Thanks prend.
11k for frame, forks and seatpost doesn't seem too outlandish. The price of the forks does seem a little skewed compared to the frame cost though.

The Cav is much smaller in headtube area and I suspect also has a much shorter TT. The low standover height of all the frames gives the impression they're much closer in size.

1 mould for all sizes I think. Different headtube-area moulds for length and headtube height and headtube angle. Seatpost for height and setback.

very interesting data on prices. Makes stock bikes from Specialized, Cervelo et al seem like a pretty decent value, provided your position isn't too radical.

A Cervelo P5 is probably more aero, but this likely depends on yaw angle

Can buy them here if you've got more money than sense!

http://www.uksport.gov.uk/pages/cycling/

they dont want to sell them thats why they they cost so much. Besides that they are the ugliest bike around, cant see them being that much better anyone could ignor the look

Regardless of aesthetics and being "ugly"... they clearly just wanted the most finely tuned machine to fill all aspects of their needs. Judging by their overall performance so far on the track, their bikes are surely doing exactly what they should do something... riding them to several gold medals and breaking several world records.

I actually find the bikes rather nice. They are just, different, and not what the consumer market is pushing out right now. I surely like the simple all-black, no-logos look.

This topic just shows that many people still go for form over function and do not hesitate to condemn the function of a bike if they don't like the form...despite a complete lack of technical data or user experience (and other topics show that when they do like the form, they make a lot of fuzz about how functional that form is)

_________________
And if I ever meet an aardvark, I'm going to step on its damn protruding nasal implement until it couldn't suck up an insect if its life depended on it.

Considering how close top bikes are in terms of performance - any top bike can make you win gold medals, pro tours etc - I cannot see other final criteria than those based on aesthetic preferences.

_________________
Wilier Cento Uno
Colnago Master X-light
Wilier 18carati

Well, then just say so. But in that case we should also stop parroting the marketing mantras about the functionality of the bike we do like aesthetically and vice versa. This topic has a distinct "this bike can't be any good because I don't like its looks" smell.

_________________
And if I ever meet an aardvark, I'm going to step on its damn protruding nasal implement until it couldn't suck up an insect if its life depended on it.

Well said Timo.

Several posts make it sound like GB cycling is supported by the wealth of a nation and therefore far superior to commercial brands in R&D (almost gave me the impress of the Soviet-US arms race).

Does anyone know how GB cycling's funding works? A search shows the GB government pledged 300 million GBP for the Olympics, which probably means 10-20 million for cycling, and say 1/3 of that goes to equipment R&D (rest goes to athlete sponsorship and training, etc.) that's only a few million. BMC's carbon threading machine alone was over 30 million Euros. Giant has 14 billion annual sales, so their R&D program can't be smaller than this. I suspect at the end of the day, it's down to a few engineers, a budget, some wind tunnel time, a drawing board, and a deadline. No different than the other guys.

What am I missing?

_________________
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
twitter: Falco_bike
Facebook: falco.bike

A purely engineering driven design paired with a Saville Row approach to frame building with no need to feed the beast will make a world of difference Elev!

_________________
Technical Artisans

To my knowledge it's based on results. So, the more you win internationally, the more the funding goes up. Some sports have had loads of money thrown at them and produce little. Cycling and Rowing have been the big success stories in the UK. At the Atlanta games in 96, GB won 1 gold medal in total. Funding from the National Lottery started the year after. In Sydney 2000 it was 11 golds. Quite a jump, but for cycling the master stroke was appointing Brailsford. The cycling, so far as I'm aware borrowed the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) model and developed it further. Hence the success we have now.

This is a far cry from the Thatcher years: she didn't think that sport was important, but then it's hardly surprising coming from her.

Once again, Blighty has dominated the track cycling; 10 golds on offer, we win 7, get a silver and bronze in two others, and would have won the ladies scratch race but for a pithy disq, to make it 8 golds.

The reason is simple; genetically Britons are good at short to medium distance cycling-were 'big boned'.
The lottery money, and having a great team across the board, made the difference.