Just wondering, I have a P2 with a centrepull front brake, bottle between the bars, aero bottle on the down tube. Average around 36kph (22mph) in an IM.
Assuming the same position on both bikes, what sort of time difference are we talking? Just wondering as the P2 is a few years old now, and I’m perfectly happy with my P2 but wondering what the real world difference is?
1.5s/km …would be surprised if it was as much as 2s/km. I am assuming you have a carbon P2 (not p2k), there is not too much difference aerodynamically between that and the P3. P4 was 1s/km better than the P3 at best. Lots of races have been won on P2s.
So 4.5 minutes in an Ironman at worst, 6 min at best. That is some serious savings, but we’re talking about ~$1000 per minute over an IM.
1.5s/km …
Sounds about right, given the data that’s available.
So 4.5 minutes in an Ironman at worst, 6 min at best. That is some serious savings, but we’re talking about ~$1000 per minute over an IM.
It’s even worse when you think of it as almost $100/second for an olympic.
On the other hand, the guy buying the $85K Ferrari is just getting a cool car for no performance reason. From a mid life crisis “splurge” perspective, buying a P5 is cheap reward for a half life of hard work at the office. Surely Cervelo is counting on lots of guys like that. The number of people who truly care about 4.5 minutes on an Ironman can’t be enough to justify development of the P5. The mass market of 40-54 year old guys with deep pockets is where the revenue is. All the marketing about speed gains etc is to just get all these guys to open pockets (as it should be). The market of guys who truly need to go fast is small…only 1500 people go to Kona per year, and around the same at ITU world’s…if Cervelo were to get 20% market share that’s barely 600 bikes (and they won’t have that many guys on P5)…so the money is the mass market of folks sitting at home.
This does not reflect any views of the guys at Kestrel who support me…just my armchair QB’ing of Cervelo’s biz plan that has to leverage the guys who really don’t care that much about the actual speed gains.
Interesting that the stack is higher on every single model of the P5 compared to the P2
.
Note that the BB drop is 80 mm on P5 vs 60 mm on all the previous cervelo TT bikes…this automaticaly lifts the stack 20mm for the same head tube height. Add more head tube (which they have done) and it makes it even higher. Of course this makes it a much better bike for 40-54 year old guys with deep pockets and poor back flexibility when coupled with a “high stack” bar, which still working for the speed demons with the integrated system.
This does not reflect any views of the guys at Kestrel who support me…just my armchair QB’ing of Cervelo’s biz plan that has to leverage the guys who really don’t care that much about the actual speed gains.
Or maybe they do care about the actual speed gains in their local sprints, weekly TTs, or even the occasional larger race. Even folks who aren’t fast enough or don’t care about championship races still care about speed gains.
I understand your point though and realize that you probably didn’t mean to imply that only KQ folks have reason to care about the speed gains. It largely is an excuse to splurge on the newest & shinest toy, but even casual racers care about faster times!
This does not reflect any views of the guys at Kestrel who support me…just my armchair QB’ing of Cervelo’s biz plan that has to leverage the guys who really don’t care that much about the actual speed gains.
Or maybe they do care about the actual speed gains in their local sprints, weekly TTs, or even the occasional larger race. Even folks who aren’t fast enough or don’t care about championship races still care about speed gains.
I understand your point though and realize that you probably didn’t mean to imply that only KQ folks have reason to care about the speed gains. It largely is an excuse to splurge on the newest & shinest toy, but even casual racers care about faster times!
Yes indeed…although many of us care about times, the incremental $$$ per seconds does not likely warrant the expenditure. It’s just a good excuse, but in essence, owning the bike is the cool part.
Depends…In my case there would be no speed gains as I cannot achieve the same position on both bikes (p5 and P3)…I would would have to swap-out the proprietary 3t bar/stem on the P5 to dial in the same setup I currently have on my sz. 54 P3…
Still the p5 is a very cool bike.
On the other hand, the guy buying the $85K Ferrari is just getting a cool car for no performance reason. From a mid life crisis “splurge” perspective, buying a P5 is cheap reward for a half life of hard work at the office.
Exactly. I used to be a “car guy”, spending time thinking about which fancy cars I might own some day. Bike seem cheap after that. You basically drop a zero off the end of the price.
Plus, if you’re training seriously you’re dedicating a nontrivial percent of your time and life energy to the sport. I don’t see any issue with moving some of your hard earned cash to give yourself every advantage you can get. Time is as valuable (if not more valuable) than money, and no one gives people sh!t for spending time training.
Note that the BB drop is 80 mm on P5 vs 60 mm on all the previous cervelo TT bikes…this automaticaly lifts the stack 20mm for the same head tube height. Add more head tube (which they have done) and it makes it even higher. Of course this makes it a much better bike for 40-54 year old guys with deep pockets and poor back flexibility when coupled with a “high stack” bar, which still working for the speed demons with the integrated system.
Stack (and reach) are referenced from the BB. BB drop has nothing to do with it.
I know…but you can achieve a high stack bike, with a not so tall head tube by having a lower BB. The mid life crisis guy can ride a P5 without a zillion spacers even though the head tube is not so tall!!! Everyone wins.
lose some weight, improve fitness, improve time, demonstrate some discipline(ahhh new shiny object), save some money
win, win, win, win, win,
.
lose some weight, improve fitness, improve time, spend some money
win, win, win, win, win,
Fixed that for you!
If the bike were racing by itself 
Or does Cervelo test with a rider aboard? That’s what I’d really like to see - wind tunnel data comparisons including a real live person pedaling. Sure, the results would be specific to that individual but it would at least be a better relative comparison of one bike to another, no?
So 4.5 minutes in an Ironman at worst, 6 min at best. That is some serious savings, but we’re talking about ~$1000 per minute over an IM.
So 4.5 minutes in an Ironman at worst, 6 min at best. That is some serious savings, but we’re talking about ~$1000 per minute over an IM.
Take a p2c
Put Di2 (eliminate all cables entering side of the frame!!!)
Put a front hydraulic brake
Put a 3t Ventus bar.
The p5 wont have any advantage to provide you anymore…
4.5minutes is on a poorly equipe p2 with a top of the line equipped p5… but apple to apple… you get about nothing…
we reach a point where components are the big variables.
The faster bike is the one that exists as more than vaporware ergo the P2 remains faster.
Or does Cervelo test with a rider aboard?
Yes. http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Cervelo_P4_in_the_Tunnel_1929.html
That’s what I’d really like to see - wind tunnel data comparisons including a real live person pedaling.
Their dummy does not pedal. Damon explained here somewhere that the legs the position that was most representative of a pedaling person, but the fact that they don’t move reduces noise and makes it easier to get repeatable results.
I know…but you can achieve a high stack bike, with a not so tall head tube by having a lower BB. The mid life crisis guy can ride a P5 without a zillion spacers even though the head tube is not so tall!!! Everyone wins.
who cares how tall the head tube is?