Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Cyclocross and Gravelbiking (Recreational)
Reload this Page >

Yet a new bike category? Salsa’s new Warroad (no bird required)

Notices
Cyclocross and Gravelbiking (Recreational) This has to be the most physically intense sport ever invented. It's high speed bicycle racing on a short off road course or riding the off pavement rides on gravel like : "Unbound Gravel". We also have a dedicated Racing forum for the Cyclocross Hard Core Racers.

Yet a new bike category? Salsa’s new Warroad (no bird required)

Old 04-03-19, 10:29 AM
  #76  
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 25
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by chas58
How do you know the Trail. Do they post it,or did you calculate it? Specialized is good about posting trail, but I can’t always get their numbers to match up to the calculations.
I calculate. My calculations also don't match up with the manufacturers', so when I compare, I compare between my calculated values.
stanion is offline  
Old 04-03-19, 10:33 AM
  #77  
Senior Member
 
shoota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posts: 7,831
Liked 699 Times in 471 Posts
Originally Posted by Spoonrobot
There's nothing inherently more comfortable about a gravel bike frame versus a road bike or endurance road bike frame. In reality most gravel bikes are significantly less comfortable than a comparable road bike because they feature larger diameter tubing formed for strength/durability which adds significant stiffness as does the oversized headtubes/steerers.

A road bike that fits 32s is much more comfortable than a gravel bike on 32s. Hell the gravel bike I won is as stiff and possibly stiffer than the track bike I own.
In theory I think you're probably right. But all that goes out the window when you add 40mm tires at 35psi. Someone posted recently about the impact of high volume, low psi tires and the vast majority of the vibration/impact reduction of a bike is found in the tires.
__________________
2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO 2
2019 Salsa Warbird
shoota is offline  
Old 04-03-19, 12:07 PM
  #78  
Senior Member
 
shoota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posts: 7,831
Liked 699 Times in 471 Posts
Ok
__________________
2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO 2
2019 Salsa Warbird
shoota is offline  
Old 04-03-19, 02:27 PM
  #79  
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,805

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Liked 7,746 Times in 4,306 Posts
Originally Posted by Spoonrobot
There's no theory, just experience, measurements and math. Headtubes and steerers are almost 60% greater in diameter, rectangular downtubes/chaninstays and toptubes that are almost the exact same measurement between mtbs and gravel bikes. If you're bored one day, take a measuring tape or caliper to REI or your LBS or whatever and measure the tubes. The wall thickness for almost all aluminum tubing used in bikes is the same - the area of the tube is what matters and where stiffness/compliance comes from. My gravel bike has a 52mmx48mm downtube. This is enormous and is slightly larger than my hardtail from the same year. It's ridiculous.

Bigger tires and lower pressures aren't magic, especially once speed increases. There's no way to make a production bike with an oversized 44mm+ steerer, headtube and fork have the same compliance as a similar bike with regular 1 1/8" components. A big driver for road plus was to get overbuilt rigid mountain bikes posing as gravel bikes back to a comfort level of the previous generation of converted cross bikes/early gravel bikes. When a frame is built stiff enough to act as a pivot point for a suspension fork but is actually a road bike you need 47mm+ tires to get anything approaching acceptable ride quality. And even then it's only in the same area and often not as compliant or comfortable.

There's an old saw about if you're really so into frame/fork compliance ride your bike without tires and see how it matters. The reality is, ride your bike with 23mm tires at 5% sag and see how much it matters. It matters a bunch and the current generation of gravel bikes are a big step backward in terms of ride quality, regardless of whatever marketing and brand iconography we've all internalized.

Keep in mind a big part of the brief for frame/fork design of production bikes is passing european/ISO fatigue testing. It's part of the reason standard tubing went away during the steel years, why 1 1/8" steerers happened and why oversized headtubes are appearing on any bike meant for non-paved riding.
All quite interesting and something that I continue to watch from afar and wonder about. Coming from 80s steel road bikes with traditional tubing and having a gravel bike with steel OS tubing as well as a road bike with steel OS tubing, i see the 44mm head tubes and huge tubing of so many bikes and wonder at what point are the returns diminished. I get that aluminum tubes need to be larger than steel due to material difference, but current steel gravel frames with a huge front end(44mm head tube, gussets, etc) and the similar sized carbon and aluminum frames just seem like overkill. Given the amount of suspension now built into some frames(futureshock stem, isospeed frame, or various rear suspension mechanisms on the seat stay), it seems like frames are overly stiff to the point of needed suspension to then be designed in.

I am 235# and my OS steel frame gravel bike hasnt ever felt noodly. Even though it hasnt felt noodly, would a 44mm head tube and OOS tubing feel better? Or would it be too stiff? Thats something that would be frame and bike specific and would only be answered with extensive riding, which isnt realistic without buying the frame/bike.

