https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world

Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a
carbon gravel bike, probably the most competitive market
segment for the past few years.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 2:20:49 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
>
> Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a
> carbon gravel bike, probably the most competitive market
> segment for the past few years.

I don't think I said exactly that. I, in fact, am sure that they will sell like crazy. But since I have done a lot of gravel riding I think that even if they aren't crashed and irreparably damaged that they will end up scratched up and worth a small percentage of their no doubt exclusive pricing. An aluminum bike is a far more intelligent buy. Some advertising jockey saying that a carbon fiber bike will be "more compliant" when the tires add almost 100% of compliance is just selling a can of biscuits. the fractionally lighter weight would add absolutely nothing.

So I do think they will sell to the silly and inexperienced. Which appear to comprise a very large majority of the buying public. Not that I didn't go through a carbon fiber period myself and so am equally culpable.

On 10/27/2021 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
>
>
> Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a carbon gravel
> bike, probably the most competitive market segment for the past few years.

"...features a normal stem, normal bars, simple cable routing, and sweet
mother of mercy, a threaded bottom bracket." What the heck? And
round-ish tubes? And bragging about tire clearance?? Is retro-grouchery
finally catching on?

But OTOH, "... absence of rack or fender mounts ..." Is that to make
sure nobody would ever want to do anything useful with the bike? Those
tires with a smooth center belt with tread alongside - are we back in
the 1980s?

And look at the closeup photo of the fork crown, or whatever we now call
the spot where the fork blades blend into the steerer tube. See that
crack just beside the hole for the brake line? This bike's a death trap!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:28:22 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 2:20:49 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
> >
> > Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a
> > carbon gravel bike, probably the most competitive market
> > segment for the past few years.
> I don't think I said exactly that. I, in fact, am sure that they will sell like crazy. But since I have done a lot of gravel riding I think that even if they aren't crashed and irreparably damaged that they will end up scratched up and worth a small percentage of their no doubt exclusive pricing. An aluminum bike is a far more intelligent buy. Some advertising jockey saying that a carbon fiber bike will be "more compliant" when the tires add almost 100% of compliance is just selling a can of biscuits. the fractionally lighter weight would add absolutely nothing.
>
> So I do think they will sell to the silly and inexperienced. Which appear to comprise a very large majority of the buying public. Not that I didn't go through a carbon fiber period myself and so am equally culpable.

The silly and inexperienced pro-level riders -- like my son's friend and former roommate who is a U-23 US Pro champ and winner of the Crusher in the Tushar? Regrettably, he came in second to Peter Stetina last year. https://tusharcrusher.com/ https://cyclingtips.com/2019/12/life-time-acquires-crusher-in-the-tushar/ There he is riding a Norco CF gravel bike, but now that he works at Specialized, I'm sure he's on a Crux or Diverge.

You can ride whatever you want, but the non-silly and far more experienced than you are riding CF gravel bikes in large numbers. https://www.bikeradar..com/features/the-winning-bikes-of-the-2018-dirty-kanza/ (spoiler alert . .. . all CF). I've ridden gravel and CX on aluminum and CF frames, and I like my CF bike much better. Its way more comfortable, and its lighter. And no, the CF frame has not evaporated, exploded or been killed by rocks.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:58:41 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/27/2021 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
> >
> >
> > Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a carbon gravel
> > bike, probably the most competitive market segment for the past few years.
> "...features a normal stem, normal bars, simple cable routing, and sweet
> mother of mercy, a threaded bottom bracket." What the heck? And
> round-ish tubes? And bragging about tire clearance?? Is retro-grouchery
> finally catching on?
>
> But OTOH, "... absence of rack or fender mounts ..." Is that to make
> sure nobody would ever want to do anything useful with the bike? Those
> tires with a smooth center belt with tread alongside - are we back in
> the 1980s?
>
> And look at the closeup photo of the fork crown, or whatever we now call
> the spot where the fork blades blend into the steerer tube. See that
> crack just beside the hole for the brake line? This bike's a death trap!

Tires like that are standard Vitoria Rubino. They also started a new series for gravel bikes called "Terreno" .

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:58:41 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/27/2021 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
> >
> >
> > Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a carbon gravel
> > bike, probably the most competitive market segment for the past few years.
> "...features a normal stem, normal bars, simple cable routing, and sweet
> mother of mercy, a threaded bottom bracket." What the heck? And
> round-ish tubes? And bragging about tire clearance?? Is retro-grouchery
> finally catching on?
>
> But OTOH, "... absence of rack or fender mounts ..." Is that to make
> sure nobody would ever want to do anything useful with the bike? Those
> tires with a smooth center belt with tread alongside - are we back in
> the 1980s?
>
> And look at the closeup photo of the fork crown, or whatever we now call
> the spot where the fork blades blend into the steerer tube. See that
> crack just beside the hole for the brake line? This bike's a death trap!

