Tag Archives for " vs "

Triathlon Bikes

Triathlon Bikes: Best of the Best!

“Looking for Triathlon bikes? What are the best ones out there? Read on to find out!”

We pitted four of the most advanced triathlon bikes in head-to-head competition on the road and in the wind tunnel to find the fastest, most aerodynamic machine on the market.

There are only two ways that one triathlon bike is faster than another: It either has impeccable mechanical function and predictable handling while fitting perfectly to help the rider perform better, or the machine itself can go faster in a straight line. And when it comes to tri bikes, aerodynamic resistance more than any other factor determines straightaway speed. We took four cutting-edge bikes ranging from totally integrated to nearly stock to compare their performance across all categories. And to find the aerodynamic champion, we tested them head-to-head in the wind tunnel at Faster in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Triathlon Bikes

Triathlon Bikes

Cervélo P5 Three
$6,000 (with Vision Team wheels), Cervelo.com
Verdict: Total package—great ride, realistic fit, mechanically simple and an aerodynamic standout

The Canadian company did an about-face regarding the geometry used on its top-flight aero bike. Formerly dedicated to the needs of Pro Tour cycling teams, Cervélo tuned the P5’s geometry for positions achievable by cyclists who hold desk jobs. The frame is formed for realistic Ironman fits, and the 3T Aduro aerobar extends the fit range from conservative to aggressive. Horizontal reach distance to the elbow pads is the P5’s only fit limitation. The pads cannot be choked far back toward the cyclist.

Clean integration is the brilliance of the P5. Built with a standard aerobar attachment and externally mounted brakes, the P5 has more mechanical similarities to a road bike than the most integrated contender in this review, the Trek Speed Concept. Magura’s RT 8TT hydraulic rim brakes require a different set of mechanical skills than cable brakes, but require service less frequently. Replacing cables takes a fair amount of patience, but the P5’s aerobar system makes airline travel with the bike extremely simple.

The P5 remains poised under intense cornering and during high-speed descents. Its predecessors had a tendency to flex a bit when cornering heavily—especially with the aerobars propped by a tall stack of steerer tube spacers—but the P5 is rock-solid, inspiring faster and more aggressive lines through tight bends. The bike snaps up to speed instantly without the dreaded “wet noodle” feeling that used to plague some aero bikes.

Fancy but not flashy, the Shimano Dura-Ace 7900 mechanical drivetrain is crisp, light and durable—it just lacks the wow-factor boasted by the other three. A new flagship mechanical group will be slowly replacing this component kit throughout the year. Magura’s hydraulic RT 8TT rim brakes feel slightly stronger than mechanical brakes. Their performance didn’t deteriorate during a three-month test of this bike.

This bike outperforms the others in high rider speed, low wind speed conditions, generating substantially less drag than the nearest competitor at zero and five degrees of yaw. At wider yaw angles, it performs very similarly to the Specialized Shiv, while losing ground to the Trek. This drag profile is best suited to faster riders because high average speeds also translate to shallower yaw angles.

Orbea Ordu GLi2
$5,500 (with Shimano RS21 wheels), Orbea-usa.com
Verdict: Incredible component function and most affordable, but trailed in the tunnel

Orbea ditched antiquated road-style TT geometry and replaced it with a true triathlon-first fit scheme. In addition to a steep seat tube angle—a first for Orbea—the all-new Ordu’s front end is situated for aggressive yet attainable positions. It uses an adjustable rotating stem to affix the aerobar to the frame. This system can accommodate a wide range of fits and is easy to adjust. Conservative, upright positions are the only ones that will test the bike’s adaptability. No matter the position, the front end is elegant.

Orbea adopted Selle Italia’s Monolink system to attach the aerobars to the frame. The rotating stem pieces allow the aerobars to easily come off the frame for travel, but fixing the stem to the frame must be done precisely. The other bike with a similar stem—Felt’s DA—uses notches to prevent the stem from rotating downward, but Orbea’s does not. Carefully assembling this joint is key. The external front brake is the easiest and most functional option.

