I like the way your LBS buddy thinks. I’ve applied the same logic to bike equipment and audio equipment. The rest of my life’s purchases are value based. Skip the 7-series BMW or the Audi S8 but buy yourself the best bike equipment possible. Impress yourself and your riding buddies!
I wonder how many people actually save up money before making their bike purchase vs the credit card/finance fee approach ??
-A
I almost never ask, “How much do you expect to spend?.” Instead, based on our experience, I make the assumption that a person may be willing to spend what they need to spend to achieve their goals, but not inclined to spend any more than that.
Tom - I agree with your comment and am proof (2 bikes and a boatload of tri-stuff) that customers determine their spending limits long before they enter the LBS. I’ve found your shop very professional and never a “high pressure buying environment”. It’s the subtle approach…
…The '01 post sales question you asked is the most memorable: “Are you going to Curacao ?” of course I took the bait and asked, “What’s Curacao ?” …5 annual trips (and $25K later) to Doug Stern’s Curacao Swim/Triathlon camp , my wife and I are starting to think that the custom bike route may have been cheaper.
Happy Halloween
-AK
t-t-n,
Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think your definition of “tri-bike” is so broad that it’s useless. Under your definition, my daughter’s little mountain bike is a “tri bike”.
I think it is very fair to define tri bikes as bikes that are 1) designed to be ridden with aero bars and 2) are not necessarily UCI compliant. Did Dan say it needed to be steep? I don’t recall that as a “rule”, but if you want to ride low in front, having a steep bike makes sense.
I own two tri bikes, one is a custom, the other is stock, both are by the same builder. The first tri bike is a fairly shallow and is more like a road bike, I believe the STA is 74.5 degrees and I ride it at closer to 73 degrees. What makes it a tri bike as opposed to a road bike? Well, the designer/builder took in to consideration the extra weight of that would be over the front end when I was in the bars, and designed the front end to handle it. As a result the bike tracks straight and handles brilliantly even when I am stretched out over the front of it - especially when compared to my old road bike.
The second one is designed to be steep and low. Again, it handles well because the builder took in to account the extra weight over the front of the bike. It descends far better than my old road bike with clips on it - and maybe as well as my DL tri bike.
The art of building a “tri bike” is knowing how a bike handles when the COG is further forward - fit is really secondary. This is the kind of thing that you pick up with experience. It’s this type of experience that stops someone from pairing, say, a 40mm fork with a 72 degree head tube.
what handlebars are you intending to use for this bike? do any of the custom builders you talk to think of asking this? since the top of hed’s aero bar pads sit 2.5cm above the centerline of the base bar, and (most of) profile’s and syntace’s aero bar pads sit 7cm above the base bar, this means head tubes can vary by 3.5cm depending on whether you choose a low profile (hed, vision, easton, deda, itm) bar, or a standard profile bar. when it comes to bike fit, there are only two parameters that matter, the vertical and horizontal relationships between the bottom bracket and the top of the head tube. so, the height of the head tube is extremely important. unless your custom builder spends a lot of time discussing this with you, including a discussion of intended aero bar, integrated versus non, 650c versus 700c, and intended pitch of stem, your custom bike maker is uninformed as to the important issues.
Just to set things straight. My whole fitting process at PK Racing started by “Which bar are you planning to use”. When my answer was “Not sure yet”, Christopher told me that he cannot design the frame until this is decided. So he offered to get the bars I wanted and start the fittting process with the bars.
“building a custom tri bike which “tracks straight and handles brilliantly even when I am stretched out over the front of it” would be near impossible to achieve.”
what i’m saying is that the likelihood of a custom road bike builder building a custom tri bike that works as you describe above is unlikely. furthermore, if the tubing and fixtures at his disposal are specific to mass start racing, then he neither have the expertise nor the raw materials to do the job. why pay twice as much money for a bike that is half as likely to do the job as a floor model?
yes, it’s possible to get what you pay for with a custom tri bike. but it’s a very expensive gamble, when there are P3s, S22s, and tiphoons out there sitting on showroom floors that are quite likely to do the job just fine, and probably better. built a lot of tri bikes. in my personal case, that would probably mean either litespeed or mandaric. mandaric does make my tri bikes, but then i know precisely the dimensions i want. if i wasn’t sure, i’d buy a floor model.
i certainly don’t think it’s a bad idea to have levine or kautz give you specs, but i suspect those specs would, in most cases, transfer over to a floor model quite easily. if you want a custom serotta, hey, that’s what keeps the economy going. have at it.
