what is the difference between giant tcr and defy

I’ve never ridden the Defy
I’ve never ridden the Defy but I have a TCR. It’s certainly comfy enough for me, but also stiff and racey. It’s a good bike although I think they’ve done some major tube re-sculpting in the latest models.

nick_rearden wrote:I am a

nick_rearden wrote:

I am a little too sensitive prolly about the derision heaped on MAMILS for 34-tooth inner chainrings, 28 (or even, as you say in SRAMs Apex case 32 tooth) rear sprockets. It’s my age; think how my children feel.

Pah! How do you think us triple chainring users feel???

I’ll tell you. Abused. Like an underclass, lumped with beard & sandal wearers.

To quote a member of staff in
To quote a member of staff in LBS the other day: “The TCR is one of the comfiest bikes I’ve ridden. I don’t see the point of the carbon Defy”. Add to that the fact that, as pointed out above, there isn’t much difference in geometry then I’d argue he may have a point.

Now that’s not to say that the Defy is not a good bike. Far from it! But as the_mikey points out, if Giant equip this bike with Apex and a wide-range cassette they are certainly selling it more as a ‘sportive’ bike rather than a top road race machine (unless the race is up a load of steep hills 😉 ).

Giant will know the market well enough and want to provide a quality carbon-framed bike with Apex or equivalent groupset. From Giant’s Defy Advanced page: “Designed to meet the dual demands of hard, fast races and long, gruelling rides. “.

IMHO the shame is that they don’t make the Defy with enough clearance for mudguards so it can make the most of its ‘all day’ tag. Both are excellent bikes but marketed in different ways.

My suggestion, as always, is to pick the one that fits you best and you are happiest with (and that includes the colour).

In short, it’s geometry
In short, it’s geometry shorthand for ‘race’ and ‘ever-so-slightly calmed down race’ which is why, as Blackhound writes, the Rabobank pros are reputed to ride the Defy geometry at Paris-Roubaix where the extra bit of stability and comfort helps over such a long and bumpy course.

The trouble is the second the dreaded ‘comfort’ is mentioned folk like the_mikey up there point out the more achievable gearing that tends to be fitted as well and accuse the poor Defy of being a ‘sportive bike’ as if that’s a bad thing.

Fact is, it’s pretty subtle. If you look at the geometry at the back of the Giant catalogue: http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-gb/page/727/ you’ll see that the wheelbase of each TCR at 980mm is around 20mm shorter than the equivalent Defy and the headtube of the former is 20mm shorter than the latter.

That and the engineers tweaking characteristics like material wall thicknesses and whatnot to complement the intended purpose means you should get a fit and feel that feels ‘just right’ depending on whether you plan to race, for example, shorter ‘criterium’ style races versus longer 100 mile epics.

I have not checked if the
I have not checked if the geometry is different but this should be available on the Giant website. The Defy may be more comfortable geometry for long days in the saddle.

One difference is the carbon composite. The TCR2 takes 4 times longer than the Defy carbon to go through the carbon production process. This means it needs less material, costs more in time and but weighs less. So a 56cm defy frame with identical kit should weigh more than a TCR2. Don’t know by how much though as Giant will not publish bike weights. (The Giant advanced tales 4 times longer again than the TCR to produce and needs even less material)

If you look closely at next years Paris-Roubaix you may see some of the Rabobank team on carbon Defy’s rather than Advnaced I understand – look at the tube profiling if you’re a geek.