It might only be 19 years since the late Marco Pantani won the Giro D’Italia and Tour de France in the same year – however Bianchi have released details of this Specialissima a year early with the same colour scheme as the Mega Pro XL that Pantani rode to his famous double in 1998.
Review: Bianchi Oltre XR3 Potenza
Bianchi launches Aria road bike
While the Mega Pro XL was made with light aluminium, the Specialissima is all-carbon and superlight, built for climbers like Pantani himself. The frame and fork are hand-painted, with a recreated Bianchi eagle badge in the same gold colours as on Pantani’s bike adorning the head tube. The frame is 780g, with Bianchi’s ‘Countervail’ vibration cancelling technology for a smooth and stable ride.
The bike is built with light components to compliment the frame, with a Campagnolo Super Record mechanical groupset, Bora Ultra 35 tubular wheels and a gold FSA K-Force carbon stem.
There’s no information available on when the bike is set to land, pricing or how many will go on sale just yet, but we’re guessing it will only be through a small number of Bianchi dealers should you want to enquire about owning this slice of cycling history….
46 thoughts on “Bianchi release Pantani edition Specialissima”
Nice
Nice
Fuuuuuuuuuuuck…..
Fuuuuuuuuuuuck…..
If Record still came in silver, I’d remortgage the house for one of those. However, as it’s a black groupset, I’m only prepared to sell one of the kids.
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
potenza?
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
Campagnolo (indeed most) groupset manufacturers are missing a trick by not having silver options. I’m sick to death of black carbon. That retro classic look would sell so well. I have an old bike with aluminium silver 105 on it – and even that looks good.
As it is I’d settle for this as it is in a heartbeat!
That’s one for my Veloporn
That’s one for my Veloporn collection!
I need this with aluminium
I need this with aluminium Athena on it.
I absolutely LOVED the
Potenza? Nah… Needs Record.
I absolutely LOVED the painting on the Mega Pro frames… But I’m glad I never bought one as they were generally short lived.
I built this as a substitute a few months ago as it reminded me (vaguely, obviously) of the Pantani era Bianchi… And yes, I know there’s black bits in the groupset.
Not the best Photoshop ever,
Not the best Photoshop ever, but you get the idea…
Stick some Celeste tyres on
Stick some Celeste tyres on and you have a deal.
Not sure I’d be celebrating
Not sure I’d be celebrating the wins of one of the biggest dopers in cycling. What next, the Lance Armstrong TdF bike?
burtthebike wrote:
Quite right. Also why I refuse to buy a Fender Stratocaster, because illegal drug user Jimi Hendrix played one.
And FYI the only Trek I’d ever buy would be a full US Postal blue/red Lance edition.
Jackson wrote:
Not the same, though, is it? Using drugs doesn’t constitute cheating for musicians and artists!
At least, I don’t recall anyone proposing to retrospectively strip any of them of their chart-placings and awards for it, and retrospectively giving them to, er…(tries to think of non-drug-using artist)…Cliff Richard and, um, the Osmonds.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
It’s obviously very different, but it would be highly amusing to see how the charts looked after a thorough cleansing of recreational or performance enhancing drug use.
I think the better analogy would be to see all novelty records stripped of their chart positions as they clearly had an unfair advantage over real music and hard working muscians. For example, how could Joe Dolce’s “Shaddup you face” possibly keep Ultravox’s “Vienna” off being number one without something underhand being at play?
Not gonna happen is it? So I might as well remember both songs for what they were at the time.
Did I mention that I absolutely LOVED the Bianchi Mega Pro paintjob?
FluffyKittenofTindalos][quote
[quote=burtthebike]
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Not the same, though, is it? Using drugs doesn’t constitute cheating for musicians and artists!— Jackson
Perhaps they should- hard to see that Sgt Pepper would have sounded anything like as good if they’d just been on tea and sandwiches.
With regards the bike: Emperor’s (old) clothes? I think it looks much less good than the either of the two standard paint jobs. I saw one in the fluoro celeste in the flesh a couple of weeks ago- it is just stunning.
rjfrussell]
Yeah, some of Black Sabbath’s greatest stuff was written when they were coked out of their minds. And some of their greatest performances were played in the same state.
Would it have been the same sober?!
Jackson wrote:
How many races did Jimi Hendrix win on his Stratocaster?
You won’t buy one of those because JH used one and did drugs, but you would buy a bike like the one ridden by the biggest drug cheat in cycling? I’m confused.
burtthebike wrote:
If it’s any consolation I can surmise you’re fairly well used to the feeling by now.
