Why I'm going back to rim brakes for road.....

[rice rocket]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

What is your point? That bike sucks for normal people interested in gravel riding, it's fully optimized modern gravel product designed to sell and be replaced in a model year or two.

One size handlebar with integrated stem, integrated cable shenanigans, and all the other product lifecycle developments benefitting sales and not the rider.

You may have well posted a cutting repartee that F1 cars are fast and good at F1 racing so my take on how F1 cars suck for the type of driving most people want to do is a fail.

Your complaint was gravel was not road bike with big tires, except when presented with a counterexample (of which there are others), you're on to bitching about product lifecycles and integrated cables (which exist on both gravel and road bikes)?

Get a grip, dude.

[phishrabbi]

Given that there are likely over a billion rim brake bicycles out there in the world, I suspect that *someone* will continue to manufacture rims, brakes, and brifters for them.

While it is true that the big names in the industry may be pushing discs on everyone, if there is demand for a product, someone will figure out how to make money selling it.

[robt57]

I was serious about a Crux for a few minutes. I lean less trail and steeper HTA and got a Boone. I really wanted a Domane RSL/SLR, and a frame popped up a month after Boone was built up. Figures.. SLR fits 32s, Boone 38s, i think later Crux bigger yet, if you want fatties in your equation. The Boone steering slows with 38s, the Crux being more lax yet up front would not be my cup of tea. YMMV

FWIW, i am riding the rim brake Domane more than hydr R8070 Boone.. Probably due to the long/low Race Shop Domane fit being perfect for me..

Originally Posted by krooj

What I'd love to know: Crux or 2023 Domane for some **** road riding? Which does the hive mind prefer and why?

Points of reference, I'm pretty smitten with my Aethos and I sold my Emonda SLR in favor of the Spesh.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

Riding gravel is the best thing in the world. Gravel is terrible, a killer for regular cyclists because it puts them on heavier, harsher, more complex bikes for no reason. The updated testing standards that came about because of gravel and discs have completely killed steel bike frame design and gave an entire generation of bikes terrible carbon/aluminum forks. We're only recently getting the CF forks the bikes deserve and frame design is still lacking.

The promise of gravel remains unfulfilled, the reality has fallen short in the extreme. "A road bike that takes big tires" is about as far from most gravel bikes as could be.

I know legion cyclists who bought a 2nd gen gravel bike in 2019/20 that have realized the bike isn't great for their riding and moved on. 3rd gen is even more specialized and is even less appealing. Road and MTB bikes have roared back in the face of these realizations.

We're still in a haze where people are convincing each other the idea of gravel bike is great but the reality has diverged for a long time and the bikes aren't what many people actually want. Gravel bikes are a marketing exercise that the engineers and marketeers couldn't help but destroy.

Ok, so this is interesting and thanks for sharing. I agree with some and find some to be totally baseless. I bet this is in part due to specific region/who we all talk with.

- gravel bikes can be heavier and harsher, but that is hardly an always situation. Many come from inexpensive flat bar hybrids like a Trek FX1, so in those cases, the odds are a gravel bike will be lighter. As for harshness, I dont know how that is measured- multiple gravel bikes have built in flex points to reduce vibrations and fatigue. Wider tires with lower pressure also reduces vibrations and fatigue. If I ride a 25mm road bike with 90psi tires on a route that I ride my gravel bike on(or a gravel bike from a large brand) with 43mm tires at 40psi, I think the road bike would feel harsher. But you are saying the gravel bike is harsher?
And even on paved road, I am not sure that a gravel bike with 43mm tires at 40psi would ride more harshly than a road bike with 25mm tires at 90psi.

- gravel bikes are not inherently more complex compared to road bikes. Some are more complex, but many are far less complex. My gravel bike has externally routed cables and hoses(it does route thru the fork) and uses components that are readily replaceable(so not proprietary). A Trek Checkpoint is hardly more complex than a similar level Trek road bike(take your pick on model). Road bike trends are internally routed cables, fork steerers that are now a D shape, integrated cockpits, road tubeless, electronic shifting at the mid level and higher, flexing frames, and more- that is all complex. Your complaint about gravel bikes being complex is better focused as a rant about how drop bar bikes overall are too complex.
Now there are some gravel bikes that are more complex than others for sure. suspension forks on a few models, dropper posts on a few models, flexing frames on a few models. Again though, I dont see gravel bikes as a category being more complex than paved road bikes.

