Honest question: what's the difference between CX and "Gravel Grinder" bikes?

[FastforaSlowGuy]

I don't want this to turn into a rant session, because it's an honest question. It's not obvious to me what the differences here are? Looks like gravel grinders have slightly more tire clearance, but otherwise the models I've seen have very similar geo to a CX bike. Do they use a different layup/construction to achieve a different ride quality?

[lhuerta]

...marketing, marketing, marketing?

Lou

[tuscanyswe]

Unless its a bike with a custom steel fork i fail to c how the cross bikes and gravel bikes are different in any way other in the way they are marketed.
Not that many options in carbon cx forks so tire clearance and geo will be very similar as you pointed out.

[DRietz]

Most gravel grinders (i.e. high clearance road bikes) have a lower BB than their more race-oriented cousins.

[sandyrs]

Some pure bred cx race bikes still come without bottle mounts. Most come without fender mounts.

[fiamme red]

"Gravel grinders" have water bottle bosses, true cyclocross bikes do not. :)

[bigboom]

"Gravel grinders" have water bottle bosses, true cyclocross bikes do not. :)

Don't forget about fender mounts too!

[Cornfed]

Maybe it's just the way I look at it, but I think gravel grinders are to CX bikes as endurance bikes are to racing bikes. The former built more for relative comfort over long stretches of bad roads -- more relaxed, stable geometry, heavier materials, different gearing, etc. That said, I think you could certainly use a CX bike as a gravel grinder, if that's what you have and what you're used to.

[MattTuck]

Don't forget about fender mounts too!

This, I never understood. How much clearance are people running between their tires and fenders? Maybe it is just the roads around here, but there are tons of pebbles and even bigger pieces of crushed rock that are bouncing up when I ride on the dirt. I'd be very nervous about something getting into the fender and causing problems.

To me, fenders are a great solution to rain. Poor solution for non-paved surfaces.

[redir]

I'm pretty sure the far majority of cyclocross bikes, outside of custom ones, have water bottle mounts and many have rack mounts too. I wouldn't want one without the mounts as I, like almost every other cross racer I know, rides them on the road for training as well.

[GRAVELBIKE]

If it's a true CX race rig, it will probably have different geometry than a gravel bike. Riding all-out for 45-60 minutes and running when necessary requires a different machine than 6-8 hours of dirt/gravel-road riding.

[David Kirk]

I think the idea that a bike isn't a true cross bike if it has bottle bosses is silly at best and marketing put out by a few that feel they need to say such things to be 'purist' and cool. The simple fact that some of the fastest cross guys on the planet somehow manage to overcome the fact that their rides have bottle bosses and still be the fast guys speaks volumes about the importance of the bottle bosses. The cool thing for the rider is they have a choice when having a bike built for them........want bosses?......you can have them. Don't want them?......leave them off. Same bike, same rider, same end use.....bosses or not.

IMO a cross race bike is best defined by fit and geometry. The fit, when compared to a rider's road bike will be a bit shorter and a bit more upright. The geometry of the cross race bike will have a higher BB to give room for the pedals during short radius turns and when riding in the deep goo and the handling is optimized for relatively low speeds and dealing with a bumpy and soft surface.

A gravel grinder, dirtroad bike, allroad bike or an MRB (Montana Road Bike as we've been calling them for the past ten years) share more in fit and handling with a stage race type road bike than it does a cross race bike. The BB can be lower and the handling is geared to a slightly higher speed and there is little concern with riding in the deep goo like a cross race bike. The fit is more like a road bike to give more comfort over the long term. It's more of a road bike with room for winder tires and slightly tweaked handling numbers to make riding on gravel more positive.

The important thing to remember is that there is a HUGE amount of cross-over between the bikes...........one can ride a cross bike on the road, or a straight up road bike on gravel or do a cross race on a gravel bike and have a great time. None of these bikes is defined by a single feature or attribute and each is a specialized refinement of a road bike. There is just so much cross pollination (pun intended) and blurring of lines. Ride what you got and have fun.........if you want something more suited to a task to make it even more fun go for it. It's all fun and all good IMO.

dave

[Mark McM]

Most gravel grinders (i.e. high clearance road bikes) have a lower BB than their more race-oriented cousins.

