Advice needed on "Adventure Bikes"

[Sunyata]

@rcannon100 155168 wrote:

Salsa Warbirds

Yes. ALL the Warbirds.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13785[/ATTACH]

Also works well for cyclocross (however, if I were going to race this full time for cross instead of full time for gravel -which is what I bought it for- I would change the gearing):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13786[/ATTACH]

And… Also works well for Team 10 beer rides:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13787[/ATTACH]

[LeprosyStudyGroup]

I test rode the mid range Sequoia a while back and really really liked it, and right now it’s #1 on my list for my next bike. I’d recommend giving one a spin if you have a chance. It felt more nimble and faster than my aluminum Scott hybrid (sub30) even though it is steel and has bigger tires, so obviously the ride was smoother too. It was a superior feel to the Trek Crossrip, Scott Sub10, and Marin Muirwood which I’ve ridden too, but those are just a few more unfair comparisons really. More comparable would be the Spot Wazee that I tried but was a little scared off of by the salesman cause he kept talking about things that needed to be upgraded on it (brakes, wheels) which seems silly to me for a $2200 commuter. I’m waiting for a 2017 BadBoy to show up in the shop around the corner from me.

I’ve got to try out a few more bikes though because my test riding experience is very limited. There aren’t any Salsa vendors close enough to me for my taste, which is too bad. I guess I should try a Renegade but I’d feel like I was cramping Komorebi’s style.
JJ – when you test ride some of those models you posted, I’d like to hear your impressions!

[KayakCyndi]

@TwoWheelsDC 155158 wrote:

No one buys Viajes anymore. They’re too popular.

Oh hush, just you wait and see what I’ve got in store. Until then this can hold us over:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13789[/ATTACH]

[EasyRider]

I don’t think you can go wrong with any of the bikes mentioned.

For my taste, the Kona Rove ST and the Soma Wolverine (in XO-1 orange) look terrific, especially for tire clearance. The matte black Sequoia is too hormonal for my taste, but the 2×9 drivetrain is practical. I’m baffled by the Sequoia’s seat tube angle … 75.5 degrees for the 52cm frame? Too-steep seat tubes are a fact of life for shorter folks shopping for production bikes, but I must be missing something else.

On a sidenote, I wouldn’t leave any of the bikes mentioned here locked up on the street or at a Metro station for very long, regardless of lock quality. Especially if it has disc brakes, which say “this is an expensive bike” to would-be thieves.

[vvill]

If you are going to be locking up a lot in public places and Metro stations I would consider a cheaper or used bike. No lock is unbreakable and a shiny new bike with disc brakes is probably going to be a nice target. I had a few nicer wheelsets/tires for longer/weekend rides on my Kona Jake partly because of that.

That said I’d also look the GT Grade and Diamondback Haanjo options, although it’s actually pretty hard to go wrong with a CX/gravel/adventure bike. I’ve shopped new for them twice now and recently upgraded to a Salsa Warbird – but I got it with the express knowledge that I would not be locking it up on a street somewhere unattended.

[EasyRider]

@vvill 155205 wrote:

If you are going to be locking up a lot in public places and Metro stations I would consider a cheaper or used bike.

For sure. Cheap old mountain bikes make great budget commuters and “adventure bikes”, especially for overnight trips.

[hozn]

Not to take this thread into the weeds, but I had a question about “Adventure Bikes” and cranksets / BB shell widths, that this forum is probably well equipped to answer.

For a bike designed to clear large (40+mm) tires, I’m wondering whether the traditional road 68mm BB shell still makes sense or if it would be better to use a 73mm (MTB) BB shell width. And, as a consequence, whether it would make more sense to use one of the SRAM “wide axle cranksets” as opposed to the standard road. Talking about standard threaded BSA bottom brackets, of course. And rear 135old (disc-brake) spacing, of course.

– Does anyone know off-hand which cranksets are available in wide-axle format? I guess the “S-series” are [all??] wide axle?
– Is there any reason not to spec a 68mm BB shell and then just use (2) 2.5mm spacers to make the effective shell 73mm (and therefore fit the wide-axle cranks)? I imagine having the wider shell gives a little more room for welding the chainstays … maybe that would be the main reason? Seems like I gain a bit of flexibility, though, to run regular road cranks in that case — if the chainring clears the chainstay.

Are more of the big-tire cx/gravel bikes switching to wide axle cranksets for clearance? I thought everything was using standard road and sort of stumbled across the “wide axle” thing recently. Made me wonder, though, if this would be a much smarter idea if designing (or choosing) an adventure-bike frame.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@hozn 155208 wrote:

Not to take this thread into the weeds, but I had a question about “Adventure Bikes” and cranksets / BB shell widths, that this forum is probably well equipped to answer.

