craw profile

No this is Patrick.

The first time I considered this issue was when AMajor brought it up in his test of the Kona Satori which bumped up the ESTA (good!) but didn't add a commensurate amount of Reach to keep the cockpit the right size (less good!).

https://nsmb.com/articles/2018-kona-satori-dl/

It doesn't take a lot of consideration to realize that if you steepen the ESTA you'll lose a bunch of ETT and will need to add that cockpit space back as Reach. And once the rider is that far forward a slacker head angle and shorter stem make a lot more sense and doesn't result in floppy steering as it would on a bike where the rider is positioned rearwards.

This, like a lot of other simple math, is really hard for bike designers to get their heads around. Or maybe designers are accommodating peoples' general inability to consider the system and just focus on a single number: Reach. People look at newer bikes' Reach numbers without considering the system and assume the bikes just got really long (because the new Reach number is much bigger than the Reach number from their current bike with a 74' ESTA).

Who makes a bar with 10'+ upsweep?

I'm 6'6" and am on a SQLab 30x with 12' sweep. It was the sweep I was after and the fact that they're only 780 wide was incidental but I'm totally fine on them. Neither here nor there, which is a step from previous when I tried 820s.

How do you think these factors (switching forks, heavier tires, reduced bar sweep) influenced your bar height? Did you raise the bars to maintain a feel you had previously or did the new gear encourage you to find comfort in a new position?

I tried some bulky ergonomic grips like those once. I loved them. Even though I basically took them off a city bike. The issue I had with them was that they required me to mostly be in the same position all the time to ensure that the flap your palm rests on is at the correct angle. So on a city bike that kind of makes sense. But on a mountain bike on the shore where you're constantly shifting around, standing, leaning back, etc, I found them tricky to get on with as I was rarely in the sweet spot. 

Either way I'm glad more people are asking these questions and doing some outside-the-box thinking about how to get their bikes to work better. I wonder how many articles it will take for the bike industry to realize we're all very different?

Do you now. And do you think with that huge stack of spacers that maybe I considered that?

A 2m person with proportionally long arms. Look at the photo with the triangle superimposed. Does that position look excessively XC?

The G1 is better for me for a number of key reasons.

I actually found the XL G16 too long in the cockpit. The G1 has a 1' steeper ESTA which shortens the ETT by about 2cm, which is perfect for me though now on the G1 I run a 50mm stem instead of 35.

The much bigger down tube helps a lot with stiffness on a bike this long.

My G16 the handlebar couldn't swing over the top tube cleanly in a crash. I hated that even though it never actually happened. The G1 has a shorter seat tube and better stand over so that clearance is much improved.

The G16 had 17mm of BB drop which never felt like it cornered like it should. My G1 is set with nearly 1cm more BB drop which is significant.

I wanted a coil shock.

None of these by themselves would have warranted a new bike. But all together it was definitely worth it.

Sorry, lol.

I'm having trouble sourcing the exact replacements I want so as of right now I'm running dual 29 EXO+ DHF maxterra 2.5s. Then I'll switch to a 2.5 maxxgrip 2.5 Assegai in winter.

Can anyone compare with the latest 4 pot XTR?

I just put on a 2.3 DD Maxxterra Aggressor and it's surprisingly good. I needed a rear tire and it was the closest thing I could find. It worked really well. I guess Vancouver is a proper 'dry conditions' place now.

Posted by: syncro

Meh, at the end of the day our "sport" isn't defined by some magazine or publishing trends, it's defined by what you do and who you do it with. Create your own content by going out and living it.

I found the optimist.

Posted by: Bushpilot

Posted by: Taz123

Arthur at Suspension Therapy - I've done two bikes with him - I wouldn't look elsewhere.

For sure...I've done at least 3 bikes with him over the years and have always been impressed. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like he's taking appointments currently (or he must be screaming busy) because I have a few unreturned emails over the last couple of weeks. Just looking for alternatives in case Arthur is unavailable for the foreseeable future.

I've used him a few times too with incredible results. But he doesn't seem to be offering this service for now. I'd look elsewhere.

Posted by: Heinous

Nice.

I have some cushcore gravel inserts for my new build. If they. Provide the same transformation of comfort as on my hardtail I’ll be very happy. I’ll just run rear to start. So much gravel comfort is about isolating buzz (assuming g your position is good) - the nature of being seated for long periods with no suspension makes all the high frequency stuff the worst.

As has been said above, 2x just makes so much sense, and a well set up drivetrain will rarely drop a chain. The new clutch style 2x set ups are even more reliable.

I just got the Octamousse ones for my gravel bike. They seem like a good solution.

Posted by: velocipedestrian

Very nice, Heinous. Extra points for the comfy seatpost.

Wow. That's really amazing. Moots and Eriksen are by far my favourite Ti builders.

Posted by: Bull_Dozer

Posted by: craw

Totally. My mountain bike rides require a drive and then tend to be super intense due to the nature of the shore. An instant steep long climb with no warmup then white hot intensity the whole way straight down. I prefer my mountain bike when I want to 100% clear my brain, replace it with 100% focus. My gravel bike is for the opposite experience. Ride straight out the door. Look at stuff, cruise, drift in and out or maintain tempo, explore new places, at intersections opt for the way I haven't been before, etc. I find if I need to clear my head I ride the mountain. If I need to think and work through stuff the gravel bike is a better choice for turning stuff over. Reconnecting with spaces is a nice change to riding defined trails. There are so many spots around Vancouver you would never bother to ride on an enduro bike.

Good post - I totally get what you are saying. 

