201X Allez Sprint

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
IrrelevantD
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:47 pm
Location: Near DFW Airport

by IrrelevantD

jorryt wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:02 am
Yeah I don't get that super agressive talk either. My caad10 in 58 is also lower. But my understanding of geometry is limited.
Headtube angle and rake should also be factored in, but they did loosen up the geometry slightly for the disc, so it depends on which one you're looking at. I want to say they brought the disc a little closer to the Tarmac, a touch higher and shorter.

The rim brake version is one of the more aggressive road bikes out there, more aggressive than any of the carbon bikes Specialized makes. My 56 is near identical to the size Medium Giant Propel that preceded it with I believe a slightly steeper head tube.
* There is a 70% chance that what you have just read has a peppering of cynicism or sarcasm and generally should not be taken seriously.
I'll leave it up to you to figure out the other 30%. If you are in any way offended, that's on you.

CrankAddictsRich
Posts: 1749
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:39 pm
Contact:

by CrankAddictsRich

moock wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:57 am
thats not true.. I have Sprint 58 and compared to TCR L, reach is 2mm shorter and stack 2mm higher. And nearly every other roadbike in the same size is more aggressive...
It really comes down to the difference in naming systems and sizing standards that are all over the industry. You're right, looking at those two bikes, they are pretty simiar in raw numbers. I'm guessing that you had one and knew the fit was good and then got the other, and both the size that most closely matched. They actually represent two different "sizes" based on where they fit in their respective brand's size ranges... i.e. a 58 for Specalized would be an XL. It isn't really an issue for you though... you did it rigt, buying according to the fit numbers... but some people out there will know they ride a 54 Tarmac and will want the 54 Sprint, but that Sprint is much lower in the two "equivalent" sizes. Does that make sense?
IrrelevantD wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:05 pm
jorryt wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:02 am
Yeah I don't get that super agressive talk either. My caad10 in 58 is also lower. But my understanding of geometry is limited.
Headtube angle and rake should also be factored in, but they did loosen up the geometry slightly for the disc, so it depends on which one you're looking at. I want to say they brought the disc a little closer to the Tarmac, a touch higher and shorter.

The rim brake version is one of the more aggressive road bikes out there, more aggressive than any of the carbon bikes Specialized makes. My 56 is near identical to the size Medium Giant Propel that preceded it with I believe a slightly steeper head tube.
There's also this.... It isn't just the fit numbers that are agressive on the Sprint, the numbers from a handling perspective are also agressive. The Sprint was originally designed as a crit bike, so the steering angles prioritize fast handling and agility for tight, high speed crit courses. Most road racing bikes have slightly slower steering angles because they're also designed with stability in mind on long, fast alpine descents.

And as IrrelevantD has posted above, the numbers for the rim and disc brake models are slightly different. The rim brake sprint was designed as a crit bike and then I think when Specialized saw how popular the Sprint was with many different riders (because of the value and colorways) they realized that they could probably sell more of them if they relaxed the geometry slightly on the disc model.

by Weenie


moock
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:53 pm

by moock

IrrelevantD wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:05 pm
jorryt wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:02 am
Yeah I don't get that super agressive talk either. My caad10 in 58 is also lower. But my understanding of geometry is limited.
Headtube angle and rake should also be factored in, but they did loosen up the geometry slightly for the disc, so it depends on which one you're looking at. I want to say they brought the disc a little closer to the Tarmac, a touch higher and shorter.

The rim brake version is one of the more aggressive road bikes out there, more aggressive than any of the carbon bikes Specialized makes. My 56 is near identical to the size Medium Giant Propel that preceded it with I believe a slightly steeper head tube.
Only three numbers matter when it comes to bike FIT!.
-Stack
-Reach
-Head tube angle. The difference between 73 and 73.5 degree is massive when using a stem longer than 100mm.

