Fifty Plus (50+) - Specialized Sirrus replacement?

I want to replace my Specialized Sirrus which weighs about 25 lbs empty with something more up-to-date, lighter and faster for my old age. Still keeping to the hybrid, straight handlebar, configuration though and under 20 lbs in weight if at all possible.
I have been looking on manufacturers sites but they don't seem to give weights any more. Suggestions gratefully received.

I want to replace my Specialized Sirrus which weighs about 25 lbs empty with something more up-to-date, lighter and faster for my old age. Still keeping to the hybrid, straight handlebar, configuration though and under 20 lbs in weight if at all possible.
I have been looking on manufacturers sites but they don't seem to give weights any more. Suggestions gratefully received.

I am surprised at the Sirrus being that heavy and can only presume that you have one of the older bikes or a low spec with heavy parts on it.

I ride a Giant OCR3 road bike and this is a low spec Form of the bike. Almost identical to it is the FCR range- The straight barred version of the same bike. My Giant is the lowest of the low- and it weighs 19 1/2 lbs. I know I have the smallest frame- but the quoted weight for a mid size version- Was 23lbs. Now they do a Carbon Fibre version of the bike and that weighs in at 18.7lbs Not certain if this is available in the US but the Uk web site that does quote weights (Under specifications) is

http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-GB/bikes/road/158/15166/

I've been researching exactly this type of bike, so I do have some information. Please feel free to ask me follow-up questions.

First of all, the higher end, lighter flat-bar road bike is kinda falling out of favor. A number of companies have dropped them in the past two years.

Specialized did offer three higher end, lighter models in 2007, their all-carbon Sirrus LTD, a part-carbon well-equipped Sirrus Pro, and a part-carbon nicely-equipped Sirrus Comp. According to their new web pages on their 2008 models, they are no longer offering the LTD or Elite in 2008 and price on the Comp has been raised by $200. I've seen '07 Sirrus Comps going for around $900. These have carbon forks, carbon seat stays, and carbon seat posts. Definitely lighter than the lower end models. Worth checking out.

Marin has a Lucas Valley in their 2007 lineup that also has carbon fork and seat stay. Not as nicely equipped as the Sirrus Comp but still decent, listing for $799. They also offered a full carbon verson named the "Highway One" that lists for $2559.

Giant has their FCR line. Except for their new $1400 FCR Alliance, these models aren't quite as nice as say the Sirrus Comp that I mentioned above. They are also a bit less expensive. The FCR1 & FCR2 have carbon forks and reasonable wheels & components. I consider them to be a bit more hybrid and thus a bit less road bike than the Sirrus.

Trek offers their FX line, which they label as a hybrid. However it really isn't much different than the Giant FCR line, which Giant markets as a road bike. Not sure I would go with anything in this line lower than the 7.7 FX if you are looking for a lighter bike. I believe the 7.5 FX goes at around 22 pounds. They offer a full carbon 7.9 FX, which is a pretty nice bike, but lists at $2400 (you can sometimes find it around $1800-$1900).

A bike that I am looking at and would be a good option for you to check out, if you could find one, is the 2006 Fuji Absolute 1.0. Weighs 20 pounds in my size. Good components. Carbon fork & stays. Listed at $1210, but can be had for under $1000 from most places still having any in stock.

If you can find one, another option is a 2006 Trek Pilot 1.2, which is a flat bar version of their Pilot 1.2 road bike.

Tom, your analysis of bikes astounds me, I always learn something.

I tested a Sirrus Comp yesterday. I stood over a Medium (men's) and it was too short so he brought out the large (men's -- they didn't have a WSD). The large was wayyyy too long of a reach, so I will continue to look at WSD models. I'm sorry to read that "the higher end, lighter flat-bar road bike" is being discontinued by some companies.... that narrows the playing field even more for me, unless I am willing to consider a road bike with drop bars with a compact+WSD geometry and do what I can to raise the bars, or change the bars, if necessary.

Anyway I am keeping a close eye on this discussion...

