I have been searching the forum and reading everything I can about the P4.
From what I have read the drag numbers of the top three bikes are TTX = 690, P3 = 690 and P4 = 575. If this is true that is a savings of 115 grams. Which I believe translates to over 10 watts. On my power meter and how I ride 10 watts translates to about .7 mph increase in speed.
That is huge.
Yet it does not seem like the bike gets much love on the forum. What am I missing?
You can’t use a disc with a bulge? So a TTX with a disc with a bulge ends up being more aero?
The P4 is ugly? I don’t care
People hate the water bottle? I don’t care at all. Does not bother me.
Too expensive for what you get? According to the numbers you only get a 15 watt improvement going from P2C to P3C. the improvement in P4 is much bigger. Yet the P3C gets tons of love. Using this reasoning the P4 is cheap.
No one used it at the Tour. My understanding is that it was not legal to use the bike with the bottle. So none issue.
No one else has really used the bike. The Cervelo women did but does not seem much else. This does bother me a little.
The improvement in drag is not so great because it is at a yaw that is not real world.
the faux resistance to the P4 on slowtwitch is due to
people getting sick of Cervelo nut hugging, even if it is partially deserved
water bottle seems gimmicky/ugly, even if it is highly effective. people are just too dumb to realize you can use it to hold spare kit if you hate it as a water bottle.
Too expensive for what you get? According to the numbers you only get a 15 watt improvement going from P2C to P3C. the improvement in P4 is much bigger. Yet the P3C gets tons of love. Using this reasoning the P4 is cheap.
Hmmm…on this chart I only see an ~20-25g drag diff between the P3C and the P2C at zero yaw and close to it…if that data is in reference to a 30mph tunnel wind speed, then that would translate to around a 2-3W difference at race speeds. My suspicion would be that with a rider aboard it would actually be much closer between the 2, if not nearly identical.
I just bought another P3C (my prior one got stolen… but that is another story).
I considered several other bikes, but came back to the P3C over the P4C.
You can’t use a disc with a bulge? So a TTX with a disc with a bulge ends up being more aero?
Wheel compatibility/flexibility is important to me, but not huge.
The P4 is ugly? I don’t care
Not an issue.
People hate the water bottle? I don’t care at all. Does not bother me.
I’d like to see a solution where I could use any bottle on the downtube, important to me for training and IM racing.
Too expensive for what you get? According to the numbers you only get a 15 watt improvement going from P2C to P3C. the improvement in P4 is much bigger. Yet the P3C gets tons of love. Using this reasoning the P4 is cheap.
Not an issue.
No one used it at the Tour. My understanding is that it was not legal to use the bike with the bottle. So none issue.
Not sure this is true, but even if it was, it would not be an issue
No one else has really used the bike. The Cervelo women did but does not seem much else. This does bother me a little.
Not sure this is true, but even if it was, it would not be an issue
The improvement in drag is not so great because it is at a yaw that is not real world.
Maybe.
My concerns were:
Waterbottle for IM racing/training
Special rear brake pads (not a standard shimano/campy pad) if you race with carbon wheels and train with aluminum wheels, this is an issue.
Reports of cracking at seat post area/difficulty in adjusting/moving seat post-- issue if you transport your bike to races in a way the requires removal of the seatpost. (reportedly addressed)
Reports of poor shifting with the revised cable set up. (reportedly addressed)
Like they have done with every new model, the second year Cervelo make refinements. For example, I bought a P3C in 2005 and the following year it was lighter. S1 and P1 have evolved as well, as has the SLC to the S2, and reportedly the S3 is being improved (wheel compatibility/shifting) for next year. I fully expected some further improvements to the P4 this coming year. Being an early adopter of a Cervelo does comes with some drawbacks.
Given my issues with the P4, the P3C was a better choice for me. So I went back to a P3C. I’m sure some if not all of my concerns will be addressed (a couple have already been addressed as I understand) in the P4, perhaps I will reconsider in future years.
For me 4 things come in to play when deciding on my bike. Does it fit me, is it resonably aero, do I consider it good value and do I like the way it looks. I think the Trek is a good looking bike but the P4, Giant and Shiv to me are just butt ugly. Based on that fact I wouldn’t be buying one. Are any of these bikes really going to improve my bike splits sure maybe marginally but when I look at my bike I want to like what I see.
“5) No one used it at the Tour. My understanding is that it was not legal to use the bike with the bottle. So none issue.
6) No one else has really used the bike. The Cervelo women did but does not seem much else. This does bother me a little.”
Carlos Sastre and a few others on the Cerevlo team did ride the P4 at the Tour de France - albeit without the bottle in the frame.
Tereza Macel just won IMLP on the strength of a strong swim and an amazing bike split riding the P4. She was riding with the top men in the race deep into the bike ride!
As an aside, any bike manufacturer and bike retailer, if they are being honest with you, will tell you that high-end bike sales were off this year. This was really the only minor impact on the tri/bike business from the economy. On the whole it’s been a pretty good year, otherwise.
2. water bottle seems gimmicky/ugly, even if it is highly effective. people are just too dumb to realize you can use it to hold spare kit if you hate it as a water bottle.
I think this is an issue, it is gimmicky. I like to train with 2 bottles, one on the frame, one between the bars. Carries spares, keys, etc. in my jersey usually. For a race, they go in a Bento Box that fits neatly behind the stem. So nothing is ever behind my seat and for a long race I have two bottle holders, for a short race, the one on the frame comes off.
The P4 bottle as a toolkit is great, but what do you do if you want 2 bottles? Even looking around at some pictures of pros riding the P4 during races, there are pics where the pro has the bottle on the frame, but not securely in the holder, sort of halfway in. The thing is just a pain for the repeated needs of a drinking bottle, and it would be an expensive bottle to bounce out if it was halfway in like some of those pics. In training, obviously turn back, in a race, do you give up 30-60 seconds to turn back for your proprietary bottle?
if you want two bottles, use the water bottle in the frame, and one between the aerobars.
if you want two bottles you can refill on course (and I think this is madness to want that) you can use a normal bottle in there, its still a faster bike than the p3 that way.
2. water bottle seems gimmicky/ugly, even if it is highly effective. people are just too dumb to realize you can use it to hold spare kit if you hate it as a water bottle.
I think this is an issue, it is gimmicky. I like to train with 2 bottles, one on the frame, one between the bars. Carries spares, keys, etc. in my jersey usually. For a race, they go in a Bento Box that fits neatly behind the stem. So nothing is ever behind my seat and for a long race I have two bottle holders, for a short race, the one on the frame comes off.
The P4 bottle as a toolkit is great, but what do you do if you want 2 bottles? Even looking around at some pictures of pros riding the P4 during races, there are pics where the pro has the bottle on the frame, but not securely in the holder, sort of halfway in. The thing is just a pain for the repeated needs of a drinking bottle, and it would be an expensive bottle to bounce out if it was halfway in like some of those pics. In training, obviously turn back, in a race, do you give up 30-60 seconds to turn back for your proprietary bottle?
What direction is the difference between the Al P3 and the P2C, as in, which one do you think is faster?
**Does it go Al P3 - P2C - P3C **or P2C -AlP3 - P3C?
That one. But, like I said, it’s not based on any hard data besides the fact that the P2C and P3C are virtually tied in drag, my “eyeball wind tunnel”, and that there had to have been a pretty good reason that Cervelo dropped the Al P3 upon the introduction of the P2C
