Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i ordered one of the new carbon specialized, the one down from the top that comes as a complete bike. It comes with a compact crank and a 32 rear cog, so the shop set about putting a 42 on the front, only to find the front derailler could not be dropped enough to use with a 42.

They called specialized and were told that "out here" (wherever that is) people race cross on a 48 front ring with a 32 rear cluster, which is an idiotic assertion. They had some suggestions but in the end felt it might not be possible.

So, what's the deal with this? I can run a 42 single but I'm wondering if the design of this bike is half assed in other ways. They expressed that the design was borrowed from the tricross, which never seemed like a popular bike. How do the sponsored riders using these bikes work around this issue?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
Do you mean that you were swapping the big ring from a 48 to a 42? Why would you need to drop the derailleur much (if at all)?

The carbon crux _is_ the tricross with a name change. The aluminum crux frames are different from the tricross.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
gobes said:
Do you mean that you were swapping the big ring from a 48 to a 42? Why would you need to drop the derailleur much (if at all)?

The carbon crux _is_ the tricross with a name change. The aluminum crux frames are different from the tricross.
the shop was working on it and called, so i did not see it. Specialized confirmed that it would not work due to interference w/ chainstay. They suggested a triple bottom bracket, which seems like barnyard right out of the box.

We are just going to send it right back I guess. How odd to design a new carbon bike on the tricross, which was never a barnburner to my knowledge.

Maybe i'm missing something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,359 Posts
You can either run the FD a little high or go the 42 single route. Have you considered an MTB derailleur? 42T as an outer is smaller than road derailleurs were ever meant to work with and could be the root of the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
davidka said:
You can either run the FD a little high or go the 42 single route. Have you considered an MTB derailleur? 42T as an outer is smaller than road derailleurs were ever meant to work with and could be the root of the problem.
I've run a 42 or 44 outer for at least 10 years on a variety of cross bikes with conventional cranksets without an issue. I have to assume the FD designed for use with a compact would be even better suited for the task.

My understanding of the problem is not shifting, it's just getting th FD mounted so it doesn't whack the chainstay.

I'm just falbbergasted that their rep would then say that running a 48 chainring with a freaking 32 in the back is "what everyone does out here". Are they situated on Planet Zog or something? I have never seen anyone line up with a 32 on the back.
 

·
veldrijder
Joined
·
444 Posts
How far above the ring was the cage when mounted as low as it could go? I would have to think it would be acceptably close, if not for the 42 outer than definitely for a 44.

I ran a 42 outer for awhile and the frame was the limiter for how low I could place the derailleur but it was low enough to shift well. Now with a 44 and the derailleur in about the same spot it's perfect with the cage just above the teeth as it should be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
is that tricross in a carbon fiber a good bike? I can make it work, i'm just wondering if it's worth the trouble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
It certainly doesn't have the best reputation as a race machine. I looked into the geo for a friend who was looking at it and thought it was really odd. From what I've read, the Tricross uses more of a touring bike geo than that of a pure race bike, which it is intended to be. Some people do like them. But if I were putting $$ down for a carbon bike, it wouldn't be this one. Will be obsolete as soon as they get the new Crux geo molds together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,270 Posts
jroden said:
the shop set about putting a 42 on the front, only to find the front derailler could not be dropped enough to use with a 42.
Using a 42t "big" ring is unusual and I do not consider this a design flaw in the slightest.

Does it not shift if you simply put the FD as low as it goes?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,167 Posts
I remember seeing Todd Wells bike last year and the front der, was close to the stay...and he runs a 48t if I remember right.
You can find pics of his bike in cyclingnews' archives.( I don't know how close his bike is to what was finally produced)
I have ridden the last years alum version tri-cross and thought is was more commuter than racer. But some folks like them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
the mayor said:
I remember seeing Todd Wells bike last year and the front der, was close to the stay...and he runs a 48t if I remember right.
You can find pics of his bike in cyclingnews' archives.( I don't know how close his bike is to what was finally produced)
I have ridden the last years alum version tri-cross and thought is was more commuter than racer. But some folks like them.
what did you not like about it? I can send it back and get a top line redline which might be a better choice?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
I don't know if you're going to turn the frame or care about resale, but many know the Tricross is flawed as a carbon race bike and it may be tougher to get a reasonable dollar out of it.

