Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - New Steel TriCross Triple

Anyone notice the new disc braked steel Tricross triple? Other than the drivetrain, that's a nice package. I have an older Tricross with the FACT carbon fork, DA & Ultegra, and I like it a good deal more than my Roubaix Comp. Man, I'm tempted.

http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/road/tricross/tricrosselitesteeldisctriple

WHUT? Why a steel CX with disks? Steel frame is cheaper? Keeps overall bike price down when installed with disk brakes?

Nice build. More of a commuter and light touring bike than a pure long distance bike. The 440mm chainstays are touring bike long. It would be a very good wet weather bike.

Exactly, I use mine as a century, fast tourer, all arounder, with a minimalist Tubus rack on the back. The front carbon forks had lowrider eyelets, and I've used full front panniers a few times like a fully dressed tourer. I think Specialized was pretty clever to drop the carbon fork and offer an all steel version, an new competitor for LHT, Soma, Trek 520 buyers.

Thankfully, the TriCross was never a true CX race bike. Since the introduction of the Crux series a few years ago (which is a pure CX race bike), Specialized can now really keep the TriCross line as more of the adventure / touring bike, which it looks like they are definitely doing with this steel model. I have a 2009 Alu TriCross with carbon stays, which I've since upgraded with a carbon disc fork - it is the bike that I use 80% of the time for commuting, touring, trail riding, social rides, etc. The full-on race bike and the full-on mountain bike get ridden less and less all the time, because the TriCross can do almost everything.

Thankfully, the TriCross was never a true CX race bike. Since the introduction of the Crux series a few years ago (which is a pure CX race bike), Specialized can now really keep the TriCross line as more of the adventure / touring bike, which it looks like they are definitely doing with this steel model. I have a 2009 Alu TriCross with carbon stays, which I've since upgraded with a carbon disc fork - it is the bike that I use 80% of the time for commuting, touring, trail riding, social rides, etc. The full-on race bike and the full-on mountain bike get ridden less and less all the time, because the TriCross can do almost everything.

Yeah, my Strava stats are pitiful:

Tricross 2,942.1km
Yukon FX3 39.6km

I'm training for two endurance events next year: the 200km Alpine Classic (nearly 4000m vertical ascent, all sealed roads); and the Wombat 100 (50km dirt road/fire trail, 50km singletrack). I'll be doing them both on the Tricross. That's versatility :)

Personally I don't really get the steel thing. I'd be tempted to say "the aluminium frame flexes under heavy touring loads" but I haven't experienced that. I've never put front panniers on it though - just rear panniers, rack bag, frame bag, handlebar bag, and usually a tent hanging from handlebars. (My girlfriend has the same bike, and replaced the front fork with a carbon/disk setup after it got smashed. I'm tempted still but don't want to close the door on front panniers...)

(My girlfriend has the same bike, and replaced the front fork with a carbon/disk setup after it got smashed. I'm tempted still but don't want to close the door on front panniers...)

I also replaced the fork on my 2009 TriCross with a carbon disc-brake model (without smashing the old one). You have to be careful because the tricross fork has a slightly non-standard length and offset. I got one that is as close as possible, and I did notice a small change in the handling, but if anything it was for the better (making it slightly more responsive). You can easily keep the old fork in storage in case you ever want to do a heavily-laden tour, but I've not toured with 4 panniers for a VERY long time (I learned how to take less stuff after doing one or two tours like that).

The front disc adds even more versatility because it makes it an even better foul-weather bike (which is when rim brakes start to struggle). I'm not sold on the idea of needing a rear disc actually - it's a good place to save weight by using just a V-brake, and often rear discs get in the way of rack mounting. One disc brake is enough for me. So by switching the fork on a V-brake equipped bike you end up with the perfect combination that is normally not available in an off-the-shelf model (but again, be careful with fork geometries).

Exactly, I use mine as a century, fast tourer, all arounder, with a minimalist Tubus rack on the back. The front carbon forks had lowrider eyelets, and I've used full front panniers a few times like a fully dressed tourer. I think Specialized was pretty clever to drop the carbon fork and offer an all steel version, an new competitor for LHT, Soma, Trek 520 buyers.

While the Specialized Steel Tricross has quite a few merits, it can't really compete with the LHT...

The LHT has few actual competitors. You get more tire options with the LHT, due to a much wider clearance, and your build options are virtually limitless...