CX bikes no longer have the high BB's that they had in the past. The high BB was for the old days when riders used clips and straps - if the BB was too low, the straps would drag on the ground. With clipless pedals, you don't need as much ground clearance. These days lower BBs are preferred, because it makes it easier to remount while running.

[Rada]

So what’s the difference between gravel grinders of today and sport tourers of yesterday?

[GRAVELBIKE]

So what’s the difference between gravel grinders of today and sport tourers of yesterday?

Marketing.

Manu's don't want you to re-purpose that old bike, but instead, buy a new-and-improved one.

My Black Mountain road bike (56 square, 73/73) is one of my favorite dirt-road rigs. With 30mm tires (28s on 25mm rims) and an 11-32 (Force 22) cassette, it's super versatile.

[e-RICHIE]

The only real difference (that I know of) is that a cross bicycle has to conform to standards when the rider has a number pinned on. Not racing? Then it doesn't matter. Past that, I can't see why the position between the choices would differ. And, if you're happier with larger and wider tires, a cross bicycle might have limitations that top out at 34mm as an example atmo.

If you take a bicycle and enter a cross race, it's a cross bicycle - at least for an hour. The same can be said for gravel grinders. Long before the industry sliced itself into smaller categories, many folks were using their road bicycles (with a change of wheels and gears) for a lot of riding that wasn't on pavement

[redir]

CX bikes no longer have the high BB's that they had in the past. The high BB was for the old days when riders used clips and straps - if the BB was too low, the straps would drag on the ground. With clipless pedals, you don't need as much ground clearance. These days lower BBs are preferred, because it makes it easier to remount while running.

That's my understanding as well.

[charliedid]

I think the idea that a bike isn't a true cross bike if it has bottle bosses is silly at best and marketing put out by a few that feel they need to say such things to be 'purist' and cool. The simple fact that some of the fastest cross guys on the planet somehow manage to overcome the fact that their rides have bottle bosses and still be the fast guys speaks volumes about the importance of the bottle bosses. The cool thing for the rider is they have a choice when having a bike built for them........want bosses?......you can have them. Don't want them?......leave them off. Same bike, same rider, same end use.....bosses or not.

IMO a cross race bike is best defined by fit and geometry. The fit, when compared to a rider's road bike will be a bit shorter and a bit more upright. The geometry of the cross race bike will have a higher BB to give room for the pedals during short radius turns and when riding in the deep goo and the handling is optimized for relatively low speeds and dealing with a bumpy and soft surface.

A gravel grinder, dirtroad bike, allroad bike or an MRB (Montana Road Bike as we've been calling them for the past ten years) share more in fit and handling with a stage race type road bike than it does a cross race bike. The BB can be lower and the handling is geared to a slightly higher speed and there is little concern with riding in the deep goo like a cross race bike. The fit is more like a road bike to give more comfort over the long term. It's more of a road bike with room for winder tires and slightly tweaked handling numbers to make riding on gravel more positive.

The important thing to remember is that there is a HUGE amount of cross-over between the bikes...........one can ride a cross bike on the road, or a straight up road bike on gravel or do a cross race on a gravel bike and have a great time. None of these bikes is defined by a single feature or attribute and each is a specialized refinement of a road bike. There is just so much cross pollination (pun intended) and blurring of lines. Ride what you got and have fun.........if you want something more suited to a task to make it even more fun go for it. It's all fun and all good IMO.

dave

What Dave said

[redir]

The only real difference (that I know of) is that a cross bicycle has to conform to standards when the rider has a number pinned on. Not racing? Then it doesn't matter. Past that, I can't see why the position between the choices would differ. And, if you're happier with larger and wider tires, a cross bicycle might have limitations that top out at 34mm as an example atmo.

