prendrefeu

I guess I did overreact. I should learn not to drink and dial on the internet. It was Saturday night. And I was (am) depressed by the ride stopping weather we have at the moment in the SE of England. You were the butt of my drunken depression. Sorry.

Having said that you did say that 'we've grown tired of ...all the people that own them' (Storck frames). The truth is I do find quite a bit of what you say sensible and quite amusing but you do have a habit of making unthought out sweeping statements that are often insulting. Perhaps you don't realize.

By the way you did get my name wrong. It's all lower case. But I forgive you.

I emailed my sources at Storck to get more information on this Platinum Edition Aernario.

Apparently, the frame tested in the TOUR shootout is a special "platinum" edition of the standard Aernario frame that was pictured earlier. The platinum edition is in matt black.

My understanding is that the carbon layering for the platinum edition is slightly different and more expensive carbon fibres have been used to achieve weight savings of close to 200g over the standard version (which is already sub 1kg)!

The fork is certainly not cheap - it is actually a THM made Stiletto 280 fork which went through the same carbon optimization process. As the name suggests, 280g fork.

Despite the lighter weight,Storck insists that the riding properties of the Standard version and the Platinum Edition are the same. You pay more for the lighter platinum edition because of the carbon optimization process and more expensive fibres used.

This is as much as I can dig out from my sources but from what I can see, this frame has the potential to be a good weenie build.

The aerodynamic design I am told is more about the cross-sectional shape of the tubes all optimized to slice the wind directly facing the forward direction (if you do a cross-sectional cut of the tubes, all of them are aero shaped facing the front). It is more of a "logical" aero design than apparent aerofoil tubing etc that could very well be facing everywhere but the front - for example, an aerofoil downtube is angled facing downwards and not directly forward. To me, this frame follows a more traditional road bike design with aero features subtly embedded.

The aero features will just be icing on the cake. True, this frame may not be the most aerodynamic road frame, but it has potential to be the lightest with aero properties. Great to climb with and giving you some aero advantage on the way down. Aerodynamics is not on the top on my list anyway unless I am riding all day long at the front of the group.

It has been a while since a good candidate for a sub-5kg build has popped up. This frame tested well in all the major attributes that I am currently looking for in a road bike (yeah, I don't buy the "comfort" test score as well). It will definitely be one of my top choices for my next weenie build.

_________________
Current Bikes: Storck F0.6 6kg , Storck Aero2 7.04kg
Storck Organic Light 11.1kg , Storck F0.7IS Di2 4.8kg

Thank you Discoverspeed. So it's weight Optimised and Not any stiffer than a normal Aernario?

There is Conflicting info on Storck's website and Catalog on Aernario vs. Fenomalist stiffness. In the Catalog the Aernario has a stiffer BB and not as stiff head tube. This seems counterintuitive as the Aernario has a Tapered and Heavier Fork - however it doesn't look like a THM Fork.

On the other hand the website has the Fenomalist as Stiffer BB and Headtube - however it's not tapered and the fork doesn't have those ugly little ends where the axle is slightly ahead of the fork.

Is the Stiletto 300 Non-Tapered (and made by THM like all good classic Storck Forks) stiffer than the Stiletto 340? - which I assume comes from the same plant as the frame

Discoverspeed do you know how much the Platinun version is and it's availability.

morrisond - sorry I don't know about the exact headtube stiffness figures between the Aenario and Fenomalist and can't comment except that, as you have noted, the headset is tapered for the former and not the latter. This should mean the Aernario is stronger and better handling at the front, as well as saving weight.

The other important observation that I caught from the catalog is that the Aenario is 100% proportional tubing - signature of Storck bikes (different carbon layups/ thickness for different sizes so that a small size is not too stiff and a large size is not too soft) whereas the Fenomalist is proportional tubing only for the front triangle and seat stays. So on paper, the Aenario should be superior on the ride level as well.

To clarify your other well-spotted observations regarding the fork: the standard Aernario has a Stiletto 340 fork as the catalog shows. I do not know if that is made by THM. I was pointing out that the Platinum Edition is using a special Stiletto 280 fork which is weight optimized (and tappered). However, this 280 is actually based on the Stiletto 300 (not the 340) and are both made by THM.

I guess that you should be able to buy the Stiletto 280 fork and fit it to a standard version Aenario to give the exact ride feel between the standard and platinum versions (sans the weight difference).

_________________
Current Bikes: Storck F0.6 6kg , Storck Aero2 7.04kg
Storck Organic Light 11.1kg , Storck F0.7IS Di2 4.8kg

Hi konky - I heard it should be available from April onwards but I guess it will all depend on the size, with larger ones available first as per industry practice.

_________________
Current Bikes: Storck F0.6 6kg , Storck Aero2 7.04kg
Storck Organic Light 11.1kg , Storck F0.7IS Di2 4.8kg

So what is the idea body type for a Storck anyways?

You do know that issue number 2 of Tour-magazin is released on the 23 of this month? That makes it quite difficult to get your hands on the article unless you are a manufacturer that supplied a test-frameset.

Looks interesting. At least Stork is different (here, anyway). What's wrong with the geometry?

