Cervelo big company?

[eddief]

Just wondering what sorta company Cervelo is to afford a lot of advertising during the Tour? How do they compete with the likes of the companies hammering away at our prostate problems?

[55/Rad]

According to one prominent source, they do what's called direct response advertising - the purpose being to drive people to their website. The advantage is that DR advertising is purchased at far reduced media rates - up to 40% less than general advertising - but OLN won't guarantee exactly when it will run as DR time is the time that doesn't get bought by the gen ad guys.

The fact that their ads are only seen during the TdF broadcasts indicates that they didn't cut a DR deal - plus the fact that their spots are not true DR - but only the executives really know.

[atmo]

According to one prominent source, they do what's called direct response advertising - the purpose being to drive people to their website. The advantage is that DR advertising is purchased at far reduced media rates - up to 40% less than general advertising - but OLN won't guarantee exactly when it will run as DR time is the time that doesn't get bought by the gen ad guys.

The fact that their ads are only seen during the TdF broadcasts indicates that they didn't cut a DR deal - plus the fact that their spots are not true DR - but only the executives really know.
but couldn't it be that oln does not have mainstream
sponsors lined up to take the spots during such a niche event
as a weeknight repeat broadcast of a bicycle race? mebbe
they went, as they say in the trade off the rate card to
accomodate one of the few clients they could attract.
just axin' atmo.

[55/Rad]

but couldn't it be that oln does not have mainstream
sponsors lined up to take the spots during such a niche event
as a weeknight repeat broadcast of a bicycle race? mebbe
they went, as they say in the trade off the rate card to
accomodate one of the few clients they could attract.
just axin' atmo.
You are absolutely right - OLN sets the rates based on several factors - most notably what the past ratings were and what they think they will be for this years TdF. That essentially becomes the rate card from which each advertiser starts their negotiation. Naturally, the more airtime purchased, the better the deal. Many other things come into play - like preferred time placement and bonus spots for volume purchased - but in the end, this is typically how they deal with their general advertisers.

What's left over after all is said and done gets heavily discounted and offerred to the DR advertisers. But these advertisers have little to say as far as time placement and frequency and are subject to getting bumped if another advertiser buys the time at the regular rate.

The bottom line is that OLN and the TdF doesn't draw huge numbers in terms of viewers - so even the general rates are very reasonable comparatively - thus making it possible for companies like Cervelo to take advantage of the medium.

55/Rad

[atmo]

The bottom line is that OLN and the TdF doesn't draw huge numbers in terms of viewers - so even the general rates are very reasonable comparatively - thus making it possible for companies like Cervelo to take advantage of the medium.

55/Rad
alas - rate card? what rate card atmo?!??

[Grant McLean]

Cervelo is a small company, growing quickly.

Between owners, engineers, marketing, customer service, clothing designer,
bike assembly dudes, sales manager, accounting, shipping, chief cook and
bottle washers I think they have around 30 employees. According to their
website, they are hiring for several positions.

g

[55/Rad]

alas - rate card? what rate card atmo?!??
I'm not sure I understand your question...OLN and every network and station has advertising rate cards - many of them actually - for every program and time slot available to sell. They formulate specific ones for seasonal or occasional progamming like the TdF. These rates are based on the number of eyeballs (TRP's) OLN figures they will deliver to the advertiser.

This rate card is like the sticker on a new car - it exists to give the buyer an idea of where to start. After you figure out all the options, of which there are many, it's time to negotiate.

[swoop]

it's not that cervelo is a big company.. it's that china is a big country.
or.. it's not that cervelo is a big company.. it's that in canada everyone has the same sized femur.

you choose.

:beer:

[000050]

"it's not that cervelo is a big company.. it's that china is a big country.
or.. it's not that cervelo is a big company.. it's that in canada everyone has the same sized femur"

Pure GOLD!!!.

K

[atmo]

The bottom line is that OLN and the TdF doesn't draw huge numbers in terms of viewers - so even the general rates are very reasonable comparatively - thus making it possible for companies like Cervelo to take advantage of the medium.55/Rad
alas - rate card? what rate card atmo?!??
I'm not sure I understand your question...OLN and every network and station has advertising rate cards - many of them actually - for every program and time slot available to sell. They formulate specific ones for seasonal or occasional progamming like the TdF. These rates are based on the number of eyeballs (TRP's) OLN figures they will deliver to the advertiser.

This rate card is like the sticker on a new car - it exists to give the buyer an idea of where to start. After you figure out all the options, of which there are many, it's time to negotiate.


55/Rad-issimo -
it was a light comment a 'la:
Elaine : You got a telegram from headquarters today.
Striker: HEADQUARTERS?!? What is it?
Elaine : Well, its a big building where generals meet.

next time i'll put a label on the package atmo!

[55/Rad]

55/Rad-issimo -
it was a light comment...next time i'll put a label on the package atmo!
:beer:

On a random note - the paintjob wasn't finished by the SWORN July 1 date.

[atmo]

:beer:

On a random note - the paintjob wasn't finished by the SWORN July 1 date.
painters - let's hang 'em atmo!
insert smiley face.

[Endless Goods]

Cervelo = Apple

1. Both led by dynamic, creative personalities with balding heads

2. Both believe in salvation through groundbreaking design and engineering

3. Marketing-driven product with great sex appeal

4. Designed/Engineered in North America- made in Taiwan

5. Quality control difficulties- especially at beginning of product cycle

6. Supported by cult-like, fervent fans (see slowtwitch.com)

(I'm no Wharton grad, but Cervelo's business model is what it takes to "move product" these days- no sweating over the torch anymore- let some poor sod in China glue it together)

[atmo]

they're what is called in my trade a dude company atmo.

