Fuji Transonic 1.1
Late to the aero party, but centre stage for aero performance
According to the Groupe Speciale Mobile Association there are, at the time of writing, 7,400,797,087 mobile communication devices in use around the world. And that’s not including those that can’t get a signal or have been dropped in a toilet. That’s right, since Motorola invented the first mobile phone in 1973, the often flawed but brilliantly creative human race has created, bought and connected more smartphones, ipads, tablets, laptops and Zack Morris bricks (the industry calls these ‘nonsmartphones’ by the way) than there are human beings in the world.
So what’s this got to do with bicycles? Well, for starters that’s about 6.4 billion more than the number of bicycles reckoned to be on the planet, so we all need to start buying more bikes. And, second, when you think about it, mobile phones are to people what aero bikes are to bike manufacturers – you just have to have one – which made Fuji a bit of an odd one out until it released the Transonic at last year’s Tour de France. So was the company slow to react, or cunning to wait?
Braking news
‘We didn’t want to introduce an aero road bike platform until we had a design that didn’t have any drawbacks,’ says Steven Fairchild, Fuji’s global product manager for road bikes. ‘Aero road bikes have often been criticised for a lack of stiffness, so we knew we had to offer an aero road product that had excellent stiffness in a relatively lightweight package. And brake choice was something we spent several months sorting out.’
Stiffness and aerodynamics are tough things to quantify, so we’ll return to them later, but weight and brake systems are far easier. A trip to the scales confirms that the Transonic is comfortably within Uci-legal territory – 7.34kg for a size M/L – and a glance over its swooping lines reveals, rather interestingly, traditionally situated, direct mount brakes (see p194 for details).
In the aero-road world this is a trend-bucking idea. The likes of Giant and Look both opted for mini-v – or TTV – brakes on their Propel and Aerolight series, while Trek and Colnago positioned direct-mount brakes under the chainstays of the Madone and V1-r. So was this a wise move on Fuji’s part? Most definitely.
Having ridden all four bikes previously I would argue that under-chainstay positioning is a bad idea for rear brakes. At best they are mildly annoying to set up and maintain, at worst an absolute faff. I subscribe to deputy editor Stu Bowers’ belief that this approach is just asking for trouble when it comes to pads rubbing because the chainstay/bb area is predisposed to more lateral displacement through flex than the tops of the seatstays. The Transonic, however, suffers none of these afflictions, and performs almost like it has disc brakes, with very little lever ‘bounce’ when you squeeze the brakes.
This is partly down to the Transonic’s sensible cable routing. Fuji has put a smooth cable path ahead of the potential aero gains from making cables disappear behind head tubes at awkward angles. But the real key is the incredible stiffness of the direct-mount Dura-ace callipers and the exceptional slipperiness of Shimano’s polymer-coated cables – a truly awesome combination. (As an aside, I would recommend the Shimano polymercoated cables as an upgrade to anyone running either Shimano or Sram set-ups – you won’t believe the difference they make, especially to lower-tier groups).
Won over by the wheels
So the brakes are great. What else? Well, brakes are only as good as the rims they try to stop, which in this case is a pair of carbon-faired, aluminium deep section clinchers from Fuji’s component arm, Oval Concepts.
When I first saw these specced on the Transonic 1.1 I had my reservations. I’d hope to see full carbon hoops on a bicycle that’s nearly five grand, especially since the Sram Red-equipped Transonic SL costs £800 less, weighs a claimed 6.79kg, has all the same finishing kit yet comes with full carbon wheels made for Oval by Reynolds. But after a couple of rainy rides, the alloy Oval 950Fs grew on me. The black/silver of the wheels matches the black/ grey colour scheme well, and by having such a lightweight fairing on a box section alloy rim, overall weight is minimised – 1,830g versus 1,630g claimed for the full carbon versions. The fairing is so minimal in fact that the wheels come with stickers warning against hanging the
It might be a touch on the heavy side, yet it never felt like it was dragging on climbs
bike up by the rims, but they seem plenty robust enough for riding purposes, such that one wonders if the alloy/ carbon clincher hasn’t yet had its day at the top end of the road market. They offer superb all-weather braking with some of the associated compliance of a box section rim.
Fast forward
Well-versed aeronauts will recognise the word ‘transonic’ as describing a range of speeds during which parts of the airflow over an airborne body start moving at supersonic speeds. While even my best efforts weren’t going to get the Transonic to quite reach the transonic range of 9651,236kmh (Mach 0.8-1.0), it did feel undeniably rapid.
Fairchild says Fuji doesn’t believe it’s fruitful to try to compare different manufacturers’ aero data, as the way each gathers it is different – eg, at what yaw angles are bikes tested? Thus, Fuji has released data comparing the Transonic only to its other bikes, the Altamira (tested in issue 26) and the SST. Both bikes are in the traditional vein, so one would expect the CFD and wind-tunnel-designed Transonic to beat them by some way. Yet the results are still quite startling: the Transonic would take a claimed 55 seconds out of the Altamira and 65 seconds from the SST over a 40km course with a steady 300w input.
Such figures do certainly make you wonder: should we all be considering an aero-road bike as our next choice? After all, don’t we all just want to go faster? Well, until I rode the Transonic, I’d have argued no. I don’t find many aero bikes particularly attractive and they just don’t deliver on ride quality. The tube shapes often make them harsh, too chatty (all those rattling hidden brakes and cables), too languid at lower speeds or just plain uncomfortable.
Don’t get me wrong, many of them are extremely exciting to ride, however I’ve yet to encounter one that elicits a resounding ‘yes’ to the question, ‘Would I be happy if this was the only bike I owned?’ But the Transonic might be as close as an aero bike has yet come.
It ticks that last box – it’s an aero bike that rides like a road bike. Somehow, even given the oddly shaped seatpost, compact rear triangle and beefy tube junctions, it’s comfortable. The relatively short 986mm wheelbase and direct-feeling fork mean it slings itself round corners in a fearless fashion. It might be a touch on the heavy side, yet it never felt like it was dragging on climbs, and on flat roads it tore along with abandon.
If there’s one thing I’d change it would be the front assembly. Whether it was the head tube or fork, I found the set-up a little jarring on bigger hits. Also, sadly, I’m not keen on the looks. I can’t fault it for the category – the Transonic is pretty as aero bikes go, all organic lines and neat design flourishes – but I think it loses the beauty of more traditional frames in the pursuit of speed. Hence I’m torn, because the Transonic attains a great level of performance, and as such, like mobile phones, I think it would be great if everyone could have one. But if it was the only bike I could own? I’m still not sure.