New Team GB bike
#2
Senior Member
I wonder when the UCI will limit width of frame.
This is interesting, putting the stays and fork blades far away from the wheel. I wonder if there's a drafting effect on the seat stay from the rider's legs. The stays could even clean up the air coming off the rider's legs.
Picture from article:
This is interesting, putting the stays and fork blades far away from the wheel. I wonder if there's a drafting effect on the seat stay from the rider's legs. The stays could even clean up the air coming off the rider's legs.
Picture from article:
__________________
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
#3
GB has experimented with wide forks before. Guess this is the next iteration.
I wonder if these will stick around longer than those vaunted Cervelos they were on for a hot minute.
I wonder if this is a TP bike or if the mass start racers - especially the sprinters - will ride them. Or, if like the Cervelos, they'll break and frustrate riders right up to the Olympics.
I wonder if these will stick around longer than those vaunted Cervelos they were on for a hot minute.
I wonder if this is a TP bike or if the mass start racers - especially the sprinters - will ride them. Or, if like the Cervelos, they'll break and frustrate riders right up to the Olympics.
#4
Full Member
Thread Starter
Last edited by Poppit; 10-30-19 at 10:23 AM.
#5
Some more details here:
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lot...2020-olympics/
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lot...2020-olympics/
Likes For gycho77:
#8
Elitist
Wow. This is wide:
I didn't realize it's that wide.
I think you are right.
Remember when compact frames were all the rage a few years ago. For a given size, using shorter tubes for the front and rear triangles made for stiffer frames? I wonder if the opposite is happening here with that long and wide rear triangle. What happens when a 225lb/102kg guy twists 2,500W through there?
I didn't realize it's that wide.
Remember when compact frames were all the rage a few years ago. For a given size, using shorter tubes for the front and rear triangles made for stiffer frames? I wonder if the opposite is happening here with that long and wide rear triangle. What happens when a 225lb/102kg guy twists 2,500W through there?
#9
Elitist
I wonder if these will stick around longer than those vaunted Cervelos they were on for a hot minute.
I wonder if this is a TP bike or if the mass start racers - especially the sprinters - will ride them. Or, if like the Cervelos, they'll break and frustrate riders right up to the Olympics.
I wonder if this is a TP bike or if the mass start racers - especially the sprinters - will ride them. Or, if like the Cervelos, they'll break and frustrate riders right up to the Olympics.
TT Bike companies and Engineering companies (Lotus) get excited when you say they the idea is to make something "as aero as possible"...and then that becomes the focus, not strength.
When making a top-tier sprint bike they should start with an anvil and then try to make it an aerodynamic anvil...without weakening it. (That's essentially what a BT Stealth was, hahaha)
When a sprinter has 100% faith that his/her frame and components can handle more than they can possibly deliver through them, THAT'S when you'll get super-human efforts.
Lingering doubts ("Will my wheel slip?", "Will my strap let my foot out?", "Will my tire rub?", "Will my stem break?"), cause the rider to subconsciously hold back power.
All it takes if for one slip in training to plant a seed of doubt for days or weeks.
Last edited by carleton; 10-30-19 at 10:19 PM. Reason: spelling
#10
I always called BS on the Cervelo being appropriate for the Sprinters, too. Cervelo makes aero bikes. That's their focus. Not strong bikes. Same with Argon 18 (AUS).
TT Bike companies and Engineering companies (Lotus) get excited when you say they the idea is to make something "as aero as possible"...and then that becomes the focus, not strength.
When making a top-tier sprint bike they should start with an anvil and then try to make it an aerodynamic anvil...without weakening it. (That's essentially what a BT Stealth was, hahaha)
When a sprinter has 100% faith that his/her frame and components can handle more than they can possibly deliver through them, THAT'S when you'll get super-human efforts.
Lingering doubts ("Will my wheel slip?", "Will my strap let my foot out?", "Will my tire rub?", "Will my stem break?"), cause the rider to subconsciously hold back power.
All it takes if for one slip in training to plant a seed of doubt for days or weeks.
TT Bike companies and Engineering companies (Lotus) get excited when you say they the idea is to make something "as aero as possible"...and then that becomes the focus, not strength.
When making a top-tier sprint bike they should start with an anvil and then try to make it an aerodynamic anvil...without weakening it. (That's essentially what a BT Stealth was, hahaha)
When a sprinter has 100% faith that his/her frame and components can handle more than they can possibly deliver through them, THAT'S when you'll get super-human efforts.
Lingering doubts ("Will my wheel slip?", "Will my strap let my foot out?", "Will my tire rub?", "Will my stem break?"), cause the rider to subconsciously hold back power.
All it takes if for one slip in training to plant a seed of doubt for days or weeks.
Likes For ruudlaff:
#11
Senior Member
At 30 mph you go 44 feet a second, it takes about 7 seconds to cover 100m. Every mph is 11 feet gained, so if you're going 32 mph you'll beat your 30 mph opponent by 22 feet. That's a huge margin, even if it's not a lot of time (few tenths of a second).
