Pinarello reckon 2008 was the year of the Prince – well it did bag a load of awards. A hard act to follow, so for 2009 they’ve upped the ante with higher a higher grade carbon weave for their flagship model – which should in theory – make for an even lighter stiffer bike. They claim a 54cm built up with Charisma wheels weighs an airy 6.7kg complete, with a frame weight of 900g – we brought along the road.cc scales, but they weren’t going to haul it off the stand half an hour in to day one, maybe later… 
As with previous editions of the Prince the ’09 model sports the kinked fork and seatstays first seen on the Dogme a few years back – well that was certainly stiff. They look different, but given their claimed performance advantages the rest of the bike world has been oddly reluctant to get kinky with their bikes. Those with longer memories will remember that British company, Holdsworth produced a bike with a similarly kinked fork way back in the Seventies. As you’d expect there’s plenty of top choice finishing kit on display and Campag Super Record 11-speed to help the wheels go round. If you don’t like the stock colours there are also custom options available using the MyWay system. 
Pinarello’s two top end time trial bikes are very desirable machines, and are basically the same design – the big difference is that the FM1 is made from a higher grade of carbon: 50HM1 as opposed to the Montello’s 46-HM3K. The upshot? The FM1 frames weighs 1150g for a 51cm says Pinarello, against the Martello’s… well, they wouldn’t say actually, not on the information card with the bike. So it’ll be quite a bit lighter then. 
Both feature reversible seat angles 74.5 degrees for time triallists and 76.5 for triathletes, both are the ultimate time trialling machine say Pinarello it’s just the FM1 is slightly more ultimate.
Pinarello 2009
Add as a preferred source on Google
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 £2.49. 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
@SVXY It does not say you can't ride three or more abreast. It does not say that to do so would be inconsiderate. I'm afraid your opinion that it would be has no particular legal status.
@SVXY Rule 66 of the highway code says you can ride two abreast but to also 'be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups.' It does not say you can ride three or four abreast which would not be considerate of the needs of other road users. As the highway code is used by prosecution lawyers as evidence to convict in Road Traffic Act offences cases you certainly could therefore be prosecuted and convicted for careless cycling if cycling three or four abreast
@SVXY This is a curious tactic - rebutting your own argument with your very next sentence.
Affordable? Starting at £6K? You 'having a larf?
@SVXY Ah, so it *is* the "flood the zone with shit" argumentation technique then? Or perhaps ... you are genuinely unclear about the difference between the Highway code and the law (and perhaps the difference between cyclists, drivers and indeed horse riders? And rusty on safe practice? As mdavidford notes you appear to be confusing rule with Rule 66 (for cyclists, which doesn't say anything about not riding x abreast) with Rule 53 (for horse riders which gives guidance not to more than double up - I don't think this is a direct summary of any law since "should" not "must"). Charitably I'm going with "*i* know what it says!" which as I noted many of people feel they do. Anyway away with you, I feel you've had your fill of attention for today.
Road tax was abolished in 1937 by Winston Churchill because, as he said, "road tax makes motorists believe they are the moral owners of our roads." He got that right.
@SVXY None of the magistrates who sentenced him said the CPS should have charged him with dangerous driving. Why should they? He was not speeding, he was not on his phone and he was not drunk or under the influence of drugs either
@SVXY The court does not decide on whether someone was driving carelessly or dangerously, they can only decide on the guilt or otherwise of the defendant on the charge the CPS decides to lay against them. The CPS is notorious for preferring to charge careless rather than dangerous because it's an easier win; this results in entirely unjust sentences such as this one.
@Rendel Harris Wearing sandals may be fine if cycling on tracks over fields or in a quiet residential street with a 20 or 30mph limit. It is not sensible cycling on a 60mph main road
@chrisonabike maybe, but things that used to be banter & jokes in the 1960s/1970s have (thankfully) become socially unacceptable , and this is mostly because enough people spoke up about it. We even managed to make drink-driving a lot less acceptable, by the same means.