That was really funny. Best post for me in a long time.

That's almost as funny as Brian's joke.

---

***

I was thinking the same exact thing....

Cervelo does claim an improvement of ~5 watts going from the S5 rim to disc.

That's not what their data showed, unless you applied a very selective weighting to the yaw distribution.

Ah I just read through and saw they use averaged drag across all yaw angles without a weighting…. That’s super lame so the s5 disc is likely only a watt faster than the old s5 once you weight it…

I assumed they used a weighting towards low yaw as everyone else does

Replying in general.....

I'll go against the grain..........I think it is a good update. As a former owner of two SC's, I think the main improvements that were needed were:

1. Disc brakes
2. Get rid of the press fit BB (I'm assuming they did this?)

Anything else I think is icing on the cake. Of course the bike has to fit like any other bike would have to. But if the geo meets your fit needs, then good to go. And of course I'm also assuming they've put mounts on the back of the seat tube for an aero box like previous gen

We've already discussed to death how all these top end frames are so close in terms of aero that there is little to gain.

It looks like a cross between the Trek TTX Equinox and the new Scott Plasma

Because of the wonky UCI rules the bike just looks weird. Will have to see the tri version before I pass judgment. Integration and adjustment better be good though..........

I was going to say, it looks like a TTX and the newer UCI Shiv had an abomination baby.

Ummm...no...it was actually a case of actively changing the new rim brake version with questionable design choices so that it wouldn't still be faster than the disc brake version. With BOTH being slower than the previous rim brake version :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

...and then what happens when you put an actual aero brake (and better cable routing) on the front of the rim S5? ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

"Improvement"....<LOL>...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I used to use a tririg omega on my s5, but found the braking performance not up to par as I like in a mountainous area. So I switched to eebrakes.

That performance can be highly dependent on braking surface material and pad material...that said, the eebrake (with aero cover) should be an improvement aerodynamically over what they tested.

edit: Although residing next to the Pacific Ocean, I too live in a mountainous area ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

We're off topic, but I use tririg brakes on all three of my road bikes including my S5 and they work great. My strava stats for Jan-May 2021: Distance 5461mi, Elevation gain: 547,119ft. Mountainous enough for you?

To keep things on topic, I do think the gen2 Speed Concept's brakes had room for improvement, but if it means a slower bike I'm out.

I get it. I guess from my point of view, its an improvement because I was sick and tired of dealing with hidden, finicky, cabled brakes. As far as aerodynamics and stopping power, no, I do not think disc brakes fix anything.

Got it...so, what you're saying is the improvement is in hydraulic brakes (which isn't necessarily a disc or rim brake specific feature)...I can go with that (especially for TT/Tri applications) :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Hydraulic is part of it, but also by having discs (as opposed to hydro rim calipers like on the original P5), it still gets rid of the rim caliper, making it easier to use different width wheels etc.

That would be a brake design issue. Plenty of brakes with easily adjustable pad width.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Yes........but not the speed concept!! lol

How does a SC do against a P5 ? Let's say rim vs rim.

One comparison I saw had the P5 better at 0 yaw and the SC better at yaw.

Are you saying the new SC is slower than the rim brake version? Out of curiosity, how do you know? Is it a guess, or do you have info?

I know you are one of the resident aero gurus, but wondering if you could expand more on the statement.

Thanks

14g is what trek said the difference was, and that was within the margin of error of their measurement. I would also argue, solely based on personal experience is that the main advancement on the madone from the previous version isn't the aero benefit, but the balance of aero to improved ride compliance and improved braking. It's a rocket ship when you step on the pedals and rides like a cadillac over poor road surfaces.

"Experimental results collected at the San Diego Low Speed Wind Tunnel are displayed in Figure 2. Final new Madone numbers show an average of 3,216 g across a -12.5° to 12.5° yaw sweep vs the current Madone at 3,202 g. A 14 g difference that is within Trek’s project goal and within a wind tunnel’s experimental error band"

maybe that top "shim" above the pedestal can be swapped for different angles? I like the TR curve version for continuous adjustment better though.

No. That comment was in regards to the conversation about the previous experience of the Madone "updates".

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/