Why I Don't Like Telescopic Front Forks For Gravel Bikes

The Otso Waheela S

 Several years ago telescopic front forks for gravel bikes were introduced with the Fox AX model being the most prominent player. Although there were others in the niche as well, Fox, and now Rock Shox, with its limited travel Ruby fork, are now the main purveyors of this tech for gravel. 

I have tested and ridden the previous Fox AX model enough that I have a pretty good handle on what this idea can and cannot accomplish for the typical gravel rider. But first, let's get into why you might want this in the first place.

I'm going to summarize in the way I describe what is going on when you ride rougher roads and gravel, so I am not trying to dive into the science here too much.  Please forgive my broad brush strokes here, but I will try to give you enough to chew on that the rest will make sense. 

Gravel, unpaved roads, or even rough, broken up paved roads cause vibrations. While your tires can and do deal with some of that, some of the energy that is created by you to pedal gets transferred into energy that is known as vibrations and that has to be dissipated somehow. Most of the time this happens in your muscle tissue and that energy is turned into heat, which then has to be dealt with by other means in your body as well. You can see this happening when the muscles in your arms are shaking while riding rough grounds, and that is energy being transferred to you, which you damp out, and that is not an ideal way to handle this for the cyclist.  

So, maybe you can see how a telescopic suspension fork might prove to be an advantage here because it dissipates the energy, not you. Well, ideally it would do this. That is the goal, but these devices don't damp everything out. But you get the picture, hopefully. 

Okay, so back to these "gravel specific" telescopic fork devices. Almost universally they have been hamstrung by what is seen as the necessary geometry for gravel bicycles, which itself is derived from road cycling, and which is focused on aerodynamics and efficiency of the rider, primarily. This means, for this discussion, that a limitation on the axle to crown height of a fork, (acceptable for aero/geometry reasons) is imposed which in turn limits travel on a telescopic design to around 40-50mm of travel. Basic stuff and completely understandable for gravel bikes. 

Now, let's talk some history. Back in the early 1990's, suspension for MTB was in its infancy. The "standard" amount of travel was about 60-65mm, with Rock Shox settling in at 63mm for its famous Mag 21 model. I rode the equivalent Specialized Future Shock model, (a rebadged Mag 21, basically), and it was woefully over its head on "real" mountain bike terrain. The damping on my fork was modified to be such that it would not "blow through its travel" but still, it wasn't enough. Travel that is. This is why you cannot buy a 63mm travel MTB fork anymore. Many think 80mm is too little, and most "XC" forks now are at 100-120mm of travel. Why? Because to actually be effective, the telescopic design needs that much distance to travel to dissipate energy effectively instead of the rider doing that.

The Fox AX was overwhelmed easily by bigger hits if set up to deal effectively with normal gravel

 Okay, now back to my experience with the Waheela S and the Fox AX fork. This fork had tunability and in my experience, it could be set up in several ways. It made sense to me to have the fork working all the time to absorb as much of the vibrations as possible. This would make up for the added weight of the fork over that of a typical fork for gravel, which was anywhere from a pound to a pound and a half difference. (Depending on the rigid fork) Okay. That was great until you hit something bigger than crushed rock. Then the fork would bottom out violently with a loud "clunk" and forget about it being an advantage in Level B road ruts, pot holes, or washboard where the travel was completely overwhelmed. (Remember my MTB Future Shock here)

Now, I could have opted for the damping to only take effect on the bigger stuff and just lived with the buzz of normal gravel, but that sort of defeats the purpose of pushing around the extra weight on, what normally is, most of my rides. Notice; You may have a differing opinion here, but for me? The suspension fork is a no-go. Not as it is currently configured in 2023. 

From Rock Shox social media

Now let's talk about another issue that any suspension fork, (besides the Lauf leaf spring fork) brings to the table, and that is maintenance.

 The image to the left here is a Rock Shox posting on their social media describing what the foam rings do on their forks and how often you should service those. The foam rings help prevent dust from entering the fork's internals where dust would be detrimental to the inner workings. Now, you all know how much dust gravel riding generates, right? So, maintaining good foam rings would be even more challenging in a gravel riding scenario, one could assume. 

Rock Shox states that these foam rings need servicing after every 50 hours of riding. Now, I don't know about you, but that would be about twice a year, at least, for myself. Just roughly guessing here, but at least twice is a safe bet. 

Ever look up what suspension servicing costs at your local bike shop, (if they even do that at all)? It seems from a quick search on the internet that you could expect this to be a $75.00-$100.00 repair. That is a minimum of $150.00/yr for me, and how many days without the bike the fork is on? Maybe a couple weeks? Hard to say.

I don't know about you, but I can find better ways to spend $150.00+ bucks and however many days of downtime that it would incur to do fork maintenance. I just don't see the performance benefits of telescopic front forks for gravel bikes as being an advantage that is worth more than the initial costs, ($500.00 - $850.00) and the maintenance costs of those types of forks. Especially when I can get what I want in terms of vibration damping out of a Redshift or Cane Creek suspension stem, have no maintenance costs, and a lot less initial cash outlay. I also could opt for the venerable Lauf fork, have no maintenance costs, but yeah, it does cost $990.00! 

Verdict: For my money, the best solution here is a tire that works well and a suspension stem, like the Redshift ShockStop stem, which does a great job at the vibration reduction thing. It is also tunable for your ride style and weight. The ShockStop is also swappable from bike to bike in most cases as well, making it more versatile over the long haul for its owner. I do not need a specific "suspension compatible" gravel frame, nor are there any proprietary limitations. 

