Looks like some new extensions from 51ss. Wonder when those will be available.

Hard to tell in the photo but I can’t see any flat storage options.

---

blog

Said in another post. Nice bike. Looks like a Trek and a felt had a baby

---

http://www.TriScottsdale.org

Storage? Bta integrated?

Yes there Is a flat storage inside the Bike ;)

---

Professional French Bike Shop.
https://www.instagram.com/zebikeshop/

Decent looking bike. Hopefully they don't go the route of so many others with to-the-moon pricing. IMO a lot of bike brands are unintentionally opening up the market for QR.

In the Scott video, Kienle goes through the details of why the bike is more aero. He talks about the fork, the gap from front wheel to down tube, the tight fit of the rear wheel and the separation caused by the storage box. Not sure how real it all is, but it's nice to see explanations of their design decisions. I hope they follow up with data.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avybb3-IPEU


On Facebook someone flashed some "aero numbers" but was told to take it down. I hope they eventually publish.

Nifty, but nothing revolutionary. I'm more excited about them finally offering the Dark Matter in a color other than "Buick LeSabre Beige."

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

Website link only gives me a picture and a CTA, no information. Care to post some specs?

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

 Trek + Felt = meh Argon

Trek SC (I own one) = shit brakes, shit bottom bracket, pain to adjust the height of aero bars

Felt IA (I owned one) = heavy as fuck, shitty to adjust handle bars with no tilt and ton of spacers and washers/bolts, shitty saddle adjustment, shitty bento box.


I don't think the argon is exactly a marriage of the above, it looks to be much better. .02

Argon 18 has a post on the integrated disc brakes

https://www.argon18.com/...tegrated-disc-brakes

So a 1 watt advantage if riding at 300 watts...
I wonder how easy/difficult the calipers are to work on, adjust or replace if needed? Would it have been better to sacrifice 1 watt and been able to use any disc caliper?

Guess we have to wait for them to do the full reveal of the bike details, including stuff like the in-frame storage, pricing etc...

The rest of the aero data they will release will be interesting

Awhile back I was listening to a podcast with the owner of Parcours wheels, it was The Brick Session podcast.

And he was talking about the next real thing was designing disc brake wheels as integrated systems to be more aerodynamic than their rim brake predecessor/competitors. Based on that it seems for the most part disc rotors are just slapped onto the wheel.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

If your adjusting the bars a lot your doing it wrong

If you break a lot your doing it wrong

To each their own, but for me, it would be nice to experiment with different bar height once in a while without a pain in the ass disassembly.
And with regards to brakes, I'm not talking about braking power, I'm talking about brakes not properly returning to their open position, brake arms not being pulled equally, and a major pain to swap in wheels that are of different rim width.

bingo. coming from a bike thats not easily adjustable on the front end at all to one that i can adjust VERY easily, ill take the latter any day of the week. its nice to go for a ride and be able to use my jersey pocket tool kit adjust stuff on the side of the road in 2 min to see what difference i feel.

---

80/20 Endurance Ambassador

Or nicer with disc brakes that never need to be adjusted if you don't eff em up versus shitty rim brakes that are basically amateur hour garbage. Easy to tool on, but really crap overall and work like crap too.

Ease of aero testing is probably the biggest thing manufacturers can do in the age of peek aero

New Electron or Pro Pursuit also?

Braking is dictated by the course. (ask Chloe Dygert). I agree that a lot of triathlons that require effectively no bike handling skill really don't need much in the way of brakes. Unless you want to use your bike to train on a lot.

I tinker all the time with bar position. Why not? Doing your own A/B aero testing is *so* much easier with easy adjustments of the bars.

It's design for design's sake... that's the way disc brakes should *always* have been.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

I'm always tinkering.

Also, saddle height, setback, and tilt are somewhat dependent on where my fitness is and what my legs and body are doing. Sometimes.

E

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Understood, but is it worth it if it requires the use of a proprietary caliper? Maybe it doesn't matter, I admit to knowing very little about disc brakes.

