# 2007 Giant TCX- Anyone seen one yet?



## xxer (Jun 7, 2005)

Anyone seen or have a link to the new Giant TCX. I heard they are going to sell a complete bike with some lower end parts but I haven't seen any pictures.


----------



## DRLski (Apr 26, 2003)

if they're gonna sell it with lower end parts they mind as well just keep selling it as just a frameset.


----------



## xxer (Jun 7, 2005)

It will still be available as a frameset and I heard it might come with a easton fork but that's just a rumor. Until we see the frames and complete bikes(sometime in September?) we won't know.


----------



## ThinAir (Aug 22, 2006)

*2007 Tcx*

Guys,

Check it out.
I hear $1200...


----------



## ThinAir (Aug 22, 2006)

A sweet frameset option too!


----------



## leviathan (Feb 12, 2006)

Heinous


----------



## bam83 (Apr 23, 2002)

saw dealer catalog. msrp: $1200 bike / $900 for frame. same as pics posted by thinair


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*where do I fit myself in?*

God I know Giant has a hard-on for super sloping TT's but it's a CROSS FRAME fer chrissakes

cyclocrossworld.com has empella bonfire SL's on sale for around that much. Such a better deal.


----------



## Timgo2 (Jul 13, 2004)

I don't know about this one. The super sloping TT, the super long head tube...looks like a comfort road bike. I'm not too crazy about only 4 sizes with med TT at 55.5cm then the large at 58.5cm....kind of a big gap and no I don't want a shorter or longer stem to make it fit. The paint job is a little blah. The fork is nice.


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

*What about the carbon ones?*

Carl Decker and Adam Craig were rolling around on them last year... where's the pics of those?


----------



## Ophidian (Aug 25, 2006)

Does anyone know the seat tube/top tube length for the different sizes?


----------



## czdavid (Jun 1, 2005)

A compact cross bike? Has anyone at Giant been to a cross race to see what the bikes are used for?


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

Holy fugly bike, batman. That may the the ugliest cross bike I have ever seen. Yikes.


----------



## DPCX (Nov 11, 2004)

leviathan said:


> Heinous


Sorry to say, I agree. The first year TCX's looked bad ass (but not a fan of compact geo). The second year graphics looked like they should have been on a comfort bike. Last year they looked decent but now this......ugly.


----------



## singlespeed.org (Feb 14, 2006)

Ophidian said:


> Does anyone know the seat tube/top tube length for the different sizes?


Here's the specs from their catalog.


----------



## Vanilla Gorilla (Mar 22, 2004)

Why would anyone want to race on a compact cross bike?


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

i have been lookin at cross frames, more for a runaround/grocerygetter/commuter. i saw a few used giant frames online that looked ok, but this thing turns me off completely.

as previously mentioned, the sloping top tube is a foolish way to go, unless they feel some crossers will find dismounting easier and start carying the bike in the overhand fashion.

then the graphics/color scheme. is it just me or does it look like they fudged the decals and slapped them on at an angle. reminds me of trying to put the little stickers on the sides of model cars growing up. and CHROME on blue for a bike that is meant to get down and dirty. and they placed the chrome in the area where it will get the dirtiest...


----------



## spacemanrides (Aug 11, 2006)

Just thought I would give my two cents here. The bike paint job is ugly, no getting around that. In terms of the bike itself, the sloping top tube in my experience makes little difference in the dismounting and carrying the bike. I know you all know the benefits of the compact frame ( from road ) and those do cross over to cyclocross. The one disadvantage that I saw when I got my Giant was that grabbing the top tube would be a problem. I had ridden a Empella, Kelly, Redline and Kona ( less slope than Giant ) and felt that the slope would hurt me. Well it didn't. To be honest it did not matter at all. I could not notice it. I did notice one thing though that the bike does handle a bit quicker in the corners than any of the other bikes I have owned. If you believe Adam Craig that is where cross races are won, in the corners. It may not handle as well at speed descending as the others, but it is very hard for me to tell simply because you don't do that much downhiling in cross. 
If I could get this bike on a good deal I would buy it, Giants are almost always better value than most other companies. Not always, but most of the time. They are good with warranty as well. If i were building my dream cross bike would this be it? Maybe not, but could change if they start making it in Carbon.....


