# Seeking Pic of 2009 Tricross Pro



## musikfan (Aug 15, 2007)

does anyone have a photo or .jpg of the TriCross Pro frameset?
or bike?
and I am guessing the geometry is the same as the 08?

I know the dealers got new catalogs, but can't find even a rogue photo on the web.

"anyone anyone bueller?"

and thanks


----------



## heenan (Oct 22, 2004)

Here you go. Geometry is the same as the 2008 model.


----------



## superdork (Nov 6, 2007)

I love how it has eyelets so I could put a rear rack on my $1500 CX frameset


----------



## surfamtn (Aug 28, 2006)

superdork said:


> I love how it has eyelets so I could put a rear rack on my $1500 CX frameset


Solid point, but I might think that they have forged up the same drop out for all the Tricross frames. Take the bolts out and call it "custom drilled for weight savings".
I still think the Fork is lame, is this one full carbon?


----------



## anthemracer (Nov 13, 2007)

I don't drink the Kool Aid of most Specialized products but I do like their bikes over all. I do feel like they dropped the ball on this frame. It is a touring bike, not a cx bike. Maybe we could call it a multifunction bike!


----------



## rkj__ (Mar 21, 2007)

anthemracer said:


> I don't drink the Kool Aid of most Specialized products but I do like their bikes over all. I do feel like they dropped the ball on this frame. It is a touring bike, not a cx bike. Maybe we could call it a multifunction bike!


I would not say they dropped the ball on it. It is one of those do-it-all bikes. If you are looking for a pure bread racer, the tricross _might not be for you_, but it will still make some riders very happy.

I still think those pieces of rubber on the fork look bad.


----------



## anthemracer (Nov 13, 2007)

I agree... You would just think that a company such as Specialized might build a true cx bike.


----------



## musikfan (Aug 15, 2007)

They do have a true CX bike, it's called S-Works Tricross
and wow, funny, I can't afford even the frame set. I'll settle for this.

So, I think I'll be fine with removing the rack bolts and what not and still end up with a 16/17 pound cross bike without their silly rubber covered front fork. 
I have a WCS to replace it.

Anthemracer, what are you racing then? a Vanilla?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

anthemracer said:


> Maybe we could call it a multifunction bike!


Specialized already made up a word for these bikes/frames: "Freeroad"


----------



## Vegancx (Jan 22, 2004)

musikfan said:


> They do have a true CX bike, it's called S-Works Tricross
> and wow, funny, I can't afford even the frame set. I'll settle for this.
> 
> So, I think I'll be fine with removing the rack bolts and what not and still end up with a 16/17 pound cross bike without their silly rubber covered front fork.
> ...


pull out the bolts, put in some 5 mm grub screws - problem solved. That's my solution for the rack mounts on the much-vaunted Kona (they are also handy for replacing water bottle bolts).

Unfortunately, I also can't afford to have Dutch gnomes build my cyclocross frames without eyelets or water bottle bosses. 

I'm less bothered by the Tri Cross pro than by the comp - why Specialized's entry level cross bike costs $1400 and couldn't even race cross out of the box is mind blowing.


----------



## zedwards45 (May 16, 2007)

Here is a pic of my 09 Tricross Pro. It not finished yet, but I will post pictures and a build list later. I also have an 08 Tricross Pro for my B bike and say what you want but it rides really nice. Way better than the Redline that I was on last year.


----------



## samuel (Dec 5, 2002)

*nice looking bike*

Nice looking bike. They are good lookers but for me it didn't work. I sold my Expert. It is just my personal opinion but this bike is overrated. I would highly suggest to any one interested in a tricross to test ride it first before buying one. 


zedwards45 said:


> Here is a pic of my 09 Tricross Pro. It not finished yet, but I will post pictures and a build list later. I also have an 08 Tricross Pro for my B bike and say what you want but it rides really nice. Way better than the Redline that I was on last year.


----------



## musikfan (Aug 15, 2007)

Samuel,
well, what's your story about the bike?


----------



## one_speed (Jun 30, 2003)

I'm curious as well. Doesn't look like a touring bike to me.