<Mr. Smithers voice> "Excellent, excellent...the logical progression has begun...hehehehe" ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I'd be worried if it required a proprietary rotor, it does not.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

I don’t necessarily agree, but even taking your argument...if you’ve looked around in transition, the vast majority are doing it wrong. So, manufacturers should create easily adjustable front-ends just like they create other “solutions” like storage for those that would otherwise tape 16 gels to their top tube.

That's about the same advantage as the tririg rim brakes over standard shimano callipers. Cool, but not worth it if it comes at a huge cost/watt ratio (like the tririg).

I suspect the story will be

"with discs we can" (insert things like wider tires, more aerodynamics.....).

"therefore we saved x watts"

"the cost is 3 watts for a normal caliper, of which we saved 1"

"we are x-2 watts ahead with better braking capability"

The big question is how big did they get X

Already posted. 3.2w ahead of the E118 Next, and 6.9w ahead of E-119 Tri+

At what speed?

Didn't say, but I would guess they stuck with their previous approach of doing 45kph velodrome laps. So that's relative to about 300w. So 1%.

http://aerogeeks.com/2019/10/08/argon-18-e-118-tri-first-look/ - source of the previous testing metho.

        
Except I believe there was a * on those numbers before they asked to be taken down.

Numbers without the protocol mean little to me.

I am more interested in the detail since I think my next bike will be a UCI legal bike and I want to understand the cost

For example, one vendor (not Argon) came out and said their new bike was 7 watts faster than their previous. In fact if you put the bikes side to side they were 1 watt. But if you started loaded them with bottles, flat kits.... yes, they were 7. Legit test, but not applicable to me.

If a UCI bike is 1 watt slower than non UCI, I will buy the UCI to avoid eventual hassles at TTs, although it's not strictly enforced. If I want to race an IM I will find smart ways to handle the other details.

I would also like to see some numbers at yaw.

Nice bike. I prefer nice clean lines as opposed to one with storage gizmos and water holders hanging everywhere. Put a bottle between the bars, one behind the seat and ride!

Unless the UCI have officially mandated the rule updates that they tease a short while back. I would hold off on buying any UCI legal gear for now. It might be a year but changes are coming.

That I agree with. I don't want to get into the disc breaks on TT bike debate......and since we are probably at the peak of aero....short of a material change for frames integration, storage, and ease of maintenance will be the "new" thing.

Good to know. This may trigger a bunch of World Tour TT bikes. I notice many are still on rim brakes.

I am in no rush. I just want to be ready if/when I need to change.

It will be interesting to see what is going to happen. Honestly I love my rim brake TT bike with TriRig brakes. Unless I'm forced to, I don't see the utility in switching to disc here as the potential benefits, if any, simply aren't worth it, yet.

https://cyclingtips.com/...t-to-get-a-shake-up/

The * was related to using wider wheels (that now fit) on the E-119 Disk compared to the E-119 rim. And so the answers pretty clear, if you want to race UCI at the moment then the E-118 Next is the Argon 18 tool for that. And equally the Cervelo with the 7watt saving that wasn't a saving would have been irrelevant anyway.

Headline here is that you're in the margin of error and if you're at the point where a 10s saving on 100km TTs is going to make a significant difference to your life, then fair play. Genuinely, that's something I admire as I know the dedication that has gone into training, diet, aero position testing and every tiny kit choice down to socks and gloves.

When I got that email I didn't think it posed that much opportunity for TT bike design, the things that have changed are a very minimal part of the overall frame drag picture. I haven't exhaustively gone through whether I could come up with any improvements based on the rule changes though.

As far as waiting for new stuff - there are a few more bikes coming out in the next couple of months that won't take advantage of new rules (plus all the ones released this year) so those manufacturers then locked into current model for the next 3-5 years. I know of 2022 and 2023 bikes in design phase now that will have the opportunity to investigate what can be done.

You and I think alike. Less is more.

new post on the frame storage: https://www.argon18.com/...sc-frame-integration

https://www.argon18.com/en/stories/rd-deep-dive-fit-meets-function-cockpit-design






Somehow I don't seem to be seeing buttons for shifting on the basebar?

