Friday News And Views

Ridley Kanzo Fast 2,0 (Image courtesy of Belgium Cycling Factory)

Ridley Redesigns Kanzo fast For Cutting Edge Racing On Gravel:

Ridley announced yesterday a newly redesigned version of their gravel racing bike. The Kanzo Fast 2.0 has every new trend and technology for cutting edge racers onboarded with this new release. 

Stating the Kanzo Fast has tire clearance for a 700 x 58mm tire front and rear, this 1X only bike has more than enough room for most any tire choice for gravel racing currently available. 

Ridley then went to work on the aerodynamics to optimize the usage of those big tires and they managed to reduce drag in their testing over the outgoing Kanzo Fast 1.0 which was limited to 38mm tires. In fact, their numbers show a reduction of 13 watts with a rider onboard in the wind tunnel results published in the Ridley press release. 

Comments: Amazing technology and design, to be sure. However; the actual benefits of this sort of bicycle is going to be lost on most gravel riders. Ridley is designing for Pro level racers who tune their physiques and minds for racing as fast as possible. Of course, your genetics play a big part in all of this as well. Say you are built like a - you know - regular human? Yeah....this does not seem like a good idea for most of us out there. 

This image from Ridley above was specifically chosen by me to illustrate how this bicycle is supposed to be ridden. Now, I do not know you, dear reader, but I am willing to bet most of you are not the less than 1% of gravel riders who would even want to hold that position over miles of gravel. 

Which (finally) brings me to my point: All the online media went whole-hog covering this release. Why are they focusing so much on the "pointy end" of gravel bicycles and ignoring what the vast majority wants/needs in a gravel bike? No shade on Ridley or their fine take on a gravel racing bike. It's just that this is such a niche bicycle and wrong for most people. 

750D (L) and 700c tires. Image provided by Mark Slate

Wait.....It's Not Dead?

Recently while doing research watching Bikepacking.com videos, I saw a segment from the MADE Show featuring Neuhaus Metal Works and a bicycle they had at the show sporting 750D wheels.  

Also known in some circles as 30.5", the 750D wheel was developed by WTB sometime around 2022/2023 as an alternative to 700c wheels. The wheel was paired with WTB's Nano tread in a 40mm casing which was claimed to be an overall diameter of 30". WTB had thought this wheel size would, ideally, fit into some 29"er hard tail frames seamlessly and turn those into a sort of gravel biking option. 

But some builders, like Nuehaus, saw potential in this size to be a larger wheeled bicycle much more adept at fitting folks under 6 feet tall without compromising geometry. The hope Nuehaus has is that the tire selection would become more varied and include wider casings to make gravel and bike packing bikes attractive and be in a size which would fit more people than the now trendy 32"er wheels.  

Chart courtesy of ICAN

However; 750D failed to create any traction within the bicycle industry. So, it was assumed, by myself and many others, to be a "dead wheel size". Especially with the advent of 32" wheels in 2025. So, it came as a complete surprise to me that any company would be making a bicycle to fit 750D in 2026. Moreover; Nuehaus seems to have a small cache of Nano tires in 750D and seem to be advocates for  the industry to begin exploring this wheel size more. 

This may not go anywhere, but then again..... Who knows? The main point is 750D, while not 'dead', is hanging on by a thread thanks to at least one enthusiastic builder.  

Image courtesy of Velo Orange

Velo Orange Shows Upcoming New Products:

Fresh off the MADE Show, Velo Orange shared some news with its mailing list this week concerning some interesting new products in the pipeline. 

My favorite is what Velo Orange is calling the "Gravel Crankset". It is a square taper interface, silver crank which can be set up 1X/single speed or as a double chain ring crank. It utilizes the 110/74 BCD five bolt standard, so many chain rings will fit this crank. Plus Velo Orange will also be offering chain rings as well. 

Lengths for the Gravel Crankset will be 165mm, 170mm, and 175mm. The crank set will be sold "ala carte" style so you can configure the crank set any way you'd like. Velo Orange is estimating the in-stock date for this product will be this Fall. (UPDATE: Velo Orange has informed us that a 160mm option will also be available)

For details on this and the other cool upcoming stuff from Velo Orange click HERE. 

Image courtesy of Wilde Bicycle Co. 

