Notices
Cyclocross and Gravelbiking (Recreational) This has to be the most physically intense sport ever invented. It's high speed bicycle racing on a short off road course or riding the off pavement rides on gravel like : "Unbound Gravel". We also have a dedicated Racing forum for the Cyclocross Hard Core Racers.

Diverge 2018

Old 09-28-17, 02:39 AM
  #451  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 144

Bikes: Evil Following MB, D'back Haanjo, Kona Unit SS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by scotjonscot
With a ht angle of 72.5° combined with a rake of 50 mm, it's significantly more slack than my road bike (AllezSprint) with a 73°/44mm combo
Perhaps you're thinking of front-center #s when you say "slack."

Less offset slows steering, not the other way around. They have about the same trail #s.
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 09-28-17, 06:55 AM
  #452  
Senior Member
 
scotjonscot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle north (Mpls)
Posts: 216

Bikes: some

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ryder1
Perhaps you're thinking of front-center #s when you say "slack."

Less offset slows steering, not the other way around. They have about the same trail #s.
You are, of course, correct about more offset equaling less trail. I was thinking trail not offset/rake-
I don't know why they even publish those numbers when trail is the one we need to see.
But if we take wheel diameter into account, the Allez's trail is 57 while the Diverge is 60(with a 38-42mm tire)(if the diverge had the same tire as the Allez it'd have A trail figure of 54)
Also, from what I understand, a lower ht angle slows steering input so your actions don't affect the handling as much or as quickly.
I've ridden them back to back, and there is definitely a difference in the way they feel. But not a huge difference by any means. The Diverge is no cruiser.
scotjonscot is offline  
Old 09-28-17, 08:30 AM
  #453  
Senior Member
 
scotjonscot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle north (Mpls)
Posts: 216

Bikes: some

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by scotjonscot
You are, of course, correct about more offset equaling less trail. I was thinking trail not offset/rake-
I don't know why they even publish those numbers when trail is the one we need to see.
But if we take wheel diameter into account, the Allez's trail is 57 while the Diverge is 60(with a 38-42mm tire)(if the diverge had the same tire as the Allez it'd have A trail figure of 54)
Also, from what I understand, a lower ht angle slows steering input so your actions don't affect the handling as much or as quickly.
I've ridden them back to back, and there is definitely a difference in the way they feel. But not a huge difference by any means. The Diverge is no cruiser.
Well looking back at the Specialized site they DO include trail figures!
They say 55 for the Allez Sprint (56cm) and 58 for the Diverge in the same size.
scotjonscot is offline  
Old 09-28-17, 08:45 AM
  #454  
Senior Member
 
scotjonscot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle north (Mpls)
Posts: 216

Bikes: some

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by curttard
It's hard to climb a hill if you can't pedal, and you can't pedal if your pedals can't complete a revolution because they hit the ground.
??? Pedal distance to ground(measured perpendicular to ground) is the same on a hill as it is on a flat surface. Do you mean you were going ACROSS a hill? So the uphill side hit?
Also, the bottom bracket to ground measurement is the same on the 2018 Diverge as it is on the 2018 Roubaix.(actually 1mm higher on the Diverge) that's with the 38mm tires. Bigger or smaller tires will obviously raise or lower that number
scotjonscot is offline  
Old 09-28-17, 09:07 AM
  #455  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by scotjonscot
You are, of course, correct about more offset equaling less trail. I was thinking trail not offset/rake-
I don't know why they even publish those numbers when trail is the one we need to see.
But if we take wheel diameter into account, the Allez's trail is 57 while the Diverge is 60(with a 38-42mm tire)(if the diverge had the same tire as the Allez it'd have A trail figure of 54)
Also, from what I understand, a lower ht angle slows steering input so your actions don't affect the handling as much or as quickly.
I've ridden them back to back, and there is definitely a difference in the way they feel. But not a huge difference by any means. The Diverge is no cruiser.
The lower HT angle increases trail, which increase stability and slows steering. You were right to focus on trail. There is no "also."
ATPAH is offline  
Old 09-28-17, 09:21 AM
  #456  
Senior Member
 
scotjonscot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle north (Mpls)
Posts: 216

