# Ugly - Bradley Wiggins' Pinarello Bolide TT bike



## avsd (3 May 2013)

Just seen this on Cycling Weekly's web site. The quote from the Lion King movie 'uggglyyyyyyyyy..." sprang to mind :-)

What do others think?


----------



## dan_bo (3 May 2013)

Wouldn't say no to a spin!


----------



## Booyaa (3 May 2013)

Not a fan of it, but I don't like the look of most modern TT bikes.


----------



## Sittingduck (3 May 2013)

Rear disc reminds me of the Bullseye special dartboard.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 May 2013)

It's ugly to me but it really wasn't built for looks. Or for me, for that matter! That said, the S-shaped forks have a certain elegance.


----------



## raindog (3 May 2013)

most pro's TT bikes look a bit weird these days - probably look pretty good when Brad's riding it though.


----------



## avsd (3 May 2013)

Agreed built for function not looks but the dogma was such a nice bike. What happened to the Italian style?


----------



## themosquitoking (3 May 2013)

Does he use mountain bike pedals?


----------



## Hip Priest (3 May 2013)

themosquitoking said:


> Does he use mountain bike pedals?


 
No, I think they might be speedplay pedals.


----------



## Rob3rt (3 May 2013)

IMO, it looks decent. As far as TT superbikes go, Pinarello are still playing catch up it seems, the fairings over the rear brake looks like an afterthought too.



avsd said:


> Agreed built for function not looks but the dogma was such a nice bike. What happened to the Italian style?


 
He still rides a Dogma, this replaces the Graal.



themosquitoking said:


> Does he use mountain bike pedals?


 
Speedplay pedals.


----------



## Andrew_P (3 May 2013)

gives me a backache looking at it


----------



## VamP (3 May 2013)

Much better looking than the Graal IMHO.


----------



## derrick (3 May 2013)

That's gorgeous.


----------



## Peteaud (3 May 2013)

I think it looks cool, especially if brad dressed as batman as well.


----------



## Noodley (3 May 2013)

Sittingduck said:


> Rear disc reminds me of the Bullseye special dartboard.


 
Here's hoping that in 3 weeks time Jim Bowen doesnae turn up towing a speedboat and saying "here's what you coulda won..."


----------



## ColinJ (3 May 2013)

LOCO said:


> gives me a backache looking at it


It gives me a b*****kache looking at it!


----------



## tigger (3 May 2013)

I like it, just not keen on the rear disc, the decals don't go with the rest of the bike. If the disc decals were gold then it would look pretty trick I reckon.


----------



## tigger (3 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> the fairings over the rear brake looks like an afterthought too..



When you think about, nearly all fairings are an afterthough


----------



## coffeejo (3 May 2013)

I'd need a stepladder to get anywhere near that saddle. And someone to steer for me as I wouldn't be able to reach the bars.


----------



## Crackle (3 May 2013)

Noodley said:


> Here's hoping that in 3 weeks time Jim Bowen doesnae turn up towing a speedboat and saying "here's what you coulda won..."


Too right. He's not gonna look good now.


----------



## Noodley (3 May 2013)

Au contraire crax, he's already in Italy:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWxviYMQvXk


----------



## Boris Bajic (3 May 2013)

I do not find it pretty, but it is not a beauty competition.

I imagine it is quite fast, as long as it has a fast chap pedalling it.

I saw an excellent documentary film about a chap on a bicycle once.

It was not like the bicycle in this thread.

Carry on.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 May 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I do not find it pretty, but it is not a beauty competition.
> 
> I imagine it is quite fast, as long as it has a fast chap pedalling it.
> 
> ...


Was this the documentary?


----------



## Canrider (3 May 2013)

I think we (finally) have to admit, TT bikes have entirely moved into F1-car territory. You wouldn't go down t'shops in Hamilton's car, the same way you wouldn't go out for a spin on Wiggins' TT bike.


----------



## RussellZero (3 May 2013)

Ugly? Dunno... Looks fast though


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 May 2013)

I'd give all your right arms for that bike!

Looks fine but it's more the performance factor i would be interested in. Actually i want a shot..............


----------



## Hip Priest (3 May 2013)

Like a high-end racing car, I'd imagine that it's a pretty difficult thing to enjoy unless you've got the ability to push its limits.


----------



## monkeylc (3 May 2013)

Cool bit of kit


----------



## monkeylc (3 May 2013)

Love sitting at traffic lights on that.