Yep, they are disappearing from a number of product lines. Some examples:

- The apparent demise of the 2007 Specialized Sirrus LTD and Sirrus Pro
- 2006 Trek Pilot 1.2 and 5.2 flat bar versions
- 2005 Felt SR71, SR81, and SR91
- 2006 Fuji Absolute 1.0 (known as the Fuji Royale in 2003-2005)
- 2006 Bianchi Alfana

LeMond had a Wayzata flat bar that they dropped around 2004-2005.

There were others too, these are the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

Bucking this trend, Raleigh converted their 2007 Cadent drop bar comfort road bike line to a flat-bar line in 2008, and Giant added the FCR Alliance to the top of their FCR line.

One I forgot to mention that is still out there is the Cannondale Road Warrior line. The top of the line Road Warrior 1000 is a pretty lean road bike, wearing a compact double crank and 700x25 tires. The 800 is a touch heavier but still a nice bike (you might want to ditch its suspension seat post).

The 500 is more sedate, but pretty comfortable. I love the handlebar grips on it, tried to buy a pair from my Cannondale dealer but he said I'd have to buy the bike to get them.

Some links that could provide info:

http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/07/cusa/recreation/road_warrior/index.html
http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?sid=07Sirrus
http://www.fujibikes.com/2006/bikes.asp?id=144
http://www.marinbikes.com/bicycles_2007/html/bikes/bike_series/bikes_ser_alp.html
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-US/bikes/road/1244/29273/
http://www.raleighusa.com/depts.asp?deptid=4
http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/subcategory.php?c=4&s=17
http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/thebikes/street/index.html
http://www.konaworld.com/bikes/2k7/PHD/index.html

Another option that you could consider, as well as anyone else following this thread, is the Jamis Coda series. In your case where you are looking for a lighter weight bike, the only one in that series which would be is the top of the line Jamis Coda Supreme at $1750. For that price you get a lot of bike, with carbon fork, seat stay, top tube, and seat post. Ultegra groupset. 19.25 pounds, which you could lighten even further by swapping out the adjustable stem with a lightweight fixed stem.

Others following this thread who might not be as concerned by weight, could take a look at their Coda Elite and Coda Comp models. This is a rare steel flat-bar road bike option. It also differs from those above by using a traditional (non-compact) geometry, which can work well for people who have close to standard body proportions (i.e. legs or torsos are not overly long or short).

I've added a Jamis link to the post above.

And when I finally got around to checking my notes, I found another bike that I had checked out a couple of months ago, the Kona PhD. Fairly light, with an aggressive stance. Nice Mavic Aksium wheel set. Pretty good components throughout. I've also gone back to add a link to it above.

The other Kona bikes in the "Asphalt" series tend to be a bit on the heavier side, more like the new class of "urban" bikes than a flat bar roadie.

Another option that you could consider, as well as anyone else following this thread, is the Jamis Coda series. In your case where you are looking for a lighter weight bike, the only one in that series which would be is the top of the line Jamis Coda Supreme at $1750. For that price you get a lot of bike, with carbon fork, seat stay, top tube, and seat post. Ultegra groupset. 19.25 pounds, which you could lighten even further by swapping out the adjustable stem with a lightweight fixed stem.

Others following this thread who might not be as concerned by weight, could take a look at their Coda Elite and Coda Comp models. This is a rare steel flat-bar road bike option. It also differs from those above by using a traditional (non-compact) geometry, which can work well for people who have close to standard body proportions (i.e. legs or torsos are not overly long or short).

I've added a Jamis link to the post above.


One I forgot to mention that is still out there is the Cannondale Road Warrior line. The top of the line Road Warrior 1000 is a pretty lean road bike, wearing a compact double crank and 700x25 tires. The 800 is a touch heavier but still a nice bike (you might want to ditch its suspension seat post).

The 500 is more sedate, but pretty comfortable. I love the handlebar grips on it, tried to buy a pair from my Cannondale dealer but he said I'd have to buy the bike to get them.


I've spent a lot of time on both a Jamis Coda Comp (stolen, sob) and a Cannondale RW 1000 which I still have. Both are bikes I love(d). The Cannondale is within a few percent as fast as my LeMond Buenos Aires. These bikes are great urban and Trail bikes and the Cannondale is even a pretty serviceable road bike. They are good for around town or metric or full centuries. I never toured on one, but I see no reason why you couldn't. They will handle a wide variety of tires. Very high quality components and braze-ons for all that stuff you might want to carry along.

