# Comparo-testing



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

Me – 6’0” 160lbs. I’ve been racing for many years, starting on the Colorado front range in the late 80’s. I was a Cat 1 for 1 year and raced for Lowenbrau out of Denver.
My current bikes - 2002 Trek Madone SSL. Colnago C-50. Ibis Spanky.



I demoed several of the current model year bikes to find a good race bike in the $4-5k range. Each was setup with the same air pressure and as close to the same dimensions to the C-50 as could be had without swapping parts.

The following are my impressions and opinions. Yours will likely vary.

Trek Madone 6.9 SSL Ultegra (mostly) - $5800
Climbing – 8 Descending – 6 Cornering – 7 Sprinting – 7
The Trek climbs well enough and has good BB stiffness. It has a refined ride quality that is very appealing over poor road surfaces. Transitioning through corners is smooth but not quick. At high speeds it’s imprecise and nervous enough to create doubt. Other than that it’s unremarkable. Recent Madones have changed from the earlier stage-race / long distance geometry. They’ve become more “Specialized-like” both in appearance and feel, perhaps in attempt to create a more exciting product. They’ve succeeded in that to some extent. Unfortunately they no longer have the poise and magic carpet ride feel of the earlier Madones, nor do they have the razor sharpness of the high-end Spec bikes. My 2002 remains a far better overall bike.

Specialized SL4 Pro Red - $5300
Climbing – 10 Descending – 4 Cornering – 8 Sprinting - 9 
The SL4 climbing manners are superb. It’s sprinting position and reflexes are about the best I’ve encountered. At average speeds its cornering is agile if not absolutely precise. Unfortunately the SL4 is the least stable bike here at high speed, to the point that I wouldn’t ride it. Early Specialized carbon road frames had this tendency, though in recent years they’ve been generally much improved. This one was a leap in the wrong direction IMO.

Cannondale EVO2 Red - $5500
Climbing – 8 Descending – 8 Cornering – 9 Sprinting – 7
The EVO is an excellent frame. It does everything well, has good BB stiffness, yet a refined ride quality that doesn’t beat you up. It flows around corners at speed with close to the ability of the C-50, which is the best high speed cornering bike on the planet. I’d pay full price for this bike and be a happy rider. This is an enlightened frame with a very nice parts kit at a fair price. Hopefully Cannondale’s reliability issues are behind them with the EVO. Well done by Cannondale.

Giant TCR SL3 - $4000 
Climbing – 9 Descending – 9 Cornering – 8 Sprinting – 7
The SL3 is the least expensive bike here. It’s also the best overall regardless of price. I’ve ridden several of the higher-end Giants over the years and frankly most of them were not very good. That changed last year though, and that trend continues for 2012. Prior years suffered from the fully compact rear triangle. Its stiffness was mismatched vs. the front, and the result was the impression of riding the front wheel while getting kicked in the butt. As with Porsche 911’s though, Giant has in great part overcome what was a theoretical limitation. As a climbing and descending bike its only peer is the EVO. The oversized HS and front triangle work very well. The stability and steering precision are world class, yet it doesn’t beat you up from excessive vertical stiffness. The bike stays supremely composed at any sane speed. The graphics and finish of the SL3 are understated with a refined appearance viewed up close, unlike most of the TCR line. It doesn’t have the ISP, which I would personally pay not to have. As the frame alone is $3100, you’re getting the rest of the bike for $900.