----------



## gavroche (4 May 2013)

certainly not built for cornering!


----------



## dragon72 (4 May 2013)

...but how reliable is its electronic transmission? Teehee.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 May 2013)

dragon72 said:


> ...but how reliable is its electronic transmission? Teehee.


 
It has a mechanical groupset so that he has more to hold onto.


----------



## gavintc (4 May 2013)

dragon72 said:


> ...but how reliable is its electronic transmission? Teehee.


 
Hope he does not have to 'park' it so ungracefully on this tour. But, I also dont think he could do that again.


----------



## AndyRM (4 May 2013)

Thing of beauty.


----------



## Cow Pie (4 May 2013)

I think it's a thing of beauty  Function over form for some though.
I am a mechanical and aerospace engineer, so I'm kinky that way


----------



## oldroadman (4 May 2013)

Cow Pie said:


> I think it's a thing of beauty  Function over form for some though.
> I am a mechanical and aerospace engineer, so I'm kinky that way


 Agreed. Form for function, built to do a job.
Whoever said the rear brake has a fairing is wrong, the whole structure of the caliper is built aerodynamically. UCI regs forbid fairings simply for wind smoothing, but allow structural parts to be shaped within regulation limits.


----------



## tigger (4 May 2013)

No O rings on his one?


----------



## Rob3rt (4 May 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Agreed. Form for function, built to do a job.
> Whoever said the rear brake has a fairing is wrong, the whole structure of the caliper is built aerodynamically. UCI regs forbid fairings simply for wind smoothing, but allow structural parts to be shaped within regulation limits.


 
It is a fairing! See here: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...rello-bolide-tt-bike-being-built-at-giro.html

It is not structural, it is just a hollow shell that covers the braking mechanism, i.e. a fairing!

BTW, the UCI specifically allow brake fairings



> _1.3.024_
> _The addition of a cover to a braking system, as shown in the image below, is authorised. The unit is considered to be integrated with the frame or fork._
> _The combination of the frame tube (or fork tube) + brake + cover must respect the 1:3 rule, as well as the minimum and maximum dimension rules and must be contained completely within the corresponding 8 cm box_.


 
As this was taken from a pdf, I can not include the image the text refers to, so if interested, please refer to this document!
http://www.uci.ch/Mo...zg4OTM&LangId=1


----------



## Rob3rt (4 May 2013)

tigger said:


> No O rings on his one?


 
Assuming you mean Osymetric chainrings, no, he has previously stated that he is is off the "silly rings" and back onto round rings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/22340878

1 minute 48 seconds in.


----------



## avsd (5 May 2013)

Definitely a case of substance over style after today's result


----------



## phil_hg_uk (5 May 2013)

coffeejo said:


> I'd need a stepladder to get anywhere near that saddle. And someone to steer for me as I wouldn't be able to reach the bars.



Maybe you could use stilts so you can pedal and potsy could steer.


----------



## kedab (5 May 2013)

avsd said:


> Just seen this on Cycling Weekly's web site. The quote from the Lion King movie 'uggglyyyyyyyyy..." sprang to mind :-)
> 
> What do others think?


 
oh...my...giddy...aunt! that is incredible  i'm a fan. i couldn't ride it for toffee but i am a fan nonetheless.


----------



## woohoo (6 May 2013)

I guess this is very much a minority view but IMHO I would like to see TTs and TTTs being run using "normal" bikes. Actually, I would go a bit further and have a rule along the lines of "The bike you start a GT with, is the bike you finish with." (subject to obvious allowed exceptions like breakages, repairs, gearing changes). IMV, these TT bikes are far to specialised (not Speciali*z*ed!) and the TTs (more so than the TTTs) might as well be run in a gym using static bikes and measuring the power output.

Just a personal view that I expect is not shared by many


----------



## Buddfox (6 May 2013)

Did he actually use this in the TTT? Commentators were saying the UCI had a problem with it so they had to make a last minute bike swap?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 May 2013)

Buddfox said:


> Did he actually use this in the TTT? Commentators were saying the UCI had a problem with it so they had to make a last minute bike swap?


The commentators yesterday said that he was riding the Graal.


