Roman Vintfeld

Thanks. For now I just used some electrical tape on the downtube and then I have a bit of a wire mess in front by the computer. Will probably have to redo it at some point, but it was getting late and I wanted to be done. Shrink wrap is a good call. Now to find how to use that PCV properly.

ancker

Ended up getting one on Amazon through a non-Amazon seller. Had it listed for $271. So I was able to use my points and get one for like $50. It should be here Friday.

Normally I'd build it up myself, but since it's straight pull spokes and an internal nipple wheel, I'm just going to have my shop do it.

Doge

I've built hundreds [of other wheels]. I don't anymore.

scheibo

probably been asked a million times, but how much slower/different is a cross bike fitted with smooth tires than a road bike?

a runner friend of mine wants to buy my CAAD10 that I use as a rain/spare bike from me, and i'm thinking of buying a cross bike (something like the Santa Cruz Stigmata or the Trek Boone Disc 5) as a replacement, as it would give me more options for riding while hopefully not sacrificing too much. I can give it the same gears and it'll be around the same weight (or less) as the CAAD10, so really its a question of how big a difference the wider tires and altered geometry will make. i wouldn't be racing it in a crit, but id consider riding it in a non-technical road race with crappy roads/races with gravel sections (for norcal riders: i'd mainly be interested in racing this at copperopolis).

Harlan

I mean, you can put narrow tires on it. Nobody says you need to run big fatties. If you do run wider tires for crap roads you'll gain a little from less rolling resistance but lose more from the lack of aero and a little extra weight. In the pack you won't notice that.

Geometry could take some getting used to if you switch back and forth a lot. Personally I've done some aggressive training on some real wonky geometry and have lived to tell the tale. Like a 70* head tube angle. It felt fine.

Harlan

New wife bike:

Untitled by Xela Sknarf, on Flickr

TheKillerPenguin

Slick AF

scheibo

needs a longer steerer tube

carpediemracing 

In a non-technical crit it's no big deal. Even in big crits I don't think it's a big deal, although I certainly would prefer to be on a more nimble bike. I spent 25 years racing bikes with 70-72 degree head tube angles and when I first rode a 73 deg HTA bike it was a revelation.

At 8:50 or so in the video below there's a guy in green/Fizik shorts on a disk brake bike. I'm pretty sure it's a cross bike although it could have been a gravel/etc bike (Cannondale's offices are in the area).

grolby

Since CDR answered this question, I'll give my opinion as well. There's not a huge difference, and depending on how sensitive you are to geometry differences, you may not notice much. But the differences are real. The major differences in terms of feel will be head tube angle, head tube length and bottom bracket drop. With respect to HTA, you'll be about a degree shallower. This is probably the least important difference. Just not a big deal. Head tube length though could be quite important. If you have the bike set up for cyclocross, the bars will be higher than on a road bike. Possibly a lot higher - I think I have a 3 cm difference in bar height or something close to that. If the head tube is short, you can lower them for riding on the road, but it's quite possible you won't be able to get them as low as on your road bike. Also, a lot of cross bikes have a longer top tube than a similarly sized road bike, so you end up with a shorter stem. The combination means you'll be higher up and possibly further behind the front axle. I've found this really affects my confidence in cornering and high-speed descending. You might think a cross bike would be great for going around corners fast, but... eh. They're optimized for more moderate speeds than a road bike and don't feel "on rails" at 30 MPH the way a good road bike does.

Bottom bracket drop has the potential to be an issue with the Boone. IIRC you're tall, and you get less drop in the larger sizes. That puts you higher up. Opinions vary as to how much effect this has on handling. The Stigmata would mostly avoid this issue, as would most American-designed cross bikes, which tend to have road-like BB drop. They still end up with a higher BB when used for cross thanks to the bigger tires, but with road tires, you wouldn't notice a difference. Gearing is another issue. The biggest gear any bike you'd be likely to buy would come with would be a 46x11. 42x11 is possibly more likely. A 46x11 is barely adequate, in my opinion. A 42x11 is definitely inadequate. So you'd want to switch out the stock gearing, probably

Anyway, people have done this, and it works okay. That said, I think a road bike is still a better choice even on rough roads. It's hard to set it up so the fit feels the same, and the handling won't feel as good on the road. There's likely to be a bit of an aero penalty as well, partly from differences in fit, partly because everything tends to be just a bit bigger. Yeah, you can fit wider tires for those rough roads, but you probably won't want to go truly wide and soft thanks to aero and rolling resistance penalties, and the difference in comfort between 25 and 28 mm tires can be pretty small. A cross bike is still a really good second bike, I just don't think I would deliberately race one in a road race unless I had no other choice. Which I've done, by the way - I didn't enjoy it.

