Campag4life

Video Review:


A pretty fresh if not blatant remake of the Cervelo S5 as Cervelo tries to carve out a new aero niche with ‘hollow stem’ concept…for those that haven’t seen this.

In theory, it kind of makes sense though I believe it is needed more for guys like me that need an endurance geometry with tall head tube to make peace with a drop bar bike…but seriously, there is function and then there is the tradition of aesthetic consumers have to come to terms with over time and we all know there have been epic fails in the past when this threshold is denied, ergo Specialized horrid Venge gooseneck stem that saves 1 watt at 30mph. I mis-wrote. That stem is beyond horrid and Specialized had to redesign it to look more like Trek’s clean aero Madone stem…also integrated and too expensive.

What comes to mind as I view this stem are a couple of things. The handlebar looks more like a wing which could give the bike lift and therefore make the bike fly so watch out on those fast descents ….and/or, its going to put bikes with riser stems within the cosmetic realm of acceptability. Riser stem bikes which abound in amateur circles are going to develop new street cred if this avant guard approach to stem design sticks. But will it? A new norm?...or, a Johnny come lately and soon to be yet another flash in the pan as overreach to try and sell an aero bike in a crowded market? I mean we have seen wonky front of bike designs before a la Look 795 with Praying Mantis front end which didn’t move the industry other than obligatory gasps... not only in terms of demand but bending the arc of any bike design norms. So Cervelo comes with a....





….somewhat controversial design and thought I would I would bring this up for members to share their opinion.

No, I wouldn’t kick a new S5 out of the garage if somebody gave me one, but not sure I would buy one either…or be an early adopter. No doubt it is a very fast and capable bike.

And lastly, cynically…why did Cervelo do this aside from 2 watts saved at 30mph? Well, because they can of course. But also to set themselves apart from the competition which can backfire…and, to sell proprietary handlebar cockpits which have to extract a pretty penny anytime somebody wants to shorten or lengthen their cockpit by 1 cm which used to be a simple stem change.

Some pics. You decide if this passes the smell test. Sometimes these things take time...an acquired taste.

rubiksoval

Uggghhhhh, cable routing for every minor position change. No thanks.

Campag4life

Nightmare scenario bike really on multiple levels.
Even brakes route through the stem area. Biggest thing of course is the cost of changing cockpit reach and rise.

Hardest thing to fathom? Most of us know our target stack and reach when buying a new bike. Through trial and error we know a given reach and stack will correlate to a given stem spec...both length and riser or neg rise. The math isn't very complicated to figure this out.

But this thing is a completely different kettle of fish. Past convention of stack and reach doesn't apply because stem spec orthodoxy goes out the window. Pretty clear for aerodynamic advantage, head tube is kept short and the V-Wing handlebar complete with a window view adds rise to get the bar to a preferred height or not.
The challenge with this radical departure from past norm in terms of stack and reach and conventional stem specs is...what size bike do I choose and what handlebar/stem config? Get it wrong and a big dollar mistake. Even if you know your target handlebar height and reach, this is no longer a simple calculation when buying this bike.

Lets call these flagship aero bikes with integrated cockpit for what they are. 5 watts saved at speeds most amateurs don't ride in return for buying a money pit...what manufactures rely on...pandering exclusivity and a huge hassle for maintenance and high proprietary replacement part cost specific to given model. Name of the game is less about value added than it is profit.

Hermes

I wonder if these type of bikes are halo offerings similar to what car manufactures offer to create buzz and publicity versus function and value. For me, I change my stem, stack height and sometimes my seat height for many reasons. Sometimes, I have an injury where a different setup keeps me cycling without pain while the injury heals and etc. Also, one could perfectly copy fit geometry from ones current bike and transport the fit to the new Cervelo. One gets on the bike and it does not feel right or handle right and has to be tweaked. And it could be all in the riders head but that does not matter...it has to be tweaked. And maybe it has to be tweaked several times to get it right. When I do aero testing at Velo Sports Center, we do a lot of changes looking for optimum points. The more one rides and perfects the position, feel and ride, the more sensitive one becomes to very small changes. Anything that is difficult to change or must be done at a bike shop does not offer much appeal to me.

