Specialized Aethos
Discussion
TwistingMyMelon said:
Too much confirmation bias and not enough controlling of variables
True, to an extent, but I know I was having an absolute mare getting traction and controlling the front, and braking late enough, and maintaining momentum on the lesser bike, at much less output, than the Gucci rig. There’s only so much compensation for outlay you can reasonably account for.doesn’t appeal to me (tbh the bare carbon finish looks like my mates £250 Chinese open mould frame) but the tech behind it is quite interesting, using their software to look at adding strength/lightness rather than aero. Be interesting if we see those conical head tube shapes etc appearing on lower tier frames in the future.
I wish they really had decided to ignore the rulebook, and explore the "what if"...
With modern composites design and manufacturing capability - if you really were ignoring the rulebook and designing the pure thrill of cycling, I really don't think we'd be seeing a double diamond frame.
Just dropping the weight isn't quite pushing things for me.
With modern composites design and manufacturing capability - if you really were ignoring the rulebook and designing the pure thrill of cycling, I really don't think we'd be seeing a double diamond frame.
Just dropping the weight isn't quite pushing things for me.
I don't think I do...
The tri bikes are all about ultimate aero performance - that doesn't equate for me as the thrill of riding.
However, in the past various manufacturers have done things like 'softails' using flex for comfort/compliance.
Cant help but think that there's potential for clever shapes and layups to create something light/fast/stiff - yet really comfortable. It looks odd - but Canyon did something clever with their double decker handlebar on their gravel bike. That sort of thinking - but taken far further.
The tri bikes are all about ultimate aero performance - that doesn't equate for me as the thrill of riding.
However, in the past various manufacturers have done things like 'softails' using flex for comfort/compliance.
Cant help but think that there's potential for clever shapes and layups to create something light/fast/stiff - yet really comfortable. It looks odd - but Canyon did something clever with their double decker handlebar on their gravel bike. That sort of thinking - but taken far further.
Sway said:
I wish they really had decided to ignore the rulebook, and explore the "what if"...
With modern composites design and manufacturing capability - if you really were ignoring the rulebook and designing the pure thrill of cycling, I really don't think we'd be seeing a double diamond frame.
Just dropping the weight isn't quite pushing things for me.
Very well put indeed. It's all marketing BS. "Throw away the rule book" but come up with a bike that actually looks very similar to my 2k Canyon and used well known standards based stuff throughout.With modern composites design and manufacturing capability - if you really were ignoring the rulebook and designing the pure thrill of cycling, I really don't think we'd be seeing a double diamond frame.
Just dropping the weight isn't quite pushing things for me.
IMHO a true "throw away the rule book and have something for the pure joy of riding" is the first decent eMTB, a gravel/adventure bike, something crazy like a Jones, or even the first road bike with discs, some loony 1 x15 drivetrain, hubless wheels, or something weird like a recumbent.
I guess "it's almost exactly the same as every bike you've ever seen, but it's really really light, and really really expensive" just doesn't cut it!
J4CKO said:
Hmm, are folk riding along pedalling like a demon, eyes bulging, whilst going "I paid 12 grand for a f
king push bike, I must make it go fast" 
That’s the whole point. Either they pedal like fking push bike, I must make it go fast" k and they go a st load quicker, or they have to make far less effort to go at the speeds they used to go at. MrBarry123 said:
BrundanBianchi said:
That’s the whole point. Either they pedal like fk and they go a st load quicker, or they have to make far less effort to go at the speeds they used to go at.
Whilst there is of course a benefit, the difference isn’t that significant.k and they go a st load quicker, or they have to make far less effort to go at the speeds they used to go at. But then, we could equally say that average speeds between a diesel golf and Mclaren 720S aren't that much different in the real world - especially considering the price differential.
Sometimes, it's just about want.
Sway said:
True.
But then, we could equally say that average speeds between a diesel golf and Mclaren 720S aren't that much different in the real world - especially considering the price differential.
Sometimes, it's just about want.
I don’t disagree. And quite frankly, I think “want” is a perfect justification for some of the machines shown on here!But then, we could equally say that average speeds between a diesel golf and Mclaren 720S aren't that much different in the real world - especially considering the price differential.
Sometimes, it's just about want.
louiebaby said:
lufbramatt said:
That's cool...
No interest in competing in time trials, but I'd still love a go on a bike that has been designed to be as fast as possible.
TwistingMyMelon said:
Too much confirmation bias and not enough controlling of variables
True, but I controlled the variable as much as humanly possible, and the size of the distance more than makes up for a reasonable margin of error.Never claimed it was overly scientific, but it is a very good indicator.
Dnlm said:
It's diminishing returns if your a pro or am training properly 5x a week. And probably worth it. For everybody else the bling bike encourages putting a bit of extra welly in or just riding more
I tend to think my dream bike is £5/6k and everything above is silly money diminishing returns. 5 years ago would have thought the same above £2k , but funny how easily these things go up.
Prefer the Sagan S Works Tarmac @ 10k though...
Absolutely the law of diminishing returns. But just about everything is as you climb the price bracket.I tend to think my dream bike is £5/6k and everything above is silly money diminishing returns. 5 years ago would have thought the same above £2k , but funny how easily these things go up.
Prefer the Sagan S Works Tarmac @ 10k though...
Saw one today. Picked it up. Nearly threw it clean over my head. Bloody thing defies the laws of physics and gravity. It seems impossible that such a large object can weigh so little...especially when my last few rides have been on a ti gravel bike with full ally mudguards.
It's nice to look at, the frame is obviously scary thin, but does it look like £13k? No. It certainly lifts like £13k and probably rides like it, it's a stunning technical achievement but obviously the absolute pinnacle of diminishing returns!
It's nice to look at, the frame is obviously scary thin, but does it look like £13k? No. It certainly lifts like £13k and probably rides like it, it's a stunning technical achievement but obviously the absolute pinnacle of diminishing returns!
BrundanBianchi said:
TwistingMyMelon said:
Too much confirmation bias and not enough controlling of variables
True, to an extent, but I know I was having an absolute mare getting traction and controlling the front, and braking late enough, and maintaining momentum on the lesser bike, at much less output, than the Gucci rig. There’s only so much compensation for outlay you can reasonably account for.Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff