New Cervelo California, the Rca

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
virenque
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:08 am

by virenque

#DamonRinard

Hi Damon, got a question and I'm pretty sure not many manufacturers would like to answer this:

Does everyone in Garmin Sharp ride a stock bike that anyone can buy from a store or does the pros get something special?

DamonRinard
in the industry
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:32 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

by DamonRinard

Hi virenque,

At Cervélo we've always sold the same frames our pros ride. Any Cervélo frame on the shelf in our warehouse could go to your local Cervélo retailer, or just as easily to Team Garmin-Sharp's service course in Girona to be ridden by any member of the team. This policy goes back many years for us, when there used to be a lot of re-labeling of different bikes even, as well as one-off customs from the sponsor. (In those days there were even Cervélos painted to look like Looks, Bianchis, etc. We still have some of those stored in our engineering archive here at headquarters.)

The Cervélo approach, sell what our pros race, was (and is) different: Instead of making the bikes the market wants, then fixing up some customs for our pros, we'd rather make the bikes our pros want, and then sell the same frames to the market. The other way doesn't make sense: we sponsor pro teams specifically so we can learn how to make better bikes. Why some companies don't incorporate those lessons into production bikes is a mystery to me.

It's a small difference, but the UCI noticed: now no special bikes are allowed. Every new frame design must be UCI approved, and available for sale to the public. (Although "available" doesn't mean much in many cases.)

Cheers,
Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager, Road Bikes
Cycling Sports Group, Cannondale
Ex-Kestrel, ex-Velomax, ex-Trek, ex-Cervelo

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

DamonRinard wrote:It's a small difference, but the UCI noticed: now no special bikes are allowed. Every new frame design must be UCI approved, and available for sale to the public.
Does this address as written, and as practically enforceable/enforced, special layups? How can the UCI tell? And if the special pro frame weighs more, can the defense of "normal" production variation be effectively used as a defense?

uraqt
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:53 am

by uraqt

@HammerTime2 great post :)

I would have never thought that the UCI would use "normal" production variation to protect it's self again my lawsuit again them about my Dogma 65.1 Think2, not being the same as as Froome's. I jest : ) or when my Dogma 65.1 Think2 breaks I am going to sue them as they "approved it"

I just assumed that there is no way to verify this and it's trust in the Companies' product you buy, and for example I trust Cervelo as they provide more info/data about their bikes than anybody that I can think of, however if Deda had a UCI frame, I would assume that it's not the same no matter what anybody said, since they have a hard time using a scale. :)

As for trusting the UCI, well I think this board, WADA, the rider's union, and everyone has gone easy on them, I think a board Manufactures and Riders should govern the rules. And don't get me started on the ASO. : )

C

DamonRinard
in the industry
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:32 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

by DamonRinard

Hi Hammer,

You've described the loophole perfectly. :-)

Special layups are a great example of exactly the kind of "pro only" changes I'm thinking of. If the pros find the production frames lacking to the point the sponsor has to improve them with custom layups, why would the sponsor not make the same improvements in the frames they sell to the public?

Cheers,
Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager, Road Bikes
Cycling Sports Group, Cannondale
Ex-Kestrel, ex-Velomax, ex-Trek, ex-Cervelo

virenque
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:08 am

by virenque

still makes it a bit hard to swallow but i'm not so familiar with cervelo bikes but from what i've seen, e.g. cav's bike is definitely not stock, the stock sworks has a full carbon bb shell with delrin press fit cups, his bike has an alloy bb shell, under that paint, you can't tell if there are extra layers of carbon, a different resin, or different type of carbon used. also he's using it with a tarmac sl4 fork

I would imagine trek's facility would let them make anything they want including special one off's, which they do for the mtb race bikes.

well if all this makes for a better frame but why does manufacturer does not do it to the current batch, i'm guessing cost, labour cost and margins are at stake . . . well just my 2 cents

Permon
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:52 am

by Permon

DamonRinard wrote:Hi Hammer,

If the pros find the production frames lacking to the point the sponsor has to improve them with custom layups, why would the sponsor not make the same improvements in the frames they sell to the public?

Cheers,


I read somewhere that some of SL4s for PROs were reported to be 1200grams....which means more material and different layup to increase stiffness?

Well, I can imagine the reason why frames like these are not offered to public. Weight!
No producer (except Pinarello :mrgreen: ) wants to have a porky 1200gram heavy frame in
marketing materials :wink:

Being a producer, I would do it in a different way....having two versions of the frame:
1) a weightweenie version
2) a sprinters version

I would personally love to have a super stiff R5 at weight of 950gram! :idea:
Damon, what do You think about it?
Do You think there is a market for this version of frame?

maquisard
Posts: 1865
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: France

by maquisard

No, because the R5 is already class leading in stiffness, what would be the point?

Permon
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:52 am

by Permon

I ride R5 and I would be happy to have stiffer front end!
The bottom bracket area is good enought, but front end could be stiffer. My feeling. (I am tall and stong guy...)

maquisard
Posts: 1865
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: France

by maquisard

I am 185cm and also ride an R5 and it is fine for me. Are you sure the headset is okay?

I had an R3 SL before the R5 and the front end on the R5 is noticeably stiffer.

Permon
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:52 am

by Permon

Headset is OK.
It was discussed in a different thread before. No need to discuss it again. Thanx

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

"It was discussed in a different thread before. No need to discuss it again. Thanx"


Sure there is a need to discuss it as you brought up the issue. The R5 is very stiff as is. Not sure why you would need it any stiffer.

Also Permon, Damon was very clear about Cervelo's philosophy of things. There are no seperate production lines for pros and consumers. It is the same. Not sure how much clearer you want him to be on this.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

justkeepedaling
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 am
Location: by Crystal Springs (Sawyer Creek Trail)

by justkeepedaling

It was very clear that your stem is one of the flexiest stems there is and that you continued to bash the R5 before changing it out.
Last edited by justkeepedaling on Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Permon
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:52 am

by Permon

Guys, I am pretty much sure that majority of WW members dont want to read about R5's "front end stiffness issue" again :wink: Forget about it, please :beerchug:
Keep the thread about RCa and topic about PRO specific designs....
Thanx

Permon
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:52 am

by Permon

prendrefeu wrote:Permon. I won't call you daft, but I will ask if you have a reading comprehension difficulty.


Well, I am not an english native speaker (I am Czech), so maybe I have a reading comprehension dificulty. Let's make our discussion in Czech language, maybe I'll find out, You have a certain reading comprehension difficulty :wink:

prendrefeu wrote:And, again, there is no direct correlation between the size of the rider (as judged by their chosen frame size) and their power output if you are judging purely on the size of the frame without looking at the rider. Your statement is as naïve.


You say naive, I say pragmatic.
We do have different points of view. I feel I am right....You feel it in a different way. :noidea:
No conclusion in this case. It happens sometimes :idea:

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post