My current steel frame design(still subject to change many more times, im sure) is a mix of OS and OOS tubing to hopefully make a slightly stiffer frame than what I have, which still being far smoother than what I would otherwise get if buying something already made.
An OS seat tube, head tube, and top tube matched with an OOS downtube. That downtube would hopefully help offset the oval chainstays i will use since oval bent stay will naturally flex laterally more than the round stays that are crimped on my current bike.
The only settle is that I will use a carbon fork with straight steerer so thatll limit me to a Woundup or Ritchey...and the Woundup has a longer steerer which i will need, so i guess ill go with that. At the same time, to get a different carbon fork would require a 44mm head tube and giant tapered steerer which is all probably more stiffness than I need.
I ride gravel solo and a 15mph average on a 30+ mile route is a really good day. I wont set records and wont ever snap cranks due to Herculean power. Pretty sure a front end and bottom bracket can eventually be too stiff for my benefit.


Anyways, interesting points you bring up. I didnt realize there is someone else who sees the tubing diameters of some frames right now and questions the claims of comfort.
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 04-03-19, 07:27 PM
  #80  
Senior Member
 
dwmckee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,468

Bikes: Co-Motion Cappuccino Tandem,'88 Bob Jackson Touring, Co-Motion Cascadia Touring, Open U.P., Ritchie Titanium Breakaway, Frances Cycles SmallHaul cargo bike. Those are the permanent ones; others wander in and out of the stable occasionally as well.

Likes: 0
Liked 340 Times in 230 Posts
Originally Posted by Spoonrobot
There's nothing inherently more comfortable about a gravel bike frame versus a road bike or endurance road bike frame. In reality most gravel bikes are significantly less comfortable than a comparable road bike because they feature larger diameter tubing formed for strength/durability which adds significant stiffness as does the oversized headtubes/steerers.

A road bike that fits 32s is much more comfortable than a gravel bike on 32s. Hell the gravel bike I won is as stiff and possibly stiffer than the track bike I own.
Huh?.

First of all, a gravel bike will have a stack measurement thay sets up the handlebars up to 2 inches higher than a road bike for a more comfortable riding position on long day rides that are more common on gravel bikes. (more comfortable)

Second, Gravel bike frames are built to be stiff laterally, but have much more vertical compliance to absorb road vibration. (Take a back view if a Warbird for example) (more comfortable)

Third, Gravel bikes can accomodate tires up to 40 or more MM, while few road bikes can fit even 32mm (more comfortable)

Fourth, gravel bikes ALL are built for Disc brakes, and until recently almost all road bikes came with caliper brakes (Maybe not more comfortable, but certainly easier on your hands on a long decent)

Fifth, gravel bikes normally have a longer wheelbase and slacker head angle compared to a road bike. This adds to comfort and creates stability, where road bikes have shorter wheelbases and steerer head angles for quicker maneuverability. (more comfortable)

And sixth, gravel bike riding is cool and growing fast while road bikes are a dying category!
dwmckee is offline  
Old 04-03-19, 07:38 PM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
dwmckee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,468

Bikes: Co-Motion Cappuccino Tandem,'88 Bob Jackson Touring, Co-Motion Cascadia Touring, Open U.P., Ritchie Titanium Breakaway, Frances Cycles SmallHaul cargo bike. Those are the permanent ones; others wander in and out of the stable occasionally as well.

Likes: 0
Liked 340 Times in 230 Posts
Originally Posted by jan nikolajsen
Yeah, I've probably tried a gravel bike or two in the past. They were nice and I liked them, but not snappy/fast enough to replace my Tarmac; and not versatile enough to replace my Cutthroat. I guess I could dig up an excuse to fit an expensive purpose built modern gravel bike in between the two (nothing wrong with more bikes!), but honestly not sure if I would get enough miles on it to justify.
I hear you. A gravel bike would split the difference between a Cutthroad and a Tarmack.. A Cutthroat with the right tires wll work pretty well as a gravel bike though and save the expense of another steed.
dwmckee is offline  
Old 04-03-19, 09:44 PM
  #82  
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 8,553

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn, Lakitu

Liked 1,731 Times in 958 Posts
Isn't road geometry with bigger tires basically just a CX bike? My Swiss Cross is essentially a Road Logic with a higher BB, longer chainstays, 10mm shorter reach, and a 1.5º more slack headtube. But the Cross will just fit a 38 in back, while the Road Logic will just fit a 30. I've absolutely zero complaints about the comfort of my Ritchey. It is unquestionably my "all roads" bike.