Harlan

Built this AM - Legitimately not enough spacers in the house so we couldn't even ride it.

carpediemracing 

I'm considering going up 1-2 cm in BB height in order to avoid the custom stem and at-tire bar height. Realistically it'd be 2 cm to be effective. I'm wondering how bad that will make the bike handle.

grolby

If I understand you correctly, you're wanting to keep your stack the same, but get your saddle above it by raising the BB? Hmm. Thing is, 2 cm is a LOT, going from ~70 mm drop to 50. I have a Ridley cyclocross bike with a 72 degree HTA 57mm of drop. Probably not too far off the BB height you would have with 23 mm tires. Compared to a typical road bike, the Ridley feels pretty weird. Best way I can describe it is, it doesn't feel like it wants to lean. You have to really commit. The way you're basically supposed to drive a Ridley is to use a long stem, really lean on the front wheel to get it into the corner, and take advantage of the high bottom bracket to start pedaling sooner. I'm not sure it would handle badly, per se, as I'm not really sure bottom bracket height is a critical parameter. You could get used to it. But it would feel really different from any other road bike you've ever ridden.

scheibo

thanks for the responses, especially @grolby with the very detailed answer!

i'm now kind of torn out of what i want out of this bike. i know i want a secondary bike that i can ride on the road because:

a) i want something to ride outside in the rain (i can ride my race bike in the rain too, but i'd rather have one bike i can get dirty which is less expensive)
b) i like having a bike i can lend to visitors/friends
c) there are some races (like maybe 2 or 3 in the year?) with bad roads/gravel where i'd feel more comfortable on a bike with more clearance and less aggressive geometry

I could get a CAAD12 to replace the CAAD10 I'm selling and take to opportunity to perhaps get discs or upgrade to ultegra and newer tech (internal routing, 11spd, etc). However, that doesn't buy me much over what I have right now. The reason I was considering a CX bike is that, hopefully, it would also give me the added possibility of maybe racing CX at some point (unlikely, but currently *very* unlikely) as well as providing the *option* of throwing on wide, knobbly tries and playing around in the dirty on occasion. I've throw on 28" knobblys on my current CAAD10 for a brief spell playing around in the dirt and it was pretty fun, I'm curious how it would feel on a 'real' CX bike.

Hmm, can I run a very negative stem to help get back closer to a road bike? I guess I already have a relatively aggressive position on my road bike, so if it would be hard to approximate on a CX bike that could be a dealbreaker.

I'm 6'0.5", and I'd probably be riding at 56cm frame. I imagine with the Stigmata and 28mm Conti GP4ks I'd wouldnt be too far off a road bike BB drop-wise?

The Stigmata C Rival option actually is 50/34 and 11-32. I'd probably want to switch to 11-28 which is what I ride on my road bike, but otherwise its identical gearing to what I race on.

From what youre saying I think I need to figure out whether I value the potential to ride cross (in which case I should consider the CX bike) or the potential to have a bike for rougher road races (in which case simply updating my CAAD would probably be the best choice). Either bike would be fine as a rain/spare bike probably, I was just hoping a CX with slicks would be not too noticeably different from a road bike that it could pass on demand. I guess if my road bike was like a Roubaix or something to begin with it wouldnt be as extreme, but given the position I tend to like it seems from what everyone is saying I might have trouble recreating it on a CX bike

globecanvas

I use a cross bike as my winter bike, with 32c road tires and fenders. I've got thousands of miles on that bike, and thousands more on a much nicer cross bike too, but I would never do any kind of road race on either one, not even on a gravelly type course. If speed matters I'd take my daily rider road bike with 28s over the cross bike for literally anything short of actual cross racing or single track. On the cross bike I can keep up on a fast group road ride but it is absolutely a handicap. The extra weight, more upright setup and less aeroness in general just all adds up.

Ygduf

GC is wise.

revchuck 

@scheibo - FWIW, another data point. One of the bigger races in my area is Rouge-Roubaix, which is 106 miles with about 25 miles of gravel and lots of really bad pavement. To the best of my knowledge, nary a CX bike has placed, much less won. Road bikes with 25-28mm tires are the rule. If it were me, I'd throw some upgrade money at the (excellent) CAAD10 and call it good. The next iteration of this race is this coming Sunday and I'm racing my Allez Comp Race with my last set of Michelin Pro4 Endurance 700x25s, which measure 27+mm. Oh, and the first three times I did this race I used my CAAD9.

mattm

You just want a new bike - nothing wrong with that.

Maybe a TT bike? It'll go fast, and you'll need it soon.

scheibo

I would be perfectly happy to continue to use my CAAD10, but I have the opportunity to sell it for a good price and upgrade. However, given limited space in my studio, I was trying to see if when upgrading I could also get a new type of bike entirely. I think the consensus is 'no'. I always understood a road bike with wider tires would be fastest (otherwise we'd see a lot more CX bikes at Paris-Roubaix), I was just curious how much of a disadvantage riding a cross bike would be provided the potential races were on ****ty roads anyway.

