Dean,
Neck strain is probably my key objective in seeking a recreational fit for me without speed being the nth priority. My back can tolerate a more aggressive angle than my neck. I set my road bike up the same way...up...but 'out' with ample reach to not ride upright. I like to ride in the drops but not strain my neck too much and up and out satisfies fit the best for me. Thanks for the tip on the Transition bike. Any comments about the difference between Transition and Shiv? I did look at the geo of the P3 you ride and indeed it has a shorter stack to ride a more aero position. I believe if speed is the priority, then a certain level of discomfort can be tolerated...or perhaps has to be. I also understand the position on a TT bike not unlike a road bike is a bit of a work in progress. I have a Cat 1 buddy who rides his TT bike all the time and he says he works on his position and pedal stroke as much as his conditioning.
Cheers.

Thanks...cool that both your wife and yourself have very nice TT bikes. If anything, she is sporting a bit more drop it looks like. No surprise, my g/f is gumby compared to me...she is so much more flexible and could sustain a much greater drop with training.

I know no formal rules of thumb exist for top of saddle to forearm pad height on a TT bike...but was curious in trend in your experience. You may have a fairly standard versus aggressive fit for example.
Thanks again.

Dean,
I found an article about the Transition and this bike deserves a hard look. The Expert comes in at $3K...tallish head tube like you say...in particular with the bars they spec...but cockpit length can be tuned with 'three' different seat posts..each with 2 position. Even a long legged short torso rider can size up on the Transition and go with straight seat post for a narrow cockpit.
Thanks again.
Article about the Spesh Transition:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/T...011__1848.html

You get up to 50mm adjustability of the entire "bar assembly" via stem height (basically how much you want to cut the steerer tube). This is not a typical system with 5mm round spacers, but 25mm increments by choosing one of 3 "spacer towers". You actually have much more than 50mm base bar adjustabilty by flipping the stem one way or the other and also adjusting the stem angle with the specialized shim system.

The other 65mm of adjustabilty is strictly pad & aero bar height in relationship to the base. Adjustable in 5mm increments. Beyond that, there are all kinds of adjustment for pad fore/aft/width and well as aero-bar reach and angle. Much more adjustability than the stock Cervelo bars.

I can tell you I was aprehensive when my shop said I needed a medium, especially since I don't have enough experience with TT bikes to make a decision on my own. Less than a month in, I'm getting my position dialed in and the large would have been a big mistake. On the medium, I'm right in the middle of the stack-height range and actually have the reach almost as short as it can go. The large would have been too long, and I'd have the stem all the way down with little room to go as my position (hopefully) gets more aggressive.

Many thanks for the excellent explanation grwoolf. Fully understand because guys our size aren't exactly considered Medium. Sounds like there a lot of adjustability of the bike.
Btw...did you look at the Specialized Transition? Any passing thoughts comparing the two bikes?
Thanks again.

The Shiv is just the latest and greatest from Specialized. I guess you would call the Transition an "old model".
The marketing people will tell you it is significantly faster but don't believe them. The Transition is still a very aero bike.
It is still relatively conventional in construction making it easier to use various handlebars etc. Brakes and cables aren't so hidden making for easier servicing.
You will be able to get one for a much better price than a Shiv.
I have had one of these latest generation TT bikes (Trek Speed Concept) and the difference in performance between these and the older bikes like the P3 and Transition really is tiny. My PB for my local 10mile TT is still on my P3 and I wouldn't feel disadvantaged going into a race with one as opposed to a Shiv or Speed Concept.

Didn't really look much at the transition. I got a good deal on the Shiv (sort of a team thing) and figured I'd get the new "faster" model vs. the old. TT's are new to me and I figure I could get my $ out of the shiv easier if I loose interest. I'm not even sure they will be making the transition in 2013. Also, I understand the transition doesn't work well with a rear wheel cover because of clearance issues. I'd echo Dean V's comments that the frames on these things are not going to make any significant performance difference. Once you get into any modern TT bike that fits well, I think it's 95%+ body position and engine. The frame is way down the list after helmet, wheels, skin suit, etc. (from what I understand). Nothing wrong with trying to gain a few seconds out of a better frame, but I don't buy the "superbike" marketing stuff.

Right with you on very small differences frames to frames on TT bikes. Same applies to carbon road bikes as well...position + engine rules.
Thanks for explaining the differences between the bikes.

Makes sense. I don't buy the marketing crappola either. Thanks for your help grwoolf...appreciate it.

funny thing is that when I was buying my Cervelo I was interested in the P3 as well but most people (at that time) considered the P3 too aggressive for most riders that that the P2c was actually the better bike for the majority. In fact, 2 or 3 years ago Chrissy Wellington blew away the field at Kona on her P2c even though the P3 had been out a few years already.

Fast forward a few years and the P4 came out and was considered stupid fast but not practical at all for the everyday triathlete. I guess after looking at the P4 most people became under the impression that the P3 was the perfect bike for most. Now the P3 seems to be the TT bike of choice from Cervelo (not too aggressive as considered only 5 or 6 years ago) and the P4 has been dropped completely and replaced by the P5. I haven't read too much about the P5 but I know most try folk would be plenty happy with a P3. I think most triathletes would be just fine with P2 but most will buy a P3.

When the SPecialized transition was completely redesigned (2 or 3 years ago now) it was considered to be at or close to the forefront and comparable to the P3. Now its labelled as old tech and not 'as aero'.

Weird I say.....since Chris McCormack (Macca) won Hawaii on the Transition and he didn't seem to bad off because of it.

Thought I would rekindle the thread to post a link to an interesting article which underscores the difference in position between time trialing and Tri position as it relates to seat tube angle. Many know this already but a guy known as a decent TT'er aka Lance has rethought his geometry in the direction of greater comfort with a more steep sta...no longer beholden apparently to the UCI minimum for saddle setback...since Lance is focusing on Tri's late in this competitive career. He has gone to a different bike size...M to L and a more upright sta which apparently is very areo, can put out the power and yet is less taxing to his body.

I wonder how many others feel this way?...that steeper seattube and more forward saddle position is more comfortable?...with more open hip angle and ability to rotate farther forward.

Here is the article and would be interested to hear from those that have experimented with their TT/Tri position:
http://triathlon.competitor.com/2012...issected_47629