After seeing the Canyon and doing a little more research on the integration here - this is a very well put together bike!

You don't necessarily see how incredibly well designed it is. For the people who don't like the integrated hydration bladder...this is nearly the bike...

---

DFRU - Detta Family Racing Unit...the kids like it and we all get out and after it...gotta keep the fam involved!

It's a damn good bike. Argon kept it simple and simple is good, aero, and light. The Canyon CFR is 3lbs heavier and no more aero.

Has anyone come across the geometry specs for this new model?

oh! i mistook that for the hydraulic reservoir port...lol

What type TRP brake levers is that?

---

Follow my project on Project 100 miles / 4 hours

Do we have any news regarding this bike? Price?

I am also wondering on the diameter of the standard brake rotors (for compatibility with my road bike), do you think it will be 160mm?

Nothing on price yet that I've seen, but I did ask them the release date and it's not until May.

Not sure where you're getting your info but here in Europe / UK, the bike will be available mid Feb at around £5k for the frame module.

Debating between this and a Shiv...

Info cam straight from Argon - Sent them an email. Earlier would be much better, but that's what they said.

Ok many thanks for the input, I was expecting the bike for early 2021, if it comes out next Spring/Summer this solves my problem, as it will be too late for my purchase.

Wow that's a good 6 months out...seems to fly in the face of "early 2021" which was what Argon posted on their website

Argon confirmed to me that it'd be early 2021. Q2 release would be a 2022 bike rather than 2021...

April/May delivery; Switched to SRAM recently as Shimano parts short supply. $5 frame.

---

Kiwami Racing Team

What does $5 frame mean ?

$5k price, as stated before. Early prices showing $8k Ultra Di2 listed but they switched to SRAM, so waiting final prices.

---

Kiwami Racing Team

Well that helps as means I'll be going frame only and speccing from there as I want to go Di2. Although with a Quarq powermeter. And timing is good for me at least, April May claimed now means June/July reality and that's August / Sept in my hands and built up in NZ.

So what we need now is the stack/reach charts, and we're sorted. Seems odd that's the bit they are keeping secret....

Stack and reach were published it seems, see post #50 of this thread

In my defense I am waiting for an eye operation.... ;-)

Thanks

Well, i got a price on the top of the line model with SRAM Red Axs and Enve wheels. $14K Canadian. The step down with Force and Hunt wheels I think is $11K Canadian.

Do they have any configurations with Shimano Di2 and the ENVE wheels?

I guess you've never been on a bike course in the rain?

I got in the order queue for a frameset today, delivery in Canada expected mid March. Anyone know what the BB type is? I need to confirm that my GXP Quarq can fit! Up for sale real soon will be a barely ridden P5D module in size 54 :)

I'd guess at BB86. So you can get a BB adapter, but I would think you would be better considering getting the $700 power spider to add to the AXS chainset that you're getting. Leave the GXP on the old bike / add to your trainer / commuter.

No Di2, but the top model does sport Enve wheels. Hopefully next year will have Shimano as was originally spec'd but evidently Shimano couldn't deliver enough product due to demand and a fire in a factory, so the switch to SRAM was made. I'm waiting.

---

Kiwami Racing Team

That's a sweet ride your getting off of. What makes you want to move on from it?

How could you order the frameset as it seems to be nowhere for sale? The argon website is not showing any news on this bike since a few weeks.

You can configure and order complete bikes on the Nordic website. Haven't seen just frameset yet

Great thanks. Strangely, I cannot order it from the "Swiss" website but it would be possible from the Nordic website.

I just called my LBS who put an order in with his Argon rep.

I usually get a new bike every year. I got the P5D in late 2019 and barely rode it but the Argon really caught my eye and since I can do the swap at minimal cost and re-use most of my components I figured why not.

What is the retail price of the frameset in your country?

I don't know what retail is but I was quoted 6200 plus tax. That's Canadian dollars.

If that's retail, at least it is lower than the P5, I guess. Wash wishfully thinking it would be closer to the Ordu price range

Did you see a dimension chart before ordering? I still haven't seen one online

Someone posted it in this thread but I was also sent it via email before finalizing the order

Oops, you're right, sorry.

Wow this bike is the tallest and shortest of all the releases in the past few years.

But the Nordic has the Shimano groupset which some suggested has been ditched in favour of SRAM for 2021.

Does confirm BB86 though.

Agreed. I love all the integration, and it would have been my next bike, but I litterally can not duplicate my fit on any of the frame sizes. It's 2cm shorter than a Speed Concept.

Going for my bike fit next week and so hoping that I can fit onto this bike...*fingers crossed*

I'm assuming this is in part because they have the 118 which is very low, and combined with this gives an argon option for any fit?

The pad reach on the medium is longer than my current 54cm Cervelo P5D, when you say that's it's 2cm shorter than the Speed Concept what are you referring to?

I'm a large or XL depending on the brand. The XL compared to other bikes in the most long-low setting:
- 40mm taller and 25mm shorter than 58cm P5d
- 30mm taller and 58mm shorter than XL P3X
- 60mm taller and 95mm shorter than XL Plasma

So grandparents can have a comfortable upright fit and carry all of their medicine in the integrated storage while low athletes have to pick the bike which has no storage?

Given that pad spacers/monorisers are more aero than headtubes and can be stacked as high as necessary, I don't understand the purpose of tall bikes. Anyone can fit on a low bike with spacers. But not everyone can fit on a short bike.

Edit: The 118 is more of a TT bike like a Superslice and Shiv TT, which are even longer and lower than the long-distance tri bikes with storage

I *think* you are mistaken with the measurements.

The argon dimensions are to centre pad. The argon Large seems to me to be the same as the P3X in XL. If I take the midpoint of the E-119 range for stack and reach and then take 20mm off the reach to be akin to the back of the pad that puts you pretty much in teh mid of the cervelo fit chart for XL, if anything slightly 'low'. Note this is teh setup calculator at the bottom, the stack and reach in the bike geometry are to top of head tube on the cervelo based on their diagram.

P3X Triathlon Bikes | Cervélo Cycles (cervelo.com)

So if you are comparing just the frames, that's ignoring the fit comes from the specific front end that the argon (and all the bikes you list) come with. So those do impact the handling geometry, but not fit.

I guess go the otherway, what is the stack and reach to pads (centre or back) that you are aiming for?

Most standard cups are usually 80-90mm long so you need to subtract 40-45mm from center of pad to rear. I was generous and subtracted 40mm. Now that I'm taking another look, it looks like Argon uses 51speedshop cups, which are 110mm long, so back of pad is actually 55mm from Argon's center-pad measurement. Granted, 51 pads do not have holes close to the edges so you could gain 10-15mm of reach by switching cups. Cervelo cups already have holes close to the edge, to this "trick" doesn't apply to those bikes.

My comparison above is for pad measurements, not frame.

The Cervelo fit tool on their website is under development. That's why the tool says fits are possible even when the red-X is off the parallelogram. I confirmed the Cervelo numbers with Eric in the Cervelo fit forum, assuming EX10 cockpit.

So, given the cups that Argon is using, these are the relative long-low fits to back of pad using stock cups. Added a few more bikes
- 41mm taller and 40mm shorter than 58cm P5d
- 31mm taller and 62mm shorter than XL P3X
- 36mm taller and 44mm shorter than L Shiv
- 53mm taller and 43 mm shorter than XL Ordu
- 63mm taller and 109mm shorter than XL Plasma

That is hugely different.

For reference:
Argon XL: 486x 653y
P5d 58cm: 526x 612y
P3X XL: 548x 622y
Shiv L: 530x 617y
Ordu XL: 529x and 600y
Plasma XL: 595x 590y

Even the Canyon XL, which just became very tall and short, is still 9mm lower and 44mm longer than Argon.

As I'm interested in a 119 to replace my 114, I'm keen to make sure I'm understanding.

The Argon XL I get your stack as that's off the chart at 65.3, although I also note the large is 62.3 ( As I say, the Argon XL seem to be more like XLs in other brands. But the reach, I'm trying to understand. The XL reach is 45.4-54.1. The L reach is 44.4-53.1. So taking 40mm off that then 50.1(XL) and 49.1(L).

I'm stating the large size too as you do refer to 58cm in your comparators, but that's in the Large band for Argon.

I don't understand the stated sizes for the P3X.

Is the 526x 612y in the screenshot your back of pad fit that you're trying to replicate? That's within the 58cm P5d parallelogram. For P3X that is ~10mm lower than the XL or ~10mm longer than the L. Not quite hitting the fit but will get within 10mm on both sizes.

You won't reach those numbers with Argon. You can't even get close.
- The minimum stack on the 119 L is 623 and longest is 491 (531-40). That is both 10mm taller and 35mm shorter.
- To get closer on reach, you'd need the XL 119. But the minimum stack on the 119 XL is 653 (40mm taller than you want to be) and longest is only 501 (541-40), so you'd still be 25mm short on reach.

And that's with aftermarket cups. Subtract another 15mm from reach if you use the stock 51speedshop cups

Edit: I only mentioned 58cm for the P5d because it doesn't come in a larger size. All other comparisons are XL

No, that's me putting in your P3X dimensions into the Cervelo fit calc and show that it's impossible by their estimate...

My point being that either Argon are making a unique bike size, or there's something odd going on in the numbers that are being compared.

 
Lots of debate and questions answered in the "Argon 18 Executive Owners Club" on FB, FYI

And your scott measurements - where are they from? Scott Plasma 5 - Sizing - Large or XL: Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums Chart here has very different numbers.

Which is no use as I don't have facebook and it's a private group...

So can you help with any explanation?

My Scott numbers are for the new Plasma. The 5 was short and tall.

New Plasma: https://www.scott-sports.com/...ke?article=280594020

I said:
P3X XL: 548x 622y
P5d 58cm: 526x 612

You took my P5d number and put it into the P3X fitting tool, which are different. Cervelo fit thread also confirmed the numbers I listed.

The Argon is really short and really tall whether we are looking at L/58 or XL bikes. The numbers I provided above are all back of pad measured from the BB, so comparisons are equal.

Argon is certainly offering "unique" sizing.

Edit: Also, for the P5d, there are two cockpits. The EX10 adds 10mm reach relative to the EX11 which is used in the chart

I'm debating between this bike (Di2) and the Canyon (Speedmax CF SLX, can we please get rid of these letter-soup names?) and one thing that's not clear to me about the Argon is the cockpit adjustability. Can you adjust tilt on the bars, what's the range, and is it continuous or spacers? I'm definitely a fiddler/optimizer and one of the major downsides with my Trek SC (mechanical) is that adjusting the cockpit is a huge PIA, so I have to set it and forget it. I'd love something like the Tririg Alpha with continuous height and tilt adjustment, but it seems like both the Argon and Canyon are something in-between. Can anyone clarify?

Can't change the angle of the Base Bar, but it can be flipped if you want to get more agressive. On the monopost of the for the extensions you have an adjustability range of 0 to +20 degrees. Previous cockpit was -15 to +15 degrees. Here's a link on the site from their R&D deep dive: https://www.argon18.com/...ction-cockpit-design

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Excellent article, thanks. It says the extensions can range from 0 to +20 degrees (not mm) I assume that's what you meant. This sounds perfect. Apparently the stack adjustment is done with spacers, but it's relatively easy to swap. Anyone know how the tilt adjustment is performed and if it's continuously variable or spacers?

Yeah, I'm stupid, lol. Let me edit that.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

From the assembly manual, seems like the tilt adjustment is continuous variable. It is done via loosening/tightening of bolts

Hi
Is there a breakdown on the build options and pricing for frameset and all build options?


Thanks

Can you list the weights of the Argon frameset and build options?
Thanks

Yes they're on Argon's website.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Sorry. Please could you provide the link? I could not find it

The build options seem to vary between regions/countries.