To make the telescopic fork actually work on a gravel bike, it would necessarily need to have more travel to work with to dissipate both high frequency, mid frequency, and big impact inputs. Only then would its weight penalty, cost penalty, and maintenance penalty over a suspension stem make it a consideration. However; to gain that function the fork would have to have an axle to crown height that would nullify any aerodynamic efficiencies that a gravel bike needs to have.  (Think about how a Fargo or Cutthroat with suspension would do in a headwind vs a typical gravel bike) Yes- you could do this and maybe be a happy rider, but there is no denying the physics here. And still you have all the economic and practical issues to deal with as well.

Why I Don't Like Telescopic Front Forks For Gravel Bikes

The Otso Waheela S

 Several years ago telescopic front forks for gravel bikes were introduced with the Fox AX model being the most prominent player. Although there were others in the niche as well, Fox, and now Rock Shox, with its limited travel Ruby fork, are now the main purveyors of this tech for gravel. 

I have tested and ridden the previous Fox AX model enough that I have a pretty good handle on what this idea can and cannot accomplish for the typical gravel rider. But first, let's get into why you might want this in the first place.

I'm going to summarize in the way I describe what is going on when you ride rougher roads and gravel, so I am not trying to dive into the science here too much.  Please forgive my broad brush strokes here, but I will try to give you enough to chew on that the rest will make sense. 

Gravel, unpaved roads, or even rough, broken up paved roads cause vibrations. While your tires can and do deal with some of that, some of the energy that is created by you to pedal gets transferred into energy that is known as vibrations and that has to be dissipated somehow. Most of the time this happens in your muscle tissue and that energy is turned into heat, which then has to be dealt with by other means in your body as well. You can see this happening when the muscles in your arms are shaking while riding rough grounds, and that is energy being transferred to you, which you damp out, and that is not an ideal way to handle this for the cyclist.  

So, maybe you can see how a telescopic suspension fork might prove to be an advantage here because it dissipates the energy, not you. Well, ideally it would do this. That is the goal, but these devices don't damp everything out. But you get the picture, hopefully. 

Okay, so back to these "gravel specific" telescopic fork devices. Almost universally they have been hamstrung by what is seen as the necessary geometry for gravel bicycles, which itself is derived from road cycling, and which is focused on aerodynamics and efficiency of the rider, primarily. This means, for this discussion, that a limitation on the axle to crown height of a fork, (acceptable for aero/geometry reasons) is imposed which in turn limits travel on a telescopic design to around 40-50mm of travel. Basic stuff and completely understandable for gravel bikes. 

Now, let's talk some history. Back in the early 1990's, suspension for MTB was in its infancy. The "standard" amount of travel was about 60-65mm, with Rock Shox settling in at 63mm for its famous Mag 21 model. I rode the equivalent Specialized Future Shock model, (a rebadged Mag 21, basically), and it was woefully over its head on "real" mountain bike terrain. The damping on my fork was modified to be such that it would not "blow through its travel" but still, it wasn't enough. Travel that is. This is why you cannot buy a 63mm travel MTB fork anymore. Many think 80mm is too little, and most "XC" forks now are at 100-120mm of travel. Why? Because to actually be effective, the telescopic design needs that much distance to travel to dissipate energy effectively instead of the rider doing that.

The Fox AX was overwhelmed easily by bigger hits if set up to deal effectively with normal gravel

 Okay, now back to my experience with the Waheela S and the Fox AX fork. This fork had tunability and in my experience, it could be set up in several ways. It made sense to me to have the fork working all the time to absorb as much of the vibrations as possible. This would make up for the added weight of the fork over that of a typical fork for gravel, which was anywhere from a pound to a pound and a half difference. (Depending on the rigid fork) Okay. That was great until you hit something bigger than crushed rock. Then the fork would bottom out violently with a loud "clunk" and forget about it being an advantage in Level B road ruts, pot holes, or washboard where the travel was completely overwhelmed. (Remember my MTB Future Shock here)

Now, I could have opted for the damping to only take effect on the bigger stuff and just lived with the buzz of normal gravel, but that sort of defeats the purpose of pushing around the extra weight on, what normally is, most of my rides. Notice; You may have a differing opinion here, but for me? The suspension fork is a no-go. Not as it is currently configured in 2023. 

From Rock Shox social media

Now let's talk about another issue that any suspension fork, (besides the Lauf leaf spring fork) brings to the table, and that is maintenance.

 The image to the left here is a Rock Shox posting on their social media describing what the foam rings do on their forks and how often you should service those. The foam rings help prevent dust from entering the fork's internals where dust would be detrimental to the inner workings. Now, you all know how much dust gravel riding generates, right? So, maintaining good foam rings would be even more challenging in a gravel riding scenario, one could assume. 

Rock Shox states that these foam rings need servicing after every 50 hours of riding. Now, I don't know about you, but that would be about twice a year, at least, for myself. Just roughly guessing here, but at least twice is a safe bet. 

Ever look up what suspension servicing costs at your local bike shop, (if they even do that at all)? It seems from a quick search on the internet that you could expect this to be a $75.00-$100.00 repair. That is a minimum of $150.00/yr for me, and how many days without the bike the fork is on? Maybe a couple weeks? Hard to say.

