Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Argon 117+
Quote | Reply
Hi guys-first time poster here

I'm in the market for a new bike and after going through the Retul process it appears that the new Argon 117 would be a good option for me.

Anybody have any reviews or thoughts on this bike? I'm coming off of a older P2 fit not being the best for me.

On tap this season are longer races: halfs and a full towards end of year.

Thanks in advance
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [ACook1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's a bike that fits you.. What else do you want to know?
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [eggplantOG] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
we're writing about this bike this upcoming week. for now, we have written the following.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [eggplantOG] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sorry, broad question.

I was curious to hear your guys thoughts about the company, any reviews of the bike, etc.

fit wise on paper it would be number one on my list but given that it's new and price point is lower than others I'm considering- I am concerned you may get what you pay for and I'm missing something-but maybe not? Maybe I am overthinking it and it will be a great bike. I have not found many reviews of it though to confirm, which is why I'm asking you guys.

Others I am comparing to it are Plasma, Shiv, and last on list slice.
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [ACook1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Can't speak to the 117 but got the 118 Next last year and I love it. Rock solid, handles very well, carves corner better than any tri bike I have had. It was one of three bikes that really fit me well based on my Retul, went with Argon because its a unique brand that you don't see often. I ride out of Denver/Boulder and have only seen a couple, compared to the scads of Felts, Treks, Specialized and Cervelos. I enjoy having something a bit more unique, as my roadie is a Specialized. I highly doubt you would be unhappy with it, especially if it clearly is a good fit! The reality is you should get a bike that fits and makes you WANT to ride it all the time. THAT will make you faster, not buying one high end bike vs another....

Colorado Triathlon Company, CO2UT 2021, Crooked Gravel 2022, Steamboat Gravel 2022
Last edited by: boilerup: Feb 14, 16 16:53
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [ACook1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have owned the E-117 for about 3 weeks now and love it.
It is the perfect fit for me, so that helps.

I didn't get the E117 Tri + as I wasn't really into the extra storage gizmos that were coming with it, especially for the price.

I purchased the E117 as frame only, 3T Aura base bar and extensions, and finally the Ultegra Di2 tri groupset. I then put my adamo saddle and Enve 6.7 wheels on to finish the job.

Great bike!
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [Alleged] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Alleged wrote:
I have owned the E-117 for about 3 weeks now and love it.
It is the perfect fit for me, so that helps.

I didn't get the E117 Tri + as I wasn't really into the extra storage gizmos that were coming with it, especially for the price.

I purchased the E117 as frame only, 3T Aura base bar and extensions, and finally the Ultegra Di2 tri groupset. I then put my adamo saddle and Enve 6.7 wheels on to finish the job.

Great bike!

Post a pic please!

Colorado Triathlon Company, CO2UT 2021, Crooked Gravel 2022, Steamboat Gravel 2022
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [Alleged] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Alleged wrote:
I have owned the E-117 for about 3 weeks now and love it.
It is the perfect fit for me, so that helps.

I didn't get the E117 Tri + as I wasn't really into the extra storage gizmos that were coming with it, especially for the price.

I purchased the E117 as frame only, 3T Aura base bar and extensions, and finally the Ultegra Di2 tri groupset. I then put my adamo saddle and Enve 6.7 wheels on to finish the job.

Great bike!

Awesome. Good to hear. Post a pic of you can, sounds like a very nice setup
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [ACook1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Argon make a solid bike. I have the E118 and while I wouldn't call it a daily driver, it handles great and is fast.

Training Tweets: https://twitter.com/Jagersport_com
FM Sports: http://fluidmotionsports.com
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [ACook1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [Alleged] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Alleged wrote:
Respectfully, what makes you think that's a perfect fit? I'm counting 20 mm of headset spacers and another 60 mm of spacers underneath the extensions.

That coupled with a suspect shallow seatpost position seems quite unorthodox if one were to be looking for the ideal fit. Assuming your fit coordinates are excellent, that bike is about two sizes too small by my judgement.

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [trentnix] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I guess the "perfect fit" for me wasn't out of the box, but rather through a bike fit.
The size of the bike is Large. It has 30mm of spacers under the extensions (a 10mm and 20mm as part of the 3T riser kit).
The E-117 comes with a range of different head spacers to use in the build and I picked the smaller one with a preference to use the 3T risers. There is a quote in here about that too (http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Spot_Bikes_5291.html).

