one4smoke

https://www.specialized.com/us/en/me...arbon/p/128943

May have to reconsider my faithfulness for the Roubaix...

Doctor Morbius

You just have to quit looking at the GAS inducing new stuff. That's the only way to win the battle.

DrIsotope

I'm no great fan of Specialized. So with that out of the way... yuck. The combination of headtube angle and fork angle just looks ridiculous. Combine that with the gooseneck seatpost and the accordion stem riser, and it's just... yuck.

I seriously cannot stop looking at that fork. It's so wrong.

travbikeman

$2500!!!!! Hmmm, yea......uh......well.......there are a lot of bikes to choose in that price range. If I had that amount of money to spend on a bike, would most likely not be a hybrid.

Don't get it with the fork angle though, what's wrong with it?

finch204

As far as flat bar road bikes go, this is kinda pricey but I wouldn't mind riding around on one. This beats the FX S 6 since it has compliance at the front and back, but the S 6 is also cheaper (though it is already expensive for a flat bar bike). For that price though, I would get a Trek Domane SL 5 disc, which has front/rear isospeed and 32c tires (and possibility to go even wider). I'm biased since I've always wanted a Domane.

Helderberg

I an not for or against Specialized bikes but the price seem high for a fitness bike although if I had the cash I would have to look into it.
Also, what is the problem with the fork? I am new to the subtleties of bike design so forgive my ignorance but it looks OK to me.
Frank.

DrIsotope

I think the fork angle issue is the frame has a relatively steep 72º headtube, but then a fork with 6-7º more rake and 6-7º more trail than a typical "road" bike, so it looks like the fork is kicked out like a chopper.

I was so hung up on the absurd angles I didn't even notice the $2,500MSRP. So much of that pricetag is paying for the Specialized name. Something like a Giant FastRoad is around $1,800, and even a Trek FX Sport 6 is under 2 grand.

hokiefyd 

Much of the price is reflective of the shock absorption built into the frame (stem area) and the seat post. These are non-standard items and cost more to produce. There are, of course, pros and cons, and you may be willing to pay for those features or not. There's no right or wrong choice -- only what suits each individual the best. The Specialized also has more expensive components than the other bikes have.

Regarding the geometry, it's pretty typical from what I can tell. Neither rake nor trail are measured in degrees; they are linear measurements relative to the steering axis. Comparing medium frames, the Specialized has a 71 deg head tube angle, 51mm of fork offset, and 58mm of trail. The Giant FastRoad CoMax, also in medium frame, has an even steeper head tube angle (72 deg), 46mm of fork offset, and 66mm of trail. The Trek FX Sport 6 has a 71 deg head tube angle, 50mm of fork offset, and 67.6mm of trail. The Specialized actually has the least trail of its competitors, and with a head tube angle and fork rake consistent with other bikes in its class. I don't think I'd the head tube angle "steep", especially with respect to other road bikes. In fact, I'd say it's somewhat shallow. It's about the same as that of my Giant Roam (70.5 deg).

I think it's priced competitively, when you consider the entire package. Giant's bike offers mid-grade hydraulic disc brakes, a 105 groupset, and doesn't even appear to have through axles. Trek's bike offers mid-grade hydraulic discs, a 105 drivetrain and through axles, but doesn't offer the shock absorption of the Specialized. The Specialized comes with more expensive TRP hydraulics (with flat mount calipers and carbon levers), a mix of Microshift, 105, and Ultegra components (including a Shadow rear derailer), and through axles. For the price, it's certainly the most well-equipped of the three bikes mentioned in this thread, and its geometry is rather similar.

One may not like the appearance, but I don't think it's any different from any other bike in its class. They all have forward-raked forks from what I can see.

badger1

Fastroad 'Comax' is gone, replaced by https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/fa...dvanced-1-2019

Completely updated, inc. flat-mount brakes/thru axles. At $1850 US, pretty good buy.