Jackson wrote:
Quite right. Also why I refuse to buy a Fender Stratocaster, because illegal drug user Jimi Hendrix played one.
And FYI the only Trek I’d ever buy would be a full US Postal blue/red Lance edition.
[/quote]
How many races did Jimi Hendrix win on his Stratocaster?
You won’t buy one of those because JH used one and did drugs, but you would buy a bike like the one ridden by the biggest drug cheat in cycling? I’m confused.
[/quote]
If it’s any consolation I can surmise you’re fairly well used to the feeling by now.
[/quote]
You’re right, people who say illogical things that they can neither explain nor defend do confuse me, and since there are so many of them, so I am frequently confused.
Breaking news… Most pro
Breaking news… Most pro cyclists in the 80’s and 90’s doped. I’m terribly vexxed for the clean minority who weren’t able to compete on a fair stage, but it is what it was… In so many sports at the time.
It’s been done to death… Sadly, literally, in Pantani’s case.
I’m over it.
Maybe I have a thing for dopers though… I own a PDM team issue Concorde from 1988… Now there was a team who knew how to take drugs.
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
I’m so sorry, I must have missed the ethics lessons about two wrongs making a right and any illegal, immoral behaviour is acceptable because everyone else is doing it.
Tell, me would you buy a Lance Armstrong TdF special? If not, perhaps you could explain why you seem to approve of another rider who won by doping.
Pantani doped. He might have won with just his talent, but we’ll never know. To say that dopiing is acceptable because other people did it is immoral and unethical. Who responded best to the drugs won, not the best athlete.
A bit too 90s paint scheme
A bit too 90s paint scheme for my taste. But Campy oughts to make a nice alloy vintage machined groupset and even overprice it and still sell like hot cake!
@burt
@burt
No need to apologise as you are entitled to your opinion.
I also applaud you for being the first person to ever infer that I am immoral and unethical in my take on life… I can take real pride in that one.
All joking aside though, I feel you’ve missed my point and indeed your comment regarding Armstrong serves to illustrate that perfectly…
At no point would I condone doping which was and is a highly unsavoury and unfortunate feature of our sport.
However. Until such time as every doper at every level of every sport is retrospectively stripped of any titles or profit made with the assistance of drugs we should not feel obliged to refuse to enjoy the racing that took place.
I’ll leave that one to those that get paid to consider and act on compliance and ethics issues within sport and continue to enjoy my memories of some great racing and even better looking bikes…
And back to the bike… Guess what the one thing I really don’t like about it is?
The Pantani decal.
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
However. Until such time as every doper at every level of every sport is retrospectively stripped of any titles or profit made with the assistance of drugs we should not feel obliged to refuse to enjoy the racing that took place.— Jack Osbourne snr
Even when the racing that took place was fuelled by drugs? And the winner won not because they were the best athlete, but because they had the best drugs?
I can’t help feeling that your utterly absolutist stance is merely adopted to defend your original position.
So tell, me; how do your ethics square supporting a doper who won, but not supporting another who did exactly the same? Sorry to labour the point, but I thought ethics were kind of fixed, not swayed by personalities.
Yes, you are labouring a
Yes, you are labouring a point… And still completely missing mine.
I will continue to enjoy the memories of racing that took place 20 years ago where there was no proof (albeit everyone “knows”) doping was present.
The races took place and the results currently still stand and I therefore feel perfectly at will to enjoy the skill and techniques employed by the riders of the day. These elements are not influenced by drugs.
Eg. Pantani was a great tactician and Armstrong was an incredible bike handler.
The extent of doping in those days makes it impossible for me personally to determine who would have won what when if they were all clean. So… Rather than attempting to erase a section of my life, I choose to look at it for what it was until such time as the playing field is truly levelled.
I’m somewhat confused by your interpretation that I support one doper in favour of another but I don’t feel the need to seek clarity on where you got that one from.
Please be clear that I do not, and never have condoned doping in sport. Acceptance of what happened historically is very different to supporting it.
With one exception, I’m not going to repeat anything else I’ve said above so please keep this in the context of what I’ve already said when you reassert your opinion on my thoroughly unethical stance.
I still love the Mega Pro paintjob, then and now.
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
Thanks. I’m still missing your point, so perhaps you could sum it up in a sentence or two rather than a wandering essay?
burtthebike wrote:
Thanks. I’m still missing your point, so perhaps you could sum it up in a sentence or two rather than a wandering essay?— Jack Osbourne snr
Lmao. Goodbye.