I see your point. Though I am very comfortable on the bike and quite happy.
Cheers.
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [Alleged] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Alleged wrote:
I guess the "perfect fit" for me wasn't out of the box, but rather through a bike fit.
The size of the bike is Large. It has 30mm of spacers under the extensions (a 10mm and 20mm as part of the 3T riser kit).
The E-117 comes with a range of different head spacers to use in the build and I picked the smaller one with a preference to use the 3T risers. There is a quote in here about that too (http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Spot_Bikes_5291.html).

I see your point. Though I am very comfortable on the bike and quite happy.
Cheers.
im glad you enjoy the bike, I just wish your shop had sold you the correct size.

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [trentnix] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trentnix wrote:
Alleged wrote:
I guess the "perfect fit" for me wasn't out of the box, but rather through a bike fit.
The size of the bike is Large. It has 30mm of spacers under the extensions (a 10mm and 20mm as part of the 3T riser kit).
The E-117 comes with a range of different head spacers to use in the build and I picked the smaller one with a preference to use the 3T risers. There is a quote in here about that too (http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Spot_Bikes_5291.html).

I see your point. Though I am very comfortable on the bike and quite happy.
Cheers.
im glad you enjoy the bike, I just wish your shop had sold you the correct size.
I would think under certain circumstances it would be a good thing to have spacers. Specifically, if you're not sure how low you'll be able to get at the front once you've had time to adapt but you need to start with a relatively modest drop. In this case you can't completely optimise the bike size for what you want to ride now or it will limit your options later. I'm planning to switch the bike I just got for a smaller size for this very reason. It's about perfect for the way I intend to ride it now. But I'm hopeful I can drop the armrests at least 30mm and maybe more over the next year or so and the current size doesn't allow that.
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ai_1 wrote:
trentnix wrote:
Alleged wrote:
I guess the "perfect fit" for me wasn't out of the box, but rather through a bike fit.

The size of the bike is Large. It has 30mm of spacers under the extensions (a 10mm and 20mm as part of the 3T riser kit).
The E-117 comes with a range of different head spacers to use in the build and I picked the smaller one with a preference to use the 3T risers. There is a quote in here about that too (http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Spot_Bikes_5291.html).

I see your point. Though I am very comfortable on the bike and quite happy.
Cheers.
im glad you enjoy the bike, I just wish your shop had sold you the correct size.

I would think under certain circumstances it would be a good thing to have spacers. Specifically, if you're not sure how low you'll be able to get at the front once you've had time to adapt but you need to start with a relatively modest drop. In this case you can't completely optimise the bike size for what you want to ride now or it will limit your options later. I'm planning to switch the bike I just got for a smaller size for this very reason. It's about perfect for the way I intend to ride it now. But I'm hopeful I can drop the armrests at least 30mm and maybe more over the next year or so and the current size doesn't allow that.
You can get a couple of cm with step pitch (the bike pictured definitely could), so keep opportunities like that in mind. Sure, there are reasons to have spacers and reasons a rider might get lower in the future (weight loss, shorter racing, etc.) but the rise on that bike appears excessive, especially when making a claim of it being a great fit. There are some other things in the bike pictured that set off alarms as well (really short stem, shallow seat tube angle, etc.).


A number of local competitors - particularly one who does it egregiously - excessively use spacers but make claims about the excellence of their fit. In my opinion, customers spend a lot of money to get things done right, and shops (via incompetence or unscrupulousness) do those people a great disservice in how they fit their bikes. The bike pictured is no cheap "make it work" bike, but I believe the fit was sub par. A lot of money was spent, and it's possible a suboptimal bike and/or bike fit were chosen.

Spacers aren't engineered for speed. Headtubes are. Here's a great blog post about "spacer abuse" and a few reasons why you want to avoid it:
http://ttbikefit.com/blog/?p=766

I'm probably unnecessarily sensitive to such things, but as a retailer I take situations that I think do the customer a disservice personally. Many bicycle retailers lament the changing times and stiff headwinds they face, but the actual work product we see from some of our competitors (not all) is often really poor. Some shops try to be too many things, some shops don't have a high level of aptitude, and some shops simply aren't willing to educate themselves appropriately to better ways of fitting bikes, providing service, and meeting their customers needs.

We've struggled to articulate the difference between a "good bike fit" and a "bike that fits" in a way that sticks. A good bike fit is only about optimizing where, in space, the rider's five contact points should be. A bike that fits is about filling up that space underneath the rider with bicycle, not stem pitches, headset spacers, and armpad spacers. For example, my shop has a rule that we will allow 4 cm or less of spacers (with a negative stem pitch) for new bike purchases, except in edge cases (e.g. rider is exceptionally tall, rider expects to lose a few dozen lbs, etc.).