Bikes: some

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATPAH
The lower HT angle increases trail, which increase stability and slows steering. You were right to focus on trail. There is no "also."
I had read somewhere that given two bikes with equal trail but different ht angles, on the one with the smaller ange(say a 72 vs 74) more rider input is required to steer. I have no idea if this is true, but I suppose it's similar to how stem length can affect rider input. Long stem requires more input so feels more stable. Take your hands off of the bars though and there is no difference.
scotjonscot is offline  
Old 09-28-17, 10:42 AM
  #457  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by scotjonscot
I had read somewhere that given two bikes with equal trail but different ht angles, on the one with the smaller ange(say a 72 vs 74) more rider input is required to steer. I have no idea if this is true, but I suppose it's similar to how stem length can affect rider input. Long stem requires more input so feels more stable. Take your hands off of the bars though and there is no difference.
I suppose that could be true to some extent. I don't see how the HTA itself affects the responsiveness, but the corresponding change in offset could cause a somewhat slower response. With a longer stem, you have to physically move your hands a longer distance, so that definitely slows steering. With HTA decreasing (and tires remaining the same size), there is a small increase in the fork offset to get the same trail, but it's on the order of 6-7mm offset per degree, and there really isn't a huge range of fork rakes out there. While the larger offset removes the mass of the tire a little farther from the steering column, that's a pretty small amount of additional angular momentum to overcome when turning the wheel. I don't know that it would be noticeable. Maybe. I'll continue to focus on trail. As you were.
ATPAH is offline  
Old 09-28-17, 11:30 AM
  #458  
Senior Member
 
scotjonscot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle north (Mpls)
Posts: 216

Bikes: some

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by atpah
i suppose that could be true to some extent. I don't see how the hta itself affects the responsiveness, but the corresponding change in offset could cause a somewhat slower response. With a longer stem, you have to physically move your hands a longer distance, so that definitely slows steering. With hta decreasing (and tires remaining the same size), there is a small increase in the fork offset to get the same trail, but it's on the order of 6-7mm offset per degree, and there really isn't a huge range of fork rakes out there. While the larger offset removes the mass of the tire a little farther from the steering column, that's a pretty small amount of additional angular momentum to overcome when turning the wheel. I don't know that it would be noticeable. Maybe. I'll continue to focus on trail. As you were.
👍🏻
scotjonscot is offline  
Old 09-28-17, 02:54 PM
  #459  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 144

Bikes: Evil Following MB, D'back Haanjo, Kona Unit SS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by scotjonscot
Well looking back at the Specialized site they DO include trail figures!
They say 55 for the Allez Sprint (56cm) and 58 for the Diverge in the same size.

Spesh lists the same trail for Diverge alum and carbon (different tires), so who knows. I don't get 58 for either (56 and 59).


Controlling for tire size, Sprint and Diverge have the same trail. Btw, current Sprint 56 has a 73.5 HTA. 73/44 would actually have more trail than the Diverge.


I personally think Trail is a **** of a number (worse than ETT). I look at HTA, offset, stays, and the rest.






**** = promiscuous woman

Last edited by Ryder1; 09-28-17 at 02:55 PM. Reason: clarification
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 09-28-17, 06:01 PM
  #460  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
First post! Was looking up the Diverge as my first "proper" bike that I could do everything with (commute, exercise, weekend rides, road, gravel, utility, hauling kid trailer using aftermarket thru axles, panniers for light groceries, etc) which led me to this wonderful page..

Now, I was reading online and was all set for the diverge comp e5 (mainly because it's the cheapest one equipped with future shock), but when I went to my LBS, I saw the Sport Carbon which is $285 more expensive than the comp E5. Save for the gears (comp E5 is mainly 105, while sport carbon is Tiagra), other components are the same or not very different.

