Slowman wrote:
NordicSkier wrote:
Slowman wrote:
in my opinion, the industry has converged. gravel geometry is road geometry, as regards fit. but we'll see. just, if this isn't it, then we're telling ourselves a fairy story when we say gravel bikes can be ridden as road bikes or gravel bikes with a wheel and/or tire change.
My road and CX/gravel fit are almost identical which surprised me.
The one big difference is 44cm vs 38cm bars.
i think this is what we're going to find. i had a guy shoot CX nats for me, and looking at those positions, i don't see really any difference in positions. for gravel, the guys who're racing gravel on their road bikes (i.e., BWR) are doing just that: racing it on their road bikes. i'd be shocked of road racers who raced dirty kanza are racing positions any different from their road positions.
now, if you say wait, they criterium race on a different position, fine. that i'd buy. but, for example, is a classic on cobbles raced in a different position than, say, a stage race? if not, what's different, functionally, position-wise, between paris roubaix and dirty kanza?
I don't know...I didn't get all "CSI" on it and overlay, but looking at Ted King's TdF "cobbles" setup (which was most likely identical to his pure road setup for that race) vs. his DK200 rig side-by-side, it sure looks like his gravel position has higher bars and a shorter reach:
http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/