Updated: Pinarello announce Dogma F8 + video

Team Sky will race aboard the lighter, stiffer Dogma F8 within a fortnight

by Mat Brett   May 28, 2014  

Dogma F8 950 lat

Pinarello have announced the eighth generation of their top-end Dogma road bike which, it won’t surprise you to learn, they say is lighter, stiffer and more aerodynamic than the existing model.

So, let’s get those stats in full. Pinarello say that the Dogma F8 is:

• 12% stiffer
• 16% more balanced
• 47% less aerodynamic impact
• 120g lighter for frame and fork (size 54)

More balanced? We’ll come back to that.

Pinarello say, “Pinarello LAB, Team Sky and Jaguar created a working group where everyone brought his decisive contribution: Team Sky with feedback from its athletes, Jaguar the aerodynamics concerns CFD [computational fluid dynamics] and wind tunnel testing, Pinarello LAB for cycling part, structural study and design."

The Dogma F8 is made using ‘new T11001K Dream Carbon with Nanoalloy Technology’ from Toray. Pinarello say that the material’s major feature is its stiffness-to-weight ratio. They claim that whereas a 54cm Dogma 65.1 with Torayca 65HM1K weighs 940g, an equivalent Dogma F8 frame weighs nearly 80g less while retaining the same structural characteristics.

“We have always said that weight is not a determining factor for judging a road bike, because often light weight means low stiffness and extreme fragility,” say Pinarello. “Despite this, because of the new tube profiles, the asymmetry and the new Torayca T11001K carbon fibre, we were able to increase the stiffness by 12% while reducing the frame weight to 860g. And if we add the weight reduction of the new F8 Onda fork, the Dogma F8 frame kit comes at an astounding 120g less than the Dogma 65.1 [size 54cm without paint and hardware].”

In terms of aerodynamics, Pinarello say, “We studied the performance of more than 70 frame configurations as different angles of attack for a total of 300 CFD analyses.

“A true aero profile should have an 8:1 ratio. However, the UCI regulations impose a maximum ratio of 3:1. The logical solution of applying a 3:1 ratio to a round tube yields an oval or egg-shaped cross section. This, however, drastically increases aerodynamic drag.”

“With the Flatback solution adopted on the Dogma F8, the oval section is flattened on the back side [to reduce] turbulence. This new tube shape dramatically reduces the aerodynamic impact on the Dogma F8.”

They’re very happy with the results. Pinarello say that they have reduced the aerodynamic impact of the new Onda F8 fork by 54% by reducing the size of the wake behind the fork legs, and that it’s 10% lighter: the raw fork is said to be 360g compared to 400g previously.

“With aerodynamic sections derived directly from the Bolide, the F8 fork legs act as sails that promote forward motion in crosswind conditions,” says Pinarello. “This effect is amplified when riding in stronger winds. The wind has always been an inevitable resistance that increases rider fatigue and hinders performance. Now with the Dogma F8, cyclists are able to exploit it.

“The drag is practically zero until the air has traveled halfway along the F8 frame. The resistance increases in the area of water bottles… [and] decreases when the air hits the seat tube, as a result of its aerodynamic cross section.

“After passing the rear brake, the… F8 does not provide any additional impedance to the air flow in that area… The rear sections of the seatstays and chainstays are effectively invisible to the air.”

The rear brake is sheltered entirely by the wishbone section of the seatstays so that it doesn't add to the drag, according to Pinarello.

And what about being 16% more balanced? What does that mean?

“Because the drive train of a bicycle is asymmetric, the frame needs to be asymmetric to balance the force that is applied to only drive side,” say Pinarello. “Your legs push on both pedals of your bicycle, while the chain drives only on the right side of your bicycle.

“It is obvious that a frame must be asymmetric to allow you to ride symmetrically.”

In other words, Pinarello say that they have taken the drivetrain forces into account when designing the frame and made the bike more balanced through the asymmetry of the frame.

Like previous generation Dogmas, the F8’s forks and seatstays curve but the amount of meandering is massively reduced. They’ve gone with an integrated seatpost clamp – which they call TwinForce – to improve aerodynamics (and the looks, we're guessing), and the new Air 8 aero seatpost will take a Shimano Di2 battery.

Other features include a small space at the top of the head tube to hold electronic groupset controllers and an Italian thread bottom bracket rather than a pressed in option. Pinarello see a threaded BB as, “By far the best solution to ensure rigidity, performance and reliability over time.”

