Jesus. Is anyone actually reading or opening the report?
Easy big fella… the report simply refers to a B series Felt frame. I now see in this thread that it is a 2009 frame. The question I asked is whether the tested frame is the same as the B16 frame (specifically 2012 for me) - i.e. have there been any changes to the Felt B series frame design from 2009 to 2012?
It is interesting, on our conference call last night I brought up that people would probably just look at pictures and make comments and that we needed to ready for that. Seems to be the case.
thoughts…how about question:
could you please post images on each bike at same yaw angle while pedalling so we can see how the positions might vary between bikes? it is obvious they do to a degree, esp tactical with non-angles arms. IMO images help a lot when looking at the runs as a whole
There are videos on the AeroCamp Facebook page. Not sure how to post images while pedaling. But here’s an overlay:
Basically all Brian and Heath were doing all day was laser focused on these overlays making sure everything tracked. A lot goes into avoiding any kind of position foul and we scrapped or redid a few runs when they noticed something off.
Like Dan said with the Tactical we had no choice with the cockpit rise but that’s changing soon with the new clamps
Yes, they used Kiley’s old Felt.
Ah, that helps a lot, thanks.
I’m honestly even more underwhelmed with the speed advantages of these uberbikes with the strong performance of that Felt in there. Take that extra $5-10K and spend it elsewhere!
Well, I think you have to remember that there are many folks who know they aren’t going to get any magical performance improvement, rather they just want a really nice bike!
A honda civic can get you from point A to point B just fine, but a lot of us buy a nicer car… 
Yes, you’re quite right! I’ll admit that I will lustily admire the curves of those most-modern-gen uberbikes any day and if I had unlimited funds, I’d buy one in a heartbeat!
That said, it’s quite reassuring to know that my 2008 Cervelo P2c, which is still in really great shape, is likely neck and neck with the uberbikes in the wind tunnel.
Thanks to the team and all the funders for a great study!
It still doesn’t look better in person, but its good to know that at least its got a great personality.
it’s like that lady (or man) who’s somewhat attractive, and can quickly become much better or worse looking once he or she opens his or her mouth and starts talking.
now that the p5x has begun talking, it’s going to become better looking.
It does seem that things are close. What bike is fastest seems to be decided by the type of event you ride and therefore hydration / nutrition needs.
Short TT’s + some short tri’s (typical UK time trial scene non UCI) with no bottles or hydration required. No need for integrated storage or hydration, possible single ring set up so removable front hanger good.
UCI style TT - UCI legal set-up one frame mounted UCI aceptable bottle (depending on distance/hear etc). Probably 2x gearing as courses often more sporting than a UK drag strip course.
Olympic Tri and 50mile TT
Not UCI legal - one or two bottles worth of fluid and a storage for a few gels & maybe flat kit.
70.3/IM’s/100mile TT’s
Non UCI - Hydration 2 + bottles worth of fluid, ability to store handed up standard bottles or pour fluid into hydration storage, nutrition gels/food storage + flat kit storage.
Jesus. Is anyone actually reading or opening the report?
Easy big fella… the report simply refers to a B series Felt frame. I now see in this thread that it is a 2009 frame. The question I asked is whether the tested frame is the same as the B16 frame (specifically 2012 for me) - i.e. have there been any changes to the Felt B series frame design from 2009 to 2012?
To clear this up, the B series changed in between 2012 and 2013. The 2013 model is (in my opinion) basically a DA with a less aero (alloy) fork with a non-integrated brake.
It’s possible the 2012 is a little slower, but I just don’t think we’re talking about all that much. And honestly I don’t believe the IA is faster than the DA or (well-configured) B series at low yaw. At high yaw, sure. But it’s also heavy. Kind of crazy how all of a sudden weight seems relevant again in light of how narrow these aero margins are. On Chattanooga 70.3 course a 4.5 lb difference makes like 10 seconds of difference, which is basically the weight difference between a P5 and P5-X (I suspect, no data). And that’s a flattish course.