K2 makes a nice one, although I haven't ridden or weighed one. REI sells them and I was scoping out an Astrale 3.0 for fair weather commuting on the train.

I've seen the K2 Astral 5.0 too, at a REI. I thought it was a decent bike for the money ($799), although not much of a step up from a lower end Specialized Sirrus.

If someone was looking for a flat-bar road bike in the $750-$800 neighborhood, it would be worth their time to check out. The parts are nicely matched and balanced. Nothing shoddy, nothing overkill for the price.

That said, REI also sometimes stocks the Marin Mill Valley for about the same price and I think I like it a little bit better - primarily because I like how carbon seat stays smooth ride the ride on an aluminum frame bike.

OP, out of curiosity, any reason why you want to stay with a flat bar as opposed to a drop bar?

OP, out of curiosity, any reason why you want to stay with a flat bar as opposed to a drop bar?

Simple reason really. I had a back operation for a slipped disc and I now find that a more upright cycling stance is just more comfortable.

Thanks guys for the replies they make interesting reading.

I see a lot of those things around DC -- many people seem to find them ideal. I'm not sure why five less pounds woud make any detectable improvement in performance, although the lighter weight might bring in some reliability issues. How about a newer Sirrus?

Paul

how about a lighter wheelset and tires on your existing sirrus?

I want to replace my Specialized Sirrus which weighs about 25 lbs empty with something more up-to-date, lighter and faster for my old age. Still keeping to the hybrid, straight handlebar, configuration though and under 20 lbs in weight if at all possible.
I have been looking on manufacturers sites but they don't seem to give weights any more. Suggestions gratefully received.

Lots of good info. here as usual, but seems to me that there's at least two '08 bikes (mentioned else where) that fit your profile precisely:
1. '08 Giant FCR Alliance: how much closer could this be?? Will almost certainly be sub-20 lb. as stock, given the frame/fork, upper-level crank (R600), and even stock wheels. To my mind, Giant has tweaked this bike to exactly where it should be: the frame is not the OCR Alliance road frame with a flat bar slapped on, but rather that frame adapted very slightly (slightly longer top tube per size, slightly longer chainstays, slightly greater tire clearance, etc.) toward being a dedicated 'flat-bar road' bike -- still very light/quick, but with some added versatility built in.
2. Trek. I think the reason things like the 'Pilot flat bar' versions are gone is simply down to the FX series having evolved for '08. Again, look at the '08 7.6 and 7.7: same carbon front/rear frame, with geometry perfectly suited to 'flat bar' use. The 7.6 uses a trekking crank/9 speed, the 7.7 full-on (higher) road gearing (as does the full carbon 7.9). Can't imagine either bike being over, say, 22 lbs or so, and could probably fairly easily be down to 20 with a few component (bars, etc.) tweaks.

Between the Giant and Treks, I see these differences:
1. probably slightly more technically sophisticated frame on the Giant, but not a deal breaker
2. FCR oriented slightly more toward true 'road' (as in 'road race') geometry, the Treks (longer chainstays, longer wheelbase, slacker head angles) slightly more toward 'fast touring' geometry, and more tire
clearance. FCR, I would think, would handle/accelerate SLIGHTLY more quickly, the Treks be slightly more forgiving/stable, especially if carrying any kind of load. That's about it.

I had mentioned the Giant FCR Alliance earlier in the thread, but admit I didn't give its due. The new Trek FX line specs weren't out at that time.

My nit with the FCR Alliance is that I feel the price is a bit high for a bike with an all-aluminum frame w/carbon fork. However, as you point out, it is a modified design, which would push the price up. And certainly there are aluminum frame road bikes selling for much more than this, which have very nice frames. I guess I was thinking that given this is the Giant FCR series, which is a low-to-mid line series, how can they ask $1500 for an aluminum frame bike?

That said, I do agree that it is a well coordinated, nicely balanced, lightweight flar bar road bike. All of the parts are pretty much Shimano 105 level quality, the gearing is a comfy 50/34 compact with a moderate 12-27 rear - more aggressive than a hybrid but not as demanding as a performance road bike.

