Creo vs Creo 2 geometry

[Toman]

All the Creo 2 reviews I've read so far describe the Creo 2 as being "slacker" and more "relaxed" than the Creo.

Yet when I do a comparison of geometry numbers from Specialized website I do not see this.

Below is table of Creo 2 Size 56 vs Creo Size Large

The Creo 2 has shorter head tube and longer reach.

Specifically in regard to Reach, The Creo 2 size 56 has a 90mm stem vs a 100mm stem on the Creo Size Large. Yet the Creo 2 still has +8mm Reach. If you put the same stem on both bikes, the Creo 2 would have +/- 18mm additional reach. that is not a small delta for Reach.

What am I missing? why are the bike journos calling Creo 2 a slacker, more relaxed bike? Am I misunderstanding the definition of these terms in the context of bike geometry?

 

[mschwett]

hmmmmmm. i’m not sure that the 56 and L are an exact match - but what i see from the above is that the creo 2 has a longer wheelbase (1059 vs 1020) ands a slacker head tube angle (71 vs 73 degrees). the trail is also way beyond what a road bike would normally have at 62mm. a true road bike like a tarmac in that size has a 73.5 HTA, 55mm of trail, and a 991mm wheelbase - almost three inches less!

as you might expect, a more relaxed endurance road bike (roubaix) is in the middle - 73 HTA, 57mm trail, 1012mm wheelbase. the geometry of the old creo was very very close to a roubaix. it’s now gone a notch further, a step past even the diverge, which is a purpose built gravel bike.

stack and reach are easily changed as you note by the stem length and spacer stack, and stack in particular is very confusing to compare due to differences in the way it’s measured relative to the future shock, headsets, minimum or max amount of spacers, etc. i’m guessing something is different there between the two generations of bikes.

 

[gpburdell]

Specifically in regard to Reach, The Creo 2 size 56 has a 90mm stem vs a 100mm stem on the Creo Size Large. Yet the Creo 2 still has +8mm Reach. If you put the same stem on both bikes, the Creo 2 would have +/- 18mm additional reach. that is not a small delta for Reach.

Pretty sure Reach doesn't include the stem - so the +8mm greater reach on the Creo 2 is offset by the 10mm shorter stem, with an effective difference of -2mm shorter horizontal measurement from BB to handlebars.

hmmmmmm. i’m not sure that the 56 and L are an exact match - but what i see from the above is that the creo 2 has a longer wheelbase (1059 vs 1020) ands a slacker head tube angle (71 vs 73 degrees). the trail is also way beyond what a road bike would normally have at 62mm. a true road bike like a tarmac in that size has a 73.5 HTA, 55mm of trail, and a 991mm wheelbase - almost three inches less!

as you might expect, a more relaxed endurance road bike (roubaix) is in the middle - 73 HTA, 57mm trail, 1012mm wheelbase. the geometry of the old creo was very very close to a roubaix. it’s now gone a notch further, a step past even the diverge, which is a purpose built gravel bike.

Trail and Wheelbase are affected both by the tires the bike is equipped with as well as the max tire size it can handle.

Creo2 can handle up to 29x2.2 tires - which have a 733.76mm diameter - vs the Roubaix's maximum 700x33 tire's 688mm diameter. That's nearly 23mm radius difference which the chainstay and fork must accommodate even if all other aspects of the frames were the same.

 

[mschwett]

….
Trail and Wheelbase are affected both by the tires the bike is equipped with as well as the max tire size it can handle.

…

trail yes, wheelbase no. wheelbase is axle to axle, unaffected by tires and wheels, right? i assume the other specs are given with the tires the bike is sold with, in this case 700x47, vs 700x32 on the roubaix. i don’t think that’s going to make a huge difference geometrically, obviously a huge difference in ride quality / character.

 

[jabberwocky]

What am I missing? why are the bike journos calling Creo 2 a slacker, more relaxed bike? Am I misunderstanding the definition of these terms in the context of bike geometry?

Generally when someone says a bike is slacker they mean the head tube angle is shallower, which pushes the front wheel out and makes it turn slower than a bike with a steeper head angle. This makes the bike more stable at speed and less twitchy at slow speeds.

Looking at your chart, they reduced the head angle from 73 to 71; 2 degrees is definitely a noticable difference, so its not surprising people think it feels slacker.

