N+1? Do I need one? I want one…

[consularrider]

@dkel 139416 wrote:

The voice of reason.

Who the hell knew????

Khakis?

Back to the original question, is #1 sprout in town this summer and stealing green bike again?

[hozn]

@DismalScientist 139411 wrote:

Don’t let the Freds fool you. The only real difference between an adventure bike and a cross bike is bottom bracket height. Just get racier tires.

Yeah, I agree with this too.

My cx/touring bike with slick tires is an adventure road bike.

But tires do make a huge difference here. Maybe buy/have-built a nice Grail or Aileron wheelset, and run some 28mm Schwalbe Pro One tubeless tires; that will make a bigger difference than a slightly tweaked frame geo.

And hydro brakes! (If you don’t already have hydro on there.) That is a pretty big upgrade too. But at ~$500 not exactly a cheap one. (Shimano might be cheaper.)

[Sunyata]

@DismalScientist 139411 wrote:

Don’t let the Freds fool you. The only real difference between an adventure bike and a cross bike is bottom bracket height. Just get racier tires.

I disagree. Generally speaking, gravel adventure bikes have a slightly slacker head tube angle than a cross bike. While for many folks this may not make much difference, but it does make the adventure bike a bit more stable and less “twitchy” than a cross bike.

Me personally, I would opt for the gravel bike over a cross bike. But I like bikes with a wider wheel base and slacker head tube angle.

And why I am waiting oh so very patiently for the carbon Warbirds to come back in stock.

[mstone]

@Sunyata 139422 wrote:

I disagree. Generally speaking, gravel adventure bikes have a slightly slacker head tube angle than a cross bike. While for many folks this may not make much difference, but it does make the adventure bike a bit more stable and less “twitchy” than a cross bike.

Me personally, I would opt for the gravel bike over a cross bike. But I like bikes with a wider wheel base and slacker head tube angle.

And why I am waiting oh so very patiently for the carbon Warbirds to come back in stock.

Sure, if you’re buying a new bike that’s the way to go. But is it worth replacing an almost-identical bike over? Meh, get a new one if the old one breaks. Now, moving forward, I expect that cyclocross bikes will be increasingly less interesting as general utility bikes, because the manufacturers seem to be moving the oddballs they used to dump into that category over to the gravel category. Not for any technical reason, but for marketing. So what remains in “cyclocross” will tend to be stuff actually aimed at cyclocross and make a lousy commuter. I wish that the manufacturers would have the balls to sell a category that didn’t involve racing, but they’re too invested in aspirational marketing to be that clear. (Some might argue that “bikes for middle aged folks who want to be comfortable and carry a little bit of a load for a reasonable distance and have zero interest in racing” isn’t sexy enough, but I’d love not having to guess where they filed that bike this year.)

[ian74]

@rcannon100 139409 wrote:

….So here is the question. If I saw a huge improvement moving from a commuter city bike to a CX bike ~ would I see improvement moving to an adventure / endurance bike? I mean I know I have to train harder if I ever want to play with the big kids and play hooky on Fridays. But is an adventure / endurance bike gonna help me with range and ability to ride.

I love the Green Bike. It has improved my riding ability significantly. What I love the most is good long rides. The C&O. Gap. Even, if I have to, the WOD. I want a bike I can just ride.

So if I get an adventure bike – how different would it be from a CX bike. Is it marketing fluff? Will I feel as much difference I feel between the CX and the commuter? Will I be able to ride to Pittsburgh and back?? Will I be able to beat Tim up hills??

Buy the Roadhouse! You know you want to. I want to!

[rcannon100]

@ian74 139435 wrote:

Buy the Roadhouse! You know you want to. I want to!

Carbon, Steel, or Aluminum??

[rcannon100]

@consularrider 139418 wrote:

Khakis?

Back to the original question, is #1 sprout in town this summer and stealing green bike again?

Kidv1’s bike is in the mail. Which means it is probably being delivered to a shack in Alaska right about now. And no, he does not get to steal green bike. He whines too much when he does it (oh the geometry is different blah blah blah). Besides, now Kidv1 is playing basketball.

(Actual picture of Kidv1)

[ShawnoftheDread]

So the Warbird is the new Cross Check? Soon there’ll be one on every bike rack.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ian74]

@rcannon100 139436 wrote:

Carbon, Steel, or Aluminum??