Giant TCR Advanced 0 - $4550
Climbing – 8 Descending – 8 Cornering – 6 Sprinting – 7
The Advanced gives you Di2 Ultegra, takes away the SL frame, and adds $550. In prior years, the second tier Giant race bikes often had better ride characteristics than the top of the line, which prioritized light weight and overall stiffness. For 2012, that has reversed. While the TCR and SL are virtually indistinguishable over smooth asphalt, the SL is far superior when things get rough. It beats you up less, is less nervous, and tracks better while cornering. While the Di2 has a clear wow factor, the rear shifting is slower, it weights more, and it uses batteries. For $550 less, the SL is a better bike in every way that matters.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

250ish mile report

The good –
The basic purpose of a stage race oriented bike is to go fast with as little rider energy as possible. The TRC SL is superb at this, IMO as good as anything available at any price. It is stable to a fault, and has the type of disappears-beneath-you feel that only the best can generate.
The Giant-branded components are very good. All of the major OEM’s use self-branded components to save cost. Some are good, some not so much. The tires are so good I'll likely buy more of them when the originals are worn. The wheels are DT, but in design are similar to HED’s. They arent particularly light, nor do they have the feeling of staying spun-up at high speed like the high-end Ksyriums. What they do have is excellent stability and build quality. Their flex/feel is also very well matched to the frame, which is critical in creating the sense of one-ness that the majority lacks.
There is nothing on the bike that you will be significantly motivated to change. The Fizik Arione works very well. It looks minimal, but the flex/padding combination is excellent. 

The not as good –
High speed cornering still has the generic feel of all (that I’ve tried anyway) compact frames. The front end feels higher than the back, which it of course is, and it feels like it’s falling/ leading into turns. It’s not bad, but it’s no Colnago.
I read in some review of this frame that it ‘only absorbed shock over a narrow range’. That seemed like an odd statement. After riding over various road surfaces, I agree though. On smooth surfaces, everything is peachy. On rough ones, like chip-seal, there are many frames that are able to effectively damp out the surface vibrations. The TCR doesn’t.
If you mainly do crits or short circuit races, there are better frames. The TCR is firmly in the stage race area.

The other –
My other bikes have Dura-Ace or Chorus 11. The general opinion on Ultegra seems to be that it’s close in performance to DA but weights more. IMO that’s not the whole story. While it functions well enough, the feeling is gone. With Ultegra shifting, you feel the shift mechanism and the click. With DA, you can feel the derailleur, the chain, and the gear as the chain moves across it. Braking is similar. With DA, you feel the pads, and how they are interacting with the rim and tire. With Ultegra, you feel the brake lever. The overall effect is one of loss of interaction and feedback with the bike, and it “cheapens” the riding experience. With Campy, Chorus 11 is functionally near-identical to Record or SR. Ultegra is nowhere near DuraAce.

Overall –
IMO the SL3 is the least expensive and best value in a race-bike that can be used stock at almost any level. Its frame is as good as or better than any of the major OEM’s at any cost. The balance of flex and feel between the frame, wheels, and fork is world-class. In the past, Giant's manufacturing has been about the best in the world, but their own designs and implementations were not. That's no longer the case.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

thanks for the great write up!

how do you think or feel the 2012 Giant TCR Advanced stacks up against the older, 2010 Giant TCR Advanced SL?


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

a_avery007 said:


> thanks for the great write up!
> 
> how do you think or feel the 2012 Giant TCR Advanced stacks up against the older, 2010 Giant TCR Advanced SL?


Just my opinion / experience -

The big step up in ride quality is the 2011 version. I rode the 2011 and 2012 back to back. They did have different wheels. The 2011 was smoother and more comfortable over rough surfaces. The 2012 has the completely composed at any speed feel i note several times, but isn't as smooth. Other than that they were very similar. My understanding of Giant's goal for the 2012 was increased torsional stiffness, and they achieved that.


----------



## RC856 (Apr 27, 2012)

Thanks for the write up.
Makes me excited about getting my SL in a couple of days!


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

RC856 said:


> Thanks for the write up.
> Makes me excited about getting my SL in a couple of days!


Frame or complete bike?


----------



## RC856 (Apr 27, 2012)

Just the ISP frame.
I've got Record components and Campag wheels to move over from my current TCR Composite.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

Great report, really enjoyed reading it.


----------



## Sasquatch (Feb 3, 2004)

loved it. bumping this up for our friends who are in the market. this should be a sticky.