 

[gpburdell]

trail yes, wheelbase no. wheelbase is axle to axle, unaffected by tires and wheels, right? i assume the other specs are given with the tires the bike is sold with, in this case 700x47, vs 700x32 on the roubaix. i don’t think that’s going to make a huge difference geometrically, obviously a huge difference in ride quality / character.

Wheelbase will be affected by the maximum tire clearance spec. While the Roubaix needs only enough rear-axle-to seat-tube distance to allow the 344mm radius 700x33 max spec, the Creo2 needs enough rear-axle-to seat-tube to support the nearly 367mm radius of the larger diameter 29x2.2 max spec wheel. You can see this in the 420mm chainstay spec for the Roubaix as compared to 435mm for the Creo2 (both size 54).



Similarly the front wheel max spec drives the required distance between the front axle and the downtube, which we can see in Front-Center and Fork-Length spec. These are 598mm & 375mm for the Roubaix (54) and 623mm & 405mm for the Creo2 (54).



Net effect is the spacing to allow for a max 29x2.2 tire/wheel requires stretching the wheelbase relative to the spacing to allow for a 700x33 max tire/wheel size.

I'd also suggest that the motor housing/structure and thicker downtube effectively pushes the front of the downtube a little further forward of the seattube on the Creo than the Roubaix, which could tend to extend the wheelbase a little more as well if you kept similar head tube angle. (Roubaix is 72.3°, Creo2 72.5° size 54). I see this on my analog Domane as compared to my Creo E5 as well.

 

[Toman]

Thanks for informative responses.

In response to Mschwett's comment:

as you might expect, a more relaxed endurance road bike (roubaix) is in the middle - 73 HTA, 57mm trail, 1012mm wheelbase. the geometry of the old creo was very very close to a roubaix. it’s now gone a notch further, a step past even the diverge, which is a purpose built gravel bike.

What are the ride quality implications of the Creo 2's new geometry? Commenters in other threads have stated they find this bike disappointing for primary pavement riding.

Currently I have 42mm Pathfinder Pro's on my Creo (previous owner had the pathfinder's on there and I wound up sticking with them because the ride felt good). Regular rides are 90%+ pavement.

If I bought a Creo 2, threw a pair of Pathfinder Pro 42mm on there, what would be different about ride experience on pavement vs my Creo?

 

[Amazer98]

Hi All, I’m curious about how you would characterize the differences between the Creo 2 (let’s use the Expert version) and the Trek Domane+ SLR6 with the TQ motor in the 1x gravel version (SRAM AXS Rival). They are both gravel Ebikes, though the Creo 2 is seemingly more so with its shallow drop bars that flare (as well as it’s slacker head tube angle) vs the Domane+ with it deeper drop road bars (not the best spec IMHO).

The geometry comparisons leave me a bit flummoxed to sort out. At 71 inches tall, my sense is that I’d ride a 58 cm Domane+ or a 56 cm Creo 2. Those sizes seem to compare fairly closely.

I see that the Creo 2 is about 3 pounds heavier, but it does have the Future Shock in front and can accommodate tires as wide as 55c (or is it 58c?) Still, the Domane + can run 40c tires (which is wide enough for me) and has the IsoSpeed damper on the seat post (which might be even better appreciated than the fork dampener).

I do like how Trek almost completely integrates the TQ motor and does a better job handling all the cables in front of the bike. I ride rough paved roads in Maine and quite a few dirt roads, but don’t really do technical gravel rides so the dropper post isn’t necessary. I’d probably remove the post on the Creo 2 and install some sort of suspension post.

So… how would you position the Trek bike as a mixed-use bike vs the Creo 2?

 

[mschwett]

They’re really very similar. one degree in the head tube angle, that roughly 4cm of extra wheelbase which you really don’t need unless you want to go with the 2.2” tires.

the seat dampers seem more positioned for long road rides to me; for anything rough you really want the movement in the front first, which is why hardtail MTBs are a thing - suspension goes up front first, then back. you’re not supposed to have a ton of weight on the saddle on a road-ish bike, weight is first on the pedals, and of course the shorts have a little padding. for dirt/gravel roads I’ve found the future shock very effective with 42mm tires at low (tubeless) pressures and like you i wouldn’t go bigger than that.

so if you’re riding on 40mm tires on both bikes, the main difference is going to be the longer wheelbase and degree of slack, plus any aerodynamic inefficiencies created by a bike with such big clearances. i’m guessing at gravel and rough pavement kind of speeds that really isn’t an issue. the creo being 10% heavier is seriously a bummer despite a 12% smaller battery. for road i’ll take the 12 speed di2 in the trek bike any day of the week and twice on Sunday compared to the SRAM stuff on the creo, but for gravel use you’d go SRAM on either bike, and the difference becomes fairly small with 11-50 vs 10-44.

if the trek wasn’t so much uglier, i’d give it the edge for anything short of really gnarly gravel or singletrack. i don’t really love gravel but certainly felt like the creo v1 was perfectly capable, much more limited by my interests and ability than the bike itself. Would be fun to ride them back to back with similar tires.