Wilde Bicycle Co. Offering A Take On Classic Mountain Bike Design:

One of the reported hits from the MADE Show floor was Wilde Bicycle Co's take on Joe Breeze's "Breezer" Series 1 mountain bike. Widely regarded as the first production mountain bike, Joe Breeze made a handful of these for various local Marin mountain bikers in the late 1970's. 

Wilde's take on Breeze's design is one which cuts a very convincing profile but has all the modern touches you'd expect from a MTB in 2026. Things like disc brakes, Boost spaced hubs, a 1X drive train, through-axles, and electronic shifting. 

Wilde didn't just make this as a one-off. You can order your own "Pleezer", as Wilde calls the model. They say the Pleezer is not a tribute to the Breezer Series 1, but its own thing. A frame, fork, and bull-moose style handle bar can be had for $5,800.00. For more details see Wilde Bicycle Co's page for the Pleezer HERE.  

That's it for this week! Thank you for reading Guitar Ted Productions. Now get out there and pedal a bicycle around! 

Concept Bike Revisited; Part 1

How do my ideas from a decade ago stack up with what is available today?

Last Friday I brought up my "Time For A Concept Bike" series from ten years ago. This was in response to what, at that time, I saw as a need for a specific "all-road" solution for what it was we were engaged in. Gravel riding, broken up pavement riding, dirt road riding, and maybe a touch of single track/adventure bushwhacking thrown in for good measure.

We had three types of bicycles in those days: Road racing styled bikes, mountain bikes, and touring/cyclo cross bikes. There were elements of all of these bikes which I liked from my perspective, and this might be a good time to mention something regarding perspective.

It was my perspective. This "concept bike" nonsense was never meant for anything other than my own personal goals for realizing a "better tool for the job". Whether or not anyone else was going to like it, or want it, was not my concern at that time. I had ideas that I was sure would be far better than what I had available to me at that time. Now, of course, if other people happened to like the idea, well.....okay. That would be great. But make no mistake- I was going to end up with a bicycle like this regardless. That the folks out there doing what I was doing ended up- more or less- on a similar page is amazing and cool. Totally not my plan though.

Now, back to the bike choices. I liked a few things about road geometry because, well, we were riding on roads, not single track. So, while mountain bike tires with their cushy, comfortable, and stable ride were attractive, the geometry of those bikes weren't lending themselves to a ride mainly in the saddle for hours at a time. The road bikes were a bit too "racy" though, and this was/is because paved roads which are smooth, don't require any concessions to stability or comfort which you have to have on rougher, looser surfaces like gravel and sometimes dirt. Not to mention that tire clearances on road racing based bikes was severely limited. It's interesting to note now how gravel riding has actually influenced the road racing bikes of 2020, many of which can now handle a 32mm-35mm tire. This was unheard of - no, it was unthinkable - ten years ago.

Cyclo cross bikes did have adequate tire clearances in may cases, but the specific nature of their design meant that they had certain features which did not translate well to long days in the saddle. CX bikes were meant for clearing barriers, pedaling in deep ruts, and had to be able to carve tight corners at slow speeds. Plus, efficiency was king, meaning any concessions for rider comfort were secondary, or not considered into their design. I recall many "pure" CX bikes in the 90's didn't even have water bottle bosses. Those were things that just got in the way.

I used to use mountain bikes on gravel, but it wasn't completely ideal.

So, coming from the design sheet that CX does, you can see where the deficiencies were in terms of coming over to do gravel riding. Of course, it is obvious that CX bikes were widely used in the 00's during modern gravel riding's rise to popularity, but once gravel bikes hit the scene, those bikes became far less common, and now are rare to see at gravel events.

One could make an argument for touring bikes here. They have the geometry, the tire clearances, and the capability for carrying necessities, but there are a couple things about them that were not what I wanted at all. First and foremost, any touring bike worth its salt is going to be designed to handle and ride best when fully loaded. This means that when the touring bike is unladen it rides differently. Without panniers and bags full of gear, the touring bike frame becomes a stiff beast which isn't fun to ride on for very long on rougher roads. Secondly, the chain stays on touring bikes are a bit cartoonishly long so that when bags are mounted on the rear, there is clearance for legs and feet. We aren't going to be needing panniers on gravel bikes, so my take was that the chain stays could be shorter and the frame tubing could be more forgiving without having 75lbs of gear strapped to it.

What I was after was an amalgam of all of the good things from all of the above bikes. Here were my parameters which I listed back in 2010.