I don't know about you, but I can find better ways to spend $150.00+ bucks and however many days of downtime that it would incur to do fork maintenance. I just don't see the performance benefits of telescopic front forks for gravel bikes as being an advantage that is worth more than the initial costs, ($500.00 - $850.00) and the maintenance costs of those types of forks. Especially when I can get what I want in terms of vibration damping out of a Redshift or Cane Creek suspension stem, have no maintenance costs, and a lot less initial cash outlay. I also could opt for the venerable Lauf fork, have no maintenance costs, but yeah, it does cost $990.00! 

Verdict: For my money, the best solution here is a tire that works well and a suspension stem, like the Redshift ShockStop stem, which does a great job at the vibration reduction thing. It is also tunable for your ride style and weight. The ShockStop is also swappable from bike to bike in most cases as well, making it more versatile over the long haul for its owner. I do not need a specific "suspension compatible" gravel frame, nor are there any proprietary limitations. 

To make the telescopic fork actually work on a gravel bike, it would necessarily need to have more travel to work with to dissipate both high frequency, mid frequency, and big impact inputs. Only then would its weight penalty, cost penalty, and maintenance penalty over a suspension stem make it a consideration. However; to gain that function the fork would have to have an axle to crown height that would nullify any aerodynamic efficiencies that a gravel bike needs to have.  (Think about how a Fargo or Cutthroat with suspension would do in a headwind vs a typical gravel bike) Yes- you could do this and maybe be a happy rider, but there is no denying the physics here. And still you have all the economic and practical issues to deal with as well.

Lauf Debuts New All Road Bike

Lauf "Anywhere" bike in Green/black.

Wait! What About The Fork?

Lauf has made a name for itself in the gravel cycling circles by flooding events with that Grit fork as prizing and being sponsors of many of these same events and others as well. How they manage to sling so much product out there with (apparently) so few natural sales of the Grit fork is beyond me. But whatever.... I'm not a marketing genius. I just make observations.

My brother MG loves the True Grit complete bike offering from Lauf.. He reviewed one for RidingGravel.com here. He liked the fork and pretty much everything about the bike. It does have a high, (cyclo cross high), bottom bracket at 68mm drop, but MG said it didn't seem to affect the bike's stability. I was intrigued, but I have to admit, that Grit fork is damn ugly. Really ugly. It has no redeeming aesthetic value at all, in my opinion. This coming from a guy who gets weak in the knees when he sees a bi-plane crown fork, so take that for what it is worth.

I may not be alone though, as Lauf has introduced a new bike with a rigid fork. It's called the "Anywhere". Lauf's marketing points to a road rider as the target audience, but a road rider looking to get off the pavement. Smart decision to drop the Grit fork and focus on vibration damping from the handle bar and the insanely light carbon fork. Road traditionalists are, generally, pretty conservative with regard to aesthetics and that fork is.......ghastly. Sorry, it just is. Okay..... nuff's enuff. 

The handle bar is said to have a carbon layup that is very forgiving.

 Anyway, the Anywhere's fork has the bottle bosses that many who ran the Grit fork complained about not having. So, it may end up being a better rig for endurance and bike packers who need as much water carrying capacity as possible.

The frame is said to be the same as the True Grit's in another report I read, but that has not been confirmed. Lauf does say it takes a 45mm tire, so that is a hopeful sign. It very well may be the same frame as the True Grit since the bottom bracket drop seems similar as do the other geometry bits.

Speaking of which, let's delve into that. The geometry on this bike is odd. Lauf says riders should be on a longer front center and riders should use shorter stems, ala the current geometry du jour in the mountain biking world. Whether that plays well in the real world with folks from a road cycling background, riders which this seems to be aimed at, is unclear. I'm guessing it will be found to be kind of odd.

From my perspective, not being a road oriented rider, I like the 71° head angle and using a shorter stem doesn't bother me much. It is that high bottom bracket that raises my eyebrow. However; MG says it is no big deal. I would listen to him, so this may be something to check out. I do like the green and black one, so that would be the one I'd choose but for one glaring misstep.

They added a couple of sizes to the range and that was definitely needed. However, Lauf still refuses to support a cable driven front derailleur, and that unnecessarily limits this bike's appeal, in my opinion. I would go so far as to say that this decision was rather daft. Why cut off a significant portion of your possible sales to make a stand on 1X drive trains? Weird.

Well, if I were to get one of these, I would have to rig a front derailleur onto it or I wouldn't be interested, and it would be a cable operated one. I have a pretty good idea how I would go about it too. Anyway, I don't think I'll be having to worry about that anytime soon. There are too many other choices that do support a front derailleur without resorting to electronic, and therefore more expensive, shifting.

Lauf Debuts New All Road Bike

Lauf "Anywhere" bike in Green/black.

Wait! What About The Fork?

Lauf has made a name for itself in the gravel cycling circles by flooding events with that Grit fork as prizing and being sponsors of many of these same events and others as well. How they manage to sling so much product out there with (apparently) so few natural sales of the Grit fork is beyond me. But whatever.... I'm not a marketing genius. I just make observations.

My brother MG loves the True Grit complete bike offering from Lauf.. He reviewed one for RidingGravel.com here. He liked the fork and pretty much everything about the bike. It does have a high, (cyclo cross high), bottom bracket at 68mm drop, but MG said it didn't seem to affect the bike's stability. I was intrigued, but I have to admit, that Grit fork is damn ugly. Really ugly. It has no redeeming aesthetic value at all, in my opinion. This coming from a guy who gets weak in the knees when he sees a bi-plane crown fork, so take that for what it is worth.