The Trek 7.6 FX appears to be a very good deal at $1100. If one likes the long frame and lower gearing. It is as long as many touring bikes, about 2" longer than the FCR Alliance. The upgrade to the carbon seat stay is a very nice one in '08 at this price point. As is the Deore/105 grouppo at this price point.

The 7.7 FX has the same frame as the 7.6, just with upgraded components and wheels. I'm surprised it is $650 more than the 7.6, given that you are paying just the cost difference of each upgrade. That is, you are paying for the difference between having Bontrager SSR wheels and Bontrager Race wheels, which might be a $50 cost difference to Trek. Likewise for the 105 to Ultegra rd, etc. Plus there would be some additional cost markup to keep the profit margin percentage about the same.

But you are right, these two would have a different ride & feel to them. The Giant is more of a performance bike. I haven't had a chance to ride either as yet, my local Trek shop has the 7.6 in, but not in my size.

I'm looking at these same bikes. In my case, several of the "upgrades" on the 7.7 FX work against me. I like the gearing better on the 7.6. The handlebar on the 7.7 17.5" is 0mm rise instead of 25mm. The stem is lower. The saddle that I would throw away cost more on the 7.7. I don't like the color of the 7.7. I don't like the pedals as well as they don't have a platform side. And, frankly, having 10 speeds is more of an inconvenience than a feature for my riding style.

I wouldn't mind paying hundreds more for upgrades, but not these particular upgrades. At least not for several of them. For someone else, they might be nice improvements.

Another 2008 stealth candidate is the Specialized Sirrus Pro. The 2008 model has not yet made its appearance in their web pages, but I've seen it in a dealer's catalog. Roughly it is as follows:

Full carbon frame, very similar but not identical to the 2007 Sirrus LTD.
Fork, seatpost, and seat stays have Zertz Inserts (buzz beaters)
Shimano 105 groupset
Triple crankset 50/39/30
Wide range cassette 11-28

Price is $2050. Lower than the '07 LTD which was carbon with Ultegra. It is a lot like they took the frame of the LTD ($2400) and married it with the component parts of the '07 Sirrus Pro ($1300).

Just snooped around the web and found an international page that shows the 2008 Sirrus Pro:

http://www.dalescycles.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=SPECSIRPRO08

I was comparing it to a custom build Gunnar Sport bike, which would cost me about $1900 to build. The purchase price of the Pro would be around $1950. Full steel vs Full carbon, with many of the parts in the same class.

Tom B: could I just add one point here, re. FCR Alliance and its price? NOT an (all) aluminum frame; the Alliance technology is a sophisticated 'marriage' between full carbon t/t/seat stays/half seat tube, with alu. for head, down tubes and chain stays. I've ridden the OCR version -- it's a wonderful and VERY forgiving frame. Seriously considering one (FCR '08) myself for next year. Cheers:)

If that is true, and it certainly could be, Giant doesn't say it very clearly on their web pages. That would certainly explain the $1500 price tag.

Under the "Full Specs" on their pages, they describe the frame thusly:
"ALUXX butted aluminum, Compact Road Design and Integrated Forged Headtube"

They make a slight passing reference to having composite elements in their overview. But that could just as easily be interpreted as having a composite fork.

In the OCR Alliance specs, they say:
"fomulaOne Composite, Compact Road Design"

So this reads to me like the OCR Alliance is mostly carbon fiber, while the FCR Alliance is an aluminum frame with a cf fork. Not saying that what it really is, but that is how Giant is advertising it. If they have more composite/cf in their frame, they should be more up front about it.

They don't even mention using more composite in the frame in their section on "Key Differences between the FCR 1 and FCR Alliance.

I liked the FCR 1 W so much, I'll have to look for the Alliance.

Hey again, TomB: re. your last post on this, I think I can safely say that the 08 FCR Alliance is indeed an 'alliance' frame; it's clearly so described in the PDF download brochure on Giant's site, AND (fwiw) both my dealer and Giant rep. have told me directly that this is indeed the case. Hence, as you note, the price point. Giant's 'Technology' window describes the frame construction.

