I don’t quite get the pricing:http://www.cervelo.com/en_us/bikes/2011/?year=2011
Cervelo P2 TT, carbon with fancy all-out aero goodness: $2000 frame
Cervelo S2 roadie, not as aero: $2800 frame
Cervelo S3 roadie: definitely not as aero $2800 frame
Why is the P2 so much cheaper than the other bikes, despite having superior aero design? Looking at these prices, that P2 is a “steal” relative to the P3 or S3.
supply and demand my friend.
there are so many overpriced road bikes that offer little no benefit over their competitors other than minor weight savings.
STI shifters cost more than bar end shifters.
Cervelo S3 roadie: definitely not as aero $2800 frame
HUH? The S3 isn’t as aero was what?
STI shifters cost more than bar end shifters.
FRAMES price listed. No components.
p2 is the way to go! 
check the age of the moulds. pretty sure the S2 and S3 are newer moulds than the P2. The P2, while a fine bike, is a pretty old mould. The S3, is obivously the newest mould, being a 2010 year model.
when a manufacturer invests in a mould, he needs to sell his bike at a price point where he can cover the cost of producing the mould , R and D, as well as raw materials / paying staff etc. as more and more P2s have been sold over the years the cost of the mould and R and D costs have obviously been paid off and cervelo can obviously offer it at a lower price point and still make a profit. do note the market the P2 is targeted at- it is their ‘entry level’ offering so obviously being cheaper helps. its like how new technology gets cheaper over time.
also, like someone else said - supply and demand. I would wager theres alot more road bikers in the world than there are tt bikers ( by road biker, i mean everyone who owns a road bike, and that includes most triathletes.) theres probably alot mroe demand for the S2/3 than the P2, so obviously its also more expensive.
besides, why are you comparing the two? they were obviously built for different purposes, so its not fair to say that the P2 SHOULD be more expensive just ebcause its more aero.
true, the S2 and S3 are probably not as aero as the P2, but its not supposed to be, its a road bike, not a TT bike ( sure you could use it in a TT, but that wasn’t its primary design purpose.) . its meant as a breakaway specialists bike for road racers. for a TT bike, your primary considerations in the design are aero and probably handling. (weight and comfort are pluses, but these would be secondary consideration.s) . the S2/3 were designed to have the advantages of a pro-level road bike AND a TT bike, ( i.e. lightness, stiff, comfort, plus the aero of a TT bike.), so of course the S2/3 would be harder to engineer than the P2. it may not be as aero, but I’m sure the engineers spent alot of effort trying to reach a balance of those properties in the S series. I don’t ride nor have I ridden a cervelo, but I’m sure the S series bikes are wonderfully aerodynamic given the other considerations of geometry /stiffness/comfort that the cervelo engineers have to deal with. besides, the aero advantage of the P2 over the S series would mainly be in the geometry more than anything else.
If the P2 were superior to the S series in every way, why dont garmin-cervelo ride them in the grand tours? thats cos they were designed for different purposes. thats what engineering is about. define the problem, then come up with the best compromise to solve the problem, because its highly unlikely you’ll ahve an ideal situation.
if you were saying why the P3 was more expensive than the P2 ( but its not.), then yes, your case would be a fair argument. don’t compare apples to oranges.
If the P2 were superior to the S series in every way, why dont garmin-cervelo ride them in the grand tours?
They’d be illegal for mass start racing, wouldn’t they, as the rules are different for road bikes and TT bikes? And in any case, the geometry would be poor for many people, too low at the front.
The frame rules are slightly different for mass start and TT, but I think a P2 would still get through the mass start requirements… a P3 probably not.
Maybe different carbon and layup schedules? There are a lot of things going on under the paint that make a bike what it is, and determine the cost.
like almost all things not being sold by people with strange philosophies
each frame is priced to maximize profit for the company.
Huh? It’s almost like there is an invisible hand at work …
“For Smith, the invisible hand was created by the conjunction of the forces of self-interest, competition, and supply and demand, which he noted as being capable of allocating resources in society.”
Once the venge hits stores, perhaps the invisible hand will push the s2 price down towards the p2 price.
and then I walk into the store…
It is what the market will bear.
No cost based pricing at all. Look at the T2. It is the P1 without a derailer hanger, but its $1,200 and the P1 is 1700 for a full bike.
3 years ago the P2SL (AKA the P1) was $1,300.
I’ve built up my old P2SL into a fixie frame and it is great. But these aluminum frame designs are very old. The landed cost of these frames (manufactured and shipped to North America) is probably ~$300-$400. Maybe less.
Maybe different carbon and layup schedules? There are a lot of things going on under the paint that make a bike what it is, and determine the cost.
This ^^^^^. Look at the R3 vs. RS. R3 Frame set is more than RS complete bike (Rival). It’s the carbon.
sorry to burst your bubble but the differences in raw carbon aren’t that huge.
also, like someone else said - supply and demand. I would wager theres alot more road bikers in the world than there are tt bikers ( by road biker, i mean everyone who owns a road bike, and that includes most triathletes.) theres probably alot mroe demand for the S2/3 than the P2, so obviously its also more expensive.
If there is more demand they sell more of them. That should make them cheaper not more expensive. The cost difference of actually manufacturing the frames is very small. The additional cost will be to cover inital R&D/development costs to the production of the first frame. Now the market has become accustom to paying this price point they can charge more and make more, so they do.
S has a higher street value; Just ask Lefty.
sorry to burst your bubble but the differences in raw carbon aren’t that huge.
Sorry to burst your bubble but there is a huge difference is what carbon they use and where they use said carbon on a bike depending on what they are trying to achieve from that section of the bike. Theres a good write up on it right now on cervelo’s site actually.
supply and demand, same way all pricing works
I don’t quite get the pricing:http://www.cervelo.com/en_us/bikes/2011/?year=2011
Cervelo P2 TT, carbon with fancy all-out aero goodness: $2000 frame
Cervelo S2 roadie, not as aero: $2800 frame
Cervelo S3 roadie: definitely not as aero $2800 frame
Why is the P2 so much cheaper than the other bikes, despite having superior aero design? Looking at these prices, that P2 is a “steal” relative to the P3 or S3.