Shhh. Need to get home to run some numbers to figure out which frame size I should get and I don't want them to runout. At this price you could build something now and then move to a super gravel frame in a few years with no regrets.

AND a standard road (i.e. 53/39) crankset fits:

• 5 water bottle mounts

------


Damn

Blasphemy. 1x or go home.

I've put about 400mi on my "new to me" Crockett and it lives in the 36T inner. I'm going to convert it to a 1x on a 40T and call it a day.

FWIW, 5 bottle mounts is a bit much. But racks are cool. Everyone knows once you're in the off-road world that if you need more than two, you just go Camelbak.

Hey Tom, What wheelset are you running to keep weight under 20 and hold up, not to mention some width?

Cheers!

Shhh. Need to get home to run some numbers to figure out which frame size I should get and I don't want them to runout. At this price you could build something now and then move to a super gravel frame in a few years with no regrets.

Because I didn't have my stack and reach memorized?

But you right, it has the geometry of a penny farthing.

why would you need to wait to get home to run the numbers? it's got stack and reach on the size chart, so, you should be able to determine it now.

that said, i hate that bike's geometry. way too tall for the length in every size. it's gran fondo or "endurance" goemetry, on steroids. and, why the high bb? it's got the bb drop of a cross bike and the height of old-style women's geometry.

but it is a nice deal.

My current road bike is a 2003 Felt F85 size 54, which I measured as a stack of ~520 and a reach of ~390. Stock stem, not sure what length and pitch. But I did see your recent article on measuring to bar clamp instead of traditional stack and reach.

But for a gravel bike I would want something rotated back a bit. When I descend on dirt on the current bike I am to far forward. I guess the other solution is a dropper so I don't have to sit straight up when I am on tarmac.

Interested in where the industry will converge for all-road bike geometry. Specialized's redid the Diverge and appear to end up with the same stack to reach ratio but with a much lower bottom bracket.

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.

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?

Depends on what you mean by "road bike". If you mean road racing bike...then yes, fantasy. If your "gravel bike" has modern road racing geometry and setup, then it's going to be less than ideal in the more "difficult" off-road conditions. That said, I probably tend to treat mine as a bit of a "fully rigid XC MTB" more than most ;-) Then again, I also have my road setup with the bar tops a bit higher than most, and rely on deep drops in my bars to get the most aero road position...so, my positional setups between the 2 probably aren't as great as others may have.

"Gravel" or "Adventure Bike" geometry and setup IMO should be more of a cross between old-school grand tour racing bike and a 80s/90s XC MTB...rather than a pure modern road geometry/setup. But, maybe that's just me...

Compare what he currently rides instead--that's an old Synapse, which had high head tube, and thus negative stem. Saddle height is the same, and he uses 120mm stem on both. Gravel frame has slightly higher stack.

But to your point, he didn't like the old Synapse because of geometry but loves the new one, because of... geometry.

Slowman wrote:

I would find it hard to justify riding this geometry at any price. For me. B.B. too high. Stack way too high (I’d have to get a frame way too smal and try to lengthen it w/stem.

I think fit will end up being pretty road-similar. Where the jury is out is on geom for handling.

Most bike manufacturers have settled on 65-70mm of BB drop in their frame geometries for race bikes.

I assume with all the mounts, this would make a a pretty lightweight touring bike too, no?

My road and CX/gravel fit are almost identical which surprised me.
The one big difference is 44cm vs 38cm bars.

Is there a different stem length+reach measurement on the bike with 44cm vs the bike with 38cm bars?

How is it different? The Synapse picture you posted was a prior version, which had a high head tube (and thus negative stem). He didn't use that on Supersix.

First-hand, there has been very little change in his position from then to now.

But who wants brown or bronze?

Really? Looks like it's smack dab in the middle of typical for a road racing bike:



https://cyclingtips.com/...ry-of-bike-handling/

And "stack way too high"? I'm thinking that maybe some of your admitted difficulties in handling rougher conditions off-road might be related to that opinion...you might want to try raising your bars and moving them back slightly ;-)

edit: BTW, I looked up both a Synapse and a Slate (you have one of those, right?) and in a size 56 Synapse, the stack is only 2mm less than the Jari, while the size L Slate is only 10mm less. Also BTW, the BB drop of the Slate is actually LESS than the Jari (at 65mm vs. 67mm)...so, is the Jari really as wacked geometry-wise as you infer? I'm not seeing it...

let's unpack this one piece at a time. my supersix evo, which has a pretty midrange road race geometry, in size 58cm has:

stack: 577mm
reach: 399mm

there's a lot more variance throughout the size run in stack than there is in reach, so, i'm really fitting more to reach. the closest in this fuji to matching my supersix's reach is the XXL, and that bike's geometry is:

stack: 628mm
reach: 397mm

were i to try to match the stack of my supersix, it would be the size M:

stack: 572mm
reach: 370mm

this means, if i ride the same road bar on both bikes, i'd need a 150mm stem on the fuji to make it work, which i reall don't want to do, because the front:center on that bike is at least 15mm shorter than what i'm riding now.