User avatar
mpulsiv
Posts: 1312
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm

by mpulsiv

Reno wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:52 am
mpulsiv wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:41 am
Reno wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:25 pm

I would go for the Palace R. Probably lighter and almost as stiff? Not sure about the disc Allez but Rim version certainly doesn't accelerate like a greyhound. Handling is perfect though, but I have heard it is very good with Palace R as well. Would be nice to hear experiences from someone who have ridden both bikes...
Based on slew of rider's feedback over the years, Allez Sprint does accelerate like a greyhound, on par with Tarmac frames.
For some it might, that's of course subjective. For me - I have ridden both, SL5&SL6 versions from Comp to SWorks and I don't feel the same reactivity. That doesn't mean I think it's not good, but if it would be on par with Tarmac it would be awesome because that is the sensation that I feel lacking with Sprint...
SL5, SL6 and Allez Sprint had the same wheels, right?
Racing is a three-dimensional high-speed chess game, involving hundreds of pieces on the board.

:arrow: CBA = Chronic Bike Addiction
:arrow: OCD = Obsessive Cycling Disorder

Reno
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 7:00 am

by Reno

mpulsiv wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:34 pm
Reno wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:52 am
mpulsiv wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:41 am
Reno wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:25 pm

I would go for the Palace R. Probably lighter and almost as stiff? Not sure about the disc Allez but Rim version certainly doesn't accelerate like a greyhound. Handling is perfect though, but I have heard it is very good with Palace R as well. Would be nice to hear experiences from someone who have ridden both bikes...
Based on slew of rider's feedback over the years, Allez Sprint does accelerate like a greyhound, on par with Tarmac frames.
For some it might, that's of course subjective. For me - I have ridden both, SL5&SL6 versions from Comp to SWorks and I don't feel the same reactivity. That doesn't mean I think it's not good, but if it would be on par with Tarmac it would be awesome because that is the sensation that I feel lacking with Sprint...
SL5, SL6 and Allez Sprint had the same wheels, right?
SL5 and Sprint had the same wheels + same tires as well. SL6 had comparable wheels but inferior tires.

icantaffordcycling
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:03 am

by icantaffordcycling

Re: Difference between rim brake and disc brake geometry differences. The headtube on the rim brake version is 10mm smaller than the disc brake version in all sizes. This results in a 5mm stack difference between the two models. The rest of the 10mm difference is that the disc brake version's fork is 5mm shorter than the rim brake version's fork. They did not adjust the geometry to make the disc brake version for a different market but to adjust it for disc brake standard. There is also a longer chainstay and wheelbase on the disc brake version, also to accommodate disc brakes, not to make the bike more stable.
I have attached the geometry charts between the rim brake and disc brake versions below.

Image
Specialized Allez Sprint
Instagram || Shitposting is a god-given right. bannable offense.

betacyclist
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:26 pm

by betacyclist

Seeking for my first roadie. So I need some comparison of Allez sprint, since it's impossible in Greece to test ride it in person.

I've test ridden a Tarmac Pro of 2008 of which I can't find geometry details. Size 56, 20mm shorter stem (80mm) and 23mm tires. I felt like a needed those missing 2cm of stem. Specialized suggests 56size for my height, but my local shop says I'm a 54 in general.
So my test was a two day ride of 60km, flat and some climbing on 10 speed 11-28 cassette, some parts of the climb of 10-12% which was harder than I thought. Big disc was 50 tooth, didn't count the small (i suppose 34), it ran tiagra. It felt a bit hard on my bum, propably because of the tires. So wondering if anyone can give me some comparing details of that model with the allez for me, mainly interested in the compliance of the compared models and some fitting advice. Thanks


My rides are 1-3 hours, mixed flats and climbs. Currently riding a "hybrid" ideal ZigZag of 15kg, 3x8. (177cm height, 82 inseam, 58 arm length)
Last edited by betacyclist on Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
IrrelevantD
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:47 pm
Location: Near DFW Airport

by IrrelevantD

betacyclist wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:10 pm
Seeking for my first roadie. So I need some comparison of Allez sprint, since it's impossible in Greece to test ride it in person.