When it comes to Touring, Long Distance versatility, and value, the LHT is practically peerless! :thumb:

When it comes to Touring, Long Distance versatility, and value, the LHT is practically peerless! :thumb:
The LHT is hardly peerless, you need to get out more. It's a very solid touring bike that is affordable. If more money is available than the LHT, you can do better. Have you ridden a LHT?
Touring is one thing, but this isn't the touring forum so I think there is an underlying assumption that performance is important. Some people use an LHT for randonneuring, but everyone I know that has done that has either replaced it or is shopping. It's just not the kind of bike you really want to be riding for long distances at a relatively rapid pace. The LHT is ideal for riding 60 miles a day with a touring load, or commuting. If you were going to do some touring but had an emphasis on randonneuring or other long distance riding where performance is a factor, I'm sure there are probably better choices than the LHT.

The LHT is hardly peerless, you need to get out more. It's a very solid touring bike that is affordable. If more money is available than the LHT, you can do better. Have you ridden a LHT?
Touring is one thing, but this isn't the touring forum so I think there is an underlying assumption that performance is important. Some people use an LHT for randonneuring, but everyone I know that has done that has either replaced it or is shopping. It's just not the kind of bike you really want to be riding for long distances at a relatively rapid pace. The LHT is ideal for riding 60 miles a day with a touring load, or commuting. If you were going to do some touring but had an emphasis on randonneuring or other long distance riding where performance is a factor, I'm sure there are probably better choices than the LHT.


Peerless in terms of both Long Distance Versatility and Value (cost)...


People Randonneur on just about anything with two wheels. You have to be very particular in order to select the proper touring bicycle. You must consider ascents when carrying gear. You must also consider balance and the best tire width, given the terrain. In that case, the LHT is best suited for Touring, but can also double as a Randonneur bicycle. Considering that it costs a fraction of many other types of Touring and Randonneuring candidates, I can easily say that it has no peers. It's truly, "peerless"...

* I really do love the LHT, I just can't help it! :D

PS.

It's most certainly more versatile than the Specialized Steel Tricross...

Slim have you ridden an LHT? If not, please do not comment on experiences you have not had because that would be giving info on inexperience. And it doing so intentionally would be considered....... trolling..... ;) HINT

Slim have you ridden an LHT? If not, please do not comment on experiences you have not had because that would be giving info on inexperience. And it doing so intentionally would be considered....... trolling..... ;) HINT

Why are you doing this?

I have ridden the LHT as I have friends who I used to tour with who've ridden them.

If you don't like me, just say so and let that be that!

I haven't disrespected anyone and I've been most tolerant of being disrespected...You're assuming something that's not so!

Besides, what difference would it make if I just liked the LHT without even riding it one time. I would just be voicing an opinion, which is a lot less obtrusive than what I've seen this week...Including obnoxious racist remarks which went without incident!

I don't need any of your hints!

If you want to ban me, then just go ahead...I'll live!

PS.

I would never be disrepectful to anyone, nor would I be a bigot!

Why are you doing this?

I have ridden the LHT as I have friends who I used to tour with who've ridden them?

If you don't like me, just say so and let that be that!

I haven't disrespected anyone and I've been most tolerant of being disrespected...You're assuming something that's not so!

Besides, what difference would it make if I just liked the LHT without even riding it one time. I would just be voicing an opinion, which is a lot less obtrusive than what I've seen this week...Including obnoxious racist remarks which went without incident!

I don't need any of your hints!

If you want to ban me, then just go ahead...I'll live!

PS.

I would never be disrepectful to anyone, nor would I be a bigot!

If you want to leave, please feel free to. :) And thank you for answering a question that was asked twice. Please note the "IF NOT..." Please keep in mind that whether or not I like you has no bearing on how I (or others who complain) take your posts. Perhaps I should not have been so nice as to hint. :)

the bigoted remark was definitely taken care of. We can't control what people post, but we can fix it up afterwards.

Since we're "there", the thing that strikes me about the LHT is the amount of trail -- 65mm or so by the online calculators I've seen -- which I would presume is what gives it the "truck-like" handling some people don't like for LD riding. (Full disclosure: I've never ridden one.)

Has anyone experimented with forks that have more rake to lighten the steering? I'm not in the market for one, but there are a lot of the features of the LHT I like, at least on paper.

If you want to leave, please feel free to. :) And thank you for answering a question that was asked twice. Please note the "IF NOT..." Please keep in mind that whether or not I like you has no bearing on how I (or others who complain) take your posts. Perhaps I should not have been so nice as to hint. :)

But what have I done?...What's my offense other than voicing my opinion about what I think of the LHT?

How could anyone take offense about that? Even if they did, that would be quite petty and insignificant.

