’ll keep it, but I put this in the same camp as the P4 integrate water bottle, so I’m just not sure.
i think the difference is that the p4 supposedly is made slightly stiffer by the presence of the bottle. The speedbox is clearly an add on that serves NO structural purpose. But as I said, I’m very intrigued to see what happens…
I agree - It (the Draft box) is filling a completely legitimate need in a sport where we have to be almost completely self-reliant.
All credit to Hydrotail and the other manufacturers of ‘x-mas tree’ solutions with tires, CO2, tools strapped on like
barnacles… but this makes a lot more sense.
I think you could argue that a system like this is safer (no dropped gear on the road ) and if they put a couple water bottle mounts
on the side (at a 45’ angle…that seems like an easier reach than behind my ass) their argument could be strengthened even further.
Here is the pic off of Treks website. I think it would be interesting if you could mount a bottle right on top of the cap, for a single bottle mount, that should put it some what behind the seat post not sure if that is beneficial or not, but just a thought…
Would the P4 frame be legal if the water bottle was not removable and was made of carbon (basically a huge fared BB)? Do you think the SC would be legal if the “box” were a design element of the fame? Is there any way to measure the “stiffness” of the P4 frame with and wo the bottle and is there data on this?
I don’t know the answers to these questions and I think that they are important factors into formulating an opinion on this topic. From what I DO know, I think the precedent has been set by the p4 and it would appear to be a bit arbitrary for them to accepted the bottle but reject this box. The bottle was designed to fit a specific frame and make the frame faster. The utility of the bottle for hydration purposes seems to be an afterthought. The SC box falls into the same category. Who knows, the box may make the SC frame slightly “stiffer” too (bridging the seatstays to reduce flex or some BS like that).
I’m surprised the other things you mentioned were banned for tri. I remember the HED bottle and it seemed reasonable, as does the Trek thing. By reasonable I mean that it has utility so it may as well be well designed.
For UCI racing I have no sympathy for integrated bottles tool kits, etc. They are clearly trying to get around UCI rules so they shouldn’t expect the UCI to turn a blind eye.
Speaking of the HED bottle, it really seems there is a need for something like that now, perhaps more obviously a bottle, but along those lines.
I think that something that fits between aero bars, is horizonal rather than vertical, and perhaps has either a telescopic, flexible, or retractable straw/tube for drinking from, would be AWESOME.
I know all the cool kids have a standard water bottle there these days, but I’d really prefer something either hands-free, or nearly so.
I don’t remember the HED drink system, but Profile tested one in the 90’s that was basically an under-bar fairing with a straw (I believe they were testing it with Pigg at the TA&M tunnel). Later on Vision came up with one that is basically the same idea (below)
Since non-ITU races don’t have the 3-1 profile rule, I don’t see a problem with the speed box, since you could mold the frame in that shape and it would be legal for most tris.
Good history lesson, but Trek is currently putting a fair amount of investment into triathlon. I don’t think the WTC would be wise to push-back on Trek over this item.
Further, the current market is basically a free-for-all of aero goodies in triathlon. Do we really want to follow the UCI approach and limit companies from pursuing niches?
Let the arms race continue for those interested.
Of course, I’ll just choose more and more courses than minimize the need for such aero extremes.