Frank, that looks more like mold release compound. You can see a color shift.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:04:00 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:28:22 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 2:20:49 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > > https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
> > >
> > > Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a
> > > carbon gravel bike, probably the most competitive market
> > > segment for the past few years.
> > I don't think I said exactly that. I, in fact, am sure that they will sell like crazy. But since I have done a lot of gravel riding I think that even if they aren't crashed and irreparably damaged that they will end up scratched up and worth a small percentage of their no doubt exclusive pricing.. An aluminum bike is a far more intelligent buy. Some advertising jockey saying that a carbon fiber bike will be "more compliant" when the tires add almost 100% of compliance is just selling a can of biscuits. the fractionally lighter weight would add absolutely nothing.
> >
> > So I do think they will sell to the silly and inexperienced. Which appear to comprise a very large majority of the buying public. Not that I didn't go through a carbon fiber period myself and so am equally culpable.
> The silly and inexperienced pro-level riders -- like my son's friend and former roommate who is a U-23 US Pro champ and winner of the Crusher in the Tushar? Regrettably, he came in second to Peter Stetina last year. https://tusharcrusher.com/ https://cyclingtips.com/2019/12/life-time-acquires-crusher-in-the-tushar/ There he is riding a Norco CF gravel bike, but now that he works at Specialized, I'm sure he's on a Crux or Diverge.
>
> You can ride whatever you want, but the non-silly and far more experienced than you are riding CF gravel bikes in large numbers. https://www.bikeradar.com/features/the-winning-bikes-of-the-2018-dirty-kanza/ (spoiler alert . . . all CF). I've ridden gravel and CX on aluminum and CF frames, and I like my CF bike much better. Its way more comfortable, and its lighter. And no, the CF frame has not evaporated, exploded or been killed by rocks.

The riders that are buying those bikes aren't the sort of riders that would be riding "Crusher in the Tushar". But at the cost of those things, I'm sure that they can well afford the financial loses.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:58:41 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/27/2021 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
> >
> >
> > Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a carbon gravel
> > bike, probably the most competitive market segment for the past few years.
> "...features a normal stem, normal bars, simple cable routing, and sweet
> mother of mercy, a threaded bottom bracket." What the heck? And
> round-ish tubes? And bragging about tire clearance?? Is retro-grouchery
> finally catching on?

Are you high? This is a CX bike with discs, so it could clear a tire way bigger than anything you could ever squeeze onto one of your antiques. Nobody is pining away for the olden days, unless they had ETap in the olden days and frames that weighed about as much as your cotton-duck handlebar bag -- without the paper maps and mustache wax.
>
> But OTOH, "... absence of rack or fender mounts ..." Is that to make
> sure nobody would ever want to do anything useful with the bike? Those
> tires with a smooth center belt with tread alongside - are we back in
> the 1980s?

The center-belt was 1970s and never went away and since when do you need a rack to do something useful with a racing bike. The use of the bike is going fast on gravel and not going to the grocery store. Anyone who can afford that bike has a Dying Pigeon or some other POS to do grocery runs.
>
> And look at the closeup photo of the fork crown, or whatever we now call
> the spot where the fork blades blend into the steerer tube. See that
> crack just beside the hole for the brake line? This bike's a death trap!

Okey-dokey, although I do wonder what that line is. It looks like it on the picture and not the bike.

BTW, I saw a pre-production version of that bike in SLC with the fancy paint. It is super-light, which is pretty wild for a CX/gravel bike, but I knew it was coming -- somebody was going to make it. People want to go faster and faster on gravel, so Specialized is giving that market what it wants.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:06:34 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:58:41 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 10/27/2021 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
> > >
> > >
> > > Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a carbon gravel
> > > bike, probably the most competitive market segment for the past few years.
> > "...features a normal stem, normal bars, simple cable routing, and sweet
> > mother of mercy, a threaded bottom bracket." What the heck? And
> > round-ish tubes? And bragging about tire clearance?? Is retro-grouchery
> > finally catching on?
> >
> > But OTOH, "... absence of rack or fender mounts ..." Is that to make
> > sure nobody would ever want to do anything useful with the bike? Those
> > tires with a smooth center belt with tread alongside - are we back in
> > the 1980s?
> >
> > And look at the closeup photo of the fork crown, or whatever we now call
> > the spot where the fork blades blend into the steerer tube. See that
> > crack just beside the hole for the brake line? This bike's a death trap!
> Tires like that are standard Vitoria Rubino. They also started a new series for gravel bikes called "Terreno" .

Uh . . . . WAKE UP . . . its a Specialized bike with Specialized tires, not surprisingly. https://content.backcountry.com/images/items/900/SCQ/SCQ00C0/BLATRA.jpg

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 18:58:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 10/27/2021 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
>>
>>
>> Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a carbon gravel
>> bike, probably the most competitive market segment for the past few years.
>
>"...features a normal stem, normal bars, simple cable routing, and sweet
>mother of mercy, a threaded bottom bracket." What the heck? And
>round-ish tubes? And bragging about tire clearance?? Is retro-grouchery
>finally catching on?
>
>But OTOH, "... absence of rack or fender mounts ..." Is that to make
>sure nobody would ever want to do anything useful with the bike? Those
>tires with a smooth center belt with tread alongside - are we back in
>the 1980s?
>
>And look at the closeup photo of the fork crown, or whatever we now call
>the spot where the fork blades blend into the steerer tube. See that
>crack just beside the hole for the brake line? This bike's a death trap!

