Rating the Giant TCR Advanced 0

[Giantrider1997]

If you were to make a scale from 1-10 (1 being a novice bicycle and 10 being an elite bicycle) where would the TCR Advanced fall if it had reynolds assaults on.

[george-bob]

e^(i*pi)

[thearthurdog]

I have one and I like it a lot. I have no idea where to rate it. I just know that if I had a bike that cost twice as much as my TCR, I doubt it would make much more than a marginal difference to my performance.

[kb]

e^(i*pi)

It's been a couple of decades.. but isn't that -1? I guess that means a bike for people that don't ride at all?

[Marty Moose]

I'm on my 3rd tcr with Ultegra in two years I'll get another. Id rate them 9.5 not 10 as they are a fraction heavier than the sl. Ride wise 10+++ I like them better than any other bike I've ridden.

Sent from my MB526 using Tapatalk 2

[AL_SuperSix]

Interested in responses here, I purchased a SuperSix 5 over a TCR 2... Still questioning the decision although I'm more than happy with the SuperSix.

[g-boaf]

I ended up with a TCR Adv. SL with Di2. ISP version too. It really is a one person bike, very personalised.

They cut off the top of the seat post! Lovely bike it is.

Tried the lesser TCRs as well, they also seemed decent.

[trek52]

Good bikes for the money but the newer advanced models have quite low end carbon but for most of us it doesn't really matter. I won heaps of races on a 09 advanced 0 with 7900 da. Then went to the SL model and it was lighter and slightly stiffer.
I really did not like how they handled I had a lot of trouble getting the
Through corners. I know a few other a graders that feel the same.

If I was paying retail I would buy a cad 10 then a giant advanced. And spend the left over cash on light stiff wheels.

[Marty Moose]

Good bikes for the money but the newer advanced models have quite low end carbon

Do you have any stats or evidence to show this?? Considering they make many other frames and supply carbon (one of the few who do) does than mean all the bikes they make are low end carbon. Do they keep the good carbon for treks, colnago's or merkx ??? Not sure but I have heard non giant lbs sales people pushing this before. I thought the lower ones were T700 and the SL T800.

I could be wrong but physical testing on jigs would say otherwise.

MM

Sent from my MB526 using Tapatalk 2

[trek52]

I beleive that the early Advanced were t700 and the SL T800 this is the 09/10 models but the 11/12 models are not and use a different carbon. I had the 09/10 and a mate had the 11/12 and they are totally different bikes in feel, look and weight.

[Marty Moose]

I beleive that the early Advanced were t700 and the SL T800 this is the 09/10 models but the 11/12 models are not and use a different carbon. I had the 09/10 and a mate had the 11/12 and they are totally different bikes in feel, look and weight.

They are also a totally different frame construction, where does the lower grade carbon info come from? I was told by the manager of a pro team who uses giant who is a close friend they use t700 and t800. Again I'm not sure but I do know that they ride different I also had those models. The 2013 is more absorbent of road buzz but just as stiff I feel. I would love to see some info on the carbon grades used. My 2013 its heavier than the 2011 but only by the di2 difference give or take a few grams,7.5kg ready to go.

Sent from my MB526 using Tapatalk 2

[Marty Moose]

Just did some checking are giant committing fraud? Or is low spec carbon a lbs pushing another brand??

http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-au/tec ... nology/55/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sent from my MB526 using Tapatalk 2

[trek52]

I have no affilication with shops etc, I am generally looked after by manufactures. At the end of the day I will ride whatever I get for free

All I can say is having ridden the 09/10 advanced 0 and the new advanced 1 that the earlier frame is stiffer and lighter.

[trek52]

also on giants site they say

"High-performance T-700 raw carbon fiber is used to produce custom composite material in Giant’s own composite factory. Extremely lightweight, stiff and compliant, these handcrafted frames feature the monocoque construction".

I think custom composite material is the key here, does that mean that they are not full T700 like the earlier models ?

[Marty Moose]

All carbon frames are a composite! T700 is used to make the composite frame. Where has the lower grade carbon info some from ?? I'm really keen to know as it means the frames are not as advertised or sold.

I guess at the end of the day ride feel is subjective which is why its not that useful, yes the frames do feel different to me as well. Physical testing however would say otherwise. Weight wise there is hardly any difference on my scales.

[dale79]

I love my Tcr 0, I think it's a great bike but it's the only ones I ever ridden.. The 2012 defiantly is different to the 2008 I had before it..

I would live to get a cx1 or m10 tho!

[trek52]

I don't know who told me the info or where I got it from but I believe that the carbon used in the earlier advanced 0 is different to what is used now. Don't know if it is true or not.
Feel is subjective however 25 years of racing bikes tells me they are not the same.