So.. do you guys think Sport Carbon is better value than Diverge Comp E5? I am yet to do a test ride and being a certified noob, I'm not sure if I would be able to properly differentiate the 2.

Any opinion (bad or good) will be welcome. My goals are mostly health related but I am very very interested in pursuing this for the long run (for life! )so the one which makes most sense in upgrading down the line would be best for me I guess, since I dont really have the funds and space to own multiple bikes. I'm very very new and unskilled so the upgrades are prolly a couple of years away, when I am experienced enough to understand my needs and decide which better components would fit.

Thanks yall in advance.

Last edited by itchan; 09-28-17 at 06:17 PM. Reason: Added additional information about my cycling goals
itchan is offline  
Old 09-28-17, 07:59 PM
  #461  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 144

Bikes: Evil Following MB, D'back Haanjo, Kona Unit SS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by itchan

So.. do you guys think Sport Carbon is better value than Diverge Comp E5? I am yet to do a test ride and being a certified noob, I'm not sure if I would be able to properly differentiate the 2.

Welcome.


The E5 is significantly cheaper, yet has better wheels and drivetrain, 22 gears (vs 20), and (likely) a more durable frame. And choice of color! If you're asking about value, the brain says E5. I don't always listen to my brain, but he has a seat at the table.


If you test ride them back to back, you'll swear the carbon rides smoother. That will be partially because of the fatter tires.
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 09-29-17, 03:56 AM
  #462  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ryder1
Welcome.


The E5 is significantly cheaper, yet has better wheels and drivetrain, 22 gears (vs 20), and (likely) a more durable frame. And choice of color! If you're asking about value, the brain says E5. I don't always listen to my brain, but he has a seat at the table.


If you test ride them back to back, you'll swear the carbon rides smoother. That will be partially because of the fatter tires.
Thanks Ryder! I see that you're from Phoenix (as I am). I was doing business with Landis Cyclery in scottsdale and their pricing are:

COMP E5 - 1700-ish
SPORT CARBON - 1975
COMP CARBON - 2999

As I spend more time thinking about it, I am drawn more towards the cheapest carbon then upgrade later on. This is my first proper bike and I am starting from zero experience so I was thinking $1,000 between 105 and Tiagra is too steep a difference if I won't be able to max it in the foreseeable future yet. If ever I am committed enough to outgrow it then I will upgrade to something better than 105s. Another consideration is I'm planning to get the wife a decent Sirrus too and the diff would cover that and change..

Is my thinking making any sense?

The only thing Im hesitating about the sport is the color. I haven't seen one in person but it looks kinda dull online. LBS has the comp on display - I like the dirty white and red combo a lot. Have anyone seen the sport gray in person? is it decent? Close to comp dirty white in color?
itchan is offline  
Old 09-29-17, 02:03 PM
  #463  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 144

Bikes: Evil Following MB, D'back Haanjo, Kona Unit SS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
That's a lot of questions only you can answer. And to some degree, you can't either without knowing the future. You might end up riding less than you think, or develop a passion. Just gotta bite the bullet.

Personally, I have a relativistic philosophy, believing things like carbon frames (or good steel) and hydro brakes are best appreciated after owning aluminum and lesser brakes. To the initiated, small improvements are large. Teens can't appreciate a Porsche like a middle-aged GTI owner. Since you're riding future is unknown, I think it wise to get the lower spec (getting old has made me risk adverse). If you don't take to cycling, you've saved some money. If you do develop a passion, there's a good chance, by that time, you'll realize, "I actually want an all-out road bike" or some other. Or you'll have discovered something about the fit or geometry that you want remedied. Or you just crave something different. You don't know. So I'd say hedge your bets. That's easy advice to give, but hard to follow. I will say upgrading beyond 105 is of questionable value.

