# specialized tricross - sport or comp?



## anweledig (19 Feb 2009)

Hi

At the moment I ride a Gary Fisher Tiburon which is a fine bike and has given me a couple of thousand miles of fun over the last year. But ... it's that time when something better is on the horizon (actually very near!). I am doing about 50-60 miles a week and am aiming to increase that and do a few audax rides and a bit of light touring later this year (overnight b&b type stuff nothing extreme). After looking around and at local stores I am pretty sure the specialized tricross is the most suitable bike for me but there is a problem.

I was looking to get the tricross sport (under £800), with a triple and a fairly light weight, it seemed to meet my requirements well and generally gets good reviews by those who have one. When I spoke to a local shop they told me they have a deal on the tricross comp (about £1200) but with £120 of accessories (that's my mudguards, rack and computer then) and with 0% finance over 12 months (I could pay outright but finance means I can get interest on the money somewhere else and so acts as a discount). The only drawback is that the comp has a double not a triple otherwise it is a higher spec overall. (the shop did say they would fit a triple for about £166 and I could sell the original on ebay for about £80 but I am not sure about that).

So, given that my budget would stretch to either bike, would not having a triple make a huge difference on the hills around mid-Wales and if I don't go for the higher spec bike will I end up regretting it in another year - there is no way I'll be able to convince my wife that I need another bike upgrade that soon!


----------



## Soltydog (19 Feb 2009)

Personally I'd go for the triple. If you are planning on touring & carrying extra weight you may just appreciate the granny ring on some climbs  
There's plenty of threads on here re the Tricross & I certainly dont reget buying mine, just looking forward to touring later this year


----------



## Tynan (19 Feb 2009)

I looked at it and swerved it

it's a bit too much cyclocross for road riding I reckon, usual advice is upgrade the brakes, worry about the fork inserts and shudder under braking if it a bigger frame

out of the box gearing is a bit cyclocross too as I recall

the comp is supposed to be a lot more bike than the sport

triple is bound to help on hills


----------



## Noodley (19 Feb 2009)

Tynan said:


> ..it's a bit too much cyclocross for road riding I reckon, usual advice is upgrade the brakes, worry about the fork inserts and shudder under braking if it a bigger frame



I have the largest size framed Tricross singlespeed and there are no problems with brakes or shudder. I love it. 

I'd go for triple. Higher Spec is mostly not noticed apart from in the wallet.


----------



## Tynan (19 Feb 2009)

I was only repeating what an awful ot of people have reported, perhaps it's fixed now, lots said the right brakes sorted it


----------



## Soltydog (19 Feb 2009)

I do get the occasional brake judder & mine is a 60cm frame, but it doesn't really spoil the ride at all


----------



## Noodley (19 Feb 2009)

Tynan said:


> I was only repeating what an awful ot of people have reported, perhaps it's fixed now, lots said the right brakes sorted it



well, you could have said that


----------



## anweledig (20 Feb 2009)

Thanks for the replies. I'll probably get a 52 or 54cm frame as I'm about 5'7-8 but I'll try and go to the shop and try for size tomorrow.

Although I liked the bike my choice was definitely affected by comments on here and the ctc forums and getting the opinions of other cyclists is invaluable. For local lanes and roads and the (very) occasional towpath it seems more suitable than a 'pure' road bike - some of the lanes around here can have an inch of mud on them at times (and sometimes not just mud - very rural).

At the moment I am leaning towards the sport with the triple and the wider range of gears - I don't have to use them but it will be nice to know they're there.


----------



## Randochap (20 Feb 2009)

You don't have to use the granny often, but if you carry any weight and do some long, hilly rides , you'll appreciate lower gears.

Make sure the R derailleur is the right cage length for a triple.


----------



## Ravenz (20 Feb 2009)

Randochap said:


> Make sure the R derailleur is the right cage length for a triple.



..are yu hinting that some LBSs might bodge up some kinda mismatch...??

I have the triple... again after length of time... I would have tried to get the LBS to swap to a compact .. had I known at the time.. I live with hills and now try NOT to use the granny.. so its wasted.... but overall the SPORT hits the mark and extra dosh for the comp is prob not worth the money...

other than that .. long cage is an aesthetic thing .. some might find it unappealing.. but when yur riding yu cant se it
with the gearing I have, the 119" inch gear it's pretty useful for keeping the legs turning downhill


----------



## Wigsie (20 Feb 2009)

Cycling plus mag (or similar, cant remember which one) did an article on Cyclocross bikes and they recommended the Sport over the Comp for a general all round steed, the comp is a fair bit more and should only really be considered if your going to race in events (not that you cant on the sport though).

Dont think you can go far wrong with it to be fair.


----------



## Tynan (20 Feb 2009)

Noodley said:


> well, you could have said that



I did, more or less, nuff said


----------



## anweledig (20 Feb 2009)

Interesting visit to the shop today. The advice was to stick with the sport for the kind of riding I do as I will probably need the triple and the equipment upgrades on the comp wouldn't give me much benefit (it's always a good feeling when the staff don't just try and sell the highest value item). Sadly they only had the 56cm frame so I'll have to wait until next weekend to try the 52/54 options and see which size suits me.