----------



## samuel (Dec 5, 2002)

*Tricross*

Well, again this is my review of the bike. For starters, I have ridden many many bikes over the years. So my experience with the Tricross Expert (08 Rival) is:
a "vanilla or bland" bike. It is slow accelerating. When you stomp on the pedals you don't feel the bike jump underneath you. It was slow on a cross course. The cross races that I did on it required tight quick turns and with this bike I felt like I was oversteering. I feel the Zertz dampers are a farce. Really I don't see the need for them especially when the rear had them placed within carbon and the fork is carbon also. 
On the road with road tires, again this bike was slow accelerating. I would rate this bike as a touring bike. It is one of the most "overrated forum" bikes that I have ridden. On cross forums this bike gets mentioned constantly and I don't know why. This is not a great cross bike in my opinion. My Expert was a fancy painted touring bike. 
By the way did I mention how much I disliked the Mini V brakes!! Oh yea how about the fork brake chatter. Look elsewhere if you are in the market for a real cross bike.



one_speed said:


> I'm curious as well. Doesn't look like a touring bike to me.


----------



## one_speed (Jun 30, 2003)

Interesting. Well, thanks for sharing, I certainly wouldn't have guessed that was what this bike had to offer.


----------



## musikfan (Aug 15, 2007)

I would guess, that the wheels, transmission and parts selection for the Expert is a large part of why you were not a fan. 
I wonder what Redline, Salsa, Trek, etc are putting on their bikes in this same price point.
I can't imagine it's much different. The geometry yes, but parts quality from bike to bike are usually very close in these price areas.
If - when I get my Tricross Pro frameset - I'll post up here how it ends up riding.
I am sure Zedwards might have some insight into how his bike handles? Once he gets a chain on it  Oh and what does it weigh, w/ pedals and a chain? 
is that a zedwards from the state of KY?


----------



## OCscs (Feb 5, 2007)

*Crits?*

Do you think it would hold it's own as a tuesday night training crit racer as well as a cross racer???


----------



## one_speed (Jun 30, 2003)

OCscs said:


> Do you think it would hold it's own as a tuesday night training crit racer as well as a cross racer???


What size to you ride? The geo of the smaller sizes may not work so well...


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

Entering my 15th season racing CX, I've raced quite a few different bikes in my time, but currently on Specialized for what will be my 4th year. I am very impressed with their bikes. I used the S-Works version 2 and 3 years ago, and that bike rode fantastic. I "upgraded" to the non-S-Works "pro" version last fall, and will be using those same frames this coming season. They are even better than that previous S-Works version, due to the addition of carbon/zerts in the rear end and carbon steer tube.

I've ridden some of the other lighter carbon forks out there. This one is not as light, true, but it is stiffer and more stable with better mud clearance. It's certainly not tankish in any way that would matter.

Bottle cage bolts and fender eyelets make absolutely NO difference in how a bike races. They do, however, make the "specialty bike" useful for the remainder of the year. What matters more than anything are details around the cable routing, tire clearance, chainring clearance, and geometry. But most importantly, the MOTOR.

There are a few things that are important w/ a cross bike design, detail-wise, that Specialized has nailed w/ this frame. Many folks don't have the competency to be able to identify those things. There is NOTHING I can find to complain about these bikes. The Zertz DO work in my opinion, but what they provide isn't really that big of a deal compared to more important things like tires/pressure. 

I like the look of the new frames. Sexy. But I also like mine from last year, still looking fine and functioning perfect.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

CDB said:


> What matters more than anything are details around the cable routing, tire clearance, chainring clearance, and geometry. But most importantly, the MOTOR.
> 
> There are a few things that are important w/ a cross bike design, detail-wise, that Specialized has nailed w/ this frame. Many folks don't have the competency to be able to identify those things.


Curious. What are those things <strike>the most</strike> that many folks don't have the competency to identify. Is it a trade secret?


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Curious. What are those things the most folks don't have the competency to identify. Is it a trade secret?


"many" and "most" are two different things. I'm not on here to insult everyone, and that was not what I said. 

I stated "many".

Just like how "many" folks can't discern the difference in flavor between a reese's peanut butter cup vs. peanut m&m vs. reese's pieces. 

