Thanks for the info ocracer, wasn't sure if my figure was accurate 

Since I believe all of the early AR prototypes were 56 cm, I suspect the 1.2 kg estimate is for that size.   The SLC-SL is canonically claimed to be 990 grams, which would put the S3 at 1050 grams.   If AR mass ~ frame size, and with the fat main down and seat tubes I'd expect there to be a strong dependence on size,  then this would put the 52cm @  1110 grams.

SoNiK:

New Felt AR4. This is the exact frame design used by Team Garmin at the Tour de France in July. The AR range will also have a higher spec AR2 and an AR-Team (Garmin colours). Click on the bike to enlarge it and see more detail.   

 

I like that bike and how it looks, I just wonder how stiff the bottom bracket area is when compared to the SLC or new S3. I also wonder how vertical compliance is since stiffness without vertical compliance is no good, thats why the new S3 will feature smaller stays similar to the R3 so its like a hybrid R3 rear with SLC front.

I don't know: it may be telling that I haven't seen any Garmin riders on the thing since the early stages of the Tour, while CSC riders regularly ride the SLC, and of course the S3 was all over the Olympic RR.

Felt's 2009 line is described here:

http://www.feltracing.com/09/

There had been an AR1, with Electronic Dura-Ace, but it's gone now.  Not that it matters: the AR2 is the same frame as the AR1 was and the AR-Team is, although the AR-team has Ti bolts in the seat clamp, based on my cursary review.  No info I can see yet on frameset-only.

 

So which is the more aero frame the AR or the S3... I am trying to decide between one of them.  I am only interested in the frameset.  I will need to make my decision by this weekend so that I can make sure I can get either one ASAP!!!

 

 

If the Felt AR is more aero, it's only marginally so. The gaps between the ST and the rear wheel, and between the DT and the front wheel are too big. But they were limited by practical considerations. To have a truly close gap in the rear would require rear facing track-style dropouts, which does not work for quick wheel changes. Also they had to leave that gap for the rear brake bolt (does Cervelo have a patent on their rear brake attachment for the P3?). Which means all those shaped carbon tubes, adding weight, without a real aero benefit. Still, any effort to tuck the rear wheel behind the seat tube has got to help. The S3 would be laterally stiffer, I think, with those built up chain stays and the beefier seat tube.

mudrock:

If the Felt AR is more aero, it's only marginally so. The gaps between the ST and the rear wheel, and between the DT and the front wheel are too big. But they were limited by practical considerations. To have a truly close gap in the rear would require rear facing track-style dropouts, which does not work for quick wheel changes. Also they had to leave that gap for the rear brake bolt (does Cervelo have a patent on their rear brake attachment for the P3?). Which means all those shaped carbon tubes, adding weight, without a real aero benefit. Still, any effort to tuck the rear wheel behind the seat tube has got to help. The S3 would be laterally stiffer, I think, with those built up chain stays and the beefier seat tube.

 

Completely agree, the AR seems to have some aerodynamic touchs that look the part but aren't actually that aero since the clearances are not tight enough and there will still be a low pressure 'slot' to disrupt the flow.

So what about the Look 496?  That has a rather large gap, which they claim is advantageous:

From slowtwitch.com:

Their testing results found this: that while wind moves from the front to the back of a bike, the spinning wheel, particularly with spokes churning it up, pulls some air around the top of the wheel, back through the interior of the stays and toward the seattube. LOOK’s contention is that when the rear wheel I tucked into a tight cowling, it creates a wall. “Without a clear exit path for that air, we found you get a high degree of turbulence,” Tan says. “It goes against conventional wisdom, but that comes from thinking when looking at the bike statically. The story changes with a spinning wheel.”

A good question for Gerard. Are the wheels on their test bikes spinning during wind tunnel testing? There are two different philosophies here.

An even better question is what are all the companies doing in wind tunnel testing?  There should be a default set up in which everyone can draw reasonable information from.  I'm an aerospace engineer and there are all kinds of small decripansies that can arise from just very little things.  For instance, Look's claims about the extra space may be very valid, depending on the speed of the flow they're dealing with of course.  When I hear all these results from the wind tunnels, I always think to myself about the conditions and the factors that might affect their testing, ig. deep dishers, paint jobs, etc with deep dishers being a huge one.  As far as overall Aerodynamics go, I would say Felt is going to have a "better" bike, but in actuallity, and I hate to sound like a nay-sayer about using this level of science in bikes, the differences at the typical riding speeds shouldn't make a huge difference, you're talking about like 1 to maybe 2 %.  So if you're the buyer, like I'm about to be soon, I'm really going to go on the actual reviews of the bikes rather than the claims, and the Soloist does seem to be more of a tried and true bike.

 But isn't part of the game to determine which set-up best reflects the desired application?  That's part of engineering, which differentiates the better companies from the inferior ones.

 If I can make a faster bike by spinning the rear wheel when I test, that's a competitive advantage, which I don't necessarily want to give away.

 With regard to the gap: Look says a small gap creates drag, so they go to a larger, uniform gap.  Well, what about blowing out the gap, then, like "standard" bike frames, saving mass?  Or, if it weren't forbidden by the UCI (applies to triathlon?  Not  to most US time trials..) the old Kestrel without a seat tube?   In other words, is there an optimum gap, below or above which one shouldn't go?

I just placed the order for my S3 in the olympics scheme... I think it will be a bike that will be very rare.  Does anyone know how many they made.. I was told 230 or 232 I cant remember?

 

Freddy

djconnel:

 But isn't part of the game to determine which set-up best reflects the desired application?  That's part of engineering, which differentiates the better companies from the inferior ones.

 If I can make a faster bike by spinning the rear wheel when I test, that's a competitive advantage, which I don't necessarily want to give away.

No.  This is like saying our bike is lighter than yours when we actually weigh our 48cm model without paint against your 62cm model with bottle cages attached (but don't disclose it)!   If you spin a wheel during a test and the others don't, you can't consider this an 'advantage' and it has nothing to do with engineering.  It's deceptive marketing.

 As long as the same test is applied to each bike, and the test is your best faith effort to mimic some aspect of cycling, and your claims are clear about what that aspect is, then you should use the best test you can.  If everyone else is comparing bikes with stationary wheels, when obviously this is an unrealistic assumption, and you choose to compare bikes with spinning wheels, you're doing it right, and they are not, no matter how many of them there are.

 That said, I don't have any reason to believe Cervelo tests bikes with stationary wheels.

 Ok, now that Felt has their pricing down for their AR line as does Cervelo, if I was looking to spend right under 6, which bike is the one for me?  Also, Red or the new DuraAce?