The bike appears to come with cantilever brakes rather than the mini-vs that I expected which surprised me, I though they'd changed over for the newer models.


----------



## Randochap (20 Feb 2009)

Ravenz said:


> ..are yu hinting that some LBSs might bodge up some kinda mismatch...??



You never know; it's been done. I'm not sure what R derailleur is spec'd on the double (and I'm not going to check) but it's a thought worth pursuing if switching from double to triple.



> I have the triple... again after length of time... I would have tried to get the LBS to swap to a compact .. had I known at the time.. I live with hills and now try NOT to use the granny.. so its wasted.... but overall the SPORT hits the mark and extra dosh for the comp is prob not worth the money...



Why neglect granny? Maybe the hills aren't really _hills_. I agree the comp will probably do the job.



> other than that .. long cage is an aesthetic thing ..



Of course it's not. A long cage derrailleur is a mechanical thing, needed to take up chain tension w/ bigger spread of gearing. 



> the 119" inch gear it's pretty useful for keeping the legs turning downhill



Downhills are for resting. If you are pedalling downhill, you haven't been working hard enough on the uphills!


----------



## Randochap (20 Feb 2009)

anweledig said:


> Interesting visit to the shop today. The advice was to stick with the sport for the kind of riding I do as I will probably need the triple and the equipment upgrades on the comp wouldn't give me much benefit (it's always a good feeling when the staff don't just try and sell the highest value item). Sadly they only had the 56cm frame so I'll have to wait until next weekend to try the 52/54 options and see which size suits me.
> 
> The bike appears to come with cantilever brakes rather than the mini-vs that I expected which surprised me, I though they'd changed over for the newer models.



Sounds like good advice. One would expect cantis to be standard.


----------



## Paul_Smith SRCC (27 Feb 2009)

I have just recently written a response in another post about gear ratios that I will replicate here that may be if interest.

What you need to do is work out what gear ratios you like to use and then try and achieve them, making sure they are correctly positioned, no point if mathematically you can only get your most common used gear in largest ring largest sprocket. 

By way of an example that is all I have done on my current tour bike, I use a 13t-29t Campagnolo 10 speed cassette set up with a chainset that 26/36/46t chainrings to give the the gear ratios I am after 









I like gears of around 60”, you will see that I have got those on both middle and outer ring. I have done this essentially because this is a bike I use for two roles, solo rides of 15-20mph and touring rides of 12-15mph, to save repeated chain ring changes I can essentially use the big ring mainly for solo rides and the middle ring for more sociable rides. Even though it only has a 96" top gear I find that easily high enough for a mid 20-25 mph work out, for 15-20mph cruising I have ratios that I like available mid cassette on the 46 ring, this I find is the perfect set up for me. Of course everyone is different, some prefer a lower low gear and a higher high gear, horses for courses as they say

It does take a bit of thought as to what you need both in terms of ratios and then equipment choices to achieve them, but it can nearly always be done. In my case for example I did invest in a high quality chainset to get the ring combinations I wanted, as for me personally I find many road specific triples have ring choices too large yet the ATB chainsets too small for what I wanted.

Note I said 'wanted' not 'needed', my tour bike is used for tours, often I want to climb a long mountain pass with little effort to take in the scenery, so I chose lower gear ratios on that bike. Sportive bikes by comparison are normally ridden with no luggage, plus set up generally for riding at a higher speed than a touring bike, you can see from that gear chart above that a 34t inner chain ring with a 27t largest sprocket, a common combination on a sportive bike with compact transmission, will give a lowest gear ratio of approx' 34", on that style of bike that is low enough for most riders, even on a mountain pass.

To try and explain what a 34" gear ratio equates to you will see a red Audax bike in my tour write ups under my signature below, the 'Lejog' write up had a higher gear than that and I rode up every climb, in that specification I also toured the High Alps with two full panniers and again rode every climb.

However, I realised when I was riding in a group I had to keep the gear turning on the climbs and ride quicker than many of my new friends, who were using lower gear ratios than me and able to ride at a slower more socialble pace, that along with wanting to take in the scenery is why you will now see that bike had a triple in some of the later tour articles. As I said gear ratio choices can take some thought, the decision may not always be down to ability. 


In your case for example light touring on a Tricross with compact transmission with 34ring 27t largest sprocket would give a near 34" gear that I mentioned above.

Note my bike is an Audax bike, I have mentioned it purely to illustrate the thought process that can go into deciding what gear ratios to go for. As an Audax bike like mine is often used potentially for slower tours, many spec' a triple over a double. Many bikes are set up more as fast day ride/sportive bikes and used for a slightly faster style of riding, as such they will normally have higher gear ratios than my Audax bike as a result so a compact transmission is the norm'. 

By the same toen many use the Tricross as a fast robust commute bike, these seldom need such low gear ratios that a triple offers, most customers who buy the Tricross Comp I have to say are not using them for touring, they chose the sport, in part as they prefer the lower gearing.

Hope this helps


Paul_Smith
www.corridori.co.uk


----------