[Endless Goods]

See #5 above...(holy lack of overlap)

[Fixed]

bro i hate that when that happens
cheers

[obtuse]

go ride an r3. that bike is just about perfect.

obtuse

[SoCalSteve]

go ride an r3. that bike is just about perfect.

obtuse

As perfect as your C-50 was?

Inquiring minds wanna know...

Steve

[Grant McLean]

go ride an r3. that bike is just about perfect.

obtuse

been there, done that, it needs more front end.
they prototype off a 56, which explains a lot. a real lot.
I much prefer the king, or system 6.


g

[stevep]

im not a big cervelo fan but its probably unfair to post photos of broken ones with no explanation of any kind.
there are undoubtedly photos like this out there of every make and model ever made in some form or other.
cervelo is mostly a marketing company... 3 guys with a fax machine, a computer, a credit line and the phone number of a decent supplier in china.
again, not putting down the company for those of you who love the bikes... a lot of the companies in the bike industry are like this. just putting a face on the way it is.

[obtuse]

As perfect as your C-50 was?

Inquiring minds wanna know...

Steve


no but way too close for how much the thing costs....in a size 58 the front end is a bit quick for my liking but all in all its really torsionally rigid from front to back and few bikes are. as for the utlization of the same seat angle on each size frame- it makes sense in so far as there are actual differences in the effective reach once you get the saddle setback normalized between sizes. this is not the case with the vast majority of production frames.

obtuse

[Endless Goods]

im not a big cervelo fan but its probably unfair to post photos of broken ones with no explanation of any kind.

Who said they're broken? You just glue it back together, dude!

We all know who tweaked the one w/ the turbomatic...

Jerk- thanks for the ride report- was curious if you rode the 58. The R2.5 was a little quick up front for my taste as well...geo looks same.

I dunno- I dig the alu soloist. I'd take one.

(Cervelo does back it up w/warranty- R3s are given to replace the unstuck R2.5s, if not in stock Soloist Carbon for $300 more. Poor sod who buys one on eBay is SOL)

[Grant McLean]

no but way too close for how much the thing costs....in a size 58 the front end is a bit quick for my liking but all in all its really torsionally rigid from front to back and few bikes are. as for the utlization of the same seat angle on each size frame- it makes sense in so far as there are actual differences in the effective reach once you get the saddle setback normalized between sizes. this is not the case with the vast majority of production frames.

obtuse

Your point just highlights the fact that how a bike fits, and how it handles
are related. I can impose my contact points on just about any frame, but that doesn't
take into account where the wheels are. Cervelo seems locked on top tube
length as the key element of fitting a bike, and doesn't consider the balance
point, and how it effects how it handles.

g

[Kirk Pacenti]

Your point just highlights the fact that how a bike fits, and how it handles
are related. I can impose my contact points on just about any frame, but that doesn't
take into account where the wheels are. Cervelo seems locked on top tube
length as the key element of fitting a bike, and doesn't consider the balance
point, and how it effects how it handles.

g

You’re scratching the surface of something I often think about. I also wonder what Joe consumer thinks (if anything) or even the sophisticated enthusiasts and Cat 1, 2, pro's here think as well.

For production bikes, why not run a 73* SA through out the range? It seems to be right down the middle for what's accepted as "normal" seat tube angles (72-74*, or head angles for that matter). The bikes are "production" after all, not made to measure, and with smart component choices *most* can achieve near perfect fit and balance. (sweeping generalization)

I completely understand the reasoning behind a company adjusting seat angles through out the range of sizes. However, this too is pretty much a sweeping generalization of how a bike should fit, and may have more to do with CSPC regulations than anything else. Frankly, I look at some geometry charts and wonder if it's not done more for marketing reasons than any other, (Trek WSD anyone?) maybe it seems less "production-like" if every size has a different seat and head angle? fwiw, I always found it easier to design for a specific client than to create a frame in a range of sizes for the "average" person.

What's more, some much respected brands (Colnago and Merckx come to mind) have some pretty wacked-out geometries imo, yet most people rave about the way these bikes ride. A little closer to home; a couple respected builders who frequent this forum could be considered on opposite ends of the design spectrum as far as race bikes are concerned (if you only look at the #'s on paper). Yet, they both build great race bikes and get great reviews from their customers.

So, what gives? What is the consensus here? Should production builders embrace their "production-ness" and just build 73/73 frames from 53-61 and leave the rest to the custom guys? As a designer, it wouldn't bother me much. What say the consumers here?

[cs124]

... what say the consumers here?

most of these bikes, production or custom, never get ridden fast enough for geometry, weight distribution and the consequent handling characteristics to matter...

[swoop]

let's just average (mean, median or mode?) out your shoe size to 10. we will give you uppers in a variety of sizes .. say small medium and large... but the soles are all 10's. and you can buy socks of different thickness if your feet are less than ten or you can just fold your toes if its more.

[Kirk Pacenti]

let's just average (mean, median or mode?) out your shoe size to 10. we will give you uppers in a variety of sizes .. say small medium and large... but the soles are all 10's. and you can buy socks of different thickness if your feet are less than ten or you can just fold your toes if its more.

Didn't Giant already do this? Three frame sizes fits all is a bit different than 8 fame sizes with 1 seat angle.

I didn't say I agree with it, just that it wouldn't bother me much. However, after reading Cervelo's markteing BS for one seat angle, I may have to change my mind.