If you were speaking truth from your experiences then there was no offense! That's why I asked if you rode it and "IF NOT..." But if you were NOT, then info from inexperience might be misleading, which could be construed as trolling.

That is why I HINTED at you. So you can answer if you rode it or not. :)

I am also curious. Can anyone point out what inherent features would make, say a 26"-wheeled LHT, a bad rando bike for an event like the PBP?

I am also curious. Can anyone point out what inherent features would make, say a 26"-wheeled LHT, a bad rando bike for an event like the PBP?

I don't know if "bad" is the right word. It's more like, if you like the way a bus handles it'll probably be just fine. You can do long distance riding on all sorts of different bikes. Whether it's the optimal bike for an individuals needs and requirements is a different question.

A touring bike needs to be quite rigid to allow for heavy loads. So any touring bike is going to be heavy and harsh riding, making it sub-optimal for rando riding.

Certainly people do it. I wouldn't. Touring is not rando/LD/ultra.

A touring bike needs to be quite rigid to allow for heavy loads. So any touring bike is going to be heavy and harsh riding, making it sub-optimal for rando riding.

The frame itself may add a pound over a light road bike; anything else can be changed. A pound isn't much, when you consider frame plus components plus equipment plus rider weight.

The frame itself may add a pound over a light road bike; anything else can be changed. A pound isn't much, when you consider frame plus components plus equipment plus rider weight.

Rather more than a pound I would think, over a light road bike. The fork itself would add more than that. Regardless, the weight is only one part of the problem. You still have the geo and rigidity. What does it have in its favour?

I'm not saying you can't do it. If it's your only bike, then it's the one you should ride. If you're buying a bike for rando, I would recommend others.

I don't know why we're even talking about this bike in this forum.

The frame itself may add a pound over a light road bike; anything else can be changed. A pound isn't much, when you consider frame plus components plus equipment plus rider weight.

My two cents: That extra pound means relatively little in terms of the extra burden of dragging it up each hill, but it will change the feel of the bike noticably. That stiffer / more dead feeling combined with the high trail front end and longer wheelbase makes the experience of riding the bike psychologically more difficult, if not significantly more difficult in objective reality. A lot of folks just prefer a different ride, feel, and handling of different types of bikes. How the bike just simply feels underneath you does count for something. In rando, you're perched on the damn thing all day long, so one needs to be content with one's chosen machine. So, that is to say, if one is happy with a LHT, then it works.

I agree with Steamer. Comfort on long distance rides is most likely the #1 priority. Physical and mental conditioning/preparation, geometry, fitting, tires, saddle, handlebar type & tape, shoes, clothing, gloves will most likely make the biggest difference on a rando event. I don't own a Surly LHT, but people rave about how comfortable it is. Let's not forget that people touring on this bike also spend long days on the saddle day after day. They do go slower and only complete 60-75 miles per day, but this is given to how much weight they carry fully loaded. The ability to install a front or rear rack for essential gear and spares (we know this is so important in a brevet where self-sufficiency is key) without the feeling of becoming too squirrely/nervous (or compromising a carbon fork or frame) is another big plus on the LHT. IMHO, all these things combined make the LHT an excellent candidate for long distance riding in the form of randonneuring. If one is looking into a bike more specific for rando purposes, yes, there are better bikes out there. Randonneuring is a very small niche, though. This is reflected in the number of off-the-peg bikes available out there. People, therefore, seem to gravitate toward the LHT if they can only afford/choose one bike. It offers a wider versatility (commuting and touring additionally) without having to recur to having several bikes that perform very similar tasks. To me randonneuring and touring are so awfully similar to the point that it is very hard to justify having two different bikes.

... To me randonneuring and touring are so awfully similar to the point that it is very hard to justify having two different bikes.

If that is your opinion, I can certainly see how a touring bike would be attractive.

In my experience, touring and randonneuring are radically different. Your caveat, "slower and only complete 60-75 miles per day", is rather significant!

As to your comments about comfort...a lighter bike with more flexible tubing is always going to be more comfortable than a touring bike, to the extent that the frame impacts comfort.

I'm sort of surprised that they kept the name TriCross at this point. With Cross in the name, you'd expect it'd be a cyclocross aimed bike, but yet the cable routing is under the top tube, which is not so good for shouldering. I know this isn't a cross thread, but at least my post is about the bike in the title and the OP.

I'm sort of surprised that they kept the name TriCross at this point. With Cross in the name, you'd expect it'd be a cyclocross aimed bike, but yet the cable routing is under the top tube, which is not so good for shouldering. I know this isn't a cross thread, but at least my post is about the bike in the title and the OP.