I'm a bit confused as to just what a "gravel bike" is. from the
illustration in the reference it looks like a road bike with larger
tires but if that is the definition then I have a steel frame bike
that is at least 20 years old that will accept wider then the usual
road tires. And Heh! Way back in my youth we rode our single speed
bikes on dirt roads successfully. In fact the road past our house
wasn't paved in my youth so I had to ride gravel to get home (:-)

What's next? A dirty road bicycle for when the road wasn't swept with
solid tires, and, of course, a clean road bicycle for after sweeping?

Whatever happened to just getting on a bicycle and going out and
enjoying a day's ride?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:20:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
>
> Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a
> carbon gravel bike, probably the most competitive market
> segment for the past few years.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

My brother has a carbon fiber Trek cyclocross bike he has ridden on gravel roads. He bought it used from a woman who I think was sponsored by Trek. He rides a smaller/medium size frame and she must ride a bigger size frame. So it worked out. And it has CANTILEVER brakes!!!!!! He likes it. Its MUCH lighter weight than my Nashbar steel frame cyclocross bike. Which I have ridden on gravel roads.

On 10/27/2021 7:22 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:58:41 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/27/2021 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
>>>
>>>
>>> Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a carbon gravel
>>> bike, probably the most competitive market segment for the past few years.
>> "...features a normal stem, normal bars, simple cable routing, and sweet
>> mother of mercy, a threaded bottom bracket." What the heck? And
>> round-ish tubes? And bragging about tire clearance?? Is retro-grouchery
>> finally catching on?
>
> Are you high? This is a CX bike with discs, so it could clear a tire way bigger than anything you could ever squeeze onto one of your antiques.

You mean my same "antique" bikes that were shamed for not having close
clearance forks and frame tubes? My, how fashions change!

>> But OTOH, "... absence of rack or fender mounts ..." Is that to make
>> sure nobody would ever want to do anything useful with the bike? Those
>> tires with a smooth center belt with tread alongside - are we back in
>> the 1980s?
>
> The center-belt was 1970s and never went away and since when do you need a rack to do something useful with a racing bike. The use of the bike is going fast on gravel and not going to the grocery store.

But, but... what if there's a grocery store on a gravel road?

OK, I suppose the macho man riding this bike will just hand the loaf of
bread to his domestique. "Do not complain, Fernando, it is your job to
carry my load so I may return to my kitchen table as fast as possible."

Will they come out with a domestique version, slightly slower by virtue
of the rack mounts? And can we estimate the speed penalty of rack mounts?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/27/2021 7:27 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> I'm a bit confused as to just what a "gravel bike" is. from the
> illustration in the reference it looks like a road bike with larger
> tires but if that is the definition then I have a steel frame bike
> that is at least 20 years old that will accept wider then the usual
> road tires. And Heh! Way back in my youth we rode our single speed
> bikes on dirt roads successfully. In fact the road past our house
> wasn't paved in my youth so I had to ride gravel to get home (:-)

Good point. It's been less than a week since we've ridden on gravel
using our very ordinary bikes. We'll probably be doing it again today,
on our tandem. Some gravel riding gives us the most pleasant route to
the credit union and a certain shopping center.

> What's next? A dirty road bicycle for when the road wasn't swept with
> solid tires, and, of course, a clean road bicycle for after sweeping?

Good point! I note that there are "downhill" mountain bikes, different
from (I guess?) non-downhill mountain bikes. And racers have light
climbing bikes that are very different from their time trial bikes.

And as Jay frequently points out, there are definitely bikes designed
for carrying absolutely nothing, contrasted with bikes that can carry
things like, oh, a loaf of bread or maybe even a six pack.

Perhaps consumers will someday have the ability to ride certain bikes on
downhills, other bikes on uphills, extra-crash-resistant bikes for MUPs
and "protected" bike lanes, bikes for riding northwards, bikes for
riding southwards... The possibilities are endless!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/28/2021 10:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/27/2021 7:22 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:58:41 PM UTC-7, Frank
>> Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 10/27/2021 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a
>>>> carbon gravel
>>>> bike, probably the most competitive market segment for
>>>> the past few years.
>>> "...features a normal stem, normal bars, simple cable
>>> routing, and sweet
>>> mother of mercy, a threaded bottom bracket." What the
>>> heck? And
>>> round-ish tubes? And bragging about tire clearance?? Is
>>> retro-grouchery
>>> finally catching on?
>>
>> Are you high? This is a CX bike with discs, so it could
>> clear a tire way bigger than anything you could ever
>> squeeze onto one of your antiques.
>
> You mean my same "antique" bikes that were shamed for not
> having close clearance forks and frame tubes? My, how
> fashions change!
>
>>> But OTOH, "... absence of rack or fender mounts ..." Is
>>> that to make
>>> sure nobody would ever want to do anything useful with
>>> the bike? Those
>>> tires with a smooth center belt with tread alongside -
>>> are we back in
>>> the 1980s?
>>
>> The center-belt was 1970s and never went away and since
>> when do you need a rack to do something useful with a
>> racing bike. The use of the bike is going fast on gravel
>> and not going to the grocery store.
>
> But, but... what if there's a grocery store on a gravel road?
>
> OK, I suppose the macho man riding this bike will just hand
> the loaf of bread to his domestique. "Do not complain,
> Fernando, it is your job to carry my load so I may return to
> my kitchen table as fast as possible."
>
> Will they come out with a domestique version, slightly
> slower by virtue of the rack mounts? And can we estimate the
> speed penalty of rack mounts?
>

Riders decide how much or how little cargo capacity (zero to
way too much)for their own myriad complex inscrutable
reasons. Or no reason at all. Which is fine.