Their geo's are clearly "production" motivated, why the marketing spin? Why not say "These are production bikes, they fit most of the people, most of the time, YMMV eh." ?

Back to your shoe idea; I wear a size 10. This sounds like a good idea to me! :D

[swoop]

Didn't Giant already do this? Three frame sizes fits all is a bit different than 8 fame sizes with 1 seat angle.

Back to your shoe idea; I wear a size 10. This sounds like a good idea to me! :D

exactly. the phrase 'lesser of two evils' comes to mind. the same seat tube angle on every size is one of the stupidest things ever in the history of stupid.

[Kirk Pacenti]

exactly. the phrase 'lesser of two evils' comes to mind. the same seat tube angle on every size is one of the stupidest things ever in the history of stupid.

see my edited post above.....

[swoop]

i love you when you agree with me :rolleyes:

[Kirk Pacenti]

i love you when you agree with me :rolleyes:

Well at the risk of a disagreement, let me go a little further….. ;)

3 frame sizes driven purely by the economics of production, and passed off as the answer to all frame sizing problems is somehow less “evil” than 8 sizes (in my example) with one seat angle? I’m not sure about that, too many bike co.’s seem to do it for it to make much difference to the buying public. Colnago’s C-50 comes in 14 sizes, 9 of which (nearly 60%) all have a 73* seat angle.

I think different head angles in a range of sizes with one fork rake, and chain stays shorter than Shimano and Campy rec's is way stupider than that!

One seat tube angle *could* work if other things were adjusted, and components were chosen correctly. Besides, saying all 53cm production frames should have a 74* seat angle shows no more intelligence or understanding of bike design. It's a generalization.

Generally speaking, a greater percentage of women ride 53cm bikes than men. Generally speaking, women have longer femurs than men. Generally speaking, this requires a slacker SA, not a steeper one. But as a rule 53cm bikes have steeper seat tube angles than 56cm bikes....???

I am not saying its right. All I'm saying is, if I were a big production bike co. paying $30-$300K for a carbon frame mold, I might not sweat +/-1*. What I wouldn't do is spew out some BS marketing reason for doing it.

[cpg]

Amen brother. I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's production bike and the geometry will always reflect a generalization. Nothing new there. It does seem slightly odd, like you noted, to pick 72 given 73 is in the middle of the typical range.

Since you brought up Colnago, I find it laughable when their geo charts show changes measured in the minutes. They're luck to hold tolerances of +/- 1 degree.

Curt

[Grant McLean]

Well at the risk of a disagreement, let me go a little further….. ;)

3 frame sizes driven purely by the economics of production, and passed off as the answer to all frame sizing problems is somehow less “evil” than 8 sizes (in my example) with one seat angle? I’m not sure about that, too many bike co.’s seem to do it for it to make much difference to the buying public. Colnago’s C-50 comes in 14 sizes, 9 of which (nearly 60%) all have a 73* seat angle.

I think different head angles in a range of sizes with one fork rake, and chain stays shorter than Shimano and Campy rec's is way stupider than that!

One seat tube angle *could* work if other things were adjusted, and components were chosen correctly. Besides, saying all 53cm production frames should have a 74* seat angle shows no more intelligence or understanding of bike design. It's a generalization.

Generally speaking, a greater percentage of women ride 53cm bikes than men. Generally speaking, women have longer femurs than men. Generally speaking, this requires a slacker SA, not a steeper one. But as a rule 53cm bikes have steeper seat tube angles than 56cm bikes....???

I am not saying its right. All I'm saying is, if I were a big production bike co. paying $30-$300K for a carbon frame mold, I might not sweat +/-1*. What I wouldn't do is spew out some BS marketing reason for doing it.

Hey Kirk,

I'm that rare male 53cm.

I'd like to hear from some of the other builders, but the difference in
geometry theories that I can see from the charts seems to be front center.

Cervelo make no effort to 'tweak' the wheelbase between the different sizes,
the front center increases in the same increments as the top tube length,
because the angles are all parallel. Cervelo front centers vary throughout
the range from 54.7 to 62cm! (see cervelo chart in red)

This is different from most classic european school builders, where the FC
is kept between the range of 58 - 60cm. (see de rosa chart)

How?

As the top tube gets longer on the big sizes, the shallower seat tube moves
the front wheel back, and the steeper head angle also keeps the front
wheel from being way out there. In the smaller sizes, the steeper seat
angle pushes the front wheel out, and the shallower head angle does more
of the same.

Why?

To keep the placement of the wheels fairly constant position under the
rider, regardless of size.

Does it matter? To me it does. I really like the stability of a longish front
center on a small bike. The quickness in handling can come from low trail,
but in my mind, you can't beat the feeling of "sitting in" your bike that comes
from a nicely balanced bike, which can't have a front center so short.

Take two 160lb riders, one that is 5'7" and one that is 6'2". Should their
bikes have different wheelbases? Does any of it really matter? Lots of
races are won on Cervelo's, that's hard to argue with.

g

[Kirk Pacenti]

Cervelo make no effort to 'tweak' the wheelbase between the different sizes,
the front center increases in the same increments as the top tube length,
because the angles are all parallel. Cervelo front centers vary throughout
the range from 54.7 to 62cm! (see cervelo chart in red)

g


This is the main problem I have with Cervelo's geo. And specifically what I was referring to when I said "if other things were adjusted". Their FC is WAY too short on the small bikes and WAY too long on the big bikes! If they treated the top tube length as a resultant number, rather than the FC, the bikes *might* be just fine....

It is hard to argue with their team results, but maybe it's just more evidence that a rider can get used to anything, AND it's nearly impossible to build an "un-ride-able" bike.

[Fixed]

yeah bro superman can ride almost anything .

cheers

[cpg]

I wouldn't be so quick of hone in on front center. It's a meaningless dimension by itself. You're correct to point it out but the other issue is the fact the chain stays aren't growing as the front center is. A bike can ride fine with those long front centers on the large bikes provided the rear wheel is placed properly. One can hang their hat on worse geo charts as the DeRosa chart but don't take it as the Truth. Lots of things can work. But most often people like what they're used to.

Curt

[Grant McLean]

I wouldn't be so quick of hone in on front center. It's a meaningless dimension by itself. You're correct to point it out but the other issue is the fact the chain stays aren't growing as the front center is. A bike can ride fine with those long front centers on the large bikes provided the rear wheel is placed properly. One can hang their hat on worse geo charts as the DeRosa chart but don't take it as the Truth. Lots of things can work. But most often people like what they're used to.

Curt

Hey Curt,

Right, i agree it's not front center isolated. It's all got to be a package.
But FC in this case the easiest way to
visualize how the weight balance will differ between the two examples.
So many modern race bikes use the same chainstay length on all sizes,
it's hard not to point to the difference of FC as the major factor.

It should be pointed out the longer chainstays on bigger sizes "matches"
the increase in length of TT as you go out in length, if you're trying to
keep the balance.

g

[cpg]

True many run the same chain stay length but change seat angles. So it's all connected. But you knew that. I think the problem with isolating fc is might create the idea of a magical number. You know sort of how people get so zero'd in on trail. While trail is important, it isn't useful as a dimension onto itself. Front center is important but not onto itself. Seat angle is important but not onto itself. Chain stay length is important but not... well you get the idea.

Curt

[Grant McLean]

True many run the same chain stay length but change seat angles. So it's all connected. But you knew that. I think the problem with isolating fc is might create the idea of a magical number. You know sort of how people get so zero'd in on trail. While trail is important, it isn't useful as a dimension onto itself. Front center is important but not onto itself. Seat angle is important but not onto itself. Chain stay length is important but not... well you get the idea.

Curt

word. I certainly meant no magic number. Your posts made much more
clear what I was trying to say. I'm not telling you anything you don't
already know. Where's ATMO to go all gestalt on us?
g

[cpg]

Probably riding. Why aren't we?

Curt

[Grant McLean]

Probably riding. Why aren't we?

Curt

the world cup is next!! the ride is @ 4pm today!

g

[Dave]

I got enough test miles on a 51cm R3 to really not like it. Despite all the reports of vertical compliance, I found that it rode pretty rough. The short chainstays created a lot more FD trimming. The front-center is advertised as 568mm, but it was really 558mm and the wheelbase an incredibly short 950mm. Despite it's shortness, and small amount of steering trail, it wasn't all the twitchy, but I didn't like it near as well as on a mountain descent as my LOOK frames.

I use a triple crank for the mountians and this frame was just not triple friendly. You can't mount a chain watcher and if the chain ever falls to the inside, it will get jammed between the little ring and frame. None of the other frames I've owned have this problem.

[Kirk Pacenti]

I got enough test miles on a 51cm R3 to really not like it. Despite all the reports of vertical compliance, I found that it rode pretty rough. The short chainstays created a lot more FD trimming. The front-center is advertised as 568mm, but it was really 558mm and the wheelbase an incredibly short 950mm. Despite it's shortness, and small amount of steering trail, it wasn't all the twitchy, but I didn't like it near as well as on a mountain descent as my LOOK frames.

I use a triple crank for the mountians and this frame was just not triple friendly. You can't mount a chain watcher and if the chain ever falls to the inside, it will get jammed between the little ring and frame. None of the other frames I've owned have this problem.

This would be beef #2 with the Cervelo geos; 399 chainstays? C'mon, that has to be a marketing/weight driven decision. This wreaks havoc on the drive-train. The added friction and component wear WAY out-weighs any perceived weight, acceleration or stiffness advantage this supposedly creates. This may also be the reason the front end feels as quick as Grant and Obtuse claim.

There is absolutely no reason to go below Shimano's min CS rec. As a matter of fact, I now declare all production road racing bikes shall have 416mm CS (+/-3mm of course) Product Managers take note!

I am not sure what the other builders here think, but I for one think that CS length is primarily a function of optimal drive train performance. As such, I am OK with the one size fits all approach some companies take. There are some minor weight distribution issues that can be tweaked with CS length, but STA more appropriately addresses this....wait, let's not go there again. :p


EDIT:

I have nothing against Cervelo. I have never even looked at their bikes (or even their web site) until I joined this thread. fwiw, even though they don't build the type of bikes I am interested in, I am pretty impressed at how fast they have risen as a bike company. Successful businesses are a turn on for me, no matter what they are selling.

[atmo]

There is absolutely no reason to go below Shimano's min CS rec. As a matter of fact, I now declare all production road racing bikes shall have 416mm CS (+/-3mm of course) Product Managers take note!

I am not sure what the other builders here think<cut>

420mm min on all road frames atmo.
hey - thanks for reading.

[Kirk Pacenti]

420mm min on all road frames atmo.
hey - thanks for reading.

PERFECT.