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

spacemanrides said:


> . I know you all know the benefits of the compact frame ( from road ) and those do cross over to cyclocross..


please please I don't. can you explain the benefits of the compact frame other than making less SKUs for Mfrs and retailers?


----------



## teamcinzano (Jun 10, 2006)

I test rode a giant last year a bit, and in the proper size, I couldn't easily get my arm through the triangle. It was that small. I know that many places don't have long runs in their races, but if there are long sections of sand, or mud, or long run-ups, the level of sloping on the Giant seems to me to be a serious problem. I like shouldering my bike rather than carrying it from the top tube for anything longer than a typical triple. 

Additionally, in comfort and handling are largely determined by tire selection and pressure. I can't see any benefit for compact geometry in the case of cross, even if I grant you there may be some benefit for the road. Weight? Well, it sure won't be hard building up a sub-18lb cross rig with the new Redline Scandium for less money, and probably with campa centaur.


----------



## spacemanrides (Aug 11, 2006)

By sloping the top tube downward toward the rear of the bike, two very important characteristics are achieved. First, the frame becomes stiffer for improved acceleration and more solid cornering. 
Look you don't have to like it, nor do you have to buy it, but if your belief is that it is going to make a difference in your race then you are wrong. 
The benefits exist, as do the cons. You do get a stiffer lighter frame, but generally speaking you also get less size choice. It does not work for everyone. Keep in mind Decker won Starcrossed on a giant. He beat Wells, Gully Johnsonet et al. He was the fastest, the bike did not hurt him.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*thanx*



spacemanrides said:


> By sloping the top tube downward toward the rear of the bike, two very important characteristics are achieved. First, the frame becomes stiffer for improved acceleration and more solid cornering.
> Look you don't have to like it, nor do you have to buy it, but if your belief is that it is going to make a difference in your race then you are wrong.
> The benefits exist, as do the cons. You do get a stiffer lighter frame, but generally speaking you also get less size choice.


but you only get a stiffer frame when you are standing. when you are seated you are supported on a long seatpost further away from any support structure which means more flex. Giant sells this flex as a 'ride softening effect' (lemons to lemonade). Now unless you spend most of your time out of the saddle the stiffness is thus negated by post flex. have you noticed most (but not all) compact frame builders (Cervelo, Orbea for example) when it comes to TT bikes builds them standard? Ya know why? Because a sloping TT is less aerodynamic and since a rider does a TT seated, standard geometry provides a stiffer frame. regarding weight it's been shown every gram you save is added in the seatpost so weight is negligible. 
So I don't have to like it because it's a load of marketing BS. It's what I do (advertising and marketing) so I'll explain how it works.
Manufacturer comes up with a cost saving, storage saving method that benefits them and their dealers. Mfr then hires agency to make up a bunch of hype to explain it to the consumer that having less choices and frames that don't fit as perfectly is a 'good thing'. 
Please go to Giant's website. See how they refer to the longer seatpost as a suspension device that makes a more supple ride. In reality what they are saying is 'You'll be bouncing and flexing in the saddle'


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Decker*

was the fastest man at Starcrossed big deal. top riders can make it on just about anything. Heck Jonathan page won a Nat'l Championship on a lugged steel frame with a steel fork, good lord an anchor and a darn near antique. What does this prove?
nothing.

look at Mfrs who have huge histories and world championships, dominant UCI CVs building cx bikes. Alan, Guerciotti, Empella, Ridley and I can't think of one that runs a super slopy, stiffer cx bike. Some slight slopes on a few but no compact designs. Don't they know better? How dare they subject their riders to substandard design!!!!!


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

The TCX's shortcomings in the functionality department are vastly ouweighted by the fact that it's just an ugly looking turd.


----------



## spacemanrides (Aug 11, 2006)

*Thanks ATP*

Thanks ATP, you made my point. Decker won and it did not matter what bike he was riding, because he was the fastest man. When you make the point about Ridley, Empella et al it is the same thing; wellens Vervecken and Nys were the fastest men! they could have won their world's titles on a Jamis. If Giant said we will pay to have Vervecken ride our bike they would be flying the stripes this year. Cannondale had no pressence on the World Cup scene until Frazonni ( sp? ) started laying the wood to everyone on the world cup riding a C-dale. Trust me, worrying about tubulars or clinchers, Ridleys or Giants, Single ring or 2 rings all make for nice forum chat, but lets face it if you lose 5 pounds that will make 10 times the difference than any of the above. The bikes we ride make little or no difference for the most part, it is all technique and the engine baby!


