|
|
|
|
#31
10-22-2020, 08:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#32
10-22-2020, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The steering is surprising natural to me. You have to trust your builder here, I initially wanted a 44 bar and a 80 stem, Mark recommended otherwise. I think he said the bike would steer like a dump truck if I did that, or just imagine if I did that on a Yeti SB130. He actually wanted a 50 stem and a 50+ bar but Enve makes nothing bigger than a 48. The bike steer slower than my 71/110/44 gravel bike and you can feel that on tight single tracks. But this bike is much faster on anything rough or steep, I honestly did not think gravel bike can descent like this.
No wondering on the front end while climbing. It feels properly weighted to me, in and out of saddle, evenly distributed. I think the saddle drop helps a bit, again trust the builder here. Last edited by MarinRider; 10-22-2020 at 09:10 PM.
|
|
#33
10-22-2020, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#35
10-22-2020, 09:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have nothing to add to this thread except that I think it is interesting and informative and I appreciate that.
|
|
#36
10-23-2020, 05:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I like the Knolly and Prova examples.
Slack mtb geometry feels unusual but it works on the trail. Super interesting that it can work on a gravel bike without eroding road handling. How are very wide handle drop bars while doing road miles?
|
|
#37
10-23-2020, 06:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Aren't a lot of these just v.2 of monstercross bikes of a decade ago?
__________________
Opinion without action never gets anything done
|
|
#38
10-23-2020, 07:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#40
10-23-2020, 09:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I really love gravel bikes in general and am intrigued by these more mountain bike like set ups. I ride all of my current bikes on some form of trail or another, but when things get rough, root strewn and rocky I definitely prefer my hardtail and flat bars.
The biggest drawback for the hardtail is not wanting to ride it back and forth to the trails. Not sure how it would improve with the geometry of these more mountain like drop bar bikes. I have a 90mm stem on a 56cm Warbird and like how the bike rides on light single track, dirt/gravel and asphalt. I typically ride a 54cm, but was on the lower end of the height range for the 56cm and so far so good. I would definitely like to demo some of these bikes to see how they ride. Would it just be a compromise or would it make sense for the type of riding I like to do? I enjoy underbiking and other times appreciate the right tool for the job. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
#41
10-23-2020, 09:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It seems like monstercross bikes have been continually developing for a long time (I got mine built in 2001). I feel like this geometry change possibly marks a relatively significant development. I am not sure if it will "take off" though. Will Spec be making something like this soon?
Quote:
__________________
please don't take anything I say personally, I am an idiot. Last edited by bicycletricycle; 10-23-2020 at 10:17 AM.
|
|
#42
10-23-2020, 11:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My igleheart from 10 years ago is built around a 90mm stem and long top tube, but steeper angles consistent with the times. I, like RudAwakening, have a Knolly cache and love it. The angles definitely work for the type of riding I do and I feel like I could go faster with 180mm rotors and brakes that weren’t SRAM(the levers are terrible). I regularly find myself riding faster and needing to dump speed and having moments of ‘oh yeah this isn’t a mountain bike’. I wish it fit a slightly larger tire and I may run a rear tire insert. I found myself doing 40+ down a dirt road last weekend without realizing how fast I was going until I came into a washboard section. I have definitely overcooked a few corners using it as a mtb, feeling limited by the tires (47c teravails).
I have done three bikepacking trips on it now and it does well loaded. Sold my road bike, and don’t really feel like I need anything else. Having a dropper is great, and I can now roll stuff that I would typically have to walk. I wish the stack was a bit higher, which I might remedy with some different bars. I run an 80mm stem and 52cm wide bars at 6’3. I think my next bike will be a custom built off the knolly—little more tire room, slightly slacker front end and taller stack.
|
|
#43
10-23-2020, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have one with clearance for 29x2.3, a long front center, and short stem. It's my only drop bar bike, and could be my only bike in the future, so it has to cover a lot of ground. Still dialing in cockpit, but seems comfy on long road rides. I haven't had a chance to try it with the big tires yet.
|
|
#44
10-23-2020, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have been watching forward geometry since Mondraker started pushing the concept around 2013. The fact that I primarily ride dirt drops make it interesting to me as I already run a longer and narrower cockpit than most on many bikes.
However, I am not a fan of all components of forward geometry and have coined what I call ForwardNotForward. Give me the longer front center but no thank you to extreme seat tube angles and pushing weight onto my handlebars. I prefer long front center and a balance geometry for the aggressive riding I do. While I have not spent a lot of time on the custom Clockwork 29er I had built around this concept (as it is my travel bike for rougher riding, East, West and well North), I am very happy with the handling based on my limited seat time. Stable but very playful with a tight rear and balanced ride. I would actually encourage anyone to take a look at the iterations of concept bikes built by Peter Verdone. I watched the progression of his builds with interest and it was how his geometry evolved from early frames having too little saddle setback to his later models landing right where I would expect that gave me confidence to pull the trigger on the concept with Joel. Peter's early bikes were functionally more what I am interested in and his later bikes were more aggressive than any needs I have, but the progression allowed me to watch him walk in that setback to a place where the bike had better balance. My thoughts in general on this is that long F-C is here to stay but I do not think the super aggressive seat tube angles will stick. As related to gravel specifically, I guess it depends on how rough you want to ride on how little a bike/tire or how much you favor stability. After plenty of gravel races and rides this past decade, I just do not see a need for a slacked out gravel bike but not sure they have much downside either. Will be interesting to see if they get as much traction as on the mountain bike side.
|
|
#45
10-23-2020, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Almost all the gravel bikes in the thread look pretty heinous to me.
And I've run an 80mm stem on mine, which is a 58. It works fine. I have a 90mm on it currently. Even the MTBs look a little crazy. I assume the steep seat tubes are to keep them working when you have to go uphill? I don't think I could make those work. I'd need a setback seatpost to the point the steep seat tube wouldn't do a damn thing and I'd be back over the rear wheel to the point the bike wouldn't have enough weight on the front wheel and would wheelie out of control. I am probably not that many years off needing a new MTB, mine is 15 years old (and F/S on top of that) and is "heavily reliced". But it still works really well. I had a fantastic ride on it earlier this week. I even rode it to the trail with the shock locked out. It will be interesting to see what happens if/when I go try to get a test ride on one of these newstyle geo bikes. Going uphill AND downhill has to work for me.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