My impression is that "cross" is a marketing buzzword for something that is versatile without being perfect at any one thing -- like cross-training shoes, crossover SUVs, and now "cross" bikes that are somewhere in the cyclocross/touring region.

Fair enough.

In my experience, touring and randonneuring are radically different. Your caveat, "slower and only complete 60-75 miles per day", is rather significant!

Certainly a fair point for the slower randonneur. Most loaded tourists average about 10 mph, and the slow cutoff for a brevet is about 10 mph. Time in the saddle is going to be similar, unless your brevet speed is significantly faster, in which case you're comparing apples and oranges.


As to your comments about comfort...a lighter bike with more flexible tubing is always going to be more comfortable than a touring bike, to the extent that the frame impacts comfort.

OK, a flexible fork can absorb a bit of shock. But the rest of the frame doesn't. The tires do. So do the heavy suspension seatpost, or the suspension stem, or the cushy saddle. What? You don't have any of those comfortable appendages on your brevet bike??

Certainly a fair point for the slower randonneur. Most loaded tourists average about 10 mph, and the slow cutoff for a brevet is about 10 mph. Time in the saddle is going to be similar, unless your brevet speed is significantly faster, in which case you're comparing apples and oranges.



OK, a flexible fork can absorb a bit of shock. But the rest of the frame doesn't. The tires do. So do the heavy suspension seatpost, or the suspension stem, or the cushy saddle. What? You don't have any of those comfortable appendages on your brevet bike??

Any rider who has a moving average of about 10 or 11 mph is going to have a hard time finishing any brevet within the time limits, especially the longer ones that require more than brief stops (600K's and longer).

I am no world authority on the gear randonneurs use, but I have never seen or heard of one using a suspension seatpost or stem. I guess you could though.

OK, a flexible fork can absorb a bit of shock. But the rest of the frame doesn't. The tires do. So do the heavy suspension seatpost, or the suspension stem, or the cushy saddle. What? You don't have any of those comfortable appendages on your brevet bike??
I find my fizik aliante to be more than cushy, "like a hammock" as one of the owners of my LBS told me. I have worked through my hand issues without resorting to anything other than standard issue road equipment. People say that larger tires are more comfortable, but the only reason I would consider them is flat protection from potholes. I think an unloaded touring frame may actually be stiff enough to tell the difference over a lighter frame, but in any event, my experience is that it will feel dead.

Certainly a fair point for the slower randonneur. Most loaded tourists average about 10 mph, and the slow cutoff for a brevet is about 10 mph. Time in the saddle is going to be similar, unless your brevet speed is significantly faster, in which case you're comparing apples and oranges.



OK, a flexible fork can absorb a bit of shock. But the rest of the frame doesn't. The tires do. So do the heavy suspension seatpost, or the suspension stem, or the cushy saddle. What? You don't have any of those comfortable appendages on your brevet bike??

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you agreeing with me?

Oh, and of course a frame absorbs shock. If you don't think so, I invite you to ride a brevet on an early Cannondale race bike. Put whatever fork you like on it.

I am no world authority on the gear randonneurs use, but I have never seen or heard of one using a suspension seatpost or stem. I guess you could though.

I believe pdlamb was referring to the suspension post/stem/saddle question as a joke. These things are absolutely not necessary as part of a randonneur bike. If we're looking at comfort for long distance on paved roads, the frame does play a role, but it is a miniscule portion. You'll get a lot more comfort by having wider but still fast tires, as pdlamb indicates. This is, by the way, another plus I see on the LHT -- the ability to fit wider tires. A lot of road frames limit the user to narrow tires which doesn't help over long distance riding. Given the limited amount of rando frames, a lot of randonneurs ultimately end up with regular road bikes or bikes like the Surly LHT, the X-Check or like the Specialized Tri-Cross featured in this thread. None of these are true rando bikes, but they get work done adequately. The alternative is going for a "boutique" rando bike (builders running limited productions) or going fully custom with nice steel or titanium.

I believe pdlamb was inferring to the suspension post/stem/saddle question as a joke.

It would have helped if it had been funny.

When I was looking around for a touring bike I test rode an LHT on a number of occasions to see how it compared to other frames I'd tested. I do admit I never did a test ride with it loaded, as my build would spend most of it's time doing other service than touring. Unequivocally I can say I think it is one of the worst handling and sluggish bikes I have ever been on. Personally I would not take one to keep if I was given one.

I believe pdlamb was referring to the suspension post/stem/saddle question as a joke. These things are absolutely not necessary as part of a randonneur bike. If we're looking at comfort for long distance on paved roads, the frame does play a role, but it is a miniscule portion. You'll get a lot more comfort by having wider but still fast tires, as pdlamb indicates.