DrIsotope

Meanwhile I'm still over here, in the land where non-round seatposts are a dealbreaker. Ultra-proprietary front end? NOPE. A press-fit BB is as adventurous as I get, and I'm still not crazy about it.

Campag4life

We feel the same and I believe many long time riders have to agree. Take a look at the handlebar shape. See the transition to the hoods? See how high the tail of the hooks are? A rider is locked into that position. I can't imagine paying close to $10K for a bike where I can't precisely tune the bar shape. Difficulty of change is key. I personally don't believe replicating the fit of an existing bike is as easy as you suggest because the whole norm of stack and reach no longer apply when determine what frame size and then what range of goofy handlebar risers exist to dial in the handlebar position. To me, this is huge impediment to considering the bike.

The way I look at it is..be careful what you wish for Cervelo. You want to reinvent the wheel by creating a completely new convention of attaching the handlebar to the steerer? I hope you did your homework on all the permutations necessary to satisfy fussy riders who really like to dial their fit.
I like you Hermes can change my position throughout the riding season...or if I am fighting a dodgy neck or back like many riders who like to stay on the bike and avoid injury. On this bike, you better do your homework to trig out how the handlebar riser will change reach and bar height.

To me, we have entered a realm now in bike design almost to the point of whimsy. Different for different sake. Almost a styling exercise but with huge cost, not just monetary but a huge headache for maintenance and ability to dial the fit of the bike in. Earlier Madones were similar with $500 integrated handlebar and stem. And for what other than big profit for Trek? An inability to not dial in handlebar rotation to suit a given rider's ergonomic taste. Many of us will try 5 different handlebars on a given bike to determine what shape we want....with different reach which even can affect a different stem length. Losing the ability to effortlessly dial in one's fit is a big loss...too big IMO.

Campag4life

We are there with you Dr. I. Not all have sold the farm and drank the koolaid and joined the fan club of integrated bike design. For pro's with pro mechanics, its a no brainer. What they do. Test and decide what works best. Big budget. Big S or Cervelo truck awaits with all kinds of parts to customize fit. Not so with average Joe who relies on their bike shop. Different ball game.

Dean V

The tilt of the bars can be altered but you are obviously stuck with their bars.

Campag4life

Dean, do you know what angle adjustment is available? Any references?

cruiserhead

S5 fully integrated with the yoke stem
S3 fully integrated with a standard setup

Both are cool. S3 if you want more traditional fitment
S5 is a lot more sleek than Cdale's, Giant's or many of the other aerobikes that look just clunky and chunky
S5 also has adjustability with the spacers. As long as you can get your reach and drop, I'm okay with it.

Dean V

The bike is very well explained here in the Cervelo tech paper.
Bar has 1.28" vertical adjustment by sliding spacers between bar and stem, and stem and steerer.
No disassembly required.
Tilt has 3 positions. 0.0 deg, +2.5 deg, +5.0 deg.
https://www.cervelo.com/.../5/s5_tech_paper.pdf

znomit

I like it. But where do I put my Bento box?

Campag4life

Thanks a lot Dean. I admit to laughing a bit reading the technical literature on the bike. As to handlebar 'attitude' aka angle, apparently the position with 'kicked up' drops in the pics I posted shown in the article is the 'most aero position' 5 deg rotation that most riders ride 'for ergonomics' most want punches a fractionally larger hole in the wind.

Looks as though a conventional stem can be mounted to the '19 S5 as well, though details are sketchy how this is implemented...new fork...or some kind of insert that introduces a standard steerer and if the latter, one would have to question the structural integrity compared to a conventional one piece fork/steerer.

I scanned the PDF. Don't want to disparage Cervelo's technical aka marketing literature too much. Much to read between the lines.
42 gram drag purported savings. What yaw angles? Straight ahead?...appears to be not. Watt reduction correlation? 5.5w. What speeds? Oh, they didn't mention that out of 'convenience'. Likely 30 mph. Is drag linearly related to speed? Nope. So how about more realistic 25mph where most A riders live. 2w? 3w at what?...particular yaw angles? and not straight ahead?