If you take a bicycle and enter a cross race, it's a cross bicycle - at least for an hour. The same can be said for gravel grinders. Long before the industry sliced itself into smaller categories, many folks were using their road bicycles (with a change of wheels and gears) for a lot of riding that wasn't on pavement

Yup. I raced an 80's touring bike for the first three years racing cross. It had canti's and could fit wide tires so it was a cross bike. When I got a real cross bike I could still never get around Jon Hamblen ;)

[PaMtbRider]

I worked in a Specialized shop a few years ago and bought a Crux cx bike. I think it was the first year for the Crux and was actually a tricross relabeled. I did a few races on it and it was fine for that. I thought it sucked as a road / gravel bike. Some of the issues were; 46 / 38 crankset was ok for cross but I need lower gearing for all day dirt road riding in the mountains. One water bottle mount. Don't know if it was the higher bottom bracket but never thought it handled well at higher speed / turn in seemed abrupt. Cantilevers on a 40 mph downhill didn't instill confidence. On top of all that, I took the leap and bought the model with SRAM Rival. I am anxiously waiting for the e-mail from Mr Kirk telling me I am near the top of the list and he is ready to start on my Montana road bike. All of the above listed issues will be addressed including a Campy instead of SRAM build:hello:

[hida yanra]

looks like the bases are all covered here?
Both bikes can do either- but some are more tilted towards one option than the other... you know how some butter knives (or table knives if you prefer) have a bit of an edge to them and some are pretty blunt? I've used butter knives that can cut through a tough crust pretty easily but don't hold the butter on the blade as well.
Others really are for spreading things, can lift quite a bit more jam out of the dish, eh?
Both are butter/table knives and can do the job, but there's a spectrum they all exist along.

Things I wouldn't be surprised to see on a MontanaRoadBike:Lower BBs, longer chainstays, lower gearing, fender provision, clearance for a 40(ish), Fit is a longer & lower, pretty unlikely to have cantilever brakes, and a trade-off of weight for comfort.

CX: often, a bit more race oriented, higher BB, shorter fit, clears 34s, but many won't clear 34s & fenders, lighter weight (because racing)... eh, sorta like that. Less consideration given to utility and more to going fast.

~generalities only- all bicycles including HPVs exist along the same continuum YMMV.

[nicrump]

my gravel grinder is a pair of 27mm pave's on my road bike. and given cross racing in texas is usually dry, that would be my cross bike as well... if i bothered to race cross that is.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8534/8745013723_dc781d56c6_z.jpg

[mtb_frk]

I run fenders all year on my cross-grinder bike. Never had a problem with gravel getting jammed up in it. Snow/ice on the other hand will pack up inside them. I run the front fender about as far away from the tire as I can. I do on occasion, hear a stone going through but haven't ever had a problem.


This, I never understood. How much clearance are people running between their tires and fenders? Maybe it is just the roads around here, but there are tons of pebbles and even bigger pieces of crushed rock that are bouncing up when I ride on the dirt. I'd be very nervous about something getting into the fender and causing problems.

To me, fenders are a great solution to rain. Poor solution for non-paved surfaces.

[David Kirk]

my gravel grinder is a pair of 27mm pave's on my road bike. and given cross racing in texas is usually dry, that would be my cross bike as well... if i bothered to race cross that is.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8534/8745013723_dc781d56c6_z.jpg

That's cool.

I was out riding last season and ran came across I local rider I know and we rode together for awhile. We came across a favorite road of mine (smooth dirt, a bit gritty at worst - no holes or rocks) and I suggested we take the road less traveled and make a turn onto the dirt which is about 3/4 mile long. Surprisingly he stopped short of going onto the dirt and told me his bike was a 'race bike' and not designed to be ridden on dirt. It's a carbon Scott and would of course been fine on the dirt. I thought he must be joking..........but he wasn't. I made the turn onto the road thinking he'd follow me and he yelled 'see ya later' and stayed on the pavement.

It's amazing to me that he'd think his highly strung racing machine can't handle riding across what is a smooth surface with a bit of fine grit on it. Sad too as there is so much more out there that he and others are missing. No special bike needed.........one doesn't even really need special tires.......it's just a dirt road after all and we are on road bikes so it's a match made in heaven.

dave

[nicrump]

this is also my favorite corn field bike. as often times i'll see a jeep track cross a field and i wonder, does it connect? lets find out. hey man, less time on pavement is more time away from cars and a better workout. i never turn down and opportunity to make dust.

That's cool.

I was out riding last season and ran came across I local rider I know and we rode together for awhile. We came across a favorite road of mine (smooth dirt, a bit gritty at worst - no holes or rocks) and I suggested we take the road less traveled and make a turn onto the dirt which is about 3/4 mile long. Surprisingly he stopped short of going onto the dirt and told me his bike was a 'race bike' and not designed to be ridden on dirt. It's a carbon Scott and would of course been fine on the dirt. I thought he must be joking..........but he wasn't. I made the turn onto the road thinking he'd follow me and he yelled 'see ya later' and stayed on the pavement.