Steel!!!! Then carbon! You’re already riding aluminum, mix it up a bit. Sadly though, no rack and fender mounts on the Warbird. Womp womp.

[huskerdont]

@mstone 139426 wrote:

(Some might argue that “bikes for middle aged folks who want to be comfortable and carry a little bit of a load for a reasonable distance and have zero interest in racing” isn’t sexy enough, but I’d love not having to guess where they filed that bike this year.)

Under “Surly”?

[Steve O]

@hozn 139419 wrote:

And hydro brakes! (If you don’t already have hydro on there.)

Brakes don’t make you go faster.

[rcannon100]

@ian74 139439 wrote:

Steel!!!! Then carbon! You’re already riding aluminum, mix it up a bit. Sadly though, no rack and fender mounts on the Warbird. Womp womp.

Ugh. Yeah an agenda here is a bike to go packing with, when I want to.

[hozn]

@Steve O 139442 wrote:

Brakes don’t make you go faster.

No, but they let you go faster

[Sunyata]

@rcannon100 139443 wrote:

Ugh. Yeah an agenda here is a bike to go packing with, when I want to.

If you want to go bike packing, I highly suggest the Salsa Deadwood. The shop even has one in your size in stock, I believe. 😎

Granted, I say this as someone who has gone bike packing on my commuter and hard tail mountain bikes. You can do it on anything if you have the proper bags. But… If I had unlimited dollars, I would totally get a Deadwood (and put flat bars on it ).

[hozn]

So, just to be clear, the Kona Roadhouse is moving toward the “road” end of the spectrum and is not a gravel bike per se. Though there’s a pretty big variation in the “gravel” segment, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the Roadhouse was called a gravel bike.

I think the biggest difference here between your Kona JTS and the Roadhouse or the Warbird is that these other bikes are lower. The Roadhouse is a full 1cm lower than the JTS (bb drop is 72mm instead of 62mm). The Warbird is 8mm lower. In both cases, that’s something you’ll likely be able to feel. Will it actually make your ride faster? Probably not, but it might make it a little more confident to corner in gravel (for the Warbird; I assume you wouldn’t be able to put the big tires on the Roadhouse), probably also increases risk of pedal strike on pavement.

The head tube angle (HTA) is also a little different between these bikes, but really the JTS is right in the middle, so I’d say this isn’t going to be a huge revelation. The Roadhouse (in size 61cm, is that what you’d be riding?) has a slightly steeper head-tube at 73º. The Warbird has a slightly slacker HTA at 72º. IMO the 72.5º you have now is a great multi-surface HTA.

In other minutia, the chainstays on the Warbird are 5mm longer, so probably clears bigger tires and maybe makes ride slightly more stable. Seat tube is also more slack which means that if you’re using a zero-offset post now, you might not be able to get your saddle far enough forward for correct KOPS (“knee over pedal spindle”).

So, in my opinion what you have now is just about perfect for gravel. Maybe you’d want to have the bike sit a bit lower for more confidence, but it’s hard to imagine this making a big difference. HTA is just fine. Remember you can also slow twitchy steering with longer stems or wider bars (get those Cowchippers Pete has in 46cm width!). And certainly the higher bike is going to do better over actual rough terrain (rocks) and works well on road where you can pedal through corners with less concern over pedal strike.

If the aim is to go faster on gravel rides, tires are going to be the best investment. If you want to go faster on the road, I won’t argue that a light carbon road bike with deep wheels won’t go faster; it will. But ultimately, a big part of that is the aerodynamics / aggressive riding position, which isn’t necessarily going to be all-day comfortable. But carbon bikes can also have fantastic ride quality; I love being able to stand on the pedals and not feel the bike flex and I certainly notice the ~5-7lb weight difference on steep climbs. So, I’d say if you want to increase the diversity of your quiver, get an endurance road bike (basically a road bike with with a tall head tube and maybe disc brakes). Say 415-420mm chainstay length, 73.5º HTA, 68-70mm BB drop. I would choose carbon and build it to be lightweight. That’d be a bike that differentiates itself from the JTS. But it would suck on hooky rides; for those I’d choose the JTS.

[Author]

Posts