Are we still fighting about this?
all that said I’d like to go to Paul’s school one day.
I hope you don’t really think of it as fighting Tom - I certainly don’t. In any design field that evolves, there will be new ideas, early adopters, resistance to change, entrenched ideas, all points of the spectrum in both providers and consumers of the designs.
No individual or company has a monopoly on all the good ideas, and the best and the brightest of today are an innovation away from being obsolete if they don’t also evolve.
It is only through dialogue that different players in the field can come to understand and learn from each other. And observing this dialog is THE BEST WAY for a novice like me to gain some independent understanding of the factors I should rate as important for me in selecting a bike. I suspect the people I would most like to hear from are busy people, and often don’t want to get tied down in internet wrangling. Yet if an appropriate venue existed, I’d love to observe and learn from a moderated discussion involving the brain trusts of these different companies without the noise and irrelevant commentary that often accompanies discussions on internet forums and message boards.
No, not fighting. I think what I was trying to express is that, to me, the issue has been as settled as it ever will be. There are people that sit on one side of it, and people that sit on the other. Unlikely either will change place during the duration of this discussion.
So, once all the cards are face up on the table, time for the next hand…
you guys are nuts. there is a difference between fit and handling geometry and despite what alot of these charlatans say, the latter is far more important than the former. dan, paul, the jerk, the scum bag dirt ball bike fitter, all these fools could probably get your saddle, handlebar and pedals in the right place ON ANY FRAME…the reason bikes come in different sizes is to insure they handle correctly. serotta and seven can make road bikes which handle properly. they do not have the experience, the history, the knowledge or the inclination to make time trial or triathlon bikes which handle well. telling them to make a tri bike is like telling cervelo to make a toaster…sure they can probably do it, although the expense would be ridiculous, the end product would be several generations behind what GE could do, the thing would probably be ugly, and the ergonomics would suck…all of andy walser’s bikes are custom, made for the individual athlete with an emphasis on his/her power output, weight and desired end use (prologue, time-trial, triathlon etc.), yet his bikes only come in two sizes. set the seat post to the proper height, use the proper length cranks, get the right stem and you’re done. the carbon was layed up for the individual using the bike, proper fit is a minor secondayr point which can be achieved for the vast majority of people with stems and a hacksaw to trim the aero bars and the seat post. His bikes won more medals than ALL THE OTHER MANUFACTURERS COMBINED at the world championships this year. He understands time trial bikes. He knows the forces the body imposes upon them, he understands the weight balance issue and learns new things through his work with the athletes who use his product. from what we can tell, gerard vroomen is much the same, but he gets road bikes too.
when your looking for a tri-bike get a bike from a manufacturer who understands that you need a bike which will handle properly in the aero position, and which is going to be using most of your energy overcoming aerodynamic drag. it doesn’t need to be able to sprint well, it won’t be going fast then slow then fast, its charachteristics under hard fast cornering will be less relevent, but it will need to make the most efficient use of its rider’s wattage over the course of a time trial which is going to be followed by a run. ben serotta and rob vandermark do not understand triathlon or modern time trial geometry. they have been out of the loop of proffessional cycling for so long it appears they are even losing sight of what makes a modern road race bike. what they do do better than just about anyone in the world is make road bikes the way the majority of us ride road bikes…long fast rides soemtimes alone sometimes in groups…where comfort and speed are most important.
look at an r2.5 or a colnago c-50. these bikes are the fruit of the desires and needs of the pro-peloton…headtubes are getting shorter, bikes are getting lower and longer as sti levers move up on the bar…etc. etc. long stems, long seat posts are the rule, tight front centers even on bikes for the biggest guys…anyway the jerk digresses…the fact of the matter is you have to work with the community who uses your product to improve the product. cervelo listens to its ahtletes which is why their tri and road bikes are so good…serotta and seven don’t have any triathletes or time trialists or eur0-pros (anymore) to listen to. however, they do have a lot of fast american roadies and they build flawless bicycles for their constituents.
