Rider51

Are you considering racing this for Cross?

I'd be curious if anyone here has raced cross on a Diverge, and how it felt. I mean, a pro isn't going to do that, but there are a LOT of people who race cross for fun, on all sorts of bikes. I'd love to see an evaluation from someone who raced a Diverge in one, and how it went.

Agree on the Comp. If you start looking across the board at other bikes, there's a really nice price point, and base for upgrading, with the Comp. Plus a nice weight savings.

ATPAH

No. I'm not racing mud. I'll probably occasionally get in some pace lines with guys who are much faster than me, however. Mostly I'll be using it to get in miles of mixed surface riding.

Rennvelo

@vinuneuro vinuneuro:
Masque, a member of this forum, proposed another solution to get smaller heavy gears. Using a cassette starting with bigger rings. I found cassettes in the range 14-28 to 14/32. 14/32 is from Miche I think, never heard of this company, no idea about the quality. Shimano offers a 14-28 version, would be an option with 32 inner chainring. I think I will give the larger cassette a try

sgtrobo

hte new Diverge has a bottom bracket that is FAR FAR too low for cross. Pedal strikes galore, and the low BB makes it tougher to ride over obstacles, compared to a real cross bike

curttard

This seems like a super weird choice to me for a bike marketed as all-road, adventure, gravel, etc. I went offroad yesterday on my E5 Comp and on every hill I had pedal strikes even without rocks etc -- just from the slope. Switchbacks would be impossible due to pedal strikes and toe overlap. Steep hills would be impossible because you wouldn't be able to pedal because of all the pedal strikes.

vinuneuro

Maybe I misunderstood your objective, but what would a 14-28 accomplish other than removing the ratio gaps? If you are already going to a 48/32 or 46/30, it seems a bit extreme.

PS: 14-28 is a kids cassette as per Shimano

knucks

FYI - I got my S-works post and put my Toupe on. 21.6lbs w pedals on the Comp E5

I have the EA90SL cranks en route, going to go 1x11 on this bad boy.

speshelite

So your pedals randomly fall off, strike the ground and magically reattach as you pedal uphill. That's simply a cool trick no one else can perform.

Everyone knows the diverge crumbles into dust on any road or trail which isn't perfectly level, btw. There's even a warning in the owner's manual and on the downtube.

GailT

Seems like you do not understand the concept of a pedal strike. That's not how it works.

I had a pedal strike on my road bike (Cannondale ST600) while pedalling too fast through a corner on a paved road and almost crashed. I'm much more cautious now about pedalling through turns. I'm interested in the Diverge or Roubaix, but I'd like to know if pedal strikes might be a problem for the Diverge both on dirt roads and while cornering on paved roads.

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.

Rennvelo

Did not know that 14-28 is a kids cassette😊. This cassette has ultegra level, a bit surprising this is for kids.

46/30 and 14-28 would definitively be too much, 50/34 and 14-28 would be an option, I prefer 46/30 but this is much more expensive. My primary intention is to make the heavy gears smaller, not too narrow the gaps. 14-28 is no option any more, I do not want a kids cassette.

I have now two possibilities: 48/36 and 12-32 or 46/30 11-32. Compagnolo offers 12-32 cassettes, i think Compagnolo works with Shimano derailleur. 46/30 crankset is rather expensive and you told me that the Praxis 48/32 crankset is probably better than the FSA 46/30. This made me hesitate... 46/30 is more what I want in terms of gearing. I can achive more or less the same ratios with 48/32 and 12-32.

What would you choose?
FSA 46/30 and Shimano 11-32 cassette or Praxis 48/32 and Compagnolo 12-32 cassette, having a shimano derailleur?

Thanks for your help! I have little practical knowledge. I mainly collect informationen from the internet.

HTupolev

"For kids" doesn't give the right connotation. It's aimed at junior racing, where there are rules that limit maximum gearing. Some of the people using this stuff are in their mid-late teens, and they switch to an 11T or 12T small cog the instance their racing age gets to 19.

Rennvelo

This makes sense. Bet these juniors ride faster than me.

speshelite

Maybe don't pedal through corners. Problem solved. These are not time trial bikes.

ATPAH

I'm not expecting to ride switchbacks like on a MTB, so the toe overlap while remarkable isn't a deal breaker, despite my preference for cleats pushed back as far as they will go.

The low BB does have me holding off on buying a Diverge, however. I didn't get any pedal strikes, despite climbing some steep off-camber slopes, but the pedal clearance is only a little over three inches, so the potential is certainly there. It's not that different from my old road bike with 175 cranks, and I found the limits on that the hard way and didn't repeat my error. On fire roads and trail, however, there are way more surprises lurking, so getting smacked more than once is likely.

Can you clarify on what sort of terrain you were in where you had issues? Is it enough for you to take another bike out the next time you go off-road, or are you planning to keep riding the Diverge?

curttard

It was easy singletrack. But I get the pedal strikes also on shallow, sweeping curves on paved bike paths as well. Toe overlap is an issue on any slow maneuvering.