All in all, this is a major redesign rather than just a case of tweaking details, and the drop in weight is significant. 120g is a big chunk off a Grand Tour-winning frameset, even given the fact that the previous generation Pinarello wasn't known for being extremely light weight.

When you have a Tour de France winner riding your bike, you make the most of it, and Pinarello have naturally asked Chris Froome to have his say.

“The first thing I realised with the Pinarello Dogma F8 is that just holding it you can feel immediately that the weight is a huge factor,” says Froome. “They’ve managed to get the weight right down, which for us is fantastic. Getting on the bike and trying it for the first time and taking it around a few corners, you can really feel the rigidity.

"When you push into the pedals the power goes straight through the bike. It doesn’t flex and it doesn’t move. Whatever power you put into the pedals, it goes onto the road. This is certainly a bike I hope I’m going to be winning another Tour de France on. I’m going to do everything I can to make that happen.”

Here's Bernie Eisel's take on the new bike:

The Dogma F8 frame has been approved by the UCI and will debut at the Critérium du Dauphiné which begins in Lyon on 8 June.

52 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

TrekBikesUK wrote:
"That down tube looks to be shaped for aerodynamics with the trailing edge of the profile chopped off square, presumably to save weight and to conform to UCI regulations. The seat tube and seat post look to have had a similar treatment with a curved leading edge and a squared off trailing edge."

*cough* 2012 Madone *cough* Kammtail *cough*

Ahem...

Wink


While I have to admit I also thought 'those tubes look a bit Trekkey', I don't think you can lay claim to an aerodynamic principle that's been widely known for over 70 years. Wink

Boardman CX Team '14 | Cannondale CAAD8 '12 (written off, SMIDSY) | Scott Sportster '08

Gizmo_'s picture

posted by Gizmo_ [752 posts]
29th May 2014 - 12:57

like this
Like (14)

Ahem...

Ok so the old squiggly fork was a marketing gimmick then. Tells you something about the company.

This bike does look nicer though.

posted by ragtagcyclist [4 posts]
29th May 2014 - 13:06

like this
Like (15)

2Gizmo: Well yes. At least we had the courtesy to name the design after the guy that originated it.

Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TrekUK
And Twitter @trekbikesuk

TrekBikesUK's picture

posted by TrekBikesUK [95 posts]
29th May 2014 - 13:16

like this
Like (14)

Equally I think it's a bit low rent the official Trek twitter feed coming on here and trolling another brand. Haven't you got anything else to do?

posted by peter.haworth [4 posts]
29th May 2014 - 13:22

like this
Like (21)

These fancy angle shots make the bike look great, however upon looking at a normal side shot, I think this frame looks more ugly than the last one.

posted by philipthelam [2 posts]
29th May 2014 - 14:23

like this
Like (13)

Anybody else noticed that, at 1:57 on the 1st video the bottle cage is upside down?

posted by domd [3 posts]
29th May 2014 - 15:36

like this
Like (10)

Super Domestique wrote:
giobox wrote:
Flying Scot wrote:
Froome happy they got weight down?.......aren't all these things ballasted up to UCI minimums....i.e the same weight as the old one?

I don't want one.

Even on super light carbon tubulars you struggled to get the old dogma to 6.8kgs.

Not too sure about that tbh.

No need to take my word for it. Google the weight of Wiggin's bike: it's typically been 7.2kgs. You can also see the weights of ludicrously high spec builds over on the weight weenies forum, a dogma rarely gets under 7kg, regardless of spec.

posted by giobox [240 posts]
29th May 2014 - 16:10

like this
Like (14)

Super Domestique wrote:
giobox wrote:
Flying Scot wrote:
Froome happy they got weight down?.......aren't all these things ballasted up to UCI minimums....i.e the same weight as the old one?

I don't want one.

Even on super light carbon tubulars you struggled to get the old dogma to 6.8kgs.

Not too sure about that tbh.

No need to take my word for it. Google the weight of Wiggin's bike: it's typically been 7.2kgs. You can also see the weights of ludicrously high spec builds over on the weight weenies forum, a dogma rarely gets under 7kg, regardless of spec. Sure a sub 6.8 can be done, but it's a lot harder and more exspensive than on a lot of competitor frames.

posted by giobox [240 posts]
29th May 2014 - 16:16

like this
Like (10)

Wiggins had a huge frame though and I was talking from experience, not Google.

posted by Super Domestique [1592 posts]
29th May 2014 - 17:18

like this
Like (11)

Less ugly but..... Still ugly.

