c0urt

been meaning to note, the plain langster will be 660, and the city ones will be 720
i just ep'd a 07 brushed langster comp

jonnywill

tricross single makes me feel nice.

and i, too, think its funny there is no langster san francisco.

maybe specialized is paying back the towns that bought the most langsters, and SF has the least of those.

and where is the langster portland, langster LA, langster OKC, langster atlanta, langster pittsburgh?

langster philly?

disconnec

fixed

abeyance

some one stole the New york's pedals

shogun17

I thought it was a game. You had to steal the pedals you wanted.

ms.gio

Is it me or does the Boston and London look the same except for the color. I personally like the London and Chicago.

smarty_web

Help, help...help
does anyone knows were I can find the new 2008 specialized catalog.
The link which I find in the forum take to a removed page.
Thanks


If you have a copy you can also mail it to my mail: fanfani@enertech.it

seaneee

Yeah, whats up with that?

First off, I think they are ugly. But what the..., no SF. That makes them uglier.

Kinda weird their is a chicago, but no SF (sorry chicago).

Suttree

I don't dig the sloped toptube. Isnt' that an aluminum frame?
I'd take the Steamroller over those--not that they aren't decent
bikes they just seemed designed to capture a market share more than
to deliver a really solid entry level bike.

12XU

Let me be the first to say that the quality of those pictures is quite dreadful.

the pope

The green one at the end: They rip off Bianchi's Pista / San Jose design blatantly. Boo.

neetones

is anyone else having trouble getting the link to the catalog working? Could someone please send me the .pdf?

nitin00 AT gmail.com

Thanks!

Suttree

+1

doomkin

thats as nice as they're gonna get. i screen shotted them out of a mockup .pdf. you really thing specialized would be dumb enough to release a full rez catalog of their 08 models 1/2 way through 07?

as for their looks, i personally like the sloping top tube, makes 'em really aggressive looking i think. they're fine bikes though, a great ride. we've got a couple at the shop and they grab a lot more attention than our pistas or fuji tracks.

Suttree

I'm not saying they are a bad bike but the sloping top tube merely makes the bike fit a wider
range of people--pure marketing. Not a bad thing but not something that makes the bike perform
better for the individual user. Having a lower stand-over height for a given frame size simply means
the frame fits a wider range of people than a frame with a more traditional geometry.

highoncontrast

Wrong. Marketing aside, the smaller triangles of compact geometry gives you a stiffer frame, a lower center of gravity, with more power transfer.. It's simple math.

Az B

Wrong, it's pure marketing. Many engineers have proved things beyond a doubt on paper only to have been proven wrong in reality. The compact frame has been proven to offer no advantages in engineering, but it's ability to make production less expensive is a fact.

Az

Hopetoditchcar

what is the weight on one of these?

JeffS

You must have better bike shops than I do. Around here, I'm doing good to find one of each model. Finding a 60+ bike sitting on the floor is next to impossible.

Suttree

Sorry--can't buy it. The weird sloped top tube geometry seems to coincide with the large bike producers on
the market--Specialized and Giant. Small shops that make hand-built one-off frames always seem to avoid this geometry. Look at most
NJS bikes, Mercian, Rivendell. If it was all that it seems that people buying expensive frames would adopt it but they don't. Instead it coincides with the manufacturers that have the biggest market share--because they sell bikes to lots of people and need bikes that fit lots of people rather than bikes that fit any one person well or perform really well for one person. The rest of the "compact geometry" makes sense but the top tube angle is sh*te. Check your math and your taste in bikes.

https://www.merciancycles.com/frame_vigorelli.asp

doomkin

you guys do realize that shops do stock a variety of sizes right? it's not like they just keep a few 53s and expect everyone to buy them. sloped top tube or not, the bike is sized to the person who buys it.

as for the pdf, i took it down, i ain't gonna host that **** forever, folks.

JeffS

That explains the road market, but what about all the mountain hardtails using the same type of design. This is where it's certainly not limited to the mass-marketers. The difference is that most of the MTB people didn't have a problem with the compact look, while many roadies protested.

It doesn't "fit more people". Just because someone can stand over it doesn't mean it fits them. My theory, mainly related to mtb makers, is that it makes the frame lighter, giving them something to advertise.

[edit] I can't believe you seriously mentioned Rivendell in this thread. You REALLY think a retro-grouch "designer" like that would consider changing their style? Same goes for the NJS makers, who have very little artistic license due to the rulebook.

Suttree

Your'e quibbling over words while missing the point--when I say "fit" I mean fit in the sense that the
frame can be sold to a wider range of people without actually fitting them properly. More traditional geometry requires a frame that actually fits better but a given frame size will be able to be ridden by fewer people.

The MTBs of which you speak are mostly made in huge shops in Taiwan and sold to lots of people--same marketing logic.

And as far as Rivendell or NJS goes I'd take a Quickbeam or a 3Rensho over the aluminum Langster any day. If you want a Langster go for it--I'll take steel bikes from the old school folks any day.

JeffS

You've clearly made up your mind... and aren't listening.

Even if I conceded your "fitting more people" argument (which I don't), you are claiming that they're doing this to save money. You have failed to point out the cost savings. If you're making 8 sizes standard geometry, and 8 sizes when you switch to compact geometry... yes, you might shave a few cents off in steel or aluminum costs, but that's it.

Your issue is clearly just with offshore manufacturing in general. You see compact geometry as a sign of taiwanese/chinese assembly. Just be honest about it instead of playing this marketing gimmick card.

Oh, and while you're at it, you might want to consider where that quickbeam you're such a fan of was built before you get too twisted over overseas assembly.

Suttree

Where are these illusory assertions about off-shore marketing that you think I'm making? Where did you learn argumentation?

1) I never said it saved money--I don't see how this is supported by any of my statements. I said it makes the bikes marketable to more people for a given frame size--which allows these companies to move more volume and make more money.

2) I think the welding industry in Taiwan is the best in the world. Oh--and I'm fully aware that the Quickbeam is made overseas--by Panasonic in Japan. If I had an issue with overseas production I wouldn't have a Soma Rush--made in Taiwan, nor would I think that the Quickbeam or the NJS frames were dope--again--made overseas.

3) Compact geometry does not require a sloping top tube--it can be achieved with a steep head tube angle, a short top tube (and thus short wheelbase), and a smaller fork rake. I don't equate a track or compact geometry with overseas production--nor is this reasonably derived from any of my statements.

4) Just look at the seat post length on the Langster pics and compare to a properly fitting horizontal (or near horizontal) top tube bike--the
wacky seat post length is going to affect the ride and stiffness--not in a good way.

I think the problems is with greedy large bike brands that push a sub-optimal geometry with frame materials like aluminum not with the third party manufacturers from overseas. The shops in Taiwan will make bikes according to whatever the company specs--so the driving force is the
marketing logic of the brand name company.

Try reading the literal and intended meaning rather than grasping for spurious arguments.

It seems this question should be submitted to a higher authority like Sheldon Brown . . .