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.
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.
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
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).
morrisond wrote:Over 261 Views and no one knows a thing about the "The Best Frame in the World"
What's happened to this place? A few years ago the answer would be up here within minutes with complete English Translation of the German article.
It's on Storck's Website.
http://www.storck-bicycle.de/en/web0.asp?ID=1000" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.
- Posts: 8609
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
May have an average or longer torso than most people and either have short legs or are very limber.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Similar Topics
- Last post