-
I can see why Cervelo wouldn't have taken any account of fixed TTs, but what's PX's excuse for leaving out the fork crown drilling? No stack and reach numbers in the geometry chart is tiresomely amateurish too, but it looks like they have copied the head tube and top tube lengths straight from Cervelo, but with a 25mm higher BB. The fit triangle should be even longer and lower then the T3/T4, but with the rider an extra inch off the ground. I wonder if it's still faster than a T4 once you put a rider and some handlebars on it.
-
The same mould as this below isn't it?
http://m.dengfubikes.com/index.php?s=/61.html
But with an internal wedge for the seat post...I'm sure Dengfu or whoever the hell it was who designed it did a stack of testing first, rather than copying a tonne of general features and shapes after a quick google image search of aero carbon track frames...LOL.
You are reading a single comment by @Ptown and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
gbj_tester
SCS
@Ptown
Bold claims here by PX - claiming their new carbon track frame's faster than a T4...