as far as this being "smack dab in the middle of typical for a road racing bike" i would ride a specialized tarmac/venge in size 56cm (i.e., specialized's road race geometry):

stack: 566m
reach: 395mm

this fuji is closer to roubaix geometry, specialized's endurance geometry. it's taller than a synapse, cannondale's endurance geometry. it's taller than a roadlite, canyon's endurance geometry. it's taller than a defy, giant's endurance geometry. it's nowhere near the geometry of any of these companies' road race bikes.

i like that fuji lengthened the chain stay. i just don't like much of the rest of it.

as to the rest of it. yes, i own a slate. but i didn't design it. i did design the BB drop of my everyday gravel rider, which is my litespeed, and i gave that 75mm or 80mm of BB drop.

as to "admitted difficulties in handling rougher conditions off-road" i guess i'm grading on a curve. the sexagenarians are finding it not so easy to beat the old man now that he's back in swim/bike/run shape for the first time in a decade. but to your point, i'm quite happy with my litespeed's geometry. where i'm still experimenting is with tire pressure and tire profile.

but if you want to test the old man's capacity firsthand, up close, i'll give you advance warning of my racing schedule ;-)

let's unpack this one piece at a time. my supersix evo, which has a pretty midrange road race geometry, in size 58cm has:

stack: 577mm
reach: 399mm

there's a lot more variance throughout the size run in stack than there is in reach, so, i'm really fitting more to reach. the closest in this fuji to matching my supersix's reach is the XXL, and that bike's geometry is:

stack: 628mm
reach: 397mm

were i to try to match the stack of my supersix, it would be the size M:

stack: 572mm
reach: 370mm

this means, if i ride the same road bar on both bikes, i'd need a 150mm stem on the fuji to make it work, which i reall don't want to do, because the front:center on that bike is at least 15mm shorter than what i'm riding now.

as far as this being "smack dab in the middle of typical for a road racing bike" i would ride a specialized tarmac/venge in size 56cm...

but if you want to test the old man's capacity firsthand, up close, i'll give you advance warning of my racing schedule ;-)

OK - so this I did it - I picked up one of these frames! Now how should I build it out? Mostly concerned about some fun wheels (maybe in the $1k range)

What stem angle and length do you have on the supersix? Any spacers under the stem, and what's the topcap height?

And, why are you ignoring the size L Fuji?

stack: 592mm
reach: 379mm

I bet you could set that up with 1-2cm less stack and reach than your "pure road" position (just using the same stem and bars) and have a better time of it in the dirt. BTW, "same bars" might not be always a good idea for a bike intended to be ridden off-road. I like having a bit of drop flare, so that when in the drops my hands are rotated closer to a typical hand position on a MTB bar. That helps a bunch with dirt surface control IMO.



Wait...I was specifically talking about BB drop. That's why my quote of it is bolded and italicized.




Just let me know next time you're in SB. I'll take you on my favorite rides and we'll see how you do ;-)

what i'm arguing is that your gravel bike will fit just like your road bike fits. no difference. so, gravel stack and reach will equal road stack and reach.

Glad you can tell more from a pic than asking him, which I did this am.

I don't know how you got on to position of bars to BB, my points were about similarities in overall fit.

Thanks for the tip-- I picked one up! I might sell the Tarmac, GT Grade and Specialized Epic and just use this one with 2 sets of wheels. I would have done the same thing with the GT grade (love that bike) except that it only takes up to a 35 mm tire so it doesn't quite cut it as a MTB.

Now I just need to figure out what parts I want.

My personal point of view from riding extensively on pure road racing, and gravel racing from tame to gnarly conditions, is that your stack and reach (touch points) should definitely not be the same. I think if they are, you're doing one or both bikes wrong in terms of fit.

Yeah...that's basically the point I was trying to make.

Dan seems to be stuck on the notion of having one of these bikes be just as good as a pure road bike just by doing a wheel/tire swap (at least that's how I'm interpreting it), and so his motivation is to keep his position the same for both. But, like you, I think that's doing his non-pavement setup a disservice.

Glad you can tell more from a pic than asking him, which I did this am.

I don't know how you got on to position of bars to BB, my points were about similarities in overall fit.

My personal point of view from riding extensively on pure road racing, and gravel racing from tame to gnarly conditions, is that your stack and reach (touch points) should definitely not be the same. I think if they are, you're doing one or both bikes wrong in terms of fit.

I measured my road vs gravel position this morning. For gravel, I'm 1cm shorter on reach, and although I didn't measure exactly I'd estimate 1-2cm higher stack. That's not much difference.
But, maybe my road position just isn't that aggressive.

Is the frame supposed to come with the 135mm inserts? Mine only seems to have the thru-axle ones.

If they are just QR versions of the inserts already installed on the dropouts, then those are definitely missing. Guess I'll be giving Performance/Fuji a call tomorrow.

Tom or anyone else,

Since I didn't get my small parts with the frameset and it was sent separately, I want to make sure I have everything for the headset. Do you know if the fork has an integrated crown race or was that missing from the second package they sent me?