I had one carrier on one bike once for a week-long trip. The
next 49 years have been no trouble at all with a plastic bag
dangling from my wrist and more frequently some newspapers
across my handlebar under a rubber band. Sunday mornings on
my light machine have never been impeded by a lack of space
in a jersey pocket.

I am not advocating anything. Do whatever you feel best. But
acknowledge that humans have taste and that taste runs well
beyond a full spectrum, all the way from the sublime to the
ridiculous (at both ends).

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 7:26:23 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:06:34 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:58:41 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 10/27/2021 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a carbon gravel
> > > > bike, probably the most competitive market segment for the past few years.
> > > "...features a normal stem, normal bars, simple cable routing, and sweet
> > > mother of mercy, a threaded bottom bracket." What the heck? And
> > > round-ish tubes? And bragging about tire clearance?? Is retro-grouchery
> > > finally catching on?
> > >
> > > But OTOH, "... absence of rack or fender mounts ..." Is that to make
> > > sure nobody would ever want to do anything useful with the bike? Those
> > > tires with a smooth center belt with tread alongside - are we back in
> > > the 1980s?
> > >
> > > And look at the closeup photo of the fork crown, or whatever we now call
> > > the spot where the fork blades blend into the steerer tube. See that
> > > crack just beside the hole for the brake line? This bike's a death trap!
> > Tires like that are standard Vitoria Rubino. They also started a new series for gravel bikes called "Terreno" .
> Uh . . . . WAKE UP . . . its a Specialized bike with Specialized tires, not surprisingly. https://content.backcountry.com/images/items/900/SCQ/SCQ00C0/BLATRA.jpg
>

Cue tom's claim that he called the director of marketing at Specialized who confirmed they were vittoria's with specialized branding on them.

On 10/27/2021 7:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:28:22 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> So I do think they will sell to the silly and inexperienced. Which appear to comprise a very large majority of the buying public. Not that I didn't go through a carbon fiber period myself and so am equally culpable.
>
> The silly and inexperienced pro-level riders -- like my son's friend and former roommate who is a U-23 US Pro champ and winner of the Crusher in the Tushar?

I wonder how many of these bikes will be sold to "pro level riders." As
opposed to MAMILs who fantasize that they once _could_ have been
pro-level if only they didn't have to earn a living, raise a family, etc.

"I coulda been a contender!"

In fact, I wonder about the definition of "pro level rider." I suspect
very, very few people make a living racing a bicycle. Anyone got numbers?

> You can ride whatever you want, but the non-silly and far more experienced than you are riding CF gravel bikes in large numbers.

Well, those are the same cohort who rode 19mm tires at 160 psi because
they _knew_ they were so fast. But it turns out they were wrong.

ISTM they follow fashion as diligently as do teenage girls; just
different fashions.

> I've ridden gravel and CX on aluminum and CF frames, and I like my CF bike much better. Its way more comfortable, and its lighter.

I really am curious about the "comfortable" bit. Hearkening back to
discussions here: Jobst went into great detail on deflections, pointing
out that tires deflect far more than anything. Saddles deflect some,
seatposts deflect a bit, handlebars and stems deflect a little. In
comparison, assuming halfway conventional frame shape, frames are all as
rigid as bricks, no matter the material.

How is that a frame of carbon fiber (deflecting a couple thousandths of
an inch) feels so much more comfortable than a frame of aluminum
(deflecting a couple thousandths of an inch)? I seriously don't get it.

I know the usual statements tend toward "But I can feel it!" However, I
wonder if people could feel it in a true blind test.

I trust several of us remember a magazine's blind test of identical
bikes, back in the days when everyone could "feel" the difference
between different grades and gauges of steel tubing. Until, that is,
they didn't know what tubing they were riding, and they utterly failed
to tell the differences.

I suspect the comfort benefits of carbon fiber are mostly snake oil. I'd
love to see tests.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/28/2021 10:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/27/2021 7:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:28:22 PM UTC-7,
>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> So I do think they will sell to the silly and
>>> inexperienced. Which appear to comprise a very large
>>> majority of the buying public. Not that I didn't go
>>> through a carbon fiber period myself and so am equally
>>> culpable.
>>
>> The silly and inexperienced pro-level riders -- like my
>> son's friend and former roommate who is a U-23 US Pro
>> champ and winner of the Crusher in the Tushar?
>
> I wonder how many of these bikes will be sold to "pro level
> riders." As opposed to MAMILs who fantasize that they once
> _could_ have been pro-level if only they didn't have to earn
> a living, raise a family, etc.
>
> "I coulda been a contender!"
>
> In fact, I wonder about the definition of "pro level rider."
> I suspect very, very few people make a living racing a
> bicycle. Anyone got numbers?
>
>> You can ride whatever you want, but the non-silly and far
>> more experienced than you are riding CF gravel bikes in
>> large numbers.
>
> Well, those are the same cohort who rode 19mm tires at 160
> psi because they _knew_ they were so fast. But it turns out
> they were wrong.
>
> ISTM they follow fashion as diligently as do teenage girls;
> just different fashions.
>
>> I've ridden gravel and CX on aluminum and CF frames, and I
>> like my CF bike much better. Its way more comfortable,
>> and its lighter.
>
> I really am curious about the "comfortable" bit. Hearkening
> back to discussions here: Jobst went into great detail on
> deflections, pointing out that tires deflect far more than
> anything. Saddles deflect some, seatposts deflect a bit,
> handlebars and stems deflect a little. In comparison,
> assuming halfway conventional frame shape, frames are all as
> rigid as bricks, no matter the material.
>
> How is that a frame of carbon fiber (deflecting a couple
> thousandths of an inch) feels so much more comfortable than
> a frame of aluminum (deflecting a couple thousandths of an
> inch)? I seriously don't get it.
>
> I know the usual statements tend toward "But I can feel it!"
> However, I wonder if people could feel it in a true blind test.
>
> I trust several of us remember a magazine's blind test of
> identical bikes, back in the days when everyone could "feel"
> the difference between different grades and gauges of steel
> tubing. Until, that is, they didn't know what tubing they
> were riding, and they utterly failed to tell the differences.
>
> I suspect the comfort benefits of carbon fiber are mostly
> snake oil. I'd love to see tests.
>

