@gschenk What's the purpose? My main issue with cyclo-cross bikes is they have lost their appeal as all-round drop bar bikes, and that the UCI limit of 33mm is currently becoming road territory rather than off-road (and I prefer gravel gearing as well).
Gravel bikes are in general way too long. I need a bike for someone with long legs. It's the attempt of making the bike go very well on a straight over rough terrain that gets gravel bikes that unergonomic MTB geometry. It's somewhat compensated by very short stems. But that doesn't give you room to fit the bike by shipping a shorter stem.
Gearing is a good point. Checking it: It comes with lowest gear 36:32 vs 32:34 on present bike. I think i can swap the front ring to a 33. Derailleur goes to 39. Top at 46:11 is over-geared anyway.
Oh, it's not easy to replace a chainring for a smaller on a 2x. It'll probably be easier to ship a different crankset.
@gschenk The point that is limiting for me with cyclocross for me is more tire clearance than geometry (not sure that many brands are doing now cyclocross bikes that go much further than 35mm). Never studied the geometry of cyclocross bikes, but I would think that to enjoy modern tires on a second-hand bike, cyclocross bikes may have a benefit over old road bikes.
I think it fits something like 38 gravel tyres. But i don't see much need for more than 35 for a light rider.
I've not found 35 is the sweet spot for me, at 90 kg too. It's a bit more sketchy on very coarse or lose gravel, but most here is 'Gucci gravel'. I didn't like very squishy large tyres when descending. (I always route descends to good roads. No point in wasting all that wonderful potential energy.)
@Rеnаud yes, old road bikes are a no go for me. I'd never ride anything narrower than a 28. Better something like a 32 road tyre.
Very happy with my 40mm on the gravel (semi slick) on my side. I ride them at 3 bars on road club rides, and see no downside (but I'm not in the fastest groups) - and a big upside: limited impact of bad surfaces. And when I want to ride on (dry) gravel, I drop to 2.1/2.3 bars.
@gschenk But aren't gravel bikes much better at going straight over rough terrain than CX bikes? Even a comfortable "allround" gravel bike which is very different from a MTB handles way more stable than a CX bike
I only rode a CX bike once and found it super twitchy. It surely maneuvers very well (great for racing and traffic) but it takes a lot of attention to go over gravel. Very different to my allround-gravelbike that basically rides on its own 😁
Which totally makes sense considering the steering geometry and seating position
@Michael If your general reference is road bikes, that may not strike you as well. Coming from flat bar bikes (the lazy bike had a head tube angle of 67°), I found the Diverge twitchy — the Diverge being among the stable gravel bikes.
@Erlkoenig bike has to fit, before handling becomes a concern.
There are few gravel bikes that aren't way too long, but then they're close in geometry to CX bikes. Sometimes steering is more slack, but that doesn't work with long stems. Compare Canyon's Inflite new CX geometry.
My Cinelli Zydeco (gravel) maps almost exactly on the geometry of an old Merckx CX (manufactured by cinelli). Buy it easily clears 40 mm tyres and has plenty of bolt ons.
For city riding the trekking bike is actually better because the direct steering makes it easier to ride those 90° corners on bike paths and thread between cars. The gravel bike with more stable steering makes this more difficult but at least the tyres allow very deep lean angles for taking tight corners at speed. But on gravel or fast descents the trekking bike is useless
these rental city bikes here in Linz are extremely twitchy linza.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Radverleih-1000.jpg I actually struggle to check over my shoulder and give hand signals and still continue in a straight line
good for you, else you'd need a 3 cm stem, or one size smaller. You have quite typical proportions, seem flexible, and can put down enough power. Yet, modern slack gravel bikes would still be a stretch for you.
damn, I don't need a new bike. But it's such a sweet deal: Focus Mares CX 2.0 with first gen DI2 for just EUR700 https://www.kleinanzeigen.de/s-anzeige/focus-mares-cx-56/2895456334-217-6443
When buying a well used carbon cyclo-cross bike, should I ask if it was always handled with tender care?
@gschenk What I mean is that if I compare what Canyon proposes based on the fitter's measurements, the geometry of the suggested size is much closer to the fitter's suggestion (10mm too long reach). But that's not true for the Grizl, where I should have taken one size down.
The configurator that proposes the closest suggestion to the fitter recommendation is Origine's, for what it's worth - 3mm too short reach, 7mm too high stack (they only sell in BE, NL, UK, CH and FR, so it may not interest a lot of people here).
I found, to my great suprise, that raising my bars 2 cm caused more shoulder pain and quite a lot of back pain. (I did it when I chucked wth a big backpack).
Still looking for inexpensive way to cover knees. Since 3/4 shorts are rare, I thought about seamless running tights over or under regular summer bibs.
I have a pair with seams in all the wrong places that are chafing from the first km.
But again, there are next to no 3/4 tights for men and zero without seams. (A single seam along the median would be fine).
Is everyone just riding with those annoying knee warmers?
It's not very cold yet, I'd like to sink heat at my calves and thighs. So I can wear long sleeves and a gilet as a top. But I've been told about nasty knee injuries exacerbated by cold.
I've been riding with leg warmers, but they are so hot I could only bear them at 0 C (dry).
thinner leg warmers - or bib shorts with longer legs (bib pants?) Personally I wear normal bib shorts under my regular office pants - the only downside being sweatty waist band after a hard ride
On a hot day I roll up the trouser cuff to just below my knees. I don't like seeing my knees - too much scarring.