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

spacemanrides said:


> Thanks ATP, you made my point. Decker won and it did not matter what bike he was riding, because he was the fastest man. When you make the point about Ridley, Empella et al it is the same thing; wellens Vervecken and Nys were the fastest men! they could have won their world's titles on a Jamis. If Giant said we will pay to have Vervecken ride our bike they would be flying the stripes this year. Cannondale had no pressence on the World Cup scene until Frazonni ( sp? ) started laying the wood to everyone on the world cup riding a C-dale. Trust me, worrying about tubulars or clinchers, Ridleys or Giants, Single ring or 2 rings all make for nice forum chat, but lets face it if you lose 5 pounds that will make 10 times the difference than any of the above. The bikes we ride make little or no difference for the most part, it is all technique and the engine baby!


Tangent:

Starcrossed brings back memories of one of the most epic days of racing I have ever seen. How nobody got electrocuted in that storm I'll never know. The year before last was hot as hell, I wonder what the weather Gods have in store for us this year.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*not quite*



spacemanrides said:


> Thanks ATP, you made my point.


agreed that any top rider would win on just about anything. Your point was the design superiority of a compact which I countered with 'it's marketing hogwash' which you failed to produce any counter for. Giant wants to make 4 frame sizes not for your sake but theirs. If the design you say was so superior every major player in the sport would adopt it but as I showed they haven't. Pro riders ride what they are paid to ride, but consumers buy. So how do you make the 'we only want to make 4 sizes' lemon into lemonade? Hype, pure and simple.


----------



## spacemanrides (Aug 11, 2006)

alright first things first. I never said superior, you did. What I did say is that there were benefits, lighter stiffer. I also said there are limitations, potentially sizes. I acknowledge the fact that it can be an issue. But just consider this. You said that Giant offers 4 sizes in their bikes, they offer 6. specialized in turn offer.......six? Merckx on his sloping bikes offers 4 sizes, criminal... You are right consumers choose right. I guess everyone who has gone to Seven or Merckx cycles and bought a compact bike are idiots, as well as Seven and Merckx themselves for giving people the choice. Or should I say full of hogwash???? I have not ducked one of your quesitons or points, actually I am willing to acknowledge some of them. Just for fun, just to show that you have not thought this through, the one big downside of most cmpact bike is this; You need to use a longer seat post. A longer single piece of tube ( the seat tube )is generally( same material to same material) going to be lighter. than a shorter seat tube combined with a longer seat post. So in the overall picture, when the bike is built is it any lighter? Also, consider that the longer seat post will likely flex more than that continous piece of seat tube, so are compact bikes really stiffer overall? That would be the arguement, not the oh they are trying to make more money by ripping people off on frame size? they are all trying to make more money, it is a business. 
Seeings how I have made the arguement for you I am interested in your reply....


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*so you didn't say superior*

you said "I know you all know the benefits of the compact frame ( from road ) and those do cross over to cyclocross" which you explained later meant "By sloping the top tube downward toward the rear of the bike, two very important characteristics are achieved. First, the frame becomes stiffer for improved acceleration and more solid cornering."

doesn't that imply the compact design is superior? It has BENEFITS with IMPROVED ACCELERATION and MORE SOLID CORNERING. sounds like that makes it superior doesn't it.

six sizes my bad. I forgot XS and the new addition of M/L.

why doess Merckx do the same? same reason. more common on CF bikes as well as it cuts down on molds for Monocoques and simplifies the # of tube lengths (again reducing SKU's at the Mfr level) for lugged versions. The Mfrs give that choice, 1 because it saves them $$, 2 because it is now a marketing trend. If you can jump on a bandwagon that saves you some $$$ would you not? afterall it is business.

Seat post, the farther you put the rider away from structure the more it will sway. It's simple engineering. The majority of weight on a bike is the rider, now put the rider 8" from the triangle vs 16" or more from the triangle, which is the greatest lever? 
yes you gain weight with a longer seat tube but you save that weight in shorter TT, shorter HT and shorter seatpost. seatposts, as they are responsible for supporting the most weight when built to be long, have to be much thicker than frame tubing, thus heavier. Just check the thickness of a post compared to a ST.

