Loading…
What, did you read this? http://road.cc/content/review/215358-specialized-sequoia-expert
Well, they both road like “trucks” to me. That said I got off the Sequoia thinking that I could comfortably ride that bike all day. The checkpoint surprised me at how maneuverable it is for a backpacking bike (I’m guessing that is from the head tube angle).
Personally, I like a lighter more responsive bike (my bike is almost 10lbs (4.5kg) lighter than the sequoia). But no, I wouldn’t go from a Sequoia to a checkpoint. They are too similar. Besides, I like the sequoia better. Ride your bike with and without two full water bottles. Does the weight make a difference? I do agree though, the Sequoia is not a fast bike. It’s a bike for a steady all day journey.
Only thing that bothers me about carbon is abrasion.
Personally I would look at Raleigh or one of Mark’s new Noble bikes. That would be a nice upgrade.
chas wrote:What, did you read this? http://road.cc/content/review/215358-specialized-sequoia-expert
Well, they both road like “trucks” to me. That said I got off the Sequoia thinking that I could comfortably ride that bike all day. The checkpoint surprised me at how maneuverable it is for a backpacking bike (I’m guessing that is from the head tube angle).
Personally, I like a lighter more responsive bike (my bike is almost 10lbs (4.5kg) lighter than the sequoia). But no, I wouldn’t go from a Sequoia to a checkpoint. They are too similar. Besides, I like the sequoia better. Ride your bike with and without two full water bottles. Does the weight make a difference? I do agree though, the Sequoia is not a fast bike. It’s a bike for a steady all day journey.
Only thing that bothers me about carbon is abrasion.
Personally I would look at Raleigh or one of Mark’s new Noble bikes. That would be a nice upgrade.
Wilkens wrote:
Why do you say you like the Sequoia more than the Checkpoint?
The sequoia fit me like a glove. Out of about a dozen bikes it stood out as being very very comfortable fitting. But it was to heavy and sluggish for me. I kinda like steel, but Carbon can be smoother (if that is what the designer wants).
The Checkpoint I road was too big for me, so maybe I’m not giving it credit. It was more agile than the typical gravel bike, but still had stability from the wheelbase and BB drop. It did not strike me as being slow. Weight seems reasonable. Its a nice mix. Still, it seemed a little over built for me unless I was backpacking or doing some serious rough roads.
I use my bike for everything – Gravel, Urban, Commuting, Cat 2-3 road race training, CX racing. My expectations may be a little different from the average rider here.
For you:
If you are concerned about weight,the frame is 1kg lighter (2.2kg vs 1.2 kg for the two)The carbon fork on the sequoia is almost 1kg lighter than its steel fork.
I have built up a steel bike to be within a lb of a carbon bike at a similar price point. For instance, I shaved 500g on my bike by upgrading tires and wheels.
Sequoia: Complete bike weight is claimed at 24lb (10.88kg) for a size 56.
Frame weight is claimed at 2.2kg, and the carbon fork is 500g and steel fork is 1,400g.
I found that the sequoia does not accelerate well, but once it is up to speed it cruises well.
Nothing beats a test ride. My LBS will rent a bike out to me for a day – see if they have loaners or rental bikes if you are unsure.
About a month ago I was seeing Raleigh Roker comps for $1600-$1700. One of the best bikes out there and a steal at that price (the sport was about $400 cheaper). You can make that a 17.5lb bike if you really want to.
stud.beefpile wrote:One more thing when reviewing those articles is to consider the sources. . .
One is a pretty paved-road-specific cycling website (road.cc), while none of the "test crew" on the other website (Granfondo) list what I can see as anything approaching "gravel" credentials (at least for here in the Midwest US). . .Granfondo is also comparing the Sequoia against racing bikes costing over four times as much. . .
The Sequoia slots in as an adventure bike with more durable components and hauling capacity or bikepacking capability. It should have been compared against more comparable bikes such as the Specialized AWOL, Salsa Fargo, Cutthroat, Vaya, etc.
I mostly ride recreationally and for fitness, so I want a bike that's going to be comfortable for commuting, bikepacking, training, and racing for 50+ miles at a time on everything from baby head gravel to smooth concrete road surfaces and that can handle carrying 20 lbs. of hydration, calories, tools, and spare tubes and kit and still ride stably.