I thought you were interested in data.

As discussed to death here for over twenty years, and
magazines are a prime villain, the one numerical quality we
have is weight.

You're right that 'handling', 'compliance', 'road feel'
cannot be objectively quantified and at any rate one man's
'stable' is another's 'sluggish' just as my 'snappy' is your
'twitchy'. meh.

But there's no argument that carbon gravel bikes are
lighter. Which is a big part of why they are popular. And
those numbers are well publicized, probably the only number
a bike shopper has for comparison (in that our vehicles lack
the other salient vehicle number, power)

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:26:23 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:06:34 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:58:41 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 10/27/2021 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a carbon gravel
> > > > bike, probably the most competitive market segment for the past few years.
> > > "...features a normal stem, normal bars, simple cable routing, and sweet
> > > mother of mercy, a threaded bottom bracket." What the heck? And
> > > round-ish tubes? And bragging about tire clearance?? Is retro-grouchery
> > > finally catching on?
> > >
> > > But OTOH, "... absence of rack or fender mounts ..." Is that to make
> > > sure nobody would ever want to do anything useful with the bike? Those
> > > tires with a smooth center belt with tread alongside - are we back in
> > > the 1980s?
> > >
> > > And look at the closeup photo of the fork crown, or whatever we now call
> > > the spot where the fork blades blend into the steerer tube. See that
> > > crack just beside the hole for the brake line? This bike's a death trap!
> > Tires like that are standard Vitoria Rubino. They also started a new series for gravel bikes called "Terreno" .
> Uh . . . . WAKE UP . . . its a Specialized bike with Specialized tires, not surprisingly. https://content.backcountry.com/images/items/900/SCQ/SCQ00C0/BLATRA.jpg

So you're running 42 mm tires on your gravel bike?

On 10/28/2021 11:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/28/2021 10:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/27/2021 7:22 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:58:41 PM UTC-7, Frank
>>> Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 10/27/2021 5:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a
>>>>> carbon gravel
>>>>> bike, probably the most competitive market segment for
>>>>> the past few years.
>>>> "...features a normal stem, normal bars, simple cable
>>>> routing, and sweet
>>>> mother of mercy, a threaded bottom bracket." What the
>>>> heck? And
>>>> round-ish tubes? And bragging about tire clearance?? Is
>>>> retro-grouchery
>>>> finally catching on?
>>>
>>> Are you high?  This is a CX bike with discs, so it could
>>> clear a tire way bigger than anything you could ever
>>> squeeze onto one of your antiques.
>>
>> You mean my same "antique" bikes that were shamed for not
>> having close clearance forks and frame tubes? My, how
>> fashions change!
>>
>>>> But OTOH, "... absence of rack or fender mounts ..." Is
>>>> that to make
>>>> sure nobody would ever want to do anything useful with
>>>> the bike? Those
>>>> tires with a smooth center belt with tread alongside -
>>>> are we back in
>>>> the 1980s?
>>>
>>> The center-belt was 1970s and never went away and since
>>> when do you need a rack to do something useful with a
>>> racing bike.  The use of the bike is going fast on gravel
>>> and not going to the grocery store.
>>
>> But, but... what if there's a grocery store on a gravel road?
>>
>> OK, I suppose the macho man riding this bike will just hand
>> the loaf of bread to his domestique. "Do not complain,
>> Fernando, it is your job to carry my load so I may return to
>> my kitchen table as fast as possible."
>>
>> Will they come out with a domestique version, slightly
>> slower by virtue of the rack mounts? And can we estimate the
>> speed penalty of rack mounts?
>>
>
> Riders decide how much or how little cargo capacity (zero to way too
> much)for their own myriad complex inscrutable reasons. Or no reason at
> all. Which is fine.
>
> I had one carrier on one bike once for a week-long trip. The next 49
> years have been no trouble at all with a plastic bag dangling from my
> wrist and more frequently some newspapers across my handlebar under a
> rubber band. Sunday mornings on my light machine have never been impeded
> by a lack of space in a jersey pocket.
>
> I am not advocating anything. Do whatever you feel best. But acknowledge
> that humans have taste and that taste runs well beyond a full spectrum,
> all the way from the sublime to the ridiculous (at both ends).