[Marty Moose]

I don't know who told me the info or where I got it from but I believe that the carbon used in the earlier advanced 0 is different to what is used now. Don't know if it is true or not.
Feel is subjective however 25 years of racing bikes tells me they are not the same.

Could no agree more they are different in many areas, I like the newer one as do the NRS pro's I've spoken too who ride them. I was told by a reliable source i.e LBS owner they are T700, his NRS team uses the SL's so I assume his advice to be correct (finger on the pulse so to speak) they do in fact use T700, the SL uses T800 so as not to get confused.

Why the difference I guess is the question.The lay up this has changed, tube shape and the whole manufacturing process is contributing to the different feel. They are a different frame after all. Whether this is good or bad comes back to a subjective feel what feels better for you is another's poison. I like the softer feel (less buzz) but there is the same stiffness I feel, ++ for me. Your 25 years is serving you well they are not the same.

Non subjective flex testing would show it to be one of the stiffest frames out there even compared to many top end frames, this data is available from German mag tour magazine and Ride these are the only two I know who do this testing, if anyone else knows another source of this type of testing I'd be really keen . I know its not the be all and end but interesting that a frame that is supposed to be lower grade carbon outperforms many other costing up to 5 or 6 times as much in a test that is repeatable.

MM

[aditwahyu]

been riding tcr for 2 years. Simply put 9 to this bike!

[xmpt]

I have a 2012 TCR 0 and I am very happy with it. I would buy another. As a former Cannondale owner I just could not justify the extra $ for it over the giant

[durianrider]

I reviewed this bike in detail on my youtube channel. I went out and bought a top of the line Giant TCR as a result a few weeks later.

Giant uses the best carbon in the business. They have massive buying power as they produce most of the worlds carbon bikes. Top carbon is usually reserved for air craft only. Giant bikes come with lifetime warranty. They are actually good to deal with compared to the stories you read from Trek, Cannondale, Cervelo Australia etc.

Giant is the only company to make its carbon from the strand up.

[warthog1]

They are actually good to deal with compared to the stories you read from Cervelo Australia.

What stories are they?
I own 2 Cervelos and had a warranty claim on one. It was a crack in front of the seat post where a potential cause could have been over tensioning the seat post clamp. I had correctly torqued it however.
They replaced the frame no questions asked. Service was prompt and I was charged nothing. Couldn't ask for better Hence I didn't worry about warranty when I bought another

[Duck!]

I don't know who told me the info or where I got it from but I believe that the carbon used in the earlier advanced 0 is different to what is used now. Don't know if it is true or not.
Feel is subjective however 25 years of racing bikes tells me they are not the same.

Could no agree more they are different in many areas, I like the newer one as do the NRS pro's I've spoken too who ride them. I was told by a reliable source i.e LBS owner they are T700, his NRS team uses the SL's so I assume his advice to be correct (finger on the pulse so to speak) they do in fact use T700, the SL uses T800 so as not to get confused.

Why the difference I guess is the question.The lay up this has changed, tube shape and the whole manufacturing process is contributing to the different feel. They are a different frame after all. Whether this is good or bad comes back to a subjective feel what feels better for you is another's poison. I like the softer feel (less buzz) but there is the same stiffness I feel, ++ for me. Your 25 years is serving you well they are not the same.

Non subjective flex testing would show it to be one of the stiffest frames out there even compared to many top end frames, this data is available from German mag tour magazine and Ride these are the only two I know who do this testing, if anyone else knows another source of this type of testing I'd be really keen . I know its not the be all and end but interesting that a frame that is supposed to be lower grade carbon outperforms many other costing up to 5 or 6 times as much in a test that is repeatable.

MM

First, the term "composite" is technically correct when referring to all structures produced from fibre-reinforced plastics. "Carbon fibre", along with glass, kevlar & other fibres in various applications are only one part of the composite process. The other major part is the resin, which cures to a solid plastic and binds the fibres together into a rigid structure. A bike made of pure carbon fibre would be unrideable, because it would not have the rigidity to even support its own weight!

Now, onto specifics.... Over the years Giant have used four grades of carbon in their composite frames (for some clarity, I'll use "composite" with a lower case "c" in a generic sense to identify the material, and "Composite" with a capital "C" to identify models in the Giant range). From introduction in 2002, through to 2008, the TCR Composite series was produced from T-700 carbon. In '04 (for the '05 model year) the Advanced model was introduced, composed of a blend of T-800 and T-1000 carbon fibre. When the frames were redesigned for the 2009-11 series, the Composite name was dropped and T-700 frames adopted the Advanced name, while the top level became the Advanced SL. At the same time the Adv. SL became all T-800 carbon. During 2010, the Composite name was reintroduced, with frames made from T-600 carbon. For 2012 (and carrying through to 2014), the Composite level again fell by the wayside, and although different in structure & geometry from the preceding series, frames remain constructed from T-700 for the Advanced, and T-800 for the Advanced SL.