So you have made my point that it is not lighter, nor stiffer in your posting. than why do it? because 6 sizes are cheaper to make, cheaper to have on the showroom floor, and cheaper to keep track of than say bikes built in 1 or 2cm increments.
So it is cost saving on their and their dealers ends. Heck a guy is 6'2.5" comes in looking for a bike. You sell him the same size frame you sell a guy 6'1" and a guy 6'4", that wasn't the case before.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*funny as I went to check Giant sizing*

I found this
from their website

"By sloping the top tube downward toward the rear of the bike, two very important characteristics were achieved. First, the frame became stiffer for improved acceleration and more solid cornering. Second, the bike got lighter.

But what makes Giant’s Compact Road geometry truly superior is that only five frame sizes are needed to achieve a custom fit, for virtually every size of rider. Giant’s designers have found that only four “ranges” of frame size are necessary, with the final fit being determined by the saddle height and handlebar stem reach and height. This eliminates the need for creating several frame sizes in small millimeter increments."

so you were just parroting Giant's pitch. Funny as they actually do use the word superior in the second part which is them explaining the superior-ness of having only 5 sizes through 4 ranges are needed (though they have upped it to 6) for custom fitting. Yeah just toss a 140 Stem on it with and inch and a half stack and with it in rise position.


----------



## spacemanrides (Aug 11, 2006)

Again, you know that I didn't say superior so don't rationalize your mistake, I said benefits and I also listed the downsides. What I implied ( no said ) is that there are pros and cons.The problem that I have is the whole, "it is not right for me then it is not right for all the rest". You are right the guy that is 6'3 might not be a candidate. Granted Kabush is close and he rode one, I digress....
I make the point about the cons of the bike because you didn't! You seem to focus on the fact that this being driven down peoples throats, it is not. There is choice and there are benefits to both designs. Bio pace was a fad, this has long exceeded the whole fad thing. Way exceeded. Merckx is a pretty reputable company that does a very small scale of bikes. I don't deny that there may be some monetary reasons for the companies to go this way, but I think the monetary reason is more wrapped up in the fact that there is demand. think about it like this. You say the Merckx has to make less molds right. Well they did not have to make any molds if they stay with standard frames, correct? I mean they went out and made 5 new molds? they have a full line of standard geo frames, so if this is all about less choice why did he and Seven and others start offering more choice? Eddy was trying to get into the compact business and rid of his full size frames...doubt it.
We can argue everything is about money, but what dictates money is supply and demand. there is afair amount of supply of frame types out there and if compact was so bad it would have dried up with bio pace. 
To me, it sounds like it does not work for you, so you want it to work for no one else.
Question, when was the last time you rode a compact bike? Have you tried a Ghisialo (sp) or a Merckx? Seems to me like Giant started the compact thing and everyone else finished it.


----------



## czdavid (Jun 1, 2005)

I would like to pitch in my 5 cents. When was the last time you guys saw a true European race cross bike with a compact geometry. Just look at what the Euros race on in the Superprestige. If there was any true advantage to a compact frame in cross I think companies with Cross in their genes like Empella, Ridley or even Colnago would use the "superior" technology. The whole compact cross frame fits into Giant's 700c category philosophy, they do not want to have a bike look different than something they have been preaching forever.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*no you didn't dsay superior*

you just said
"the frame became stiffer for improved acceleration and more solid cornering"
now if a frame accelerates better and is more solid in the corners doesn't that imply it is better by design? I'm not rationalizing, you are obfuscating and deflecting. You are trying to deny your implication or pretend it isn't what it is. A frame can be superior and still have some downsides so that doesn't eek you out either. 