I just don’t understand how people can eat real food during a triathlon. Most people figure out how to get liquid calories.
this is why, in my opinion, both the andean and the p5x are so, so, so much the future of bikes. both companies built bikes based on what people do, not what people ought to do. me, for example, no way can i subsist on liquid calories alone, because i get a terrible hunger knock and it slows me down greatly.
the three (plus one) relevant features of BOTH these bikes are:
- they solve real world storage imperatives;
- they are built for a variety of real behaviors, not optimized behaviors;
- they are built for the apparent yaws real people ride;
- they stop when you apply the brakes.
certainly other bikes stop when you apply the brakes. or they don’t. the more exotic you make the aero bike; and the more exotic you make the aero wheel; the harder it is to get bike, brakes and wheel to work with each other. what we have right now, in another thread, and in the last 2 polls, is a discussion on optimal tire and wheel width and size. and, consquently, how many bikes cannot accommodate the optimal size.
i think i pretty clearly hear josh poertner saying that bike makers (and wheel makers) today ought to be accommodating a tire that measures 30mm in width. this ambivalence and uncertainty and impending shift in tech screams out for a disc brake solution.
your test was really well done. but as you acknowledge there were a lot of unanswered questions. i think that on balance, once all the data is parsed, the andean is going to look better and better than you apparently think it looks today. but i acknowledge that before the andean hits its peak it’s going to need another stem solution. that bike wants a new stem - that has the bosses on it above which its storage solution affixed - and that can accept another bar, like a zipp or a PD.
So buy your bike based off color. Red is always faster.
Pretty much. What has been said along along by folks like rapp, all the bikes are fast, and it boils down to all the -other- factors.
Agreed. Choosing the front end is the most important aero factor, to obtain the correct position. That’s most of it. Followed by tight clothes, wheels and helmet, and then hiding cables and bottles.
I’d just like to correct that a bit and say that all modern aero bikes are fast. Go back to a tube frame and that would test pretty badly. In fact it would be exquisite taking a steel tube bike and P5X into a wind tunnel to see the difference between them.
Jesus. Is anyone actually reading or opening the report?
Easy big fella… the report simply refers to a B series Felt frame. I now see in this thread that it is a 2009 frame. The question I asked is whether the tested frame is the same as the B16 frame (specifically 2012 for me) - i.e. have there been any changes to the Felt B series frame design from 2009 to 2012?
Feel free to use google and the images and details from the report. But if unable…
Its actually not a 2009 B2 frame. Here is one of those (integrated fork, completely different rear triangle, etc):
Here is your 2012 B16:
And finally here is the bike in the test (2016 Felt B2):
You’re welcome.
Supposedly you can make the P2 fast as a P5.
http://www.tririg.com/store.php?c=alpha&page=windtunnel_1
.
now that the p5x has begun talking, it’s going to become better looking.
In your opinion, sure.
If you value money, and do still care about performance - despite it being everything Cervelo said it was - the P5x is not any more or less attractive than it was before these results.
And since we’re sharing opinions - for me - its now even less attractive. Everyone should run out and buy a P5. And I should kick myself for selling mine.
If you’re a dentist or a wattie punk rocker, the P5x is the sure bet.
Supposedly you can make the P2 fast as a P5.
http://www.tririg.com/store.php?c=alpha&page=windtunnel_1
sorry, but any data from Faster basically holds no sway as compared to data from real wind tunnels.
ETA - just based on those first two pics he has posted in that “review” the data is skewed before even going into a skewed tunnel. he’s pedestaled his bar while the aduro is not (because it is not capable).
So my P5-3 is fastest. Already knew that. 
I don’t remember seeing the data on The P5-3 vs P5-6. At what yaw angles was the 5-3 faster?
I’m specifically referring to my P5-3…
now that the p5x has begun talking, it’s going to become better looking.
In your opinion, sure.
If you value money, and do still care about performance - despite it being everything Cervelo said it was - the P5x is not any more or less attractive than it was before these results.
And since we’re sharing opinions - for me - its now even less attractive. Everyone should run out and buy a P5. And I should kick myself for selling mine.
