New Cervélo Tomorrow? (1st Oct launch)

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
hambini
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:13 am

by hambini

The problem with any of these integrated handlebars is the bike fit. They may look all aerodynamic and flashy but you can gain much more by moving your head down by 15mm.

So the integration is fine providing it doesn't mess up your riding position to make you fit.

cshong88
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:49 am

by cshong88

I wonder if Sunweb will switch to all discs next year including R5 given the S5 is disc only. Or stick to rim for R5? What do you guys think?

by Weenie


wingguy
Posts: 4198
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

Nefarious86 wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:04 pm
No -17 option will limit options for many.
Hambini wrote:The problem with any of these integrated handlebars is the bike fit. They may look all aerodynamic and flashy but you can gain much more by moving your head down by 15mm.

So the integration is fine providing it doesn't mess up your riding position to make you fit.
Well, it looks like that's their reasoning behind offering an aftermarket adaptor (a virtual steerer tube) to use normal stems and handlebars if the rider wants to. It'd be interesting to see what the cable routing would look like in that scenario though.

It'd be quite expensive for the rider too, needing to buy stem, bar and adaptor and taking off parts that you really can't sell to anyone else. Unless you can buy the frameset as frame, fork and seatpost only, rather than bar and stem included.

ryanw
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:52 pm
Location: London

by ryanw

A 58cm came in at 8.14kg with Shimamo 105 pedals (285g), 2x cages (60g) and a Garmin mount (35g), 380g total.

So an off the shelf 58cm DA Di2 bike comes in at 7.72kg, geeeeeeez... That's over a kg heavier than my fully built 2016 S5!

The bars / stem must weigh in at 600g+!!!
'16 Cervelo S5 - 6650g
'17 Focus Mares Force 1 - 7,800g

ScottinFL
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:53 pm

by ScottinFL

Not impressed. Design approach rings similar to what C'dale was striving for with SystemSix, and result seems similar as well (i.e. maybe some marginal aero improvement, but at cost of weight). Short list now narrowed down to Venge and TMR01.

I believe we are at the end of development for aero bicycles for the next 5-10 years. Newer designs are not really improving the state of the art any longer. I was in line at a grocery store yesterday and was reminded that all products become somewhat perfected at a point when all competitors have attempted to improve the breed and cannot any longer (I was staring at a cheap selfie stick and thought "wow, that is a product that must have advanced to maturity pretty quickly").

The next area for real improvement imo is components. My "build box" with my cranks, derailleurs, levers, brakes, discs, etc. is pretty damn heavy compared to any current frameset. It may be time to ditch aluminum as the main material for such items and start developing some better composite hybrids (i.e. carbon with magnesium) for these applications. Yes, big bucks at first, but that is how it always starts.

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 6996
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

ScottinFL wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:31 pm
The next area for real improvement imo is components. My "build box" with my cranks, derailleurs, levers, brakes, discs, etc. is pretty damn heavy compared to any current frameset. It may be time to ditch aluminum as the main material for such items and start developing some better composite hybrids (i.e. carbon with magnesium) for these applications. Yes, big bucks at first, but that is how it always starts.
But big manufacturers do not care about low weights any more. For them, the ugliest , heaviest, and less practical frame can be just fine, as long as it is aero and has discs.
Last edited by kgt on Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TiCass
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:13 pm

by TiCass

In their white paper, Cervelo claims that the new frame is almost 100g lighter than the previous version. The fork is 7g heavier.

wingguy
Posts: 4198
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

TiCass wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:57 pm
In their white paper, Cervelo claims that the new frame is almost 100g lighter than the previous version. The fork is 7g heavier.
But then there are extra parts in between the two (and between the fork and stem). For instance, the cable routing part that sits on the upper bearing is apparently a relatively hefty chunk of aluminium, the fork weight probably doesn't include the preload rod, and disc bike claimed weights never account for thru axles.

Bare frame weights have usually been only part the story with rim frames, with disc aero frames they're almost completely irrelevant. You need the weights for the entire frameset system. Trek's Madone whitepaper was excellent at giving that.

TiCass
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:13 pm

by TiCass

wingguy wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:15 pm
TiCass wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:57 pm
In their white paper, Cervelo claims that the new frame is almost 100g lighter than the previous version. The fork is 7g heavier.
But then there are extra parts in between the two (and between the fork and stem). For instance, the cable routing part that sits on the upper bearing is apparently a relatively hefty chunk of aluminium, the fork weight probably doesn't include the preload rod, and disc bike claimed weights never account for thru axles.

Bare frame weights have usually been only part the story with rim frames, with disc aero frames they're almost completely irrelevant. You need the weights for the entire frameset system. Trek's Madone whitepaper was excellent at giving that.
In that case, I find it strange they try to make it a point that the new frame is "not" heavier then the previous one.

northwestern
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:13 pm
Location: Phoenix,AZ

by northwestern

cshong88 wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:29 pm
I wonder if Sunweb will switch to all discs next year including R5 given the S5 is disc only. Or stick to rim for R5? What do you guys think?
Photo Oct 01, 8 26 25 AM.png

wingguy
Posts: 4198
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

northwestern wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:39 pm
cshong88 wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:29 pm
I wonder if Sunweb will switch to all discs next year including R5 given the S5 is disc only. Or stick to rim for R5? What do you guys think?
Image

Monkeyfudger
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:26 pm

by Monkeyfudger

Oooh that is nice (barring the fork)!!

Shrike
Posts: 1389
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 pm

by Shrike

Well, still think it looks wicked and am loving all the images of it today. Some of the Instagram angles on this bike are phenomenal. Clearly a lot of excellent and very clever work went into this bike.

Image

Unfortunately, my heart isn't in it. 8KJesusHChrist :lol:

Back to the drawing board for me. I'm going to try and fix the only thing that I've never been happy with on the current S5.. the cockpit. Maybe time to splash out on that new Enve stem, bars and clip on system. Should keep me happy for a bit. With my expectations I might need to skip a generation of bike, unless Canyon pull something out of the hat.

So anyway. If the new S5 Disc is 4 to 6 watts faster than the old S5... does that mean the 2014 Aeroad is still faster than both? :shock:

Tour in January will be interesting!

wingguy
Posts: 4198
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

TiCass wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:20 pm
In that case, I find it strange they try to make it a point that the new frame is "not" heavier then the previous one.
A bit disingenuous, yeah. Especially since the switch to discs is clearly going to make the overall bike weight heavier for a like for like build anyway. When they present the aero data they are clear about what is complete bike saving and what is individual component saving. Then presenting the weght data they say 'it's 100g lighter' without making it clear that it's just the single main carbon structure that they're referring to. It would be better if they presented both component weight and system weights (frame, frameset, bike) IMO.

wingguy
Posts: 4198
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

Shrike wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:44 pm
So anyway. If the new S5 Disc is 4 to 6 watts faster than the old S5... does that mean the 2014 Aeroad is still faster than both? :shock:

Tour in January will be interesting!
No. Tour magazine (and everything else I've seen) tested the Aeroad as less aero than the outgoing S5, so by that measure, slower. The Aeroad topped their simulated road test because of lower weight offsetting the aero watts lost on a climby course.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post