- I agree that testing standards have killed steel bike frame design because the frames and forks need to survive some comically high fatigue. My gravel frame is a perfect example- it is an 853 main triangle that is really not light. It isnt heavy, but that 853 steel certainly wasnt used in order to create lighter tubes that are still strong. Instead, the tubes are quite typically butted and the frame is just basically indestructible as a result. The downtube is an 853 DZB tube which means it is so strong and overbuilt I am pretty sure could be a support column for a sky scraper. The bike doesnt ride harshly though, I quite like it actually.
I actually bought this frame because I wanted to see if a 44mm headtube plus carbon fork was better/more fun than my older gravel frame which has a steek fork. In the end, I wasnt missing out on anything and I am happy with both. Again, the overbuilt carbon fork just isnt nearly as bad as you make it sound.
43mm tires at a proper pressure seem to really mute differences.

- I have no idea what you refer to when you say frame design is still lacking compared to us finally just getting forks we deserve. That is such a broad and unspecific statement that I dont know what you mean.

- I dont know what 'the promise of gravel' was and how it remains unfulfilled. Is there some leader of gravel that promised all of us something?
You seem to ignore the reality that there is no singular was gravel bikes are used or should be used. Some underbike with them. Some ride mixed surfaces with them. Some commute with them. Some cruise along paved trails and only touch gravel as the path crosses rural farm roads.
The gravel scene up by me seems quite healthy and happy- there are tons of events across the state between February and November. This is in addition to everyone who just rides solo or with small groups. Have they all also been let down by this unfulfilled promise?

- A road bike that takes bigger tires is exactly what I wanted with my current frame and its what I have. The geometry is nearly the same as my main road bike. the HTA is .5deg slacker, but combined with the fork offset and tire size, the trail matches my road bike. The chainstay is 2mm longer on my gravel bike...so its the same. The bb drop is mm more on my gravel bike, and the larger tires offset that in terms of height.
Besides that incredibly small differences, which are easily negated by the different tire size to the point that its not like I would ever actually feel the differences, the bikes are the same. Its a road bike that takes bigger tires.
Many gravel bikes are similar- the Checkpoint is really similar to the Domane, for example. A Cervelo Aspero is really darn close in geometry to what I would say is an endurance road bike(because it is just that, in addition to being able to handle a larger tire.

- Fun Fact- 'legion' is between 3000 and 6000. Anyways, that sucks to see you know a ton of people who bought gravel bikes a few years ago and dislike them. Since the range of bikes that are considered 'gravel' is so vast, perhaps they would have better suited on a gravel bike that is different from the ones they bought.

- I didnt realize we are in the 3rd generation of gravel bikes. I disagree that this 3rd generation is even more specialized and less appealing. It is, to me, even more diverse. You have race gravel bikes, middle ground(neutral) gravel bikes, and slack gravel bikes that seem like they are designed for tame single track. Its a really wide range. You have gravel bikes with 0 mounts, gravel bikes with some mounts, and gravel bikes with seemingly endless mounts.
If someone cant find a gravel bike that fits how they want to use the bike, I dont think they are looking very well, or I dont think they actually want a gravel bike. <--critical, but honest.



About the only thing I agree with is that steel frames are overbuilt to pass testing that isnt really applicable or a concern to the steel frames. And even then, I dont really see it as a massive deal since I have one of those overbuilt frames and like it.
If I had the motivation and desire to spend $3000, I would buy a Breadwinner B Road and ask for my current geometry(except STA since that isnt custom for the B Road and I would just use a straight seatpost instead of an offset one). That would result in me having a $3000 custom frame that doesnt need to pass the testing and only weighs maybe 200g less than my current frame.