For certain disciplines, it seems that gaining a bit of speed up top, maybe as much as 1-3 mph, would outweigh the stiffness factor.
Of course, since I'm one to lean towards a stiff bike, I'm biased towards a solid bike. But my (only) track bike is a skinny steel tubed thing and is not very stiff, and I seemed to be okay on it. I did wish for a more solid BB feel though.
__________________
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
#12
An elite team pursuit team puts out more watts on the start than a decent national-tier sprinter does in a flying 200, and the Cervelo T4 has been the bike of choice on the world cup circuit for the team pursuit for the past, what, decade? Only recently matched by Argon18. So I think the problem is less "Cervelo can't figure out how to make a strong bike" and more "this partnership delivered a product a month before its trial by fire with no time for meaningful iteration." Nobody gets anything right the first time and I am not surprised that we're seeing this bizarre new GB bike before the World Cups start. I'm sure that they want to figure out which of those gracefully attached 3d-printed bolted-on spiderweb components are going to break before they go to Tokyo.
(FWIW I talked to some people sprinting on Argon18s and they love 'em. By "some people" I mean "some people who race World Cups.")
(FWIW I talked to some people sprinting on Argon18s and they love 'em. By "some people" I mean "some people who race World Cups.")
#14
Elitist
I'm not talking about if the bike would be appropriate for average sprinters. I'm talking about the sprinters on Teams GB and AUS who are on the tail end of the bell curve when it comes to making torque (not watts) on the bike.
Torque is what flexes (and sometimes breaks) a bike, not average watts.
EDIT:
I did write about watts above and that's misleading. I mention 2,500W because that's the common unit of measure when we discuss strength on the bike. We know what a high watt value is...I couldn't tell you want a high torque value is from memory. The connection I was trying to make is that it takes a significant amount of torque to produce 2,500W instantaneously.
Torque makes things flex. Torque makes things slip. Torque makes things break.
Torque is what flexes (and sometimes breaks) a bike, not average watts.
EDIT:
I did write about watts above and that's misleading. I mention 2,500W because that's the common unit of measure when we discuss strength on the bike. We know what a high watt value is...I couldn't tell you want a high torque value is from memory. The connection I was trying to make is that it takes a significant amount of torque to produce 2,500W instantaneously.
Torque makes things flex. Torque makes things slip. Torque makes things break.
Last edited by carleton; 10-31-19 at 11:57 AM.
#15
Elitist
I see 2 things with the Argon 18 Electron Pro that would give me pause:
- Steel track ends (as opposed to titanium). Ti is known to allow nuts to grip better.
- That seatpost top rail thing. Those tend to creep backwards.
Real talk (and not just fishing), do you friends have any gripes about it? I know top sprinters had A LOT of gripes about the TK1's first few iterations. Thankfully Felt responded quickly with changes (some worked, some didn't), until they got something stable.
#16
#17
Elitist
#18
#19
Senior Member
Chainstays and the downtube take the forces, I reckon it looks to be plenty stiff enough.
I'll ask one of the scientist's their opinions later but I reckon they're looking to manage flow over and behind the legs.
This better be an early prototype, it's pretty bush league comparatively
I'll ask one of the scientist's their opinions later but I reckon they're looking to manage flow over and behind the legs.
This better be an early prototype, it's pretty bush league comparatively
#20
Applying force to the pedals (and to the handlebars) creates stress on the frame and on the components which results in strain on the frame and on the components. This is how power meters work, they use strain gauges.
The problems cited in this thread occur when stress surpasses the elastic limit of the material, the so-called yield point, when the material no longer behaves elastically, that is, no longer returns to its original state when stress is removed.
-ilan
The problems cited in this thread occur when stress surpasses the elastic limit of the material, the so-called yield point, when the material no longer behaves elastically, that is, no longer returns to its original state when stress is removed.
-ilan
#21
Senior Member
While we are on the subject, the Argon 18 bike seems to be more similar than different when compared to the TK1 / TK FRD, namely because of the bayonet system. Is it similar, or significantly different?
I see 2 things with the Argon 18 Electron Pro that would give me pause:
- Steel track ends (as opposed to titanium). Ti is known to allow nuts to grip better.
- That seatpost top rail thing. Those tend to creep backwards.
Real talk (and not just fishing), do you friends have any gripes about it? I know top sprinters had A LOT of gripes about the TK1's first few iterations. Thankfully Felt responded quickly with changes (some worked, some didn't), until they got something stable.
I see 2 things with the Argon 18 Electron Pro that would give me pause:
- Steel track ends (as opposed to titanium). Ti is known to allow nuts to grip better.
- That seatpost top rail thing. Those tend to creep backwards.
Real talk (and not just fishing), do you friends have any gripes about it? I know top sprinters had A LOT of gripes about the TK1's first few iterations. Thankfully Felt responded quickly with changes (some worked, some didn't), until they got something stable.
