Trek put up a graph showing the drag of the Speed Concept and other bikes. How much can you trust a company’s research?
Tibbs,
Were you in the room today at the Disney Concert Hall when they unveiled their new TT bike?
Ian
Pics or it never happened.
Pics or it never happened.
Off the Trek website:
Needs more detail about the test protocol to make any judgments…my first thought though is that the P3/P4/Transition curves don’t quite match what we’ve seen from Mark Cote or from Cervelo…
Oh…and what’s that “Speed Concept TCT” curve? The aluminum version?
The “Speed Storage” thingy is kinda cool too…
off to the Trek website…
Looks like the TCT is a lower grade carbon, same shape, but without the integrated stem and brakes.
my first thoughts are that there is no way the fork and stem should run a $2700 premium. My local trek store is fairly awesome at working things out for their good customers. I would imagine that with some finagling one can get the fork for much much less.
Wow…
Trek’s graph of the P4 vs the P3 from 0 - 15 yaw makes the P3 look pretty darn good. Cervelo’s data shows the P4 to outperform the P3 by much larger differentials.
And if you look at Mark Cote’s graph of the specialized shiv & transition, you see that the transition curve is very flat from 5 to 15 degrees. Trek would say completely otherwise.
I’m not saying one company is right or wrong – just saying that the differentials in grams (or watts) at different yaws from one company’s test results to another’s is markedly different – like around 100+ grams or more w/regards to curve shape alone.
It would be nice to see Trek provide more details about such tests, as well as provide -20 to 0 data - in the same way that Mark Cote explained how the Shiv was tested.
Dave Linenberg
Sounds good, give it a shot. I know for me, my local Trek store really doesn’t care too much about triathlon, so I think I am SOL in trying to get anything other the exact models as spec’d.
Word. My trek shops never have any idea what I’m talking about.
I thought that earlier testing had put the p4 ahead of the speed concept at low yaw angles, this looks a bit sketchy to me
.
“Were you in the room today at the Disney Concert Hall when they unveiled their new TT bike?”
No. I did however start a interesting book on Ricci Flow. I have no idea what it is saying but it’s cool to look at.
Is there a reason the B2 is on the graph and not the DA?
Where da Shiv at?
A bare frame or, with wheels? What kind of wheels?
I think the possible interactions with all kinds of different components render this sort of comparison pointless unless you test each bike with several permutations and tell people what they are.
For example, a lens disk might completely screw up the numbers for some frames but make them better for others. Likewise a deep front wheel might complement some bikes better than others.
I hate to parrot Gerard, but it is funny how Cervelo is always second best on other companies’ tests. That’s one thing that’s pretty consistent.
The TCT (look at the 7 series on the site) looks like quite a lot of speed/$ at 2.5k for the lowest spec model.
And a bit more friendly to the average user.
The TCT (look at the 7 series on the site) looks like quite a lot of speed/$ at 2.5k for the lowest spec model.
And a bit more friendly to the average user.
It looks like a very fast frame for road racing 
I have a question regarding time saved on something like this since I’m still in the Stone Ages on a round tubed aluminum frame.
From my round tubed bike to this Speed Concept over say a 40K TT. My best stand alone is 58:08 for a 40K. What could it have been with a frame like this potentially?
5w saved ~ =.5s/km
So if you know your wattages, figure out how much of a reduction in drag a new frame is then plug it in.
I’m assuming because the 2010 B2 and DA have the same shape.