Quote: “the fact of the matter is you have to work with the community who uses your product to improve the product. cervelo listens to its ahtletes which is why their tri and road bikes are so good…serotta and seven don’t have any triathletes or time trialists or eur0-pros (anymore) to listen to. however, they do have a lot of fast american roadies…”
jerk,
Sorry to burst your bubble and dampen your rant but Serotta Competition Bicycles has supported professional cycling since the first Seven Eleven team went to Europe to race and “Huffy” was their bicycle supplier. What they really rode were Serottas that were re-badged as Huffys.
Presently, Serotta Competition Bicycles supplies bicycles for and supports the United States Postal Service Masters Cycling Team and the Sierra Nevada Professional Cycling Team. These teams participate in time trialing races and stage races that include time trials.
Most of the pro US racers have day jobs to support their lives and families, just as most of us do.
You rant on about how one should go with the manufacturer of bicycles who supplies bicycles to the fastest cyclists/triathletes in the world. You may be right, if you are one of the fastest cyclists/triathletes in the world. If you are younger than 33 or 34. If you have the flexibility of one of the fastest cyclists/triathletes in the world. If you can sustain the power output that the fastest cyclists/triathletes in the world put out. If you are one of the fastest cyclists/triathletes in the world, then that bicycle manufacturer may have an edge that you can benefit from.
They may also have an edge that is totally lost upon and if fact limits an age grouper or a recreational cyclist/triathlete who races.
Maybe, just maybe, Serotta has an edge from working with masters racers and racers that have regular day jobs like most of us do that can/will benefit the majority of triathletes and recreational cyclist racers more than a manufacturer that supports racing at only the highest level and/or in Europe. Maybe Serotta is more dialed in to our cycling needs and issues than you happen to think at first blush. Maybe the manufacturers that you are singing the praises of are, in actuality, more out of touch with our cycling needs and issues than you first thought.
Ever think about that?
And that’s not in a bad context, either, Tom. Rather, I think you and he are of the same philosophy when it comes to tri-bike fitting, although Dan’s comments about the sex-for-procreation analogy is well noted.
Hmmmm…I said sex. Oh, wait…I’m married…
Customs aren’t evil, per say, although as Tibbs said with his inherently understated wisdom (some times he reminds me of a dog…life is simply good when it’s good…we could all stand to learn from that), the custom product is only as good as the fitting. To that end–and mind you, I’ve asked Dan about this before a few years ago on the old forum–there are probably a scant few who could ably assess a triathlete’s needs for custom geometry–Ves, Paul, Elite Bicycles, Bill Holland, you (OBTW, DAMN YOU and your midget offerings on Ebay) to name a few that Dan has mentioned in the past. Of those, I’ve personally spoke with Ves, and I was impressed with his “sales pitch,” which, in reality, was really a dumbed-down version for my meager point of view.
The bottom line is that one cannot decisively say that customs are not neccesary in all cases within the tri fit paradigm, even if the majority don’t need them. There will always be those individuals of particularly non-standard proportions who need them. More compellingly, there will also be those who enjoy the benefits of normal proportions but who also want a specific material (for whatever reason), shape or color pattern to match their personal whims. Those people, too, benefit from custom, although we owe Gerard big kudos for the Hot Tubes initiative–EXAND IT TO ALL YOUR DAMNED MODELS. The latter, incidentally, are most likely not deterred by price.
Yet again, however, we come to the issue of fit. And that, in my opinion, is where FIST comes in. The various paradigms of road and mountain fit are well-established, but the nuances of tri-fit are still arcane at best, a rare blend of alchemy, science, phrenology and experience. Standardiztion seems to be lost beyond what FIST offers. Max Testa might be a genius in road fit, but the accomplishments of his triathletes does not live up to his road standards. FIST is the first consolidated effort to standardize the paradigm equivalent of road fit. Granted, I’ve only been at this sport for 11 years or so, STILL I can only begin to describe what makes a good tri bike–and, NO, the P3 doesn’t automatically qualify. I’d still personally insist that the USA Special Edition QRoo was one of the finest made for a number of reasons. FIST has taken the broader issue of education and standardization to a new level.
In any case, custom has it’s place in tri, albeit to a lesser degree than the roadie needing the rideable work of art courtesy of Ben S., Steelman, Sycip, Eisenstraut, Weigel, Holland, Carl Strong, Dario, et al…
The two concepts–road versus tri custom–are neither mutally exclusive nor mutually inclusive.