No molds have to be made as you only have to mold CF. This is the new part of the bike industry (which Giant is a leader) and where the $ savings occur. Most mfrs (Merckx included) don't make their own CF bikes. They are outsourced and then the mfr does the finish work. The more sizes you need, the more molds that have to be made the more you get charged by the mfr. Most Cf bikes are built by a handful of factories, mostly in Asia but some in Italy. Now look at Specialized's most $ and labor intensive bike the Alu top / CF bottom S-Works tarmac/E5. Same goes for the top of the line Merkcx CF ride the AXM. Highly expensive to make so it is also offered in the fewest sizes. So had Eddy wanted to build standard sized CF bikes at 2 cm increments he'd have needed 8-9 molds, check how many sizes the Steel Corsa is offered in. 

you are correct about demand but what I'm telling you is cost saving created the design. marketing hype sold the design and now demand turns it into something beyond a fad. thus since demand is there, more mfrs build them. It is a double bonus as it saves them $, that is called a win-win. So now eddy offers them in both to satisfy both types of consumers because as you say, by now it is consumer driven. (we agree) where we differ is that to me, the consumer drive was created by marketing hype not actual fact.
No they work, they work fine I just don't believe they work 'better' as Giant is trying to tell me.
I own 2 Merckx's both standard geometry as they fit me fine. I'm just shy of 6'5" tall and I think compacts are ugly, I think XL compacts are EXTRA ugly. I rode a Giant TCR model at my friends shop and I kept squeaking the post and could honestly feel the seatpost flexing. Was a bit disconceting. I own a Bianchi Cross Concept with a very slight slope. I love this bikes geometry but have to use an extra long seatpost to stop it from squeaking. I also rode a compact track bike and again I felt like I was up wagging in the wind.


----------



## DPCX (Nov 11, 2004)

giovanni sartori said:


> Tangent:
> 
> Starcrossed brings back memories of one of the most epic days of racing I have ever seen. How nobody got electrocuted in that storm I'll never know. The year before last was hot as hell, I wonder what the weather Gods have in store for us this year.


Oh yeah, I remember that. They delayed our start for 20 minutes until the lightning storm passed, warm-up was blown. I personally would have felt safer racing around the course (dodging the strikes) with the lightning than sitting on the line for 20 minutes with a big target on my head.  Maybe we'll get some slop again this year, fingers crossed!

DP

PS my .02 cents, 
compact road= ok/good
compact cross= ouch! i just banged my elbow on my seat tube! (not good)


----------



## teamcinzano (Jun 10, 2006)

Come on now Spacemanrides. The Ghisallo (sp?) is a seriously gimmicky frame, made compact only to get the weight below 800g. It's also supposed to be a complete noodle, fit only for making weight weenie show bikes. Yes, it can be ridden, but no it isn't a professional level performance machine, unless you have a really burly mustache, a pot belly, a USPS jersey, and a big, big wad of cash burning a hole in your pocket. Then, it's a dream bike made real.

I've seriously considered a Giant for my roadbike, but I'm perfectly between the M and M/L, so I've had problems with fit.

But, when it comes to cross, come on. A super compact frame is a bit ridiculous unless you never plan to shoulder the bike. Then, the bike could be great for those it fits. But, it's really ugly in its current paint configurations and not near as good a value as the already light and affordable options offered by Redline.

Full disclosure: My team is sponsored by Redline for cross season this year, but only because we decided to ask since everyone was already riding Redline Conquest Pros the past two years out of our own pockets. And I can't wait to get the scandium.


----------



## spacemanrides (Aug 11, 2006)

Well, you are right Giant do say there ideas and bikes are better, what should they say? the big S say the same, as does ever boutique in the industry. As far as Merckx goes, I was at a galla where Eddy and Axel spoke and he says that his bikes are not out sourced to Asia. Now I hear Scott says the same thing, however I hear different things. If I am wrong then I am corrected. 
ATP, you are still taking what does not work for you and applying it to everyone. Your are 6'5 200 pounds? I admire that you go out give er', that is awesome as you are a bit of an anomoly for the sport, big Magnus excluded. I on the other hand am 6 feet 155 pounds and can ride anything with few problems. For road I prefer compact bikes, and I have not been brainwashed. For cross, for a 1 hour race it does not matter that much. 
I think you give people too little credit ATP, you are saying that marketing drove demand. I don't buy that, it does not work. An example I know you will agree with is when Shimano went with the intergrated shifter ( sti ) for mountain. They sold some with marketing, but over all it did not sell well. Sram picked up market and the big S had to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better design and they relauched rapid fire. The people spoke with their dollar. 
You don't like em' big man, but to say that there is no value in them is wrong.
I have to answer a few other comments that were made to me. The early Ghilsilo was whippy, but I have ridden a more recent version and it is much stiffer, depends on the rider. To say that is a gimmick by litespeed would be a bit much. They don't really need gimmicks.
The person that asked why don't Euro's use them, because Giant has not put out a sponsorship to a Euro cross team. ATP and I agree that riders ride what they get paid to ride. Believe me if Giants paying they would ride it, but that does not mean it would be their first choice or that they would hate it. What pros ride is generally a poor barometer of anything. At the Galla I was At Axel rode a Merckx when he rode for Domo, he said the rest of the team were jealous because they did not like their Ridley's, they were too clunky. 
To answer the question who rides a Giant on the World Cup Al thys (sp) to a great amount of success I might add.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*all Eddy's Alu bikes*

