Giant Propel 2023

[Mocs123]

I figured since the Propel is officially released it should have its own thread.



https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/prope ... -sl-0-2023

[jude188]

[CAAD8FRED]

Does anyone have the SL7 results in this graphic and the Ostro Vam if Tour has even tested it? Would like to compare the three

[FlatlandClimber]

Ostro wasn't tested to my knowledge.
SL7 got a 1.4 total score, and 210W aero.

[CAAD8FRED]

Ostro wasn't tested to my knowledge.
SL7 got a 1.4 total score, and 210W aero.

Propel total score isn't shown in the photo and I forgot how Tour weighs each category. The SL7 data is available on their site but it formats in an odd way that I can't tell which number should be with which word.

[FlatlandClimber]

I think everything is weighed 1:1 with the categories being:
Comfort, acceleration, downhill, aero, shifting, and braking.

Now the SL7, Giant Propel, Scott Foil, and Canyon Aeroad all have a 1.4, which is the best grade they have given out (don't know if there are others?)

[CAAD8FRED]

I think everything is weighed 1:1 with the categories being:
Comfort, acceleration, downhill, aero, shifting, and braking.

Now the SL7, Giant Propel, Scott Foil, and Canyon Aeroad all have a 1.4, which is the best grade they have given out (don't know if there are others?)

They, in the past, weighed certain categories higher than others which I think affected the overall. Nevertheless.

[dexvd]

I think everything is weighed 1:1 with the categories being:
Comfort, acceleration, downhill, aero, shifting, and braking.

Now the SL7, Giant Propel, Scott Foil, and Canyon Aeroad all have a 1.4, which is the best grade they have given out (don't know if there are others?)

Interesting they are all so close, I guess for us non-pros the one with the best comfort is likely the best choice if aero, acceleration and handling is similar.
They all fit 30s (I would probably run 28s, currently rim brake on 25s) but frame compliance and weight could be differentiating factors.

[TobinHatesYou]

I would bet on the Scott having the most compliance where it matters, and the Aeroad after that. The Aeroad loses points because they never really properly fixed the seatpost issue other than adding a rubber gasket.

[slowleg]

https://youtu.be/z9zBE6Do0tA

[Mocs123]

When they first posted prices the Advanced SL was $10,000USD and the Advanced Pro was $5,800USD now the prices are $12,500USD for the Advanced SL and $8,000USD for the Advanced Pro.

That probably puts it out of the price I'm willing to spend on a bike.

[Martin.dk]

I really like the look of this. Especially the horizonal top tube

And the Force/Ultegra models a ok priced i DK as well as

[jude188]

I really like the look of this. Especially the horizonal top tube

And the Force/Ultegra models a ok priced i DK as well as

Not that light though given that they use a lower grade frameset. Someone posted in another thread that the version with Rival is going to come in at 8.2kg which would mean the Ultegra version would be around 7.8-7.9kg. That's not awful these days but also not impressive and kind of a shame given how light the builds around the SL frameset seem to be coming out. I'd guess that with the SL frameset (~200g) and new Cadex wheels (~200g) you'd save another 400g which would take it down below 7.5kg which feels much more interesting. Typically, the price difference between Dura Ace and Ultegra bikes (with all other components the same) seems to be around £1,500/€1,500 which which would bring this bike down potentially around the £8,000/€8,000 mark (if they also dropped the Dura Ace power meter)? This is still an absurd amount of money for a bike but at least it's under £10,000/€10,000!

I don't understand why bike brands don't seem to be offering top tier frames with groupsets that people should actually buy. Dura Ace just doesn't make sense given that even Shimano say that Ultegra performs just as well. The only difference Dura Ace and Ultegra is <200g of weight (when you ignore Dura Ace level consumables like chain and cassette).

It's one of the things still pushing me towards the Ostro over either the Tarmac SL7 or this new Propel. You can get the top tier frameset with a sensible groupset and when you calculate out the value proposition it isn't too far off an Ultegra specced SL7 with upgraded wheels and aero bars. An Ultegra tier Advanced SL version would make a lot of sense imo. But it is what it is...

[FlatlandClimber]

The Scott loses points for absolutely looking horrendous.

The Canyon was pretty close to vaporware for the past 12 to 18 months. It is becoming available now, and the builds are well priced and pretty interesting (the Rotor DA9200, DT looks really good imo).

Giant and SL7 the best looking bikes for me.
Both also sub 7.

[jude188]

The Canyon was pretty close to vaporware for the past 12 to 18 months. It is becoming available now, and the builds are well priced and pretty interesting (the Rotor DA9200, DT looks really good imo).

Canyon loses points for lack of adjustability. There's lots of innovation in handlebars at the moment in my opinion (for example Speeco) and so being able to fit 'standard' parts is important. I'm 184cm and ride a 38cm bar day to day (and would like to try going down to 36cm) and know folks who race on 28cm bars! The Canyon CP0018 only goes down to 39cm... All well and good having a quick bike but if you can't get yourself into an optimally fast position comfortably it's kind of pointless.