New Shiv TT on Spec Site now

[bespoke]

I am going to come across as a real Spez fan boi, but I have met the R&D guys there and the engineers and they are all super smart and geeks. And they have 24/7 access to their own wind tunnel. This TT bike is such a low volume seller for them, I dont see why they would make up claims - it will soon be very apparent in prologues and ITTs. The best riders in the world will be on these, you cant fake a lemon
Now ironically the new roubaix (which has been well received) is such a big seller for them they would be under real pressure to present good data (even if the bike was not so good). And the classic roubaix rider (no offence) could not really tell difference
This bike - not the case, and they were really under not much pressure to introduce it
Its all a bit depressing really; they come out with a new bike and immediately the armchair experts are all over them claiming they are pulling a fast one

[hambini]

I just love bicycle marketing.

Forget all the time trial bike stigmas. Deep, skinny airfoils, massive seat tube cutouts, heavy frames, and sketchy handling—the Shiv TT makes them all relics of the past. Light, responsive, agile, and still every bit as aero as the original gold-medal-winning Shiv. This is the New Shape of Speed.

When those bikes with the deep, skinny airfoils and massive seat tube cutouts came out, they told us the wind tunnel proved they were the superior design. I guess the wind tunnel was in fact in error those days. Or....maybe they just need to sell some new bikes.

A quick google leads me to a comparison between a thin, deep aerofoil (NACA 0012) and a fatter aerofoil (NACA 0024). In every test I found, the thinner and deeper aerofoil had about 40% less drag across the board.

Now call me a cynic but I think Specialized are pulling a fast one.

I assume they would’ve tested the deeper airfoil against the final shape. Beyond weight savings, and if you do think the deeper foil is more aero - why do you think they ended up with the final shape from an engineering perspective?

Because they need to sell more bikes and if it looks too similar to last years model - they won't.

[spdntrxi]

Because they need to sell more bikes and if it looks too similar to last years model - they won't.

while I agree with that in general, I do think that area is no biggie. the change to disc brake alone is enough change to sell this bike.

[miltmaster3]

I just love bicycle marketing.

Forget all the time trial bike stigmas. Deep, skinny airfoils, massive seat tube cutouts, heavy frames, and sketchy handling—the Shiv TT makes them all relics of the past. Light, responsive, agile, and still every bit as aero as the original gold-medal-winning Shiv. This is the New Shape of Speed.

When those bikes with the deep, skinny airfoils and massive seat tube cutouts came out, they told us the wind tunnel proved they were the superior design. I guess the wind tunnel was in fact in error those days. Or....maybe they just need to sell some new bikes.

A quick google leads me to a comparison between a thin, deep aerofoil (NACA 0012) and a fatter aerofoil (NACA 0024). In every test I found, the thinner and deeper aerofoil had about 40% less drag across the board.

Now call me a cynic but I think Specialized are pulling a fast one.

I assume they would’ve tested the deeper airfoil against the final shape. Beyond weight savings, and if you do think the deeper foil is more aero - why do you think they ended up with the final shape from an engineering perspective?

Because they need to sell more bikes and if it looks too similar to last years model - they won't.

Correct words


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bespoke]

They don’t need to sell more Shiv TT bikes; this whole excercise will likely cost them money; they will not recoup their investment
All the money is in gravel/all-road now
This project was likely a labour of love by a very small group of aero geeks and will make 0.0005% difference to Spez annual revenue

[hambini]

They don’t need to sell more Shiv TT bikes; this whole excercise will likely cost them money; they will not recoup their investment
All the money is in gravel/all-road now
This project was likely a labour of love by a very small group of aero geeks and will make 0.0005% difference to Spez annual revenue

I think the marketing men/women have done a good job on you...

[bespoke]

Or I am capable of independent thought, and not automatically preset to stir up faux controversy?

[kgt]

They don’t need to sell more Shiv TT bikes; this whole excercise will likely cost them money; they will not recoup their investment
All the money is in gravel/all-road now
This project was likely a labour of love by a very small group of aero geeks and will make 0.0005% difference to Spez annual revenue

I think the marketing men/women have done a good job on you...

lol
True

[hambini]

Or I am capable of independent thought, and not automatically preset to stir up faux controversy?

My engineering is based on hard fact. A NACA 0024 vs NACA 0012 is a comparison between slender and thick aerofoils. There is no contest, the thin aerofoil is more aerodynamic.

I am not an armchair expert but there are large areas of unconstrained airflow on that frame. That will make it less than optimal.

[rainerhq]

But the 160mm front rotor just kills it. And in every roadbike too.

[MRM]

This shape is a derivative of the triathlon model. They did not develop this to purely have the fastest bike in UCI legal TT's. Makes complete sense from a business perspective. Doubt the triathlon market is smaller than the market for UCI legal TT's.

Optically I like the triathlon model (mainly due to the incredible paint job; especially in person). Also I appreciate the "different-ness" of the shape. This one looks like a trimmed version and looks "like something is missing".

Marketing claims are just that: marketing. No point in taking them as a personal slight.

[Miller]

But the 160mm front rotor just kills it. And in every roadbike too.

That is utter nonsense. Sorry for being rude but it's true. No-one is going to be slower because their bike has disc brakes no matter how much you want to believe that.

[ParisCarbon]

Both the old a new version are equally fast... the old version stood for how many years... the new version has been proven to be equally fast (OK yes its the rider as well, but the new one is not going to be slower than the old one, technology has advanced over the past how many years since the prev version)

Id do one in a frameset if I got a new one... I definately would not go with the off the shelf version.. I like my 54T ring and an 11-23 block for my terrain... Unfortunately would be stuck with Di2 though since theres no Campy in a hydro EPS TT brake lever...

I gotta agree, I don't think the Shiv TT is a big money maker... don't know what its like in other parts of the world, but where I am, there are no TTs on the schedule all year except for provincials.. there were 2 team time trials that were more or less fun events, and everyone was on road bikes.. I do my own TT every week, so I get use out of my TT bike..

[rainerhq]

But the 160mm front rotor just kills it. And in every roadbike too.

That is utter nonsense. Sorry for being rude but it's true. No-one is going to be slower because their bike has disc brakes no matter how much you want to believe that.

Completely misunderstood me. I mean why 160mm? 140mm will be enough. I have all my 4 bikes fitted with 140mm rotors. OK, my TT bike has rim brakes, but its 7 years old.

[Miller]

Sorry, I did misunderstand your point.