Pinarello f8 dogma

Thanks to Pinarello’s new partnership with Jaguar, asymmetry has a new power animal. When it came time to introduce the 8th version of the Pinarello Dogma, the company not only looked to make a lighter, more efficient bike but one that was more aerodynamic as well. To do that they would enlist the help of one of the UK’s legendary auto manufacturers – fitting with the likes of team Sky. The result is a new bike that at first glance looks a bit more subdued compared to the Dogma 65.1, but is actually more asymmetric than ever.

Details next…

Pinarello Jaguar aero cff

Where Jaguar was really able to help out on the new bike was in the aerodynamic design and testing phase, offering their CFD and wind tunnel experience to tune the Dogma’s frame. In order to get to their claim of 47%improved aerodynamics, the frame utilizes their new FlatBack tube shape which is similar to a Kamm tail or truncated airfoil. The final frame shapes were chosen after 70 different configurations and 300 CFD analysis cycles.

Combined with the use of new Toray T1000 1k Dream Carbon with Nanoalloy Technology (what appears to be a space aged Polymer Alloy the wizards at Toray have cooked up) and FlatBack tubes, the frame is said to be 120g lighter while measuring 12% stiffer. That makes a frame weight of 860g for a 54cm. The front of the bike gets a major facelift as well, with the new Onda F8 fork measuring 54% more aero and 10% lighter than the squiggly Wave 2 fork it replaces.

Not that it’s a normal metric of a frames performance, but Pinarello states that the F8 is 16% more asymmetric than the 65.1. This is said to better balance the forces from the drive side of the bike to harness as much power as possible from the pedals to the road. Other improvements include a more aerodynamic brake positioning thanks to the dramatically redesigned fork and seat stays, as well as an internal battery mount in the TwinForce seat post.

Chris Froom F8 Dogma copy

Chris Froome has been testing the new F8 since March, with the stealth looking ride trying to blend in.

Red Dogma F8

Dogma F8 frames will be offered in 13 sizes from 42 to 62cm, each with a unique design to ensure the same ride quality throughout the line. In addition to a number of stock colors, the F8s will also be available through the MYWAY customization program.


  1. Oh snap Froome found a huge yellow computer big enough that he doesn’t need to look down every 1/2 second. now its only every 2 secs….marginal gains

  2. The release does not state whether or not it will support disc brakes. Personally, I don’t care for disc brakes on road bikes.

  3. Darryn, I agree. I was hoping for 14% more asymetry but 16%…. wow! It works. I cut the little finger of my left hand and achieved a whopping 20%. Now I do everything faster.

  4. Yeah. I’m pretty sure that gigantic gap between the rear wheel and seatstays is aerodynamic as hell.

    One good thing though about this bike: it has a threaded bottom bracket!

  5. 16% more asymmetric, and 1600% more fugly. That thing is hideous. It’s like they mated a Cannondale Slice with a bad Chinarello, only… uglier.

  6. Beautiful bike. I always wonder why people read articles about things they hate and criticize.
    I always read about products I enjoy, buy and use.

  7. The one in the shot with Froome is pretty sick imo. I like more traditional frame shapes like Colnago, but this one is pretty sweet for a modern top pro bike. I’m sure the ride is good.

  8. @plankton – Of course it won’t support discs. This is a pro-level road racing bike, where discs are currently not permitted. If that changes, then they will change design. Until then, only marketing machines like Specialized are making disc-specific “race” bikes.

  9. @Flip: It might be that the UCI doesn’t allow discs in pro races, but the fast majority of sales are to amature racers (and even more to non-racers) who can run discs in their racers if they want to. In fact, I don’t imagine a lot of anything is sold to pro-tour racers: probably paying them to use their stuff or at least giving it away.

    Back to the bike at hand: I think it’s a big improvement style-wise over the previous super-curvy Dogma designs.

    Aside: pretty amazing to see Fromme, Wiggins and co. using Stages powermeters. I guess this finally answers my long unanswered question, “What is the user of sperate left-right power readings?” Answer: “Not much!”

  10. Wow, 54% more aerodynamic on the fork. Who would have ever though you could get more aero than a squiggly line. Overall, I like the look of the new Dogma.

  11. Great company, solid design, solid management behind it…just never cared for all the squiggly stuff on seat stays and fork, and am glad to see this refined look. I’ll never be able to afford one but this just went on the “aspirational” win the lottery list.

    The rear wheel/seat tube intersection is tricky because you are managing side gusts, the airflow coming forward on the tire, and rider comfort. Sounds like they found a happy medium with the Kamm tail design there.