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
Thanks. I’m still missing your point, so perhaps you could sum it up in a sentence or two rather than a wandering essay?
— burtthebike Lmao. Goodbye.— Jack Osbourne snr
Glad I’ve brought some joy to your life, but it’s a pity that you really didn’t have a point and you just like endlessly waffling on.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/jul/09/tour-de-france-tom-simpson-death-50-years-mont-ventoux-cycling?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
It’s the deep rims that make
It’s the deep rims that make it look gopping, oh and the ugly CF seatpost. Alloy fluted/90s aero seatpost plus silver box rims and it would look okay but tbh not sold on the colourscheme in any case.
This Rossin seatpost took my eye the other day. £260!
Lmao. That’s BLING!
Lmao. That’s BLING!
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
that’s how the other riders recognise which one is their dealer
No, you’re just being a dick.
No, you’re just being a dick.
You’ve blankly refused to accept that anyone whose opinion may differ to your own may be entitled to have that opinion and may have come to it in a perfectly fair and reasoned manner.
You’ve also completely missed the humour in this thread and have continued with your polarised view without anything beyond your base assertion that your opinion is the only ethical version of reality.
And now you’re adopting a supercilious tone as you seem to think you’ve won the moral high ground…
I assume I lost you at “No,” so allow me to distil this into one sentence…
Fuck off.
🙂
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
I come here occasionally to check out the potty-mouthed pretend contender wannabees. I see they are still strong.
BarryBianchi wrote:
I come here occasionally to check out the potty-mouthed pretend contender wannabees. I see they are still strong.— Jack Osbourne snr
Thanks Barry,
If you read the other 600 posts I’ve made you’ll find that almost without exception, I am neither potty-mouthed nor ignorant towards others. I pride myself as a cyclist of 30+ years experience and am always happy to help and advise where I can.
Sometimes however, I do lose patience with those whose minds are closed and have little or no ability or will to see beyond the end of their own noses…And notably so with a famous troll on this site.
I’d love to talk Bianchi with you or anyone, but this thread is sadly broken beyond repair.
BarryBianchi wrote:
I come here occasionally to check out the potty-mouthed pretend contender wannabees. I see they are still strong.— Jack Osbourne snr
Might help if they actually quoted the person they are insulting, so that we’d at least know who he was referring to, but perhaps that’s expecting a bit much.
Anyone who swears has clearly lost the argument.
That would be the argument
That would be the argument where stating your opinion as if fact is all you need do?
The argument where you selectively respond to snippets and create a subordinate issue that nobody but you has raised?
The argument where you simply refuse to read others responses for what they are and then insult them with accusations of waffle when they explain further?
I’m sorry I’m a bit more open minded than you clearly are. I was more than happy to accept your opinion but you have chosen to keep nipping away from your moral high ground.
There will of course now be some posting about who I may be referring to…
If only I’d quoted.
burtthebike wrote:
Kindly explain this
horseshitlogic.davel wrote:
If you can’t construct and explain a logical argument, and have to resort to swearing, you clearly have no case.
Clear enough?
burtthebike wrote:
Now that deserves a quote for its wonderful emboldened irony…
Jack Osbourne snr wrote:
One of us doesn’t understand the concept of irony. I can construct and explain a logical argument, but when you are asked to do so, you not only fail to do so, you swear.
burtthebike wrote:
Clear that you believe some tired old shit based on some stuffy received wisdom, yeah.
Fluency is fluency, and the ability to articulate does not see ‘swears’ as a limiting factor: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S038800011400151X
I’m amazed at the levels of
I’m amazed at the levels of gullibility people have regarding sports and drugs. Look how clean Armstrong was until he pushed his luck. People REALLY believed it, absolutely. We are all a bit like kids getting older and christmas, we want believe but we perhaps suspect something and one day Santa isn’t real anymore.
I take my hat off to you sir.
I take my hat off to you sir…You are truly incredible
I still think it’s a nice
I still think it’s a nice looking bike.
Good god this thread was
Good God was this thread derrailled. It didn’t quite fall of a cliff, it just slowly got cranked to 88 and then time-jumped into some post-apocalyptic wasteland.
Anyway, a beautiful yet capable bike; a stylish and passionate rider; an unrepentant cheat whose mythos transcends his feats. Those opinions could all hold true. Or not. YMMV.
Carton wrote:
Spot on.