You can use the American website, they do list the different builds and RRP there.

For the international website only the frameset is listed without pricing.

is the bike uci compliant?

I'm not sure about that...whatever information I have so far has been gotten off the argon website itself

no

the 118tri+ is

guess back to p5d then - dont understand how they building non uci compliant bikes that are not faster than p5d which is uci compliant

This one has quite a bit of integrated storage near the BB and storage on the top tube. The P5d has the storage for gels but nothing else, which doesn't matter for anything up to a 1h TT or a Sprint/Olympic tri since you'd only need one bottle. If you'd have to carry spare tubes, CO2 and some tools and another bottle on the P5d, it could end up being the slower bike.

Of course I'm guessing here, I'd like to think we have to take aero data from manufacturers with a grain of salt anyway. Maybe we'll see it in a next superbike shoot out if that happens.

But that's exactly the data cervelo showed with the P-X - the P5D faster without all the junk, but then in 'packhorse' guise then the P-X is negatively impacted to a lesser degree.


And now we'll have a 10 post interlude about why people carry too much and it's possible to do the whole bike leg with half a cup of water and a single pringle.

i think better solution cd be a 3d printed storage betwewn cage and downtube bottle cage ...

anyone has experience on TRP brakes, rotors?

i quite like the look of the argon

WP_119TRI_EN_Final.pdf (storage.googleapis.com)

And we have aero data. And in a shocking revelation, the headline is - no more or less aero than the last models, until you add the kitchen sink for a full distance race, when the new model doesn't get slower to the same degree as the old one. No tests against other brands.

Also, interesting that they implicitly show that getting the right fit makes more difference than the gap between the latest uberbike and the stock E-117 beginner bike with no integration. Which they don't quite present that way, for obvious reasons.

Lol whut?

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Over 90km at 300w, 18seconds from the bike, 64seconds by being able to use new (unspecified) wide rim disc only wheels instead of Hed 6/9. and 56s from changing position.

So at 44km/h,

- the bike saves 2w at 0 yaw, 0 watts at yaw ?

- changing the riders position got 7 watts ? So they are saying "buy a bike that fits and is highly adjustable" ?

- new, unnamed wheels, that are only available on disc, will save another 8 watts. But I'm guessing these wheels work on other disc brake bikes ?

So is the message, "this bike will allow you to buy new wheels that will make you faster" ?

Interesting.

Is anyone else claiming wider, disc brake wheels that are 8 watts faster ? There was an interview a while back with a Corima (Look) engineer that said that discs opened the way to wider, more aero wheels at yaw. How much of that 8 watts is rolling resistance saving ?

I agree with you. What I think they are really saying is "Hey we added disc brakes and made it as fast as our rim brakes".....in other words you're not going to be slower but its not faster. Now that doesn't work in the marketing because who buys a bike that is "just as fast" as the previous model?

I think what it does show is that the bike itself isn't not getting any faster but it can be made slower (add disc brakes) and when that happens "big bike" has to do something to fix that "slower".

"Big Bike" is either running out of ideas or more likely running into physics.

I think so. I remember listening to a podcast with the founder of Parcours wheels and he was talking about how disc brakes design on wheels will change. Now they can spend the time to design the wheel system to be faster. But not many of the wheel manufacturers have thrown the research and design costs behind that at the moment.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

I wonder when we will see the data from the wheel manufacturers. Are the wider wheels, that in turn can support larger tires truly more aero. Is the aero + rollingresistance benefit truly 8 watts ? Maybe.....

I can't get my head around the way they presented the data. This is not wind tunnel data so what they actually have is boat loads of files that contain values for speed and power at set time points. As they were using an notio connect they have also have a way to normalize all the data to set conditions creating an perfect power-speed relationship which is how they derive the CdA measurements. The logical way to present the data is therefore to provide plots of speed vs power which would appear like lines on an x-y graph where you look at the different systems by comparing lines. This would immediately allow you see the difference in watts between systems at a given speed or the difference in speed between systems for a given power. If you were desperate to show CdA you would superimpose idealized CDA lines on top of the comparison graph but that isn't very informative to 99.9999% of even the people who are looking at this sort of white paper. People want to know much faster will I be going hold 300 watts on this set-up vs this setup.