Looking at their charts, for the road frames at least, it seems Marcus designs the frames for riders who:

May have an average or longer torso than most people and either have short legs or are very limber.
and
May have arms that are longer than the average of the human population.

If you look at the stack & reach, it's a very stretched out and very low position that Marcus designed for.
This may not work for the 'average' body proportion, and it is not likely to work for people with longer legs and shorter torsos, average arms (such as myself).

For example, in an "ideal" frame I would be searching for a stack of around 550, a reach around 380. I can go shorter on reach and compensate with a longer stem, but not more than a few mm longer on reach because I don't want to run an 80mm stem. My seat height on my current frame is 752mm. I am 175.26cm tall. I can run Storck's smallest frame, but have quite a lot of spacers above the headset, perhaps exceeding the mfg's recommendations. Storck recommends that I run the 55cm frame, but based on the reach this would be unusable. For most mfgs I'm usually at a 54 or 53 for starters. That being said, here is Storck's geometry for the Aernario:



So if it works for you, then you can rock a fine piece of equipment. If it doesn't....

_________________
Exp001

Ive always liked their product on merrit and always found the geometry silly (versus calling it "pro"). Performance fitting over the past decade has gone from old guys assuming your ass always needs to be 2 feet over your head to actual performance testing of fits, where a rider will get on a bike and have their output measured for different fits. Mate that with combined bio and wind tunnel info and you've seen the average pro fit get shorter and higher... Not in a massive fashion, but enough that geometries have changed.

You'll always have people with very long torso's and short legs, but their having a UCI license is incidental.

Storck frames are generally overly long in reach and short... I think that's why they've not made it stick in the US market after a few tries... I think the public buying bikes of the class of Storck (a very good class, relative to build and numbers) are much more educated about fit now than they have been in the past. Simply having a bike that tests well doesn't cut it for people that understand how a bad fit can ruine a riding experience.

_________________
charles@pezcyclingnews.com

The sizing is interesting. From the 51-59 the reach actually changes very little while the stack increases a lot. So as said above the smaller bikes seem to fit for long torso and short legs but the bigger bikes especially the 59 looks quite the opposite.
It also kind of looks like the sizing is in pairs with two bikes with very similar reach but different stack options especially the 57-59 (where the reach is actually less on the 59) and to a lesser extent 51-55. In fact the 59 is only a couple mm different for both from my XL Foil.

Geometry wise, going from a 51 to a 55 and then onto 57 then 59 leaves me cold as this did put me off then I checked out the Aernario late last year. Not much room for error there as far as I can see. Colnago they aren't. But great looking frames imo, don't know if the whole 'aero' thing has any foundation or just marketing bs.

Who else would make a size 63 road frame using a 73.5 degree seat tube angle. Nobody that I know of. Compounding that issue is the fact that I beleive Storck recommends a non-setback seatpost for his bikes. This information was from the Storck Dealer so it may or may not be correct but it was enough to send me walking... couldn't even talk to the guy anymore. The seat tube angle and non-setback post scenario is related to fit, and I don't think many tall guys would find that very workable. Then the handling issues of a 73.5 degree head tube angle coupled with a 38mm fork rake will produce a trail of over 6cm, not exactly ideal for good road handling. In fact, the more I looked at the geometry, the more I thought that he's trying to create a cross between a tt bike and a road bike, and mixing those two disciplines into one ends up being a compromise for both. Every now and then someone comes along who thinks that what's had a hundred years or so to evolve and be fine tuned into a very narrow range of geometries that both fit and handle well, needs a complete overhaul. That's fine, but I think he's missed his mark completely. Well, maybe not completely, because his bikes do look good and people will certainly buy them on that basis alone, along with the marketing spin. After all, who wouldn't want to own the "Best Bike In The World". But to answer the original posters question as to why so many views and no responses, I think it's because to most people who really study this stuff, they are really not that great.

What I've said above applies mostly to his larger sizes, and may or may not be applicable to the smaller sizes. I gave up looking at his stuff after figuring out they weren't going to work in the sizes I was after.

I will add that I once had a custom road bike built for me and let the very respected builder do his thing. A slacker head tube and a smallish fork rake led to probably one of the worst handling road bikes I've ever had, but cost a lot for the time, and I was really reluctant to tell folks who asked that it was that poor. But the fact remained, there were many stock bikes that handled so much better.

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ

I really like Storcks, but struggle with them on a number of levels:
1) I have no clue how the range fits together - is frame x better than y - it's totally unclear, particularly when most stockists also sell last year's model
2) The price seems a bit steep compared with comparable bikes
3) I have never been to a shop that stocks them
4) The geometry makes it a risky buy
I think these simple factors are shrinking the pool of people willing to buy them.

Back when I used to race and was dead skinny and very flexible, even then I would only have fit onto the 51cm bike with an 8cm stem, or by moving the saddle forward to give <5cm setback. It would be interesting to test it now, but I don't think it would be pretty.

I think manufacturers should either go down the route of colnago old style geometry or cervelo proportional stack / reach. If they want to cover a niche, then just add or subtract 2cm from the reach or stack throughout the range (Parlee, Trek). No need to be over-creative here.