Pinarello 2016 new bike?TT Bikes, dogma, climbing or aero?

[Aaronkk10]

Every bike supplier or the vast majority supply different options for different terrain, I'm considering wether pinarello are going to finally bring out specific bikes for these terrains along with a new TT bike(brought out giro 2013) or update dogma again ( dauphine 2014) been a while now

 

[pastronef]

Re: Pinarello 2016 new bike?TT Bikes, dogma, climbing or aer

both bikes, Bolide and Dogma F8 are still young (new Dogma just 2 years) so no reason to update or bring up new frames.
The new Dogma for the cobbles is just 1 year old.
Current Pinarello contract with SKY ends in Dec 2016. haven´t heard about renewal or offers from other manifacturers.

 

[Aaronkk10]

Re: Pinarello 2016 new bike?TT Bikes, dogma, climbing or aer

With the pace of bike suppliers nowadays, pinarello seem way behind in my view, Merida Trek Canyon Specialized Cervelo Cannonade These major big brands seem to have bike for climbing and flats, with updates around every 2 years at the latest and pinarello are churning out 1 bike every 3? to be supplying the best team in the world they need to up there game in my opinion, they are successful because some of the best riders are on them, i don't see them as even a top 5 bike in the pro peloton at the moment

 

[King Boonen]

Top team is debatable, very debatable.

I think much too much is made of bike design and specialism. Races are won by the rider, not the bike (thankfully) and if a Dogma can be fitted to the rider and hit a weight/spec they are happy with it's going to be just as good as any other bike.

 

[42x16ss]

As long as the bike is stiff enough and the geometry is good, tube shapes hardly enter the equation. Brands like Cannondale, Focus and Orbea have never had aero bikes and Colnago and Pinarello have only recently added aero models.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re:

As long as the bike is stiff enough and the geometry is good, tube shapes hardly enter the equation. Brands like Cannondale, Focus and Orbea have never had aero bikes and Colnago and Pinarello have only recently added aero models.

Win on Sunday, sell on Monday. 'Aero' is the new market-speak, along with 'GRoad' bikes..Gravel Grinders. Bike sales continue to be flat, these guys gotta do something to take 12% from one another.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

As long as the bike is stiff enough and the geometry is good, tube shapes hardly enter the equation. Brands like Cannondale, Focus and Orbea have never had aero bikes and Colnago and Pinarello have only recently added aero models.

Win on Sunday, sell on Monday. 'Aero' is the new market-speak, along with 'GRoad' bikes..Gravel Grinders. Bike sales continue to be flat, these guys gotta do something to take 12% from one another.

Disagree on the gravel bikes. They've existed for a long time admittedly but with road disc brakes becoming much more available I think these bikes have a definite place. You can ride club runs then slap some 29er tyres on and head off on the MTB trails if you want.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

As long as the bike is stiff enough and the geometry is good, tube shapes hardly enter the equation. Brands like Cannondale, Focus and Orbea have never had aero bikes and Colnago and Pinarello have only recently added aero models.

Win on Sunday, sell on Monday. 'Aero' is the new market-speak, along with 'GRoad' bikes..Gravel Grinders. Bike sales continue to be flat, these guys gotta do something to take 12% from one another.

Disagree on the gravel bikes. They've existed for a long time admittedly but with road disc brakes becoming much more available I think these bikes have a definite place. You can ride club runs then slap some 29er tyres on and head off on the MTB trails if you want.

But now purpose built bikes, that do neither well. Cross bikes have been 'gravel grinders' for decades but now you need a cross bike and a dedicated 'GRoad' bike?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

As long as the bike is stiff enough and the geometry is good, tube shapes hardly enter the equation. Brands like Cannondale, Focus and Orbea have never had aero bikes and Colnago and Pinarello have only recently added aero models.

Win on Sunday, sell on Monday. 'Aero' is the new market-speak, along with 'GRoad' bikes..Gravel Grinders. Bike sales continue to be flat, these guys gotta do something to take 12% from one another.