The bikes it is up against in that competition look like mostly cyclocross bikes (and an out-of-place MTB?). The other bikes look like they'd be miserable to ride with any kind of load on the gravel roads here in Kansas and Missouri (excluding the Procaliber and Cutthroat).
I've ridden and finished the Dirty Kanza 100 & 200, and the Sequoia, Cutthroat, and ProCaliber are the only bikes I see on that (Granfondo) list that I'd consider riding in the DK. Maybe the skinny-mini racers can handle taking the beating those stiff frames will deliver over 200 miles, but the tight geometries will make the twitchy handling highly suspect on the loose, chunky, fast gravel downhills of the DK (I've ridden a CX bike on the DK 100, and there is a difference).
I would personally prefer the longer wheelbase and more relaxed geometry of the Sequoia or Cutthroat over any of the rest of those bikes for the type of gravel riding we have here in the Midwest US. I could also see myself riding the Sequoia or Cutthroat on my 30-mile mixed surface one-way commute. . .I'm not so sure about the other bikes. . .
owly wrote:If a lighter-weight road/gravel ride is now your thing then yes, I'd sell the heavy Sequoia. You will notice the ride difference.
May as well see what else is out there with similar spec/price-or-better/different frame geometries etc. e.g. 2018 Jamis Renegade Expert.
stud.beefpile wrote:Disclaimer: I am a perpetually-recovering bike-upgraditis addict.
My perspective on bike frame materials is that if the bike is comfortable (i.e. a good fit or the "right" size), and does what I want it to do, since I'm 210 lbs., A 1-2 lbs. lighter frame isn't going to feel that much different. Other components, such as wheels and tires will have a larger influence.
Maybe they can feel a difference in the steel types, and maybe it's the upgraded components on the next-step-up Sequoia (I'm guessing they didn't do a component-by-component transfer on an identically-sized frame to verify the "ride-feel" difference of the different steels.)
If money is no object, I'd buy a carbon wheelset. I have Stans No Tubes Valor wheels and I'm thoroughly impressed. They are lighter and more compliant compared to the other aluminum wheels I've previously run on the same bike. If money is an issue, start with a lighter, fast-rolling tire like a Panaracer GravelKing SK.
I've tried changing out for lighter seatposts and seats, and pedals, and they have no discernible impact on my speed at my fitness level and weight. For touchpoint items such as seats, seatposts, handlebars, etc., I go for comfort first, since 100 grams is roughly 0.22 lbs. (when I weigh 210 lbs.). Wheels and tires make a very noticeable difference, though.
earlethomas wrote:[Personally, I like a lighter more responsive bike (my bike is almost 10lbs (4.5kg) lighter than the sequoia).]
Chas, what is your ride?
I have way too many bikes (of all different kinds of frame material), but lately my primary whip has been a Canyon Inflite (7.9kg stock, 7.4kg in light weight form). I probably would have gotten a Raleigh Roker if I live in the UK and could get the light weight version, The Roker is more versatile. But if purchasing a US model I would have had to rebuild it to get that weight. Seemed kinda silly. But at a little over $1K for the Rally sport – that could be a good bike to build up (as the Gravelcyclist demonstrated with his 17.5 lb build).
stud.beefpile makes a good case for Sequoia or Cuthroat for his riding. The question is – is that the type of riding you do?
The Checkpoint strikes me as more of a backpacking bike or for the type of riding beefpile does. I get the impression you may want something a little lighter simpler faster than a DK100 or backpacking type bike??? I think it is a great bike for what beefpile needs.
Again back to my questions:
Do you want something more backpacking or DK100 oriented, more road bike oriente,d more mountain bike oriented, more all around? Maybe a Checkpoint would be good for you. Maybe a Diverge or Domane. Maybe a GT grade or Cannondale Slate. Maybe something else. Depends on how focused you are on gravel vs an all around bike.
Without knowing that, you’ll get answers from people about which bike is better for them, rather than for you (i.e. you probably don’t want my bike, LOL). Most bikes in the gravel category are going to be relaxed. Even a “race bike” like the Salsa warbird is relatively relaxed.
I don’t know which grade steel is used, I like the Reynolds 500 series or similar. Below that tends to be too heavy. Above that is really too stiff for what most people want in a steel gravel bike. A good steel frame is 2lbs heavier than carbon/aluminum. More if its a heavy duty application or lower grade of steel.
