2020 Aethos Sub UCI weight Specialized.

[spdntrxi]

ontherivet is just mad that amazing bike in the picture is not theirs. Riochang great looking bike and fantastic weight, what size is that?

I think he said 54... I'd like to know the seat height in the pic.. as I'm kinda in between 52/54. I could slam the stem on 54 possibly.

Ya it's a 54, bb to saddle height is 70cm.

thanks... that's my number too.

[wheelsONfire]

A saddle with typical "tail up", the nose is supposed to be level. You're not really supposed to mount it nose up!
As far as i know, UCI also changed the rule on how a saddle must be positioned.
But sure, there are people mounting saddle to high and mount a saddle with a sloping nose.....

Aethos is a funny design. As far as i understood it doesn't use any high end fiber!?
More so that it rely on a shape to obtain it's stiffness. Meanwhile some designs uses very stiff fiber. Designers seems to do as much as possible to not delve into technical aspects.
However, there is no data of stiffness. Always interesting to see how different bikes compare in stiffness in raw data.
Otherwise it's mostly bla bla bla...

Stiffness data is meaningless to the average person. All that matters is feel, which you have to ride the bike to know

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

It's really not. If you have stiffness data of a bike you own it's interesting to see how other bikes are.
Stiffness to weight is relevant. Or you could just build a 500g frameset thin as a paper.

[CEVelo]

Test rode it in NorCal for ~25 miles yesterday. It rides quite like an SL6 thats 1lbs lighter overall...and possibly even stiffer in the rear end.

Very unlikely, Sl6 is stiffer than the aethos as per own Spe documents (roughly 20%).
The sl7 is a bit flexier than the Sl6 but trying to cross data, it should be stiffer than the aethos

Go ride it. The data is quite useless and only way to tell is the good old 'butt o meeter'. If anything the ride feel is closer to sl7 than sl6. I certainly did not notice any magic ride quality (buy a Ti frame if that's what you're seeking). The Aethos has Impeccable handling and stiffness for sure, and is very light. Just don't expect a magic carpet smooth ride. The bike I rode was on 28mm tires at around 85psi. SL7 on similar wide or tubeless rubber would be every bit as comfortable.

[Karvalo]

Honestly regarding the Aethos, I'd be surprised to see anything non-s-works

I agree. Doesnt make sense to make a "halo ultralight" bike and then release a heavy version of it. An 800gm Aethos made of Fact 9R or whatever is just another non-aero carbon road bike, without the ultralight/stiff technology that makes the Aethos different.

I for one would be/am very interested in an non-s-works Aethos...assuming that the ride quality/stiffness is the same (which should be the case).

A ~700g frame with impeccable ride quality and handling characteristics, and classy good looks, sounds pretty good to me. If it's priced around the $3k mark, like the SL7, I'm going to have hard time not buying it.

Except it won’t be $3k because it’s electronic only.. more like 5-6k

The non-S-Works won't be electronic only.

[inibex]

Test rode it in NorCal for ~25 miles yesterday. It rides quite like an SL6 thats 1lbs lighter overall...and possibly even stiffer in the rear end.

Very unlikely, Sl6 is stiffer than the aethos as per own Spe documents (roughly 20%).
The sl7 is a bit flexier than the Sl6 but trying to cross data, it should be stiffer than the aethos

Go ride it. The data is quite useless and only way to tell is the good old 'butt o meeter'. If anything the ride feel is closer to sl7 than sl6. I certainly did not notice any magic ride quality (buy a Ti frame if that's what you're seeking). The Aethos has Impeccable handling and stiffness for sure, and is very light. Just don't expect a magic carpet smooth ride. The bike I rode was on 28mm tires at around 85psi. SL7 on similar wide or tubeless rubber would be every bit as comfortable.

VeloNews reviewer pointed the same thing. It's not harsh, but no "magic carpet" either.

"The Aethos suffers from none of that. It feels solidly built and I had no hesitations really cranking on it. In fact, I found the Aethos to actually be a bit stiffer than I expected — and stiffer than I would have preferred. Compliance falls to the 27.2mm seatpost, and you can certainly feel it pivoting when you hit something big. But the Aethos actually does transmit a fair bit of road noise to the rider. It wasn’t exactly bothersome, just noticeable."

https://www.velonews.com/gear/road-gear ... os-review/

[cheapvega]

A saddle with typical "tail up", the nose is supposed to be level. You're not really supposed to mount it nose up!
As far as i know, UCI also changed the rule on how a saddle must be positioned.
But sure, there are people mounting saddle to high and mount a saddle with a sloping nose.....