[swoop]

i think cervelo get's the gold medal for most idiotic design concept. i'd give giant the silver. i can't ride either bike because i can't get a decent fit. there are plenty of others like me. if i walked into a shop and the salesman told me the seat pin was reversable i'd pay for the bike with a ten dollar bill and tell him he can just add zeros to it with this magic pen to cover the rest of the cost. and then i'd give the bike to obtuse because i still think it looks way better in pictures than in real life and it's useless to me.

i have to say.. cannondale does realy well with the sizing of their bikes...

anyway.. i'm just repeating myself. i love y'all regardless. :banana:

[Kirk Pacenti]

i think cervelo get's the gold medal for most idiotic design concept. i'd give giant the silver. i can't ride either bike because i can't get a decent fit. there are plenty of others like me. if i walked into a shop and the salesmean told me the seat pin was reversable i'd pay for the bike with a ten dollar bill and tell him he can just add zeros to it with this magic pen to cover the rest of the cost. and then i'd give the bike to obtuse because i still think it looks way better in pictures than in real life and it's useless to me.

i have to say.. cannondale does realy well with the sizing of their bikes...

anyway.. i'm just repeating myself. i love y'all regardless. :banana:

So we really do agree! :banana: :banana: :banana:

[atmo]

i think cervelo get's the gold medal for most idiotic design concept.<cut>
je pense* their tv ads rawk atmo.









* french for i pense.

[swoop]

je pense therefore i am... yuh.. the adverts are dope. i keep thinking there will be a knock at the door and a little chevy chase voice will mumble "land shark.. i mean, pizza delivery'.

[Grant McLean]

i think cervelo get's the gold medal for most idiotic design concept. i'd give giant the silver. i can't ride either bike because i can't get a decent fit. there are plenty of others like me.

that's a little harsh, but nobody is going to argue that less sizes is better than more.

Most bike shops like less sizes. It's not the best compromise, but it's somewhat
"understandable" (to quote oln Al). With all the choices of brands out there,
everyone should be able to find something that works. Or get a custom Serotta?

g

[stevep]

everyone does not fit every bike.
thats life.
i know quite a few guys who ride the giants and like them.
i could not ride one... but i cannot discount that i know some that love them.
light, cheap, if it fits ..whats not to like?

[Kahuna]

Believe it or not, Cervelo's geometry does work for some and having put a thousand miles on one of their frames I can say obtuse's analysis is pretty close to the truth. The difference is, I give the bike even higher marks than he does. Keep that in mind the next time somone sells you a Soloist Carbon for $10 - give it to me and not obtuse!

-K


i think cervelo get's the gold medal for most idiotic design concept. i'd give giant the silver. i can't ride either bike because i can't get a decent fit. there are plenty of others like me. if i walked into a shop and the salesman told me the seat pin was reversable i'd pay for the bike with a ten dollar bill and tell him he can just add zeros to it with this magic pen to cover the rest of the cost. and then i'd give the bike to obtuse because i still think it looks way better in pictures than in real life and it's useless to me.

i have to say.. cannondale does realy well with the sizing of their bikes...

anyway.. i'm just repeating myself. i love y'all regardless. :banana:

[Grant McLean]

Believe it or not, Cervelo's geometry does work for some and having put a thousand miles on one of their frames I can say obtuse's analysis is pretty close to the truth. The difference is, I give the bike even higher marks than he does. Keep that in mind the next time somone sells you a Soloist Carbon for $10 - give it to me and not obtuse!

-K


If I rode a 56cm 73/73 i'd be right there with you!

g

[000050]

Fresh from the LBS-
couple co2 and stuff.
I chew the fat a little while and I see a guy coming to pick up his new soloist carbon with zipp cranks and d/a.

Hey plunked down $7,000.00 I almost fell over, is that the kind of money that martec glued together marketing tool gets?

I could not believe that those bikes are in the the ottrott kind of money.

speachless.

[swoop]

i like white chocolate.. i had a dog that liked to eat poo... i'm just thrilled that we have this much choice. it's such a great time to be a cyclist.

so.. what did happen to levi.. is he hurt?

[Grant McLean]

i like white chocolate.. i had a dog that liked to eat poo... i'm just thrilled that we have this much choice. it's such a great time to be a cyclist.

so.. what did happen to levi.. is he hurt?

too much white chocolate maybe?

g

[obtuse]

Fresh from the LBS-
couple co2 and stuff.
I chew the fat a little while and I see a guy coming to pick up his new soloist carbon with zipp cranks and d/a.

Hey plunked down $7,000.00 I almost fell over, is that the kind of money that martec glued together marketing tool gets?

I could not believe that those bikes are in the the ottrott kind of money.

speachless.


martec glued together marketing tool? it's a race bike and a well engineered and well designed one at that. calling it a "martec glued together marketing tool" is ignorant. it's an aerodynamic road bike that actually is quantifiably faster than a traditional road bike in many situations. i think the bike sucks because its too whippy from front to back; but it does what it was designed to do and it is fast; and its aerodynamic qualities are real and it is a great race bike for the right athlete.

cervelo makes no pretense of being a manufacturer. they are a design house and a company founded and run by engineers. this model has caused problems for the company; but its no different than masi, colnago, cinelli or any other guy farming out production be it to the day laborer down stairs from the office where guido is counting the money or across the aurina valley to some other framebuilder who's got the time and'll build some of the frames for cheap.

what is the issue with it? would you guys feel better if gerard vroomen and **** burke were hand laying the carbon themselves?

we've been through this a million times. the likes of atmo and e-richie and richard sachs are few and far between and never really existed in italy despite the faded photographs and the brillant ad copy. much as there is onlyt two roy munson there are very few guys who make bikes and then put their names on the downtube.

you want an artisinal european carbon handbuilt custom race bike designed and built for you by one man with everything including your hang side in mind?

call andy walser. oh, wait you've never won a national championship in time trial? you might have to wait a while then.

obtuse

[Endless Goods]

They're racing tools, really...