If you’re a dentist or a wattie punk rocker, the P5x is the sure bet.
i think there are 3 salient points that are routinely and repeatedly ignored by the P5X haters:
-
this is a new bike platform that is particularly priced in the halo range. felt behaves the same way with its new bike platforms. just as many bike companies do. it’s proof of concept. if you don’t want it, fine, cervelo makes really capable bikes at much lower prices. cervelo was always straightforward about what the P5X was and what it wasn’t.
-
this platform - like felt’s DA, like felt’s IA, like many bikes - starts in year-1 at a high price and then descends in price in subsequent years
-
the bike is only built with a marquis groupkit, wheels, aerobars, etc. if you look at other bikes in this bike’s competitive set, many are every bit or more expensive.
point 4, which is just now coming up, if you look at josh poertner’s comments on wheel and tire width, if you consider this platform, it’s much more likely to prove efficacious over time when paired with the aero wheels and tires you’re more likely to buy next time you buy them.
you’re going to get past this, robert. you’re going to survive this. it’s going to be okay in the end.
i think i pretty clearly hear josh poertner saying that bike makers (and wheel makers) today ought to be accommodating a tire that measures 30mm in width. this ambivalence and uncertainty and impending shift in tech screams out for a disc brake solution.
Yeah – I haven’t read the later tired thread, but you can run a 28 on the rear of the Tactical. And the way the rear wheel is shrouded I bet you’re not getting a huge aero penalty with a wide tire like that. As Dan says, the comfort trade off is probably worth it. I don’t see why rim-brake based rims can’t also be wider. The NSW is already pushing that way.
but i acknowledge that before the andean hits its peak it’s going to need another stem solution. that bike wants a new stem - that has the bosses on it above which its storage solution affixed - and that can accept another bar, like a zipp or a PD.
This is really my biggest issue with the Andean. Everything from the steerer forward (including the steerer) and *especially *the stem. I don’t understand why they couldn’t come up with a base bar like the one on the Tactical, which is just the most bad ass bar.
I think the jury is still out on whether the disc brake transition is on balance actually a good thing. Obviously we aren’t going to have a choice soon. But in dry conditions with clean cable routing the TriRig/Premier brakes are in my opinion completely adequate, including on carbon clinchers.
I’m not ignoring your platform and halo bike talking points. I just think that narrative is moot. I’m not talking about what to buy in 3 years. I’m talking about what to buy right now. Based on real data we all now have.
It was much easier to price bicycles in the stratosphere when we all felt there were significant and measurable time savings to be had when forking over our hard earned dollars. Now we know only people who enjoy warming themselves over a fire of burning dollar bills would spend on a P5x.
Lets regroup in 3 years when we can then agree on this platform you speak of.
Also, Stan, my name is not robert. I’m upset you don’t know this.
So my 2014 Felt B16 I purchased on clearance brand new for 1400 bucks was a good deal I’m gathering? Now if I could only get the engine working better…
So my 2014 Felt B16 I purchased on clearance brand new for 1400 bucks was a good deal I’m gathering? Now if I could only get the engine working better…
No its not. Because it looks like this:
Which is a much different frame then the Felt tested.
I dont know how much easier this can be made beyond displaying photos right next to each other.
First. A big “Thanks” to everyone that helped with this project!
What I find really interesting is how much, or little, progress has been made over the last 7-8 years. To put this in perspective I went back and looked at the old Slowtwich article on the P4.
Back in the day the P4, which is pretty close to the P5 at low yaw, was about 125-150 grams of drag lower than everything else. That’s a pretty similar margin to what we see today.
So if you were pretty anal about setup (3T Ventus bar) and used a clean center-pull break (prior to TriRig) you might have seen no drag reduction since the P4 came out in 2009ish.
I still swear that the old P4 was/is faster than my P5-3.
Both in terms of the frame, the ‘illegal’ P4 bottle/fairing, and the lower headtube giving me a slightly lower, faster position.
All that said, the P5 is worlds better in everyday riding, and has brakes that actually work.
I know it loses some aero ground to the P5-6 and P5X, but not enough for me to ever consider having to “upgrade” it.