I have a Stumpjumper, but I was hoping to have one bike to do just about everything. I'll still try the Diverge on all the usual trails in the county and see how it goes. I just don't see how a little increased stability (which I don't notice) is worth the pedal strikes for the kind of riding they say the Diverge is for.

GailT

I was not doing a time trial when I had a pedal strike, but thanks for your thoughtful input. Like I said, I'm much more careful about pedalling through turns now on my old road bike, but I'm interested in hearing about people who have actual experience riding the Diverge on whether pedal strikes have been a problem either on the road or on trails, or on steep slopes. Real pedal strikes, not the magical ones you described.

ATPAH

Funny. I have a Stumpy as my other bike, too. I suffer no illusions about the Diverge being able to ride the trails I use the Stumpy on. In fact, I don't doubt that after this purchase N+1=a lightweight hardtail 29er.

knucks

I may be selling my Praxis Alba
48/32T + BB . Going to go 1x on my Diverge quite sure. PM me if you want it..

ATPAH

Meh, I think it's more hyperbole than whining. For what's it's worth, I've had enough issues with the low BB on my Stumpjumper that I decided to move away from the Diverge and forego the Futureshock, which given its performance on my demo ride and the rumblings from even some old-school bike manufacturers, I do think is aptly named. Still, I feel that I can ride rougher terrain with fewer problems using a rigid fork than I can with that low a BB.

In the end, I bought a factory second (paint job) Jamis Renegade Expert that was at a price I couldn't refuse. It's got a similar cockpit geometry and better kit than the Diverges in the $2K price range and feels as capable as the Diverge offroad.

Rider51

The more I look at these specs on the new Diverge, the more I wonder if Specialized didn't go too far, or the wrong direction this year. Let me explain.

They lowered the BB, which was noted above, and elsewhere. Nice for the road, or rough or hard packed dirt roads, but anything bumpy, a potential real issue.

They increased the stack, and lowered the reach, while also adding a riser handlebar. This, combined with the lower BB above, shows me they are aiming this bike harder at the every day casual rider, who may ride some on dirt or gravel. The rider will be sitting upright more, and less aero. This is potentially more comfortable, but the geometry is already relaxed on a Diverge. Also, is someone who forks over $3k plus for a carbon version of this bike, not going to be used to riding in even more of a tuck already on any other related road bike?

In the carbon frame they stopped using the FACT 10r, in favor of the FACT 9r, which is inferior.

They dumped the Zertz in favor of the Future Shock. This, the jury is out on. Reportedly the Zertz didn't do much, though some riders liked it, and FS does perform well, quite well at times. But one review said it was diminished when tire sizes were changed.

They dumped the DSW, in favor of E5 aluminum. But I can't find a single thing saying why, or why E5 is superior to DSW. However, the fact that even the lowest model is an E5, instead of what appeared to be sluggish, heavy Alloy in the older A1s is a plus I would think.

I agree though that by and large, the paint jobs are nicer in the 2018 models.

speshelite

I think you've raised some fair questions rider51.

I don't think spec. ever intended for this to be a 'cross bike. Not even close. It doesn't have cross geometry. It's not marketed as a 'cross bike. The only logical conclusion is that it is NOT a cross bike.

Instead it is what it is. Namely, an endurance road bike with some very enticing and extremely effective comfort features. These features carry a weight 'penalty' but the presence of the features alone signal to a buyer readily enough that these are not designed for weight weenies.

FS and the fatter tires turn this bike into a cruiser with as much comfort as you would ever want or need for a road bike with occasional or maybe even more than occasional dirt road use.

This bike could never realistically be used in the same way that an mtb could, so why would anyone ever think that?

The objections I've had with previous posts is that they are so completely random, and out of line with anything that could be reasonably expected, they are simply best ignored.

For anyone plunking down $2K or more it would behoove them to take 20 or 30 seconds to take a look at the geometry chart and see if the numbers align with a bike that would serve their purposes given the type of riding they intend to do.

Some riders are acting as if they received the bike without any spec or geometry info. It's not as if this info is top secret classified: it's right on the specialized website!

Let potential buyers do just the most minimal homework ahead of time. It's like buying a triple cheeseburger, xlarge choco milkshake and double order of cheese fries then complaining later that the meal had too many calories.

Or rather as if they'd ordered a triple cheeseburger with a double order chili cheese fries with a diet coke then complaining the meal has too many calories because they ordered a diet coke.

curttard

Literally the only video Specialized released to promo the 2018 Diverge was of it being ridden on singletrack exactly like an MTB. If they never intended for anyone to ride it on singletrack, why is that how they advertised it?

speshelite

That's a dirt road, not singletrack.

Ryder1

Agree with this. The '18 Diverge was on my shortlist. I figured with the future shock and fatter tires, it would be ready to party. But then I looked at the geometry. The BB drop is creepy (I won't run less than 175mm cranks), the angles are still way steep (58 is 72.5/73.5 with 50mm fork offset - no thanks), and short stays (I've got VERY long legs). Weird. Bike design by committee?