Does anyone know where I can find a review on the pro version of the 2012 Specialized Venge? I can only find reviews on the S-Works and Mclaren models, both of which are out of my price range.
Thanks
Specialized Venge PRO review?
Moderator: robbosmans
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
According to my local Specialized rep the frame itself is the same as the S-Works. The only difference is the fork and seat post. I test rode a PRO for about 10 miles and it was not as rough as I expected. Actually I thought it rode as well as my SL3 Tarmac.
Well if your really interested I have a Venge pro RED in a 54cm.
I'd give you some info about it if your still thinking about it.
I'm planning of selling it here before Christmas on eBay, but if anyone on the forum knows of someone who wants it have them contact me.
I'd give you some info about it if your still thinking about it.
I'm planning of selling it here before Christmas on eBay, but if anyone on the forum knows of someone who wants it have them contact me.
Curious review.
He bashes the head tube length, but then say removing spacers and changing stem angle gets the bars only "slightly lower". If the bars are so much higher than optimal, maybe the reviewer was on the wrong size bike.
Then he bashes the wheels. But he says things aren't improved by the Zipp 404's, which are presumably a gold standard for wheels, so it seems the problem wasn't the wheels. Bike fit, perhaps?
The weight comparison to the Tarmac was relevant (680 grams). Figure 300 from the frame and 50 from the fork.... that leaves 330 grams from mystery sources.
" Like the Tarmac Pro, there’s a slight sense of power loss from the 10r carbon blend of the frame, which noticeably dulls acceleration."
Huh? Loss of acceleration compared to what? To the 11r frame set up with the same wheels they used in comparative trials?
He bashes the head tube length, but then say removing spacers and changing stem angle gets the bars only "slightly lower". If the bars are so much higher than optimal, maybe the reviewer was on the wrong size bike.
Then he bashes the wheels. But he says things aren't improved by the Zipp 404's, which are presumably a gold standard for wheels, so it seems the problem wasn't the wheels. Bike fit, perhaps?
The weight comparison to the Tarmac was relevant (680 grams). Figure 300 from the frame and 50 from the fork.... that leaves 330 grams from mystery sources.
" Like the Tarmac Pro, there’s a slight sense of power loss from the 10r carbon blend of the frame, which noticeably dulls acceleration."
Huh? Loss of acceleration compared to what? To the 11r frame set up with the same wheels they used in comparative trials?
Yeah - there's not much to say about that review. I've always found the Future Publishing stuff to be pretty useless if it isn't from James Huang or Matt Pacocha. I mean honestly, Future has posted wheelset reviews without weights!?!? James & Matt seem to be the only two who actually provide trustworthy and referenced reviews.
As for the head-tube comments, check the author & magazine it was written for - By Guy Kesteven, Triathlon Plus
My guess is that they were comparing it to full-on TT bikes in terms of Headtube length. With that said, it is worth noting that Specialized have FINALLY sorted out their HT lengths this year. It started with the Venge and has carried over to the SL4 as well... it's not quite as aggressive as the old "PRO" geometry they made up for Boonen, but it's a large step in the right direction.
Example - 58cm HT used to be 205mm and is now down to 190mm (PRO geo used to be offered at 170mm)
Finally, regarding the 10R versus 11R... I'm willing to bet large, LARGE sums that if this writer were blindfolded, he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two. I raced & worked all season on a Tarmac 10R, having logs lots of miles on the S-Works models as well, and I'm pretty sure I'd notice 5psi difference in my tires before I could tell you that my acceleration was noticeably dulled.
Of course, this doesn't mean that I won't read Guy's review next month for the new Shimano Placebo Wheelset - "I can tell they're faster because I expect them to be faster!!"
As for the head-tube comments, check the author & magazine it was written for - By Guy Kesteven, Triathlon Plus
My guess is that they were comparing it to full-on TT bikes in terms of Headtube length. With that said, it is worth noting that Specialized have FINALLY sorted out their HT lengths this year. It started with the Venge and has carried over to the SL4 as well... it's not quite as aggressive as the old "PRO" geometry they made up for Boonen, but it's a large step in the right direction.
Example - 58cm HT used to be 205mm and is now down to 190mm (PRO geo used to be offered at 170mm)
Finally, regarding the 10R versus 11R... I'm willing to bet large, LARGE sums that if this writer were blindfolded, he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two. I raced & worked all season on a Tarmac 10R, having logs lots of miles on the S-Works models as well, and I'm pretty sure I'd notice 5psi difference in my tires before I could tell you that my acceleration was noticeably dulled.
Of course, this doesn't mean that I won't read Guy's review next month for the new Shimano Placebo Wheelset - "I can tell they're faster because I expect them to be faster!!"
At least he swapped the wheels. Most reviewers won't even do that.
js wrote:Yeah - there's not much to say about that review. I've always found the Future Publishing stuff to be pretty useless if it isn't from James Huang or Matt Pacocha. I mean honestly, Future has posted wheelset reviews without weights!?!? James & Matt seem to be the only two who actually provide trustworthy and referenced reviews.