Sure, carry what you want, or don't carry what you don't want. But I
still make fun of one of my best friends, the one who showed up at my
house with his brand new custom bike, then asked me to carry his jacket.

But to me, it makes no sense to limit ones choices unnecessarily. A
person buying that Crux may say "I'm a racer, dammit, I ain't carrying
anything!" But when that pro contract fails to materialize and he
decides to stay in shape by riding to get groceries, it will be a shame
to put hose clamps on that frame. Rack mounts have negligible detriment
and large potential benefit.

BTW, at one bike club meeting long ago, our then-president showed up
with a cracked helmet and a message: "Always wear your helmet!" He was
out on a ride, got hot, took off his jacket and tied it to his
handlebar. In a little while the sleeve drooped into his spokes and sent
him over the bars.

The safety chairman had a different message: Don't tie stuff to your
handlebars. Don't dangle stuff near your spokes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:20:49 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> https://www.rouleur.cc/blogs/desire-journal/the-redesigned-crux-claims-to-be-the-lightest-gravel-bike-in-the-world
>
> Someone recently wrote here doubting anyone would buy a
> carbon gravel bike, probably the most competitive market
> segment for the past few years.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
We sell carbon gravel bikes. No one bats an eye.

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 11:17:52 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/27/2021 7:27 PM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > I'm a bit confused as to just what a "gravel bike" is. from the
> > illustration in the reference it looks like a road bike with larger
> > tires but if that is the definition then I have a steel frame bike
> > that is at least 20 years old that will accept wider then the usual
> > road tires. And Heh! Way back in my youth we rode our single speed
> > bikes on dirt roads successfully. In fact the road past our house
> > wasn't paved in my youth so I had to ride gravel to get home (:-)
> Good point. It's been less than a week since we've ridden on gravel
> using our very ordinary bikes. We'll probably be doing it again today,
> on our tandem. Some gravel riding gives us the most pleasant route to
> the credit union and a certain shopping center.
> > What's next? A dirty road bicycle for when the road wasn't swept with
> > solid tires, and, of course, a clean road bicycle for after sweeping?
> Good point! I note that there are "downhill" mountain bikes, different
> from (I guess?) non-downhill mountain bikes. And racers have light
> climbing bikes that are very different from their time trial bikes.
>
> And as Jay frequently points out, there are definitely bikes designed
> for carrying absolutely nothing, contrasted with bikes that can carry
> things like, oh, a loaf of bread or maybe even a six pack.
>
> Perhaps consumers will someday have the ability to ride certain bikes on
> downhills, other bikes on uphills, extra-crash-resistant bikes for MUPs
> and "protected" bike lanes, bikes for riding northwards, bikes for
> riding southwards... The possibilities are endless!
>

You seem to be missing one very important point Frank, Sometimes people ride bikes just for fun rather than fetching groceries. That said, I regard gravel bikes, and now the gravel-specific component groups to be a fad similar to the fat-bike fad. I don't see much difference between CX bikes and gravel bikes, and as far as I can tell, a decent rider would be able to perform just as well on a decent modern CX bike as they would a current gravel bike. However, newer CX bikes are designed more for quick handling and acceleration, so for something like Dirty Kanza a gravel bike might prove more comfortable over the long run and thus could give a bit of a performance advantage since the rider would be a bit more 'fresh' after 12+ hours in the saddle. By that I mean, the average weekend warrior going out for a casual 3 ish hour ride more than likely isn't going to be able to tell much difference between their old CX or mountain bikes, except for the fact that they aren't keeping up with the joneses.

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 8:17:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/27/2021 7:27 PM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > I'm a bit confused as to just what a "gravel bike" is. from the
> > illustration in the reference it looks like a road bike with larger
> > tires but if that is the definition then I have a steel frame bike
> > that is at least 20 years old that will accept wider then the usual
> > road tires. And Heh! Way back in my youth we rode our single speed
> > bikes on dirt roads successfully. In fact the road past our house
> > wasn't paved in my youth so I had to ride gravel to get home (:-)
> Good point. It's been less than a week since we've ridden on gravel
> using our very ordinary bikes. We'll probably be doing it again today,
> on our tandem. Some gravel riding gives us the most pleasant route to
> the credit union and a certain shopping center.
> > What's next? A dirty road bicycle for when the road wasn't swept with
> > solid tires, and, of course, a clean road bicycle for after sweeping?
> Good point! I note that there are "downhill" mountain bikes, different
> from (I guess?) non-downhill mountain bikes. And racers have light
> climbing bikes that are very different from their time trial bikes.
>
> And as Jay frequently points out, there are definitely bikes designed
> for carrying absolutely nothing, contrasted with bikes that can carry
> things like, oh, a loaf of bread or maybe even a six pack.
>
> Perhaps consumers will someday have the ability to ride certain bikes on
> downhills, other bikes on uphills, extra-crash-resistant bikes for MUPs
> and "protected" bike lanes, bikes for riding northwards, bikes for
> riding southwards... The possibilities are endless!