----------



## oldroadman (7 May 2013)

woohoo said:


> I guess this is very much a minority view but IMHO I would like to see TTs and TTTs being run using "normal" bikes. Actually, I would go a bit further and have a rule along the lines of "The bike you start a GT with, is the bike you finish with." (subject to obvious allowed exceptions like breakages, repairs, gearing changes). IMV, these TT bikes are far to specialised (not Speciali*z*ed!) and the *TTs (more so than the TTTs) might as well be run in a gym using static bikes and measuring the power output.*
> 
> Just a personal view that I expect is not shared by many


 
Which leaves the small matters of wind direction, climbing, descending, cornering, bike handling, surface changes, completely null and void. How interesting can a TT be anyway? Well, more than riding it on a Wattbike!


----------



## woohoo (7 May 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Which leaves the small matters of wind direction, climbing, descending, cornering, bike handling, surface changes, completely null and void. How interesting can a TT be anyway? Well, more than riding it on a Wattbike!


Of these, the wind direction (and weather conditions in general) can turn TTs into a "timing of the start" lottery rather than a race of truth. The other items are just as valid on "normal" bikes. It is the specialised nature of the bikes that I don't like rather than the event itself. (I would be quite happy if someone chose to ride their TT bike for the entire 3 weeks of a GT. That would be interesting).

Anyway, a personal view. which I'm sure is not universally shared.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 May 2013)

With regards to your comment re stationary bikes, measuring power on a wattbike wouldn't expose the same thing!


----------



## woohoo (7 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> With regards to your comment re stationary bikes, measuring power on a wattbike wouldn't expose the same *thing*!


Wouldn't expose the same what?


----------



## Rob3rt (7 May 2013)

A wattbike test would just show who put out the most power, regardless of how that power came out. The same power would give the same time if the machine has very good repeatability.

A TT on the road will not only depend on rider power, but it will depend on their position (subsequently their Watt/CdA ratio), bike handling, how they distribute their power and various other things. The same power would not necessarily give the same time.

I.e. The stationary bike will expose who can put out the best average/normalised power only, not who could cover the distance the fastest.


----------



## woohoo (7 May 2013)

Ah, I see your point now. Fair enough, just let them display these qualities on a normal bike (or let the use the TT bike for every stage, I don't mind which!)


----------



## VamP (7 May 2013)

woohoo said:


> Of these, the wind direction (and weather conditions in general) can turn TTs into a "timing of the start" lottery rather than a race of truth. The other items are just as valid on "normal" bikes. It is the specialised nature of the bikes that I don't like rather than the event itself. (I would be quite happy if someone chose to ride their TT bike for the entire 3 weeks of a GT. That would be interesting).
> 
> Anyway, a personal view. which I'm sure is not universally shared.


 
In fact, I suspect that you'll struggle to find anyone who shares it.


----------



## DWiggy (7 May 2013)

Would love to have a go just to see how much it improves my ride into work, does look like it shifts tho!


----------



## Rob3rt (7 May 2013)

DWiggy said:


> Would love to have a go just *to see how much it improves my ride into work*, does look like it shifts tho!


 
It probably wouldn't.


----------



## VamP (7 May 2013)

woohoo said:


> Ah, I see your point now. Fair enough, just let them display these qualities on a normal bike (or let the use the TT bike for every stage, I don't mind which!)


 
Why?

TT is a specialized discipline. An Olympic sport in it's own right. Why would you force people to use different bikes in it just for the GT's?

You could just as well argue for there to be no TTs in GTs. And get equally as little support in that argument.


----------



## DWiggy (7 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> It probably wouldn't.


 
Its got to be lighter than my Ali BMC?


----------



## raindog (7 May 2013)

DWiggy said:


> Its got to be lighter than my Ali BMC?


pro TT bikes are relatively heavy


----------



## coldash (7 May 2013)

VamP said:


> In fact, I suspect that you'll struggle to find anyone who shares it.



I share Woohoo's view but as he says it's just a personal view


----------



## VamP (7 May 2013)

raindog said:


> pro TT bikes are relatively heavy


 
Not just the pro ones


----------



## VamP (7 May 2013)

coldash said:


> I share Woohoo's view but as he says it's just a personal view


 
Care to expand?


----------



## Rob3rt (7 May 2013)

DWiggy said:


> Its got to be lighter than my Ali BMC?


 
TT bikes are relatively heavy, additionally, weight won't make much difference unless you are riding up hill! These bikes are built to be aerodynamic and to put the rider in the most aerodynamic position possible without compromising their power output, not to be lightweight (although they do of course try not to make them light too, but it is not the primary design focus).


