seat clamp for a rear rack... anything better?

[reohn2]

.......you'd be surprised how mechanically challenged some cyclists can be.

No I wouldn't.
All too often modern man and woman FTM buy what looks cool without a second thought for practicality.One only has to look at the number of bikes being ridden without the much needed mudguards and that's before we even think about mudflaps.......

If you aren't surprised by how mechanically challenged some cyclists are, then how could you possibly expect them to be able to differentiate between good and bad engineering?

Did I say I did,the 'any fule kno',remark was a bit tongue in cheek.
The problem as I see it with bicycle sales is marketing to an increasingly less knowledgeable customer base who's attitude to buying a bike is that they want to look the part.
That part is based on racing stars such as Cav,Wiggo and Froome,etc,and their bike of choice comes a poor second where practicality is concerned.Its the reason I see so many potbellied thirtysomethings riding bikes with improbable and for some impossible riding positions,more gears than spokes in their CF deep section wheels on 23mm tyres and this year's flash paint job .
It gets more silly with each passing year,1x12 gear trains because it may confuse some people having two STI's to operate as they reach for those way down handlebars,without a hope of the drops,with the latest silly offering of the Tailfin CF rack taking the biscuit.
I could go on but won't as any practical individual sees what I see and more besides

EDIT:- The whole problem is the same as with mobile phone sales,it's all become a gimmick of units shifted and ££££'s profit made,so if the gimmick this year is dropped seatstays then however silly that is that's what'll be marketed with the accompanying sales pap on the makers website.
My answer to the OP was clear enough before I went thread drift:- It's the wrong bike.

[Gattonero]

We know the frame, we know the attachment points, but we don't know what rack he's going to use, which is related to the type of touring he's going to do. Some people travel light, some others carty a lot of stuff.
My "touring" bike is actually my "everyday" bike. Complete with dynamo lights weights less than 11kg and my rear bag when doing those 3-4 days trips is about 4.5kg. to me it makes more sense than having a superlight carbon (or alluminium) bike with nearly 10kg of stuff loaded on a rear rack alone.
Weight distribution is paramount, IMO. Assuming a maximum of 10kg gear, the rear bag can be 6-7kg tops? That's easy to handle for any decent rack.

[Gattonero]

...
EDIT:- The whole problem is the same as with mobile phone sales,it's all become a gimmick of units shifted and ££££'s profit made,so if the gimmick this year is dropped seatstays then however silly that is that's what'll be marketed with the accompanying sales pap on the makers website.
My answer to the OP was clear enough before I went thread drift:- It's the wrong bike.

I don't think the dropped seatstays (as much as I disagree, and I would agree to some extend about the "marketing" foolishness* you've mentioned) are a deal breaker.
As I said above, it's not a bike that is meant to carry lots of stuff as some people do, in fact I think it's meant to accomodate the need for the ones who are after a nimble bike that is relatively light AND can carry something on a pannier rack (and I guess mudguards, too).
There's other bikes for the full-monty touring, this seems to be a link in between a road bike and a heavy-duty touring bike, but with the added benefit of being able to cope with light offroad too.


* I still use a 26", 3x9, non-tubeless Mtb with fast rolling tyres for the purpose of trips that are mostly off the tarmac.

[Gattonero]

FWIW, had the chance to look at one of those frames, they seem to come with the rack-mount seat collar as default.
The factory one is sized for the frame, which has a 30.8mm OD seat tube, and the threads are about 8mm on the Lh but only about 6mm on the Rh (as there's the fitting for a 5mm allen key), the problem is that both of those threads don't feel substantial, to me looks like they have poor flank engagement so I would definitely use a good retaining compund, or better I'd find another collar.

[horizon]

you should read the whole sentence or at least a few more words

you'll be prepared for anything, from smooth tarmac to the loosest, roughest tracks out there.

To be fair to thirdcrank, even Specialized themselves admit they had a problem with the marketing language:

Next up, we moved away from a traditional ‘cross geometry, instead opting for something that hasn’t been seen before—Open Road Geometry. We know what you’re thinking, “it’s just another marketing term,” but for the Diverge, we truly did develop an entirely new geometry. With a touch less hyperbole, you can think of it as a road version of modern trail bike geometry. It provides playful handling and predictable steering for endless dirt skids and mid-corner drifts. The geo features a bottom bracket that's over a half-centimetre lower than the previous Diverge, a slacked-out head tube angle, short chainstays, and a short wheelbase. These changes make for a bike that's not only fun in the dirt, but also performs well on the road.

(By the way, they are talking about the £8,500 (yes, you read that correctly) carbon version but it's the same geometry.)

This bike has a huge squirm factor: the marketing guys are just wriggling like mad to get two opposing engineering demands into a single marketing idea on one bike. You do feel sorry for them quite frankly.

TBH, and I stand open to correction, I'm not familiar with the practices of this particular cycling genre. The idea of a lightweight carbon frame matched to 42 mm tyres I cannot get my head round. For me it's like the manufacturers finally putting lower gears on road bikes as their customers want the look but cannot cope with the hills.

Somewhere out there are people for whom these bikes are a treat. I'm not going to stand in their way even if I could; I just have an image in my mind of the marketing staff at Specialized pouring themselves another strong black coffee and settling in for a long night, probably interrupted by irate calls from their desperate engineers.

[Gattonero]

Here we go, another thread hijacked by the uber-traditionalists

wonder if any of them has actually tried one of those bikes? wonder if they have actually tried a decent bicycle that weights less than 10kg AND retaining performance and durability (yes, it IS possible) before saying we're all doomed? Wonder if they know that those 42mm tyres weight less than their 25mm Marathons?