#22
Elitist
It's always been like that since the first generation. Michael Blatchford used a TK1 with a standard fork and stem in the 2008 Olympics. My guess is because the bayonet system had more play than he wanted.
The TK1/TKFRD is simply a Felt DA modified for the track. The DA is a dedicated TT bike.
Same goes for the LOOK 496.
I think the BT Stealth was the last (available to the public) sprint bike that was built from the ground up to be a sprint bike. Every other sprint bike was simply a TT bike with drop bars installed. Hand-me-down tech.
Team GB and FES had some dedicated bikes, but those were unobtainable. Felt also has an unobtainable bike...but it's a TT bike, hahahaha
Sprinters will just have to suffer with hand-me-downs, again.
#23
Elitist
Has there ever been a bike that was designed for sprinting, as in no designed to be used with aerobars? Only drop bars, only for sprinting.
I think corners get cut when there is "one bike to do everything". With all of the money being spent, why not simply make THREE bikes:
- Mass start
- Sprint (match sprint, keirin, team sprint)
- Time Trial
I bet if you let the engineers pursue 3 unrelated tracks you'll get 3 different, highly specialized, great bikes.
I think corners get cut when there is "one bike to do everything". With all of the money being spent, why not simply make THREE bikes:
- Mass start
- Sprint (match sprint, keirin, team sprint)
- Time Trial
I bet if you let the engineers pursue 3 unrelated tracks you'll get 3 different, highly specialized, great bikes.
#24
Junior Member
The T5 is not one bike but two. Sprinters rode a frame that had different main tube shapes and weighed significantly more. This was to increase stiffness at a minor cost to aerodynamics. A T5 sprint frame weighs as much as an average steel frame. They also contained so much high mod carbon that they were very fragile in crashes (remember stiffness is not the same as strength). The reported breakages with the T5 in 2016 however were due to manufacturing errors. Cervélo was required by Team GB to use a British manufacturer as opposed to their California facility or overseas factories because of funding restrictions. The manufacturer took certain liberties with the manufacturing process of part of the frame and thus some frames broke in the lead up to the 2016 games. Frame geometry for both the sprint and enduro frame were specified by Team GB with no direct input by Cervélo.
The original plan was for the T5 to be a 2020 bike. The project progressed quickly enough however that it was pushed into service in 2016. Management changed at Cervélo and they cut the Team GB deal short and paid them out. Can't blame them either since during the sponsorship period more Cervélo track bikes were given to team GB than were sold. There's unlikely to be new production Cervélo track bike anytime and despite the appearance of the T4 on the website and in marketing material no T4 frames have been produced in the last 18 months and Cervélo no longer works with the factory that built that frame.
The original plan was for the T5 to be a 2020 bike. The project progressed quickly enough however that it was pushed into service in 2016. Management changed at Cervélo and they cut the Team GB deal short and paid them out. Can't blame them either since during the sponsorship period more Cervélo track bikes were given to team GB than were sold. There's unlikely to be new production Cervélo track bike anytime and despite the appearance of the T4 on the website and in marketing material no T4 frames have been produced in the last 18 months and Cervélo no longer works with the factory that built that frame.
Likes For rustymongrel:
#25
The T5 is not one bike but two. Sprinters rode a frame that had different main tube shapes and weighed significantly more. This was to increase stiffness at a minor cost to aerodynamics. A T5 sprint frame weighs as much as an average steel frame. They also contained so much high mod carbon that they were very fragile in crashes (remember stiffness is not the same as strength). The reported breakages with the T5 in 2016 however were due to manufacturing errors. Cervélo was required by Team GB to use a British manufacturer as opposed to their California facility or overseas factories because of funding restrictions. The manufacturer took certain liberties with the manufacturing process of part of the frame and thus some frames broke in the lead up to the 2016 games. Frame geometry for both the sprint and enduro frame were specified by Team GB with no direct input by Cervélo.
The original plan was for the T5 to be a 2020 bike. The project progressed quickly enough however that it was pushed into service in 2016. Management changed at Cervélo and they cut the Team GB deal short and paid them out. Can't blame them either since during the sponsorship period more Cervélo track bikes were given to team GB than were sold. There's unlikely to be new production Cervélo track bike anytime and despite the appearance of the T4 on the website and in marketing material no T4 frames have been produced in the last 18 months and Cervélo no longer works with the factory that built that frame.
The original plan was for the T5 to be a 2020 bike. The project progressed quickly enough however that it was pushed into service in 2016. Management changed at Cervélo and they cut the Team GB deal short and paid them out. Can't blame them either since during the sponsorship period more Cervélo track bikes were given to team GB than were sold. There's unlikely to be new production Cervélo track bike anytime and despite the appearance of the T4 on the website and in marketing material no T4 frames have been produced in the last 18 months and Cervélo no longer works with the factory that built that frame.
Likes For queerpunk: