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.