----------



## VamP (7 May 2013)

And they won't do much for your speed below 25 mph in all honesty.


----------



## woohoo (7 May 2013)

VamP said:


> Why?
> 
> TT is a specialized discipline. An Olympic sport in it's own right. Why would you force people to use different bikes in it just for the GT's?
> 
> You could just as well argue for there to be no TTs in GTs. And get equally as little support in that argument.


 
I can't see why you are getting so animated about this. It's just a comment on my (I now see, shared,) view.Maybe we can add a bit of downhill MTBing, some XC and a bit of trials as well  . I don't believe the TTs in "days of old" were any less valid because the riders used their normal bikes.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 May 2013)

VamP said:


> And they won't do much for your speed below 25 mph in all honesty.


 
Don't really agree with this. But then again, I can only provide anecdotal evidence for my opinion, nothing concrete!


----------



## VamP (7 May 2013)

woohoo said:


> I can't see why you are getting so animated about this. It's just a comment on my (I now see, shared,) view) Maybe we can add a bit of downhill MTBing, some XC and a bit of trials as well  . I don't believe the TTs in "days of old" were any less valid because the riders used their normal bikes.


 
You're not used to discussing are you? 

TTs have evolved a bit since the ''days of old'', they are a stand-alone discipline, that has traditionally been included in GTs. Lots of riders ride stand-alone TTs as well as stand-alone road races. Why would you arbitrarily force them to use different bikes in TTs that are a part of a GT, than they would in a stand-alone TT, such as the Olympic TT?

Or is it just progress in general that you oppose?


----------



## Rob3rt (7 May 2013)

In some tours they do ride normal road bikes in TT's. Sometimes with clip-on tri bars.


----------



## DWiggy (7 May 2013)

Just moving from my old steely to my ali bike added ~2mph on my average i'm sure this beast of a bike in carbon with the aerodynamics of an f1 car would add another couple of mph's..surely?


----------



## VamP (7 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Don't really agree with this. But then again,I can only provide anecdotal evidence for my opinion!


 
You can measure aero effects from around 15 mph, but they become more significant the faster you go. Much more significant above 25 mph. 

I am not disagreeing, the original point was that an average commuter is unlikely to build up enough speed on a commute to see significant aero benefits on a TT machine.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 May 2013)

DWiggy said:


> Just moving from my old steely to my ali bike added ~2mph on my average i'm sure this beast of a bike in carbon with the aerodynamics of an f1 car would add another couple of mph's..surely?


 
Only if you are able to get up to speed, get in an aero tuck and stay there. Riding around on the out riggers is just like riding on the drops tbh.


----------



## DWiggy (7 May 2013)

VamP said:


> You can measure aero effects from around 15 mph, but they become more significant the faster you go. Much more significant above 25 mph.
> 
> I am not disagreeing, the original point was that an average commuter is unlikely to build up enough speed on a commute to see significant aero benefits on a TT machine.


 
My average is between 18-20mph so should get something out of it?...still its all pie in the sky, I'll never find out  lol


----------



## woohoo (7 May 2013)

VamP said:


> You're not used to discussing are you?
> 
> TTs have evolved a bit since the ''days of old'', they are a stand-alone discipline, that has traditionally been included in GTs. Lots of riders ride stand-alone TTs as well as stand-alone road races. Why would you arbitrarily force them to use different bikes in TTs that are a part of a GT, than they would in a stand-alone TT, such as the Olympic TT?
> 
> Or is it just progress in general that you oppose?


 
I see you've resulted to abuse which is the first sign of desperation. I've no objection to progress, however it is defined, whether it be carbon, electronic, 11 speed, whatever. In case the point went over your head, it the specialist bikes TTs in GTs that I don't like.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 May 2013)

DWiggy said:


> My average is between 18-20mph so should get something out of it?...still its all pie in the sky, I'll never find out  lol


 
Again not really, maybe some very small gains. You would get more from the wheels than the frame most likely, but then the gains from a wheel such as a disc wheel really are more apparent at high speeds. Riding that bike on a commute would save next to nothing because you would not be riding fast enough for long enough. You would spend too much time accelerating and decelerating and riding on the bull horns. It is not safe to ride in heavy traffic on aero bars.

However choose a more appropriate scenario, rather than your rather silly commuting one and compare over a 10 mile time trial and the gains will be in the order of minutes.


