Triathlon - Fuji Aloha CF2

Does anybody have an opinion of Fuji's '07 Aloha CF2 or does anyone own one? I am looking to purchase a new Tri bike, just a frameset really as i have the components already. I am interested in the opinions of the forum members and am really looking for some advice as to what constitutes a good Tri frame. I am very new to the sport and am looking for some pointers. Thanks.:D

For me it's along the lines of
set a budget then...

First, it fits your body and your riding style(i.e. slack or steep).
second, It's fast.
fourth, comfort
fifth, feel
sixth, looks

I think the first should be first on anybodys list. Only problem is it requires a good fitter if you've never ridden a tri bike before.

For me, money no question, I would be on a P3C or Felt B2 carbon, with a stack under 50 and a reach over 41 it's about as good as a bike would fit me. For comparisons sake however, a Kuota Kalibur also meets the above stack and reach parameters but I think the tubes on it are quite chunky in comparison to the P3C or B2.

I don't believe carbon is the end all, be all of bike design. I would gladly take a Cervelo P2sl over almost any other bike and I would simply need to run a negative rise stem.

Thanks Triguy,

The comment on carbon was a good one. I have often wondered if carbon is more of a fad then anything. Most aluminum components are lighter than their carbon cousins. I am not familiar with the terms stack and reach. I can guess their meaning but I have never heard them before. i am not trying to be a smart ass, just being honest. Thanks for the comments though. I have a full '06/'07 DA set-up with a FSA K-Force double crank. These components have been on a few frames since I purchased them. I rode the Trek TTT for a season and liked it but the seatpost angle was too steep I believe. The problem is I don't know if it is something I must get used to or else I will be sacraficing power transfer and such. Thanks again for the comment.

The comment on carbon was a good one. I have often wondered if carbon is more of a fad then anything.

I think it depends on the type of racing you are doing.

Carbon provides a more forgiving ride which is valuable over IM distances, though some of this can be mitigated by wheels, forks and seatpost (if in Carbon). Also Carbon allows for more intricate shape design and therefore in theory more aerodynamic tube shapes.

I can't comment of the Fuji frame unfortunately as I don't know it.

We are sponsored by Fuji. 3-4 guys on the team just received their CF1's and are raving about them. Comfort, handling and speed are all top notch according to them. They are coming off a Cervelo P2, a Trek TT and a Fuji Aloha. The quality is very nice up close, but I cannot comment on the ride, as I haven't gotten on one yet.

Stack and reach are numbers used to make sizing universal. Because a bike with a 76* STA and 78* STA fit so differently in the top tube once the angles are made the same through saddle adjustment.

Stack = the distance horizontally between the the bb and the top of the head tube

Reach = the distance vertically between the bb and the top of the head tube.

The Trek TT bikes before 2006/2007 were actually very slack, but with low head tubes. Not a great combination for most triathletes.

This makes perfect sense now. Thanks. I like carbon mostly for the absorbption factor and secondly for the seemingly endless possibilities for frame design. I just wonder how much of an impact it has to say, someone riding a Litespeed Ti frame. What I mean is, does the frame being aerodynamic have the much of a part to play when the weights are so similar and the engine, (person), propelling it. I certainly like the crazy concepts that are emerging, especially Ceepo's new TT frame, but I am just trying to justify the monetary output. ;) Thanks for the info on the CF1. Does that have the same seat tube angle as the CF2?

Don't hold me to it, but it should be the exact same frame.