Super Domestique wrote:
Wiggins had a huge frame though and I was talking from experience, not Google.

Actually, he rides a 56.

peter.haworth wrote:
Equally I think it's a bit low rent the official Trek twitter feed coming on here and trolling another brand. Haven't you got anything else to do?

If it's the same guy who goes by the name 'TrekUK' on Weight Weenies, this is nothing. Not a great brand representative at all, other brand trolling is regular.

posted by ajmarshal1 [261 posts]
29th May 2014 - 19:42

like this
Like (13)

Pinarello come up larger though, which was my point. Also, a 56cm is somewhat larger than what many pros will ride.

posted by Super Domestique [1592 posts]
29th May 2014 - 19:46

like this
Like (7)

His Dogma 2 was a bit bigger it seems:

http://roadcycleexchange.com/products/bradley-wiggins-2012-pinarello-dog...

Although 58 should probably have read 57.5 which was the same size Dogma 2 that Stannard rode.

posted by Super Domestique [1592 posts]
29th May 2014 - 19:48

like this
Like (16)

A 51.5 Pinarello Dogma 65.1 Think 2 weighs over 2kg for frame and fork. As a comparison, the Ridley Noah which is derided regularly for being a fat bike weighs just over1800g for a medium. (A similar size Noah to a 51.5 Dogma apparently weighs 1600g for frame and fork but I haven't seen one of those weighed so that's from Ridley) Incidentally, the medium Noah has very similar geometry to a 56 Dogma. Which in turn isn't far off a 56 Cervelo r3. In fact the stack on an R3 is bigger than a 56 Dogma. So they don't really come up big.

Pinarellos = Seriously porky bikes.

posted by ajmarshal1 [261 posts]
29th May 2014 - 19:57

like this
Like (6)

Ok by big I meant they are not a more compact / sloping top tube design like say a Giant or Spesh in the same size.

To clarify, all my point was that getting a Dogma near the UCI limit* wouldn't be as difficult as some may think.

(*talking Pro's bikes here, etc)

posted by Super Domestique [1592 posts]
29th May 2014 - 20:07

like this
Like (15)

Super Domestique wrote:
Ok by big I meant they are not a more compact / sloping top tube design like say a Giant or Spesh in the same size.

To clarify, all my point was that getting a Dogma near the UCI limit* wouldn't be as difficult as some may think.

(*talking Pro's bikes here, etc)

Ah I see.

I think the thing is with Sky, by 'pro' standards the Dura Ace wheelsets and drivetrain aren't that light either. I've seen Dura Ace Di2 weighed at 2200g.

Going back to the Noah, Andre Greipel's bike with Bora 35s was just over 7kg last summer and that's a 200g lighter frame wearing lighter wheels and a lighter groupset.

posted by ajmarshal1 [261 posts]
29th May 2014 - 20:15

like this
Like (9)

Exactly. Sorry, it wouldn't let me edit my post above but I was trying to add:

Although getting that limit and under is easier on other makes, etc.

posted by Super Domestique [1592 posts]
29th May 2014 - 20:18

like this
Like (9)

Super Domestique wrote:
Wiggins had a huge frame though and I was talking from experience, not Google.

Hooray for you.

posted by giobox [240 posts]
29th May 2014 - 21:02

like this
Like (7)

Best feature of this bike: threaded bottom bracket.

posted by giobox [240 posts]
29th May 2014 - 21:04

like this
Like (8)

giobox wrote:
Super Domestique wrote:
Wiggins had a huge frame though and I was talking from experience, not Google.

Hooray for you.


Big Grin

posted by Super Domestique [1592 posts]
29th May 2014 - 21:16

like this
Like (16)

Bit disappointed with the name tbh. I thought it was going to be called the Pinarello Dogma 48.69X Quantum Mind Force 6:4K+ Excelsior Hyper Flux Shifter Z. Or something snappy like that.

Still, I'm glad it's more balanced. I'm forever falling off my bicycle at red lights. I wonder if they ship every model with a complementary pair of stabilisers...

posted by Quince [105 posts]
29th May 2014 - 21:51

like this
Like (13)

Quince wrote:
Bit disappointed with the name tbh. I thought it was going to be called the Pinarello Dogma 48.69X Quantum Mind Force 6:4K+ Excelsior Hyper Flux Shifter Z. Or something snappy like that.