I've test rided a Tarmac Pro of 2008 of which I can't find geometry details. Size 56, 20mm shorter stem (80mm) and 23mm tires. I felt like a needed those missing 2cm of stem. Specialized suggests 56size for my height, but my local shop says I'm a 54 in general.
So my test was a two day ride of 60km, flat and some climbing on 10 speed 11-28 cassette, some parts of the climb of 10-12% which was harder than I thought. Big disc was 50 tooth, didn't count the small (i suppose 34), it ran tiagra. It felt a bit hard on my bum, propably because of the tires. So wondering if anyone can give me some comparing details of that model with the allez for me, mainly interested in the compliance of the compared models and some fiting advice. Thanks


My rides are 1-3 hours, mixed flats and climbs. Currently riding a "hybrid" ideal ZigZag of 15kg, 3x8. (177cm height, 82 inseam, 58 arm length)
I wouldn't worry so much about the stem length as that's easily changeable. As we've been mentioning above, Geometry is slightly different between the disc and rim brake version, so will be slightly different between the two, but if this is your first road bike I doubt you'd notice it. I had a 2005 S-Works Tarmac, I don't believe the geometry changed much between it an the 2008, so I can say the biggest noticable difference for me was the shorter stack height on the Allez. Easy to adjust for that with spacers unless the steerer tube has been chopped short.

Reach felt pretty close beween the two, and again, stem length is easily changable. I personally wouldn't do less than an 80mm stem with this bike given the relatively steep steerer angle as I imagine it would be very twitchy. If an 80mm stem felt too short to you on a 56 Tarmac, you would probably be just fine on a 56 Allez. If 80mm felt good on the Tarmac, go with the 54 and use a longer stem.

Based on height, I'm about 1cm taller than you with about 1cm more inseam and 56 fits perfectly with a 100mm stem. I'd say you could probably go either way without running into too much trouble and a Tarmac would be a decent judge. Another good bike to try from a fitting aspect would be a Giant Propel (rim brake). I had a 2015 Propel in a size M and it was nearly identical in regards to stack, reach and top tube length to my 56 Sprint. I think the Sprint is a better bike by far, but it woud give you a good idea of the size.
* There is a 70% chance that what you have just read has a peppering of cynicism or sarcasm and generally should not be taken seriously.
I'll leave it up to you to figure out the other 30%. If you are in any way offended, that's on you.

mscullion
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:28 pm

by mscullion

Hello,
I just finished my Allez Sprint VHS. I used All DA 9000 components, Roval CL64 with S-Works 24c tires, Spech crankset with SRM power meter. power Arc pro saddle, Arundel Mandible bottle cages,,
Attachments
IMG_1302.jpeg

dcorn
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:21 pm
Location: NoVA

by dcorn

betacyclist wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:10 pm
Seeking for my first roadie. So I need some comparison of Allez sprint, since it's impossible in Greece to test ride it in person.

I've test ridden a Tarmac Pro of 2008 of which I can't find geometry details. Size 56, 20mm shorter stem (80mm) and 23mm tires. I felt like a needed those missing 2cm of stem. Specialized suggests 56size for my height, but my local shop says I'm a 54 in general.
So my test was a two day ride of 60km, flat and some climbing on 10 speed 11-28 cassette, some parts of the climb of 10-12% which was harder than I thought. Big disc was 50 tooth, didn't count the small (i suppose 34), it ran tiagra. It felt a bit hard on my bum, propably because of the tires. So wondering if anyone can give me some comparing details of that model with the allez for me, mainly interested in the compliance of the compared models and some fitting advice. Thanks


My rides are 1-3 hours, mixed flats and climbs. Currently riding a "hybrid" ideal ZigZag of 15kg, 3x8. (177cm height, 82 inseam, 58 arm length)
Myself and a friend of mine are an inch or two taller than you and both ride a 54 Sprint. Same inseam. The bike definitely puts you in an aggressive position with the small head tube. I think you might be super stretched out or have to run a very short stem if you were on a 56. The reach is pretty long.

betacyclist
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:26 pm

by betacyclist

Thanks for the reply. My current feeling (or what my gut says as I'm inexperienced in road bikes) is that I like to be more stretched than compact.
Still searching though. Currently I started looking the bowman palace. Expecting the disc version to see what it says.