I'm sure that you are NOT in the group that "doesn't know" the differences, being a mainstay here on the CX forum.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

*Fixed it.*



CDB said:


> "many" and "most" are two different things. I'm not on here to insult everyone, and that was not what I said.
> 
> I stated "many".
> 
> Just like how "many" folks can't discern the difference in flavor between a reese's peanut butter cup vs. peanut m&m vs. reese's pieces.


Apologies for the miss-quote. And I take your point.

But I am still curious what those details that Specialized got right might be, if they are not already represented here:


CDB said:


> What matters more than anything are details around the cable routing, tire clearance, chainring clearance, and geometry.


 Which I agree are all things that are more important than accessory mounts.


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

Thanks.

Yes, those things in my paragraph, mainly. I have seen many frames that have issues after build up. 

Like, for some more basic examples, you shouldn't have to run a wide spindle to get clearance at the chainstay. A standard double road crank should work. Chainline should be good in all range of gears at the cassette, using a single ring setup. There should not be a possibility of chainsuck. The brakes should be able to open up enough to remove a standard 32c CX tire w/ normal pads, w/o deflating a tire. Cables and stops shouldn't be under the top tube. Should be lots of clearance at chainstay bridge and seatstay arch, as well as up front at fork. Fork shouldn't shudder excessively. One bike should match another, identical model. In other words, take stuff off one frame, they should fit on the other, same brand/size. The geometry should be same between and consistent. Head angles and top tube lengths shouldn't differ. Open main triangle for easy shouldering. Etc. 

Next time you're at the start line, look at a few of those variables on your fellow competitors bikes. You notice that different brands utilize different strategies, and many times due to oversights, they have created vulnerabilities with their designs once it gets muddy. 

I have noticed that things have improved across the board each year. Part of my opinions are certainly influenced by stuff I've seen in years past, and may not be present so often. Regardless, I don't care that much. 

My opinion is that Specialized has dotted their i's and crossed their t's w/ this bike.

I'm sure some folks hate them too. Mostly, I would bet that is due to opinions about the "S" corporation. This discussion isn't about that though. Just the Tricross 09.

Time to go ride.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

CDB said:


> Like, for some more basic examples, you shouldn't have to run a wide spindle to get clearance at the chainstay. A standard double road crank should work. Chainline should be good in all range of gears at the cassette, using a single ring setup. There should not be a possibility of chainsuck. The brakes should be able to open up enough to remove a standard 32c CX tire w/ normal pads, w/o deflating a tire. Cables and stops shouldn't be under the top tube. Should be lots of clearance at chainstay bridge and seatstay arch, as well as up front at fork. Fork shouldn't shudder excessively.


I see what you mean -- I've yet to own a frame that crossed every single one of those t's.


----------



## samuel (Dec 5, 2002)

*opinion*

Every one is entitled to an opinion and review of a bike. Just because you like yours and have been racing cross for 15 years doesn't make the tricross a great cross bike. I have been racing cross since 1995 so I am just a few years off of your pace and my opinion of the tricross is that it is not a great cross bike. A touring bike... yes. When I say touring bike I don't mean because of the fender mounts and rack mounts. We all know that these bolt ons do nothing for how a bike rides. I say it rides like a touring bike based on the long chainstays and based on when jumping on the pedals I felt that it was sluggish.
On a true cross bike have you every fit a 700 x 42 tire on the rear? Well I fit a Ritchey ZED 700 x 42 on the back of my tricross. How did specialized accomplish this great feat? Well, they simply lengthened the chainstays. We cross racers all know that we need nothing greater than a 35 in the rear with ample mud clearance. I could go on. My opinion again, but I can back it by saying that I owned a Tricross and also took measurements of this bike. I am not against the big S or I would have never bought this bike. Time to ride.


CDB said:


> Entering my 15th season racing CX, I've raced quite a few different bikes in my time, but currently on Specialized for what will be my 4th year. I am very impressed with their bikes. I used the S-Works version 2 and 3 years ago, and that bike rode fantastic. I "upgraded" to the non-S-Works "pro" version last fall, and will be using those same frames this coming season. They are even better than that previous S-Works version, due to the addition of carbon/zerts in the rear end and carbon steer tube.
> 
> I've ridden some of the other lighter carbon forks out there. This one is not as light, true, but it is stiffer and more stable with better mud clearance. It's certainly not tankish in any way that would matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## superdork (Nov 6, 2007)

The whole reason I posted anything about the eyelets was'nt because I was trying to trash the bike. Hell, even the carbon S-Works has the eyelets. I think little details like that show you what the company has intended for their bikes. You buy an Alan Cross frame and you won't have waterbottle braze ons. They completely intend that bike to be raced. Now, we are talking two different realms here, Specialized sells a bazillion bikes, Alan doesn't. Anybody can paint and decal a frame to look raceable.