As for the head-tube comments, check the author & magazine it was written for - By Guy Kesteven, Triathlon Plus
My guess is that they were comparing it to full-on TT bikes in terms of Headtube length. With that said, it is worth noting that Specialized have FINALLY sorted out their HT lengths this year. It started with the Venge and has carried over to the SL4 as well... it's not quite as aggressive as the old "PRO" geometry they made up for Boonen, but it's a large step in the right direction.
Example - 58cm HT used to be 205mm and is now down to 190mm (PRO geo used to be offered at 170mm)
Finally, regarding the 10R versus 11R... I'm willing to bet large, LARGE sums that if this writer were blindfolded, he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two. I raced & worked all season on a Tarmac 10R, having logs lots of miles on the S-Works models as well, and I'm pretty sure I'd notice 5psi difference in my tires before I could tell you that my acceleration was noticeably dulled.
Of course, this doesn't mean that I won't read Guy's review next month for the new Shimano Placebo Wheelset - "I can tell they're faster because I expect them to be faster!!"
I agree that a large amount of Future Publishing reviews are total cr*p, BUT Guy Kesteven is decent. He's one of the better reviewers for the the MTB stuff and has a discerning eye for Road and I seriously doubt he was comparing it to a TT bike!!! A lot of the mainstream bikes are moving towards bigger headtubes. Just look at all the long negative rise stems on Pro bikes compared to 5,7 years ago....
Guy obviously didnt like the bike. Big deal,its a subjective thing, take one out and ride it and see for yourself. Besides, bikes are so good nowdays that if you think its fast and good then that'll transform into your riding. The legs and head are MUCH more important than the bike.
Fair enough Andy - my apologies if my comments on Guy's review were a bit too personally pointed.
I honestly can't say that I've ever seen anything from Guy that has made me take notice of him as a decent reviewer and separate him from the mass of poorly done reviews that Future pump out. However, the fact that I haven't noticed certainly doesn't mean it's never happened and I'm happy to have someone reference good pieces Guy has written to help counter the impression he's left with this Venge review.
In the end, I suppose we all want the same things - controlled variables, comparative reviews, referenced opinions and quantitative results when available. The good news is that it does seem like Velonews has listened to our requests for at least some of this... so maybe Future can be next?
I honestly can't say that I've ever seen anything from Guy that has made me take notice of him as a decent reviewer and separate him from the mass of poorly done reviews that Future pump out. However, the fact that I haven't noticed certainly doesn't mean it's never happened and I'm happy to have someone reference good pieces Guy has written to help counter the impression he's left with this Venge review.
In the end, I suppose we all want the same things - controlled variables, comparative reviews, referenced opinions and quantitative results when available. The good news is that it does seem like Velonews has listened to our requests for at least some of this... so maybe Future can be next?
Thanks for the props js. I can't speak for the whole industry, but Nick and I are just like you guys, we want to find out same things. Luckily we have a mag behind us that lets us do the research we want to do. We just booked quite a bit of wind tunnel time, for example, far more than last year. I think you guys will like the tests we have slated.
James and Paco at Future are great reviewers, too, and good guys. I personally enjoy their stuff. Must be something about Boulder, all four of us live here
James and Paco at Future are great reviewers, too, and good guys. I personally enjoy their stuff. Must be something about Boulder, all four of us live here
VeloNews Magazine/VeloNews.com tech
Bicycle Quarterly is a good model for bike reviews. If a part is suspect, it's swapped to assess whether it was an issue (brakes, pads, wheels, stems, accessories). Geometry is always documented. Mileage ridden by the testers is always quantified. Specific tests are done to compare the test bike to a reference bike.
So for this test I'd want to know what size the guy was riding and would the next smaller size have fit him with a better bar position? Was the stem length even fit to him (if so he could have gone with the -17 deg Specialized stem)? Don't just claim acceleration was poor: do some sprint trials and see how the times compare to a reference bike. If you think the carbon is the issue, compare to the frame with the higher-grade carbon. What's the source of the 680 gram weight difference?
I think a lot can be done short of the Tour "tear it down and bend it" quantitative approach.
So for this test I'd want to know what size the guy was riding and would the next smaller size have fit him with a better bar position? Was the stem length even fit to him (if so he could have gone with the -17 deg Specialized stem)? Don't just claim acceleration was poor: do some sprint trials and see how the times compare to a reference bike. If you think the carbon is the issue, compare to the frame with the higher-grade carbon. What's the source of the 680 gram weight difference?
I think a lot can be done short of the Tour "tear it down and bend it" quantitative approach.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Wifey's got one, she really likes it compared to her 2011 Amira Pro. Stiffer and still is compliant. I took a spin on it. Compared to a standard frame, it does cheat the wind noticably. However, I feel it really shines in a X-wind. Size 49, It's built up with a mix of Red/Force with a powertap/stans wheel set for the winter it weighs in @ 16 lbs ready to ride. W/ her Easton EC90SL's it is right @ 15 ready to ride.