• 71.5 degree head angle. (Could go to 72, but we'll see.)
• 73 degree seat angle.
• 50mm offset fork (Could change)
• Low bottom bracket height. (Something around 75-80mm drop)
• Not touring length chain stays, but not cyclo-cross short either. 
• Room for 42mm tires

My friend Ben Witt also was down with this idea. Now, it has to be mentioned, and remembering that this was 2010, we also had an odd idea here which probably is as controversial today as it was ten years ago. The reasoning we wanted this odd arrangement, which I will share here in a moment, was that we had a theory, borrowed from none other than mountain bike pioneer, Joe Breeze, that the longer each frame tube could be without interruption, the more compliance it will have. This will be understood here after I explain the odd component choice.

Paul Components Racer brake (Center mount style shown)

Yep! That's right. An old design refreshed by Paul Component Engineering, the Racer Brake. Why? Well, reread that paragraph above. Disc brakes, while they are all the rage, and work well, do something to frame design that isn't adding to rider comfort. It takes it away to a degree, as a matter of fact. Look closely at any flat mount brake on the left chain stay. See how that flat mount effectively interrupts the tubing? In effect, it stiffens that tube up, which may or may not be a good thing. I'll admit that the rear flat mount is less intrusive than the old IS disc brake mount was, but in the area of fork design, it doesn't matter if the mount for the brake is flat or IS. The fork compliance suffers, and that's an area which is critical to the comfort of a rider on rougher surfaces.

So, here was the idea Ben and I had. Crazy as it may sound. We wanted to use the braze on vesion of the Racer brake because it uses mounting posts which attach closer to the fork crown, allowing the blades to have an uninterrupted tube for better compliance from the drop out to the fork crown. Plus, the braze on makes the Racer brake more responsive. Now, here's the kicker. This is where minds get twisted and people think Ben and I are crazy.

The rear Racer brake we wanted to have with the same braze on mounts, but located under the chain stay, like some older mountain bikes do.

I can hear you all now screaming at your glowing screen that this is a stupid, idiotic idea. "What about mud! That's a horrible place for a brake!" Or.....is it? Here's why we wanted to do this, if you haven't already figured it out. We wanted brake-free seat stays for the best rider comfort we could get. In fact, we were going to spec the lightest, thinnest seat stay tubing that we could. Also, with the brake mounted to the chain stay, you get massive brake response. Hardly any flex there! And a shield could be made, ala Charlie Cunninham's ideas (many examples shown here) to ward off dust and debris. With fenders, this would be even less of an issue.

So, there are the reasons and the background for the 2010 concept bike. Next time we will see where these ideas, (minus the oddball brake ideas, of course) fit into today's scene and what I would do differently now if I were to have this bike built.

Concept Bike Revisited; Part 1

How do my ideas from a decade ago stack up with what is available today?

Last Friday I brought up my "Time For A Concept Bike" series from ten years ago. This was in response to what, at that time, I saw as a need for a specific "all-road" solution for what it was we were engaged in. Gravel riding, broken up pavement riding, dirt road riding, and maybe a touch of single track/adventure bushwhacking thrown in for good measure.

We had three types of bicycles in those days: Road racing styled bikes, mountain bikes, and touring/cyclo cross bikes. There were elements of all of these bikes which I liked from my perspective, and this might be a good time to mention something regarding perspective.

It was my perspective. This "concept bike" nonsense was never meant for anything other than my own personal goals for realizing a "better tool for the job". Whether or not anyone else was going to like it, or want it, was not my concern at that time. I had ideas that I was sure would be far better than what I had available to me at that time. Now, of course, if other people happened to like the idea, well.....okay. That would be great. But make no mistake- I was going to end up with a bicycle like this regardless. That the folks out there doing what I was doing ended up- more or less- on a similar page is amazing and cool. Totally not my plan though.

Now, back to the bike choices. I liked a few things about road geometry because, well, we were riding on roads, not single track. So, while mountain bike tires with their cushy, comfortable, and stable ride were attractive, the geometry of those bikes weren't lending themselves to a ride mainly in the saddle for hours at a time. The road bikes were a bit too "racy" though, and this was/is because paved roads which are smooth, don't require any concessions to stability or comfort which you have to have on rougher, looser surfaces like gravel and sometimes dirt. Not to mention that tire clearances on road racing based bikes was severely limited. It's interesting to note now how gravel riding has actually influenced the road racing bikes of 2020, many of which can now handle a 32mm-35mm tire. This was unheard of - no, it was unthinkable - ten years ago.