I may not be alone though, as Lauf has introduced a new bike with a rigid fork. It's called the "Anywhere". Lauf's marketing points to a road rider as the target audience, but a road rider looking to get off the pavement. Smart decision to drop the Grit fork and focus on vibration damping from the handle bar and the insanely light carbon fork. Road traditionalists are, generally, pretty conservative with regard to aesthetics and that fork is.......ghastly. Sorry, it just is. Okay..... nuff's enuff. 

The handle bar is said to have a carbon layup that is very forgiving.

 Anyway, the Anywhere's fork has the bottle bosses that many who ran the Grit fork complained about not having. So, it may end up being a better rig for endurance and bike packers who need as much water carrying capacity as possible.

The frame is said to be the same as the True Grit's in another report I read, but that has not been confirmed. Lauf does say it takes a 45mm tire, so that is a hopeful sign. It very well may be the same frame as the True Grit since the bottom bracket drop seems similar as do the other geometry bits.

Speaking of which, let's delve into that. The geometry on this bike is odd. Lauf says riders should be on a longer front center and riders should use shorter stems, ala the current geometry du jour in the mountain biking world. Whether that plays well in the real world with folks from a road cycling background, riders which this seems to be aimed at, is unclear. I'm guessing it will be found to be kind of odd.

From my perspective, not being a road oriented rider, I like the 71° head angle and using a shorter stem doesn't bother me much. It is that high bottom bracket that raises my eyebrow. However; MG says it is no big deal. I would listen to him, so this may be something to check out. I do like the green and black one, so that would be the one I'd choose but for one glaring misstep.

They added a couple of sizes to the range and that was definitely needed. However, Lauf still refuses to support a cable driven front derailleur, and that unnecessarily limits this bike's appeal, in my opinion. I would go so far as to say that this decision was rather daft. Why cut off a significant portion of your possible sales to make a stand on 1X drive trains? Weird.

Well, if I were to get one of these, I would have to rig a front derailleur onto it or I wouldn't be interested, and it would be a cable operated one. I have a pretty good idea how I would go about it too. Anyway, I don't think I'll be having to worry about that anytime soon. There are too many other choices that do support a front derailleur without resorting to electronic, and therefore more expensive, shifting.

Friday News And Views

Terrene Tire's new Chunk 2.6" X 29"

Dialing Plus Back:

Over the last several years mountain bikers have been presented with an onslaught of "plus" sized tires. Mostly in the 27.5" size. The thought was that it was going to be a midway point between the traction and stability of fat bikes with a splash of lighter weight and speed that smaller tires possess. However; hard charging riders in the enduro ranks and weekend warriors running higher speeds in mountainous terrain have found that those puffy tires are just a little too forgiving. Especially in terms of sidewall stiffness. To get a tire constructed to withstand the forces that this sort of riding introduces, and keep the 2.8"-3.0" widths, the tire would be too heavy. So, the idea was to dial back the width a bit and beef up the tire casing, keeping weights in check, but also keeping some of that volume.


This new Terrene model is a good example of what the industry is moving toward in the future. In fact, 2019 will be rife with bikes with this sort of tire size and tire manufacturers are already making tires like this for the aftermarket. Oddly enough, 29+ seems to be somewhat free of this phenomena, but I think that this is due to the more slow speed applications 29+ is generally used for. (You don't see 29+ being enduro'ed, bruh!) So, I think 29+ is a bit exempt from this issue.

I find the whole 29" X 2.6" thing fascinating from another perspective, myself. That being that ten years ago many of us would have given almost anything to get our hands on a tire this size! Now they are here, along with the bikes that make them worthwhile. Pretty crazy to consider how far things have come.

Ti gravel e-bike from Russia, anyone?

It Seems Like Everyone Wants To Press The Easy Button:

Electric motors on two wheeled vehicles, (call them whatever you'd like, here they are motorcycles), have their place, I suppose. Commuting in places where the temperatures and conditions are relatively the same all year long is one place. (SoCal, Southwest, maybe), but really, not very many other places are ripe for your year-round electric motorcyclist. So, manufacturers have decided that electricity is best applied to cycling situations where physical prowess was/is the only way you were going to get from point to point on a bicycle. Mountain biking is one prime example where it seems making the experience "easier" is "okay".

But now I'm seeing "gravel electric powered rigs" being pushed, and the press release copy doesn't lie. Check this out: "They can ride like an ordinary bike and connect an electric drive when it is necessary. For example, when driving uphill or at high speed against the wind. Using a finely tuned electric drive, the cyclist can dose the load and not overload the muscles and joints. This allows you to travel much longer than you can afford on the basis of your physical shape....."In other words, "make it easier". This is what most of this electric motorcycle stuff is really all about, pressing the easy button. Anyone that says any different is either naive or in denial.

Physically disabled or disadvantaged people are one of the reasons often pushed for bikes like this, and where that truly is the case- a person would otherwise never be able to gain/regain the fitness and skill levels necessary to cycle again- I am all for this stuff. But you and I are both well aware that this market is tiny. That's not accounting for the growth of this segment. Commuting/car replacement is another semi-legitimate argument for these rigs, (I'd wager that insurance and legal licensing for some is an issue and pushes numbers up here), and that's cool, but again, that doesn't account for the numbers here. The "white elephant" in the room no one is talking about is that many folks get these because "it makes riding a bicycle easier". And really, isn't that why people flocked to automobiles in the early 20th Century? Because it was easier than riding a bicycle? (Not to mention horse riding.)