are built in Belgium. His CF bikes are built in Italy and finalized at the Merckx factory in Belgium. They add the dropouts, BB, etc... at the Merckx factory. It's why I put 'mostly in Asia but some Italy' see that is being thorough. Scott doesn't outsource to Asia, they were so concerned with spying (since multiple mfrs and models are made in one factory) to preserve their secrets Scott opened their own Asian CF factory. So they don't outsource, they have their own dedicated factory. (a bit of a language run around)

again I never said it applied to everyone. what I said was the hype put out by compact mfrs (like Giant) was created to explain their decision to go compact. The decision to go compact had more to do with SKU maintenance on the mfr and resale level than it did on 'superior design' level. That is all I'm saying. They work, I think they are okay in tiny sizes, I think they get uglier as they get bigger. 
I never siad they have no value, I said the design was cost saving for the comapny and then explained by marketuing propoganda. I also think if Giant had a Euro cross team they may change the design based on rider input.

Ridley's are stiffer than snot (I own one) I much prefer a Merckx that isn't quite as harsh.

Rapid Fire isn't a good analogy as it was an intended design improvement (like rapid rise, the present MTB Brake/Shifters, BioPace) that didn't sit well with the consumer. Hence Shimano's return to triggers which they looked to be abandoning. I honestly don't believe compact was intended as a design iomprovement, I think that was all secondary.


----------



## czdavid (Jun 1, 2005)

I would like to clear some confusion. Scott does not have their own carbon factory. The bikes are plain tube to tube technology with carbon wraping. The same factory that makes Scott carbon makes bikes using the same process for several other manufacturers including Specialized. I don't think that Easton tubbed Mercxs's are made in Europe, pretty sure the frames are welded in Taiwan and than shipped to Europe for finishing work.


----------



## Timgo2 (Jul 13, 2004)

Let's not get away from the main point about this bike as stated by FondriestFan.....it's "AN UGLY TURD".

Giant doesn't give a rip about the cross market. They see that Lemond, Kona, and Cannondale are selling a few hundred cross bikes a year and them and Specialized want a piece of the action. So just slap canti mounts on our comfort road bike and we are good.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*better check your resources*



czdavid said:


> I would like to clear some confusion. Scott does not have their own carbon factory. The bikes are plain tube to tube technology with carbon wraping. The same factory that makes Scott carbon makes bikes using the same process for several other manufacturers including Specialized. I don't think that Easton tubbed Mercxs's are made in Europe, pretty sure the frames are welded in Taiwan and than shipped to Europe for finishing work.


from CycleSport America June 06 issue
Merckx factory article
"Each single-piece carbon monocoque arrives in Belgium as it left the autoclave at the factory in Italy and it is up to the Merckx factory to finish as they choose"

from CycleSport America May 2006 "Great Scott" article on their frames
"The construction process is a closely guarded secret and to make sure of it, Scott has exclusive use of a factory in Taiwan. many other companies share facilities in the Far East, but Scott feared this would make it vulnerable to industrial espionage, so bore the cost of setting up on its own"


----------



## spacemanrides (Aug 11, 2006)

Giant doesn't give a rip about the cross market. They see that Lemond, Kona, and Cannondale are selling a few hundred cross bikes a year and them and Specialized want a piece of the action. So just slap canti mounts on our comfort road bike and we are good.