For a bike designed to clear large (40+mm) tires, I’m wondering whether the traditional road 68mm BB shell still makes sense or if it would be better to use a 73mm (MTB) BB shell width. And, as a consequence, whether it would make more sense to use one of the SRAM “wide axle cranksets” as opposed to the standard road. Talking about standard threaded BSA bottom brackets, of course. And rear 135old (disc-brake) spacing, of course.

– Does anyone know off-hand which cranksets are available in wide-axle format? I guess the “S-series” are [all??] wide axle?
– Is there any reason not to spec a 68mm BB shell and then just use (2) 2.5mm spacers to make the effective shell 73mm (and therefore fit the wide-axle cranks)? I imagine having the wider shell gives a little more room for welding the chainstays … maybe that would be the main reason? Seems like I gain a bit of flexibility, though, to run regular road cranks in that case — if the chainring clears the chainstay.

Are more of the big-tire cx/gravel bikes switching to wide axle cranksets for clearance? I thought everything was using standard road and sort of stumbled across the “wide axle” thing recently. Made me wonder, though, if this would be a much smarter idea if designing (or choosing) an adventure-bike frame.

Sounds like you’re looking for the Surly World Troller. 135mm spacing, 73mm shell, couplers….Crankset-wise, the Ogre, which is pretty much the same bike, uses a Deore crankset. Are you purposely avoiding MTB cranksets and only want a “wide” road crankset? I get the sense that you should be able to use something like Ultegra shifters with an XT or Deore crank+derailleur.

[hozn]

@TwoWheelsDC 155213 wrote:

Sounds like you’re looking for the Surly World Troller. 135mm spacing, 73mm shell, couplers….Crankset-wise, the Ogre, which is pretty much the same bike, uses a Deore crankset. Are you purposely avoiding MTB cranksets and only want a “wide” road crankset? I get the sense that you should be able to use something like Ultegra shifters with an XT or Deore crank+derailleur.

Yeah, I am just thinking that when I spec a frame, I might want to design it around a wide crankset. A MTB crankset could work, but really I want road spiders (i.e. 110mm bcd, for road-size rings), so starting with a road crankset seems wiser.

If I commit to using a wide-axle crankset, then there may be some structural benefit to allowing the BB shell to be 73mm.

It looks like having a 47.5mm chainline with the 135mm rear spacing would be good. That said, I think that is probably what I have now with a double since I’m not using an X-Sync ring.

Probably it’s not worth worrying about. Seems like sticking with a 68mm shell gives me flexibility to do either a wide-axle or a regular road crankset; I just have to make sure that if I’m running a wide-axle double crankset that I’m using an x-sync ring with inboard offset to bring in the chain line. Presumably the dedicated 1x setups have optimal 47.5mm chain line.

[EasyRider]

I think both widths have their place on this type of bike.

I like my pedals close in as possible, so I’d prefer a 68mm shell. On the other hand, as you say, a wider 73mm shell or a 68mm with spacers might help large chainrings to clear chainstays designed to fit fatter tires.

FWIW, the Elephant NFE I’m patiently waiting for has a 68mm shell, but can fit a 2.1″ wide 650b/27.5 tire. My understanding from their FAQ is that the tradeoff for getting the narrow pedal stance with such a wide tire is that the big chainring needs to be under 50t and the small ring should be 34t or smaller.

[hozn]

@EasyRider 155216 wrote:

I think both widths have their place on this type of bike.

I like my pedals close in as possible, so I’d prefer a 68mm shell. On the other hand, as you say, a wider 73mm shell or a 68mm with spacers might help large chainrings to clear chainstays designed to fit fatter tires.

FWIW, the Elephant NFE I’m patiently waiting for has a 68mm shell, but can fit a 2.1″ wide 650b/27.5 tire. My understanding from their FAQ is that the tradeoff for getting the narrow pedal stance with such a wide tire is that the big chainring needs to be under 50t and the small ring should be 34t or smaller.

Yeah, I guess the wide-axle really isn’t needed unless you want to basically run a 29″ MTB setup like a road bike. I’ve seen a number of big-clearance frames that use cnc’d yokes (not sure what these are called) instead of tubes as the chainstays approach the BB shell. I wonder if this negatively affects BB stiffness.

[Billw3]

Decided to finally get a Fargo!

[Harry Meatmotor]

@hozn 155217 wrote:

frames that use cnc’d yokes (not sure what these are called)

Chainstay yoke is correct.

[Author]

Posts