It's ludicrous to believe that these contraptions turn non-cyclists into cyclists as well. There is zero data that is reliable to show that this is happening. Human nature is to gravitate toward easier and not harder physical activities. In fact, I am still of the thought that if government cracked down and made these motorized vehicles get inspected and licensed/insured, like most other types of motorized vehicles, then the market would dry right up. This goes for ATV/Quads, golf carts, or any other unlicensed/uninsured modes of transportation. In fact, New York did crack down on these electrified two wheeled rigs, much to the outcry of fans of these electric motorcycles, and the market was severely curtailed there. These regulations have since been rescinded.

Get in GW- Maybe Be A Winner Of A Frame Set From Lauf!

Gravel Worlds To Give Away A Lauf True Grit Frameset:

Okay, let's get right to the nitty-gritty. Lauf has promised the Pirates of the Gravel Worlds team that they will be able to give away a Lauf True Grit frame set to someone who is entered into the 150 mile or 75 mile length events of Gravel Worlds. The drawing will be on August 18th during the awards ceremony for Gravel Worlds at SchillingBridge, which is also home to the start/finish of Gravel Worlds.

So, get in on Gravel Worlds by registering here. Never been to this event? Well.....let me tell ya....

There are "big deal" gravel events and that's cool. There are "dirt bag", grassroots gravel events and those are fun. Gravel Worlds is truly a balanced approach offering elements of both of those extremes. The Pirate Cycling League guys haven't ever forgotten their roots in grassroots gravel grinding, but they are also right there when it comes to "premier,"world class" gravel events. While the whole "gravel worlds" thing may be a bit pretentious, it makes sense when you come and experience the event and you understand where the Pirates are coming from.

The challenge is real at Gravel Worlds, but so are the people involved. I love this event, and what the PCL does to keep it the fun event that it is, I know, is not an easy balancing act, but they pull it off year after year. I mean, the chance to win a frame set is nice, but don't go to Gravel Worlds just for that. It is way more than that, and winner's jerseys, or whatever. Way, way more than that. Just go, and you'll understand.

It's a Goodyear tire! (Looks very MSO-ish, don't cha think?)

Goodyear Bicycle Tires Reappear:

After about a 40 plus year absence, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company has reentered the bicycle tire market place.  You've probably seen the stories already on the innergoogles about these tires.

The full story isn't really being told here, is what I am thinking. Think about it- why would Goodyear get back into bicycle tires? The marketplace is crowded, for one thing, and from what I can see here, Goodyear isn't bringing anything earth shattering in terms of technologies to bicycles. Not like Continental has with Black Chili, or Vittoria with Graphene. It's just another choice from a name that has almost no cache' with the performance cyclist segment. Now I could totally see Goodyear tires as a "mart bike" product. But for the market they seem to be after? It just seems weird to me. Maybe I just don't get it.

I'm sure they are fine tires, but I just cannot shake the feeling that this is a toe-hold to getting someplace else in terms of market share. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, it is a curious introduction, to say the least.

Okay, that's it for this week. Have a great weekend and keep the rubber side down!

Friday News And Views

Terrene Tire's new Chunk 2.6" X 29"

Dialing Plus Back:

Over the last several years mountain bikers have been presented with an onslaught of "plus" sized tires. Mostly in the 27.5" size. The thought was that it was going to be a midway point between the traction and stability of fat bikes with a splash of lighter weight and speed that smaller tires possess. However; hard charging riders in the enduro ranks and weekend warriors running higher speeds in mountainous terrain have found that those puffy tires are just a little too forgiving. Especially in terms of sidewall stiffness. To get a tire constructed to withstand the forces that this sort of riding introduces, and keep the 2.8"-3.0" widths, the tire would be too heavy. So, the idea was to dial back the width a bit and beef up the tire casing, keeping weights in check, but also keeping some of that volume.


This new Terrene model is a good example of what the industry is moving toward in the future. In fact, 2019 will be rife with bikes with this sort of tire size and tire manufacturers are already making tires like this for the aftermarket. Oddly enough, 29+ seems to be somewhat free of this phenomena, but I think that this is due to the more slow speed applications 29+ is generally used for. (You don't see 29+ being enduro'ed, bruh!) So, I think 29+ is a bit exempt from this issue.

I find the whole 29" X 2.6" thing fascinating from another perspective, myself. That being that ten years ago many of us would have given almost anything to get our hands on a tire this size! Now they are here, along with the bikes that make them worthwhile. Pretty crazy to consider how far things have come.

Ti gravel e-bike from Russia, anyone?

It Seems Like Everyone Wants To Press The Easy Button:

Electric motors on two wheeled vehicles, (call them whatever you'd like, here they are motorcycles), have their place, I suppose. Commuting in places where the temperatures and conditions are relatively the same all year long is one place. (SoCal, Southwest, maybe), but really, not very many other places are ripe for your year-round electric motorcyclist. So, manufacturers have decided that electricity is best applied to cycling situations where physical prowess was/is the only way you were going to get from point to point on a bicycle. Mountain biking is one prime example where it seems making the experience "easier" is "okay".

But now I'm seeing "gravel electric powered rigs" being pushed, and the press release copy doesn't lie. Check this out: "They can ride like an ordinary bike and connect an electric drive when it is necessary. For example, when driving uphill or at high speed against the wind. Using a finely tuned electric drive, the cyclist can dose the load and not overload the muscles and joints. This allows you to travel much longer than you can afford on the basis of your physical shape....."In other words, "make it easier". This is what most of this electric motorcycle stuff is really all about, pressing the easy button. Anyone that says any different is either naive or in denial.