Disagree on the gravel bikes. They've existed for a long time admittedly but with road disc brakes becoming much more available I think these bikes have a definite place. You can ride club runs then slap some 29er tyres on and head off on the MTB trails if you want.

But now purpose built bikes, that do neither well. Cross bikes have been 'gravel grinders' for decades but now you need a cross bike and a dedicated 'GRoad' bike?

Need is a strong word. Lots of people have dedicated race bikes, winter bikes, touring bikes etc. and have for decades.

Gravel bikes are to CX bikes what tourers are to road bikes.

Personally I think anyone that doesn't race should probably be on a gravel/adventure bike like this:

http://www.shandcycles.com/bikes/stoater/

It'll do everything from club runs, to touring, to Sportives, to off-road stuff perfectly fine and eliminates the need for multiple bikes. Just change the tyres, add the rack/guards etc. You could even race it on the road/CX if you really wanted to.


That's how I see gravel bikes, they are a much more general bike than CX, race and even touring bikes. They eliminate the need for multiple bikes.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

As long as the bike is stiff enough and the geometry is good, tube shapes hardly enter the equation. Brands like Cannondale, Focus and Orbea have never had aero bikes and Colnago and Pinarello have only recently added aero models.

Win on Sunday, sell on Monday. 'Aero' is the new market-speak, along with 'GRoad' bikes..Gravel Grinders. Bike sales continue to be flat, these guys gotta do something to take 12% from one another.

Disagree on the gravel bikes. They've existed for a long time admittedly but with road disc brakes becoming much more available I think these bikes have a definite place. You can ride club runs then slap some 29er tyres on and head off on the MTB trails if you want.

But now purpose built bikes, that do neither well. Cross bikes have been 'gravel grinders' for decades but now you need a cross bike and a dedicated 'GRoad' bike?

Need is a strong word. Lots of people have dedicated race bikes, winter bikes, touring bikes etc. and have for decades.

Gravel bikes are to CX bikes what tourers are to road bikes.

Personally I think anyone that doesn't race should probably be on a gravel/adventure bike like this:

http://www.shandcycles.com/bikes/stoater/

It'll do everything from club runs, to touring, to Sportives, to off-road stuff perfectly fine and eliminates the need for multiple bikes. Just change the tyres, add the rack/guards etc. You could even race it on the road/CX if you really wanted to.


That's how I see gravel bikes, they are a much more general bike than CX, race and even touring bikes. They eliminate the need for multiple bikes.

If you look at various 'GRoad/Gravel' bike dimensions, they will be very close to identical to other 'categories' of bikes called something different. Particularly bikes called 'Cyclocross' and a lot called 'touring', but with eyelets and such, are really 'all-rounders'. BUT by 'adding' a name, 'Gravel Grinder', they have created another segment to sell into.

PLUS, not a weight weenie at all..but 10.5kg, 23 pounds?..surely one could do better than that.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

If you look at various 'GRoad/Gravel' bike dimensions, they will be very close to identical to other 'categories' of bikes called something different. Particularly bikes called 'Cyclocross' and a lot called 'touring', but with eyelets and such, are really 'all-rounders'. BUT by 'adding' a name, 'Gravel Grinder', they have created another segment to sell into.

PLUS, not a weight weenie at all..but 10.5kg, 23 pounds?..surely one could do better than that.

But CX bikes don't have eyelets/mounts, and touring bikes don't have discs or the clearance for big tyres, so it's a different type of bike, otherwise a CX bike is a road bike pretty much, so's a tourer. Neither CX nor touring bikes do everything a gravel grinder or whatever you call it does. It's up to you if you need everything it has, but if you're buying a complete bike it is different to both of the classes you listed. The name just helps people distinguish between an CX race bike and something that's more intended for loading up and taking off somewhere.


You could easily do better. Replace the 105 with Ultegra, carbon fork instead of the steel one on there, carbon build kit and some lighter wheels and I reckon you're down in the 8kg region pretty easily. Could no doubt get it lighter if you really wanted, just going to cost more cash.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

If you look at various 'GRoad/Gravel' bike dimensions, they will be very close to identical to other 'categories' of bikes called something different. Particularly bikes called 'Cyclocross' and a lot called 'touring', but with eyelets and such, are really 'all-rounders'. BUT by 'adding' a name, 'Gravel Grinder', they have created another segment to sell into.

PLUS, not a weight weenie at all..but 10.5kg, 23 pounds?..surely one could do better than that.

But CX bikes don't have eyelets/mounts, and touring bikes don't have discs or the clearance for big tyres, so it's a different type of bike, otherwise a CX bike is a road bike pretty much, so's a tourer. Neither CX nor touring bikes do everything a gravel grinder or whatever you call it does. It's up to you if you need everything it has, but if you're buying a complete bike it is different to both of the classes you listed. The name just helps people distinguish between an CX race bike and something that's more intended for loading up and taking off somewhere.


You could easily do better. Replace the 105 with Ultegra, carbon fork instead of the steel one on there, carbon build kit and some lighter wheels and I reckon you're down in the 8kg region pretty easily. Could no doubt get it lighter if you really wanted, just going to cost more cash.

Look closely-Gunnar "CROSSHairs", eyelets for fenders and a rear rack..

a lot of 'Gravel Grinders' don't have eyelets for fenders either.

Gunnar has a tourer with discs, even a 650b/disc tourer.

http://gunnarbikes.com/site/bikes/grand-disc

You submitted that bike. Not a weight weenie but as a 'fast club ride bike'...I'd like it to be 2-3kg lighter.

I'm just saying the bike makers are trying to increase sales by adding a 'category' that really isn't much different than bikes already in existence. Marketing mostly. IMHO.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

If you look at various 'GRoad/Gravel' bike dimensions, they will be very close to identical to other 'categories' of bikes called something different. Particularly bikes called 'Cyclocross' and a lot called 'touring', but with eyelets and such, are really 'all-rounders'. BUT by 'adding' a name, 'Gravel Grinder', they have created another segment to sell into.

PLUS, not a weight weenie at all..but 10.5kg, 23 pounds?..surely one could do better than that.

But CX bikes don't have eyelets/mounts, and touring bikes don't have discs or the clearance for big tyres, so it's a different type of bike, otherwise a CX bike is a road bike pretty much, so's a tourer. Neither CX nor touring bikes do everything a gravel grinder or whatever you call it does. It's up to you if you need everything it has, but if you're buying a complete bike it is different to both of the classes you listed. The name just helps people distinguish between an CX race bike and something that's more intended for loading up and taking off somewhere.


You could easily do better. Replace the 105 with Ultegra, carbon fork instead of the steel one on there, carbon build kit and some lighter wheels and I reckon you're down in the 8kg region pretty easily. Could no doubt get it lighter if you really wanted, just going to cost more cash.

Look closely-Gunnar "CROSSHairs"..a lot of 'Gravel Grinders' don't have eyelets for fenders either.

Gunnar has a tourer with discs, even a 650b/disc tourer.

http://gunnarbikes.com/site/bikes/grand-disc

You submitted that bike. Not a weight weenie but as a 'fast club ride bike'...I'd like it to be 2-3kg lighter.

I'm just saying the bike makers are trying to increase sales by adding a 'category' that really isn't much different than bikes already in existence. Marketing mostly. IMHO.

This is getting silly or obtuse, I don't know which. I have no idea why you bolded part of my post, it has nothing to do with anything you've said afterwards from what I can see. Gunnar can call their bikes whatever they want, I clearly stated what I see a gravel grinder as and the Crosshairs isn't it. The Grand Disc appears to be from 2014, hardly an old bike, and they clearly think it's different to previous touring bikes as they refer to it as a next generation touring bike.

Don't change quotes, nowhere have I said 'fast club ride bike', I said club run. Frankly, it doesn't matter if you want it lighter but you can't argue that you'd like a more specific bike and then argue against brands adding more specific bike to their catalogues. Yes, ideally a bike around 7.5kg would be great for club runs, but I'm hardly going to want to load that up with 15+kgs of bags and do a two week tour on it. The bike I linked to would let me do both as well as I would want to.

Yes, they're not much different to what is out there, but they are different. I really fail to see how more choice is a bad thing? Is someone wants a specific bike for every single discipline that's up to them.

I get it, you don't like segmentation of bike categories. That's your choice. But bikes these days can come with a myriad of different options and expanding a range lets people pick and choose which of these options they want with less compromise. You can ride whatever bike you want wherever you want, as can I and I do! Having a go at people for offering choices is just silly though.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

If you look at various 'GRoad/Gravel' bike dimensions, they will be very close to identical to other 'categories' of bikes called something different. Particularly bikes called 'Cyclocross' and a lot called 'touring', but with eyelets and such, are really 'all-rounders'. BUT by 'adding' a name, 'Gravel Grinder', they have created another segment to sell into.

PLUS, not a weight weenie at all..but 10.5kg, 23 pounds?..surely one could do better than that.

But CX bikes don't have eyelets/mounts, and touring bikes don't have discs or the clearance for big tyres, so it's a different type of bike, otherwise a CX bike is a road bike pretty much, so's a tourer. Neither CX nor touring bikes do everything a gravel grinder or whatever you call it does. It's up to you if you need everything it has, but if you're buying a complete bike it is different to both of the classes you listed. The name just helps people distinguish between an CX race bike and something that's more intended for loading up and taking off somewhere.


You could easily do better. Replace the 105 with Ultegra, carbon fork instead of the steel one on there, carbon build kit and some lighter wheels and I reckon you're down in the 8kg region pretty easily. Could no doubt get it lighter if you really wanted, just going to cost more cash.

Look closely-Gunnar "CROSSHairs"..a lot of 'Gravel Grinders' don't have eyelets for fenders either.

Gunnar has a tourer with discs, even a 650b/disc tourer.

http://gunnarbikes.com/site/bikes/grand-disc

You submitted that bike. Not a weight weenie but as a 'fast club ride bike'...I'd like it to be 2-3kg lighter.

I'm just saying the bike makers are trying to increase sales by adding a 'category' that really isn't much different than bikes already in existence. Marketing mostly. IMHO.

This is getting silly or obtuse, I don't know which. I have no idea why you bolded part of my post, it has nothing to do with anything you've said afterwards from what I can see. Gunnar can call their bikes whatever they want, I clearly stated what I see a gravel grinder as and the Crosshairs isn't it. The Grand Disc appears to be from 2014, hardly an old bike, and they clearly think it's different to previous touring bikes as they refer to it as a next generation touring bike.

Don't change quotes, nowhere have I said 'fast club ride bike', I said club run. Frankly, it doesn't matter if you want it lighter but you can't argue that you'd like a more specific bike and then argue against brands adding more specific bike to their catalogues. Yes, ideally a bike around 7.5kg would be great for club runs, but I'm hardly going to want to load that up with 15+kgs of bags and do a two week tour on it. The bike I linked to would let me do both as well as I would want to.

Yes, they're not much different to what is out there, but they are different. I really fail to see how more choice is a bad thing? Is someone wants a specific bike for every single discipline that's up to them.

I get it, you don't like segmentation of bike categories. That's your choice. But bikes these days can come with a myriad of different options and expanding a range lets people pick and choose which of these options they want with less compromise. You can ride whatever bike you want wherever you want, as can I and I do! Having a go at people for offering choices is just silly though.

Guess I don't know what a 'club run' is then.

I'm saying is a naming game, the stuff out of the marketing department, not the design department.

They aren't 'different'. 2 manufacturers of the same bike category can't deside on 'proper' dimensions so by saying that this 'new' category is 'different' is not accurate.

Not saying choice is a bad thing either, just potential buyers ought to know if they are buying something new or something relabeled and repainted, then renamed. Kinds like WSD, Women Specific Design..more commonly called 'shrink it and pink it'.

Bike biz is flat, has been for a long time, why you see this sort of thing, IMHO. Grow by 2%, take 2% from somebody else.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Pinarello 2016 new bike?TT Bikes, dogma, climbing or aer

If you can't put a 38c or even 40c tire on a "gravel grinder", what good is it. I'll take a CX bike any day for riding dirt roads. Gravel grinder category is gimmick.

