Over the past nine months three companies have produced white papers describing well-executed, proprietary, wind tunnel tests. Cervelo is the latest, such test detailing the relative value of its P4 superbike versus those in its competitive set. This follows publications by Trek and Felt on their Speed Concept and DA bikes.

These three companies converge in one notable respect: Their bikes were all developed with bolt-on accessories contemplated during the frame design. Cervelo—often the innovator in the timed racing space—got the ball rolling with the P4's integrated water bottle. The Speed Concept features a bevy of integrated features: Speed Boxes front and rear, recessed front brake calipers, and the Duo-Trap Speed Sensor.

Felt's DA is a frame ready for peripherals, but not all the peripherals have yet been built. Some of these accessories have not been announced: not to you, and not to me. Still, these peripherals will, or certainly should, be forthcoming. We now see a down tube Di2 battery cover that—ahem—protects the battery from... what? Rain? Road debris? Fine. Still, the problem bikes and riders tend to face is that wind from the drive train's lee side, such as that coming off the ocean while riding between Waikoloa and Hawi. As it wraps around the down tube the drive train keeps that wind from reattaching, causing what some bike designers describe as a "stall" in a mild yaw. The DA's "battery cover" serves, then, a second function: fairing the drive train during a yaw when the drive side is the lee side.

Forgetting all the other features specific to the DA (e.g., the wind trip that mimics Trek's Kamm Tail), what we see on that bike are bosses here, there, everywhere (this, when the DA's alternate seat post is affixed—not the OE post; it is the post pictured here, along with the down tube affixed battery cover).

What to do with all those bosses on the DA? If I were Felt I might want to put something like a Speed Box behind that seat post built for a top-mounted Di2 battery. This, except there are also bosses mounted on the seat tube which might accept a water bottle not unlike that on the P4, in which case I now have a great spot for a bike number carrier behind the seat post. Or, CO2 cartridges + inflator. Or, a race number mount that incorporates a place for threaded cartridges and inflator.

UCI Legality
There is one problem with all these peripherals made by all these companies: Few of the peripherals are UCI legal. Consequently, the very design work that sets these frames apart, and perhaps ahead, of the competition is in some measure not usable by their pro cycling teams.

Still, the frames themselves are built to be UCI legal, and this is what differentiates a Cervelo, a Felt, a Trek time trial bike from these companies' tri bikes: The frames are UCI legal; the UCI-illegal peripherals, when bolted on, turn TT bikes into tri bikes.

Specialized road bike engineer and aerodynamicist Mark Cote described the situation succinctly. "The bike positions ridden by triathletes and pro bike racers are close enough that one bike design can serve both constituencies," said Cote. "The difference between tri and TT is what must be carried aboard the bike."

Triathletes must contend with five categories of carry-aboards during their races, whereas time trialists might not have to carry anything aboard their bikes. Carry-aboards for triathletes are water; food; spares/tools; race number; and electronics.

There are between six and ten bike makers that might be considered on the leading edge of companies making bikes designed both for pro tour teams and for use by triathletes: Cervelo, Scott, Specialized, Felt, Trek and Cannondale; perhaps also Look, Ridley, Orbea and Giant.

What is the difference between UCI and non-UCI legal bikes, which is to say, between the TT bike and a tri bike made out of the same mold? In the case of the P4, the Speed Concept, and the DA, the difference is, or soon will be, bolt-on peripherals.

Still, there is a basic difference in theme among all these companies: Bikes that are build as TT bikes, yet which will be used by the pro tour teams; versus bikes built for pro tour teams, yet which will be sold to triathletes. The best single indicator of a bike designer's focus is whether the frame is designed peripheral-ready out the gate; and whether the peripherals are announced and launched commensurate with the frame.

In the case of both the P4 and the Speed Concept, it seems that each bike was built primarily with triathletes in mind and, "Oh, by the way, our pro teams ride them as well." This, because the peripherals launched commensurate with the frame launch, with an apparent understanding that UCI legality of the peripherals were not necessarily forthcoming.

Future Integrations
Why hasn't such an intuitive method of designing triathlon bikes been used in the past? Two reasons, I think. Small bike companies don't have the resources, time, breadth and wherewithal to think in interdisciplinary terms (they are frame makers, not blow molders).

The larger companies that are interdisciplinary frankly have only recently awakened to triathlon in any focused sense. Trek, Specialized and others have played in triathlon for decades, but only fairly recently got religion on the value of the tri market. Tri bikes are specialty, and margins are better on these than on road race bikes. If a large bike company's CFO sat down and worked out how much return on its company's invested dollar a tri bike sale offers, it's clear that—while the unit sales are dwarfed by road and MTB—gross profits per unit, and per invested ancillary dollar generating that sale, greatly increases the value of the tri category. Hence the relatively recent focus by these companies on tri bike design.

Now that peripheral placements are here, is it time to think outside the box? Felt is the first among these companies to place bosses on the back of its seatpost. Might Cervelo finally do something with that rearward hole in its seat post? Might the top tube be the next place to receive frame bosses? Is there a custom, bike-frame-specific, version of the Bento Box sitting out there waiting to be designed? (Note that Trek's Front Speed Box—pictured—anticipates this.)

Who should make these peripherals? Frame companies, or blow molders or carbon fabricators that make these sorts of parts for a living? (Water bottle companies, wheel companies, and the like.) I think the margins are slim for accessory companies, but not if the frame companies offer incentives. Frames become more valuable when custom peripherals enhancing the frame's function are available. Maybe frame companies might front-end load the cost, to a strategic peripheral maker, of development in some way (enterprising product managers might fashion ingenious, non-standard deals to bring peripherals to market.)

Look for more and more bike companies to employ this motif in their frame designs. The manufacture of frame peripherals may also prove a way to extract more life out of a mold. The insertion of a few strategically placed bosses on a frame or seat post—with some peripheral products designed by a bike company, or by a peripheral maker in concert with that bike company, might add life to a model otherwise in danger of being long in the tooth.