Physically disabled or disadvantaged people are one of the reasons often pushed for bikes like this, and where that truly is the case- a person would otherwise never be able to gain/regain the fitness and skill levels necessary to cycle again- I am all for this stuff. But you and I are both well aware that this market is tiny. That's not accounting for the growth of this segment. Commuting/car replacement is another semi-legitimate argument for these rigs, (I'd wager that insurance and legal licensing for some is an issue and pushes numbers up here), and that's cool, but again, that doesn't account for the numbers here. The "white elephant" in the room no one is talking about is that many folks get these because "it makes riding a bicycle easier". And really, isn't that why people flocked to automobiles in the early 20th Century? Because it was easier than riding a bicycle? (Not to mention horse riding.)

It's ludicrous to believe that these contraptions turn non-cyclists into cyclists as well. There is zero data that is reliable to show that this is happening. Human nature is to gravitate toward easier and not harder physical activities. In fact, I am still of the thought that if government cracked down and made these motorized vehicles get inspected and licensed/insured, like most other types of motorized vehicles, then the market would dry right up. This goes for ATV/Quads, golf carts, or any other unlicensed/uninsured modes of transportation. In fact, New York did crack down on these electrified two wheeled rigs, much to the outcry of fans of these electric motorcycles, and the market was severely curtailed there. These regulations have since been rescinded.

Get in GW- Maybe Be A Winner Of A Frame Set From Lauf!

Gravel Worlds To Give Away A Lauf True Grit Frameset:

Okay, let's get right to the nitty-gritty. Lauf has promised the Pirates of the Gravel Worlds team that they will be able to give away a Lauf True Grit frame set to someone who is entered into the 150 mile or 75 mile length events of Gravel Worlds. The drawing will be on August 18th during the awards ceremony for Gravel Worlds at SchillingBridge, which is also home to the start/finish of Gravel Worlds.

So, get in on Gravel Worlds by registering here. Never been to this event? Well.....let me tell ya....

There are "big deal" gravel events and that's cool. There are "dirt bag", grassroots gravel events and those are fun. Gravel Worlds is truly a balanced approach offering elements of both of those extremes. The Pirate Cycling League guys haven't ever forgotten their roots in grassroots gravel grinding, but they are also right there when it comes to "premier,"world class" gravel events. While the whole "gravel worlds" thing may be a bit pretentious, it makes sense when you come and experience the event and you understand where the Pirates are coming from.

The challenge is real at Gravel Worlds, but so are the people involved. I love this event, and what the PCL does to keep it the fun event that it is, I know, is not an easy balancing act, but they pull it off year after year. I mean, the chance to win a frame set is nice, but don't go to Gravel Worlds just for that. It is way more than that, and winner's jerseys, or whatever. Way, way more than that. Just go, and you'll understand.

It's a Goodyear tire! (Looks very MSO-ish, don't cha think?)

Goodyear Bicycle Tires Reappear:

After about a 40 plus year absence, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company has reentered the bicycle tire market place.  You've probably seen the stories already on the innergoogles about these tires.

The full story isn't really being told here, is what I am thinking. Think about it- why would Goodyear get back into bicycle tires? The marketplace is crowded, for one thing, and from what I can see here, Goodyear isn't bringing anything earth shattering in terms of technologies to bicycles. Not like Continental has with Black Chili, or Vittoria with Graphene. It's just another choice from a name that has almost no cache' with the performance cyclist segment. Now I could totally see Goodyear tires as a "mart bike" product. But for the market they seem to be after? It just seems weird to me. Maybe I just don't get it.

I'm sure they are fine tires, but I just cannot shake the feeling that this is a toe-hold to getting someplace else in terms of market share. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, it is a curious introduction, to say the least.

Okay, that's it for this week. Have a great weekend and keep the rubber side down!

The Missing Linkage

I rode this fork in the 90's. Linkage forks could be a good thing, if not a tad ugly.

So, there was a bit of a hullabaloo in the mtb community about this "new" design which features a linkage fork. Actually, it isn't anything new, or revolutionary. Linkage forks have been attempted and used in mountain biking since suspension became a "thing" back in the 90's.

My friend from So Cal, Grannygear, suggested that the "newest" incarnation of  this idea as shown recently could be miniaturized and employed as a gravel going fork. Actually, even that already exists. It is called the Lauf Grit fork, which doesn't use pivots, but it uses "leaf springs" which link together the two separate structures which make up the drop out and fork legs respectively. Lauf manages to eliminate pivots and a separate spring which a more "typical" linkage fork uses by making the links the springs. It is genius, and it seems to work. The negative here is that there is zero damping. Of course, with the short travel and higher frequency of bumps a gravel going bike would see, this is less of an issue than it is for a mountain bike.

An example of the German Answer "Kilo" linkage fork.

 Let's say we want damping though, well, then you get into pivots and a separate damper unit. Okay, but why? Why would you even want to put one of these ghastly contraptions on a bicycle?

Well, I happen to have some experience riding a linkage fork. I rode an AMP fork for a few years there on a couple of different bikes. In fact, I have two of these unicorns in my basement. Anyway, they did have a very good small bump compliance and steered really well even deep into their travel. There are reasons why that was.

While there have been, and are, many different types of these beasts, what is attractive here are two things. First; You can rid yourself of stiction- the term refers to the energy required to break free from/overcome the friction of bushings and seals on a stanchion sliding in uppers/shock can in a typical cylindrical, telescopic damper unit. (Suspension fork/rear shock) Linkage forks rely solely on pivots which are much freer to move, or as in the case of the Lauf, just any input overcoming the spring force will allow the wheel to move upward.

Secondly, linkage forks can be designed to control the axle path and can be designed to have "anti-dive" characteristics when applying the brake. Think "Split Pivot" for the front wheel, if "anti-dive" doesn't make sense.

Obviously, eight pivots and a damping unit are going to be susceptible to dirt and moisture and the damage those things can incur upon bushings and bearings. That's why most linkage forks put "the business end" of things where the fork crown is. That arrangement, well......actually anywhere you put linkage, is typically not a very attractive solution but it is an effective solution for bump absorption. Much more so than a telescopic suspension fork is, and generally speaking, lighter to boot.

A linkage fork wouldn't necessarily have to look ugly. Weird? Well.....yes.

In terms of gravel riding, a long travel of the wheel isn't a desirable trait, nor is it necessary. Many forks being positioned in this category feature 30mm of travel. That isn't much and wouldn't require much of a damper unit.

So, in my estimation, a fork like the recently shown mountain bike fork, with its frame altering design, is not at all necessary. A short linkage could be designed which would not only give the right amount of travel, but be aesthetically appealing as well. It may even be able to be made to be so compact that the fork could look nearly traditional. 

But then it could be argued that we don't need a suspension device at all. In fact, many would argue that a simple, rigid fork with an adequate amount of compliance will work with a voluminous tire to provide just the right amount of wheel movement without any unnecessary complexity. I happen to be one of those folks, and I think that many companies miss the boat on this when they spec these big section, beefy looking, unforgiving carbon fiber forks.

Many folks feel that carbon forks will damp vibrations. Really? If you own one of these beefy looking carbon forks you should check this out: When your front wheel impacts a road irregularity sometime, watch the fork blades. (Being extremely conscious of where and in what situation you do this, of course.) More often than not you will see the fork blades remain in plane, but the wheel moves backward a bit. What you are witnessing, most times, is a flex of the top and down tubes of your bike, not the fork blades themselves. This is because manufacturers are deathly afraid of fork failures, the industry testing standards are too stringent, and because of the manufacturers reliance on the fairy tale that carbon forks absorb road chatter. Now some do, but most don't on gravel bikes. 

That said, a smartly designed, short travel, tunable, good looking linkage fork with damping is possible, it just hasn't been done yet. If it ever is, I'll definitely want to try it out. It may just be the missing link between rigid forks and full on, traditional style suspension forks for gravel bikes. 
 

The Missing Linkage

I rode this fork in the 90's. Linkage forks could be a good thing, if not a tad ugly.

So, there was a bit of a hullabaloo in the mtb community about this "new" design which features a linkage fork. Actually, it isn't anything new, or revolutionary. Linkage forks have been attempted and used in mountain biking since suspension became a "thing" back in the 90's.

My friend from So Cal, Grannygear, suggested that the "newest" incarnation of  this idea as shown recently could be miniaturized and employed as a gravel going fork. Actually, even that already exists. It is called the Lauf Grit fork, which doesn't use pivots, but it uses "leaf springs" which link together the two separate structures which make up the drop out and fork legs respectively. Lauf manages to eliminate pivots and a separate spring which a more "typical" linkage fork uses by making the links the springs. It is genius, and it seems to work. The negative here is that there is zero damping. Of course, with the short travel and higher frequency of bumps a gravel going bike would see, this is less of an issue than it is for a mountain bike.

An example of the German Answer "Kilo" linkage fork.

 Let's say we want damping though, well, then you get into pivots and a separate damper unit. Okay, but why? Why would you even want to put one of these ghastly contraptions on a bicycle?

Well, I happen to have some experience riding a linkage fork. I rode an AMP fork for a few years there on a couple of different bikes. In fact, I have two of these unicorns in my basement. Anyway, they did have a very good small bump compliance and steered really well even deep into their travel. There are reasons why that was.

While there have been, and are, many different types of these beasts, what is attractive here are two things. First; You can rid yourself of stiction- the term refers to the energy required to break free from/overcome the friction of bushings and seals on a stanchion sliding in uppers/shock can in a typical cylindrical, telescopic damper unit. (Suspension fork/rear shock) Linkage forks rely solely on pivots which are much freer to move, or as in the case of the Lauf, just any input overcoming the spring force will allow the wheel to move upward.

Secondly, linkage forks can be designed to control the axle path and can be designed to have "anti-dive" characteristics when applying the brake. Think "Split Pivot" for the front wheel, if "anti-dive" doesn't make sense.

Obviously, eight pivots and a damping unit are going to be susceptible to dirt and moisture and the damage those things can incur upon bushings and bearings. That's why most linkage forks put "the business end" of things where the fork crown is. That arrangement, well......actually anywhere you put linkage, is typically not a very attractive solution but it is an effective solution for bump absorption. Much more so than a telescopic suspension fork is, and generally speaking, lighter to boot.

A linkage fork wouldn't necessarily have to look ugly. Weird? Well.....yes.

In terms of gravel riding, a long travel of the wheel isn't a desirable trait, nor is it necessary. Many forks being positioned in this category feature 30mm of travel. That isn't much and wouldn't require much of a damper unit.

So, in my estimation, a fork like the recently shown mountain bike fork, with its frame altering design, is not at all necessary. A short linkage could be designed which would not only give the right amount of travel, but be aesthetically appealing as well. It may even be able to be made to be so compact that the fork could look nearly traditional. 

But then it could be argued that we don't need a suspension device at all. In fact, many would argue that a simple, rigid fork with an adequate amount of compliance will work with a voluminous tire to provide just the right amount of wheel movement without any unnecessary complexity. I happen to be one of those folks, and I think that many companies miss the boat on this when they spec these big section, beefy looking, unforgiving carbon fiber forks.