Just to reiterate: I have ridden this frame in its 07 OCR/full road iteration -- as is usual with Giant, this frame really is/does just 'what it says on the tin'. The ride quality (vibration absorbtion) is outstanding, very much a 'full carbon' feel, just at a substantially lower price point. That bike (OCR Alliance 0) was very light -- I suspect the FCR version will be as light or slightly lighter (flatbar/levers are lighter than drops/brifters). What Giant has (to my mind rightly) done is to tweak the frame's geometry to make a dedicated 'flat bar' road frame, contra. previous generations of FCR.

As to price point, I think again this will be outstanding: to my mind, the FCR Alliance will be, for about $200 U.S. less, a slightly 'better' bike than the Trek 7.7fx (don't get me wrong -- also a very very fine bike, which I've also tested) as far as frame construction is concerned, with about equal componentry. So it comes down to which one 'feels' best/best suits intended use for a given buyer: these are (the 08s) the two I'm likely to choose between. Both appeal to me (over 'full carbon') simply because a metal main frame/chainstays is I think likely to be a little tougher for everyday, commuting use.

I, I take it much like you, have been looking at this bike 'type' for some time now -- kind of a waiting game to see if affordable highish-tech bikes of this sort appeared. Now they have, and there's some real choice. I want a 'road' bike, but can't take too much 'jarring' nor do I get on at all with drops (and I have, at some expense, tried to!) -- so have been sticking with my very light roadified mtb until 'my' bike came along.

For me, the Sirrus (the other 'big three' player in this genre) is a non-starter simply because of the (for me) very odd/awkward geometry: the Medium has a far too-short effective t/t (54.5 cm) to my mind.

I didn't see a WSD version of the Alliance at the Giant sight. Have you heard of or seen one?

I didn't see a WSD version of the Alliance at the Giant sight. Have you heard of or seen one?

Yen: don't think there is a WSD version of the FCR Alliance (there is I think one for the all-aluminum FCR??) -- HOWEVER, if I were you I wouldn't be overly concerned about that. Unless they've changed things this year, Giant's 'WSD' bikes don't rely on changed geometry (re. the standard versions); instead, they use things like shorter stems, different bars and saddles (and on the road bikes, 650B wheels on some additional very small sizes) to create 'WSD'. So, if you really liked the FCRAlliance, say, and otherwise fit one of the available sizes, it's really a very simple matter to 'WSD' it, if you see what I mean!
The sizes start at 'extra small', so you most likely will find a size to suit??

Yen: Oops!:o -- just checked and Giant's 'WSD' indeed does have tweaked geometry now. However, I still think that's not a problem; certainly, if you happen to be over, say, 5'4" or so tall, I would imagine you'd easily be able to set up a 'men's' FCR to work perfectly for you -- this is one of the advantages of 'compact' road frame design: a given 'size' can be adjusted, through the contact points, to fit a fairly broad range of body types. Having said that, remember: NEVER, EVER fit/buy a bike based only, or even primarily, on internet forum advice -- ya gotta test ride, test ride, test ride!! Cheers!

I wouldn't undersell the potential advantages of a WSD design for a female rider. A high percentage of females have proportionally shorter upper torsos than males. You can see this in the Giant "W" frames, for example the FCR1W has a top tube that is 2 cm shorter than the FCR 1.

Another way to look at it, is that for a person who best fits a 56.5 cm top tube (Men's M size for Giant), the seat tube for a man is expected to be around 50 cm, while for a woman it is 53.5 cm.

Obviously this varies a lot from individual to individual and a compact geometry frame offers more flexibility in adjusting the fit.

Just as you noted that the Sirrus "M" size has too short of a top tube, making it difficult for you to get a good fit on it, a men's frame usually has too long of a top tube for women to get a good fit. And, IMHO, it is a little easier to address a top tube that is too short than one that is too long.

I certainly wholeheartedly agree with your advice to test ride and not simply follow what someone is telling you ... even if that someone is the salesperson at the bike shop.