So what are some examples of locations & routes where you guys take your gravel bikes? I know it would do the trick just to ride around town but would you specifically drive out to like an FSR and just cruise around?

I started with the part of the Trans Canada Trail that runs by New Brighton Park under the Second Narrows bridge and heads east. There's stuff to explore all over - just set Google Maps to 'Cycling' and suddenly there's gravel all over the place! Lower Seymour/Fishermans, Burnaby Mountain. Connect the trail above Riverside Drive across the bridge, across Braemar-Montroyal over the dam, across the Millstream trail to Cypress and beyond. The gravel bike really turned me on to secret spots all over the city. 

I've never put this bike on my car. What would be the point in that?

Totally. My mountain bike rides require a drive and then tend to be super intense due to the nature of the shore. An instant steep long climb with no warmup then white hot intensity the whole way straight down. I prefer my mountain bike when I want to 100% clear my brain, replace it with 100% focus. My gravel bike is for the opposite experience. Ride straight out the door. Look at stuff, cruise, drift in and out or maintain tempo, explore new places, at intersections opt for the way I haven't been before, etc. I find if I need to clear my head I ride the mountain. If I need to think and work through stuff the gravel bike is a better choice for turning stuff over. Reconnecting with spaces is a nice change to riding defined trails. There are so many spots around Vancouver you would never bother to ride on an enduro bike.

Posted by: gdharries

Posted by: craw

Posted by: gdharries

Posted by: craw

I made a few monster cross mountain bike conversion type road bike things over the years and never really rode them. It always seemed like the worst of both worlds. My gravel bike tries to blend a bunch of positive traits and it must be working because I ride mine as much as my mountain bike. It's got classic 90s mtb geometry at 71/73 but it's got a long road bike head tube and 700c/29" wheels. Also hydraulic discs and moderate 38mm tires since I use it more as a road bike  + than pure gravel. I'm not really trying to push the limit of what I can do on this bike terrain-wise because I have a mountain bike for that. The gravel bike is for tearing around the city, exploring stuff and finding unusual spots on the map.

Agreed. This is why I went the lightweight, quick handling 29er route instead. The King Kahuna in 22" (558mm seat tube) also has a crazy high stack height - 676 mm! - which I've been forever wanting on a XC bike.

Many gravel bikes are turning into what we rode 10 years ago. It's interesting to watch.

It all depends on what you want to ride. Mine really it set up to be a road bike+ and it's great for that. I'd set it up differently if I wanted to tackle gnarlier terrain and at some point it would morph into an XC mountain bike but then it would lose the roadie traits that I enjoy most about it (for my current particular application). I love seeing the huge range of gravel bike setups.

Yeah, my terrain has a lot of rough gravel and steep pitches that I find more comfortable and safer on a XC bike. If I hit asphalt in a group, it's definitely harder to keep up.

Yeah as soon as the gravel gets rough enough I bitch out. Getting banged around takes the fun out of this bike for me. The gravel I've most enjoyed on mine is pretty graded and technically tame and that's exactly how I want it. 38mm tires offer just enough protection on that kind of terrain and still quick on the road. I love that there's so many ways to skin this cat depending on application.

Posted by: Bushpilot

Posted by: craw

I knew they made medium Geometrons but I think this is the first time I've actually seen one that isn't L/XL/XXL. Which makes sense since they're really the only good option for XL+. Can you say more about how a M person chose a G1 over a more conventional option?

I’m 5”10 with short legs and a long torso. For suspension bikes I went from a large Hightower LT (443 reach) to a large SB130LR (about 476 reach). And on my hardtails I went from a M/L older Rootdown (457 reach) to a M/L new Doctahawk with a +5 mm reach adjust headset (about 480 reach). The longer the bikes got the more comfortable I got. I felt like there was too much overlap between my SB130LR and my Doctahawk, which were both sort of set up as trail bikes with 160mm forks. I wanted something with a coil, more travel, made of metal and have sort of lusted over the G1 for a couple of years. Something about the old school raw welded look I guess. I also wanted to keep trying longer and was attracted to the adjustability of this bike. It was a process getting here and I considered this build a bit of an experiment.

As far as fit goes, the M G1 is almost identical to the seated position on the Yeti I just sold and my Chromag. So the main difference for me is wheelbase (and head angle) and reach. Knowing how nimble my Doctahawk rides (and the Yeti I got rid of) I figured the extra length of the G1 would still be manageable but would be more stable in steeps, chunder and fast stuff. That’s basically how I got here.

I have 10 rides on the G1 now, all at Fromme, Seymour and Eagle. Not once have I felt like the bike was a handful. I haven’t found it difficult to wheelie or muscle around. I guess long story short I didn’t (and still don’t) buy into the whole “Geometrons are only for humongous people” thing. Interestingly the sizing / geo of the M G1 isn’t that far off from the sizing of a large Commencal Meta AM 29 Team (495 reach), large Knolly Chilcotin 167 (490 reach) and S4 Spesh Enduro (487 reach).

Also interesting is that at 5’10” I could have gone M or L G1 according to Geometron’s size chart. So far I’m glad I didn’t go any bigger.

Those are all pretty good reasons! From my G16 to my G1 I gained 2' of ESTA which reduced the ETT by 2cm so in the end my G1 is actually a bit smaller than the G16 at the same reach. Looks like you had a similar effect. I much prefer this kind of weight distribution over a a longer wheelbase. I think objectively the trails around here get tight when the WB gets to 1330+ - that's when you have to be particularly precise on some berms and switchbacks. 

Glad it's working for you!