----------



## woohoo (7 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> In some tours they do ride normal road bikes in TT's. Sometimes with clip-on tri bars.


 
... and IMV that is fine. These TTs are no less valid just because the teams aren't taking part in a TT bike arms race.


----------



## VamP (7 May 2013)

woohoo said:


> I see you've resulted to abuse which is the first sign of desperation. I've no objection to progress, however it is defined, whether it be carbon, electronic, 11 speed, whatever. In case the point went over your head, it the specialist bikes TTs in GTs that I don't like.


 
Abuse? 

You'll *know* I'm abusing you when it happens.

How about putting forth a reasoned argument to justify excluding TT bikes from TTs? That might have more weight then opting for the ''just my opinion'' disclaimer. As it stands, I am actually completely unclear as to the grounds on which you wish to exclude the TT machines.


----------



## e-rider (7 May 2013)

avsd said:


> Agreed built for function not looks but the dogma was such a nice bike. What happened to the Italian style?


the wind tunnel happened!


----------



## woohoo (7 May 2013)

VamP said:


> Abuse?
> 
> You'll *know* I'm abusing you when it happens.
> 
> How about putting forth a reasoned argument to justify excluding TT bikes from TTs? That might have more weight then opting for the ''just my opinion'' disclaimer. As it stands, I am actually completely unclear as to the grounds on which you wish to exclude the TT machines.


 
... and now a pathetic attempt at intimidation.

I can appreciate that you are completely unclear about many things. You are really not worth the effort.


----------



## e-rider (7 May 2013)

themosquitoking said:


> Does he use mountain bike pedals?


ha, that would be funny - sadly, no he doesn't!


----------



## VamP (7 May 2013)

woohoo said:


> ... and now a pathetic attempt at intimidation.
> 
> I can appreciate that you are completely unclear about many things. You are really not worth the effort.


 
Knobber


----------



## fossyant (7 May 2013)

Behave children


----------



## woohoo (7 May 2013)

VamP said:


> Knobber


 
Seems to sum you up pretty well. (sorry forgot the  )


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (7 May 2013)

I quite like the same bike for the whole race approach. But the only real reason I can think of for introducing it would be the reduced cost, useful for the smaller teams.


----------



## woohoo (7 May 2013)

fossyant said:


> Behave children


 
Good point. I'm trying to watch Stage 4 just now.


----------



## VamP (7 May 2013)

woohoo said:


> Seems to sum you up pretty well. (sorry forgot the  )


 
I thought I wasn't worth the effort?


Look do you actually have an opinion on the TT issue, or did you just say something random, and are now panicking because you can't think of any reason why it would be a good idea to make Sir Brad do a TT on Dogma?

I am *always *open to a reasoned argument.




fossyant said:


> Behave children


 

He started it mum


----------



## woohoo (7 May 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I quite like the same bike for the whole race approach. But the only real reason I can think of for introducing it would be the reduced cost, useful for the smaller teams.


Well, it is certainly one very good reason and if it helps level the playfield, so much the better.


----------



## coldash (7 May 2013)

I like the reduced cost idea but it is also worth mentioning that even the "we need innovation" stuff doesn't really justify these TT bikes otherwise the original Boardman bike would be made legal again.


----------



## VamP (7 May 2013)

woohoo said:


> Well, it is certainly one very good reason and if it helps level the playfield, so much the better.


 
Although at the GT level, the teams get their kit by way of sponsorship.

The UCI have a lot of rules on what a TT bike is to achieve exactly this. The differences between various TT bikes from different manufacturers are quite insignificant from a performance perspective. I don't see the playing field as not being level.

Edited: The fact that Team Sky won the TTT on the old bikes goes some way to demonstarting this, surely?


----------



## woohoo (7 May 2013)

coldash said:


> I like the reduced cost idea but it is also worth mentioning that even the "we need innovation" stuff doesn't really justify these TT bikes otherwise the original Boardman bike would be made legal again.


 
Fair point. Maybe they are not all they are cracked up to be after all!. As I said at the beginning, I thought my view would be in the minority (but I note, not as alleged, "unique"). I've spent some time in the sport and always enjoyed TTs (I'm "out" for a while). The type of bike made no difference to my enjoyment.