Scott
The thing that I can’t get past is that the custom route and the bike fitter schtick involves such incomplete information and marketing hype. I really like my bike that Paul Levine fit me for and Serotta “custom” built. I don’t know any better as a non-bike nerd. The most striking thing, in hindsight, is that is very expensive relative to others and I have no idea what I really got for geometery that is different from other bikes. There is no way/desire/process to really compare either my own performance vs. my old bike or other bikes, nor my “custom” bike vs. stock bikes’ angles and dimensions.
Again, the lack of comparisons is the most off-putting for someone who has to deal in the real world of vendors and customers service and product comparisons elsewhere. I keep wondering how much bigger the sport has to get before more hard comparison information flows easily to consumers. Obviously the variable of fitness is also a big hurdle to comparisions.
For a real laugh at the lack of comparison/accountability in the bike fitting/custom world, check out the latest Triathlete Mag for the Q&A article on bike fit. There, a consumer reasonably asks why his custom bike didn’t reduce his bike split more. The responder, a bike fitter, points to the racer’s run time improvement as proof the the new bike/fit helped. While yes, you can make an indirect arguement there, to answer that way, straight faced, as the crux of the article in a leding magazine, shows how disconnected vendors can become with the real world expecations of consumers. That is like the food suppliment people saying, “Since you didn’t get sick, the Ekanasia 412 tables worked”. As they say, “nice job if you can get it!”
dude (umm … if you respond to that), you’re saying i have no soul … (because i do fit your souless description - well, i’m not fast, but otherwise) ? i have a road bike, but it generally collects dust due to the fact that i love my tri bike, and at present i only have (make) time for 75 to 100 miles a week. i love riding and do occasionally ride with roadies, it’s just not in a tight paceline, and i want to be able to cruise in my aero bars and roll on 650’s. there’s just something “dialed in” about being low and spinning away that makes me feel utterly connected to my ride. i guess not in a “breaking away” hands free, feeling the air, dappled shade on a rural road, singing opera in italian kind of way, but still a very man and machine traveling through the world in harmony thing … any room for exceptions?
I guess the short answer, Chihuahua, would be that I’m just not that good! (to put out substantially more power 60 or 90 or 120 minutes into a ride, at least never have before!).
Now I’d be quite willing to ascribe some of those gains to getting fully warmed up, and some to placebo effect… but not all. The issue was that pedalling at a level perceived effort, as Paul made adjustments, I was having a hard time keeping up with the pedals and needed more resistance to keep my cadence under a hundred.
My one experience is not a scientific study - it could be that my current bike was so poorly suited to me, or that my shape was so odd that a production bike just couldn’t do me justice - though even my current bike was better after we made changes based on Paul’s work
“any room for exceptions?”
no, sorry.
you have no soul. but you have spirit. most people have neither, so, look on your glass as half full. we all lack something. i have soul, but i have no ethics. it’s always something.
Chihuahua. Your first sentence is so absurd, I think you are just trying to bait me. I don’t even think YOU meant it seriously 
Though I have no doubt there was improvement, I do agree it would be wonderful to have an independant measure of effort so that one could quantify exactly what that improvement was.
As to your third point, you think that there would be a large difference in proper position now, and after a period of time in that new position? You are suggesting that perhaps one should periodically have their position checked looking for incremental improvements? Sounds like what Lance does - probably not a bad idea!
Qoute: “This is incorrect - providing you avoid significant interference effects (e.g., the Trimble monocoque), to reduce your crosswind drag you want MORE side surface area, not less.”
Chihuahua Mega,
Forgive me but I must have missed something here. Your statement would seem to imply the corollary that to reduce front on drag, you want more frontal area not less.
In an effort to go faster, most elite level cyclists spend considerable time and effort to reduce their frontal (cross sectional) area in order to reduce drag.
Similarly, wouldn’t one strive to reduce the cross sectional lateral area in order to minimize cross wind drag?
My point was that from the front on point of view, the difference between the cross sectional area of an aero frame vs a round tube frame is much less that the difference between the side or lateral cross sectional area of an aero frame vs a round tube frame.
Laterally, an aero frame generally has much more drag than a round tube frame.