It's quite possible to get an excellent bike fit on any number of bikes and bike sizes. It's quite possible to get a bike that fits and have a poor bike fit. But why settle when you can not only have a good bike fit, but a bike that fits as well.

Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [trentnix] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trentnix wrote:
Ai_1 wrote:
trentnix wrote:
Alleged wrote:
I guess the "perfect fit" for me wasn't out of the box, but rather through a bike fit.

The size of the bike is Large. It has 30mm of spacers under the extensions (a 10mm and 20mm as part of the 3T riser kit).
The E-117 comes with a range of different head spacers to use in the build and I picked the smaller one with a preference to use the 3T risers. There is a quote in here about that too (http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Spot_Bikes_5291.html).

I see your point. Though I am very comfortable on the bike and quite happy.
Cheers.
im glad you enjoy the bike, I just wish your shop had sold you the correct size.

I would think under certain circumstances it would be a good thing to have spacers. Specifically, if you're not sure how low you'll be able to get at the front once you've had time to adapt but you need to start with a relatively modest drop. In this case you can't completely optimise the bike size for what you want to ride now or it will limit your options later. I'm planning to switch the bike I just got for a smaller size for this very reason. It's about perfect for the way I intend to ride it now. But I'm hopeful I can drop the armrests at least 30mm and maybe more over the next year or so and the current size doesn't allow that.
You can get a couple of cm with step pitch (the bike pictured definitely could), so keep opportunities like that in mind. Sure, there are reasons to have spacers and reasons a rider might get lower in the future (weight loss, shorter racing, etc.) but the rise on that bike appears excessive, especially when making a claim of it being a great fit. There are some other things in the bike pictured that set off alarms as well (really short stem, shallow seat tube angle, etc.).


A number of local competitors - particularly one who does it egregiously - excessively use spacers but make claims about the excellence of their fit. In my opinion, customers spend a lot of money to get things done right, and shops (via incompetence or unscrupulousness) do those people a great disservice in how they fit their bikes. The bike pictured is no cheap "make it work" bike, but I believe the fit was sub par. A lot of money was spent, and it's possible a suboptimal bike and/or bike fit were chosen.

Spacers aren't engineered for speed. Headtubes are. Here's a great blog post about "spacer abuse" and a few reasons why you want to avoid it:
http://ttbikefit.com/blog/?p=766

I'm probably unnecessarily sensitive to such things, but as a retailer I take situations that I think do the customer a disservice personally. Many bicycle retailers lament the changing times and stiff headwinds they face, but the actual work product we see from some of our competitors (not all) is often really poor. Some shops try to be too many things, some shops don't have a high level of aptitude, and some shops simply aren't willing to educate themselves appropriately to better ways of fitting bikes, providing service, and meeting their customers needs.

We've struggled to articulate the difference between a "good bike fit" and a "bike that fits" in a way that sticks. A good bike fit is only about optimizing where, in space, the rider's five contact points should be. A bike that fits is about filling up that space underneath the rider with bicycle, not stem pitches, headset spacers, and armpad spacers. For example, my shop has a rule that we will allow 4 cm or less of spacers (with a negative stem pitch) for new bike purchases, except in edge cases (e.g. rider is exceptionally tall, rider expects to lose a few dozen lbs, etc.).

It's quite possible to get an excellent bike fit on any number of bikes and bike sizes. It's quite possible to get a bike that fits and have a poor bike fit. But why settle when you can not only have a good bike fit, but a bike that fits as well.
Yep, I don't agree with any of that. Incidentally, the main reason I'm changing bike size is that it won't take a standard 3rd party stem (comes with standard diameter steerer but cut for proprietary stem with small clamping area). If I had the option of swapping in a 17, 24 or 30 degree stem later I'd stick with the current size in the knowledge I had up to another 30mm or so available there should I ever need it.
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [Alleged] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Alleged wrote:

Nice looking bike! Glad your comfortable on it.
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
it's not simply a question of whether the distance between the bottom bracket and the pads is filled up with spacers or frame. the choice between a smaller, larger, or yet larger frame is also a matter of handling and weight displacement.

taking the speed concept as an example, i could fit on a medium, large or XL frame. the 2 main considerations for me when determining the size are the placement of the pursuit bar; and the bike's front/center, which is a determiner of my weight displacement, front to rear.

i chose size L because the XL pushed the pursuit bar too far in front, and the bike was a little too long. the size M didn't give me enough of a platform underneath me; i don't want to feel like i'm riding a unicycle.