  12. I never understood the backwards looking fork. I guess there is an MIT graduate somewhere that can tell me why it is better.

  13. I still think Pinas are ugly. Their forks and seat stays look like somebody left the mold in the microwave for a few minutes too many.

  14. Aerodynamic…. Seriously, reading about x% improved aerodynamic here and there in ads and in reviews, and understanding that the bike manufacturers are trying to sell their bikes twice or more to the same suckers, I finally have to say… Until my a** gets more aerodynamic, or when I stop wiggling about on my bike when I ride, or until the day that I finally manage to achieve a 100% aerodynamic positioning of my body over the bike, none of the frame’s aerodynamics will matter. Seriously. Asymmetric, optimal-metric, f***-o-metric (sorry for my straight forwardness) has, as I see it, no (none like 0) impact on my speed as long as I still have not achieved a 100% perfect body performance, which at my age (+35) will never happen.
    If anyone can correct me in my assumptions, please correct me. Also, spending +1000-3000 bucks on getting a new frame to shave some weight of a 100 grams here or there… I bet I can shave of more weight way cheaper by just spending a couple of minutes in the toilet before my rides.

  15. frippo,
    nope, youre wrong. no matter how you slice it, compared to riding a standard frame exactly at that moment, you on a more aerodynamic frame are faster.

  16. @ Greg: in theory yes, in practice… hmm, I’m not convinced that if I would ride the old Dogma and then quickly switch over to the new Dogma, that I or my stopwatch would see any difference. I think it’s just too much of a theoretical standpoint that has little or next to none practical significance outside of the wind tunnel testing rooms where everything can be controlled to the smallest detail. When was the last time you could control head or tail winds, or anything similar in the nature that we as cyclists encounter when we are out riding? Seen point?

  17. I have a 2014 dogma think 2 with the squiggly fork, di2 dura ace and enve 3.4 wheels. I love it! In fact the pinarello with enve wheels and dura di2 is about the same price as specialized sworks Tarmac and canondale with similar groups and wheels. I’m, 49, out of shape, but I love to ride, so I got the dogma, kind of overkill for my speed, but hey I have friends that spend $20k on home theater equipment and sit on their butts on the weekend, at least I’m out riding. I might get one of the f8s, only dilemma is if the disc version will show up shortly.

  18. @Frippolini: Hopefully and probbably the aerodynamics of the bike is made with wind from different angles in mind. You almost always see the wind from some angle in the 180 degree halv circle in front of you. Exception is when climbing were wind actually can push a little. If the areodynamics is made to work with those different angles there is no need to have controll over the wind direction. There is a benefit from the frame shape regardless the wind direction more of the time than it is not. Your thinking that unless some parameters are not 100% the rest doesn’t matter is not making sense? Of course a faster rider will benefit more from aero frames but that doesn’t make a less fast rider without all of that benefit. He or she will just benefit a bit less, that’s all. Question you would ask is of the significans for your kind of rider? Is the benefit noticable on a clock if we could test it beyond the many different changes we normaly see in real world riding. That is the reason to use controlled environment. The controlled environment doesn’t make the tests flawed, they just avoid the ever changing environment in real world but does not avoid testing different wind direction. That is they provide controll so the testing can be choosen to ones wish. They give choice so the messurements can be made. The physics of the frame will still be there when meeting the wind from real wind coming from whatever angle it comes from for the moment. When wind direction changes it will hit the frame from another angle, an angle also made to get low drag from wind.

  19. @ John Stalberg,
    Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it.
    I completely understand that you can achieve to measure performance improvement in a test conducted in a place where you can control a majority of the affecting factors, no doubt about this; and this I don’t challenge.
    What I do challenge is the notion that x% increase in the aerodynamics of a frame has a real-world impact on the riding speed or time-to-destination for most people riding their bikes. As from what I see it, the moment I wiggle around on the saddle, stand up, move my hand to reach my water bottle, or any other movement (which I do continuously while riding) will never allow me to benefit from the increased aerodynamics of a new frame?
    In theory I agree, in practice I disagree.
    If you don’t agree with me, then please tell me: how much of an improvement (speed, time-to-destination) do you estimate that you would have from riding the latest Dogma frame on any of your average rides, compared to riding your existing bike? (I’m not trying to provoke you to agree with my reasoning, I’m just truly interested and I’m open to changing my opinion given any reasonable and logical explanation). Thanks.