I agree with you CDB, not enough people are competent to be able to identify those things, which is unfortunate. It's all in the details, but the most important part is that piece between the handlebars and seat.


----------



## OCscs (Feb 5, 2007)

*Crit size*

I currently ride a 60cm allez, but I am thinking of going to a 58CM tricross. I think I should be on a 58cm allez anyway.


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

samuel said:


> Every one is entitled to an opinion and review of a bike. Just because you like yours and have been racing cross for 15 years doesn't make the tricross a great cross bike. I have been racing cross since 1995 so I am just a few years off of your pace and my opinion of the tricross is that it is not a great cross bike. A touring bike... yes. When I say touring bike I don't mean because of the fender mounts and rack mounts. We all know that these bolt ons do nothing for how a bike rides. I say it rides like a touring bike based on the long chainstays and based on when jumping on the pedals I felt that it was sluggish.
> On a true cross bike have you every fit a 700 x 42 tire on the rear? Well I fit a Ritchey ZED 700 x 42 on the back of my tricross. How did specialized accomplish this great feat? Well, they simply lengthened the chainstays. We cross racers all know that we need nothing greater than a 35 in the rear with ample mud clearance. I could go on. My opinion again, but I can back it by saying that I owned a Tricross and also took measurements of this bike. I am not against the big S or I would have never bought this bike. Time to ride.


Good thoughts. No, I have not ever used a larger than 35 tire. Extra clearance to me is a good thing when racing in nasty mud of the NW. If I were racing in areas where that kind of clearance was not necessary, maybe I'd just race my road bike. I've never felt that 1/2" shorter seat stays made me any faster, but maybe I'm not able to percieve negative effects of those kinds of things on my race speeds as well as you can. That's cool that you've developed that ability. Neat. 

I do know that my mechanic was goofing around w/ his singlespeed tricross, and he could fit a full 2.0 29er tire in the fork! This was w/ the previous fork crown that was aluminum, like the S-Works version of 2-3 years ago.


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

superdork said:


> The whole reason I posted anything about the eyelets was'nt because I was trying to trash the bike. Hell, even the carbon S-Works has the eyelets. I think little details like that show you what the company has intended for their bikes. You buy an Alan Cross frame and you won't have waterbottle braze ons. They completely intend that bike to be raced. Now, we are talking two different realms here, Specialized sells a bazillion bikes, Alan doesn't. Anybody can paint and decal a frame to look raceable.
> 
> I agree with you CDB, not enough people are competent to be able to identify those things, which is unfortunate. It's all in the details, but the most important part is that piece between the handlebars and seat.


It's funny you mention ALAN, as those were some of the worst I'd ever ridden, as well as having the worst quality control, consistency, and paint. I'm talking about the 2004ish era. Maybe my case was an isolated one, and it was because the Team Management (Euromedia Group) was distributing "factory seconds" to it's racers? I certainly hope folks who were paying retail for those bikes weren't also getting that crap. As far as decals and paint go, I would characterize those bikes as: "weld something up, w/ some tolerances within 5-8%, then throw on a standard carbon rear stay. Stick some decals on, wherever they may land, and do a quick, brittle clear coat on. The kind that lasts about 2 races over carbon, then suddenly you're looking at bare, matte carbon." 

Looks like some of their recent imports are a bit better, but I can still see issues w/ a quick glance. I know they have a new domestic distributer now.

Specialized's frames are definitely nothing standard, made by others. The formation of the top tube and down tube is amazingly comfortable for portaging too.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding argumentative. I'm probably a little too wound up leading into the season.


----------



## musikfan (Aug 15, 2007)

well, I am certainly happy to see a 'productive' conversation here about this bike.

After lots of thought and more sizing research, the tricross lost out, due to price and geometry. I went with a Ridley. 
hopefully by Friday it will be in my grubby little cross hands.


----------