I love commnets like that? Trek/lemond does what for cross? Cannondale does what? Kona have had a big rider commitment to sport and Specialized has had bit ( with that strawberries team in Cali) as well, but to say Giant does not care about cross is idiotic at best. Giant has at least made the effort to sponsor a team, and continue to give full support to decker and craig. Same goes with Kona with wicks and treabon. Funny both companies use sloping top tubes? Anyway, in the North American cross scene their presence is there. It could be better, it could always be better. Also keep in mind that Giant are a lot bigger company the ones listed above, they are not exactly running around copying those guys and if you believe ATP they are creating trends and the others follow.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*agreed*

Giant does support a team but it's mostly crossover from MTB but I think slaes might drive more involvement. Specialized has a serious crosser in their company (AJM) who keeps their commitment high. Specialized sponsors races and provides prizes and support. As does Lemond. They provided a frame as a prize in the SoCal series and had tents and test rides at numerous events.
CX sales are small but it is one of the fastest growing sections of the industry.

Kona as well, far more a big time player but it is where they are based PNW that helps that along. Also Kona's TTs are slight sloping nowhere near the slope of a Giant. The fact that they have 2 riders in the 6'4" range (Treborn and Wicks) guarantees they will leave some room for shouldering for tall riders.
Kona, design wise is closer to Bianchi and Specialized in the amount of tube slope (heck toss in Gunnar as well). There is a huge difference between having a 2-5 cm drop and full compact geometry.


----------



## Timgo2 (Jul 13, 2004)

I'm not saying that they have done anything for cross other than at least have a cross bike in their offering for the last few years. This is not about bikes, sloping top tube, cable routings, disc brakes, BLAH BLAH BLAH. I actually like a slightly sloping top tube, but the Giant frame......a little too much. I can care less who rode what and when. This is about business, making money, and beating your competition. Nothing wrong with that either. Sponsoring a team is an effective marketing tool. The frame is still "AN UGLY TURD" and nothing will change that.


----------



## spacemanrides (Aug 11, 2006)

Uhh, we all agree the bike is by far not their prettiest. 

I have an honest question. When you ride a bike with a slope like Giant which from what I can tell is about 3/4, (maybe an inch) of an inch difference from the Kona, if it is more than correct me. anyway, the question is does it make that big of a difference in carrying the bike? Kabush is 6'3 and he never had a hard time carrying the bike? At 6 feet on a large I cannot notice it at all? I have a ton of room. to be honest given how short cross races are and the fact that i am out of the saddle 70% of the time accelerating, I find that wheels are the component that I find make the biggest difference. I only ask becasue ATP makes it sound like the differnce between the kona and giant is enormous? Is it? I just don't see it being that extreme. I have a Kona Jake, that is about 5 years old ( it is a single speed ) and a Giant and I notice no difference.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*let's check*

does it look like one has more of a slope?


----------



## spacemanrides (Aug 11, 2006)

*I agree*

there is a difference in slope, but for carrying the bike does it matter? Do you notice it? I can't notice it? Can you?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I dunno as I've never had the opportunity*

to shoulder a Gianty but it looks pretty cramped. I grab the TT when I'm coming into barriers with a foot still in the pedal, it seems like more of a reach then as well.


----------



## spacemanrides (Aug 11, 2006)

*check it!*

Seems pretty roomy for GK, I know I know he could ride a huffy and win, but there is more than enough room.


----------



## teamcinzano (Jun 10, 2006)

I seriously tried shouldering a medium giant, and could not get the bike on and off with anything approaching ease. The Large is too large from a TT perspective, so I can't comment on shouldering it. In fact, a 58.5cm TT is too long for a road bike for me, more less a cross rig. On the road I ride a traditionally-sized 56c-c/57c-c ST/TT old 1998 vintage LOOK. It's just right with a 12cm stem. That's the bigger problem, still, beyond the shouldering issue with truly compacted frames. In anything below a large, your shoulder will have a hard time going through the opening. You should try it, spacemanrides, on a smaller frame-- the kind sized for the ubiquitous 55-57cm market (like a size 10 shoe).


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*is that a Giant?*

or is that a Turner? Maxxis boys have and are riding Turner's last I checked. Is it a Turner rebadged? It is silver so I may be wrong.


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

One thing I'm getting from this thread is I'm going to be shouldering my Kona Deluxe road bike during my commute home today, its a compact frame. FWIW, the compact, is by far the best handling bike I own.


