Serotta were at Eurobike with their usual crop of lovely looking custom-built bikes – Titanium, Carbon and a bit of both – but most interesting was their new Meivici AE time trial machine. Serotta have been wanting to make a monocoque TT bike for some time, but every bike is custom fitted and it’s just not viable to make a new mould for every customer. The solution they’ve come up with is to split the bike frame into sections, and create a number of moulds for each bit. When you’re measured for your frame Serotta will pic the bits you need and bond them into a frame – each section has male and female connectors that fit snugly together. You end up with a custom TT frame that looks like a monocoque, but fitted exactly for you. It’s a very interesting take on the TT frame and Serotta reckon the first finished frames will be shipped by the end of the year. The display frame showed that they’ve still got a little bit of work to do hiding the joins, but the initial impression is of a single piece carbon bike and you have to look pretty hard to see the junctions. 
Where the jigsaw fits together. As you can see, the show bike has fairly visible joins in some places but we were assured that you’d barely be able to see the junctions on the production frames. Indeed, the junction above the bottom bracket was almost invisible, the fracture in the carbon weave being the only giveaway.
Serotta at Eurobike – Meivici AE TT bike
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
No Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Feels like you're greeting an old friend there... Pretty sure that people driving motor vehicles often think that most others are "in the way" and that is generally the case for *different* transport modes "sharing space". No need to believe that infra will usher that in *! Indeed Calton Reid's work on the 1930s UK cycle path project (see britishcycletracks dot com) documents that the suspicions of cycle groups of the time eg. the Cycle Touring Club were correct - the planners *did* want cyclists off the roads! Of course the failure was not in providing cyclists with an alternative and trying to move them there but in letting the drivers of motor vehicles take the roads and streets over. Between heavy promotion / accommodation for drivers and the resulting unpleasant and dangerous conditions that resulted from so many humans driving, most people ditched the bike. Interesting to see where vehicular cycling folks fall: are they absolutist ("my right to ride on motorways")? Do they believe in "accidents" (or maybe the cyclists who die weren't ... skillful enough)? What do they think of all the others not riding - do they (apparently) not care ("I'm alright Jack"), do they think they're just weak / lazy, is it due to "dangerisation of a perfectly safe activity" (and if so why do many of them think that tiny active travel organisations manage to achieve this propaganda feat) etc.? * Aside what must be billions spent over the years on pro-driving lobbying, advertising etc. there's all that ancient human psychological kit of "us and them" and "detecting cheaters". Plus the fact that while cycling may have partly replaced horse riding the car has taken on its prestige / rank-marking function.
@ianking Riding back from a trip to Spain through France, it was noticeable that the amount of bad driving near us cyclists increased the farther north we got, and the cars had Brit plates.
@jackcycles On a very busy NSL A road with heavy coach and HGV traffic it makes perfect sense to provide cyclists with a separate carriageway. It's not saying cyclists don't belong on the road, it's saying here's a great way that everyone can enjoy cycling this route safely, even if they're a child or elderly person who can't manage above 10mph. I can't stand this posturing, usually from fit young racers who do feel safe on such a road, saying that separate cycling infra isn't necessary. On this sort of road even if every single driver is highly skilled and obeys the law and the Highway Code to the letter cycling would still be a highly unpleasant and somewhat dangerous experience, especially for the aforementioned young or elderly riders, riders lacking in confidence, small riders easily blown around by turbulence etc. Everyone involved, from Chris Boardman down to local cyclists, seems delighted with it; the idea that having a cycleway here isn't better for all concerned is what's "ludicrous and false".
@chrisonabike I could call it mamilism and get cheap bikes and lycra ;-)
As long as cars crossing the cycleway have to wait for bikes to pass rather than vice-versa,.I don't see a problem.
"This cycleway isn’t just a piece of infrastructure, it’s an invitation to thousands of people to leave the car at home and travel in a way that’s better for them and better for their community." Er no, a cycleway *is* just a piece of infrastructure. The idea that you need a dedicated cycleway in order to ride a bike is ludicrous and false, and gives succour to those who think that cyclists don't belong on a road.
I only get punishment passes when Im riding close to the gutter usually when there's a painted farcility!
I reckon you should go for some patriarchal system - you might grow to like it and I reckon it would be popular with lots of men who seem to feel hard-done by. Perhaps you could institute a holy sacrament which would allow you to circumvent local drugs legislation, or at least get some tax exemptions (coffee?). Anyway - we all love a good protected-characteristic-fight - today misogyny versus religious discrimination!
@This Wreckage I never realised it wasn't misogyny if it was based on religion, I wonder what else I will be able to get away with once I found my own religion!
"Landcross Road is now like a rat run, cars bomb through there. Surprised that there hasn’t been a smash there or somebody hasn’t been knocked down yet." Is that a vote for a modal filter there? Or - better - seeing how this could be fitted into a broader pattern of LTNs for residents? Or even starting a conversation on what they expect from travel locally / regionally and how could that be delivered. If the answer is - predictably - "like now but driving is more convenient" how much is that *really* going to cost / affect them going forward? Spoiler - they might well get lucky and have a few more years of "help for the hard- pressed motorist". (Particularly through the influence of Reform moving the conversation at a national level). But with more people here, more bills from people living longer (and all the other changes, the wars we're paying for...) the *real* costs of mass motoring may come back to bite pretty soon.