  20. @frippolini

    I think what you want to know is how much drag is from the bike and how much drag is created from the rider (you). From what I’m reading, it seems that you believe the body’s drag is so large that it makes the drag of the bike insignificant. IE: bike drag = 10, body drag = 100. Total drag = 110. Reduction of 10% in bike drag, total drag = 109.

    I’m just as curious as you are now haha.

  21. @ O.M.
    Exactly! 🙂
    I couldn’t have expressed it any better than you. 🙂
    By the way, does anyone know if there are any statistics anywhere showing the average speed per year at e.g. Tour-de-France for the last 50 or 20 years? I would be very interested in seeing this, as it could be a good indicator (especially last 10 years or so) if technology and aerodynamic claims of progression within the bike industry actually has had any effect on real world cycling?

  22. The speeds won’t tell you anything about aerodynamic benefits to the peloton. TT speeds will tell you a little bit about improvements, but even then the speeds won’t tell the full story. What the speeds don’t tell you are the race tactics for a given rider, the meteorological conditions, the conditioning of the riders, and a number of other factors. Simply put, there are too many unconstrained variables to do a reliable analysis.

    With that said, physics doesn’t lie. There is a benefit to reducing drag and thus reducing the power required to go a specific speed given a specific set of initial conditions. Whether or not someone thinks the benefits are too small to be worth the added expense of aero bits is a matter of opinion, not science.

  23. Too bad Specialized already took McLaren, the best race team/company in the UK…

    And my brain still hurts wondering why any aero bike wouldn’t integrate the brake into the rear of the fork instead of sticking it out front in the open air.

  24. @ Psi squared,
    What I challenge is not somebody’s opinion, but the idea that an increase in a frames aerodynamics has a real world impact (measured in time or speed).
    I agree physics don’t lie, and if you read my previous comments I clearly say that I don’t challenge the theoretical benefit of a more aerodynamic frame. Did you read my comment above, was there something about it that was unclear?
    Since you don’t agree with my proposal to look at Tour-de-France statistics (as proposed above): what scientific measurement could you recommend as a way to understand if the “measured-in-a-wind-tunnel-benefit” has any real world significance? I’m really interested in hearing your constructive contribution to this, or are you of the opinion that there are just too many variables and as such this can not be measured?

  25. @Frippolini: One problem is that there is no accepted definition of “real world significance.” Such a definition has to be based on personal preference. With that said, the test most likely to fit your requirements is the Track Aero system by Alphamantis ( ). They measure drag on an indoor velodrome, which allows a rider to move around rather than being stuck in a static position in a wind tunnel. The downside to this system, however, is that it doesn’t take into account the variance in relative wind (the apparent direction of the wind as felt by the rider) that we experience on the road. Of course it’s that variance that makes real world measurement very difficult.

    With all that said, RoadBike Action magazine did a story on aerodynamics. As part of the story, they tested three bikes in a wind tunnel (Trek Speed Concept, a Giant Propel, and a BH Ultralight RC) both with and without a rider. Without a rider the Propel required an additional 29 watts over the Trek at 30mph while the BH required an additional 58 watts. With a rider, the Propel required an 80 watts while the BH required an additional 86. So with a rider in the tunnel, the Giant Propel, an aero road bike, had a 6W advantage over the BH, a regular road bike.

    There’s no way to say whether that 6W advantage is significant to a rider or not. There’s also no way to say how that advantage will vary with changeable conditions on the road. With that said, a 6W advantage is not necessarily negligible.

    Aero testing in tunnels or in a velodrome is the best data you’re going to get since it constrains the most variables.

  26. @ Psi Squared
    Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it.
    Also, respect for providing such an accurate explanation. 🙂
    Thanks. I believe I understand where I’m left standing with this discussion, and I feel totally Ok with it and the logical explanations behind it.
    I’ll try to search for the article you mentioned.

  27. Thanks for the mention, @ Psi Squared.

    Indeed, that’s a very good round-up of the relevant info about frame aerodynamics. Equipment manufacturers use wind tunnel testing with isolated components to help validate their designs. It’s a smart way to do things.

    Whole bike (with rider) testing can be done either with realistic mannequins or with real riders. Real riders add an extra element of noise to the game, but the results are more relevant to specific riders. We test pro, elite, and age-group cyclists and triathletes.

    Our Track Aero System, now in 12 test centres throughout the world, records CdA on indoor velodromes. Here’s a couple of links that will help show what we do:

  28. Yes, no doubt it seems the best aerodynamic result for a bike till now. Alone. But does only this perfect bike design really makes some difference considering the drag of human body? I mean, more then 0,5% of all the drag for the set man+bike? A top biker will get some considerable gain beyond his own skills?

What do you think?