Things arent nearly as bad as you see them.

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by rice rocket

Your complaint was gravel was not road bike with big tires, except when presented with a counterexample (of which there are others), you're on to bitching about product lifecycles and integrated cables (which exist on both gravel and road bikes)?

Get a grip, dude.

I think the issue is us being on opposite sides of the difference between "road bike" and "road racing bike"

IMO gravel bikes were the promise of a road bike with fat tires, not a road racing bike with fat tires. They were overwhelmingly the former and now are overwhelmingly the latter.

[lavi]

Originally Posted by krooj

What I'd love to know: Crux or 2023 Domane for some **** road riding? Which does the hive mind prefer and why?

Points of reference, I'm pretty smitten with my Aethos and I sold my Emonda SLR in favor of the Spesh.

You've already answered your own question. The Crux.

I have one now, and it is awesome. It's the newest bike in the family, and is all I want to ride on these wintery, wet roads. And, I previously owned 2 Aethos (yes. 2.). It truly is a fat-tired Aethos in all the best of ways.

Also, reread James H's review of the Crux on CT.

No offense to Trek (and, I'm from Wisco if that matters at all), but, pass.

[Spdntrxi]

.......

[AgilisMerlin]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

I think the issue is us being on opposite sides of the difference between "road bike" and "road racing bike"

IMO gravel bikes were the promise of a road bike with fat tires, not a road racing bike with fat tires. They were overwhelmingly the former and now are overwhelmingly the latter.

fat tire hater, nice to meet you

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

I think the issue is us being on opposite sides of the difference between "road bike" and "road racing bike"

IMO gravel bikes were the promise of a road bike with fat tires, not a road racing bike with fat tires. They were overwhelmingly the former and now are overwhelmingly the latter.

I’m interested in your definitions of the distinctions so I might genuinely understand your point(s). My Bingham is what I would define as a road bike with fat tires because it has a 73 HTA and 50mm trail, but will fit up to 650Bx48 and 42s with fenders. What are your definitions of road vs road racing vs gravel?

Thanks

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by NHAero

I’m interested in your definitions of the distinctions so I might genuinely understand your point(s). My Bingham is what I would define as a road bike with fat tires because it has a 73 HTA and 50mm trail, but will fit up to 650Bx48 and 42s with fenders. What are your definitions of road vs road racing vs gravel?

Thanks

This is going to ignore geometry for now since it's a hugely important part of the differences but not significant specifically to what I'm discussing. Production bikes also bend or ignore these rules often, but not always. It's probably impossible to find a custom disc fork that is significantly lighter than a production disc fork. Some of the early Soma steel disc forks that are ~800g are absolute noodles and not good for riding on anything other than pavement - and with no hard braking! They needed 200g to make them stiff enough for broad use.

This isn't a heuristic I invented, it's how the bikes end up being categorized based on design intent. Nobody designing production bicycles is working outside of the official ASTM guidelines (or equivalents). A production bike that can accept 700cx50mm max is going to inherently require more stiffness and durability than a bike designed to accept 700cx28 max.

Road racing bikes are designed to feature the latest technological developments, used for UCI style road racing. This is where most of the nonsense originates. I posted a thread about Romain Bardet's TDF bike build - this is the sort of thing where the split between road and road racing can be easily seen. Road racing bikes need certain things that road bikes may not.

A road bike is pretty much everything else designed for pavement riding - what used to be known as sport touring - generally max tire of 32 or maybe 35. Not overly stiff because there is not intent for significant off-road terrain riding. In the early to mid 00s there were a lot of road bikes designed for 650bx42 that were built light and supple because they were not intended for off-road use. When this theme was translated into production bikes the frames and forks were beefed up because bike designers could not accept such relatively large tires for almost exclusively paved use.

Nevermind the fact that 650bx42 would not allow designers to meet CPSC guidelines without significant changes to 700c design rules that 650bx48 does not require - so it was a 1-2 punch. Designers were forced to spec' larger tires and in doing so were forced to design more robust frames and forks - so the most road-oriented "all-road" bikes were DOA before they were ever ridden.