Cyclo cross bikes did have adequate tire clearances in may cases, but the specific nature of their design meant that they had certain features which did not translate well to long days in the saddle. CX bikes were meant for clearing barriers, pedaling in deep ruts, and had to be able to carve tight corners at slow speeds. Plus, efficiency was king, meaning any concessions for rider comfort were secondary, or not considered into their design. I recall many "pure" CX bikes in the 90's didn't even have water bottle bosses. Those were things that just got in the way.

I used to use mountain bikes on gravel, but it wasn't completely ideal.

So, coming from the design sheet that CX does, you can see where the deficiencies were in terms of coming over to do gravel riding. Of course, it is obvious that CX bikes were widely used in the 00's during modern gravel riding's rise to popularity, but once gravel bikes hit the scene, those bikes became far less common, and now are rare to see at gravel events.

One could make an argument for touring bikes here. They have the geometry, the tire clearances, and the capability for carrying necessities, but there are a couple things about them that were not what I wanted at all. First and foremost, any touring bike worth its salt is going to be designed to handle and ride best when fully loaded. This means that when the touring bike is unladen it rides differently. Without panniers and bags full of gear, the touring bike frame becomes a stiff beast which isn't fun to ride on for very long on rougher roads. Secondly, the chain stays on touring bikes are a bit cartoonishly long so that when bags are mounted on the rear, there is clearance for legs and feet. We aren't going to be needing panniers on gravel bikes, so my take was that the chain stays could be shorter and the frame tubing could be more forgiving without having 75lbs of gear strapped to it.

What I was after was an amalgam of all of the good things from all of the above bikes. Here were my parameters which I listed back in 2010.

• 71.5 degree head angle. (Could go to 72, but we'll see.)
• 73 degree seat angle.
• 50mm offset fork (Could change)
• Low bottom bracket height. (Something around 75-80mm drop)
• Not touring length chain stays, but not cyclo-cross short either. 
• Room for 42mm tires

My friend Ben Witt also was down with this idea. Now, it has to be mentioned, and remembering that this was 2010, we also had an odd idea here which probably is as controversial today as it was ten years ago. The reasoning we wanted this odd arrangement, which I will share here in a moment, was that we had a theory, borrowed from none other than mountain bike pioneer, Joe Breeze, that the longer each frame tube could be without interruption, the more compliance it will have. This will be understood here after I explain the odd component choice.

Paul Components Racer brake (Center mount style shown)

Yep! That's right. An old design refreshed by Paul Component Engineering, the Racer Brake. Why? Well, reread that paragraph above. Disc brakes, while they are all the rage, and work well, do something to frame design that isn't adding to rider comfort. It takes it away to a degree, as a matter of fact. Look closely at any flat mount brake on the left chain stay. See how that flat mount effectively interrupts the tubing? In effect, it stiffens that tube up, which may or may not be a good thing. I'll admit that the rear flat mount is less intrusive than the old IS disc brake mount was, but in the area of fork design, it doesn't matter if the mount for the brake is flat or IS. The fork compliance suffers, and that's an area which is critical to the comfort of a rider on rougher surfaces.

So, here was the idea Ben and I had. Crazy as it may sound. We wanted to use the braze on vesion of the Racer brake because it uses mounting posts which attach closer to the fork crown, allowing the blades to have an uninterrupted tube for better compliance from the drop out to the fork crown. Plus, the braze on makes the Racer brake more responsive. Now, here's the kicker. This is where minds get twisted and people think Ben and I are crazy.

The rear Racer brake we wanted to have with the same braze on mounts, but located under the chain stay, like some older mountain bikes do.

I can hear you all now screaming at your glowing screen that this is a stupid, idiotic idea. "What about mud! That's a horrible place for a brake!" Or.....is it? Here's why we wanted to do this, if you haven't already figured it out. We wanted brake-free seat stays for the best rider comfort we could get. In fact, we were going to spec the lightest, thinnest seat stay tubing that we could. Also, with the brake mounted to the chain stay, you get massive brake response. Hardly any flex there! And a shield could be made, ala Charlie Cunninham's ideas (many examples shown here) to ward off dust and debris. With fenders, this would be even less of an issue.

So, there are the reasons and the background for the 2010 concept bike. Next time we will see where these ideas, (minus the oddball brake ideas, of course) fit into today's scene and what I would do differently now if I were to have this bike built.