$3400 for a frame glued up in China, or for something glued up/welded in Italy or the US?

All about what you value...

Some will pay the premium for the engineering that has gone into the Cervelo product, and not the actual appearance/construction quality of the bicycle.

[000050]

martec glued together marketing tool? it's a race bike and a well engineered and well designed one at that. calling it a "martec glued together marketing tool" is ignorant. it's an aerodynamic road bike that actually is quantifiably faster than a traditional road bike in many situations. i think the bike sucks because its too whippy from front to back; but it does what it was designed to do and it is fast; and its aerodynamic qualities are real and it is a great race bike for the right athlete.

cervelo makes no pretense of being a manufacturer. they are a design house and a company founded and run by engineers. this model has caused problems for the company; but its no different than masi, colnago, cinelli or any other guy farming out production be it to the day laborer down stairs from the office where guido is counting the money or across the aurina valley to some other framebuilder who's got the time and'll build some of the frames for cheap.

what is the issue with it? would you guys feel better if gerard vroomen and **** burke were hand laying the carbon themselves?

we've been through this a million times. the likes of atmo and e-richie and richard sachs are few and far between and never really existed in italy despite the faded photographs and the brillant ad copy. much as there is onlyt two roy munson there are very few guys who make bikes and then put their names on the downtube.

you want an artisinal european carbon handbuilt custom race bike designed and built for you by one man with everything including your hang side in mind?

call andy walser. oh, wait you've never won a national championship in time trial? you might have to wait a while then.

obtuse

Obtuse-

Calling my statement ignorant--what about my statement is misinformed?

Bike is made by martec true-glued-true marketing tool-true.

...actually is quantifiably faster than a traditional road bike ... This is data I would like to see.

Prove me wrong or yourself correct.

k

[bostondrunk]

Obtuse-

Calling my statement ignorant--what about my statement is misinformed?

Bike is made by martec true-glued-true marketing tool-true.

...actually is quantifiably faster than a traditional road bike ... This is data I would like to see.

Prove me wrong or yourself correct.

k

Oh come on!
1. Obtuse says its faster. We know everything he says is gospel.
2. Cervelo says its faster.

What more proof do you need??? :rolleyes: ;)

[Dave]

One point that has been missed in all this discussion is that the geometry charts may be incorrect, as in the case of the 51cm's F-C discrepancy and the fact that the STA may not actually be 73 degrees in all sizes. Cervelo merely lists them all as 73 to provide a uniform comparison of the TT length.

I didn't make an effort to measure the actual STA on a 51cm, but it did not seem to be as slack as the geometry chart indicated. I have two other frames with 74.5 degree STAs and seatposts with about 5mm more setback than the (crappy) FSA SLK post provided with the frame. There should have been about 1.2cm difference in the location of the saddle rails, but there wasn't. I deliberately moved the saddle back about 5mm to increase the reach on this very short frame and achieve a better weight balance, with the very short F-C. Overall, acheiving a decent position wasn't that difficult as long as you're not convinced that there is only one "perfect" saddle position for you. I find little difference in the pedaling feel over a 1cm range in saddle fore/aft position.

The reach on the 51cm is the shortest of any frame I've ever ridden. A stem length that's 10-20mm longer than some other brands might be required. Long torsoed riders might have to skip this brand or move up to the next larger size.

I really don't understand all the gripes about the 73 degree STA. In the worst case, it just means that a different offset on the seatpost might be required to get the saddle relatively centered along the seat rail clamp.

[obtuse]

Obtuse-

Calling my statement ignorant--what about my statement is misinformed?

Bike is made by martec true-glued-true marketing tool-true.

...actually is quantifiably faster than a traditional road bike ... This is data I would like to see.

Prove me wrong or yourself correct.

k

it's a bike designed by engineers; who are actually pretty inept product managers, production mangers and distribution managers as well as credit managers.

talk to kim from the mit windtunnel. the soloist carbon is quantifiably faster than most other road bikes.

you know what? i don't even care. i don't like the ride of the soloist carbon; as i've said before the torsional rigidity just isn't there....but the company is innovative; is not afraid of taking chances and they have fallen on their faces many, many times but they are doing their best to build race bikes and in many facets they have succeeded.

obtuse

[stevep]

we've been through this a million times. the likes of atmo and e-richie and richard sachs are few and far between and never really existed in italy despite the faded photographs and the brillant ad copy.
obtuse

im on the wait list for an atmo frame...'
i never liked those other guys.

[swoop]

One point that has been missed in all this discussion is that the geometry charts may be incorrect, as in the case of the 51cm's F-C discrepancy and the fact that the STA may not actually be 73 degrees in all sizes. Cervelo merely lists them all as 73 to provide a uniform comparison of the TT length.

I didn't make an effort to measure the actual STA on a 51cm, but it did not seem to be as slack as the geometry chart indicated. I have two other frames with 74.5 degree STAs and seatposts with about 5mm more setback than the (crappy) FSA SLK post provided with the frame. There should have been about 1.2cm difference in the location of the saddle rails, but there wasn't. I deliberately moved the saddle back about 5mm to increase the reach on this very short frame and achieve a better weight balance, with the very short F-C. Overall, acheiving a decent position wasn't that difficult as long as you're not convinced that there is only one "perfect" saddle position for you. I find little difference in the pedaling feel over a 1cm range in saddle fore/aft position.

