P4 (Page 2)

I was initially disappointed in that it wasn't enough of a dramatic departure from the P3, but it didn't take long for the elegance-through-simplicity to shine through for me.

Cervelo makes no apologies that their bikes do not appear to have been designed by interior designers or follow industry trends that show no real-world aerodynamic benefit (ala behind the fork-mounted brake caliper, front wheel cutout); every nuance of their designs are form following function. Vroomen & White are engineers, and everything Cervelo has done since its inception was technology-driven: simplicity in design. In just a few hours I went from to and although I'll never own one, it is definitely the hottest looking bike I've seen.

As for the dissing of the token water bottle - see it for what it really is - really, a fairing and nothing more, but cleverly serving double duty. 

And Cervelo got it RIGHT ON with the color and graphics (or lack thereof).

Friggin' ugly? Friggin' eh!

Hats of to Phil and Gerard. Well done, Gentlemen.

Enjoy.

The projected time savings (per ST and Cervelo Website) are 1:00 at 25MPH over 56mi. So let's run this scenario....If this frame is $4800, and competing frames are, let's say, $2K (like many solid framesets are), and the P4C Allows you you save <30 seconds per OLY, I peg that at $160 a second greater cost per second over a good-but-last-generation bike, give or take, per oly. Hope that's worth it. We can argue with the numbers and cost, but directionally, this scenario is correct. 

And to clarify, those time savings are with no rider. With a rider, there's more turbulance, which will negate some of the advantage, upping the price per second. Plus, no one has an idea how the power transfer / stiffness will work...it may not transfer power well for your riding style.  Not to mention most folks need to be fit on it, which may decrease your power output over a well-fit bike.  Plus, that integrated dealio in the bottom bracket makes it so the frame can't house bottles from the outside...nice for racing, inconvenient for training, hope everyone likes their camelbak. And The P4 in SUPERBOLD and GIANT FONT screams poseur - those graphics blow. Thousands of reasons to think it through.

Unless you're 1) competing for precious seconds, which is a horribly small portion of the population, 2) Fred interested in toys and the latest and price insensitive (which is a bigger, yet still small part of the population), it's a no-brainer. Get yourself a p3c, p2c, p2sl, dual, or kestrel, zipp, QR, ridley, blue, scott, felt, specialized, guru, trek, or any other ride for 2/3 the cost or less, and ride the hell out of it. Then you can get sponsored, and have someone else buy you the P4.

The P4 is irrelevant. Cervelo is at the end of the UCI hockey stick in terms of aerodynamic gains under the current UCI rules, this is a version to have a version, targeted for the sooper elite, not your elite amateur, midpacker, or BOP'er. I'll say it again...it's a version to have a version, solely to maintain their 'market leader' status.

For 95% of the world, it's cost with very minimal benefit.  Not interested. Get on your bike and ride.

I belive that Cervelo's proposed time savings were validated with an optimally-tucked rider on the frame, not just the stand-alone frame in a windtunnel.

As for the high cost for minimal returns, it's completely subjective. We hear all the time on this forum to buy the best bike you can afford. If I earn $30,000/year then maybe the best I can swing will be an entry-level Motobecane from BikesDirect. If I earn $400,000/year then maybe I can swing a P4 with sub9 Zipps, ceramic pulley bearings, hand braided cables made from hair plucked from the head of 40 virgins and maybe even an afternoon in a windtunnel with John Cobb. High cost is subjective. And as for minimal aerodynamic returns, we all fall victim to this one way or another: the sport is technology-driven. Frames, wheels, wetsuits, speedsuits, minimalistic running shoes that change every season and age group weekend warriors willing to shell out for the best/fastest/lightest/stringest gear. The question is: are we buying these things for a true advantage, or are they strickly gimmicks to appeal to the masses willing to buy what LOOKS fast? (we hear this all the time with ineffective seat tube cutouts, angular frames, etc).

I say that if I have the disposable income to spring for a piece of equipment  that will give me a few seconds advantage, then I'll reasonabley consider it, considering that any less time spent before crossing that d@mn finish line is worth it.

Someone mentioned the lack of a shielded front brake - Cervelo has been stating for a long time now that a front brake behind or inside the fork has no real-world effect on aerodynamics off the front of the bike (a.k.a. gimick). If there were a benefit, we would have seen all the stops pulled on the P4; theorizing they are holding something back for a P5 (which some people are) is ridiculous.

/QUOTE

I say that if I have the disposable income to spring for a piece of equipment  that will give me a few seconds advantage, then I'll reasonabley consider it, considering that any less time spent before crossing that d@mn finish line is worth it.

/QUOTE/

Umm, not disputing your point, just trying to point out that the difference between your rockstar finish and everyone else comes down to seconds (if based on equipment only), and comes at the price of thousands of dollars.

I will never see a podium but that alone shouldn't keep me from deciding if a $4800 frameset is worth a 2 minute time savings on the bike course, and I'm only racing myself when I'm out there.  It's hardly rockstar given my solid MOBOP ranking, and considering how painfully slow I really am, that added time I spend on the course translates into more overall time saved if I gave myself every aero advantage.

I won't be shelling out ridiculous amounts of money for a pro-level frame anytime soon, but IF I wanted to, for the reasons I mentioned previously, then I'll have at it and not let anyone sway me with their perception is on what constitutes cost effectiveness and marginal returns. 

Like I said, if it can get me to the finish any quicker (and I'm usually praying to any entity that will listen during the last few km of the run leg to make it so) then I will consider the cost and weight the benefit and decide for myself.

I agree with everyone.  I also am of the mindset that bike manufacturers use alot of "looks fast" in their design.  No doubt Cervelo is allot about research and true design, but you have to admit, there is some limit to aerodynamics.  Adding a "fairing" waterbottle is  . . . interesting. 

I also know that if I were riding this bike with Zipp 909s and every aero advantage we can think of and Normann were riding a tricycle wearing a sombrero and hauling a parachute. . . I'd lose.  But damn I'd look fast before we start .

I'll stick with my Cervelo Dual until I'm either really too good for my bike, the frame breaks in half, or I win the lottery, lol.  But as soon as someone on here buys a P4, PLEASE post some bike porn!