 

[Amazer98]

Thanks, mschwett, for that analysis. That’s actually pretty helpful. After reading several reviews of the new Creo, I also started to feel that it was more oriented to technical gravel riding than the rough tarmac and occasional dirt that I mostly ride. Right now I’ve been riding a Bulls Grinder Evo, a 50 pound aluminum gravel bike with the Bosch Speed motor, front shocks, and 40c G-One tires. It actually rides pretty nicely, especially since I have a K’inect (I think I spelled that wrong) suspension seat post and Brooks saddle to smooth things out in the rear.

But it does weigh 50 pounds, and after five years on this bike, I’ve been kicking around the idea of getting a lighter ebike as well. I think I’m gravitating toward the Domane+, which I actually think looks nice, but I knew Speccy was gonna introduce a new Creo with the 1.2 motor, and wanted to see what they’d come up with.

I was hoping that the new motor would have somewhat longer range than the TQ motor since many owners seemed to claim that the old SL 1.1 motor was more spunky than the TQ motor and could go further on a charge, even though its output was less (35 vs 50 nm) and the battery capacity was also less. But Specialized’s published figures seem to belie that.

It seems that to me the only advantages of the Creo 2 is that the handlebars are more my style, and the use of a conventional stem would give me more options, such as using a riser.

Anyway, thanks again for your input!

 

[jabberwocky]

Both Trek and Specialized have extensive dealer networks. No chance you can't throw a leg over both of them and see how they actually ride? If you have a lot of experience on different bikes you can kinda get a sense of how they ride from a geometry chart but theres no substitute for riding them if at all possible. Odds are good both make a non-electric road bike with similar geometry so maybe try those for fit and feel purposes if nobody has the ebike available to ride.

Glancing at the geometries, the creo 2 and domane are pretty close to each other; not sure I'd say one or the other is more suited to road/gravel; they both variations on what I think of as modern endurance geometry. Basically road bikes but designed more for all-day comfort than race-aero geometry.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

It seems that to me the only advantages of the Creo 2 is that the handlebars are more my style, and the use of a conventional stem would give me more options, such as using a riser.

Creo 2 uses Future Shock 3.2 which is not a conventional stem.

The battery is the same old 320 Wh.

 

[charleyt]

Creo 2 uses Future Shock 3.2 which is not a conventional stem.

The battery is the same old 320 Wh.

The stem is a conventional stem on version 3.3. Rider can use any stem they choose as I did on my Creo 2 Expert. There a shim provided by Specialized that allows this. Stem has nothing to do with this version of the shock system. Future Shock 3.3 is a dampening system located below the stem. The Creo 2 Comp has an older version.

 

[mschwett]

The stem is a conventional stem on version 3.3. Rider can use any stem they choose as I did on my Creo 2 Expert. There a shim provided by Specialized that allows this. Stem has nothing to do with this version of the shock system. Future Shock 3.3 is a dampening system located below the stem. The Creo 2 Comp has an older version.

all versions of the future shock can be used with any stem, assuming you have the right “shim” or sleeve. i had many different bars and stems on my creo 1.

 

[hankj]

Generally when someone says a bike is slacker they mean the head tube angle is shallower, which pushes the front wheel out and makes it turn slower than a bike with a steeper head angle. This makes the bike more stable at speed and less twitchy at slow speeds.

Looking at your chart, they reduced the head angle from 73 to 71; 2 degrees is definitely a noticable difference, so its not surprising people think it feels slacker.

Yep

"Slack" is HTA and mechanical trail. Huge difference in ride feel between 73 and 71. 71 more stable and carvey. Slacker HTA contributes to more stable longer wheelbase, and you feel more behind the front wheel as opposed to on top of it.