For choices, Specialized can't be beat. Alum or carbon, lots of kit choices. Carbon vs. better parts is an unanswerable Zen koan (like Zeppelin vs. Floyd). Up to you. I think most the colorways look fantastic, but yeah, that gray is kinda dull IMO. I prefer subtle, but gray bores me if not matched with a bright color. I liked the Satin Blue, myself.
Ryder1 is offline  
Old 10-01-17, 11:35 PM
  #464  
Senior Member
 
RideMyLeMond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: SoCal
Posts: 91

Bikes: 1972 Raleigh Professional, 1980 Raleigh Gran Sport (frame only), 1989 Diamondback Apex, 1997 LeMond Zurich, 2018 Specialized Diverge running R8020 Ultegra.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
I'm looking for a more capable utility bike and the Diverge Carbon Comp on paper seems to offer most of what I want. My LeMond Zurich is still running 8-spd RD, FD but with a 10-spd 105 50/34 and 13-29 cassette via a Deore LX RD. I'm done trying with upgrades to this old favorite road ride and now as I've reached 60 I want a bike that offers a broader swath of abilities and rider comfort. I went into my my LBS yesterday to look at the Diverge Carbon Comp a little closer and the only one on the rack was a 54cm but after talking with owner/salesman I came to discover that they had a Sales Reps 56cm bike in the shop on loan for a while. I promptly took it out for a few block spin that day, but made plans to come back today for a longer test ride with proper helmet, clothes and shoes/pedals and fitment adjustments. I was able to ride the bike about 25 miles along a route that I ride on my '97 Zurich lots the times. I had never really looked hard at a carbon frame as I'm an old school 'Steel is Real' believer. I also was unsure about the FS and how well it would work. The Diverge had 32cm tires (some prior Specialized version) so this helped with my initial test: How well would this bike do on the pavement. For me it proved to be quite fun to push hard and responded rather well to standing to crank up some steep sections (no FS play was really noticed) or to drop into that low end and just spin. The bike path I road has many sections with tree roots breaking up the pavement and on my Steel Zurich would be always quite a teeth rattling section, the FS on the Diverge really did soak up those bumps and anything else that I could find the test it's merit. I was able to ride a connecting gravel stretch of road that has been close to car traffic for +20 years and this again was quite smooth with the Diverge. The hydraulic brakes are a joy and the 105 shifters where very crisp and direct and I had no issue with double shifting to dial in on a particular gear choice and it was very quite even when cross-chained in both combinations. It's clear to me that this is a real fine ride and although I had my sights on a considerably higher priced Niner RLT Steel 4*. I may have found a solution that is easily 1,500 dollars less than I was what I was trying to figure out how to afford... I was tempted upon return to the LBS to ask them to leave my pedals in place along with the fitment adjustments and take $2,700 for the slightly demo'ed Diverge. But no deal, as they already had plans to offer this ride to some lucky shop employee at a reduce rate when it's time was finished as a demo bike. Now to look around at a few other offerings and see what timeline and price-point I can swing on this Carbon Comp.

Last edited by RideMyLeMond; 11-22-17 at 07:51 PM.
RideMyLeMond is offline  
Old 10-02-17, 09:56 PM
  #465  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 144
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by itchan
First post! Was looking up the Diverge as my first "proper" bike that I could do everything with (commute, exercise, weekend rides, road, gravel, utility, hauling kid trailer using aftermarket thru axles, panniers for light groceries, etc) which led me to this wonderful page..

Now, I was reading online and was all set for the diverge comp e5 (mainly because it's the cheapest one equipped with future shock), but when I went to my LBS, I saw the Sport Carbon which is $285 more expensive than the comp E5. Save for the gears (comp E5 is mainly 105, while sport carbon is Tiagra), other components are the same or not very different.

So.. do you guys think Sport Carbon is better value than Diverge Comp E5? I am yet to do a test ride and being a certified noob, I'm not sure if I would be able to properly differentiate the 2.

