I’ve often thought that for the triathlete, the perfect second bike, would not be a full on aero road bike (unless you are REALLY seriously road racing), but something like this, the C5, which is a bit of a do anything just about anywhere road bike that rides great on the roads, the gravel and even some light trail riding, and perhaps even some CX (but again, not serious CX racing). With a change of tires or wheels you have a big range of options and a very versatile machine.
Never raced CX but unless tire clearance is limited I don’t see why this couldn’t race CX with a change in gearing.
Seeing the bash guard thing it has going on, I’d say it’s designed to be as durable as a MTB frame. Just wondering how wide of tires you can put on it.
Never raced CX but unless tire clearance is limited I don’t see why this couldn’t race CX with a change in gearing.
Seeing the bash guard thing it has going on, I’d say it’s designed to be as durable as a MTB frame. Just wondering how wide of tires you can put on it.
In other pics on Velonews it looks like it might max out at 32mm tires This is more Paris-Roubaix than CX
Not getting why I would buy this or any gravel bike vs my cross bike that I was doing dirt road and trail rides on way before we had this category of bikes…
**Not getting why I would buy this or any gravel bike vs my cross bike that I was doing dirt road and trail rides on way before we had this category of bikes… **
YOU would not need this bike.
There are some differences between the dedicated gravel road bikes and a full on CX bike. The CX bike will have much faster handling is the main one.
Now the person who is not into full on CX racing could push the C5 into service in s CX like setting, but the slower handing and the lower BB, could be a hindrance if they were considering racing that bike in a CX race. Drier less technical course it would be fine. A muddy, technical course with clearance issues in parts . . a problem!
There are some differences between the dedicated gravel road bikes and a full on CX bike. The CX bike will have much faster handling is the main one.
I’ve never understood why “gravel bikes” don’t want fast handling - very strange IMO. I use my Crux for gravel type races and in terms of geometry, I haven’t seen any “gravel bikes” that I would consider having better geo for this application.
**Not getting why I would buy this or any gravel bike vs my cross bike that I was doing dirt road and trail rides on way before we had this category of bikes… **
YOU would not need this bike.
There are some differences between the dedicated gravel road bikes and a full on CX bike. The CX bike will have much faster handling is the main one.
Now the person who is not into full on CX racing could push the C5 into service in s CX like setting, but the slower handing and the lower BB, could be a hindrance if they were considering racing that bike in a CX race. Drier less technical course it would be fine. A muddy, technical course with clearance issues in parts . . a problem!
“Slower handling”? Turns out that despite the slacker head angle on the C5, the increased offset of the fork actually makes the trail number 1mm shorter than a typical road bike 73d head angle and 43mm offset
CX races are an hour and very turny. Gravel races are up to 200 miles and generally straight where a less twitchy, stable ride helps. The Crux is certainly a good all-arounder thanks to lower BB, but not all are CX bikes share that geometry.
CX races are an hour and very turny. Gravel races are up to 200 miles and generally straight where a less twitchy, stable ride helps. The Crux is certainly a good all-arounder thanks to lower BB, but not all are CX bikes share that geometry.
I completely understand this - I’ve done many long rides/races in this format. My point is that the majority of gravel bikes that I’ve seen have trail values as much as a lot of mtn bikes - like 75mm or more sometimes. It’s a little crazy.
A buddy of mine just built one up (the Open UP) a couple of weeks ago. It looks really slick. If my legs were 8 inches longer I would have taken it for a spin.
“Slower handling”? Turns out that despite the slacker head angle on the C5, the increased offset of the fork actually makes the trail number 1mm shorter than a typical road bike 73d head angle and 43mm offset
OK, Tom. I am confused. Not a tech guy like you . . . I just ride 'em.
When I test drove the Raleigh Tamland last year, the thing handled like a tank, but at speed on loose gravel and washboard, it tracked straight as an arrow. I assume that for a true gravel road, bike, that is what you would want. The tank like handling of the Tamland inspired confidence on gravel.
“Slower handling”? Turns out that despite the slacker head angle on the C5, the increased offset of the fork actually makes the trail number 1mm shorter than a typical road bike 73d head angle and 43mm offset
OK, Tom. I am confused. Not a tech guy like you . . . I just ride 'em.
When I test drove the Raleigh Tamland last year, the thing handled like a tank, but at speed on loose gravel and washboard, it tracked straight as an arrow. I assume that for a true gravel road, bike, that is what you would want. The tank like handling of the Tamland inspired confidence on gravel.
I’m guessing that he’s saying that in spite of your perception of something “handling faster” that when you look at the actual geometry of the bike your perception is wrong.
“Slower handling”? Turns out that despite the slacker head angle on the C5, the increased offset of the fork actually makes the trail number 1mm shorter than a typical road bike 73d head angle and 43mm offset
OK, Tom. I am confused. Not a tech guy like you . . . I just ride 'em.
When I test drove the Raleigh Tamland last year, the thing handled like a tank, but at speed on loose gravel and washboard, it tracked straight as an arrow. I assume that for a true gravel road, bike, that is what you would want. The tank like handling of the Tamland inspired confidence on gravel.
It probably had a REALLY long trail (what are the head angle and fork offset specs?), as is typical of current “gravel” and “endurance” bikes (and old 70s touring bikes as well
All I’m saying is that despite the slacker head angle on the new C bikes, the trail measurement (the dimension that actually affects the handling “feel” the most) is basically identical to their “pure” road bikes (due to the larger fork offset - the 2 measures, head angle and offset, work in opposite proportions to define trail). So, I wouldn’t expect it to be “slow handling” in the least…
“Slower handling”? Turns out that despite the slacker head angle on the C5, the increased offset of the fork actually makes the trail number 1mm shorter than a typical road bike 73d head angle and 43mm offset
OK, Tom. I am confused. Not a tech guy like you . . . I just ride 'em.
When I test drove the Raleigh Tamland last year, the thing handled like a tank, but at speed on loose gravel and washboard, it tracked straight as an arrow. I assume that for a true gravel road, bike, that is what you would want. The tank like handling of the Tamland inspired confidence on gravel.
It probably had a REALLY long trail (what are the head angle and fork offset specs?), as is typical of current “gravel” and “endurance” bikes (and old 70s touring bikes as well
All I’m saying is that despite the slacker head angle on the new C bikes, the trail measurement (the dimension that actually affects the handling “feel” the most) is basically identical to their “pure” road bikes (due to the larger fork offset - the 2 measures, head angle and offset, work in opposite proportions to define trail). So, I wouldn’t expect it to be “slow handling” in the least…
Well wider tires should have a larger pneumatic trail, so that could make it feel slower handling even if the rest of the geometry was the same as a bike with skinnier tires.
This is more Paris-Roubaix than CX