Giant source their raw carbon fibre from Toray, the largest carbon fibre manufacturer in the world (most other carbon in the bike world is also sourced from Toray, but there are far more grades to choose from than the few that Giant use), but all other processes, including the formulation of the resin to produce the composite laminates, are undertaken in-house.

Incidentally, the T-number of the raw carbon does not relate to any particular technical properies of the fibre, it's purely an identification code, much like, for example, Dura Ace groups being identified with the 7000 (and now 9000) series number, Ultegra 6000, 105 5000, etc; the numbers identify rank in the range, nothing more.

[Marty Moose]

I don't know who told me the info or where I got it from but I believe that the carbon used in the earlier advanced 0 is different to what is used now. Don't know if it is true or not.
Feel is subjective however 25 years of racing bikes tells me they are not the same.

Could no agree more they are different in many areas, I like the newer one as do the NRS pro's I've spoken too who ride them. I was told by a reliable source i.e LBS owner they are T700, his NRS team uses the SL's so I assume his advice to be correct (finger on the pulse so to speak) they do in fact use T700, the SL uses T800 so as not to get confused.

Why the difference I guess is the question.The lay up this has changed, tube shape and the whole manufacturing process is contributing to the different feel. They are a different frame after all. Whether this is good or bad comes back to a subjective feel what feels better for you is another's poison. I like the softer feel (less buzz) but there is the same stiffness I feel, ++ for me. Your 25 years is serving you well they are not the same.

Non subjective flex testing would show it to be one of the stiffest frames out there even compared to many top end frames, this data is available from German mag tour magazine and Ride these are the only two I know who do this testing, if anyone else knows another source of this type of testing I'd be really keen . I know its not the be all and end but interesting that a frame that is supposed to be lower grade carbon outperforms many other costing up to 5 or 6 times as much in a test that is repeatable.

MM

First, the term "composite" is technically correct when referring to all structures produced from fibre-reinforced plastics. "Carbon fibre", along with glass, kevlar & other fibres in various applications are only one part of the composite process. The other major part is the resin, which cures to a solid plastic and binds the fibres together into a rigid structure. A bike made of pure carbon fibre would be unrideable, because it would not have the rigidity to even support its own weight!

Now, onto specifics.... Over the years Giant have used four grades of carbon in their composite frames (for some clarity, I'll use "composite" with a lower case "c" in a generic sense to identify the material, and "Composite" with a capital "C" to identify models in the Giant range). From introduction in 2002, through to 2008, the TCR Composite series was produced from T-700 carbon. In '04 (for the '05 model year) the Advanced model was introduced, composed of a blend of T-800 and T-1000 carbon fibre. When the frames were redesigned for the 2009-11 series, the Composite name was dropped and T-700 frames adopted the Advanced name, while the top level became the Advanced SL. At the same time the Adv. SL became all T-800 carbon. During 2010, the Composite name was reintroduced, with frames made from T-600 carbon. For 2012 (and carrying through to 2014), the Composite level again fell by the wayside, and although different in structure & geometry from the preceding series, frames remain constructed from T-700 for the Advanced, and T-800 for the Advanced SL.

Giant source their raw carbon fibre from Toray, the largest carbon fibre manufacturer in the world (most other carbon in the bike world is also sourced from Toray, but there are far more grades to choose from than the few that Giant use), but all other processes, including the formulation of the resin to produce the composite laminates, are undertaken in-house.

Incidentally, the T-number of the raw carbon does not relate to any particular technical properies of the fibre, it's purely an identification code, much like, for example, Dura Ace groups being identified with the 7000 (and now 9000) series number, Ultegra 6000, 105 5000, etc; the numbers identify rank in the range, nothing more.

Don't understand your post duck other than the specifics of the models and the carbon used from 02 on. I was told the earlier sl variants used t700, I guess its really pulling hairs. The main point I was trying to make was Giant don't use low quality carbon as some LBS shops try to push. Far as their epoxy goes I have no idea what they use.

I've done a fair bit of carbon work using both polyurethane resins and epoxies and the resin used makes a huge difference to the products final properties. I do understand a bike made just from carbon and no binder would not work :) I think most here do;)


Sent from my MB526 using Tapatalk 2

[Sweeper59]

I've had a Giant TCR 0 since replacing a Malvern Star Oppy last November. I love the new bike, and find it stiffer, but more comfortable than the Oppy. The only complaint I have is the cheap tyres they provide with the new Giants. I reckon I was lucky to get 400kms out of them before I had to replace them.