At press time, the production-grade front-end assembly wasn’t completed to allow a full ride test. Rather than speculate on ride quality without a sufficient test, we are reserving judgment for now.

The Ordu GLi2 is spec’d at the pinnacle of performance and value. Top-level electronic groupsets from both Shimano and Campagnolo claim minor “improvements” beyond Ultegra Di2, but its shift quality is second to none. It does, however, lack brake grip shifters. Orbea elected to use a standard Shimano Ultegra front brake, and the result is great performance and easy service. It may sacrifice a bit of aerodynamic performance, but gains plenty in functionality.

The Ordu created more drag than the others in the wind tunnel test. One way the Ordu attains a price several thousand dollars lower than the others is by spec’ing a less exotic aerobar—the 3T Brezza II. This component coupled with the highly functional although completely external front brake may generate more drag than the alternatives, but both provide real benefits in the form of a lower price and powerful, reliable braking performance.

Specialized S-Works Shiv
$12,000 (with Zipp 404 wheels), Specialized.com
Verdict: Universally practical and aerodynamically competitive

Craig Alexander has to drop his bar nearly as low as possible to fit the Shiv—a good thing for most triathletes because few people can mimic his fit. The Shiv’s frame is designed to fit positions ridden by everyday athletes. Its stack height is taller than nearly all tri bikes with a similar reach length, matching realistic aero positions without relying on a tower of spacers. They can be used to elevate the rider farther, and the aerobar offers a seemingly infinite range of adjustment. The bike can solve just about any fit problem.

Instead of dropping the stem-and-steerer tube in favor of a unique integrated system, the Shiv blends the standard components together without sacrificing practicality. Brake calipers strike a balance between functionality and aerodynamics. They aren’t quite as effective as the Shimano stopper used on the Orbea Ordu, but still provide more than adequate power and modulation. Adjustment and service are also easy. Packing the bike into a travel case and reassembling it are simple to do.

Point the Shiv in a straight line and it calmly holds its course. It feels almost impervious to the shivers and twitches that plague some triathlon bikes. Despite its inclination toward going straight, it deftly moves through sweeping turns. Its monstrous downtube and head tube catch a bit more wind than the other bikes in this test, but the bike’s predictable handling characteristics help resist any input from the wind.

There has been a deluge of new component kits in the past year, but, even with an upgrade just around the corner, Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 remains unmatched. Front shifting feels almost automatic, the rear derailleur stays tuned barring a disaster, and shifting from the brakes is a real speed and performance advantage. Zipp’s 404 Carbon Clinchers might be the best wheels for racing/training double duty. This kit makes the Shiv ready for anything, but at a hefty price: It’s $8,700 more than the cheapest Shiv.

Specialized designed this bike for real-life triathletes, not just endurance all-stars. The bike’s aerodynamic performance reflects those goals. As yaw angle increased, its drag dropped, meaning the Shiv is comparatively faster in conditions frequently experienced by amateur triathletes. More at Four Of The World’s Fastest Triathlon Bikes Tested

You can also check out this video for more on Triathlon Bikes:

More Reading for Triathlon Bikes here:

Cheap Running Shoes

Expensive versus Cheap Running Shoes

“Do you get value for money when you buy an expensive pair of running shoes? Read on and find out!”

An investigation of the Institute of Motion Analysis and Research, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee (Clinghan RT, Arnold GP, Drew TS, Cochrane L, Abboud RJ, Br J Sports Med. Published Online First: 11 October 2007. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2007.038844) aimed to determine if more expensive running shoes provide better cushioning of plantar pressure and are more comfortable than low-cost alternatives from the same brand.