Modern big hitting MTB's have 64ish degree head angles. They don't steer as much as lean, and have superb roll-over, front wheel way out front with kicked back fork can bash over a curb-sized obstacles at top speed and you barely notice.

 

[mschwett]

the question is not whether the creo 2 is a good bike - it's a great bike for lots of kinds of riding, particularly all road, gravel, etc. no doubt an intentional move by specialized.

the question i have is whether they'll follow it up with an actual SL road bike - and if they do, will it be more roubaix (like the original creo) or more tarmac/aethos (which ride very differently but basically have the same geometry.)

the difference between an aggressive road bike geometry and the creo 2 is vast - for the same frame size, the rear wheel is close to 3 inches further back, the pedals 2 inches, the bars almost 2 inches up and back, etc. the original creo/roubaix split the difference between a race bike and a gravel/all road bike, which made sense since there was only one drop bar electric bike in the lineup. the geometry drift of the creo 2 makes no sense as the only drop bar bike in the stable, unless market research has told specialized that they don't need a road e-bike. if you're a member of the creo facebook group (4,200 members) there are many recent comments "anyone know when the road version is coming or should i get a trek/x20/etc?"

the creo 2 is even longer, more leaned back than a diverge !

 

[hankj]

Mschwett I bet you're right, Specialized creating a bigger gap into which they can insert a true road ebike

 

[mschwett]

Mschwett I bet you're right, Specialized creating a bigger gap into which they can insert a true road ebike

that would be very cool. i've heard some rumors about early next year, but it's such a tough time for the bike industry. i'm loving my scott addict eRide, but i heard from the shop that it's a very difficult bike to sell. i think i saw that the q-factor is smaller on the new SL 1.2 motor, which MIGHT let them go 2x... but they still won't be able to use traditional road groups due to the bottom bracket / motor design.

i think specialized would do better than others have for road-e with their big name recognition from the tarmac, roubaix, and aethos.

 

[hankj]

I wonder sometimes whether there is much of a market for true road e-bikes. Most people who want a true road frame are good at pedaling a bike. Conversely, most people who aren't sporting riders prefer a bike that's a little more upright and a little more stable where you can go just as fast because you have a motor.

It might not be much of a market segment because there might not be a lot of ideal buyers for an E road bike segment

 

[mschwett]

I wonder sometimes whether there is much of a market for true road e-bikes. Most people who want a true road frame are good at pedaling a bike. Conversely, most people who aren't sporting riders prefer a bike that's a little more upright and a little more stable where you can go just as fast because you have a motor.

It might not be much of a market segment because there might not be a lot of ideal buyers for an E road bike segment

yes, i think that's true. there are edge cases - like me - where an exotic health issue makes the motor occasionally necessary, but not many people have such ailments and are otherwise strong/healthy. the much more likely case are aging roadies who still want to ride fast, and far, but are no longer physically able. i think that's a larger group, but many roadies in that category are too proud to ride an e-bike so they simply stop riding or just burrito ride on the flats. a guy at my LBS, an incredibly fit/fast roadie, has an s-works creo for recovery rides, again a niche case. the final group is non-cyclist tech bros who love cool stuff, want a sexy fast carbon fiber drop bar bike and don't feel bad that it has a motor. they buy them, but don't ride them much.

one use case for that gang is that the efficiency of a road bike makes them great "supercommuters" which my favorite local shop (now specialized owned) said was one of the two or three main use cases for the original creo, people holding 25+ MPH for 25+ miles each way, while still enjoying the way the bike rides. but, again, to enjoy that kind of riding you already have to like road bikes, right? for almost 20 years there's been an internet group called "SF2G" of people who commute by bike from san francisco to google's HQ. many of these guys and gals ride creos.

on my morning ride today there is one completely flat 4 mile stretch, adjacent to the ocean, no intersections and no cars. with the motor turned off and me pedaling at a very leisurely 150w, heart at 90 beats per minute, completely untaxed, my average speed out and back (negating any wind effects, of which there was little) was just a touch under 18mph with the motor turned off. this is the beauty of an electric road bike - efficient, light, fast, comfortable (to those acclimated to road bikes), smooth, and the penalty induced by the electric part is so very tiny that you can turn it off much of the time. i used my creo in a similar way, and yes it was a touch slower, a touch heavier, the gearing and shifting a touch less optimal, but i did 100+ miles rides without even using half the battery. i hope specialized returns to making a bike like that, and takes it a step further towards road land, even if it not all that many people buy it.