I just looked at the geometry for the Warroad in my size-- no thanks. That's way more relaxed and upright than what I like. That's long before I get to the bonkers pricetag. It's priced at least $1,500 over what it's worth.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 04-04-19, 07:29 AM
  #83  
FLIR Kitten to 0.05C
 
Marcus_Ti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Posts: 5,331

Bikes: Roadie: Seven Axiom Race Ti w/Chorus 11s. CX/Adventure: Carver Gravel Grinder w/ Di2

Liked 407 Times in 255 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope
Isn't road geometry with bigger tires basically just a CX bike? My Swiss Cross is essentially a Road Logic with a higher BB, longer chainstays, 10mm shorter reach, and a 1.5º more slack headtube. But the Cross will just fit a 38 in back, while the Road Logic will just fit a 30. I've absolutely zero complaints about the comfort of my Ritchey. It is unquestionably my "all roads" bike.

I just looked at the geometry for the Warroad in my size-- no thanks. That's way more relaxed and upright than what I like. That's long before I get to the bonkers pricetag. It's priced at least $1,500 over what it's worth.
Depends on what you mean by "CX Bike". CX used to mean a fairly specific set of properties e.g. 65mm BB drop and being in compliance with what the UCI allowed for racing (since CX is well a race), which of course was after CX specific rigs became a thing and people weren't just training offroad on their road bikes (using the wrong tool for the wrong purpose as a training aid)...nowadays it is very wishy-washy.

As opposed to "gravel bike" which has never really meant anything at any point. Whether OS tubing or not.
Marcus_Ti is offline  
Old 04-04-19, 09:30 AM
  #84  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
chas58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,863

Bikes: too many of all kinds

Liked 415 Times in 335 Posts
That is funny, I've found gravel bikes to be relatively compliant. But stiff carbon bikes of 10 years ago, or Aluminum bikes of 20 years ago may not be the best benchmark. ;-) Back in the day stiffness was where it was at.

These days bikes are more likely to be " "Laterally stiff and vertically compliant." To me, this means a stiff bottom bracket area that applies my power efficiently, but the fork, bars, seat stays, seat tube, seat stem can all be compliant, making the bike comfortable on the road.

Just with my bikes, my track and gravel bike have similar stiffness where it counts, and similar acceleration, but my track bike is a nightmare on anything less than velodrome smooth. I was shocked doing 20mph on some horrid washboard on my gravel bike with 32mm tires - and I was just cruising along without realizing how bad it was. None of my older bikes can do that.

I have some old bikes that really twist under power. I can see the crank arms and the bottom bracket twist, and if my tire is too big it will rub against the frame.

Disk brakes don't seem to be a friend of ride quality though. Those older forks with the J bend had suspension built into them. These days with straight blade forks, necessitated by the torque of disk brakes, require other creative solutions to get a little front end compliance in them.
chas58 is offline  
Old 04-04-19, 12:39 PM
  #85  
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 8,553

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn, Lakitu

Liked 1,731 Times in 958 Posts
I run a Surly Straggler steel disc brake fork, and it's great. My old KHS had a straight-blade CF fork with an aluminum steerer, and it was the very manifestation of the word rigid.

Seeing the fork flex under heavy braking is a little disconcerting the first few times. Sure does ride nice, though.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 04-04-19, 12:55 PM
  #86  
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,076

Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet

Liked 2,011 Times in 972 Posts
Originally Posted by Spoonrobot
There's no theory, just experience, measurements and math. Headtubes and steerers are almost 60% greater in diameter, rectangular downtubes/chaninstays and toptubes that are almost the exact same measurement between mtbs and gravel bikes. If you're bored one day, take a measuring tape or caliper to REI or your LBS or whatever and measure the tubes. The wall thickness for almost all aluminum tubing used in bikes is the same - the area of the tube is what matters and where stiffness/compliance comes from. My gravel bike has a 52mmx48mm downtube. This is enormous and is slightly larger than my hardtail from the same year. It's ridiculous.
I heard somewhere Tom Ritchey doesn't believe in oversized/tapered head tubes for gravel bikes because it makes them too stiff.

#notAllGravelBikes
tyrion is offline  
Old 04-05-19, 07:43 AM
  #87  
Senior Member
 
shoota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posts: 7,831
Liked 699 Times in 471 Posts
Originally Posted by tyrion
I heard somewhere Tom Ritchey doesn't believe in oversized/tapered head tubes for gravel bikes because it makes them too stiff.

#notAllGravelBikes
It's in that video above basically. Tom is so old school, it clouds his thinking. I love that guy. He makes me want to buy all of his bikes.
__________________
2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO 2
2019 Salsa Warbird
shoota is offline  
Old 04-05-19, 07:47 AM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
shoota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posts: 7,831
Liked 699 Times in 471 Posts
Originally Posted by chas58
That is funny, I've found gravel bikes to be relatively compliant. But stiff carbon bikes of 10 years ago, or Aluminum bikes of 20 years ago may not be the best benchmark. ;-) Back in the day stiffness was where it was at.

These days bikes are more likely to be " "Laterally stiff and vertically compliant." To me, this means a stiff bottom bracket area that applies my power efficiently, but the fork, bars, seat stays, seat tube, seat stem can all be compliant, making the bike comfortable on the road.

Just with my bikes, my track and gravel bike have similar stiffness where it counts, and similar acceleration, but my track bike is a nightmare on anything less than velodrome smooth. I was shocked doing 20mph on some horrid washboard on my gravel bike with 32mm tires - and I was just cruising along without realizing how bad it was. None of my older bikes can do that.

I have some old bikes that really twist under power. I can see the crank arms and the bottom bracket twist, and if my tire is too big it will rub against the frame.

Disk brakes don't seem to be a friend of ride quality though. Those older forks with the J bend had suspension built into them. These days with straight blade forks, necessitated by the torque of disk brakes, require other creative solutions to get a little front end compliance in them.
Yep, anything more compliant than my old '86 Cannondale and my old Scott Foil is compliant in my book. Those two bikes were shockingly rough. But, man, that Foil was a flipping rocketship.
__________________
2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO 2
2019 Salsa Warbird
shoota is offline  
Old 04-05-19, 10:30 AM
  #89  
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,076

Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet

Liked 2,011 Times in 972 Posts
Originally Posted by shoota
It's in that video above basically. Tom is so old school, it clouds his thinking. I love that guy. He makes me want to buy all of his bikes.
Ah, I didn't see that video. Interesting comment about carbon forks needing to be overbuilt.
tyrion is offline  
Old 04-05-19, 12:22 PM
  #90  
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,805

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Liked 7,746 Times in 4,306 Posts
Originally Posted by Spoonrobot
I'm of the same mindset. I had read all the whitepapers and forum posts (written by road industry personas) about how frame/fork was a minor part of compliance compared to other parts of the bike and the tires. Then I started riding my gravel bike on mtb trails and paying attention to how much worse it rode than my cross bike. Double OS steerer/fork with MTB frame tubes - "gravel bike." Then I saw the Ritchey video which made me cut up some of my broken frames to measure the wall thickness, then I started measuring and weighing the new gravel bikes and frames when they came into the shop and now here I am arguing on the internet about it.

Funny too, I rode a early 90s Cannondale R900 aluminum frame/fork that had a reputation for being extremely stiff and uncomfortable but a great racing bike. That frame has thinner tubing, smaller diameter tubes and is almost a full pound lighter than most gravel frames on the market right now. It's kind of a "duh" thing to say but it illustrates how the acceptable compliance window has shifted significantly now that we've all been marketed heavier stiffer frames and forks but with much wider tires than 25 years ago.
After reading a few of these comments, im curious to heat what you are riding right now?

Oh- and what was the 2OS frame you refer to?
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 04-05-19, 12:43 PM
  #91  
Senior Member
 
shoota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posts: 7,831
Liked 699 Times in 471 Posts
Originally Posted by tyrion
Ah, I didn't see that video. Interesting comment about carbon forks needing to be overbuilt.
He doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in carbon does he?
__________________
2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO 2
2019 Salsa Warbird
shoota is offline  
Old 04-05-19, 01:24 PM
  #92  
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,076

Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet

Liked 2,011 Times in 972 Posts
Originally Posted by shoota
He doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in carbon does he?
But all his forks are carbon!

https://us.ritcheylogic.com/us_en/bike/forks
tyrion is offline  
Old 04-05-19, 01:58 PM
  #93  
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,805

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Liked 7,746 Times in 4,306 Posts
Originally Posted by tyrion
But all his forks are carbon!

https://us.ritcheylogic.com/us_en/bike/forks
All 6 forks are carbon, but they also all come in 1 1/8 steerer, and only 2 of the 6 even offer a tapered steerer option. Certainly seems to go with his view on headtube diameter.
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 04-05-19, 02:18 PM
  #94  
Senior Member
 
shoota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posts: 7,831
Liked 699 Times in 471 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
All 6 forks are carbon, but they also all come in 1 1/8 steerer, and only 2 of the 6 even offer a tapered steerer option. Certainly seems to go with his view on headtube diameter.
They make a 1 1/4" tapered fork too. But not 1 1/2" as far as I know.

edit: I'm dumb, but I'm agreeing with you. I don't know if that was clear. It's been a long day.
__________________
2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO 2
2019 Salsa Warbird

Last edited by shoota; 04-05-19 at 02:44 PM.
shoota is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ironnerd
Cyclocross and Gravelbiking (Recreational)
10
04-19-19 04:02 PM
Mr_Crankypants
Cyclocross and Gravelbiking (Recreational)
10
10-17-18 08:46 AM
dirtydozen
Cyclocross and Gravelbiking (Recreational)
99
10-14-18 08:09 PM
cthenn
Road Cycling
30
08-19-18 12:54 PM
CanadianBiker32
Road Cycling
15
09-26-14 08:30 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.