Cheap Running Shoes

Cheap Running Shoes

Design: Three pairs of running shoes were purchased from three different manufacturers at three different price ranges: low (£40-45), medium (£60-65) and high (£70-75). Plantar pressure was recorded with the Pedar® in-shoe pressure measurement system. Comfort was assessed with a 100 mm visual analogue scale. A follow-on study was conducted to ascertain if shoe cushioning and comfort were comparable to walking while running on a treadmill.

Participants: Forty-three female and twelve male subjects participated in the main and follow-on studies respectively.

Main Outcome Measure: Evaluation of plantar pressure and comfort.

Results: Plantar pressure measurements were recorded from under the heel, across the forefoot and under the great toe. Differences in plantar pressure were recorded between models and between brands in relation to cost. Shoe performance was comparable between walking and running trials on a treadmill. No significant difference was observed between shoes and test occasions in terms of comfort.

Conclusions: Low and medium cost running shoes in each of the three brands tested provided the same (if not better) cushioning of plantar pressure as high-cost running shoes. Cushioning was comparable when walking and running on a treadmill. Comfort is a subjective sensation based on individual preferences and was not related to either the distribution of plantar pressure or cost.

No significant difference was found between each type of shoe and each brand. Whilst differences did exist between different areas of each shoe/brand, this was not a consistent picture in that the site of the differences varied between shoes; perhaps not surprising as the different brands may have different aims when determining where to position the cushioning. The authors do report that, whilst there was no statistical difference between the shoes, there was a trend to the low cost shoe demonstrating more cushioning. To the delight of the media, this non statistical finding has been termed ‘if not better’. Whilst the authors postulate that this subtle difference may be more significant over time with repetitive impact loading, the reverse may also be true. More research is required, a point acknowledged in the paper.

It is perhaps not surprising that the authors decided to analyse the pressure values alone, rather than any level of functional control as the former variable is more discreet and easier to quantify for research purposes. In the introduction/review of the literature, they report:

1. That better cushioning materials in more expensive shoes attenuate impact force to a greater extent than less expensive alternatives,

2. That it has been suggested that the protective devices advertised are deceptive and runners subconsciously subject themselves to greater impact forces, increasing the risk of injuries,

3. That this is supported by a 123% greater injury frequency observed in runners training with expensive running shoes compared to less expensive models/brands.

Given that the authors go on to postulate that the subtle improvement in cushioning may be more significant over time, it is not clear from the paper whether this would be a good or bad feature.

Of course, other factors should also be considered when determining the benefit of any shoe and these include:

– The density (termed durometer) of the material will have a profound effect. A low durometer may provide greater cushioning but may not be sufficient for a heavier runner. Similarly, the durability of the low durometer material may be much less, requiring renewal of the shoe more rapidly.

– There is no data relating to the weight of the subjects or the durometer of the material between the varying shoes. It is quite possible that this varies arbitrarily between models and brands.

– The positioning of the cushioning may be important in injury protection and, based on this paper, this seems to be more brand than expense related.

– Many running shoes have features designed to help control foot function depending upon the individual foot type. These features may not relate directly to cushioning, indeed the opposite may be true if the aim is to resist excessive motion. Many stability/motion control shoes have a higher durometer material on the inside of the shoe which is claimed to resist pronation. Thus, the nature of the individuals foot function is an important factor. In this study, there had been no history of lower limb pathology and no gait abnormality although the criteria for the latter were not detailed.

As previously mentioned, this is a well constructed study and the authors acknowledge the need to study a greater number of shoes. They have presented the data well although some of the terminology they have used has been seized upon by the media. What they have highlighted is that the price of the shoe alone is not necessarily the important factor. In my experience, when considering shoes for function:

– Shoes under £60 generally have less support/durability.
– Shoes between £60 and £100 are generally more supportive/durable and worth the additional investment 3. Shoes significantly greater than £100 rarely have the additional technology to justify the increased price tag.

More at Expensive vs. Cheap Running Shoes

Check out this video for more ideas on cheap running shoes:

More Reading for Cheap Running Shoes here: