Specialized Aethos - Is it Just Me?

[robt57]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Zertz were a gimmick, and Specialized always knew it. Once frame designers started builiding actual flex members into frames (Trek IsoSpeed, Specialized FutureShock, etc.), Specialized dropped Zertz.

Not TOO gimmicky for me. Didnt claim not gimmicky...

[fourflys]

test rode a 54 and have to agree with you... could be I'm just not a race bike guy, or could be other things...

[Dave]

If stack and reach are used, there is no sizing issue. These days frame size numbers are meaningless. In traditional terms, I'd ride a 50-52, but I've owned 54 and 55 Colnagos, that were both on the large side.

My current Cinelli Superstar frames are called a 46, but that's just the seat tube length. They are the smallest frames I've owned with a stack of 509 and a reach of 373. My previous Colnagos were called a 48 and had a 527mm stack and 382mm reach.

If comparing frames with 20mm of stack height difference, assume that 20mm of spacer will be used with smaller frame and subtract 6mm from the reach, to compare with the next larger size.

Personally, I like frames with more trail. 58mm may be fine for large frames, but it's too little for small frames.

[flying]

Originally Posted by jkbrwn

^Preach it. I don't care how nicely a CF frame rides to be honest. They just do nothing for me and I can't get excited about them. Metal frames till I die.

+1 ^^^

I just cannot get excited about CF anymore. Way back in the tube/lug CF it was just ok...now pretty much a generic all the same look to them + the fact they are the gypsum board material of Cycling

I was a general building contractor most of my life & never liked such non material I always built custom all wood homes when I was going to own them/resell them

I just see CF in the same way I see drywall....a non material really for main things like frames & even wheels really...TBH carbon seat post is about it as far as carbon for me

[jimoots]

Sizing on the atheos doesn't look like it rides small, if anything it looks longer (not sure if I'd say longer and lower) than I'd expect for the nominal size.

[bianchi10]

I'm interested to hear more because this is the first negative feedback I've heard in regards to the Aethos. All other people I've heard from absolutely love this bike. Many have said its the best ride they have ever experienced, so I'm rather curious why such a drastic difference in opinion.

[krooj]

Originally Posted by bianchi10

I'm interested to hear more because this is the first negative feedback I've heard in regards to the Aethos. All other people I've heard from absolutely love this bike. Many have said its the best ride they have ever experienced, so I'm rather curious why such a drastic difference in opinion.

Mostly the nasty-ass harsh ride. I'm used to riding my Marinoni Piuma, Synapse SE, Stinner Gibraltar, and an EL-OS Cyclops, so it's not like I'm used to hybrids or something.

[jimoots]

^^^^^

Honestly this just sounds like a YMMV, everyone has a different experience, type situation.

The bikes cited are different in geo to the Aethos (read: they're all taller, maybe verging on endurance style geo), which is a starting point for why OP isn't happy with the fit (Aethos geo looks very, very normal to me).

Not invalidating the OP, just trying to provide some context.

[Clean39T]

Originally Posted by krooj

Mostly the nasty-ass harsh ride. I'm used to riding my Marinoni Piuma, Synapse SE, Stinner Gibraltar, and an EL-OS Cyclops, so it's not like I'm used to hybrids or something.

All of those are nice bikes but they are all bringing you to the Aethos from the softer side of things from a handling and ride experience perspective - whereas most Aethos riders giving rave reviews are coming to it from the direction Bianchi10 would be, which is the hyper-modern race-bike side (Tarmac SL6 rim and disc)..

It's also worth keeping in mind the sage ATMO of e-Richie: "Ride reports are pretty stupid atmo because they are beyond subjective. Fitness, the day of the week, your stress level at the time, where you ride, the parts on the frame, and what you ingested - these all play a part."

[Clean39T]

Originally Posted by jimmy-moots

^^^^^

Honestly this just sounds like a YMMV, everyone has a different experience, type situation.

The bikes cited are different in geo to the Aethos (read: they're all taller, maybe verging on endurance style geo), which is a starting point for why OP isn't happy with the fit (Aethos geo looks very, very normal to me).

Not invalidating the OP, just trying to provide some context.

Here we are a world away and in perfect agreement --

[krooj]

Originally Posted by jimmy-moots

^^^^^

Honestly this just sounds like a YMMV, everyone has a different experience, type situation.

The bikes cited are different in geo to the Aethos (read: they're all taller, maybe verging on endurance style geo), which is a starting point for why OP isn't happy with the fit (Aethos geo looks very, very normal to me).

Not invalidating the OP, just trying to provide some context.

That's fair - it's been over 10 years since I had one, but I don't even remember a CAAD9 being that uncomfortable, either.

[rallizes]

@krooj

Do you have a photo of the bike as built?

[krooj]

Originally Posted by rallizes

@krooj

Do you have a photo of the bike as built?

Which one, the Aethos?

[rallizes]

Originally Posted by krooj

Which one, the Aethos?

yes

[jimoots]

Originally Posted by krooj

That's fair - it's been over 10 years since I had one, but I don't even remember a CAAD9 being that uncomfortable, either.

Yeah it's hard to say, all very subjective, the passage of time changes lots of things, etc etc etc... but if you are using a Synapse as your reference point, it's not all that surprising you'd be uncomfortable on / displeased with an Aethos.

CAAD/Super6 geo is pretty similar to Aetheos geo though. Some slight difference in angles, but really would ride very similar.