marcag wrote:
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.
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.