This was my point about design entering the phase of whimsy. Change for change sake. Diminishing return.
The article even points out that improvement is 'slim pickins' at this point. Contrast the new 3rd gen in terms of watts saved versus two previous gen's.

Forgive my cynicism and I relate to the engineer that wrote the Cervelo poetry to promote their product. What they must do. Of course the bike has disc brakes. Discussion of drag only relates to taking calipers off the top of the bike and not any aero deficit of the discs themselves...or weight. Instead they talk about frame weight.

Point is, rhetoric can be crafted to flatter the bike. But do purported quantitative changes really manifest a performance benefit? Not much. And at what cost?
For the consumer to decide.

Campag4life

Hermes, honestly, we are now entering a time perhaps more than ever before when manufacturer's zest to sell products laden with bells and whistles to carve out their own 'special' marketing' has entered a new phase of shameless overreach. What will the $1000 iPhone 10 do again that the $500 iPhone 5 won't? Can you blame them? If mindless drones flock to spend gobs of money they don't have for nebulous benefit?...lol.

When I look at Cervelo's new S5 and of course it started with the Spesh Venge...or earliest S5 that rode like a covered wagon with its ride harshness and then Spesh took the Venge to the VIAS which wouldn't stop with aero rim brakes and now the latest disc version, I can only think of BMW and their evolution of cars. Any bimmer fans in the audience?
A few years ago when BMW reinvented their flagship E-65 7 series and collaborated with Microsoft on their I-drive they released this $90K car to the unsuspecting public...sold to fat cats that don't know a valve spring from a fuel injector, only to have thousands of stranded owners who couldn't start the car or figure out how to adust the heater or radio. Oh, they made their flagship 7 series special alright. So special, owners couldn't figure out how to make it to work or the corner store. Dealers couldn't fix them. I-drive was too new, too buggy and too flawed. So BMW had to 'buy all these 7 series back' from customers because they couldn't get them to run properly.

Remember when bikes were a simple contrivance? Threaded BB, exposed cables, rim brakes. Light and basic. Carbon made them lighter which most appreciate. I do. I like carbon. But man, those days are dwindling rapidly in the rearview mirror.

With all the so called aero improvements, there has to come a point when all the money wasted on 42 grams of drag at 30mph at particular wind directions has to stop.
Instead, more owners will simply opt for a small motor in the BB which will add 200w to actually contribute something positive to not get dropped on an A ride. We're here.

Campag4life

Both are cooool man. Slick daddy. The cat's pajamas.
Speaking of cool, think of the air vortex threw the window that will cool the rider. Now's that's cool.
One man's clunky is another man's coooool. New S5 has a Trekie quality. You an honorary Trekie CH?
Beam me up Scottie.

TakingMyTime

Does the stem give you the opportunity to adjust the left/right angle or does it just snap into place?

Regardless, I would not be in the market for that bike with that stem.

DrIsotope

I'm also interested to know that in their measurements of "potential wattage savings," what's the baseline? Is it a skinny guy shaved from head to toe, in a skinsuit with stretchy covers on his shoes? Is it that terrifying mannequin in the tech paper?

Either way, Ceramicspeed claim something like 17W total savings for BB, OSPW, and waxy chain. 5.5W from Cervelo doesn't seem much of a stretch. Also, that bike with a conventional stem and bar does look ridiculous. I'll stick with my low-tech "old" 2017 R3, thanks.

Campag4life

Or...just pick up a 2 year old barely used current model Cervelo S3 for 2 grand off ebay which is within 3 watts of the new S5 at 25mph and use the other $6K to buy other stuff. This will also save the inevitable point and snicker comments when attending group rides.

Btw, I believe the baseline is the mannequin we can affectionately refer to as gumby. Also, pretty soon gumby will have AI and be able to ride the bike and give impressions based upon sensor telemetry.