It's amazing to me that he'd think his highly strung racing machine can't handle riding across what is a smooth surface with a bit of fine grit on it. Sad too as there is so much more out there that he and others are missing. No special bike needed.........one doesn't even really need special tires.......it's just a dirt road after all and we are on road bikes so it's a match made in heaven.

dave

[salem]

So what’s the difference between gravel grinders of today and sport tourers of yesterday?

I would definitely say: not much. In fact, I've been keeping an eye out for an old Raleigh Technium 460 or 480 for just such use. I have a 420 for my fixed gear and it is a really comfortable bike for me, but it lacks the DT shifter mounts of higher numbered models.

2 cents of the high/low BB cross bikes. Yes, clipless pedals have removed one issue for low BB, but the off camber pedaling sections of many courses still make the higher BB handy in my experience.

[DerekG]

That's cool.

I was out riding last season and ran came across I local rider I know and we rode together for awhile. We came across a favorite road of mine (smooth dirt, a bit gritty at worst - no holes or rocks) and I suggested we take the road less traveled and make a turn onto the dirt which is about 3/4 mile long. Surprisingly he stopped short of going onto the dirt and told me his bike was a 'race bike' and not designed to be ridden on dirt. It's a carbon Scott and would of course been fine on the dirt. I thought he must be joking..........but he wasn't. I made the turn onto the road thinking he'd follow me and he yelled 'see ya later' and stayed on the pavement.

It's amazing to me that he'd think his highly strung racing machine can't handle riding across what is a smooth surface with a bit of fine grit on it. Sad too as there is so much more out there that he and others are missing. No special bike needed.........one doesn't even really need special tires.......it's just a dirt road after all and we are on road bikes so it's a match made in heaven.

dave

That's silly! I have several friends with whom I ride and we never hesitate to take our fancy carbon road bikes on dirt roads. Sometimes, we even aim for them if a particular event is looming that includes that type of riding. Those people are missing out.

[FastforaSlowGuy]

That's silly! I have several friends with whom I ride and we never hesitate to take our fancy carbon road bikes on dirt roads. Sometimes, we even aim for them if a particular event is looming that includes that type of riding. Those people are missing out.

I'll sometimes avoid those roads on my race bike depending on what tires I'm running. The tires I run on that machine are generally more prone to sidewall cuts. Smooth dirt would be fine, but tubular Vittoria SCs hate rocks.

[hida yanra]

I would definitely say: not much. In fact... I have a 420 for my fixed gear and it is really comfortable

you know, most flip that around- a fixie for their 420 issues.

[commonguy001]

Back when Salsa came out with the steel La Cruz cx disc frameset I bought one to ride gravel on. It probably weighed 23-24 pounds built up.
My cross bike back then was way way lighter, probably closer to 17 or 18 pounds with tubbies

I'd say there is now virtually no difference other than maybe a 3rd water bottle mount and possibly fender and or rack mounts although my La Cruz was set up for fenders.

I'd say the bigger difference now is tires where a true CX tire is made for CX type conditions and a gravel tire is made for tons of miles and has a lot more puncture resistance.

[54ny77]

how about just a regular grinder?

http://www.elcajongrinder.com/images/sandwich.jpg

[saab2000]

Here's mine. I'd race one of those grass crits they call cyclocross here in the US.

The difference between this and a real cross bike is not that big. But there are some differences: Fender mounts. Rack mounts. Clearance for big tires and fenders. Steel fork. Geometry (I can't comment on specifics because I'm not a bike designer) suited more towards rough, loose roads. And by that I mean it is stable. It's not twitchy at all. I actually think many riders would benefit from this type of handling. They'd ride better in pace lines and groups.

Anyway, I guess you could race this but it probably wouldn't be ideal at the higher level races. Among other things, it's heavyish. Don't know how much, but it's not a flyweight.