----------



## twalkman (Jul 23, 2011)

Sasquatch said:


> loved it. .



Ditto. Thanks so much for this post. It really helped me with the decision making process. I ride in the mountains occasionally and I figure avoiding one high speed crash would justify the extra dollars over the advanced frame. 

When I asked my dealer how he would compare the Giant SL to a top of the line Specialized. He put it this way, "The SL is like a rocket with great handling. The Tarmac is like a rocket with turbo boosters."


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

Does your dealer sell both Giant and Specialized? I found the Giant to have a stiffer yet more comfortable ride with better handling.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

twalkman said:


> When I asked my dealer how he would compare the Giant SL to a top of the line Specialized. He put it this way, "The SL is like a rocket with great handling. The Tarmac is like a rocket with turbo boosters."


That is well put if a bit vague IMO. The thing that any one person can't effectively experience is how a particular model works in various sizes. I think that the Giant's have been configured to ensure stiffness in the larger sizes where it's reallly needed, which may make the smaller ones quite stiff. The typical Spec approach seems biased more towards ensuring that small frames are not overly harsh, which can leave the larger ones a bit tortionally noodly. At any rate the ML Gaint for me is an excellent match.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

darwinosx said:


> Does your dealer sell both Giant and Specialized? I found the Giant to have a stiffer yet more comfortable ride with better handling.


Different. The Giant is stiffer, but the more comfortable part may be due mostly to the wheels, tires, and saddle. IMO the Giant solution is borderline great, while most of the very expensive Specs have harsh wheels, skinny tires and minimalist saddles.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

My Large Giant Defy Advanced 2012 bike rides as well as the Specialized SL 3 Pro that costs much more. Full Ultegra for $2595 (retail was $3050). Personally I think Specialized has been milking the SL 2's for too long and the minimum frame level should be the SL 3 Pro with the Specialized version of BB 30. I'm a big guy so your mileage may vary but I was completely unimpressed with the SL 2 and standard SL 3 frames.


----------



## twalkman (Jul 23, 2011)

icsloppl said:


> At any rate the ML Giant for me is an excellent match.


I know it's not everything, but how tall are you? I'm 5'10" and have been riding a 2005 Giant M Composite 1 that has fit comfortably and assumed I stay with the M size. I see Giant offers the ML now -- does it fit between the old M & L sizes? Or did Giant also make the M a bit smaller and the L a bit larger to accommodate the new ML size?


Edit: Giant doesn't list the geometry of the 2013 bikes yet, but assuming it's the same as 2012 it looks like I'd still be on a M size frame.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

6'0", 32" Levis.

You are correct, ML is between M and L. The 2013 frame is exactly the same as 2012. 

IMO you're right on in an M. I rode an M briefly and liked the cornering manners and flickability, but the overall fit of the ML was better for me no doubt.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

3 month report -

How time flies as they say. And so does the SL3. :thumbsup:

Before buying the Giant, I had 4 bikes, the three pictured and a Schwinn Fastback (aluminum). They all got about the same use. Now the Giant gets about 75%, the C50 25%, and the other two none.

Rather than writing another review, these are the thing that stand out to me, either positively or not.

++ The wheels. It's hard to overstate how much i like these wheels. Their "feel" is excellent and they match the frame almost perfectly. They are affected by cross-winds less than any i've ridden, almost to the point of being invisible. Combined with the frame's superb stability, it makes riding on the edge far more enjoyable and safer. I hate riding on windy days in the hills, where you come bombing down around a corner and get blown away by a cross-wind. It can make you tense, which of course just makes things worse. With the Giant, no worries at all. That's the main reason the bike gets as much use as it does. Whatever you throw at it, no worries... Even though i can stomp up steep hills pretty hard, they have not come out of true by any amount, which i find close to bizarre.

+ The tires. They last a long time, don't cut or flat, and handle well.

+/- Ultegra shifting. It gets better after the chain gets some miles on it. Initially there was a fair amount of ghost shifting (or ghost not-shifting), but it's about gone. Still not Dura Ace.

