FactoryMatt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:33 am
FlatlandClimber wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 10:02 pm
Oh yes, a bike, more aero than the Venge and lighter than the current Tarmac wouldn't be product I would want to have in my portfolio if I were Spesh. Specialized invested millions to develop the SL7, and further millions to have pros around the world ride the bike and win races on it. That is the ultimate marketing to "legitimize" what they developed. Now putting out a bike that is "better in every way" than the "best in every way" would completely undermine what they did with the SL7. Also, they have to push marketing solely through their own channels, as their pros will never ride it. If I were a pro, I wouldn't be happy riding a brands second best.
take everything you just said and explain gravel. ppl dont give a flying fk about the UCI or about any american road racer not named lance armstrong.
FlatlandClimber wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:58 pm
If "UCI-illegal" means 6.5kg, they might as well not release it. If weight really was the matter of breaking the UCI rules, it has to as light or lighter than the Canyon Ultimate Evo to make any sense. A non-aero lightweight bike, that is "only" 3-500g lighter than a Stock Tarmac SL7 will be a bad choice for 99% of people.
not weight.
I don't find either of your points particularly convincing.
Gravel for 99% of people is a non-competitive part of cycling, and the product just makes sense of many people, just like SUVs make sense to people. A road bike, that can clear larger tires, has smaller gearing and a more relaxed geo, so people can ride it like an RB and an MTB. My gravel is my leisure bike, my bike packing bike, my fun bike. Just go into the woods, no music, no work out and just explore nature. On a road bike, with 25c tires, I can't do that, since many roads where I live are not rideable for such bike. For me the explanation of gravel is: for road bikers who want to go more places and want a bike that can do more, but not at the disadvantages of an MTB (geo, weight, handlebar, speed on roads). However, I wouldn't buy a new gravel bike based on performance claims like "25 seconds faster over 40k of Dirty Kanza". An all out performance GC bike and a fun bike are so different, that they can't be sold the same way.
Triathlon is not sanctioned by the UCI and has its own rules. Since it's inherintly a 180k TT, a discipline very uncommon in road cycling, it makes sense to do a few things differently from a TT bike (especially when it comes to nutrition). Triathlon has its own "big stage" with its own stars and specialized pays a few of them to ride their bikes, just like they do in competitive road racing.
Who is going to "prove" the concept of a non-UCI legal road bike? Also, does a bike need to be better (to sell it, that is) than the one bike that Peter Sagan will win geh green jersey on and other GC riders will win stages/ classics on?
Don't think that people will crave something faster, and I don't think it would do any good to specialized's portfolio.
: 