Tom: re the above, no argument from me! I completely agree that making true 'WSD' bikes available is a good thing, and is being done for very good reasons; I also agree that, all else being equal, slightly too-short t/t is preferrable to slightly too long. And, the Sirrus geometry in fact works very well for many -- just not for me.
Back to the WSD thing, my point I guess was that while it's a shame a given bike model isn't available in that configuration, that doesn't rule that model out; e.g. the men's FCR Small has eff. t/t of 54.5, Medium 56.5. I'm in fact 5'8 1/2" tall, but with a true cycling inseam of 33", so slightly 'long legged/short torso' for my height, and can comfortably fit either the Small or Medium, with adjustments to stem etc. The Medium is my 'best' fit (I prefer a kind of mtb XC race position), so that's what I'd get; on the other hand, with the Trek fx my 'best' fit happens to be the Small with a 110mm stem, not the Medium, which I find slightly large/tall/ponderous (length is fine). Similiarly, many women in the height range, say, 5'4 or 5" and up don't necessarily 'need' a WSD bike as such, so much as slight changes to saddle type/setback, stem length, and bar width/brake lever reach, to get a proper fit on a given size of, say, a men's FCR or even Trek fx. As we agree, really can only tell by trying 'em out and seeing what works best in practice. I think we'd also agree that 'fit' really is everything; if, for example, Yen did find that a WSD FCR did fit her noticeably better than an adapted men's version, she'd find the all-aluminum version in WSD more 'comfortable' and useable in the long haul than the Alliance version. Cheers!

Oh I definitely will test ride, lots of bikes and lots of rides. I liked the FCR1 W a lot, it fit like a glove. I need to ride it again, and maybe again after that, and also the Alliance. In addition, I am planning to get a fitting very soon.

I tested a road bike the other day, a Pilot 5.0 and..... another one whose name I can't remember now. :o I also tested one with drop bars. Like the OP, I don't think my neck would like being in the drops AT ALL, so I see myself on a flat bar road bike fitted with trekking bars instead.

As to price point, I think again this will be outstanding: to my mind, the FCR Alliance will be, for about $200 U.S. less, a slightly 'better' bike than the Trek 7.7fx (don't get me wrong -- also a very very fine bike, which I've also tested) as far as frame construction is concerned, with about equal componentry. So it comes down to which one 'feels' best/best suits intended use for a given buyer: these are (the 08s) the two I'm likely to choose between. Both appeal to me (over 'full carbon') simply because a metal main frame/chainstays is I think likely to be a little tougher for everyday, commuting use.

I happen to like the 7.6 FX better than the 7.7 FX, so for me the Trek option is $400 cheaper than the Giant. And my other "hot" option is a 2006 Fuji Absolute 1.0.
http://www.fujibikes.com/2006/bikes.asp?id=144

Which I can get new (my LBS has 4 in stock in my size) in the mid-900s. It has carbon fork & seat stays, plus 105-level group & triple crank.

I happen to like the 7.6 FX better than the 7.7 FX, so for me the Trek option is $400 cheaper than the Giant. And my other "hot" option is a 2006 Fuji Absolute 1.0.
http://www.fujibikes.com/2006/bikes.asp?id=144

Which I can get new (my LBS has 4 in stock in my size) in the mid-900s. It has carbon fork & seat stays, plus 105-level group & triple crank.

That Fuji looks very nice indeed, esp. at that n.o.s. price -- great deal!! I remember you mentioning a pref. for the 7.6 (over 7.7) above -- I know what you mean/don't even mind the white colour (some do). I tend to prefer quickly spinning lower gears to pushing high ones anyway, so the trekking crank works in that way; also, one thought I've had is that (arthritis, d_mn!, causes grief for me with rapid fire shifters) the 9speed/mountain crank (which it is, and which when worn can easily be upgraded to the LX or XT equivalent) allows the use of Shimano's dual-control mountain brifters (or SRAM Attack gripshift, which I presently use), so an easy conversion, especially given the pretty reasonable initial cost of the bike; and I'll admit I do like the FX's tire clearance/capacity, relative to the FCR (whatever version). When I tried the 7.7 last spring, almost went for it but was hoping that frame would 'trickle down', so
am going to hold off till a test of the FCRAlliance is possible, then re-test the 7.6/7fx. Oh dear: decisions decisions!
(Hmmm -- does this revival constitute a 'threadjack'?? Hope the OP is following along -- I for one am finding this exchange very helpful)

Hey again, TomB: re. your last post on this, I think I can safely say that the 08 FCR Alliance is indeed an 'alliance' frame; it's clearly so described in the PDF download brochure on Giant's site,

I download the brochure for both the OCR Alliance and FCR Alliance. The OCR says the frame is composite, the FCR states that it is aluminum. This is consistent with what is shown on their web pages.

