@Sam7919 after the ride, I'd be way too lazy after a good meal.
When I was commuting it didn't take long to get used to fasted rides.
@Sam7919 that I consider CX bikes doesn't mean I reject gravel bikes. I don't want a long gravel bike cause it wouldn't fit. See the Ridley I posted above. I check bike geometry of each bike I find against a known bike.
@Sam7919 The thing is that in gravel, a long wheelbase is appreciated, and you can't have that without a long reach (without stem). If the total reach is too long with a super short stem, it's probably a sign that you need to take one smaller size. If you know your reach and stack values, you'll choose a frame depending on these measurements rather that then manufacturer recommendations.
And if you are shopping for a gravel bike because you want to ride gravel, going to an endurance road frame is not an option I would consider (even the recent ones with 40mm tire clearance): gravel bikes are normally more sturdy (and important to me, have more mounting points).
@Rеnаud that's not working for someone with long legs and short torso, as they'd run out of seatpost and get a pretty big bar drop. It's also not working for a very large share of gravel bike riders around here that are way too stretched out.
@Rеnаud For something like Kanzo gravel that's probably right, but there's quite a lot of gravel one can ride in comfort on 35 mm tyres and road geometry. What is more, by going to a much smaller frame size you reduce wheelbase and straight line stability again. Finally, does part of the stability come from being so stretched out and having weight far back?
@gschenk For the large share of gravel riders that are too stretched out, I'd be curious to know the share that follows the manufacturer recommendations, that lean towards suggesting too big bikes (for my personal sample, only one brand suggested something inline with the fitter's recommendation).
@gschenk Of course the definition of gravel depends varies depending on what you like to do (and your tolerance for road buzz). You indeed don't need a gravel bike to ride very comfortably strade bianche considering the recent development in tires/frames. On taking one size down, you indeed lower the wheelbase, but the gravel bike will still have a slightly slacker geometry (fork trail contributes to stability as well) and a gravel frame will still keep the 'benefits' of gravel frames.
@gschenk The main use of mounting points for me are mudguards. Then indeed, for traveling with the bike, but not necessarily what I have in mind when reading "loaded touring". When I meant sturdy, the more correct expression would rather be "designed for the set of constraints for this specific usage". For example, in the Specialized Roubaix/Diverge comparison, the Roubaix would "bottom down" on rough gravel. The front suspension is set on softer settings, and the seatpost is too compliant.
Mounting points are a weird thing, there were next to none till about 10 years ago, then there were more than hardly anyone needed, and now they are disappearing again because of slick look seems to be more valued than utility.
I reckon there are more and more accessories designed considering an absence of mounting points (for example, tailfin racks, IIRC the canyon grail mudgards are also mounted on the wheel axle), which makes them less necessary. But they are quite common on gravel frames.
On gravel, there's also a trend from bike manufacturer to propose custom frame bags, and you even start to have mounting points under the top tube.
it would allow one to mount a bottle cage very far down but then it would collide with the one on the seattube and would be too low to comfortably reach
@Rеnаud I think brands discovered there's expensive after market sales waiting when they make mountings proprietary.
I really like my bike now, it has just the right, standard, mounts. Only two top-tube mounts irk me since I don't like the look (and cost) of a top-tube bag and i feel the urge to use them for something.
@gschenk For me, the something will be when I'll do a long enough ride that I'll need to supply power to the gadgets in front (lights or bike computer/phone), otherwise, I'm fine with the jersey pockets for the stuff that typically goes there.
@Michael damn, that reminds, me: on the old shopping bike there's a clamp that holds the arm of the barrel brake in place. It slides up the fork from time to time, disabling the brake. Got to attach it again before someone rides that bike.
@Michael third bolt is for very long mounts. Some bottle cages can take "tall" bottles, and some have a way to mount a gas stove there where the bottle and the burner compact down to "long cylinder" format.
@gschenk I once lost my reading glasses out of my jersey pocket on a ride. That cost me $800 and then after 3 months, someone called me about my lost glasses. That's why I now have a spare pair.
@gschenk In the jersey, I only have food, wallet, phone, keys - and sometimes rain jacket/sleeves. I have a set of tools on each "sport bike" so that I don't have to think about it (the utility bikes don't have tools, I use them in town, so in case of failure, I take a bus/tram/metro).
steep and slack are the adjectives I use to describe angles.
It gets ambiguous when people describe angles as aggressive as that all depends on your perspective on what the bike is intended to be ridden and how the designers approached that.
@gschenk I’ve never lost anything from jersey pockets
@Criggie but wouldn’t that still mean it hits the bottle cage on the seattube? Or would one only use such an extralong cage+bottle without a seattube cage?