Aethos is a funny design. As far as i understood it doesn't use any high end fiber!?
More so that it rely on a shape to obtain it's stiffness. Meanwhile some designs uses very stiff fiber. Designers seems to do as much as possible to not delve into technical aspects.
However, there is no data of stiffness. Always interesting to see how different bikes compare in stiffness in raw data.
Otherwise it's mostly bla bla bla...

Stiffness data is meaningless to the average person. All that matters is feel, which you have to ride the bike to know

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

It's really not. If you have stiffness data of a bike you own it's interesting to see how other bikes are.
Stiffness to weight is relevant. Or you could just build a 500g frameset thin as a paper.

I agree that it can be interesting, but interesting isn't necessarily practical/actionable/meaningful. Like I don't think a bike that is "10% stiffer" will transmit 10% more power to the wheel. Bike tech is well beyond the point of stiffness making those kinds of differences. Nowadays manufacturers pursue feel so IMO that and other subjective attributes are more meaningful.

[CEVelo]

Test rode it in NorCal for ~25 miles yesterday. It rides quite like an SL6 thats 1lbs lighter overall...and possibly even stiffer in the rear end.

Very unlikely, Sl6 is stiffer than the aethos as per own Spe documents (roughly 20%).
The sl7 is a bit flexier than the Sl6 but trying to cross data, it should be stiffer than the aethos

Go ride it. The data is quite useless and only way to tell is the good old 'butt o meeter'. If anything the ride feel is closer to sl7 than sl6. I certainly did not notice any magic ride quality (buy a Ti frame if that's what you're seeking). The Aethos has Impeccable handling and stiffness for sure, and is very light. Just don't expect a magic carpet smooth ride. The bike I rode was on 28mm tires at around 85psi. SL7 on similar wide or tubeless rubber would be every bit as comfortable.

VeloNews reviewer pointed the same thing. It's not harsh, but no "magic carpet" either.

"The Aethos suffers from none of that. It feels solidly built and I had no hesitations really cranking on it. In fact, I found the Aethos to actually be a bit stiffer than I expected — and stiffer than I would have preferred. Compliance falls to the 27.2mm seatpost, and you can certainly feel it pivoting when you hit something big. But the Aethos actually does transmit a fair bit of road noise to the rider. It wasn’t exactly bothersome, just noticeable."

https://www.velonews.com/gear/road-gear ... os-review/

Agree 100%. To me it felt every bit as stiff as an SL6 or SL7. So I rather ride the faster SL7 on some cushy tubless 28-30mm rubber for a smooth and faster ride. Same fit /handling and within ~1lbs of weight.

[pmprego]

Actually, if you look at the geo tables.
Sl7 has the venge geo.
Aethos has the sl6 geo.
They are 3mm apart w. R. T. Reach. Size 54

[wheelsONfire]

A saddle with typical "tail up", the nose is supposed to be level. You're not really supposed to mount it nose up!
As far as i know, UCI also changed the rule on how a saddle must be positioned.
But sure, there are people mounting saddle to high and mount a saddle with a sloping nose.....

Aethos is a funny design. As far as i understood it doesn't use any high end fiber!?
More so that it rely on a shape to obtain it's stiffness. Meanwhile some designs uses very stiff fiber. Designers seems to do as much as possible to not delve into technical aspects.
However, there is no data of stiffness. Always interesting to see how different bikes compare in stiffness in raw data.
Otherwise it's mostly bla bla bla...

Stiffness data is meaningless to the average person. All that matters is feel, which you have to ride the bike to know

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

It's really not. If you have stiffness data of a bike you own it's interesting to see how other bikes are.
Stiffness to weight is relevant. Or you could just build a 500g frameset thin as a paper.

I agree that it can be interesting, but interesting isn't necessarily practical/actionable/meaningful. Like I don't think a bike that is "10% stiffer" will transmit 10% more power to the wheel. Bike tech is well beyond the point of stiffness making those kinds of differences. Nowadays manufacturers pursue feel so IMO that and other subjective attributes are more meaningful.

If you have data of frame stiffness you can compare models. If you like a stiff frame or a less so, then you can have a clue.
Manufacturers go after ride feel, well, they can write all sorts of propaganda. One minute they try to tell you aero is all, next light bikes is all.
Then the best of both worlds. After that they tell you something else. The only thing you have is data.
You can say try the bikes, but you won't be able to try all bikes. A composition of the frame geo, the balance on the bike, many don't have this as people compensate with stems, spacers aso. Also, how do you determine when you buy a custom bike?
How do you explain the bike without any data and as some have no clue of proportions of how to be balanced on the bike.
Manfacturers sell bikes and they sell bikes with words that you like to hear.

[TobinHatesYou]

Actually, if you look at the geo tables.
Sl7 has the venge geo.
Aethos has the sl6 geo.
They are 3mm apart w. R. T. Reach. Size 54

The on-paper difference comes down the integrated upper bearing covers. Once you add the compulsory bearing cover, the reach is reduced and stack increased on the SL7 and Venge.

