Gravel Fit? Vs Road Fit

[tony_mm]

It definitely depends also on the terrain where you ride.
Much more differences between gravel rides than between road rides.

[shoota]

Originally Posted by robt57

Are you folks using same saddle setback as road position?

I am in the tad more stack, touch less reach, touch less setback camp for personal 'gravel' setup. FWIW

I'm in the tad more stack, touch less reach, tad more setback for gravel camp.

[Bob Ross]

The only data point [sic] I have is this:

Last year when shopping for my first gravel bike, I put together a swanky chart comparing all the salient measurements of my three current bikes: a custom Strong road bike, a custom Sachs road bike, and a stock 2006 Cannondale Synapse. And then I hunted around for a stock off-the-shelf gravel bike that came closest to matching those dims. The size 58 Cannondale CAADX looked perfect.

It was also out of stock, and my dealer told me one wouldn't be available anywhere in the US (?!?!) for another couple months.

But he had a size 56 Cannondale CAADX in stock.

I said "NOOOOOOOO! The size 58 is perfect! I made the chart! I compared to my swanky custom bikes! I must have size 58!"

He said "for gravel you always want to size down."







Cot day-um he was right! The size 56 Cannondale CAADX fit perfectly! The only thing I adjusted was saddle height, which I did in the store before I even took it for a test ride. Haven't touched a thing since, and I've probably put 4,000 miles on that bike already.

[Clancy]

Just as important or more is the geometry set up. We all know that for gravel bikes they should have a little more bottom bracket drop, a longer wheelbase, and a touch more trail. From what I’ve seen, everybody goes about this very differently. An example I picked up a Niner RLT Steel frame in a 53cm. Beautiful bike, excellent build quality. But the trail is a ridiculous 71mm. The bike wallows all over the place when climbing and steers like crap. I’m hoping I can get use to it but right now it’s not much fun to ride.

My first gravel bike was a Gunnar Hyper-X I built up maybe ten years ago, before this current surge in gravel bikes. That bike handle great on gravel as did the Salsa Vaya that replaced it. The Niner? Not so much.

From what I’ve learned my ideal gravel bike would have a lower BB, longer wheelbase, and trail just a touch more than the mid 50’s found on road bikes.

As far as tire size I haven’t found a lot of advantages for going bigger than 35c. I’ve tried 650b with 47c tires and the sluggishness just wasn’t fun. For the 5-10 percent of the time that large of volume might be an advantage it just wasn’t worth it. I’ve found 35’s handle all but the worse roads and do far better most conditions.

Fit is more personal. Those that like to ride with their stems slammed will still prefer a lower stem height, while those who ride upright will want that position. On the organized gravel rides I’ve done I’ve seen road racer guys with their gravel bikes set-up with the stems slammed and bike-packer types sitting upright. Everyone seems to gravitate towards the same fit as to what their use to. It’s the geometry that’s the key.

[cyan]

So many people talk about sizing down on gravel bikes vs. road bikes. How much smaller in terms of frame reach and stack? Is being able to use a longer stem part of the reason why we go smaller on the frame (so that we get more stable handling)?

[ColonelJLloyd]

Originally Posted by Clancy

Just as important or more is the geometry set up. We all know that for gravel bikes they should have a little more bottom bracket drop, a longer wheelbase, and a touch more trail. From what I’ve seen, everybody goes about this very differently. An example I picked up a Niner RLT Steel frame in a 53cm. Beautiful bike, excellent build quality. But the trail is a ridiculous 71mm. The bike wallows all over the place when climbing and steers like crap. I’m hoping I can get use to it but right now it’s not much fun to ride.

My first gravel bike was a Gunnar Hyper-X I built up maybe ten years ago, before this current surge in gravel bikes. That bike handle great on gravel as did the Salsa Vaya that replaced it. The Niner? Not so much.

From what I’ve learned my ideal gravel bike would have a lower BB, longer wheelbase, and trail just a touch more than the mid 50’s found on road bikes.

As far as tire size I haven’t found a lot of advantages for going bigger than 35c. I’ve tried 650b with 47c tires and the sluggishness just wasn’t fun. For the 5-10 percent of the time that large of volume might be an advantage it just wasn’t worth it. I’ve found 35’s handle all but the worse roads and do far better most conditions.

Fit is more personal. Those that like to ride with their stems slammed will still prefer a lower stem height, while those who ride upright will want that position. On the organized gravel rides I’ve done I’ve seen road racer guys with their gravel bikes set-up with the stems slammed and bike-packer types sitting upright. Everyone seems to gravitate towards the same fit as to what their use to. It’s the geometry that’s the key.

Goes to show it really is personal. I agree light and supple 700x35mm is great for much of the riding most will do, pavement and otherwise. A lot of the conditions I find myself riding make 650x50mm the right choice. And not just gravel and dirt. They take so much more out of the neglected pavement I often ride and they give me more confidence, which counts for a lot. If they slow me down versus effectively the same tire in that 700x35mm size then it's really not perceptible or meaningful to me. Tires make a big difference (I did not like the 47mm WTB offerings, for instance).

I think trail is personal and what you're used to/have learned to like. I love the 50mm tires coupled with low (~37mm trail) on pavement to rooty single track. That said, I'm seriously considering trying out a carbon fork (for reasons not related to trail) that would bring the trail to standard-ish 57mm.

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by cyan

So many people talk about sizing down on gravel bikes vs. road bikes. How much smaller in terms of frame reach and stack? Is being able to use a longer stem part of the reason why we go smaller on the frame (so that we get more stable handling)?

I don't necessarily agree with the idea (road bike size -1) but also don't think it isn't without some validity. Back in the late 80's and early 90's people starting suggesting the same with mountain bikes. Sure people got more standover clearance but an equal number and more ended up with bikes that handled poorly with too much drop. Funny how I and so many people ended up with riser bars on our bikes to gain more control. Look where we are now...

No one stop answer. If you are after a stock bike go and test ride test ride test ride. Buy the bike that fits right, not just the "same size" as your road bike and not your road bike minus one size. Bikes all have a sweet spot balance wise and that is what you are trying to get at when fitting a bike. Contact point numbers only get you so far. IMO

Many gravel bikes are set up with longer TT and a "shorter" stem. That will throw a lot of people due to the desire to build or fit a bike around a particular length stem. The 120 is "correct" theory for example.

How you intend to ride a particular bike will (should) also inform your decision. Buy the right size bike not a geometry chart. It's not a size down if it's the right size.