Any opinion (bad or good) will be welcome. My goals are mostly health related but I am very very interested in pursuing this for the long run (for life! )so the one which makes most sense in upgrading down the line would be best for me I guess, since I dont really have the funds and space to own multiple bikes. I'm very very new and unskilled so the upgrades are prolly a couple of years away, when I am experienced enough to understand my needs and decide which better components would fit.

Thanks yall in advance.
Tiagra groupset is still very, very good compared to the 105. It's better to have an entire carbon frame in my opinion.
rgr555 is offline  
Old 10-02-17, 10:36 PM
  #466  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by itchan
First post! Was looking up the Diverge as my first "proper" bike that I could do everything with (commute, exercise, weekend rides, road, gravel, utility, hauling kid trailer using aftermarket thru axles, panniers for light groceries, etc) which led me to this wonderful page..

Now, I was reading online and was all set for the diverge comp e5 (mainly because it's the cheapest one equipped with future shock), but when I went to my LBS, I saw the Sport Carbon which is $285 more expensive than the comp E5. Save for the gears (comp E5 is mainly 105, while sport carbon is Tiagra), other components are the same or not very different.

So.. do you guys think Sport Carbon is better value than Diverge Comp E5? I am yet to do a test ride and being a certified noob, I'm not sure if I would be able to properly differentiate the 2.

Any opinion (bad or good) will be welcome. My goals are mostly health related but I am very very interested in pursuing this for the long run (for life! )so the one which makes most sense in upgrading down the line would be best for me I guess, since I dont really have the funds and space to own multiple bikes. I'm very very new and unskilled so the upgrades are prolly a couple of years away, when I am experienced enough to understand my needs and decide which better components would fit.

Thanks yall in advance.
I was in a similar place as you a little over a year ago. I wanted to get more serious about biking and wanted to make a smart purchase for my first road bike. I ended up buying an aluminum framed bike with Tiagra because it was a good bike at a good value. After a few months of riding, I really got the bug and started wishing I had bought a bit better bike as I was planning to be in this for the long haul. I tested a carbon framed bike with with Tiagra and an aluminum bike with 105, which also included a better wheelset. In the end, I bought the aluminum bike with the better components as the difference in ride quality of carbon vs aluminum was negligible compared to the difference in the other components. I just completed a 3-day, 480km ride on my bike and never once thought I was missing out on something by not having a carbon bike. YMMV.
D-Fuzz is offline  
Old 10-02-17, 10:39 PM
  #467  
just keep riding
 
BluesDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Milledgeville, Georgia
Posts: 13,560

Bikes: 2018 Black Mountain Cycles MCD,2017 Advocate Cycles Seldom Seen Drop Bar, 2017 Niner Jet 9 Alloy, 2015 Zukas custom road, 2003 KHS Milano Tandem, 1986 Nishiki Cadence rigid MTB, 1980ish Fuji S-12S

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked 33 Times in 22 Posts
I saw the Sport Carbon Diverge today for the first time in a bike shop I was visiting. It is a really nice looking bike. Much better than the photos I've seen. It almost gave me a twinge of buyer's remorse for having decided on the All-City Cosmic Stallion instead, but I'm too in love with my bike for that to happen.
BluesDawg is offline  
Old 10-08-17, 10:36 AM
  #468  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minas Ithil
Posts: 9,173
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2432 Post(s)
Liked 641 Times in 398 Posts
I just sold my Diverge A1 for what I bought it for, $600. I was leaning towards a '18 E5 Sport but I believe I will order a Raleigh Willard 1 for only $729. The stack height is almost the exact same at the A1, the E5 is taller which I don't like. The Willard also has Sora and thru axles and Spyres and fits at least a 40c so I think that's the bike for me. It also has an anti shock post/stem so that's pretty cool.
Lazyass is offline  
Old 10-08-17, 02:25 PM
  #469  
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Has anyone here with a 61cm aluminum framed diverge weighed their bike? A salesman at the hundredth specialized shop I've been to said I wouldn't want a steel framed bike if I was going to do any climbing. I can't imagine there's that much difference between the steel and aluminum frames.