As for upgrading wheels and parts – that is possible. It’s not going to make a huge difference, but if you can shave 2-3lbs off the bike it will be noticeable. Weight mostly makes a difference when accelerating (including climbing). On a steady state ride, weight doesn’t make too much difference on a relatively flat course. Realistically, how much weight do you think you can save with wheels?
chas wrote:stud.beefpile makes a good case for Sequoia or Cuthroat for his riding. The question is – is that the type of riding you do?
The Checkpoint strikes me as more of a backpacking bike or for the type of riding beefpile does. I get the impression you may want something a little lighter simpler faster than a DK100 or backpacking type bike??? I think it is a great bike for what beefpile needs.
Again back to my questions:
- What percentage are you doing on road – dirt – single track
- What size tires do you want?
- Do you want stability or agility?
- What speeds do you ride?
Do you want something more backpacking or DK100 oriented, more road bike oriente,d more mountain bike oriented, more all around? Maybe a Checkpoint would be good for you. Maybe a Diverge or Domane. Maybe a GT grade or Cannondale Slate. Maybe something else. Depends on how focused you are on gravel vs an all around bike.
Without knowing that, you’ll get answers from people about which bike is better for them, rather than for you (i.e. you probably don’t want my bike, LOL). Most bikes in the gravel category are going to be relaxed. Even a “race bike” like the Salsa warbird is relatively relaxed.
I don’t know which grade steel is used, I like the Reynolds 500 series or similar. Below that tends to be too heavy. Above that is really too stiff for what most people want in a steel gravel bike. A good steel frame is 2lbs heavier than carbon/aluminum. More if its a heavy duty application or lower grade of steel.
As for upgrading wheels and parts – that is possible. It’s not going to make a huge difference, but if you can shave 2-3lbs off the bike it will be noticeable. Weight mostly makes a difference when accelerating (including climbing). On a steady state ride, weight doesn’t make too much difference on a relatively flat course. Realistically, how much weight do you think you can save with wheels?
Well, the most important thing is fit – I’m guessing the sequoia fits good, so something similar would work? Probably something in the 20lb range. Carbon and aluminum tend to be more responsive than Steel, and Carbon can also be as comfortable as steel (although steel has a beautiful way to dampen vibrations). Carbon can be anything, depends how it is designed and built. It does scratch, chip, and wear from abrasion though. Sounds like you want more of an endurance geometry, but not a backpacking/touring bike, and a frame that can take 40mm tires (you can always go smaller, but you can’t go bigger than what the frame allows). Longish wheelbase and low bottom bracket for stability.
Checkpoint could be good for ya. I liked the combination of sharp handling and long wheelbase. Diamondback Haanjo, Jamis Renegade, Salsa Warbird (no racks or fenders), & Raleigh has/had a couple (Roker, Tamland).
Don't forget the Sequoia has a proprietary (or just weird) sized headset/steerer tube - 1-1/8" to 1-3/8"
I have a Sequoia Expert and the new (2018) Carbon Diverge Expert.
These are vastly different bikes to be sure. I rode the Sequoia in the 2017 DK200 after I made a couple of big changes.
bwepps wrote:I have a Sequoia Expert and the new (2018) Carbon Diverge Expert.
These are vastly different bikes to be sure. I rode the Sequoia in the 2017 DK200 after I made a couple of big changes.
Those changes made the Sequoia ride and feel like another bike. Much quicker and lighter. One of the folks I know at Specialized told me that the wheelset on the Sequoia was a major factor of a poor test-ride experience when it came out. Peeps were looking for a gravel steed, not a touring/bike packing rig. Is it as light as my carbon Diverge Expert? NO. But changing out the wheelset and tires made it ride like a completely different bike. There was no way I was interested in riding the stock heavy wheelset and tires in the Dirty Kanza with all that climbing.
- The wheelset on the Sequoia is bullet-proof and touring focused = HEAVY. I had my LBS build me a set of Pacenti's with SRAM 900 hubs and dropped almost 2lbs or rotating weight.
- The Sawtooth is also a great, fast-rolling but heavy tire. Swapping in some Panaracer 700x40 Gravel Kings dropped almost another half pound of weight total.
- Switched to tubeless.