----------



## spacemanrides (Aug 11, 2006)

teamcinzano said:


> I seriously tried shouldering a medium giant, and could not get the bike on and off with anything approaching ease. The Large is too large from a TT perspective, so I can't comment on shouldering it. In fact, a 58.5cm TT is too long for a road bike for me, more less a cross rig. On the road I ride a traditionally-sized 56c-c/57c-c ST/TT old 1998 vintage LOOK. It's just right with a 12cm stem. That's the bigger problem, still, beyond the shouldering issue with truly compacted frames. In anything below a large, your shoulder will have a hard time going through the opening. You should try it, spacemanrides, on a smaller frame-- the kind sized for the ubiquitous 55-57cm market (like a size 10 shoe).


First off that pick of Kabush is a Giant. He rode a Turner last year ( for the one race that he did ) 
I have no experience with medium sized cross frames. I am 6 feet, so I can reference someone who does ride a medium Giant. Check out Craig. He rides a medium. The front triangle gets smaller on all bikes as the sizes go down, compact or not, so knowing that I guess no matter the design, that means the smaller rider is always at a relative disadvantage to the bigger guys? correct?


----------



## tikigiant02 (Sep 1, 2006)

Probably all true, which is why Giant can sell a monocoque carbon frame with Ultegra kit for a hair over $2000 or an excellent cross frame for similar savings. Sorry that mass production is getting as good as one-off stuff. Sorry that Giant engineers made a frame that's cheaper and just as good if not better than the competition (don't hear T-Mob whining). As for "saddle flex" it depends on what seat post you have. And there's way more saddle flex in the average set of seat rails than you'll ever get from a seatpost. Now, what exactly was your problem with all this?


----------



## DPCX (Nov 11, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> or is that a Turner? Maxxis boys have and are riding Turner's last I checked. Is it a Turner rebadged? It is silver so I may be wrong.


Nah, they were on Giants. That pic is from 04 when they were grey & blue.


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

The Kabush shot is from Alpenrose fall of 2004. He was riding on a Giant, as were the rest of the Maxxis/Giant team. Last year, he was riding a generic looking frame w/ Turner decals.

I am amazed at the banter on this topic. Even more amazing is that I actually read it. It is more entertaining than watching the previews to pro wrestling matches. In fact, instead of racing this season, I think I will just sit back and follow the competition here online. Good stuff!

Jeepers creepers. Someone needs to get their knobbies on their bike and do some hard intervals. Maybe it will help loosen their panties from their heiney.


----------



## 21switchbacks (Aug 6, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> or is that a Turner? Maxxis boys have and are riding Turner's last I checked. Is it a Turner rebadged? It is silver so I may be wrong.


From a while back ...

_Well, sort of team-issue... Eric Wallace, team manager for both Kabush's MTB and CX racing teams, tells Cyclingnews: "The frame is a full stock model that is available to the public - standard color, material and geometry."

_
https://www.cyclingnews.com/teamtech04.php?id=tech/2004/probikes/maxxis_giant


----------



## black cross (May 15, 2006)

So, is the 07 frame different/lighter than the 05-06? Also is the 07bike with the 07 frame as shown? Maybe we have to wait until they hit the shops to find out.


----------



## spacemanrides (Aug 11, 2006)

I know last year giatn said that the shaved 100 grams off of the version pictured in this thread. So, I am assuming that this year is the same as last year.


----------



## 1234tuba (May 5, 2005)

Just thought I'd add my two cents as well. While I definately like a more classic looking bike, and agree on the ugly look of the complete bike, I dont think the frameset is all that bad. A buddy of mine at the shop rides one, and he loves it. Sure, it may not have an Italian name on it, or have lugs, but its a bike, and most importantly, a tool. The comment about the pros being able to ride any bike, good or bad, to a win is in my opinion correct. So if they don't care, why the obsurd reaction to Giant's offering? And as for the compact geometry bit, the "elitism" expressed on this thread is unreal. Seriously, has anyone taken an outside view of the entire topic, from start to finish? Its actually quite comical.


----------



## kjuel2 (Jan 15, 2007)

http://www2.giant-bicycles.com/en-US/bikes/road/590/11461/


----------

