People are obsessed with finding the “fastest” frame / wheel…it is a waste of time. Too many variables to determine the “fastest” options…wind conditions, yaw angles, interface between components and the frame, etc.
I have long said that riders need to focus on getting something “faster”…there are enough proven elements / options out there that you can make that determination relatively easily. Example: Road helmet → Aero road → TT helmet. Almost any aero road helmet is going to better than a road helmet and just about any TT helmet will be better than an aero road helmet.
Bike designs are so damn good right now that there is little need to worry about which one is “best”…get a bike that fits you and is form a proven supplier and you are good to go. Fit is the most important criteria, not aerodynamics. I doubt I would see any meaningful difference between a Speed Concept and a Shiv TT in a 40k TT. Whatever time diferences ther may be would be lost in the noise between better holding my position (did I turtle enough), braking technique in turns, etc.
Well… all current bikes have been designed under the current UCI limitations, so a change here might obviously yield greater results, than the advances we have seen over the past few years.
Regarding wearing a TT helmet rather than a road helmet or getting into a good position. I see this as the basics. Of course you should get into a fast position, be able to produce power in it, and wear a helmet working in that position. As aforementioned, that‘s not new. I just don‘t know a current TT bike, that doesn’t allow for that, unless you buy a frame in the wrong size (which I see very frequently).
So in case you are interested in marginal gains, which I think pertains to all seasoned Triathletes and Time Trialists, the technological advancements over the next few years might be very interesting still.
I have calculated (remains to be tested), that I can save around 15 to 20 Watts over my current set up with a little tech geekery here and there (race day tires, different cockpit and angle, chain lubrication, chainlining, chainring size, valve holes covered, etc). More on the real world results in another post in the future.
My post wasn’t about what could be changed in the future…it remains to be seen what can be achieved with the new UCI regs.
My point was that, right now, worrying about which is “fastest” is a fools errand (unless you are prepared to drop some big $$ on testing). There is enough datat out there to know which desings are aero, which wheels are fast, etc. Worrying about if Zipp wheels are faster than HED wheels is a waste of time…the difference is meaningless. See above for my comments about a Speed Concept vs. Shiv TT.
And as you note, there are still way too many people out there on improperly sized frames.
Regarding material choices: while I agree, that focusing on material choices such as „ZIPP 808 or ENVE 7.8?“ when you haven’t even dialed a good position, is the wrong prioritization, material choice can make a sizable difference.
For example, a rear disc has made all the difference for me. Because of being 6 watts faster than a deep section at 45kph? No. But because it has added so much stability to me riding, especially in the, in my area very common, harsh winds. I have to sit up much less frequently than before, which probably saves power in the double digits.
I have also made different experiences with „similarly fast“ front wheels. The 858 where much more susceptible to catching the wind than the equally deep Hadron2.
Not everyone has the means and many probably are even interested in experimenting with these things, but they can make a bigger difference, than a wind tunnel can tell.
Regarding position…I’m buying some Aerocoach Align Wing arm rests. Staying in a shrugged position is hard both physically and mentally. Hopefully, these will hold the position easier. So, perhaps front end improvements like this can become stock.
Anyways, position, position, position. I think your comments @Aeroiseverything about the disc allowing you to hold position is awesome and only something a person who spends a bit of time understands. Not saying innovation and refinement should stop. Just more along the lines of what @Power13 is getting at.
Clearly, looking at the pro cockpits, that’s where the trickle down will happen.
Spectrum of need: I have a Boardman ATT 9.4 with dual Di2 and a nice 3T cockpit. I can carry two bottles and add a second pair on an OTB. Or I can have no bottle cages at all for a 10 or 25. Simples. I was not changing bar height that much between a 10 and a 100 last year, but did bring it up 10-15mm for the 12 hr. I probably made more changes with fitness and flexibility. I carry food in an old ironman soft bento box strapped to the top tube.
The only other difference is swapping to a shallower front wheel when crosswinds are high. Happy with a Giro Aerohead and decent club skinsuit.
A good quality bike fit this season has also brought unexpected gains in speed and comfort. A modest cost compared with many “Speed buying investments”.
I have to agree with @Power13, that the obsession with kit ignores “getting faster” and “holding position/handling” (and getting a lucky draft on a floaty day). Do a couple of brake cables make that much difference relative to a decent position you can hold for the duration of the race, and put a decent power out?
I occasionally think, “Should I change the Boardman” but as I have everything sorted on it, the faff of finding another bike that fits, and learning its foibles, as well as the cost, simply puts me off (and does not make me feel I will be any faster with it).
I can gain more through fitness, good training, and weight loss :). It is my frame that is flabby and inefficient, not the bike’s
When discussing high end kit we can always discuss if this is really the area of improvement to prioritize.
However, I never suggested that one should buy expensive stuff to make up for a lack of discipline and dedication training, nutrition, rest, and skill.
If have been down that discussion on several forums now, with the argument being “do you really need an aero bike when most riders can only push 200W?”
Of course it is an individual choice, if you want and can spend on these minor improvements.
When talking about optimization on the bike, I mean this in addition to optimizing training, position etc.
Not as a substitute.