The reach on the 51cm is the shortest of any frame I've ever ridden. A stem length that's 10-20mm longer than some other brands might be required. Long torsoed riders might have to skip this brand or move up to the next larger size.

I really don't understand all the gripes about the 73 degree STA. In the worst case, it just means that a different offset on the seatpost might be required to get the saddle relatively centered along the seat rail clamp.


i give up. yes all bikes should come with a 73 degree seat tube angle. i have no idea why anyone would bother making bikes with steeper seat tube angles as the size of the riders legs are progressively shorter... as they are shorter.
i think cervelo should just make one top tube length too.. because stems go from 0- 150... and the difference in handling between a 90mm stem and a 150 is impossible to differentiate. all crank lengths should also just be 172.5 .. because you can move the cleats on the shoes.
my point is that this is just bad engineering and a rationale that is disconnected from the real world. it's intellectually lazy.

i always thought the r 2.5's looked cool.. and was amused by how much guys like max sciandri despised there cervelos (i am putting it kindly)... and i thought the r3 looked cool in pictures until i helped build one and thought the finish details just looked cheap. if the bike happens to fit you i'm sure it's a nice bike...stuff is a kind of happiness.. i like em stiff.
i get all wound up because of the methodology they are selling the consumer. it's just really stupidly bad engineering to justify the seat tube angle through all sizes of frame by flipping the seat post. it assumes there is no relationship between the riders body position and the wheels.

makes me think these guys engineer more than they ride. that folks read the rationale and believe it as fact is something is crazy making. for me .. fit is everything. i can do more on a 24lb bike that fits perfectly than i can on a 12lb bike that doesnt.

seat tube angle is really a reference point for a range of angles the bike offers the rider. there is a functional area in that range.... but at the same time the range can be pushed and extended in any numbers of ways.. but it loses it's function.. unless the function is to keep production costs down at the expense of giving the rider a workable range of fit. which is fine.. market the bike as being affordable because of that rather than suggest it's an engineering choice that works!

the reason this is worse than say.. giant's three sizes is that giant is giving you a better range..... for both bikes many folks wont it fit in the range. there are satndard deviations within every parameter of fit. you only have to fall within the the functional range for a bike to fit. i can make any bike get to your ideal areas if contact points. it doesn't mean the bike will perfrom well for you.
locking inthe same seat tube angle for a bike that fits a guy that's 6'2" and then a guy that is 5'7" has nothing to do with fit.

that's where i am coming from. i like cervelo.. i'm sure they are cool guys... i wish them the best. if it fits you i'm sure its a killer rig. if you like it great. it's the methodolgy that's offensive to me.

atmo...

[000050]

it's a bike designed by engineers; who are actually pretty inept product managers, production mangers and distribution managers as well as credit managers.

talk to kim from the mit windtunnel. the soloist carbon is quantifiably faster than most other road bikes.

you know what? i don't even care. i don't like the ride of the soloist carbon; as i've said before the torsional rigidity just isn't there....but the company is innovative; is not afraid of taking chances and they have fallen on their faces many, many times but they are doing their best to build race bikes and in many facets they have succeeded.

obtuse


the wind tunnel data that I have seen is tested north of 25 mph- I really wish that i spent most of my time at 25+mph but I don't. Nor do most of the riders-racers that i have met or raced. the overwhelming majority of the guys at the state tt were at or just south of 25 over 40k.

Why doesn't anyone test at 21 or 22 mph for a real world look at aero function of tube shape?

I suspect beacuse there is little to no difference between round tube serotta and airplane strut cervelos.

get out and ride.
K

[Kahuna]

This thread has been beat to death, but one small point just to get something straight.

I don't think the engineers at Cervelo have ever advocated flipping the post as a way to sardine someone into frame that can't fit by otherwise making sane saddle adjustments. Nobody is that stupid.

Yes one of their aero road models has a post with a reversible head that flips the angle from 73 to 76 degrees, but the purpose of that is to let folks switch position from road to time trial use without having to buy a second bike. I'm pretty sure that was the design intent of the engineers.

For me, I'd rather throw down for a Walser!


it's just really stupidly bad engineering to justify the seat tube angle through all sizes of frame by flipping the seat post. it assumes there is no relationship between the riders body position and the wheels.

[obtuse]

[QUOTE=swoop]i give up. yes all bikes should come with a 73 degree seat tube angle. i have no idea why anyone would bother making bikes with steeper seat tube angles as the size of the riders legs are progressively shorter... as they are shorter.
QUOTE]

swoop- i think we're on the same page here....

let's not forget one of the principle reasons for seat tube angles steepening in smaller sizes had to do with manufacturers seeking to keep other measurements where they ought to be given the limitations of lugs....everyone shouldn't be on a 73 degree seat angle but everyone shouldn't be on a 74 degree or a 75 degree seat tube angle either. frame setback should be part of the equation of properly balancing the rider between the wheels. small hips/big hips narrow shoulders/broad shoulders are going to have much more to do with it than leg length.

picking an arbitrary set back measurement within a fe millimeters of everyone else's measurement is not really going to affect things all other things being equal. getting the seat in the right place is rarely an issue on small bikes because one can't get the seat far enough forward; normally the problem is the inverse.

anyway, cervelos methodology and resulting frame geometries are no worse than any other production bike. the sizing is limited; the geometry won't work for everyone; and max sciandri never found a chamois he liked either! ;) ;)

obtuse

[obtuse]

I suspect beacuse there is little to no difference between round tube serotta and airplane strut cervelos.



no its because the bikes are being developed for people who do ride routinely at speeds over 25mph*. for folks who ride slower than that; you are absolutely correct any gains (no matter how massive) are completely irrelevent; because at those lower speeds you are not racing; or if you are you aren't competitive anyway. you may as well ride a bike that appeals to some other sense.

obtuse

*long triathlons would be the exception to the rule. the object of the bike leg should be to get you to the run as quickly as possible while expending the least amount of energy necessarry to insure there's enough left in the tank for the marathon or half-marathon. many top triathletes do average less than 25mph and a more aerodynamic bicycle surely allows them to either expend less energy while travelling at the same velocity or to get to that run a bit quicker.

