Interesting post and interesting points. I’ll argue a little different perspective since I am giddy as a schoolgirl over this new bike and can’t wait until mine arrives and I race on it the first time. Enthusiasm over this has even re-envigorated my training going into this off season. I had a few stinging (mini) defeats this year and perhaps a redoubled approach to training combined with some new technology might prevent that in the '09 season…
So:
“1. The bottle concept does not fit to the way I approach Ironman (I need to carry whatever stuff is handed out at aid stations, gatorade, powerbar … whatever)”
You’re probably right here, and that is the reason that when I decide to do Ironman again I am going to try to figure a way to do it with absolute minimal load on the bike. Remember though, the aerobottle on P4 is designed to be “filled-on-the-fly” from standard aid station bottles. With the exception of Florida the Ironman distance races east of the Mississippi are hilly. It’s important to start out with a light bike. It has never made sense to me to buy a nice light, aero tri bike then festoon it with literally 2-4 *pounds *(I’ve weighed it- you’ll see soon…) of “special” fluids and fuels and spares and whatnot. When we banter over a gram of drag taping a gel to the top tube is a calamity. The aid stations come every 10-12 miles at Ironman. It is the best catered century ride we’ll ever do. My evolving strategy for Ironman nutrition/hydration is going fast and light and making use of the aid stations. Better for the stuff to sit on an aid station table for my use when I get there than travel 20+ miles strapped to my bike where I have to lug over all the hills at Wisconsin, Lake Placid or Louisville.
**“2. If I use an aerobottle, the advantage of the narrow steering tube is lost” **
You lost me on this one since the entire bike is narrow. Additionally, adding the bottle makes the whole thing *more aerodynamic *than leaving it off. Still don’t like the bottle? Plug in the carbon fiber frame stiffner and put two cages behind the saddle or use an aerodrink system on the bars or, for best aerodynamics, a bottle mounted horizontally between the aerobar extensions. While these options are viable, none are as aerodynamic as simply using the integrated aerobottle- that is more aero than a bike by itself *with nothing. *
“3. The integrated bottle IMHO is “unfair” as it is obviously an aerodynamic fairing”
Firstly, its exclusive purpose is not a fairing, it is firstly to carry water- which would be carried anyway and generally in some cobbled up afterthought thing that mimics a Three Stooges plumbing project or a porcupine stuck to your butt. Two key points: 1. We need to carry at least enough drinks on our bikes to get from one aid station to the next, about 10-12 miles worth or about 20 oz. and, 2. Since #1 is true we may as well do it in the most elegant way while preserving or, the the case of the P4, actually *improving *aerodynamics. We have to carry the stuff anyway, why not carry it in the best way possible?
Finally on this point of yours, this isn’t “one class” racing as in auto racing or sailboats. Technology and judicious use of it is part of the sport within the rules that govern equipment, and the P4 falls within those rules.
**4. I have no idea, how “aero” the bike is, when you mount bottles in a way suitable for ironman **
If “a way suitable for Ironman” means anything other than just using the aeorbotle integrated into the bike then, I agree, neither do I. However, it wouldn’t make much sense to buy one of these then hang a bunch of “hydration systems” all over it. Perhaps a well placed behind the saddle mount such as a Beaker, XLab or Grammo IFR and then carry your spares in the conformal “bento box” spares carrier that replaces the conformal aero water bottle and you have all your spares and two water bottles in what may (I don’t know yet) be a reasonably aeordynamic configuration. Or, if you have done Ironman five times already and are willing to take some calculated risks in exchange for a potential P.R. at the distance simply develop and test a nutrition/hydration strategy that *only uses the aero bottle *and go for it. Both ideas are viable with practice and planning. Both ideas could very well save you time at the Ironman distance.
"5. The geometry is too agressive for my needs (5.00 rider, using an old QR caliente with a 12,3cm steering tube and a 1cm spacer) "
You might want to recheck this as the geometry is proven for at least three years now on several thousand bikes and many, many Ironman wins- I think nearly *50 *wins on Cervelo so far at Ironman distance. The geometry is the same on the P4 as the P3 in all sizes and the P2 in size 51cm. You are a full 1/2 hour faster than me and maybe a decade or so younger and I’ve done Ironman on a P3 with a good bike split (averaged 20 M.P.H.) for me and I was comfortable the whole time. I had one 1cm spacer under my stem. Also, if you compare the head tube height of your Caliente (size small = 85 mm, medium = 110 mm and large 150 mm) you will see it isn’t much different than a P4: Head tubes- 51cm = 90 mm, 54cm = 105 mm and 58cm = 145 mm). In some cases the P4 geometry is actually less “aggressive” than the Caliente and, since the Caliente has a fixed 77 degree seat tube angle (only 76.5 in size large) without an adustable fore/aft seatpost head it is actually *more *aggressive than the P4 since the angle between the femur and the torso at a slacker seat angle (Caliente) would be marginally more “closed” or aggresive than it would on a P4. Short story: It’'s easier to get lower *while staying more open and relaxed *on a P4 than most other geometries. This has nothing to do with the P4 and eveything to do with Cervelo’s aerodynamic rider position geometry- proven from the Tour de France to the Olympics to Ironman- their *stock geometry. *It has worked effectively over an ultra-wide range of athletes from 55+ age groupers to Fabian Cancellara, a tall man, to Kristen Armstrong, a medium sized female. It is simply geometry that works well for more people riding in the aero position. Proven by results.
I’ve never seen a phenomenon like this before in the bike industry. Someone on this forum said it well a couple days ago: “If you don’t like it, don’t buy it”. We buy bikes for many reasons- it doesn’t have to be the answer to a math problem. Part of why we buy bikes is emotional. If the product doesn’t speak to you don’t give it a second thought.
Then again, if it is eating away at you that this thing may just be the 30-45 seconds you need off your next Olympic bike split (albeit for a few thousand bucks) then you may consider it. If you’d do anything to go a few *minutes *faster at Ironman this *may *help.
A buddy of mine missed qualifying for Kona at Louisville by 6 seconds. There are any number of things he could have done to get back that six seconds that range from simply transitioning faster to peeing quicker. Buying a new P4 to replace his older, lower tech bike may also be one of them…
It’s admittedly is not for everyone and no one is saying it has to be. Heck, there already aren’t enough P4’s to go around.