Either someone goofed up when entering this info and it was copied from the brochure onto the web page, or Giant is doing different things with the two frames. Note that Specialized had a Roubaix model that had an aluminum frame and it was priced $400 lower than their lowest model carbon bike. And I've noted that the FCR Alliance is $400 cheaper than the OCR Alliance - although that would seem to be explained by the lower groupset on the FCR.

It does seem inconsistent that Giant would go to the trouble of creating an Alliance frame that is based upon the marriage of carbon and aluminum, and then name a bike that when it didn't use a combo frame. So I suspect there's a typo.

The FCR does look interesting. I'll have to give it a bit more consideration - although I'd have to swap out the crank, pedals, and tires (and stem & saddle - but those would be tossed off of any bike I would buy). Could probably do all three at a minimum cost difference at the time of purchase. And a deal killer would be if it didn't have enough fork clearance to allow the use of 700X32 tires.

I agree it's confusing, and also that there's lots of devils in details/buyer beware; still and yet I'm pretty sure -- dealer and rep. info. -- that we're dealing with data entry errors here: the FCR Alliance is 'alliance' frame, even though the spec. tab and download both say (all) aluminum. Another example: the OCR Alliance info. suggests that the frame is full carbon -- not. Also, the FCR Alliance photos. are clearly of an 'alliance' frame, not the all-alu. FCR frame. Needless to say, if the bike comes in as all-alloy, it's out of the running for me -- it's my test ride of the 'alliance' frame that's got me interested in this bike in a flat-bar version. Re. price: the FCR Alliance $1500 is directly comparable to the OCR Alliance 1, @ $1500, not the Alliance 0, which has a higher end groupset. The FCR/Alliance 1 have the same '105 level' group and the same wheelsets: basically, a drop- and flat-bar version of the same bike at the same price.
Given that this is an alliance frame, then I think it is a very good buy indeed when considered in relation to the competition, provided of course it fits and suits a buyer's intended uses.

I unexpectedly happened upon an opportunity to take a test ride on a 7.6 FX tonight. I had to run an errand, then my wife called to have me run a second errand. After finishing the 2nd one, I noticed that I was only 2 blocks away from the Madison East Trek store. So I stopped in and they had a 7.6 FX in my size.

First, I'll comment on the color. It is advertised and shown as pearl white, but it is really an interesting blend of white and a smoke-like gray. The top of tubes start out white and then they fade into gray on the welds and it is all gray on the underside of the tubes.

The test ride was almost exactly as expected. The carbon fork, seat stays and seat post, combined with a long wheelbase (as long as a touring bike) resulted in a very smooth ride. I tried to hit all of the bumps around the parking lot - grates, sidewalk edges, broken pavement. All handled smoothly. Performance was decent, it isn't the lightest bike (21-22 pounds?) and the gearing is relaxed. I found it to my liking. Riding position was comfortable.

All in all, I have to say that I liked it a lot. Riding it was fun. I even liked the pedals a lot, a Wellgo pedal that has SPD on one side and a nice wide platform w/rubber inserts on the other.

One nit, last year Trek put 170mm crank arms on the 15" and 17.5" hybrids, but the '08 FX 17.5" now has 175mm.

TomB: thanks (on my part at least) for the test ride report! I have to agree with your 'nit' re. crank length -- I too prefer 170 to 175, but a relatively minor thing. Your experience confirms mine with the 7.7fx re. ride smoothness; I very much like the handling/ride of these bikes.

One nit, last year Trek put 170mm crank arms on the 15" and 17.5" hybrids, but the '08 FX 17.5" now has 175mm.

Why is it important? Does a longer crank arm mean a larger rotation of the crank, thus a bit more energy expended?

It is more of a "fit" issue.

You set your seat height based on having the proper knee angle at the bottom of the stroke. Then the fit issue comes into play at the top of the stroke as you flex your knee at a high angle to get over the "crest" of the stroke. The crank arm length determines the angle of your knee as it passes over the top of the stroke.