That the rider makes all (or most of) the difference is obvious. Ganna would beat me, when he is riding a steel frame bike from the 1960s and wearing flappy kit. My idea is however to optimize my own outcome, and I am dedicating about as much time as I can to training, nutrition, and recovery as I can…
Lots of good thoughts in this thread, just one thing I haven’t seen mentioned that I figured I’d call out
I don’t know if TT bikes will be going in this direction in the next year or two, but I am surprised that the high end TT bikes aren’t yet all up against the current UCI weight limits. I think there is a (slight) gain to be made by getting down to the weight limit, particularly for these WT TTs that have riders considering a bike swap
Thanks, @Power13 I am very happy with mine. The Boardmans are not very popular, and the integrated front brake in the T8 fork can be a faff, but I have worked out how to sort them and make then reliable and take wider wheels, so I am a happy bunny. I picked mine up second hand, one year old for a steal. It is plenty fast enough for me. I occasionally see ones with dual Di2 and 3T cockpits going for around £1200-1300, which I think is an absolute bargain. The later TTE with the integrated T9 fork looks far more aero, but the brakes and integrated cables and cockpit is even more of a faff. I was marshalling the start of a 10mTT with 150 starters and I don’t think I saw more than one or two Boardmans.
I already have a category in my diary for “Bike faffing” I have my limits
You can see why I don’t want to spend upwards of £4k on just a frame…
On flatter courses, weight in a TT seems to makes almost no difference. (Though I feel it on sporting courses, and understand the problem of those WT ones with stupid mountains added on the end! - Just horrible.)
Here is an amusing analysis of the time gaps in the 2019 national 25m, converetd to kg extra carried! A Twist On The British National TT Results – WattShop. In the mens race, 13th place and 3 mins behind is equivalent to the winner having a 59kg weight penalty! Food for thought… (or an excuse to eat more, but not change shape!).
Oh, to be clear, I fully understand the importance (or lack thereof) of weight in mostly flat time trials.
TTs are, however, the place where the most marginal gains matter. It is kind of amazing to me that they aren’t trying to save that weight while maintaining the same aero profile
Ahhhhhh, but people are funny creatures. I did Ironman Maine 70.3 in 2017 and I noticed a lady setting up in transition. She had a shiny new set of Zipp 404’s on her Quintana Roo, nice set up. I’d say she was 70 years old +/- and given the way she was moving about transition, I’m fairly certain those wheels didn’t average over 15 mph on the day (not judging, just an observation). She must have had the disposable income to buy what she wanted, so she did. People will buy what makes them feel good (fast in this case), so any development, if marketed in a particular way, is going to sell. Yes, we all need to dial in position, then work from there. But people are going to buy it all, regardless of need.
Another example is a friend of my wife’s. This lady is 66 years old and still competes in tri’s, as well as participating in a summer TT series I’ve promoted for the last six years. This woman has a custom Parlee TT bike, Zipp wheels, etc. $12K bike easy. While she is certainly quick for her age, she would be just as quick on a bike half the price. But she got the Parlee because…she could.
I’m sure her Parlee is a fast bike, but not $7K faster than other options. Honestly, she told me that where she was being fit had a connection with Parlee, so she ordered one. Had she been to another fitter that recommended a Scott, she would likely have gone that route. My only point being, people will buy what they want and can afford. Perceived speed enhancements can be just that - perceived.
And here goes the new Speedmax.
It is disc brake (duh!) and has the wide stance fork and chain stays. Very Huub Bike like.
To spoil things right away: 9 Watts faster at 45kph than 2016 Speedmax, which would be mad if true. Just because disc brakes alone cost you 3 watts alone. Hopefully the claim is not as questionable as the one on the current gen aeroad (8 Watts faster, but only 4 with a rider)
Do you guys think there is much difference between an old Shiv TT Tony Martin rode to win World Championship and newest iterations with disc brakes from Specialized, Trek, Canyon and Cervelo?
I just bought used S-Works Shiv TT 2015 coming from Boels Dolmans team for my son who is a junior. With Zipp Super 9 disc and Zipp 858 front wheel, Sram Etap 2x11 and Quark powermeter. He will race it for the first time in few weeks. His TTs are around 20 km long. We did bike fitting and it seems to fit him fine. We bought S size for his 182 cm height and 90 cm inseam. The only problem is adjustability of the cockpit and lack of spare parts like wedges to raise arm rests. Bike came with Zipp extensions. We changed saddle to ISM PN 1.1.
When I look at different TT framesets, the ones appealing to my inexperienced eye are Ridley Dean Fast and BMC Time Machine 01 and Scott Plasma with nicely integrated front brake behind the fork. From all the source I read, front end is much more important than rear.
All newest aero bikes have dropped rear stays so it must certainly be an advantage. As you probably know, Shiv TT wasn’t Specialized concept. It was designed by Ralph Denk and his Denk Engineering team. German engineer who worked previously for Cannondale and Scott. He is also responsible for new Tarmacs and Epics as well.
No…my TT / Tri bike is a 2009 Shiv TT w/ a nosecone). I’ll put that bike up against almost any bike out there right now. Specialized itself said that the new Shiv TT was basically on par with the previous version, IIRC.
Not even the most recent sighting, but I just stumbled across this now.
The 2022 Trek SpeedCNCPT, 2022 UCI legal Canyon Speedmax, and 2022 Connandale SuperSlick look fairly normal, and don’t really seem to have embraced the change in UCI regulation much.
This Factor Slice however, is a whole different story:
Very intriguing. This resembles the Lotus HB.T Bike quite a bit. What I learned about that bike is, that the wide stance fork and stays are not primarily to decrease interference between wheel and fork airflow, but to create a better airflow over the riders legs.
It is a little hard to believe, that this would work outdoors, and that these forks are as wide as a riders legs…
Just interesting to see the first company to go down this route!