DrIsotope

The difference in price between the 2019 S5 Ultegra Di2 and the 2019 S5 DuraAce Di2 is greater than what I paid for my entire 2017 R3.

That is just bonkers.

Hermes

I have an iPhone X that I like a lot and drive Porsches. For years, Porsche resisted bells and whistles and focused on the driving experience. Today, to be competitive, they have to match other offerings. I like the technology features on the new Porsches.

I was going to buy a Venge S-Works. At the bike shop, I was informed that the fit was difficult to change so I would have to get it right the first time with the implication being that if I did not, I would have to pay them whatever they want for a redo. And a racing buddy of mine told me that the brakes were terrible. Plus, I know that I will change the seat to bar drop in the future as I stated previously. So I passed.

For me, generating more watts and keeping them is hard to do. I do 10 minute threshold climbing intervals on a hill close to my house. I do 4 or more of these. If I could raise my average power on these repeats 1 watt of average per week for 20 weeks, I will have theoretically increased my FTP by 20 watts which would be huge for me. It is very had to raise the average power a couple of watts on a 10 minute threshold effort and then do it three more times. So any technology that increases my climbing by a watt or two is a big deal since that watt or two is always going to be there even for the 10th repeat if I could ever do that many.

The same is true for aero. I do laps around Fiesta Island a flat local time trial course. Just like climbing, it is hard to raise the average lap power a couple of watts per week and do lap after lap. If I can lower my CdA even a small amount, and pick up a couple of watts, it is a big deal.

The endless drumbeat of the new stuff only saves a couple of watts as a criticism for new technology not really being worth it, does not ring true by my experience. Now if the new stuff is not reliable or serviceable and etc and or does not generate the wattage saving in real world conditions with a rider on the bike that is a different matter.

If one looks at the UCI world tour pro peloton, very few racers use aero bikes and the bikes have been out for years. Yes, there are some exceptions. What I think is that aero bikes have not proven in the field to perform better across a large range of operational modalities including ride comfort, sprinting, handling, descending, braking and etc hence the pros prefer what is more proven for them on a grand tour.

I think consumers should be suspicious of actually gaining less aero drag under most wind and riding conditions but if the ride is great and aero drag is reduced even by a small amount, it is valuable. Now value will be in the eyes of the beholder. 3 watts for $3000 may not be a feasible value proposition but adding 3 watts of FTP, at least for this rider is difficult and valuable.

Campag4life

Truthfully Hermes you are the demographic that keeps Cervelo going. You fit the demo of a S5 owner. You want that diminishing return margin and are willing to pay for it.
If your iPhone X falls in the toilet you are out 1 large...or maybe not...waterproof right?...just don't lose it...lol. If you own any late model Porsche out of warranty and it goes into the shop, it used to be a $1K service cost, but now on average its $2K ergo 2 spending units. So you are willing to pay big bucks for the bling of driving a Porsche to the grocery store. Most won't and they may make it there faster...or ride in more comfort in their Lexus.

I think you should buy the new S5. Will keep the lights on at Cervelo. They count on guys like you. You believe that 1-3w matters. I don't but you claim to...presuming you are not a pro racer. You must be hugely vexed when a CAT 1 passes you on a $1200 CAAD12 with non aero wheels. I don't personally think much of it. Rider vastly eclipses any nebula on the high end bike spectrum. Dropping a spacer under the stem or taking a yoga class to drop your torso by 1/4" will do more. I am reminded of the fastest guy I ride with at our club. He owns several bikes. Doesn't matter what he shows up with. He is still the fastest rider.

mstateglfr 

Sweet bull moose style stem.
what's old is new and all that.

Dean V

The most important attribute for a bike to me is that it doesn't rattle or squeak and brakes and gears work well and smoothly.
My Giant TCR SLR(aluminium) does all of that and is my main ride even though I have "better/faster" bikes sitting in the garage too.

Campag4life

Dean,
What do you have in your garage that you consider a faster bike than your Al TCR?

seau grateau

I hate pretty much everything integrated and aero, but if it helps end the ridiculous/stupid roadie stigma against rise stems, I can dig it,