[000050]

no its because the bikes are being developed for people who do ride routinely at speeds over 25mph*. for folks who ride slower than that; you are absolutely correct any gains (no matter how massive) are completely irrelevent; because at those lower speeds you are not racing; or if you are you aren't competitive anyway. you may as well ride a bike that appeals to some other sense.

obtuse

*long triathlons would be the exception to the rule. the object of the bike leg should be to get you to the run as quickly as possible while expending the least amount of energy necessarry to insure there's enough left in the tank for the marathon or half-marathon. many top triathletes do average less than 25mph and a more aerodynamic bicycle surely allows them to either expend less energy while travelling at the same velocity or to get to that run a bit quicker.


Come on--- I would love to see your results at 40k tt distance-
http://www.mambokingsracing.com/2006-itt-results.html

is a link to the NJ state TT finals 2006 the overwhelming majority of racers where less than 25 mph. but I guess they are all irrelevant too.

TT-the truth race no wheels to suck, no lead out just legs and lungs.
K

[obtuse]

Come on--- I would love to see your results at 40k tt distance-
http://www.mambokingsracing.com/2006-itt-results.html

is a link to the NJ state TT finals 2006 the overwhelming majority of racers where less than 25 mph. but I guess they are all irrelevant too.

TT-the truth race no wheels to suck, no lead out just legs and lungs.
K

my 40k tt results are irrelevent to people designing bicycles for professional cyclists; but if you have to ask; depending on the course i'd hope i'm averaging more that 25mph; and remember even if you are averaging 20mph you're probably still spending a good deal of time north of 25.

in any case people racing the new jersey tt championships and i are irrelevent to the design of racing bicycles for riders who ride their bikes for a living. for good or bad racing bike design and wind tunnel testing is normally done to increase the performance of professional athletes.

nonetheless, while i don't know for sure, i would also assume that aerodynamics may play an even greater role at slightly lower speeds due to the fact that the rider is encountering aerodynamic drag for a longer period of time.

obtuse

[swoop]

my 40k tt results are irrelevent to people designing bicycles for professional cyclists; but if you have to ask; depending on the course i'd hope i'm averaging more that 25mph; and remember even if you are averaging 20mph you're probably still spending a good deal of time north of 25.

in any case people racing the new jersey tt championships and i are irrelevent to the design of racing bicycles for riders who ride their bikes for a living. for good or bad racing bike design and wind tunnel testing is normally done to increase the performance of professional athletes.

nonetheless, while i don't know for sure, i would also assume that aerodynamics may play an even greater role at slightly lower speeds due to the fact that the rider is encountering aerodynamic drag for a longer period of time.

obtuse
it's a funny thing about aerodynamics.. if you just go to your favorite local hill and coast down it with a buddy side by side.. both of you on the tops of the hoods.. and then you get int he drops and a little bit lower... the acceleration away from your partner is pretty hearty. even at just 20 mph.

it makes me think obtuse is right on. i still go back to may basic stance that we are in the golden age of choice and that i, as a almost out of control consumer love the industry right now!
hey.. i podiumed today!!!! damn near killed myself in the break taking double and triple pulls and just got third by an inch. it's a very satisifying feeling for about ten minutes and then its just seem silly. now... i just want to not ache everywhere.

[catulle]

hey.. i podiumed today!!!! damn near killed myself in the break taking double and triple pulls and just got third by an inch. it's a very satisifying feeling for about ten minutes and then its just seem silly. now... i just want to not ache everywhere.

Congrats, Swoop. Keep it up. Let the pain remind you of the sweet taste of success.

[Fat Robert]

i rode a soloist a couple of times when i worked in a shop that sold them, and a r 2.5 when i thought about buying one. ok value if you could live with the compromises -- i didn't like how they handled, and the head tubes are a little on the high side (obtuse and i would both ride a 58...but i'm an inch and a half shorter than him, and would have to use a -17 stem on a 58...but a cervelo 56 is too low...hey, having only 5 sizes is great).

if you are strong enough to ride away from a field, the tube shapes on the soloist would make a very small difference. if you're not riding more than 25mph it doesn't make a difference and its all in your head.

i liked the prodigy frame. they should still make that one in 1 cm increments...or an AL round tubed version in 1cm increments...having obtuse and i on the same frame is mp


(79.2 saddle height, 7cm setback, 59 reach, 12.5 drop...don't know how far those are off obtuse's numbers, but i'd bet they're far enough off to make it wack to tell us to ride the same size bike)

[cs124]

<snip>

i liked the prodigy frame. they should still make that one in 1 cm increments...or an AL round tubed version in 1cm increments...<snip>

word. suggested just that to 'em about a year ago...they suggested i buy the R2.5 Chorus. :rolleyes: