The CD0.1 has a unique narrative. Clever, really. And it does this with a smartly-spec'd midrange kit at $3300 for a complete bike. Quite a feat.
About that narrative... think about it: the wind hits you, goes over and around you—and the bike—and it exits. Your goals in all of this?
First, to present the smallest profile to the wind you can. Second, to present yourself to the wind as something other than a blunt force instrument (a knife and a hammer can each deconstruct an apple, but a knife does so with more ease). Finally—just like a trip through nature—your trip through air should leave it just as you found it: still and intact.
It's not quite that simple, however, and the bike presents unique problems that must be solved. The bike is not symmetric in any axis. It might seem like it is, but, once you slap a drivetrain on the frame there's gears and a transmission on the right side of your bike that doesn't appear on the left side. There is—at least theoretically—not simply mass, but turbulent mass, on the bike's drive side.
This is the specific problem the CD0.1 wants to address, and it's what makes it different from other bikes. It's got a down tube that's asymmetric, the job of which is to move air from the drive side of the bike to the left side before that air gets to the crank, the chain, the derailleurs, and the chain stay cable housing.
That's this bike's specific job. Still, we all understand, I hope, that bikes all have general jobs that are more important, like, not falling apart; being stable and straight; fitting correctly; having holes and fixtures drilled and affixed that allow the components to work correctly; and so forth. Does the CD0.1 do all these mandatory jobs properly?
Fit and Geometry
As many of you know, we talk about bikes in a particular way, using a nomenclature we developed ourselves that we think best describes how bikes are geometrically constructed and how (and who) they fit. We start by describing a bike's height and length through metrics we call Stack and Reach. Stack describes a frame's "tallness" and Reach describes its "length".
If a bike, on average, trends long versus its height, we call these bikes "long and low". If it's tall versus its length, we call them "narrow and tall".
If you look at the CD0.1 through its range—each black dot representing a size of this bike—it starts out fairly non-denominational in its smallest size, and then it adopts its theme. In the three larger sizes it is a moderately long and low bike. This is pretty typical of a lot of high-end bikes, because—on paper at least—you might assume that the highest priced bikes are those bought by the best and most committed athletes, who tend to ride steeper, and lower in front, and hence need a bike built for this sort of riding.
So, why does the bike not adopt that theme through all four sizes, rather than just the largest three? If a bike has a "flat line" from one size to the next on our graph, it's because the bike's length increased (either because the seat angle got steeper, or because the top tube got longer), but the bike's height did not. This is usually because the head tube stayed the same length. This is the case with the CD0.1, where the bike's head tube is 9cm in its smallest two sizes. This is usually the case because the bike's construction demands a head tube of a certain size—no smaller.
Contrast this with the geometry of the Kestrel 4000, where its two smallest sizes differ in precisely the opposite way: one size gets taller than the other without getting longer.
There is no "right" or wrong" as to the CD0.1's two smallest sizes. There's just a thematic difference between how the two bikes fit. One is more middle-of-the-road, the other is a more aggressive geometry. Certainly QR could have made a more aggressive smallest size, but probably not unless it made that size with 650c wheels. QR did precisely this in all its other tri bike models, just not (or not yet) with the CD0.1.
This isn't to say you can't make a bike with 700c wheels that follows this long/low geometric theme in a small size, and an XS in Argon 18 has 700c wheels throughout its size run, yet has a geometry in its smallest size that would fit roughly along the CD0.1's geometric theme generated by the larger three sizes.
But the CD0.1 has other missions, you'll remember—aerodynamic in nature—and this might require that its head tube length be no shorter than 9cm, with a bottom bracket drop of no less than 7.4cm. Hence the deviation in its fit profile in its smallest size.
Frame features
It's popular these days for frame companies to try to hide the brake calipers from the wind. I generally applaud this attempt, but, I applaud it more ardently when it's the rear caliper we're talking about. Of the two, I intuit this to be the most offensive to the wind, and besides it doesn't matter too much anyway—the great bulk of braking force in a bike is accomplished by the front caliper.
That rear caliper is hidden under the CD0.1's chainstay, behind the BB, and this allows the area behind the seat tube to be cleaned up nicely. My preference is for some sort of center pull caliper when its placed in this spot, because the side pull version sold by TRP (the brake calipers on this bike) generates a cable housing that tends to interfere with the left side crank arm. While the CD0.1 uses this rear caliper, it does build special frame bosses for the caliper that take the place of certain of TRP's brackets, making the rear caliper both lighter and easier to mount. Because these frame bosses include their own left/right calibration system, you have a double set of adjustment screws that help you adjust the trim of its brake pads.
The front caliper hides behind the fork. I'm an agnostic about hiding the front caliper. Whether you're in or aboard a car, a horse, or a bicycle, it's inconvenient when you apply the brakes and stopping is not happening (or happening at the rate you anticipate). Some of these front brake systems designed to improve frame/rider aerodynamics might achieve a small victory at a large cost. Is it the case with this bike? Not necessarily. Rather, I'm whining in general—half the high-end bikes out there seem to have some sort of new and novel front braking system. Just, whatever you buy, make sure your new bike stops to your satisfaction.
Those chain stay caliper bosses are, by the way, also evident on the CD0.1's fork. These bosses civilize the TRP calipers, rendering them more worthy of a frame of this caliber.
The seat post is simple in its design, but, sound in its utility. There is plenty of room fore/aft for its rail hardware, and you can ride this bike quite steep. Or not.
Then there's that interesting down tube. It's offset to the drive side, and its rearward terminus "cups" the air, if you will, and moves it away from the bike's power train. Does this work? I make it a habit not to adjudicate aerodynamic claims. Rather, I simply present them. While I can't speak to the utility of the design, certainly the narrative is compelling, and if it doesn't win bike of the year (we don't present such an award) it certainly wins best-of-story.
In a way, the CD0.1 is a bit—its conception and execution—like the Trek Speed Concept. Long time American Bicycle Group designer Brad Devaney took into account just about everything he could think of to make a bike aerodynamically sound, while also making sure it stayed geometrically sound. The frame and fork brake caliper bosses speak to this attention to detail.
Groupkit
Just as QR's designer took care to imagine everything that might be an aero benefit to its flagship frame, the product manager spec'd the bike with what seems an inside knowledge of what triathletes are riding. When you get into the tall weeds of what happens on the ground—in the best retail stores, and the output of a fit session executed by a fitter who knows his trade—you end up spec'ing a bike like this bike is spec'd.
For example: Who specs an ISM Adamo original equipment? QR does. Now, in point of fact, maybe 4 in 5 of these saddles would, or should, be pulled off this bike in favor of another saddle preferred by its owner. This, because saddles are idiosyncratic—just like running shoes—and fit is exceptionally important. And the ISM is about as idiosyncratic as saddles get (they are to cycling what Newton shoes are to running: you really love them or you really don't). But it's still a brilliant spec choice for two reasons: First, it makes the customer really consider the saddle he's riding; Second, because the retailer won't mind taking an ISM into his inventory if the buyer does require a saddle change.
While the derailleurs are Shimano Ultegra, the crankset is an FSA aluminum forged TriMax, and this is another smart spec choice. This crankset is also spec'd by Felt on some of its bikes, including its $5000 Di2-equipped B10. This is a 110mm bolt-pattern crank and is probably the best new tri crank model introduced for the 2011 season. Note to FSA: Make this crank down to 160mm. You'll be happy you did.
The chain and cassette are Shimano's 105, and these are what we call consumables, like tires and tubes. But, look guys, what is the minimum requirement of Ultegra before you can call it Ultegra (the bike reviewed today is the "CD0.1 Ultegra")? This bike has Ultegra front and rear derailleurs. That's it!
Not that the spec bothers me at all. It's the name of the groupkit that bothers me. For the last decade bike makers have enjoyed what they strove a generation to achieve: bikes that were not pigeonholed by gruppos. Bike makers were insistently stymied by the question: What is your cheapest Ultegra bike? Nobody asks that about tri bikes these days, do they? However, bike makers seem determined to usher in the era they so hated by describing their kits as Ultegra, or Red, or Dura Ace, or Di2. Why not call it Electronic instead of Di2? Why not call your group Premium or Chrome instead of Dura Ace or Red? /end rant.
Front end
Here's my sole concern with this bike: I love Visiontech aerobars. And I love the CD0.1's geometry. But I think some folks are going to find that the combination of the two conspire to make the front end of the bike low. So, while Visiontech aerobars were a brilliant spec choice made by Cannondale this year for its Slice models, the CD0.1 might be better spec'd for a lot of folks with, say, 3T Aura aerobars. This is an aerobar with a higher profile armrest, really sexy, well thought out, priced right, and a nice match for this high-end bike. If you fancy a CD0.1 but find the front end a might low, the Aura in place of the Visiontechs would add about 3cm of height.
When the CD0.1 was first introduced it was a pricey bike, like, north of $5000. I was surprised how quickly QR scaled this bike, incorporating it into its vertical line-up of bikes leading from entry level to high-end. At $3300 this complete bike has competition. Scott's Plasma 20, Trek's Speed Concept 7.5, two Specialized Transitions, the Slice 3, and a pair of Cervelos, bracket this bike. Still, the 2011 CD0.1 "Ultegra" (now shipping as of this writing) holds up. If you're looking for a bike that's highly differentiated from the norm, but still orthodox in its geometry and function, QR has made a very compelling bike for you.