[pmprego]

Actually, if you look at the geo tables.
Sl7 has the venge geo.
Aethos has the sl6 geo.
They are 3mm apart w. R. T. Reach. Size 54

The on-paper difference comes down the integrated upper bearing covers. Once you add the compulsory bearing cover, the reach is reduced and stack increased on the SL7 and Venge.

The stack I knew but I forgot that the reach is reduced when the stack comes up. I was missing that. Good point. Thanks.

[cheapvega]

Stiffness data is meaningless to the average person. All that matters is feel, which you have to ride the bike to know

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

It's really not. If you have stiffness data of a bike you own it's interesting to see how other bikes are.
Stiffness to weight is relevant. Or you could just build a 500g frameset thin as a paper.

I agree that it can be interesting, but interesting isn't necessarily practical/actionable/meaningful. Like I don't think a bike that is "10% stiffer" will transmit 10% more power to the wheel. Bike tech is well beyond the point of stiffness making those kinds of differences. Nowadays manufacturers pursue feel so IMO that and other subjective attributes are more meaningful.

If you have data of frame stiffness you can compare models. If you like a stiff frame or a less so, then you can have a clue.
Manufacturers go after ride feel, well, they can write all sorts of propaganda. One minute they try to tell you aero is all, next light bikes is all.
Then the best of both worlds. After that they tell you something else. The only thing you have is data.
You can say try the bikes, but you won't be able to try all bikes. A composition of the frame geo, the balance on the bike, many don't have this as people compensate with stems, spacers aso. Also, how do you determine when you buy a custom bike?
How do you explain the bike without any data and as some have no clue of proportions of how to be balanced on the bike.
Manfacturers sell bikes and they sell bikes with words that you like to hear.

I hate to just defer to an article to make my points, but this summed it up better than I could:

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/prod ... ter-459045

The cliff notes are:

- most modern bikes are stiff enough to put big power down
- stiffer frames can actually slow you down through fatigue
- in blind tests, riders failed to pick the stiffer frame when asked
- riders often confuse stiffness with compliance
- stiffness data that can actually be compared is incredibly hard to come by, and manufacturer published data is useless

Etc. etc. So between the crappiness of most stiffness data available and rider's inability to objectively interpret stiffness feedback the whole exercise seems pointless. It sucks because that's one less data point to help drive decisions, but at the end of the day I'd wager most high end frames are fine and you can get meaningful info on how they ride from other riders who have them.

[ichobi]

I think the point for the emphasis on stiffness on this particular bike is because it's a super WW frame, which is often known for lacking in stiffness both vertical and torsional. So having a reference point, be it manufacturer's own or 3rd party like Tour Magazine is actually a good thing. If this was a normal race bike I wouldn't worry too much about it and will focus on other more important factor.

[wheelsONfire]

It's hardly any use to ask a guy who bought a bike how it rides. Have you ever heard one say, oh, it sucks because bla bla bla.
People IMO, often experience what they're told to. Only way for you to have something to grasp on is stiffness data. The rest is what you are told and it can be BS and wishful thoughts. Only time i heard someone say one negative of a bike, is when they've bought a new bike. I have never heard anyone say, oh crap, this new bike is not as good as my last bike.

[cheapvega]

I think the point for the emphasis on stiffness on this particular bike is because it's a super WW frame, which is often known for lacking in stiffness both vertical and torsional.

Are they though? Where's the data showing this, especially for recent WW frames? I know aero frames have less compliance than round tube frames, but that's separate from torsional rigidity.

It's hardly any use to ask a guy who bought a bike how it rides. Have you ever heard one say, oh, it sucks because bla bla bla.
People IMO, often experience what they're told to. Only way for you to have something to grasp on is stiffness data. The rest is what you are told and it can be BS and wishful thoughts. Only time i heard someone say one negative of a bike, is when they've bought a new bike. I have never heard anyone say, oh crap, this new bike is not as good as my last bike.

How can you have a grasp on stiffness data if you don't know how it was generated, whether data you get for one bike can be compared to that of another, or what the real world implications of the data are? Not to mention stiffness data doesn't seem easy to come by... the most recent comparison I could come across was done back in 2009:

https://www.roadbike.de/rennrad/verboten-leicht/?skip=0

You're right that people's reviews have their own biases and problems, but stiffness data does too... especially if it's part of a manufacturer's marketing strategy. And I disagree that people don't say negative things about their bikes.... if anything they exaggerate them. But at least reviews provide multiple data points you can interpret on your own. Stiffness "data" might be useful or complete shit. And even if it's useful odds are you don't know how that data correlates to the real world anyway.