But it does exactly what I wanted it to do and I think I'll keep it. :banana:

Oh, and it's got disc brakes and 135 spacing, which some folks aren't yet sold on. But I like them. In the top pic it's got road tires but on the gravel the Michelin Jets in the lower picture are way, way better.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7408/12293181786_d37341f459_b.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5534/14287609423_7a930c98ce_b.jpg
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2910/14264118901_5282b13e93_b.jpg

[jr59]

Here's mine. I'd race one of those grass crits they call cyclocross here in the US.

The difference between this and a real cross bike is not that big. But there are some differences: Fender mounts. Rack mounts. Clearance for big tires and fenders. Steel fork. Geometry (I can't comment on specifics because I'm not a bike designer) suited more towards rough, loose roads. And by that I mean it is stable. It's not twitchy at all. I actually think many riders would benefit from this type of handling. They'd ride better in pace lines and groups.

Anyway, I guess you could race this but it probably wouldn't be ideal at the higher level races. Among other things, it's heavyish. Don't know how much, but it's not a flyweight.

But it does exactly what I wanted it to do and I think I'll keep it. :banana:

Oh, and it's got disc brakes and 135 spacing, which some folks aren't yet sold on. But I like them. In the top pic it's got road tires but on the gravel the Michelin Jets in the lower picture are way, way better.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7408/12293181786_d37341f459_b.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5534/14287609423_7a930c98ce_b.jpg
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2910/14264118901_5282b13e93_b.jpg


:banana::banana::banana: yea!!!!! We finally get to see Saab's newest bike.

[hida yanra]

Here's mine

that a proper-ass bike, great work. Additionally, nice choice on that saddle- they are one of my normal "here's three options that work for many" list.

OOC, why the steel fork, the mid-blade threaded-holes?

[oldpotatoe]

you know, most flip that around- a fixie for their 420 issues.

A guy on 4/20, on the way to get some cheetos, will definitely forget to not coast. But he'll be all loose and mellow when he hits the ground...dude.

[merckx]

SAAB, nice machine!

But here is what I'd change:

[TimAZ]

I use my CX bike as a gravel race bike. For CX racing I have run a 1 X 10 for years that would not be so friendly on a gravel race bike set up. I really only do 1 gravel race a season and that is a race called the Crusher in the Tushar. It's 70 miles with 10K of climbing. Steep and loose gravel/dirt roads require lots of gears. I run a 50/34 up front with a 11-34 in the rear to give me what I need. That is the difference between the two bikes for me. I have wondered the same question as of late with all the rage that gravel bikes are becoming.

[Ti Designs]

Once again, I think y'all missed the point. Who cares what the difference is, it's an excuse to have another bike.

[saab2000]

that a proper-ass bike, great work. Additionally, nice choice on that saddle- they are one of my normal "here's three options that work for many" list.

OOC, why the steel fork, the mid-blade threaded-holes?

Well, the steel fork was not really something I considered too much. Indy Fab makes them and it allowed some more options. One of the things I wanted with this bike was the ability to have some reasonably-sized studded tires and fenders, for winter riding for when I move back to a snowy climate. And I will mount a dynamo hub and light. I didn't want to be limited. So those were design criteria I specified.

As to the holes in the fork, those are for the eventuality of installing a rack. I've never done a loaded tour of any sort and have no idea of the requirements but it was something I mentioned to the designers at IF and they obliged. I had in mind a specific ride that some friends do in late autumn in western Michigan that lasts overnight and is about 100 miles in each direction and some guys camp and others hotel it but they all carry plenty of stuff. So I asked for some flexibility of function with the bike.

They hit the ball out of the park I think.

I'd probably cut a pound off the weight of the bike with a carbon fork and if I could without changing the geometry, I'd probably do it for most riding. But I'm happy with it the way it is.

About 3 weeks ago I did a hard ride in western Virginia with this bike and it worked great. It's not much slower on the paved sections and I felt far more secure on the unpaved sections. The tires were set at 65 PSI and the stable geometry and the Michelin Jets did a great job helping me feel safe and secure on the loose gravel descents.

The disc brakes frankly exceeded expectations. They are new to me and I didn't know what to expect but they were all but invisible during the ride, only making their presence known at times when I knew the caliper brakes were inadequate in previous years on the same ride. Any component that is 'invisible' after six or seven hours of riding is a great component.

I'd give the bike a 9.5 of 10 and only less than perfect because perfect is essentially impossible to achieve. Can't say I've ever ridden a 10/10.