- Seatpost. There is a bolt on each side, which is smart, but it's very difficult to get both sides torqued correctly, and being CF, the torque values are quite low. I adjusted the seat height once and torqued them to spec. The post slipped on the first ride, and afterwards one of the bolts was almost finger-loose.

+ Frame. No issues of any kind. Still looking and working perfectly. Looks cool and purposeful but not flashy or stupid-spendy.

Would i buy one again? Well, duhh... Over the last decades i've owned a good number of bikes and frames. Some are very good, like the C50, and a lot were mediocre or not so good. How many would i say were so good i wouldn't change a thing? Pretty much just one. i actually hesitate to change literally anything at all, just in case there's some fragile karma confluence that i might break. Seriously...


----------



## Sven_Nijs (Jul 14, 2011)

Great thread and update - thanks.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

I have had my SL3 for a few months now and can confirm that it is a simply wonderful bike with as far as I can tell handles as perfectly as it is possible for a bike to handle - eg solid as a rock on windly 45+mph descents. 
I do a lot of big-hill riding (virtually no flat roads where I live) and have changed the rear block and mech to 11-34 and put Ultegra compact on the front to enable relatively effortless mile after mile 15%+ climbs.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

ICS,
Or anyone with the sl3. Can you guys tell me if you have weighed the bike in stock form what it weighed?and also list size?

Thanks


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

r1lee said:


> ICS,
> Or anyone with the sl3. Can you guys tell me if you have weighed the bike in stock form what it weighed?and also list size?
> 
> Thanks


It's an ML. I don't have a weight weenie scale, only a regualar bathroom one. It looks to be between 16-17 w/o pedals. It's slightly heavier than the Colnago, which is i know is right at 16, and the Madone, which is slightly less than 15. Frankly i couldn't care less.


----------



## framesti (Jan 26, 2009)

Which bike would you use for a long day in mountains with bumpy roads? C50? evo?


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

framesti said:


> Which bike would you use for a long day in mountains with bumpy roads? C50? evo?


Bumpy or a poor surface? You feel a poor road surface more with with the TCR than the others, but its composure over bumps and such at higher speeds is about as good as it gets.

You can feel the road surface somewhat with the C50 if the tire pressure is high enough due to the Fulcrum wheels, which are stupid-stiff. The C50 as a frame is noticably softer in all regards vs. either the EVO or the TCR.

The EVO would be a very good choice if your typical road surface is poor and your typical ride is long. It's strait line stability is almost as good as the TCR and its cornering manners are better. I have nothing but good to say about my EVO ride.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

icsloppl said:


> It's an ML. I don't have a weight weenie scale, only a regualar bathroom one. It looks to be between 16-17 w/o pedals. It's slightly heavier than the Colnago, which is i know is right at 16, and the Madone, which is slightly less than 15. Frankly i couldn't care less.


Thanks, I'm currently running into a slight weight issues.

My M with zipp 303 firecrest cc, ultegra di2 and ultegra pedals came in at 16.07.

I upgraded to a slightly shorter stem, but went with carbon slr and also with the slr carbon handle bars. Both of which are supposed to be lighter then stock. Bontrager cork gel tape, but now the bike comes in at 16.67. So instead of losing around 100g, I gained almost a full lbs.

So either the scale was initially wrong at the store (I tried two scales at home), or the new components added weight. Which makes no sense.

I also thought the bike was heavier after they finished it, but everyone chuckled when I stated this, only to be correct when I got home.

Oh well....


----------



## Sven_Nijs (Jul 14, 2011)

A bar and stem change adding half a kilo? Seems wrong.
Do you have the original bars and stem to weigh on some kitchen scales?
The stock alloy stem is supposed to be around 160g while the carbon is 135g. Giant Bicycles Archive
Stock bars are supposed to be 270g versus 200g for carbon. Giant Bicycles Archive


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

r1lee said:


> Thanks, I'm currently running into a slight weight issues.
> 
> My M with zipp 303 firecrest cc, ultegra di2 and ultegra pedals came in at 16.07.
> 
> ...