I don't own any of those bikes, in fact I don't own any carbon fiber bicycle (most of mine are steel) nor I'm rushing to buy the next "made in TW" bicycle, but I appreciate to have the choice to do or to not do so. I have never heard of a brand or shop that keeps the customers at gunpoint asking to buy the latest 11sp or carbon fiber or tubeless "extravaganza". To me, is a sign of maturity for a cyclist if he's/she's able to discern what he needs and what he doesn't.
It certainly doesn't bother me if a brand churns out a frame that is an in-between a cross bike and a road bike. They can write whatever they want. I try the bike and judge how it rides, I won't buy the advertising so I don't read it. It's just that simple!

[horizon]

Here we go, another thread hijacked by the uber-traditionalists

That's the problem, it's hard to criticise any new product without being called a traditionalist (or Luddite) which is perjorative but doesn't really say anything. But you have a point. In fact it is actually quite risky to knock something new because later one can be proved very wrong indeed.

Gattonero wrote:
I wonder if any of them has actually tried one of those bikes?

horizon wrote:
TBH, and I stand open to correction, I'm not familiar with the practices of this particular cycling genre

So, no. These are my views but you are right, they cannot be substantiated.

Gattonero wrote:It certainly doesn't bother me if a brand churns out a frame that is an in-between a cross bike and a road bike. They can write whatever they want. I try the bike and judge how it rides, I won't buy the advertising so I don't read it. It's just that simple!

If only everyone did. Apart from the fact that it isn't what the OP asked ( ), the question here is: is the bike a result of really useful innovation or simply a desire to square a marketing circle and in the end produce a bike that is worse as a consequence? All I would ask is that as a forum we are prepared to ask that question. Yes, we might be called Luddites but it doesn't mean to say we are always wrong and it doesn't mean IMV that it is wrong to ask it. Marketing often leads design so I think some scepticism is valid. And marketing works and sometimes the result may not be pretty.

[Gattonero]

...
If only everyone did. Apart from the fact that it isn't what the OP asked ( ), the question here is: is the bike a result of really useful innovation or simply a desire to square a marketing circle and in the end produce a bike that is worse as a consequence? All I would ask is that as a forum we are prepared to ask that question. Yes, we might be called Luddites but it doesn't mean to say we are always wrong and it doesn't mean IMV that it is wrong to ask it. Marketing often leads design so I think some scepticism is valid. And marketing works and sometimes the result may not be pretty.

I see your point but this would need a separate thread: the OP is actually asking a solution or suggestion for fitting a rack on a given bike.
His mate wants that particular one, and doesn't want suggestions about which bike and how to not fell prey of the marketing strategies.
This guy may even open the window and throw his money out of it, ain't our business about that.

[reohn2]

I see your point but this would need a separate thread: the OP is actually asking a solution or suggestion for fitting a rack on a given bike.
His mate wants that particular one, and doesn't want suggestions about which bike and how to not fell prey of the marketing strategies.
This guy may even open the window and throw his money out of it, ain't our business about that.

Wlist that's true once the OP question has been answered,IMO thread drift is legitimate as it would be if we were all sat around a table having a coffee,and it's pertinent to question the OP's friend's choice of bike.
The problem seems to be that people take discussion so personal and claim threads as their own if discussion wanders.

[Jezrant]

I’ve fixed your post:
Wlist that's true once the OP question has been answered,IMO ranting and point-scoring are legitimate as it would be if we were all sat around a table having a coffee…

Or as Brucey might have said, I am rather pleased that this thread has not degenerated into a discussion concerning my friend’s choice of bike and would encourage any such discussion to be carried out in another thread.

[horizon]

I’ve fixed your post:
Wlist that's true once the OP question has been answered,IMO ranting and point-scoring are legitimate as it would be if we were all sat around a table having a coffee…

Or as Brucey might have said, I am rather pleased that this thread has not degenerated into a discussion concerning my friend’s choice of bike and would encourage any such discussion to be carried out in another thread.

My impression from re-reading the thread is that it was the bike design (rightly or wrongly) that was seen as the cause of the problem:

Jezrant wrote:

This looks a poor design, as if it was an after-thought.

And i think in this case it produced a new discussion - without the OP it wouldn't have happened so we're all grateful for that.

[reohn2]

I’ve fixed your post:
Wlist that's true once the OP question has been answered,IMO ranting and point-scoring are legitimate as it would be if we were all sat around a table having a coffee…

Or as Brucey might have said, I am rather pleased that this thread has not degenerated into a discussion concerning my friend’s choice of bike and would encourage any such discussion to be carried out in another thread.

You fixed nothing,just hi-lighted my point.
Any points scoring or ranting is in your head and not in my posts on the thread.
As Horizon points out,you have stated yourself "the bike is a poor design".

This is a discussion forum where opinions differ,and everyone's opinion is valid unless proven otherwise,in which case they may feel they need to change their opinion accordingly.
I'm never afraid of being proved wrong.

[Jezrant]

What I actually said is the way the rear rack attaches to the frame looks to me to be a bad design, hence the OP. The replies that addressed this question were interesting and helpful.

[reohn2]

What I actually said is the way the rear rack attaches to the frame looks to me to be a bad design, hence the OP. The replies that addressed this question were interesting and helpful.

But as has been posted up thread the position of the seatstays don't help,and are from an engineering POV a bad design,hence my contributions to the thread.

[horizon]

What I actually said is the way the rear rack attaches to the frame looks to me to be a bad design, hence the OP. The replies that addressed this question were interesting and helpful.

I think all the replies were interesting. And it brought to my attention a new way of attaching racks. Mind you, your friend probably owes you a drink or two.