----------



## oldroadman (7 May 2013)

raindog said:


> pro TT bikes are relatively heavy


 You won't find many that are much above the 6.8kg minimum, just like the normal road bikes. There is no point in pushing extra kgs around up hills when saving energy is a crucial stage race strategy. A few pure road sprinters may go slightly heavier with reinforced frames, but that's maybe 200 gms tops, they still have to get over little hills!


----------



## oldroadman (7 May 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I quite like the same bike for the whole race approach. But the only real reason I can think of for introducing it would be the reduced cost, useful for the smaller teams.


 Teams get the equipment they need. Cost is not usually an isue, if the team is any good a deal with a supplier is done and will include what you need. Everyone operating a team at UCI level understands this.


----------



## Rob3rt (7 May 2013)

oldroadman said:


> You won't find many that are much above the 6.8kg minimum, just like the normal road bikes. There is no point in pushing extra kgs around up hills when saving energy is a crucial stage race strategy. *A few pure road sprinters may go slightly heavier with reinforced frames,* but that's maybe 200 gms tops, they still have to get over little hills!


 
What is the point, they won't be sprinting anywhere on a TT bike and typically they will put out less power than the TT specialists over the distance, most certainly on a W/kg basis.


----------



## montage (8 May 2013)

oldroadman said:


> You won't find many that are much above the 6.8kg minimum, just like the normal road bikes. There is no point in pushing extra kgs around up hills when saving energy is a crucial stage race strategy. A few pure road sprinters may go slightly heavier with reinforced frames, but that's maybe 200 gms tops, they still have to get over little hills!


 
Interestingly G Thomas' bike in the TDU weighed in at something like 7.4kg, bit odd that


----------



## raindog (8 May 2013)

oldroadman said:


> You won't find many that are much above the 6.8kg minimum, just like the normal road bikes.


The top TT contenders bikes are quite a bit heavier because they're over dimensioned for aerodynamics. Brad's Graal for instance, weighs almost 8.5 kilos, and that's considered pretty good.
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/pro-bike-bradley-wiggins-team-sky-pinarello-graal-26064/


----------



## VamP (8 May 2013)

oldroadman said:


> You won't find many that are much above the 6.8kg minimum, just like the normal road bikes. There is no point in pushing extra kgs around up hills when saving energy is a crucial stage race strategy. A few pure road sprinters may go slightly heavier with reinforced frames, but that's maybe 200 gms tops, they still have to get over little hills!


 
This is the Katyusha bike in it's lightest off-the-shelf configuration. 7.8 kg. There's not much scope to reduce that further.

Bottom line is that the TT frames are heavier and less stiff than road frames. 1300 grams versus 800 grams.


----------



## Rob3rt (8 May 2013)

VamP said:


> This is the Katyusha bike in it's lightest off-the-shelf configuration. 7.8 kg. *There's not much scope to reduce that further.*
> 
> Bottom line is that the TT frames are heavier and less stiff than road frames. 1300 grams versus 800 grams.


 
SRAM 

Sidenote, lightweight disc wheels look so damn pro!


----------



## VamP (8 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> SRAM
> 
> Sidenote, lightweight disc wheels look so damn pro!


 
The frame is designed to work with electronic gruppo only...

Tubular front wheel is the one obvious weight saving that I can see.


----------



## Rob3rt (8 May 2013)

VamP said:


> *The frame is designed to work with electronic gruppo only...*
> 
> Tubular front wheel is the one obvious weight saving that I can see.


 
LAME!


----------



## SeeFarr (8 May 2013)

How come Wiggo gets one of these new toys and the rest of the Sky team have to keep their Graal's? 
That's what I'd heard anyway.


----------



## Rob3rt (8 May 2013)

SeeFarr said:


> How come Wiggo gets one of these new toys and the rest of the Sky team have to keep their Graal's?
> That's what I'd heard anyway.


 
That is usually how it works! The rest of them will get theirs when it has been tested and feedback has been taken into account etc.


----------



## SeeFarr (8 May 2013)

Ah right, that makes sense. Cheers.


----------



## VamP (8 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> LAME!


 
I am not a big fan of electronic groupsets, but it looks to me like a TT bike is the ideal application.


----------



## Rob3rt (8 May 2013)

Shifters on the bullhorns and tri bars is good. But mechanical shifters apparently exploit the reg's in such a way as to be advantageous in giving you a longer extension.


----------



## VamP (8 May 2013)

Aggregate of marginal gains and all that


----------



## VamP (9 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> In some tours they do ride normal road bikes in TT's. Sometimes with clip-on tri bars.