Gravel bikes are defined by tire clearance and strength, 700cx42+/650bx48+ intended to be ridden off-road is going to require (even for CF or AL) 30%+ more weight than a bike with more limited clearance intended to be ridden mostly on pavement. Weight is stiffness and lower ride quality on pavement. Gravel bikes are imagined as a great first bike, but for many riders who rarely see rougher gravel than a towpath and ride mostly pavement - they are not. Modern road bikes can take tires that will work for 99% of the riding many people who buy gravel bikes actually want to use their bikes for.

In short, it's not 2015 anymore, modern gravel bikes are not the ideal do-it-all bike they used to be. A, modern, regular road bike is a better option for many, if not most new riders.

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

If someone cant find a gravel bike that fits how they want to use the bike, I dont think they are looking very well, or I dont think they actually want a gravel bike. <--critical, but honest.

Every tradeoff to move a bike into the "gravel" category is pointless for most new riders. They would be better off on a modern road bike.

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

Every tradeoff to move a bike into the "gravel" category is pointless for most new riders. They would be better off on a modern road bike.

Counterpoint - a ritchey outback would probably be the best bike for almost any rider. And it’s not stiff nor does it have traditional “road bike” design nor geo.

And it’s certainly not stiff. I think you’re confusing “stiffness” with “strength”. The ISO tests for mtb and off-road use only tests for strength and fatigue, not for stiffness.

See for yourself -
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:...:-6:ed-2:v1:en

I think your statements are mostly valid except the focus of ire towards “gravel bikes” (or whatever you classify them as) is completely misguided, maybe due to personal biases based on unfavorable experiences with previous “gravel bike” frames. But either way any bike that gets people on the road/trail/path/building (if you’re Danny Macaskill) is a net positive.

[lavi]

I'm digging how this thread shucks and jives all over the place. We sometimes stay on topic (rimmers for road).

With regard to the last few posts about gravel bikes being....bla bla bla. I have no idea, but before commenting, I hope folks have actually, call me crazy, tried the bikes they are decrying.* Take for instance the Crux. It's a gravel/cross bike. Ya? So what? If a person were so pervesely inclined to only have ONE bike, it could, with ease, be a quiver killer. And, I don't think I'd feel one ounce out of pace on a team ride or a race. It ain't the bike that cannot keep up. The bonus is that it can take nice fat rubber for either planing along on the paved surfaces, or bouncing off gravel chunks.

Don't fear the reaper. Also, rim brakes are still awesome. Unless I want disc.

*Else, sit on it Potsie. Smooches.

[AgilisMerlin]

i like discs, i don't like their throw, but if you want a brake that descends all the way to the bar to become actuated, they might be for you. i only have experience with dura ace hydraulic

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

A road bike is pretty much everything else designed for pavement riding - what used to be known as sport touring - generally max tire of 32 or maybe 35. Not overly stiff because there is not intent for significant off-road terrain riding. In the early to mid 00s there were a lot of road bikes designed for 650bx42 that were built light and supple because they were not intended for off-road use. When this theme was translated into production bikes the frames and forks were beefed up because bike designers could not accept such relatively large tires for almost exclusively paved use.

Nevermind the fact that 650bx42 would not allow designers to meet CPSC guidelines without significant changes to 700c design rules that 650bx48 does not require - so it was a 1-2 punch. Designers were forced to spec' larger tires and in doing so were forced to design more robust frames and forks - so the most road-oriented "all-road" bikes were DOA before they were ever ridden.

...

In short, it's not 2015 anymore, modern gravel bikes are not the ideal do-it-all bike they used to be. A, modern, regular road bike is a better option for many, if not most new riders.

Okay; now you have my attention. Which light and supple 650b bikes from the early 2000's up to 2015 should I be looking at? That's kind of exactly what I'm jonesing for in my next bike. Right now I'm looking at converting an old Trek frameset (Reynolds 531, dimple the chainstays, weld on new brake mounts, etc.)