WheelNut
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:51 pm

by WheelNut

moock wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:42 pm
Only three numbers matter when it comes to bike FIT!.
-Stack
-Reach
-Head tube angle. The difference between 73 and 73.5 degree is massive when using a stem longer than 100mm.
So, what you're saying is a frame with a 72* seat tube angle will fit the same as a bike with a 74* seat tube angle. Reach doesn't factor into road bike fit. Bar to saddle, saddle height from BB, saddle setback from BB, and bar to saddle drop are really the relevant dimensions to assess a bike fit. Of course the industry doesn't build their geo charts this way because they arem't focused on fitting humans, rather they are focused on building frames and (maybe) describing bike handling. Anyway, it is possible to get all these dimensions from a standard geo chart, but it isn't as easy.

Nefarious86
Moderator
Posts: 3310
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am
Contact:

by Nefarious86


WheelNut wrote:
moock wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:42 pm
Only three numbers matter when it comes to bike FIT!.
-Stack
-Reach
-Head tube angle. The difference between 73 and 73.5 degree is massive when using a stem longer than 100mm.
So, what you're saying is a frame with a 72* seat tube angle will fit the same as a bike with a 74* seat tube angle. Reach doesn't factor into road bike fit. Bar to saddle, saddle height from BB, saddle setback from BB, and bar to saddle drop are really the relevant dimensions to assess a bike fit. Of course the industry doesn't build their geo charts this way because they arem't focused on fitting humans, rather they are focused on building frames and (maybe) describing bike handling. Anyway, it is possible to get all these dimensions from a standard geo chart, but it isn't as easy.
It will with the right offset seat post ;)



Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

Using Tapatalk

User avatar
IrrelevantD
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:47 pm
Location: Near DFW Airport

by IrrelevantD

WheelNut wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:42 pm
moock wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:42 pm
Only three numbers matter when it comes to bike FIT!.
-Stack
-Reach
-Head tube angle. The difference between 73 and 73.5 degree is massive when using a stem longer than 100mm.
So, what you're saying is a frame with a 72* seat tube angle will fit the same as a bike with a 74* seat tube angle. Reach doesn't factor into road bike fit. Bar to saddle, saddle height from BB, saddle setback from BB, and bar to saddle drop are really the relevant dimensions to assess a bike fit. Of course the industry doesn't build their geo charts this way because they arem't focused on fitting humans, rather they are focused on building frames and (maybe) describing bike handling. Anyway, it is possible to get all these dimensions from a standard geo chart, but it isn't as easy.
I'm confused where you're going with this. Reach and Stack are key. Seat tube angle is pretty insignificant given that you can adjust the position of the saddle given long enough rails, or changing out the seatpost for something with a different offset (as Nefarious said). A lower seat tube angle may affect your for-aft CG, but so will chainstay length. Headtube angle is significant more for handling than fit in my oppinion as the for-aft difference in a couple of degrees given the same length stem is minimal. Height can be adapted to by using a different angle stem or adding/removing spacers. Steeper HT affects trail, and the performance differences can be offset by changing the rake, but that's a bit more complex of a task and we're talking about fit here.

Bar to saddle = REACH + stem length + saddle setback from BB
saddle height from BB: adjustable with seatpost
saddle setback from BB: adjustable with seatpost/saddle rails
and bar to saddle drop: STACK +/- spacers +/- stem rise (º)

I was able to exactly replicate the position of my 56 Sprint on my 54 Cervelo Aspero and nearly able to replicate it on my 56 Trek Crockett, all by varying saddle height/setback and the stem and spacer choice. Three very different bikes, almost identical position. The only reason I couldn't replicate it on my Crockett was because the stack was too high, I would have needed something like a -20~something degree stem and only had -16º. Didn't want that low of a position on a CX bike anyay.
* There is a 70% chance that what you have just read has a peppering of cynicism or sarcasm and generally should not be taken seriously.
I'll leave it up to you to figure out the other 30%. If you are in any way offended, that's on you.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post