Choice is between up to date versions of (a) 51cm Felt DA with 0 rise 110mm stem and (b) 52 cm Plasma TT with 0 rise 75mm stem or (c) small Giant Trinity SL.
I stand a whooping 165cm tall with an inseam of 77cm. My pad stack height is 510mm (pad height off ground minus BB height off ground) and pad reach is 480mm (pad center from wall minus BB center from wall). I have been searching high and low for tunnel data and I have of course read the ST tunnel report which Cervelo did with/without the mannequin and have visited various sites like Jack’s aeroweenie compendium. I still can’t decide but feel as if the Felt and Giant are slower but may fit better while the Scott is faster though might be short in reach (e.g. likely need the 90cm stem). If anyone could help me decide it would be greatly appreciated and assume that they will cost the same and that a Omega brake will be up front. A picture of my position is in my profile and I am able to ride like this for hours. Thanks in advance.
Look for the German magazine “Tour”. They had a wind tunnel comparison of the bikes you mention along with a few others from about a year ago. IIRC, with the mannequin on, the Giant Trinity won the test. I’ve seen two versions of the Trinity: one with a brake behind the fork and the cable exiting along the left hand side and another with the brake behind the fork and exiting into the top tube (latter model is the SL0). IMO, the SL0 is very slick. That said, all of those frames are slick, you’re not going to make a bad choice so long as they all fit properly.
I’d go with the Scott…not from a performance standpoint as I’d imagine time and time again you’ll get “close” drag data if you truly optimized all options. The Scott will be the easiest to work on and travel with. The Scott may be the fastest of the bunch anyway, but I’d look at other items such as brakes, bars, saddle clamping, etc.
I presently ride a 51cm old P3C with USE Tula bars http://s137.photobucket.com/...46303534887578121275 Part of my question is whether I can achieve that small stack with a zero rise stem on the DA and I know there are a few folks out there that can answer. Thanks.
What aerobar are you using that you can get pad stack of 510 and reach of 480, with a 51cm DA?
Ok, here is what you need to do.
First get the measurement from the center of the bar clamp to the top of your pads, as shown in this pic from zipp:
Then add that number to the frame stack (since you are using the zero rise stem). This will give you your pad stack using that stem, bar and the 51 cm Felt.
Then you can do the same with pad reach, by measuring the distance from the center of the pads to the center of the bar.
Hey Chaparral, I really appreciate you taking the time to share that!! I’ll get to some measuring when I get a chance but many thanks because I was wishing that there was a database with pad stack/pad reach “possible” measurements like what Trek has provided in their measurement guide. However as you point out, as long as the frame’s stack and reach numbers are provided you can calculate possible pad reach/pad stack if you know the various stack and reach configuration of different bars. Cheers.
The Tour article that I found is with machines like BMC, Canyon, P5, Slice RC etc. I could not find one where the Trinity SL won so if anyone has seen it please shoot me a link. Also, the only Trinity that I can find with cables entering the top tube is the trinity comp. I do see where the SL0 has the Di2 electronics on top of the front brake noodle but that noodle is still oriented coming out of the nose cone? My eyes are old so I am probably wrong??
Look for the German magazine “Tour”. They had a wind tunnel comparison of the bikes you mention along with a few others from about a year ago. IIRC, with the mannequin on, the Giant Trinity won the test. I’ve seen two versions of the Trinity: one with a brake behind the fork and the cable exiting along the left hand side and another with the brake behind the fork and exiting into the top tube (latter model is the SL0). IMO, the SL0 is very slick. That said, all of those frames are slick, you’re not going to make a bad choice so long as they all fit properly.
I’d go with the Scott…not from a performance standpoint as I’d imagine time and time again you’ll get “close” drag data if you truly optimized all options. The Scott will be the easiest to work on and travel with. The Scott may be the fastest of the bunch anyway, but I’d look at other items such as brakes, bars, saddle clamping, etc.
I have a Trinity Advanced SL 1 and my buddy has the 0 and I’m pretty sure both have the brake cable coming out the side of the nose cone. Like someone else said they are all good bikes. The Giant is a pain to put together but once you get everything set up the bike really isn’t difficult to take apart for travel. I practiced it once just to double check torque specs and to make sure I know how to work on my bike.
Other thing to think about is that the Giant is a 2009 model, still relevant and fast but it was kinda the “original” superbike for the masses and the design is 5 years old. I have a feeling with the new aero data from the Propel we can expect to see a new TT model roll off the shelf but who knows when that will actually be.
(Really just wanted to chime in about the brake cable)
IMHO- The Giant Trinity is a stellar bike, handling and braking are top notch and I don’t find it “uncomfortable” but get the bike that you really want that fits and you won’t have bike envy.
So I was under the impression that the stem, even a 0 or -17 degree one would add some stack due to the thickness of the clamp. Am I mistaken? What about the headset top cap?
So I was under the impression that the stem, even a 0 or -17 degree one would add some stack due to the thickness of the clamp. Am I mistaken? What about the headset top cap?
That is true for bikes with a conventional steer tube, but it is not applicable to the Felt DA (well at least the way frame stack and reach is documented for that bike and how the fixed stems are measured).