 

[winkybiker]

Re: Pinarello 2016 new bike?TT Bikes, dogma, climbing or aer

If you can't put a 38c or even 40c tire on a "gravel grinder", what good is it. I'll take a CX bike any day for riding dirt roads. Gravel grinder category is gimmick.

CX race bikes often don't have the gear range for hilly gravel touring. CX bikes (especially high-end ones) also often don't have fender mounts, something that is important if the bike is used year round here in the rainy Pacific NW. Pure CX bikes suffer issues, just as pure race bikes do when it comes to general utility. Whilst there is plenty of overlap in functionality, a bike with wide range gears, fenders and capability for wide-ish tyres (personally never felt the need for anything above 32mm) is not the same as a CX race bike.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Pinarello 2016 new bike?TT Bikes, dogma, climbing or aer

If you can't put a 38c or even 40c tire on a "gravel grinder", what good is it. I'll take a CX bike any day for riding dirt roads. Gravel grinder category is gimmick.

CX race bikes often don't have the gear range for hilly gravel touring. CX bikes (especially high-end ones) also often don't have fender mounts, something that is important if the bike is used year round here in the rainy Pacific NW. Pure CX bikes suffer issues, just as pure race bikes do when it comes to general utility. Whilst there is plenty of overlap in functionality, a bike with wide range gears, fenders and capability for wide-ish tyres (personally never felt the need for anything above 32mm) is not the same as a CX race bike.

Right you are, and as I mentioned, many 'cross' bikes are really 'all-rounders', and even tho called 'cross' bikes have low gears, some even with triples(horrors!!), eyelets for not only fenders but also racks. What the marketeers have done is take these 'cross' bikes and restickered them as 'gravel grinders', and a new segment is born.

 

[winkybiker]

Re: Pinarello 2016 new bike?TT Bikes, dogma, climbing or aer

If you can't put a 38c or even 40c tire on a "gravel grinder", what good is it. I'll take a CX bike any day for riding dirt roads. Gravel grinder category is gimmick.

CX race bikes often don't have the gear range for hilly gravel touring. CX bikes (especially high-end ones) also often don't have fender mounts, something that is important if the bike is used year round here in the rainy Pacific NW. Pure CX bikes suffer issues, just as pure race bikes do when it comes to general utility. Whilst there is plenty of overlap in functionality, a bike with wide range gears, fenders and capability for wide-ish tyres (personally never felt the need for anything above 32mm) is not the same as a CX race bike.

Right you are, and as I mentioned, many 'cross' bikes are really 'all-rounders', and even tho called 'cross' bikes have low gears, some even with triples(horrors!!), eyelets for not only fenders but also racks. What the marketeers have done is take these 'cross' bikes and restickered them as 'gravel grinders', and a new segment is born.

The marketers instead of pointing out the versatility of bikes have done the opposite and attempted to convince consumers that each bike that is built for one purpose and is therefore useless for anything else. But a high end cross bike still isn't what I want for a winter bike. Nor is a loaded touring bike, a race bike or a fondo/endurance bike. Yes, any would do just fine and could be adapted, but I'm grateful that there are now bikes with exactly everything I want (wide-ish tyres, non-Sram hydro-discs, fender mounts, race-ish geometry (so I can more-or-less replicate my summer position) and reasonable weight). I don't care what they call it (all-road, gravel grinder - whatever - these are basically the same bike).

 

[Stingray34]

Re: Pinarello 2016 new bike?TT Bikes, dogma, climbing or aer

The crosshairs and the stoater are sweet bikes - I love the curved forks on the former: reminds me of my 1991 Cinelli SL. They used to visibly 'bob' on rough roads and no toe overlap.

 

[Lynton]

Wow that went way off track, from talking about the direction of Pinarello to the finer points of Gravel Roaders.

Personally I like the fact that Pinarello don't obsolete their bikes as frequently as the other manufacturers do. Why spend $8000 on a frame and fork if it going to be old within 12 months.