Mountain bikes are no longer a generalized bike. They are built for extremes such as downhill racers or long distance enduro racing over 36" boulders. They are no longer a viable bike for general riding. Even the forks have 10" of travel and so are so soft that when you put on the front brake you nearly go over the bars. For a ridable MTB for a normal rider you have to buy a Costco MTB that is made out of tinfoil and gum.

On 10/28/2021 11:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/28/2021 10:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/27/2021 7:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:28:22 PM UTC-7,
>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So I do think they will sell to the silly and
>>>> inexperienced. Which appear to comprise a very large
>>>> majority of the buying public. Not that I didn't go
>>>> through a carbon fiber period myself and so am equally
>>>> culpable.
>>>
>>> The silly and inexperienced pro-level riders -- like my
>>> son's friend and former roommate who is a  U-23 US Pro
>>> champ and winner of the Crusher in the Tushar?
>>
>> I wonder how many of these bikes will be sold to "pro level
>> riders." As opposed to MAMILs who fantasize that they once
>> _could_ have been pro-level if only they didn't have to earn
>> a living, raise a family, etc.
>>
>> "I coulda been a contender!"
>>
>> In fact, I wonder about the definition of "pro level rider."
>> I suspect very, very few people make a living racing a
>> bicycle. Anyone got numbers?
>>
>>> You can ride whatever you want, but the non-silly and far
>>> more experienced than you are riding CF gravel bikes in
>>> large numbers.
>>
>> Well, those are the same cohort who rode 19mm tires at 160
>> psi because they _knew_ they were so fast. But it turns out
>> they were wrong.
>>
>> ISTM they follow fashion as diligently as do teenage girls;
>> just different fashions.
>>
>>> I've ridden gravel and CX on aluminum and CF frames, and I
>>> like my CF bike much better.  Its way more comfortable,
>>> and its lighter.
>>
>> I really am curious about the "comfortable" bit. Hearkening
>> back to discussions here: Jobst went into great detail on
>> deflections, pointing out that tires deflect far more than
>> anything. Saddles deflect some, seatposts deflect a bit,
>> handlebars and stems deflect a little. In comparison,
>> assuming halfway conventional frame shape, frames are all as
>> rigid as bricks, no matter the material.
>>
>> How is that a frame of carbon fiber (deflecting a couple
>> thousandths of an inch) feels so much more comfortable than
>> a frame of aluminum (deflecting a couple thousandths of an
>> inch)? I seriously don't get it.
>>
>> I know the usual statements tend toward "But I can feel it!"
>> However, I wonder if people could feel it in a true blind test.
>>
>> I trust several of us remember a magazine's blind test of
>> identical bikes, back in the days when everyone could "feel"
>> the difference between different grades and gauges of steel
>> tubing. Until, that is, they didn't know what tubing they
>> were riding, and they utterly failed to tell the differences.
>>
>> I suspect the comfort benefits of carbon fiber are mostly
>> snake oil. I'd love to see tests.
>>
>
> I thought you were interested in data.
>
> As discussed to death here for over twenty years, and magazines are a
> prime villain, the one numerical quality we have is weight.
>
> You're right that 'handling', 'compliance', 'road feel' cannot be
> objectively quantified and at any rate one man's 'stable' is another's
> 'sluggish' just as my 'snappy' is your 'twitchy'. meh.
>
> But there's no argument that carbon gravel bikes are lighter. Which is a
> big part of why they are popular. And those numbers are well publicized,
> probably the only number a bike shopper has for comparison (in that our
> vehicles lack the other salient vehicle number, power)

I'm certainly not questioning that carbon fiber frames are (usually)
lighter! I think I've done a good job of quantifying the difference that
makes. (Percent difference in bike+rider weight, remember?)

I'm asking now about the supposed _comfort_ of carbon fiber. It reminds
me of the indescribable "ride quality" of titanium, that nothing could
match - and nothing could measure.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 9:13:24 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 11:17:52 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 10/27/2021 7:27 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm a bit confused as to just what a "gravel bike" is. from the
> > > illustration in the reference it looks like a road bike with larger
> > > tires but if that is the definition then I have a steel frame bike
> > > that is at least 20 years old that will accept wider then the usual
> > > road tires. And Heh! Way back in my youth we rode our single speed
> > > bikes on dirt roads successfully. In fact the road past our house
> > > wasn't paved in my youth so I had to ride gravel to get home (:-)
> > Good point. It's been less than a week since we've ridden on gravel
> > using our very ordinary bikes. We'll probably be doing it again today,
> > on our tandem. Some gravel riding gives us the most pleasant route to
> > the credit union and a certain shopping center.
> > > What's next? A dirty road bicycle for when the road wasn't swept with
> > > solid tires, and, of course, a clean road bicycle for after sweeping?
> > Good point! I note that there are "downhill" mountain bikes, different
> > from (I guess?) non-downhill mountain bikes. And racers have light
> > climbing bikes that are very different from their time trial bikes.
> >
> > And as Jay frequently points out, there are definitely bikes designed
> > for carrying absolutely nothing, contrasted with bikes that can carry
> > things like, oh, a loaf of bread or maybe even a six pack.
> >
> > Perhaps consumers will someday have the ability to ride certain bikes on
> > downhills, other bikes on uphills, extra-crash-resistant bikes for MUPs
> > and "protected" bike lanes, bikes for riding northwards, bikes for
> > riding southwards... The possibilities are endless!
> >
> You seem to be missing one very important point Frank, Sometimes people ride bikes just for fun rather than fetching groceries. That said, I regard gravel bikes, and now the gravel-specific component groups to be a fad similar to the fat-bike fad. I don't see much difference between CX bikes and gravel bikes, and as far as I can tell, a decent rider would be able to perform just as well on a decent modern CX bike as they would a current gravel bike. However, newer CX bikes are designed more for quick handling and acceleration, so for something like Dirty Kanza a gravel bike might prove more comfortable over the long run and thus could give a bit of a performance advantage since the rider would be a bit more 'fresh' after 12+ hours in the saddle. By that I mean, the average weekend warrior going out for a casual 3 ish hour ride more than likely isn't going to be able to tell much difference between their old CX or mountain bikes, except for the fact that they aren't keeping up with the joneses.
If that picture of a 42 mm semi-knobby is anything to go by, there must be a pretty large difference between a modern gravel bike and my CX bikes that could BARELY handle a 33mm. My present bike I use in the gravel can mount 28 mm street tires. I don't find any use for anything more since i will not ride this thing on MTB routes anymore.