You certainly didn't gain a pound by changing bars and stem. Something else is going on.

Your wheels and bars togeather are about 1/2lb lighter than stock.

Ultegra D12 is significantly heavier than standard, and your pedals are porky compared to any of the light-weight alternatives. You also didn't mention the rear casette, tires, and tubes. The stockers are fairly light.If you have a 105 with a large cogs they weigh a ton. The stock ultegra is fairly light as it's an 11/25.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

icsloppl said:


> You certainly didn't gain a pound by changing bars and stem. Something else is going on.
> 
> Your wheels and bars togeather are about 1/2lb lighter than stock.
> 
> Ultegra D12 is significantly heavier than standard, and your pedals are porky compared to any of the light-weight alternatives. You also didn't mention the rear casette, tires, and tubes. The stockers are fairly light.If you have a 105 with a large cogs they weigh a ton. The stock ultegra is fairly light as it's an 11/25.


well at the store it was 16.07lbs before these.

Carbon SLR Bars 
Carbon SLR Stem (80mm from 90mm contact)
Bontrager Cork Gel Tape

So going by manufacturer's spec's, i should have lost about 90-95grams. So should have brought me down to 15.80lbs. But instead the bike weighs 16.67lbs.

???? strange.. unless the bike shop's scale was incorrect. But i felt the difference when they returned it to me.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

Well, if you still have the old parts...


----------



## framesti (Jan 26, 2009)

You say the TCR wouldn't be good for a crit. Why? What would be better?


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

albert owen said:


> I have had my SL3 for a few months now and can confirm that it is a simply wonderful bike with as far as I can tell handles as perfectly as it is possible for a bike to handle - eg solid as a rock on windly 45+mph descents.
> I do a lot of big-hill riding (virtually no flat roads where I live) and have changed the rear block and mech to 11-34 and put Ultegra compact on the front to enable relatively effortless mile after mile 15%+ climbs.


As far as I know Ultegra doesn't have a 34 cog..what are you using?


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

framesti said:


> You say the TCR wouldn't be good for a crit. Why? What would be better?


"Wouldn't be good" is too negative. "There are better" would be closer IMO. Some of it has to do with how a bike fits you, but -

1. Its geometry is long distance / high speed / stage race. It doesn't transition quickly. In many situations that's a good thing. It's not as "flickable" through tight corners as a quicker handling bike.

2. The front end and rear triangle don't match exactly from a flex standpoint. Overall, it's a pretty stiff frame and the front is now very torsionally stiff, so it's not a big deal.

3. The front / bars feels and acts "higher", like it's falling into the turn. See one of the other posts. If you're pedaling through the turn the feeling is lessened.


----------



## framesti (Jan 26, 2009)

So I assume Tarmac would be "flickable." But you said descending is poor, you mean only in a straight line (not corners)? Is System6 evo,c50 good at transitions?


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

framesti said:


> So I assume Tarmac would be "flickable." But you said descending is poor, you mean only in a straight line (not corners)? Is System6 evo,c50 good at transitions?


Spec Tarmac. Yes, vey quick in all regards. I don't know about the ultimate cornering performance, i didn't have enough confidence to test near it. Other people i ride with have them and seemt obe happy though. IMO ride one in real conditions before purchase. They seem to be rather polalizing.

Evo is very good at everything.

C50/59 family excels at anything that involves going fast. Going slow they can be slow steering, particularly when sized too large for the rider. Too spendy IMO anyway to trash them crit riding...


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

"It doesn’t have the ISP, which I would personally pay not to have."

icsloppi, what do you not like about the ISP frame? I'm considering an ISP Defy with DA 9000. I'm a big guy so was leery of that ISP seatpost but Giant and a rider I know who is also a big guy tell me it is not an issue.


----------