For argument sake lets say Argon think people are too stupid to interpret a watts vs speed diagram. They still could have summarized the data better. They could have provided a table of all systems at 300 watts, 250 watts, 200 watts and 150 watts (with no required other reference) and simple provided the idealized speeds and then what this equates to over 90km. The beauty of using the Notio systems is that you are MEASURING watts and speed and so this is the data you showing (the whole CdA things is a technically fancy to present the watts vs speed in a comparable manner). As soon as they started trying to compare CdAs and then back extrapolate to watts and speed they lost me because it is as though they failed to understand the differences between a wind tunnel and a real world aero sensor.

So the first they do give. 18s over 90km all other things being equal, assuming a 0 degree yaw for the full course and holding 300w. Or 2:20 if you use the mystery wheels and change the position*.

For the second part, they would have needed to do a lot more testing, as they only got their version of the Stig to ride the 2km efforts at 300w.

In fairness, their approach was to do the testing using CFD. And then they validated that approach using the notio on road and in a velodrome. And what they saw was the the CFD seemed to basically match what they saw with the notio, and that was that the frame aero is pretty much (note pretty much) irrelevant nowadays, it's about the rider position, wheels and ability to store your bacon butty, teddy bear mascot and Park Tools bike stand. Which then of course makes writing a pseudo technical paper as an advertising pamphlet a bit tricky. Which is why this wasn't the first of the releases - they prefaced this with the storage, range of adjustment and ease of adjustment.



*note that if however you move out of the refined position then the entire thing goes to shit, and you are slower than someone on an old bike, not mystery wheels and your old position.

Unrelated, but thoughts on the two colors? "Dig Me Beach Reflects" seems to be in all of the vids, with the "Kailua Full Moon" being the alternative. I was initially leaning towards the Kailua but the other one is growing on me. This decision is critical.

The White paper was strangely silent on the issue of frame colour. Another key oversight in their testing methodology.

I get the sense both could look a lot different on the flesh compared to pictures, and I can't imagine seeing two side by side to compare, so if/when I pull the trigger it'll be whichever I can get in my size. Both are going to need some other kit tweaks for fashion reasons from my white/red accent e-114

Where did you see the weight? I don't even see a mention about it on the web site. I was looking at the Canyon CFR, but was a bit turned off by the weight as compared to the P5 disc.

Saw this on Instagram

Sweet! I saw Sam shared photos on hid Instagram account and it is gorgeous!

---

Kiwami Racing Team

So about 2lbs heavier than a P5 Disc.

What size P5 disc though - that weight is for Sam Long's very large bicycle...

---

DFRU - Detta Family Racing Unit...the kids like it and we all get out and after it...gotta keep the fam involved!

Good point that was a medium. 2lbs in the scheme of things isn't that bad either. Comes in about the same as a lot of other bikes, maybe a bit lighter than a PX, same as a Speed Concept, etc...

Not ground breaking, but not a P5X either.

Still vapourware, or is anyone seeing these in real life yet?

I've put down a deposit but nothing yet. Been told that Argon 18 has moved final assembly back to Canada but it still looks like May at the earliest before anything gets shipped. Also, a lot of the components are impossible to get as well.

My local dealer is telling me 2022 at the earliest =(

We (MORF Tech here) developed a stem adapter to allow for the fitment of our TriFold bars.

Take a look:

What groupset did you order ?
Did you have a choice ?

The shop I'm working with had just the frameset on their delivery schedule (TBD) so they will be building with the SRAM Red AXS 12 speed groupset and the ENVE wheels to get to the factory spec bike.

Nice

I would think these are the first bikes going out. If component delivery is an issue, you'd think they would prioritize framesets.