Trying to decide between a Renegade Expat, Raleigh Tamland 1 or a Diverge E5 (sport or elite). I haven't even been able to see a 61cm diverge anywhere. I've ridden the Jamis, and tentatively bought the Tamland to try for 30 days. My 60cm Tamland weighs 25lbs 15oz.
woodardhsd is offline  
Old 10-13-17, 10:46 PM
  #470  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by woodardhsd
Has anyone here with a 61cm aluminum framed diverge weighed their bike? A salesman at the hundredth specialized shop I've been to said I wouldn't want a steel framed bike if I was going to do any climbing. I can't imagine there's that much difference between the steel and aluminum frames.

Trying to decide between a Renegade Expat, Raleigh Tamland 1 or a Diverge E5 (sport or elite). I haven't even been able to see a 61cm diverge anywhere. I've ridden the Jamis, and tentatively bought the Tamland to try for 30 days. My 60cm Tamland weighs 25lbs 15oz.
I have a 2018 61cm diverge comp e5 (aluminum frame with 105 and futureshock) with A530 pedals and some plastic attachments and a bottle cage weighs 23.5 lbs. Seems reasonable given that the 54cm is supposed to be 21.6lbs empty. Sport or elite might be a few ounces heavier. Not lightweight, and not a big difference versus your Tamland.

Last edited by Jiayou; 10-13-17 at 10:59 PM.
Jiayou is offline  
Old 10-16-17, 06:57 AM
  #471  
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jiayou
I have a 2018 61cm diverge comp e5 (aluminum frame with 105 and futureshock) with A530 pedals and some plastic attachments and a bottle cage weighs 23.5 lbs. Seems reasonable given that the 54cm is supposed to be 21.6lbs empty. Sport or elite might be a few ounces heavier. Not lightweight, and not a big difference versus your Tamland.
Thanks for sharing that. I was finally able to see a Diverge in person on Saturday, it was a 58cm E5 sport. Rode it around for a few minutes, but wasn't a big fan of it. I'm sure the fact that it was a little small for me didn't help. Before I left, I asked the guy at the shop how much it weighed. According to his Park hanging scale, it was 23lbs 10oz with nothing added to it other than nylon pedals.
woodardhsd is offline  
Old 10-18-17, 06:46 AM
  #472  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 144
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
in general what's considered low weight for a bike? eg <20 lbs? 15?
rgr555 is offline  
Old 10-18-17, 08:04 AM
  #473  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,138

Bikes: 2 many

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1266 Post(s)
Liked 323 Times in 169 Posts
Originally Posted by wheelsmcgee
Good idea, I might try that. I tried wrapping the bottle in a grocery bag, but the bottle is so close to the chain rings that it didn't seem like a good idea.
Store water in the under tube bottle. When It's time to drink that bottle, just unscrew the dirty top and pour the contents into one of the other bottles, to drink from.

Or use one of the top covered Nalgene bottles. There are plenty of options for bottles that cover the drinking spout. Google it.
Here are some of them. I have two different kinds, they work.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...AD&FORM=IQFRBA

Or try one of these. There area few different kinds from different places.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...AD&FORM=IQFRBA

Last edited by 2manybikes; 10-18-17 at 08:23 AM.
2manybikes is offline  
Old 10-19-17, 06:20 AM
  #474  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Or wipe the mouthpiece off and drink from it. Dirt is full of electrolytes.
ATPAH is offline  
Old 10-22-17, 07:03 PM
  #475  
Senior Member
 
scotjonscot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle north (Mpls)
Posts: 216

Bikes: some

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rgr555
in general what's considered low weight for a bike? eg <20 lbs? 15?
Depends on what type of bike you’re talking about. 15 for a road bike would be considered low(although one could go lower) 16-17 good for a CX Bike, 17-18 good for a gravel Bike. I have no clue what’s considered low for a mtb.
scotjonscot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.