Shimano GRX

[Bostic]

Is the Sugino 901 crank still the narrowest q-factor at 145mm?

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Bostic

Is the Sugino 901 crank still the narrowest q-factor at 145mm?

Still? It never was. Campagnolo Nuovo Record was about 135mm, and many other cranks of this era were also quite narrow.

Now that we've moved to external bearing BBs and pressfit BB shells, there are still a few narrow cranks, but these tend to be boutique cranks (like the Extralite QRC-2, at 139mm).

Another factor consider for crank width is U factor - the width of the cranks at the BB spindle. For duck-footed riders (like me), this can be just as important. Campagnolo has maintained a very narrow U factor in their cranks at just 128mm (Q factor 145.5mm). I've used the Sugino OX901 cranks, and they definitely have a wider U factor than Campagnolo cranks.

SRAM claims their Red cranks have a Q factor of 146mm, but this is a bit of a fudge. The width between pedal flats is 146mm, but the pedal flats are inset by 1.5mm, so the width at the surface of the crank is really 149mm.

[NHAero]

When they rate the RX810 rear derailleur for 2X set-ups with up to a 11-34 cassette, and the RX812 for 1X set-ups and up to an 11-42 cassette, are we guessing that the cassette max cog size is a function more of total tooth differential, and ability to wrap chain? And that the RX812 will shift an 11-42 cassette just fine?

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by NHAero

When they rate the RX810 rear derailleur for 2X set-ups with up to a 11-34 cassette, and the RX812 for 1X set-ups and up to an 11-42 cassette, are we guessing that the cassette max cog size is a function more of total tooth differential, and ability to wrap chain? And that the RX812 will shift an 11-42 cassette just fine?

That's what Shimano told me earlier today.

[merlinmurph]

Originally Posted by Clean39T

The ergonomics of gravel-bikes as XC mountain-bikes makes no sense. Trying to hold onto hoods on technical terrain is just silly and bad for your body (hands, wrists, etc.). And being in the drops on technical terrain just puts too much weight forward - unless your drops are level with your saddle and super wide, at which point, why even have drop bars?

My $0.02 is gravel bikes need to stay on gravel, and race organizers need to resist the urge to make people ride singletrack and rough mtb stuff on these bikes.

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

I do wonder how much of the gravel thing is people just not wanting to buy a hardtail mountain bike.

Is the country really covered in that many unpaved fire roads?

Well, there's a wide range of "gravel", just like there is a large range of mt bikes. Some gravel (I hate that word...) bikes are essentially road bikes with extra clearance for 32mm tires, while others are more robust and can handle tires ~50mm. Like any other bike, pick the one that is right for the riding you want to do.

Personally, I can go out my door and ride miles of dirt, very very little of it actually maintained dirt roads. It's mostly singletrack (think novice+ mtb trails) with the occasional very rocky/rooty section - hey, this is New England after all. I avoid the continuous technical sections because it just isn't fun, but the rest of the stuff is a ball with the right tires (40mm anyway, but I'm old). Occasionally, I'll go up to VT and NH to ride the dirt roads there, and invariably end up on a snowmobile/4WD trail that can get a bit rough. All fun stuff and I prefer having a gravel bike to a chunky mtb.

My point is that "gravel" isn't just dirt roads, at least to a lot of people.

Back to the GRX group...... I wish Shimano had given options for lower gearing. Yes, there are other options, but Shimano should see the need. Over at RKP, Patrick had a conversation with a Shimano rep who said something like “If you ever need gearing lower than 30-34, maybe you should be on a mt bike”. Sorry, but I strongly disagree with that. A lot of these rides have grades that are 20+%, and when you hit one of those near the end of a long day, you're looking for some low gearing. Besides, not everybody is a strong rider or is maybe getting *ahem* on the older side.

Enjoy your ride,
Murph

[TheseGoTo11]

Originally Posted by merlinmurph

Back to the GRX group...... I wish Shimano had given options for lower gearing. Yes, there are other options, but Shimano should see the need. Over at RKP, Patrick had a conversation with a Shimano rep who said something like “If you ever need gearing lower than 30-34, maybe you should be on a mt bike”. Sorry, but I strongly disagree with that. A lot of these rides have grades that are 20+%, and when you hit one of those near the end of a long day, you're looking for some low gearing. Besides, not everybody is a strong rider or is maybe getting *ahem* on the older side.

I did Ride the Rockies a couple years ago. A significant portion of the participants were on the older side. I recall shaking my head watching many riders, young and old alike, grind up climbs on bikes with compact cranks that were clearly overgeared. It was an eye-opener to the number of folks out there that could really benefit from lower gear options. These are folks with disposable income, too, riding really nice bikes. Seems like there is a market for low road gearing in a high end groupset, like Ultegra (I'd pay full price for an R8000 triple in a heartbeat). Maybe it's not as great as I think, though. Surely Shimano does its marketing homework to understand demand.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

I did Ride the Rockies a couple years ago. A significant portion of the participants were on the older side. I recall shaking my head watching many riders, young and old alike, grind up climbs on bikes with compact cranks that were clearly overgeared. It was an eye-opener to the number of folks out there that could really benefit from lower gear options. These are folks with disposable income, too, riding really nice bikes. Seems like there is a market for low road gearing in a high end groupset, like Ultegra (I'd pay full price for an R8000 triple in a heartbeat). Maybe it's not as great as I think, though. Surely Shimano does its marketing homework to understand demand.

Indeed...
Really?..how many triple road groups are offered these days by anybody?

[eddief]

new Roubaix is 48-32 in the front and 11-36 in the rear. Almost identical low gear inch range to my triples with 52-42-30 front and 11-34 rear. Granted you have to deal with big jumps in the front but the Di2 is snappy in shifting those rear gears and with synchro the Di2 will shift the rear a couple of cogs as needed when you shift front derailleur.

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

I did Ride the Rockies a couple years ago. A significant portion of the participants were on the older side. I recall shaking my head watching many riders, young and old alike, grind up climbs on bikes with compact cranks that were clearly overgeared. It was an eye-opener to the number of folks out there that could really benefit from lower gear options. These are folks with disposable income, too, riding really nice bikes. Seems like there is a market for low road gearing in a high end groupset, like Ultegra (I'd pay full price for an R8000 triple in a heartbeat). Maybe it's not as great as I think, though. Surely Shimano does its marketing homework to understand demand.

[93KgBike]

IMHO, The Old Growth Classic is a really good medium for continuing to examine the boundary between dropbar gravel/CX and XC mtb. Wish I coulda gone. The pros all race in the drops, but I'd guess the entire event is 50/50?

I used to mtb all over that area covered by the course, and changed my gearing so that I could commute to the trailheads at a reasonable pace. XTR had FD 48t clearance and I ran that with an XO setup whatever year that came out. The end result was 48/34/24 11-34 I think.

I'd try GRX on a CX with a 52 flat bar.