I called a major UK authorised Dealer (Sigma Sports) and was told Frameset only for now with expected Date November 2021 fyi.
Slightly north of £5000 RRP.

Sam Long (sponsored athlete) just released a short review of the E119 tri+ disc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxxLMHrELQ


Any twitchers riding it? I have been on the verge of clicking on the "buy" button for a while..

I've been closely watching, but I'll say this video has managed to cool my interest.

First thing is petty, but the 'yoyoyo' patter just annoyed me. I'm old and grumpy so that's on me.

Now noting all the earlier conversation on the geometry that I was defending, that front end does look sky high whilst not obviously being set up with lots of spacers.

And at the start, the bar ends aren't level, and you can see them flexing as he's riding later in the video.

Not fully out off, but most definitely now wondering...

Can we get him some better tires??

---

blog

Bumping this to the top to see if anyone has actually ridden the bike yet?

I have a 2017 117e and love it but am thinking about upgrading/updating my bike. Any thoughts on whether it's worth the $8k+ investment? Also, what else should I be considering?

Thanks in advance!

Hesitated a while ago between the E119tri+ disc and the Dimond Marquise.

For various reasons, I ended up getting the E119 and I really like it (coming off a P3).

Hit me up if you want to discuss it further.

There is a FB group of Argon owners. Search "Argon 18 executive owners". A few have posted they have the 119disc. As a 117 owner they will let you in the club :-)

Worth the 8k ? That will depend on how you weigh the various criteria.

It will be very marginally faster than your current bike from an aero perspective.
I think the 117 struggles with some wider tires but most of the 25mm tires today still fit.
The 117 does not brake well (IMO) so this will be much better.

I am going to buy a new disc brake bike next season. I will go for the BMC TM01, the Argon 118 disc or maybe the P5 disc. All 3 are UCI legal and at least as fast as the 119. While most people don't care about UCI legal, I do TTs that sometimes say they require it.

Really useful - thank you very much for sharing these thoughts!

Hoping to get some fit guidance on the Argon 18 E-119 Tri+ Disc....

My recent bike fit measurements came back as 700 stack and 400 reach (to the arm pads). In looking at Argon, that puts me in a weird place relative to their sizes....Medium: stack (59.8-68.8), reach (43.4-52.1), and Large: stack (62.3-71.3), reach (44.4-53.1).

Should I size up or size down? Or avoid this bike altogether given the reach challenge?

Thanks for the help!

Are you measuring stack and reach from the center of the bottom bracket? This is a tall bike with little reach. Your numbers sound a bit on the extreme end of relaxed

Also, double check that your reach measurement is done the same way as Argon (center vs rear of pad)

Did you get a video or picture of the final fit. These numbers are way out of what should be considered a normal triathlon fit……
Or was the fit bike a Harley D.? ;-)

More seriously, hardly any tri bike will fit these numbers so something looks to be off.

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

Yeah it's sounding like maybe there is an issue in the fit or in my interpretation...will take another look. For my education,what would an "average" stack and reach look like for someone who is 6'0 and has a 31" inseam?

Something seems a bit off. That's a short reach for a 70cm pad stack. Some more info. would help.
What saddle?
Saddle setback (fore/aft of bottom bracket)
Saddle height?
How tall are you?

I’m based in Europe so more used to the metric system, just to double check it is correct that are than 182-183 cm tall and have an inseam of 78 cm? That would mean quite a long torso……which would make the really short reach even more, well, strange at least and the same for the high stack.
Normally i would say you should have at least 50 to 70 mm more reach. Both your numbers are off.

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

Note the difference between the inseam length when you buy trousers and inseam for the purposes of measuring for bikes. The bike one from floor to 'flesh' will be a couple of inch more than your Levis.

FWIW then I am all leg and no spine - 1.93m tall, but long legs. I hadn't realised when I bought my old argon many years ago due to it being the right price and right colour that it co-incidentally was a great fit for my odd proportions. I end up with a fair bit of seat post sticking up, and so although the front is higher than on other bikes, relative to the seat there's a fair drop that gives me a flat back.