I'd think your Redline option would be much easier to resell, should you choose, plus will likely be a better option for racing. Redline is known for decent quality, very raceable bikes. They were one of the first US companies to make a real cross racing frame and are very proven.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
pretender said:
What, precisely, is so wrong with it?
First I will note that I haven't ridden the bike, just trying to help out. But as I am to understand it, the reputation that follows this bike (which I've garnered from reading and talking with other guys) is that it is more of a commuter or touring geo. Very stable riding with likely a longer turning radius, not a 'quick' feeling steed. I'm not saying it's a 'bad' bike, but as I understand, it's not a great racing bike. I personally have never liked the goofy heavy carbon forks and all the zerts nonsense, but that is my personal opinion.

It's sounding like Specialized has hit it pretty well with the Crux, they're just late to the party with a real racing frame. It should be noted that, in my experience, the specs for a cross racer have changed too. When I started racing cross 10 or 11 years ago, the cross-specific racing frame wasn't as developed. But since then, cross has gotten faster and the offerings more specific. I remember Specialized having a really sweet cross bike (or so I thought) out quite a few years ago. However, I doubt it would be to the standards of today. But it worked for a lot of people at the time.

If it works for someone, then great! I saw one of the elite guys a couple weeks ago having a good race on the carbon crux, which is about the same bike. In the end, it's really about the motor, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,167 Posts
jroden said:
what did you not like about it? I can send it back and get a top line redline which might be a better choice?
To me, it felt long and slow steering. It was pretty heavy...but I'm spoiled by a 16 lb bike.
And the sloping top tube ( did they do away with that?).
It just didn't do it for me.
But that's me.I'm sure a few have finished in front of me.
I have not ridden the new Redlines...but they tend to be a good buy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
pretender said:
Using a 42t "big" ring is unusual and I do not consider this a design flaw in the slightest.

Does it not shift if you simply put the FD as low as it goes?
it shifts ok i guess so i'll go ahead and try it. A 42 if pretty normal if your intention is to have one chainring for most courses and a bailout gear. I run a 44 - 39 on my present bike but have run a 42 single is the past which is standard for many riders. A 46 or 48 would have me making a lot of chainring shifts, which I'd like to avoid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,167 Posts
one_speed said:
When I started racing cross 10 or 11 years ago, the cross-specific racing frame wasn't as developed.
Back then...it was the first big surge of cross.
There were a few hard to get Euro frames.
All the big manufacturers jumped into "the next big thing" with some pretty funky junk....most were a cross of hybrid and mtb frames. You can still find them as new leftovers at big dealers.
Some are still missing the target for the 2nd coming of cross.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
I ended up with it, the bike weighs in under 20 pounds which is nice. Though it has a shorter wheelbase than my guru, it seems to turn slowly, at least from my unscientific riding in the driveway. I think I will try it today as a cooldown after riding the other bike on the same race course to compare the two. it seems like a nice enough bike, I may end up riding it on the road during the year. It's interesting they used downtube cable routing and kind of cheesy parts on a bike that retails for over $2000, I wonder what that company is thinking sometimes.
 

·
Every ride is a race
Joined
·
569 Posts
Which parts were cheesy? And weird that they used downtube cable routing? What do you mean? Also, if the cassette that came standard isn't enough for you, just get the mountain 10-speed cassette from sram and get a lower gear. Plenty of people doing that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
locobaylor said:
Which parts were cheesy? And weird that they used downtube cable routing? What do you mean? Also, if the cassette that came standard isn't enough for you, just get the mountain 10-speed cassette from sram and get a lower gear. Plenty of people doing that.
the brakes, wheels, and cranks are all pretty bottom of the barrel, as is the seatpost and bottom bracket. The bar tape was nice though I guess.

Who would want to go lower than a 32 for a cross bike? It already has a 36 in the front. I swapped to a 42x25 and it seems to ride fine, I think it will be a good bike. It seems to handle like my other bike, though the short wheelbase makes for some toe overlap.

I prefer the DT cable routing for the rear mech, but it's pretty non-standard for off the shelf cross bikes.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top