can you still go fast, and keep the bike upright, if you choose a small frame with a lot of bolted on attachments to get your position up there? yes. yesterday dougal allan won challenge wanaka, it's on the front page, you can see the giant trinity he's aboard, he consistently rides tri bikes that are AT LEAST 1 size too small for him. it isn't a 1-off decision for him. his last year's speed concept, giant tri bikes he rode before that, they were all too small (in my opinion). but he still races well.

i also know people who very successfully drink 2 buck chuck. that doesn't mean that 2 buck chuck is as good as sea smoke. it means people succeed at getting tight every night in spite of the quality of the wine they drink, not because of it.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ai_1 wrote:
trentnix wrote:
Ai_1 wrote:
trentnix wrote:
Alleged wrote:
I guess the "perfect fit" for me wasn't out of the box, but rather through a bike fit.

The size of the bike is Large. It has 30mm of spacers under the extensions (a 10mm and 20mm as part of the 3T riser kit).
The E-117 comes with a range of different head spacers to use in the build and I picked the smaller one with a preference to use the 3T risers. There is a quote in here about that too (http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Spot_Bikes_5291.html).

I see your point. Though I am very comfortable on the bike and quite happy.
Cheers.
im glad you enjoy the bike, I just wish your shop had sold you the correct size.

I would think under certain circumstances it would be a good thing to have spacers. Specifically, if you're not sure how low you'll be able to get at the front once you've had time to adapt but you need to start with a relatively modest drop. In this case you can't completely optimise the bike size for what you want to ride now or it will limit your options later. I'm planning to switch the bike I just got for a smaller size for this very reason. It's about perfect for the way I intend to ride it now. But I'm hopeful I can drop the armrests at least 30mm and maybe more over the next year or so and the current size doesn't allow that.
You can get a couple of cm with step pitch (the bike pictured definitely could), so keep opportunities like that in mind. Sure, there are reasons to have spacers and reasons a rider might get lower in the future (weight loss, shorter racing, etc.) but the rise on that bike appears excessive, especially when making a claim of it being a great fit. There are some other things in the bike pictured that set off alarms as well (really short stem, shallow seat tube angle, etc.).


A number of local competitors - particularly one who does it egregiously - excessively use spacers but make claims about the excellence of their fit. In my opinion, customers spend a lot of money to get things done right, and shops (via incompetence or unscrupulousness) do those people a great disservice in how they fit their bikes. The bike pictured is no cheap "make it work" bike, but I believe the fit was sub par. A lot of money was spent, and it's possible a suboptimal bike and/or bike fit were chosen.

Spacers aren't engineered for speed. Headtubes are. Here's a great blog post about "spacer abuse" and a few reasons why you want to avoid it:
http://ttbikefit.com/blog/?p=766

I'm probably unnecessarily sensitive to such things, but as a retailer I take situations that I think do the customer a disservice personally. Many bicycle retailers lament the changing times and stiff headwinds they face, but the actual work product we see from some of our competitors (not all) is often really poor. Some shops try to be too many things, some shops don't have a high level of aptitude, and some shops simply aren't willing to educate themselves appropriately to better ways of fitting bikes, providing service, and meeting their customers needs.

We've struggled to articulate the difference between a "good bike fit" and a "bike that fits" in a way that sticks. A good bike fit is only about optimizing where, in space, the rider's five contact points should be. A bike that fits is about filling up that space underneath the rider with bicycle, not stem pitches, headset spacers, and armpad spacers. For example, my shop has a rule that we will allow 4 cm or less of spacers (with a negative stem pitch) for new bike purchases, except in edge cases (e.g. rider is exceptionally tall, rider expects to lose a few dozen lbs, etc.).

It's quite possible to get an excellent bike fit on any number of bikes and bike sizes. It's quite possible to get a bike that fits and have a poor bike fit. But why settle when you can not only have a good bike fit, but a bike that fits as well.

Yep, I don't agree with any of that. Incidentally, the main reason I'm changing bike size is that it won't take a standard 3rd party stem (comes with standard diameter steerer but cut for proprietary stem with small clamping area). If I had the option of swapping in a 17, 24 or 30 degree stem later I'd stick with the current size in the knowledge I had up to another 30mm or so available there should I ever need it.
Oops!

I just spotted that I said "I don't agree with any of that" in the post above. I'm pretty sure I intended to write "I don't disagree with any of that" since I don't!
Apologies trentnix!
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
we're writing about this bike this upcoming week. for now, we have written the following.

Did this write up ever happen? Im assuming it will be more like the one you did for the 119? Anxious to hear your thoughts.
Quote Reply
Re: Argon 117+ [ACook1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
coming.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply