I am curious as to whether the new SC will be more Campagnolo friendly. The current one took some work to make the rear derailleur EPS wire fit through the exit hole at the back of the frame.
Also wondering about the bottom bracket they are planning on using and whether it will work with a Campagnolo crank. I bypassed a new Emonda road frame earlier this year because of that issue.

At this rate, I'll be getting something like 50W of aero gains when I switch from my Specialized Transition, aluminum brake track 404s, no disc, tri shorts with cycling jersey, and LG rocket helmet to a new tri bike, modern wheels and tires, a disc, an aero short sleeve trisuit, and aerohead helmet. Unless, of course, most of the proposed gains from manufacturers are overstated...

BB30 is super annoying as it's really short, so your cranks stick out super far and you need spacers.

That's exactly why I plan on attending the event next week. Forget about the pros, giveaways, food, etc. As a mechanical engineer myself, I'm there for the engineering team. It'll be nice to hear straight from the source.
.

At this rate, I'll be getting something like 50W of aero gains when I switch from my Specialized Transition, aluminum brake track 404s, no disc, tri shorts with cycling jersey, and LG rocket helmet to a new tri bike, modern wheels and tires, a disc, an aero short sleeve trisuit, and aerohead helmet. Unless, of course, most of the proposed gains from manufacturers are overstated...

I think at this point consumers should be demanding data from independent sources who are completely transparent about the process used to obtain their numbers.

If you're a consumer and blindly believe some of the wild numbers being claimed, well, that's on you because I can guarantee those numbers didn't come from engineering, they were washed through marketing.

TheStroBro wrote:

I wasn't around for the Aero Shootout, but was any of that crowd funded? What did that cost? You can't demand that stuff if someone isn't already doing it. In regards to consumers...80% of people likely buy what fits them that their favorite LBS sells...but after seeing if it looks cool. Because remember, the first rule: always look cool.

I think at this point consumers should be demanding data from independent sources who are completely transparent about the process used to obtain their numbers.

If you're a consumer and blindly believe some of the wild numbers being claimed, well, that's on you because I can guarantee those numbers didn't come from engineering, they were washed through marketing.

.
I have the current sc, and I’m really struggling to see how they could find 15+ watts on this thing. From what I read the current gen is in line with the p5 as the most slippery bike you can get ?

They had a target of $4100 and raised $4280.
https://www.gofundme.com/...tt-bike-aerodynamics

It was extremely well done. Their white paper and that of the P5 at launch were the two best to date.

Historically Trek has provided good data so I'm optimistic we will see enough info to make educated guesses on the new bike. If Mitch is around to answer questions on the Trek data, then bonus. Product managers/engineers able to answer questions (like Damon did), is gold. Take away his popcorn and feed him a few beers :-)

It is very hard to find independent and competent sources but Brian and Heath achieved it.

There is another paper that made a claim like the 17W, but they explain how they get it and the slightly technical person can figure out what is real and what is fluff. But at least all the data is there to figure it out.