We just completed a review of Cervelo’s P1, a bike that has had a few names over previous model years. A lot of evolution has gone into the P1. Many of the most significant refinements or technical features can’t be seen on the outside of the bike, so we cut one open to see inside.
Here is a look at a bike that may be right for the times: A very technically advanced bike with simple spec and a lot of value. Because this bike has been around in some version for quite a while we were excited to take a close look at what makes it different from other bikes in its category. This is a bike you’ll see on the floor of every Cervelo dealer: Check it out:
You make no mention of the fork. I assume its a painted Wolf TT. Wonder why they persist with that old thing? I understand some need to differentiate spec in the model line, but surely keeping it in production must be costing them money when everything else in their range is equipped with the Funda?
Fiddlesticks. WE were ready to go with some nice photos of the fork but they went on the cutting room floor (partially) for exactly the reason you mentioned: The fork is old.
Now, given a spat of fork recalls one may suggest a synonym for “old” is “proven”. The fork on the P1 isn’t the lightest, is likely not the fastest, but it is pretty reliable, reasonably light and easy for most mechanics to work on and cut to length. Remember, this is the “old” fork guys were winning Tour stages on a few years ago.
It isn;t sexy, it isn’t glamourous, but it is pretty good. Maybe I should add those photos back in anyway…
One thing the new bike has is a price tag of $1750. That is new. This bike has been sold in versions at $2500 with an up-spec component kit. Like you say- it has been around the block. There have been some refinements to the basic design. Most of them are relatively small since the original design was pretty solid. An example of the details in the newest version are the wheel dropouts. Cervelo masked these off prior to painting for a more finished look- the paint doesn’t flake off when you clamp a rear wheel in the dropouts. Few customers minded that, but few is too many I suppose. This year the clamping section of the rear drop out is nicely masked off.
This bike isn’t about new technology. It’s about stuff that has worked and is pretty proven built into a good package at a reasonable value. Everything proven. There are some exotic refinements there, like the down tube construction compared to others:
This is something Cervelo developed even before the P2K, and we go back as far as the Cervelo Eyre that we mention in the review. It’s elegant, proven technology. Not much new except they (finally…) got the paint job right in my opinion.
In a world where $10,000 superbikes are becoming less and less important the subtle (and not so subtle) wisdom of this bike may become more relevant than ever.
I have a lot of miles on this bike. Your question along with show pony’s comment about me not showing the fork, suggest I will need to make an addendum- that is part of the reason I post review links here, to get feedback on how to improve them (the other reason is to hype the reveiws, obviously). I need the criticism though, so thank you.
The ride quality on these is better than you’d think if you are coming off another aluminum road or tri bike, and even more responsive than a lot of carbon fiber bikes, especially entry level stuff. I’d rather ride really nice aluminum (like this) than bargain basement carbon. This bike feels lively and quick. You jump, it goes. It feels light, it is very much the race bike. Comfort? It is there and the bike is fully manageable for an Iron distance bike leg if you mind your two contact points correctly: Saddle and aerobars. This isn’t an expensive carbon fiber frame though, with that mystic combination of comfort and stiffness along with being a trifle lighter and more durable. Good carbon costs more, and for those willing to pay it, it offers tangible benefits. However, the benefit to cost relationship of this aluminum bike is better, especially from a ride quality perspective, than anything else out there in my opinion, and I’ve ridden and cut up a lot of bikes…
Interestingly the down tube from the P1 is derived directly from an old favorite of mine, the P3SL. Here is a photo of my old P3SL, wish I never sold it:
I noticed that the seatpost on the bike you photographed looks different than the one pictured on the Cervelo site. It looks like the one from previous years’ models. Did Cervelo just use a different seatpost on their site for aesthetics or did they change the spec?
You are absolutely right. That is a bit of a mystery. The post you pointed out, seen in the enlarged view on the Cervelo website, seems to not be the variable geometry version. The post we received on our P1’s is the traditional variable geometry version we are accustomed to:
Now, the interesting thing to me is, what kind of post is that in the photo on Cervelo’s site? Good question… See why I throw this stuff up here- always a good discussion. Thank you!
Nice review, as always. I have to say (and please take it constructively) that I prefered your old photography - it had a more industrial/spartan feel, and the lighting was colder, which suited the subjects. The bike, in this warmer light, looks somehow less sharp and less lean. Also, the shadow pattern seemed less intrusive on your previous “studio” pics. Overall, I would say the bike looks less fast. This is admittedly very subjective - perhaps others prefer this new studio-style. On a more objective note, what do you think is happening with the lighting - for example in the first and last pics? There seems to be an echo of the studio light/flash, on the background, which is distracting in this bland-bokeh style of studio pic - distracts from the subject. Perhaps a screen/diffuser, or aim the studio light/flash set-up a bit away from the subject.
In any event, my photography OCD not-withstanding, another informative review - thanks!
Interestingly the down tube from the P1 is derived directly from an old favorite of mine, the P3SL. Here is a photo of my old P3SL, wish I never sold it:
Same idea as the old Soloist alu (SL) frame as well isn’t it?
I’ve often wondered about building a P1/P2SL framed road bike, since they’re easier to find than a Soloist frame in my size.
Also - I’ll swap you my 55cm P3SL frame for a P3C in 54 if you want Tom, providing you pay shipping
Another good bike review.
Are you a Fuji dealer Tom, I’d like to see you review the new D6, or whatever it’s called.
What size was the bike you reviewed? It seems like the head tube is even shorted then what cervelo lists on their website (which for me is a very good thing).
I know what you are saying, but I disagree. I think the pics look great. Thats the first time I’ve seen pics of that bike where the colors look as they do in person. The Cervelo webpage doesn’t even capture it.
I noticed that the seatpost on the bike you photographed looks different than the one pictured on the Cervelo site. It looks like the one from previous years’ models. Did Cervelo just use a different seatpost on their site for aesthetics or did they change the spec?
That same question came up in a recent P1 thread. I checked out a P1 at my LBS and it is the reversible seatpost as on previous years. It looks to be the same as my 2007 P2SL.
The more I read about the P1/P2SL the more I like my decision to buy one. I could have picked the P2C (or even the P3C) but there was something about the bang:buck ratio that drew me to the P2SL. I have the anodized, gun-metal gray version and love the look of the bike.