Still, I'm glad it's more balanced. I'm forever falling off my bicycle at red lights. I wonder if they ship every model with a complementary pair of stabilisers...


Best comment on here - very funny Big Grin

Pastaman

posted by pastaman [210 posts]
29th May 2014 - 22:12

like this
Like (12)

Jacob wrote:
The complete bike, including rider, is claimed to be 6.4 per cent more aerodynamic than the Dogma 65.1. Along with the 120g reduction in frame and fork weight and I'm not sure if current Pinarello riders will feel the need to go out and buy this new bike. Along with a price increase... Not exactly revolutionary.

You might want to think for a moment. On the drive side the crank turns clockwise, so with an Italian BB the pedalling motion turns in the direction that TIGHTENS the bb. The reason brittish standard bbs are different is so the the pedalling action turns in the direction that LOOSENS the bb, so if the bearings fail the bb doesn't get tightened into the frame to the point where it won't come out again. It's the same reason that pedal threads are different - pedal ceases, pedal unscrews.

posted by joules1975 [64 posts]
30th May 2014 - 8:26

like this
Like (6)

When it comes down to it, those who love the brand will believe it all, buy the bike and love every little bit of it. Those who don't love the brand won't. That's consumers and brands.

On another note, weight isn't everything, and I think we can assume the F8 isn't going to be a bad bike!

posted by BikeBud [94 posts]
30th May 2014 - 9:15

like this
Like (9)

Having read the treads on this forum have come to a conclusion.

Marketing bo11ocks

Chadders x

chadders's picture

posted by chadders [71 posts]
30th May 2014 - 9:32

like this
Like (11)

You might want to think for a moment. On the drive side the crank turns clockwise, so with an Italian BB the pedalling motion turns in the direction that TIGHTENS the bb. The reason brittish standard bbs are different is so the the pedalling action turns in the direction that LOOSENS the bb, so if the bearings fail the bb doesn't get tightened into the frame to the point where it won't come out again. It's the same reason that pedal threads are different - pedal ceases, pedal unscrews.

This is literally exactly the opposite of what happens. BBs and pedal axles tighten opposite to the direction of motion as the axle rolls around the inside of the threading, like the inner cog on a spirograph. This is why the complaint you get about Italian BBs is that the drive side unthreads if you don't torque to the correct level or use threadlock

posted by TomvanHalen [33 posts]
30th May 2014 - 20:23

like this
Like (8)

+1 for TomvanHalen. A right hand thread on the right loosens through precession. See Sheldon Brown:

http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/left.html

posted by drmatthewhardy [297 posts]
30th May 2014 - 21:32

like this
Like (9)

Hang on, hang on, I understand why the decrease in weight matters on this particular bike as they aren't right on the 6.8kg limit, but why do riders of the bikes who are right on the limit care if the manufacturer can decrease the weight? They can't benefit it from it can they?

.......oh wait, it's not about marketing again is it? Or have I missed something....

posted by J90 [75 posts]
31st May 2014 - 0:25

like this
Like (6)

I was going to get one of those Asda£89.99 bikes. I'll have a word with the wife!

posted by ManicDrummer [2 posts]
31st May 2014 - 9:13

like this
Like (6)

SCIENCE or GUFF?

i say GUFF!

posted by fast as fupp [12 posts]
31st May 2014 - 9:29

like this
Like (4)

TomvanHalen wrote:
joules1975 wrote:
You might want to think for a moment. On the drive side the crank turns clockwise, so with an Italian BB the pedalling motion turns in the direction that TIGHTENS the bb. The reason brittish standard bbs are different is so the the pedalling action turns in the direction that LOOSENS the bb, so if the bearings fail the bb doesn't get tightened into the frame to the point where it won't come out again. It's the same reason that pedal threads are different - pedal ceases, pedal unscrews.

This is literally exactly the opposite of what happens. BBs and pedal axles tighten opposite to the direction of motion as the axle rolls around the inside of the threading, like the inner cog on a spirograph. This is why the complaint you get about Italian BBs is that the drive side unthreads if you don't torque to the correct level or use threadlock

Exactly. Joules would be correct if the bottom bracket used a bushing (or nothing), but since it uses a bearing the bearing balls REVERSE the thrust transmitted to the BB cup.

two wheels good; four wheels bad

posted by cat1commuter [1332 posts]
2nd June 2014 - 12:04

like this
Like (3)