 

Interestingly enough... it seems at least some teams are planning to use this option on stage 18 of the Giro this year. A hill climb TT. Well more of a mountain really.


----------



## woohoo (9 May 2013)

It would be interesting to see how the teams assess the trade off between aero advantage and weight/handling advantages.


----------



## jarlrmai (9 May 2013)

That looks brutal.


----------



## RichK (12 May 2013)

are tri-spokes going to be back in fashion soon then?


----------



## jdtate101 (12 May 2013)

The last mountain time trial I remember seeing was in the Romandie last yr, I think something like 80% of teams went for road bikes with clip-on's.


----------



## GrasB (12 May 2013)

VamP said:


> And they won't do much for your speed below 25 mph in all honesty.


The advantage isn't as big but I'd certainly call the near 1mph speed gain at 10mph a significant on the flat. This is data from my TT bike & road bike on the drops. The cross over point is 3.2-3.3mph

```
TT        Road   Speed gain
10mph    35.2w     39.4w     0.8mph
15mph    72.8w     85.3w     1.1mph
20mph    134.3w    162.5w    1.6mph
25mph    227.8w    281.5w    1.9mph
30mph    361.3w    452.8w    2.4mph
35mph    542.7w    686.8w    2.8mph
```
at 10mph on the climbs it takes a 7.5% gradient for the road bike to break even with the TT bike.


----------



## VamP (12 May 2013)

GrasB said:


> The advantage isn't as big but I'd certainly call the near 1mph speed gain at 10mph a significant on the flat. This is data from my TT bike & road bike on the drops. The cross over point is 3.2-3.3mph
> 
> ```
> TT        Road  Speed gain
> ...


 
Interesting. Is that what most of us would recognise as a TT bike, or one of your space age recumbents?


----------



## GrasB (12 May 2013)

VamP said:


> Interesting. Is that what most of us would recognise as a TT bike, or one of your space age recumbents?


Low racer added to the mix & time to sit down...

```
LR      TT        Road    Speed gain
10mph    33.8w    35.2w    39.4w  1.0/0.8mph
15mph    66.8w    72.8w    85.3w  1.9/1.1mph
20mph    119.0w  134.3w    162.5w  2.8/1.6mph
25mph    196.8w  227.8w    281.5w  3.6/1.9mph
30mph    306.8w  361.3w    452.8w  4.2/2.4mph
35mph    455.3w  542.7w    686.8w  4.9/2.8mph
50mph    1198w   1546w     2092w   10.3mph/5.2mph
```


----------



## VamP (12 May 2013)

Sitting down. That's mental.

I am assuming you calculated the wattage required at 50mph for the road bike?


----------



## tigger (12 May 2013)

I must say I thought the Bolide looked fantastic on TV yesterday. Shame it suffers from punctures!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (12 May 2013)

tigger said:


> I must say I thought the Bolide looked fantastic on TV yesterday. Shame it suffers from punctures!


Feast you eyes on this then! http://road.cc/content/image/82350-pinarello-bolide-full-bike 
(Sorry if the link has already been posted up but there are a few pics in there that I hadn't seen before.)


----------



## GrasB (12 May 2013)

VamP said:


> Sitting down. That's mental.
> 
> I am assuming you calculated the wattage required at 50mph for the road bike?


That's all modelled power requirements from known good weight, rolling resistance & aerodynamics data.

What's even more scary is there is a lot of 'cheap' cleaning up to do on my low racer's aerodynamics. Where as my TT setup is fairly nailed & very clean with only expensive marginal gains are to be had.


----------



## VamP (12 May 2013)

GrasB said:


> That's all modelled power requirements from known good weight, rolling resistance & aerodynamics data.
> 
> What's even more scary is there is a lot of 'cheap' cleaning up to do on my low racer's aerodynamics. Where as my TT setup is fairly nailed & very clean with only expensive marginal gains are to be had.


 
Last week there was a lad riding around on something that your low racer sounds like at the Lotus Hethel track - he was flying along. It was a windy day and during my warm up laps I was at 25mph on the downwind side, but only 15ish into the wind. He seemed to be almost the same speed both directions.

What kind of competitions are there for the low racers?


----------



## GrasB (12 May 2013)

VamP said:


> What kind of competitions are there for the low racers?


A lot of clubs will let you TT with them & there's also the British Human Power Club race series.


----------