There are "calculators" which determine the theoretical optimal crank arm length, based upon the length of your leg. But one doesn't have to follow their recommendations rigidly. One might be perfectly comfortable with a different length.

Common crank arm lengths are 170mm, 172.5mm, and 175mm. But they can range from 155mm up to around 180mm (I don't know how long the longest are). They can go lower than 155, but those are usually found on children's bikes.

With my shorter than normal legs, the calculation for my optimal length is around 160mm. When I use a 175, it feels like I am trying to step over an obstacle that's just a little too high for me to clear it comfortably. I'm much more comfortable on 170, and I'd love to try out a 165 on a 10 mile ride.

You wouldn't think changing the crank arm by 5mm, or even 2.5mm, would make much difference. It doesn't for some. But my knees appreciate the shorter arm.

It more of a "fit" issue.


As soon as I read that, the light went on. :o What a difference a good night's sleep makes.
Thank you for providing even more information than I knew before. :)

As soon as I read that, the light went on. :o What a difference a good night's sleep makes.
Thank you for providing even more information than I knew before. :)

As per usual, good sense from Tom B; his description re. 'trying to "step over"' is spot on: it's also a question of hip flexion (i.e. possibility of too much of, which once again becomes more important as we age). I've pretty long legs for a male my height, and the 'calculator' thingies Tom B. mentions would always have me using 175 or even 177.5 on the road, but I am much more comfortable/efficient with 170s -- quite noticeably so. As a very rough, general rule longer cranks offer more brute leverage, hence their use on mtb's and by (road) sprinters; shorter (relatively) are better suited to a faster, "lighter" spinning of the pedals.

I love my Trek Pilot 1.0 (ith 700x28c tires), which is less than 6 months old, but wouldn't be comfortable riding it on any unpaved surface (bike path, gravel, trails to rails etc)

I also have a 10 yr old MTN bike (Specialized Hardrock with 26x 2" tires) but it is a bit too heavy for me to lift onto my bike rack.

So I am looking for a lighter bike and leaning toward a not too expensive hybrid for rails to trails type riding. (Rented a hybrid while on vacation and I also liked the indexed shifters.)

This is based on my assumption that a new hybrid - even at the lower end of the cost spectrum - will be significantly lighter than the Hardrock and only a few pounds more than the Pilot. The folks posting here seemed to have tried every bike there is --so my question is- Is my assumption valid?

Thanks.

This is based on my assumption that a new hybrid - even at the lower end of the cost spectrum - will be significantly lighter than the Hardrock and only a few pounds more than the Pilot. The folks posting here seemed to have tried every bike there is --so my question is- Is my assumption valid?

Thanks.

To a certain extent you are right. The better hybrids are based on Road bikes like the Specialised Cirrus is the Sequoia and the Giant FCR is the OCR.

I can only talk about the Giant but the FCR3- the low end bike- will weigh in at around 20lbs. The higher end FCR1 C will be around 18lbs. The problem comes in that to make a low end bike- something has to give. With the FCR3- it is the wheels. They are Wheels- they go round and are reasonably strong. Problem is the quality. When I changed the OM wheels on my OCR to a respectable wheel- I had a very good bike. Far better than I ever expected it to be.

So although a lower end Hybrid will be cheap- and it will be fairly light- there could be some cost cutting done that means you could improve on the bike.

And please don't take it that the wheels are rubbish. I am particular about wheels and never have liked any OM wheel. It's just that I managed to find the fault that caused me a problem and got it rectified. Others may find the wheels completely satisfactory.

To a certain extent you are right. The better hybrids are based on Road bikes like the Specialised Cirrus is the Sequoia and the Giant FCR is the OCR.

While the Specialized Sirrus and Sequoia frames are similar, they are not the same. It isn't a matter of them taking the Sequoia road bike frame, making it a flat bar, and naming it the Sirrus. If you compare frames having the same seat tube length, you'll find that the Sequoia has a shorter wheelbase (by 27mm), shorter top tube, shorter chain stay and that pretty much every measurement is different. Specialized also uses different forks, seat stays and head tubes on the two lines.

Specialized does a lot of interesting things within most of their lines. They are working some very well developed design principles in them.