I just got a TM01. I only have a couple weeks of riding on it, so my impressions are a bit limited. I talked to the shop extensively about this bike, in large part because I was concerned about the brakes. The brakes are a hassle to set up and work on, but they work very well. Brake levers with barrel adjusters built in are must-have items for this bike. Bontrager makes the best one. These brakes also have a very good feel to them and make adjusting brakes on the fly very easy. Another way to make the brakes easier to live with is to use training and racing wheels with wide rims that both have wide rims. This would eliminate the need for a quick release.

I cannot comment on the aerodynamic qualities of the bike, as BMC has not released a "white paper." Even if it did, these white papers are often of limited objectionable value and more marketing pieces than anything. However, it is extremely stiff and handles extremely well for a time trial bike. By comparison, my Cervelo P2 always felt a bit whippy and tippy around turns. It also has a pretty smooth ride for a time trial bike.

- Ken

frame will weigh 1140g fork 440g and seatpost 187g with 3 offsets 0 15 and 30. price unknown. here is a geometry chart.

I hope that fork weight includes the brake!

Otherwise

_________________
Baum Ristretto, Baum Mondrian Corretto & the '89 Merckx! | "If you could eat it in one sitting, hold your line." | twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis

sadly i am not too optimistic that it does include the front brake.

soo many new bikes and options this year - this and the trek look soo clean, i also like the look 675. there is a special place for the cannondale evo black.

74deg seat angle for all sizes? HT angles don't look right either.

_________________
signature deleted by the Admin.

Road.cc is saying its 1040g (final production) and bb30 - dunno what to make of this, because other sites have said 1140g and bb86. i hope bmc puts up info on their site soon.

here is the link.

http://road.cc/content/news/60932-tour- ... 3-launched

Unlikely to be bb30 unless the Shimano deal is over

Sent from my ME860 using Tapatalk 2

_________________
N+1 It Never Stops

Why do BMC bikes have this huge inconsistency in bottom bracket design?

SLR01 was BB30 before, this year it's BB86
'New' Impec is BB30
New TM01 & TM02 time trial bikes are both BB30
New TE01 29er is BB86
New GF01 endurance roadbike is BB86
New TMR01 aero road bike, looks like BB86 to me:



To make it even more confusing: the BMC website and catalog lack to specify the BB design with a number of bikes.
Don't really care what they choose (although bb30 would be the smartest choice IMO, in terms of compatibility), but please, BMC, make up your mind

re BB's. pretty sure they had settled on BB30 as their prefered system, then got the shimano deal.

team and race machines are clearly the same mould as the '10 bb30 bikes just with a different alu' insert (all of the extra width of the bb86 is in the insert).

other bikes are just too small a volume to alter.



i dont see a problem in keeping the STA consistent. femur/height ratio i would assume is pretty consistent? im not an expert on bike fit but it makes sense to me. their road bikes are 73.5 across the board)

couldnt see the HTA's in the pic but ill say this.. BMC geo on their road/team machine is DIALED. They just carve. about the only company who are willing to ignore what people "think" they want, i.e "aggressive" geometry, and build a bike that actually works better the faster you go.

the actual bike(TMR01), although i like bmcs. i dont like. but i dont like aero road bikes much generally. Time Machine is one of the coolest names for a bike going though

Indeed, I'm really disapointed with some manufacturers who make steep STA on smaller frames. For me it's a problem, because I have to use quite a lot of setback. As mentioned femur/height ratio is problably around the same for the whole population so why should smaller frames have bigger STA? Fortunately more manufacturers are going the right way (f.e. Canyon with their new Ultimate Al)

_________________
A light bike does replace good fitness.

i actually saw this in person today.

in size 58? (cant remember if it was 57/58 "size but it was 566mm top tube) with heavy mavic cosmic clinchers with cheap tires and ultegra Di2 it was 7.5 kg. it was missing the rear brake (completely) for some reason but to me thats a pretty good weight considering the build.

was this the bike you saw? http://blog.evanscycles.com/road_cyclin ... irst-ride/

no. not that bike. those mavics arent too bad i guess.


http://www.facebook.com/#!/taylorcycles

rep brought it to the shop today. looks great in person, looking forward to seeing the next size down. pretty sure there is 2/3 orders on the cards already.

I like what BMC have done here, looks like a very tidy set up. Not my kind of thing, and the BB mounted brake would be a PITA to adjust (and fill up with crap on the roads I ride) but as a race bike this is one of the few aero framesets that looks good in my view

_________________
"We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities." Oscar Wilde

Pegoretti Responsorium
Parlee Z5i
Donhou Commuter

Everyone seems to be putting down the braking systems on this bike but to me, it seems only a logical step. First of all you end up with a much stiffer brake mount on the rear of the bike because it is basically mounted onto the bottom bracket. This also allows the BMC designers to design a more aerodynamic, stiffer, comfortable seat stay-seat tube junction, with their traditional recessed seat stays which look fantastic. Also it cleans up the front of the bike which I really like. To me, in a few years we will all be thinking it would be almost an anachronism to have exposed brakes. I personally think this is a stunning looking bike and I'm looking forward to increased innovation in the future by the Swiss marque. My one gripe is... Bring back Campy to your team bikes!!