Already way ahead of you. The TT bike is being built up already, it was already in the works independent of this opportunity to change my spare bike.

hack

I have a crux and have used it on quite a few race rides. I didn't notice much difference between it and my Tarmac to be honest. Granted, a race ride isn't a race, but the bike was still rather responsive. The bb drop is closer to that of a road bike, but the front end is a bit higher.

grolby

@scheibo to summarize, while you can do things like put a negative rise stem on the bike, that's usually an indicator that it isn't meeting your needs. GC gives a good summary:

Cross bikes eat more watts than a road bike on the road. That's just a fact. Even if the roads are a bit rough, that's not enough to make up for it. In addition to @revchuck's example of Rouge-Roubaix, consider Battenkill, or that gravel stage at Chico, or pro races with gravel sectors like Strade Bianchi. Or Paris-Roubaix, even. No one races these on cross or gravel bikes (at least, no one on the podium does), because the technical sectors aren't enough to overcome the advantages of a road bike with better aerodynamics and snappier handling. Bigger tires, yes.

You're right to say that it really hinges on whether you want to race cyclocross or do some trail riding in the future. Of course I'm really into both of those things, so for me a cross bike is essential equipment. Hell, I have two of them. If you don't think you're likely to do those things any time soon, a cross bike probably doesn't meet your needs. A frame that can take 28 mm road tires would probably be a better bet. Heck I was zooming around on gravel roads on 23 mm tires years before I finally got a cyclocross bike. 28s are pretty good. If you can manage to squeeze a set into your CAAD10 (the CAAD10 is hit-or-miss on this), you're set. Otherwise, it might be better to consider something else. Either way, it doesn't sound like a cross bike is what you really want.

dz_nuzz

I think that your backup bike should as closely mimic your primary bike as possible, and if need be, serve as a race bike in a pinch.

This was the first year I did this, I had my older AR2 frame sitting around after I upgraded to an AR FRD. So I rebuilt the AR 2, set it up with the same saddle and contact points. Made as much of the equipment interchangeable between the FRD and the AR2 (Got another SRAM crankset so I can quickly swap my powermeter between the bikes). And you know what? I absolutely love it. It feels the same, handles the same, etc.

Now if I want to wrench on my race bike a bit I can leave it in pieces for a few days and not care. The flip side is that when I needed a replacement battery for my AR2 it was fine to hang that bike up for a few days and ride the A bike while I waited for the pieces to come in.

Something nice about having a backup of your main ride. All of this is to say: You probably should get another road bike.

grolby

I've been thinking about this again, since I've been considering changing the bike I use for gravel riding and races to my Ridley cross bike (high BB) instead of my Ritchey (medium-high BB). As I'm thinking about it, I'm really not convinced that a higher bottom bracket would have a negative effect on handling, even though it would certainly feel different. One thing that bugs me is, while the conventional wisdom is that a higher BB has less stability and a lower BB has more, I think this might be exactly backwards. My Ridley feels like my most stable bike in that it wants to track straight and true.

As I said before, the Ridley feels more reluctant to dive into a turn than my CAAD10, or my custom Cysco before that. It takes more work to turn, which is what I'm getting at with my stability comments above. I'm not exactly sure why this is true, but I think it might have to do with the arc movement of a lean. With a higher bottom bracket, a lean of a given angle requires the rider's body to swing through a longer arc as compared to a lower arc. I'm not sure whether or not this changes the amount of steering input needed to make that lean happen, but it has to change the moment of inertia of the whole bike/rider pendulum system.

But here's the thing: if I understand this correctly, this greater arc movement and greater moment of inertia is experienced by any rider who is taller and bigger than me. And yet there are plenty of tall bike riders who are good at cornering. That doesn't mean a lower bottom bracket height, and therefore also shorter and smaller body, isn't an advantage in cornering - in fact, I'm quite certain that smaller riders are intrinsically advantaged in fast cornering, especially off road. What this does suggest is, there's no reason you can't have a higher bottom bracket and still corner just as well. You just need to adapt to the somewhat more energetic movement required to compensate for higher moment of inertia.

For my purposes, this means I shouldn't let the ~6mm difference in BB height between my Ridley and Ritchey make me believe the Ridley is going to be worse on a high-speed gravel descent. It's a small difference to begin with, and the much stiffer front end of the Ridley might be more confidence-inspiring. For your purposes, it might be worth trying out a frame with 50 mm of drop. Extreme as it sounds, once you adjust to the handling, it probably won't be an issue.

Anyway, sorry everyone, this was supremely nerdy even by the standards of this thread, but it's been bugging me.

mike868y

that's a lot of thought for two events a year

grolby

Ha. All the more reason to think about it, since there aren't many opportunities to just experiment in a lower-pressure situation. But of course that's why I also said "riding." And hey, if the Ridley is less terrifying downhill, which it might not turn out to be, maybe I'll enter more gravel races.

FWIW Myerson thinks I'm wrong. Which isn't exactly an unusual state of affairs.