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 9:15:51 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/28/2021 11:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 10/28/2021 10:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 10/27/2021 7:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:28:22 PM UTC-7,
> >>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> So I do think they will sell to the silly and
> >>>> inexperienced. Which appear to comprise a very large
> >>>> majority of the buying public. Not that I didn't go
> >>>> through a carbon fiber period myself and so am equally
> >>>> culpable.
> >>>
> >>> The silly and inexperienced pro-level riders -- like my
> >>> son's friend and former roommate who is a U-23 US Pro
> >>> champ and winner of the Crusher in the Tushar?
> >>
> >> I wonder how many of these bikes will be sold to "pro level
> >> riders." As opposed to MAMILs who fantasize that they once
> >> _could_ have been pro-level if only they didn't have to earn
> >> a living, raise a family, etc.
> >>
> >> "I coulda been a contender!"
> >>
> >> In fact, I wonder about the definition of "pro level rider."
> >> I suspect very, very few people make a living racing a
> >> bicycle. Anyone got numbers?
> >>
> >>> You can ride whatever you want, but the non-silly and far
> >>> more experienced than you are riding CF gravel bikes in
> >>> large numbers.
> >>
> >> Well, those are the same cohort who rode 19mm tires at 160
> >> psi because they _knew_ they were so fast. But it turns out
> >> they were wrong.
> >>
> >> ISTM they follow fashion as diligently as do teenage girls;
> >> just different fashions.
> >>
> >>> I've ridden gravel and CX on aluminum and CF frames, and I
> >>> like my CF bike much better. Its way more comfortable,
> >>> and its lighter.
> >>
> >> I really am curious about the "comfortable" bit. Hearkening
> >> back to discussions here: Jobst went into great detail on
> >> deflections, pointing out that tires deflect far more than
> >> anything. Saddles deflect some, seatposts deflect a bit,
> >> handlebars and stems deflect a little. In comparison,
> >> assuming halfway conventional frame shape, frames are all as
> >> rigid as bricks, no matter the material.
> >>
> >> How is that a frame of carbon fiber (deflecting a couple
> >> thousandths of an inch) feels so much more comfortable than
> >> a frame of aluminum (deflecting a couple thousandths of an
> >> inch)? I seriously don't get it.
> >>
> >> I know the usual statements tend toward "But I can feel it!"
> >> However, I wonder if people could feel it in a true blind test.
> >>
> >> I trust several of us remember a magazine's blind test of
> >> identical bikes, back in the days when everyone could "feel"
> >> the difference between different grades and gauges of steel
> >> tubing. Until, that is, they didn't know what tubing they
> >> were riding, and they utterly failed to tell the differences.
> >>
> >> I suspect the comfort benefits of carbon fiber are mostly
> >> snake oil. I'd love to see tests.
> >>
> >
> > I thought you were interested in data.
> >
> > As discussed to death here for over twenty years, and magazines are a
> > prime villain, the one numerical quality we have is weight.
> >
> > You're right that 'handling', 'compliance', 'road feel' cannot be
> > objectively quantified and at any rate one man's 'stable' is another's
> > 'sluggish' just as my 'snappy' is your 'twitchy'. meh.
> >
> > But there's no argument that carbon gravel bikes are lighter. Which is a
> > big part of why they are popular. And those numbers are well publicized,
> > probably the only number a bike shopper has for comparison (in that our
> > vehicles lack the other salient vehicle number, power)
> I'm certainly not questioning that carbon fiber frames are (usually)
> lighter! I think I've done a good job of quantifying the difference that
> makes. (Percent difference in bike+rider weight, remember?)
>
> I'm asking now about the supposed _comfort_ of carbon fiber. It reminds
> me of the indescribable "ride quality" of titanium, that nothing could
> match - and nothing could measure.

Light carbon fiber bikes break easily so over-the-counter bikes are normally 20-30% heavier than those things the pros are riding. On one of the videos it showed someone pinching the tubes on a supposed SL7 that was a racing team bike and the tubes were flexing inwards. On a stock bike with the same pressure they weren't.