Gratuitous aside: never will understand this 'never pay so much for a hybrid/flat bar road bike etc.' meme. Why the hell not? If that is one's preferred style of bike, what's the bloody difference between paying $3000 (or whatever) for a drop-bar road, "gravel", cross, mtb on the one hand and an equivalent quality 'hybrid' of some kind on the other?

finch204

The Trek FX S 5/6 comes with rear isospeed, which in my opinion is superior to the CG-R seatpost on the Sirrus. I've test ridden Domanes with rear isospeed and it is amazing the compliance it gives, while allowing you to put the power down. You can get close to the Sirrus Pro Carbon by replacing the stem with a Redshift shocksport stem. An FX S 6 with a shocksport stem would still be cheaper than the Pro Carbon. Actually, if you have a bike that already fits you well, but want more compliance, you can just upgrade the seatpost and stem to Redshift stuff and get front/rear compliance without spending money to get a new bike. But seriously, who doesn't want a new bike? Like I said, I wouldn't mind riding around on a Sirrus Pro Carbon.

The Giant FastRoad bikes were high on my list until someone mentioned a limitation with the D-fuse seatpost. Namely, you cannot use aftermarket seatposts with it; you have to stick with Giant manufactured seatposts that work with the D-fuse frame design. Now if you don't ever intend to change or upgrade the seatpost, then I still think they are a good alternative to the FX S and Sirrus carbon models.

puma1552

This bike is a year old (it's a 2018, look at the last two digits in the first number of the part number) and has been around a while, and is due for replacement on their site any freaking day with 2019s. Specialized is a month behind schedule putting the 2019 Sirrus' on their site compared to years past. Not sure what the deal is but I've been checking every day for a month.

That said, I don't think this particular bike is a good buy at $2500, considering how the Pro Carbon was downgraded in components the last two prior years (granted, in 2016, it was a $2800 bike). It's a great looking bike though, minus the turkey gobbler seatpost and wrinkled dong future shock.

ColonelSanders

One could always add a CG-R seatpost to a Trek FX5/6.

badger1

One could, but really, they are pretty fugly, no? I know form should follow function, but there comes a point ... !!!

DrIsotope

That seatpost is an abomination. This is not a point of debate. And the whole Zertz/isoSpeed thing... sigh. Not exactly mind-blowing stuff. I couldn't tell the difference at all on the Specialized.

ColonelSanders

Heh, I actually don't mind the look of it, but I have seen a review where it was compared to a heap of other seatposts, both carbon and aluminium and it didn't perform that well, sadly.


So unless I find out that the review in question had some flaw to it, I would likely give it a miss for that reason, rather than the look of it.

finch204

You can and I actually don't mind the look of it, but I just think the rear isospeed is a more compliant option. When I test rode a Domane SL 5, I also test rode a Roubaix with the CG-R seatpost. The Domane was easily more comfortable than the Roubaix. The feeling of the rear isospeed absorbing bumps was weird but very much welcome. This would not be a sticking point for me, if the FX S 5/6 was more expensive than the Pro Carbon.

desmodue

The steering head angle is measured in degrees, but trail is always a linear measurement. Trail is probably the most consistent number you will see on any bicycle. The distance that the contact patch touches the road in relation to the steering axis has a sweet spot, all decent bicycles will have very similar trail numbers.

Aesthetics are another thing, the look of the straight blade isn't the classic tapered/curved tube fork. For every person offended by the straight blade there will be one that thinks it looks great, and more than likely another 20 or 30 that don't care one way or the other. They may have designed it like that as a better fit for flat mount disc brakes?

Complaining about the cost of something you didn't buy and won't buy is pointless, the majority of people think you have to be a complete idiot to pay more than $200 for a bicycle.

puma1552

What really is the definition of a straight blade fork? A fork where the trail is zero?

I have a Colnago with what I know to be referred to as a straight blade fork:



I also have a Sirrus with what I guess is not (it has a slight bend outwards right away at the top near the headtube):



Honestly, they both more or less look the same to me and I can't fathom how someone can think a straight blade fork is absolutely putrid, but I've seen it posted before. I honestly never would've seen or known the difference if it wasn't for the internet. Both look perfectly fine and virtually the same to my eyes.

desmodue

I would say a straight blade fork is defined as the individual fork legs don't have any curve along the length of the leg, they can be angled at what would be the fork crown on a steel fork, but carbon forks don't have a true crown due to how they are built by layering the carbon sheets and resin. Your Colnago appears to have an angle built in, as would be expected to achieve the necessary trail. That is a beautiful bike by the way.

Yeah, I don't think they look better or worse than the classic fork design, just different. I do like the thru axle design, but I understand that it negates quick release skewers, I don't find that to be a problem but others really hate that aspect.