Quite right, Chris. You've got to believe the "laterally stiff, yet vertically compliant" dreck coming out of the marketeers to claim shock is absorbed in the frame. Any engineer is going to compare the frame (particularly the rear) to a bridge truss; virtually no shock gets absorbed right under your saddle. "Virtually" is a hedge, of course; you may absorb a microinch or two worth of the pothole shock in the frame, but you need a "Princess and the pea" derriere to notice that magnitude of ride smoothing.

IMHO, all these things combined make the LHT an excellent candidate for long distance riding in the form of randonneuring. If one is looking into a bike more specific for rando purposes, yes, there are better bikes out there. Randonneuring is a very small niche, though. This is reflected in the number of off-the-peg bikes available out there. People, therefore, seem to gravitate toward the LHT if they can only afford/choose one bike. It offers a wider versatility (commuting and touring additionally) without having to recur to having several bikes that perform very similar tasks.
You need to be more clear what you mean by "long distance". People here are likely going to consider that to mean rando-like.


To me randonneuring and touring are so awfully similar to the point that it is very hard to justify having two different bikes.

Few loaded tourists are going typical rando distances in rando times.

Speed is more useful in randonneuring (long distance) riding than it is in loaded touring (generally).

Certainly a fair point for the slower randonneur. Most loaded tourists average about 10 mph, and the slow cutoff for a brevet is about 10 mph. Time in the saddle is going to be similar, unless your brevet speed is significantly faster, in which case you're comparing apples and oranges.Any rider who has a moving average of about 10 or 11 mph is going to have a hard time finishing any brevet within the time limits, especially the longer ones that require more than brief stops (600K's and longer).

Yes.

Few loaded tourists are going typical rando distances in rando times. Even at slow rando speeds, small improvements in efficiency are valuable.

Certainly, touring bikes (like the LHT) can be used for rando riding but, generally, they aren't, really, the best tool for the job. (Keep in mind that people are free to ride whatever they prefer and some people do fine all sorts of bicycles. That doesn't mean what they use is well-suited to the task.)

(In my case, rando rides are easier to complete on my "endurance" carbon bike than they would be on my tourer.)

While the Specialized Steel Tricross has quite a few merits, it can't really compete with the LHT...

The LHT has few actual competitors. You get more tire options with the LHT, due to a much wider clearance, and your build options are virtually limitless...

The AL Tricross (at least) has room for ridiculously wide tires.

I also replaced the fork on my 2009 TriCross with a carbon disc-brake model (without smashing the old one). You have to be careful because the tricross fork has a slightly non-standard length and offset. I got one that is as close as possible, and I did notice a small change in the handling, but if anything it was for the better (making it slightly more responsive).


We used the one from the Specialized Sirrus - also half carbon, just without the rack mounts (the LBS did it). Don't know if the handling changed - lots of other things changed as well (seat height etc).


The front disc adds even more versatility because it makes it an even better foul-weather bike (which is when rim brakes start to struggle).

I guess I'm lucky enough not to experience that kind of rain. It's a very rare experience to see the rim brakes slipping...

Steve

Quite right, Chris. You've got to believe the "laterally stiff, yet vertically compliant" dreck coming out of the marketeers to claim shock is absorbed in the frame. Any engineer is going to compare the frame (particularly the rear) to a bridge truss; virtually no shock gets absorbed right under your saddle. "Virtually" is a hedge, of course; you may absorb a microinch or two worth of the pothole shock in the frame, but you need a "Princess and the pea" derriere to notice that magnitude of ride smoothing.

Nonsense. Rear triangle movement has been measured many times for many purposes by many, many, many testers. There are significant and measurable differences between stiff frames - as those intended for touring - and lighter, more performance-oriented frames.

Obviously your seat tube is not flexing, so technically "no shock gets absorbed right under your saddle." The bits that are holding the wheels, however, are.

Nonsense. Rear triangle movement has been measured many times for many purposes by many, many, many testers. There are significant and measurable differences between stiff frames - as those intended for touring - and lighter, more performance-oriented frames.

Obviously your seat tube is not flexing, so technically "no shock gets absorbed right under your saddle." The bits that are holding the wheels, however, are.

Citation, please?

This build caught my eye too - I like the versitility & the tire size... 700 X 32. Seems like a very comfy ride with the wider tires. On the downside - I have Ultegra on my road bike and 105 on my traill bike & am not impressed by the Tiagra group. Just curious if anyone has seen a review of it or riden one.