I venture to guess there has never been a bike (Argon18) with such extreme views. Most upper end bikes usually have views on one side OR the other but not so many extremes on BOTH . I am seriously considering the 2010 E112. On the positive side i have talked and read accounts of many who swear by its stiffness, stability of its ride and therefore overall efficiency and effectivenss. (And it looks cool…let’s be honest that is part of our evaluation.) On the side I have read accounts that it is ‘heavy’ and ‘not aero.’ Indeed there was an extensive thread on the aero question related to teh E114 not too far back on these pages. I even emailed a pro, who was once sponsored by Argon18 but whose recent race pictures showed him riding a different bike, and asked what his view was. He said “if I were buying a bike I would not buy the Argon, it is heavy and not aero.” So with such passions here are my questions that I submit to all of you…
How much does the 2010 Argon e112 actually weigh (just the frame set and seat post)?HAt some point how much incremental “aero-ness” really matter? (Of course we don’t want the front end shaped like a desk but even if somewhat less aero is it material?) How does this compare to other similar high-end carbon fiber tri bikes? How much less aero is it and does it matter? (Of course, we don’t want the front end shaped like a desk, but we are talking about modest variations ultimately and so is any reduced “aeroness” material?) If it is heavier and less aero does what might the countervailing plusses be to offset these limitations? (Really want to hear from those that ride this rig on this one!)
So you know, I have emailed the company with essentially the same questions but have not heard back, but even when I do I want the cold objectivity of fellow riders and avid triathletes.
I think my medium 2009 frame only weighed in at 1740g. From what I understand, the 2010 version knocked about 100 grams off the frame/fork combo. Oddly I don’t think I ever weighed the seatpost and fork but I do think the fork is a bit heavier than some others.
P2C for instance is definitely lighter (I want to say ~2100g for frame fork seat combo? hopefully someone with a cervelo can chime in on this) but I don’t believe frame weight comes into effect so much as rotational weight. heavy super deep aero clinchers make both feel like a boat anchor on a hill.
I don’t think it’s really so much less aero. Definitely better than my road bike, and I already ride that pretty low. Diamond cross section downtube may not be as ideal as a teardrop or whatever, but I think maybe the chain/seat stay area being so shielded might make up for it some. Also, my opinion was that the stability made it easier to stay in better position. It’s hard to compare the aerodynamics of the bike with rider on it anecdotally because the only other guys I know who ride one I would have considered above average on the bike leg already.
It’s just like you heard. It IS stiffer and more stable. I don’t think this suits every triathlete. If you aren’t a strong cyclist, then there’s no way to capitalize on these two strengths. I think the aerodynamics thing is way blown out of proportion. If the bike was capable of putting up the fastest Kona split a few years ago (OK it was the e114 but same difference) then it can’t be a parachute right? As for being heavier… unless your race deals with some serious uphill sections (in which all TT bikes would be worse than a nice light road bike), it doesn’t matter at all.
Since you’re (i think?) not a pro there are other things to consider. Stuff like warranty and customer service and whatnot. I don’t know where in the spectrum Argon falls with this but I think it’s definitely worth looking into. The other thing is to make sure to test ride all the bikes you are considering (and even a few more you are not) to get a feel for which you like, which you hate, and why. Componentry also makes a big difference in the weight and aeroness of bike+you so be aware of that too.
I ride the 2009 E-112 (same frame as 2010 just white). I really like the bike. It fits me well and is stiff, stable and comfortable. I don’t know about the aero pros and cons of the bike but I do know I am able to achieve a very aero position on this bike. Much more so than any other bike I’ve owned (2006 Felt B2 and 2007 Scott Plasma). This makes it a much better bike for me even if the bike itself is less aero. My bike weighs right on 18.0 lbs. with 2007 zipp 1080 rear and 808 tubulars on it. I don’t think that is too bad. With the same wheels my Scott Plasma weighed 16.25 lbs but the frame was so flexible my rear wheel would rub on the brake pad and frame with only moderately hard pedaling. The E-112 has zero flex in the frame. There is very little room between the wheel and the chain stays and even with very aggressive pedaling while hammer up a hill the wheel does not rub on the frame or brake pads. I would definitely recommend this bike if it fits you properly.
Thanks much for the reply. Very interesting perspective on the Scott. In fact the Plasma has been on and off of my list as I have reviewed my options. Good looks and aerodynamic characteristics could never overcome such substantial losses of energy transfer. One thing is for sure, with all the debate (sometimes heated!) on the Argons the consistency in the feedback on the rock-hard stiffness of the E112 rig is pretty compelling. I have emailed two pros and both have commented on this. Thanks again.