At this point I'm actually considering selling all but three of my bikes and this would be one of the keepers, simply for its versatility.

[wallymann]

sounds like he didnt want to get his A-bike dirty.

That's cool.

I was out riding last season and ran came across I local rider I know and we rode together for awhile. We came across a favorite road of mine (smooth dirt, a bit gritty at worst - no holes or rocks) and I suggested we take the road less traveled and make a turn onto the dirt which is about 3/4 mile long. Surprisingly he stopped short of going onto the dirt and told me his bike was a 'race bike' and not designed to be ridden on dirt. It's a carbon Scott and would of course been fine on the dirt. I thought he must be joking..........but he wasn't. I made the turn onto the road thinking he'd follow me and he yelled 'see ya later' and stayed on the pavement.

It's amazing to me that he'd think his highly strung racing machine can't handle riding across what is a smooth surface with a bit of fine grit on it. Sad too as there is so much more out there that he and others are missing. No special bike needed.........one doesn't even really need special tires.......it's just a dirt road after all and we are on road bikes so it's a match made in heaven.

dave

[IFRider]

Those mid fork mounts support using a lowrider front mount. I have a IF Club Racer (which can be recast as Gravel Grinder with 32mm tires, no disk though) that I have mounted Tubus lowriders for commuting, credit card touring and fall photography rides. I also mounted the fenders there once as it allowed the fenders to move away from the tire if something got stuck, but I eventually tired of the odd look. Lastly a number of people mount lights there for commuting/brevet stuff as the low position helps with highlighting road conditions.

Warren

Well, the steel fork was not really something I considered too much. Indy Fab makes them and it allowed some more options. One of the things I wanted with this bike was the ability to have some reasonably-sized studded tires and fenders, for winter riding for when I move back to a snowy climate. And I will mount a dynamo hub and light. I didn't want to be limited. So those were design criteria I specified.

As to the holes in the fork, those are for the eventuality of installing a rack. I've never done a loaded tour of any sort and have no idea of the requirements but it was something I mentioned to the designers at IF and they obliged. I had in mind a specific ride that some friends do in late autumn in western Michigan that lasts overnight and is about 100 miles in each direction and some guys camp and others hotel it but they all carry plenty of stuff. So I asked for some flexibility of function with the bike.

They hit the ball out of the park I think.

I'd probably cut a pound off the weight of the bike with a carbon fork and if I could without changing the geometry, I'd probably do it for most riding. But I'm happy with it the way it is.

About 3 weeks ago I did a hard ride in western Virginia with this bike and it worked great. It's not much slower on the paved sections and I felt far more secure on the unpaved sections. The tires were set at 65 PSI and the stable geometry and the Michelin Jets did a great job helping me feel safe and secure on the loose gravel descents.

The disc brakes frankly exceeded expectations. They are new to me and I didn't know what to expect but they were all but invisible during the ride, only making their presence known at times when I knew the caliper brakes were inadequate in previous years on the same ride. Any component that is 'invisible' after six or seven hours of riding is a great component.

I'd give the bike a 9.5 of 10 and only less than perfect because perfect is essentially impossible to achieve. Can't say I've ever ridden a 10/10.

At this point I'm actually considering selling all but three of my bikes and this would be one of the keepers, simply for its versatility.

[fogrider]

That's cool.

I was out riding last season and ran came across I local rider I know and we rode together for awhile. We came across a favorite road of mine (smooth dirt, a bit gritty at worst - no holes or rocks) and I suggested we take the road less traveled and make a turn onto the dirt which is about 3/4 mile long. Surprisingly he stopped short of going onto the dirt and told me his bike was a 'race bike' and not designed to be ridden on dirt. It's a carbon Scott and would of course been fine on the dirt. I thought he must be joking..........but he wasn't. I made the turn onto the road thinking he'd follow me and he yelled 'see ya later' and stayed on the pavement.

It's amazing to me that he'd think his highly strung racing machine can't handle riding across what is a smooth surface with a bit of fine grit on it. Sad too as there is so much more out there that he and others are missing. No special bike needed.........one doesn't even really need special tires.......it's just a dirt road after all and we are on road bikes so it's a match made in heaven.

dave
+1, steelman and ritchey built road bikes with room for wider tires...http://vimeo.com/92174514