Weight Weenies

jmilliron wrote:Yeah, front brake looks 100x better then it did from the initial RSNT shots.

And can we at least all agree that the DA 9000 group is AWESOME LOOKING in picks. Can't wait for all the 2013s to be on other sites so I can drool over this group.

[quote Looks like a lot of chain stay clearance.

http://velonews.competitor.com/files/20 ... IK5447.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/quote]

But shXt - looks like if you don't run a front der chain drop guide then you could really be F---d if you do drop the chain.....imagine the chain getting wrapped up against one of those brake arms......

It's one thing to have a pro tour maintained rig but then let Joe Bike Path Stud maintain one of these - I wonder if it's really a step in the right direction?

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

So, S5 with crap wheels is "as good" as the trek with aero wheels. I agree that the chart is useless, but this makes Trek look plain stupid!

I think Trek have made a really, really inspired effort. I do agree that their white paper drag comparison is flawed by not comparing the S5 and Venge running similar aero wheels. Also, note that Trek implied the use of their new aero bars in the white paper comparison, though these are not spec'ed on any models on their website including P1... But, I like how they've massively improved the aerodynamics of a traditional road frame without having to go full-bore airplane wing on all tubes (there's something mentally painful about a steep climb on an S5). I mean, to even be duking it out for best aeroness against the S5 and Venge is commendable. And I'm sure stiffness is equal if not better, handling is equal and probably better, and comfort is very likely much better (based on their data and an initial ride report online). I am also pretty sure comparably equipped Madone 7's would weigh at least 300-400g less than S5/Venges (those bike just are not WW stuff).

I don't think the rear brakes will be a major issue as the bottom bracket stands to shield a lot of spatter from the front tire towards the rear of the bike. And they've gained quite a bit in terms of increased comfort-tuning and less need for reinforcement at the traditional rear brake area.

Yes, I'm drinking the Kool-Aid -- but I'm just impressed with the breadth of their effort, w/o losing all of the look and feel of a classic road bike.

"duking it out"? They're not even close. At the end of the day, it looks like they've marginally improved (maybe) the aero of the madone, and just added aero wheels to bias the results.
I don't like kool aid.

Here's the mass comparison (frame, fork seat post, collar, and bearings):



The Trek is with their >$1k light-weight paint upgrade. Cannondale would also be light paint. The Specialized is probably heavy paint, because that frame is intrinsically quite good. Cannondale probably has the most room for improvement, with a light seat post.

goodboyr wrote:So, S5 with crap wheels is "as good" as the trek with aero wheels. I agree that the chart is useless, but this makes Trek look plain stupid!

Far be it from me to lend support to this bike aero marketing bs war, but what "crap" wheels do Cervelo spec on their top bikes? Specialized spec Zipp 404's on the Venge referred to. Are they crap?

Cervelo specs cheap Fulcrums on most of their bikes.
http://cervelo.com/en_us/bikes/2012/S5/prices-specs/
$9,000 gets you Fulcum Racing Ts

tonytourist wrote:Cervelo specs cheap Fulcrums on most of their bikes.
http://cervelo.com/en_us/bikes/2012/S5/prices-specs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
$9,000 gets you Fulcum Racing Ts

while they are crappier than aeoulus and heavier....aerodynamics should be around the same.

btw, you think there will be a SSL of the 7 series version in 2014?

So all tests were carried out without cages, smaller framesets may well lose any benefit, the rear brake is a bit dodgy and the bike doesn't appear to be all that light. So say BikeRadar in their first impressions. Hardly surprising.

We are a Project One dealer, so I am hardly unbiased
However I really think it will be a big success
In terms of what my customers are looking for this could well be perfect

The engineers have made a Madone lighter than before and more aero than before
So its a better bike than the 6 series from 2012 - itself a very good bike indeed

I had a chat with the Trek engineers at TrekWorld and they were adamant that truly aero road bikes road like sh*t.
They were either heavy, flexy or rode too harsh!
I think this has been borne out by feedback by much of the aero competition

My personal view is that the Trek engineers have created a very impressive bike. The marketing department have now gotten involved and may have muddied the waters with some of their claims in an interest to drum up more interest.
But that may well backfire - its a good enough bike to not need these cheap tricks.

My personal view is that this is not a truly aero bike to take on the S5 or Venge. Its simply a Madone made as aero as possible and as such should hopefully offer a very broad range of attributes. I don't think many (any?) riders will choose the Madone exclusively for its aero properties. Instead the fact it has made aero gains will simply be an additional attribute to a very well thought out bike.
An ultimately additional consumer choice should be welcomed

airwise wrote:So all tests were carried out without cages, smaller framesets may well lose any benefit, the rear brake is a bit dodgy and the bike doesn't appear to be all that light. So say BikeRadar in their first impressions. Hardly surprising.

the bike they tested was a Madone 6 around 950g.......

bespoke wrote:My personal view is that this is not a truly aero bike to take on the S5 or Venge. Its simply a Madone made as aero as possible and as such should hopefully offer a very broad range of attributes. I don't think many (any?) riders will choose the Madone exclusively for its aero properties. Instead the fact it has made aero gains will simply be an additional attribute to a very well thought out bike.
An ultimately additional consumer choice should be welcomed

This makes a lot of sense. Trek knows the aero road market is hot now, so it makes sense to provide a model to cater to the people who are interested. But very few people buy a new bike and first thing they do is rush over to the wind tunnel to confirm it's more aero than their other bikes!

Most people probably ultimately judge the bike by how it rides for them under the conditions they plan to ride it in. I'm not sure if anybody can tell by feel if a particular effort was 20 watts less than usual?


sent by tapatalk because my computer is a paperweight

terminus wrote:

tonytourist wrote:Cervelo specs cheap Fulcrums on most of their bikes.
http://cervelo.com/en_us/bikes/2012/S5/prices-specs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
$9,000 gets you Fulcum Racing Ts

while they are crappier than aeoulus and heavier....aerodynamics should be around the same.

You don't know what a fulcrum racing T is. Its a 2000gm bog standard rim with standard spokes. Close to a fulcrum 7. Box rim with standard spokes vs. Aero profile rim and bladed spokes. I'm sure there's 20 watts there.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com