Many folks feel that carbon forks will damp vibrations. Really? If you own one of these beefy looking carbon forks you should check this out: When your front wheel impacts a road irregularity sometime, watch the fork blades. (Being extremely conscious of where and in what situation you do this, of course.) More often than not you will see the fork blades remain in plane, but the wheel moves backward a bit. What you are witnessing, most times, is a flex of the top and down tubes of your bike, not the fork blades themselves. This is because manufacturers are deathly afraid of fork failures, the industry testing standards are too stringent, and because of the manufacturers reliance on the fairy tale that carbon forks absorb road chatter. Now some do, but most don't on gravel bikes. 

That said, a smartly designed, short travel, tunable, good looking linkage fork with damping is possible, it just hasn't been done yet. If it ever is, I'll definitely want to try it out. It may just be the missing link between rigid forks and full on, traditional style suspension forks for gravel bikes. 
 

Friday News And Views

The Lauf "True Grit" gravel bike Image courtesy of Lauf.

Lauf Suspension Introduces A Gravel Bike:

I heard a story from last Spring's Dirty Kanza 200 about a ride one fellow was getting to be extricated from the course after DNF-ing. He was in a car with the Lauf Suspension company's owner. I heard nothing but good things about the man and his love for gravel events. So, it comes as no surprise to me that Lauf has a complete bike now on offer for gravel grinding.

Of course, it is carbon fiber, since it is aimed at racing, which is also cued by the saddle to bar drop you see here. It also features the second generation of the Grit gravel fork. 30mm of undamped travel are on tap here. There is one thing I really like about this bike and one thing I really do not like while there is another thing that I feel is just aesthetically wrong. (I bet you can guess the last one.)

I've been an advocate for slacker head angles and longer offsets for gravel bikes for years. Just as with mtb designs, this idea has a lot of merit for the rider doing lots of gravel travel. Lauf did use a slacker 70.5° head angle which I think is fantastic, but they stopped short of going long on the offset with a 47mm offset. I suppose they are using the slacker angle to account for a slight steepening of the head angle as the fork sinks into its travel.

I do not like the bottom bracket drop here which is right in line with Euro cyclo cross geometry at 65mm. In fact, for gravel bikes, that height is ridiculous. There really is no benefit to using a high bottom bracket for gravel bikes, and it takes away from stability at high speeds on looser gravel. I'll tell you something- I stop having interest in any bike sporting CX type BB height. It basically seems to me to be a nod to making this bike a possible CX bike choice for those buying in, but to my mind, it takes away a vital facet of stability which, in my opinion, cannot be compromised on. Your mileage may vary, but Lauf made a mistake here and the bike could have been so much better. Too bad.......

Besides, The Duke wouldn't cotton to a bike making compromises that is named "True Grit", now would he? I don't think so.

Gravel World's rig

Gettin' Ready For Worlds:

Ha! How pretentious does that sound? Like I deserve to be in a "worlds"of anything! Well, I cannot help that they call the event "Gravel Worlds", so there! They let me in, so I am going.

And.....I'm taking "Captain America". (Note- My daughter dubbed the bike thus, so I am going with it.) I've done a couple of modifications here which are note worthy. The first is adding the BodyFloat seat post from Cirrus Cycles. I used the same post on my Fargo last year to great effect. The washboard gravel they have down there around Lincoln is no match for this post.

I also added the Redshift Sports ShockStop stem to the Tamland. The stem should also reduce front end induced vibrations and over the course of 150 miles, I should feel fresher than I would without it. In my test run Thursday morning I was pretty happy with how smooth it felt. Together with the BodyFloat, the bike felt much calmer in rougher stuff that would normally have your arms shaking.

Finally, since the Tamland doesn't have an under the down tube bottle mount, I swapped over the B-Rad system from the Otso Warakin and this will allow me to have two easily reached bottles, a third on the seat tube, and one stashed inside the top tube bag. With all the chances at convenience store stops, and oasis stops, I should get by just fine with that amount of water on-board.

I'm choosing to run the excellent WTB Resolute tires for the event on my White Industries, WTB rimmed wheel set all tubeless, of course. I'll have 46T/36T X 11-36T gearing for plenty of low end and good high end ranges without running a wonky chain line. I also will be using the Ritchey Venturemax bar on this attempt at Gravel Worlds.

MONe Bikes El Continente

This Gets Me:

So, I have a few things in cycling that will always get my attention- Plate crown forks, fillet brazed construction, single speed capability, and drop bar specific, non-suspension corrected designs. I also have a fascination with 29+ wheels, as I think the possibilities of that wheel size are mostly misused and misunderstood by most companies that try to use them.

Well, I saw someone post this frame from a company called MONe Bikes on Facebook and I was like, "Dang it! There is a bike I can get behind! "  It is steel, fillet brazed, uses a plate crown fork, is a drop bar specific design with no provision for suspension, and can be set up single speed. Plus it is a 29+ wheeled rig.

Yep. I sure do like it!

Some Salsa Cycles honches asked me a couple years ago what I would do for a 10th anniversary Fargo. Well, had I seen that MONe Bikes El Continente back then, I would have just handed them the image and said, "Do that!" If I could persuade them to do it now, I would. But as the 2018 stuff will be released September 8th by Salsa, that probably will not happen. I doubt they have the hutzpah to just go with a non-sus corrected deign, for one thing, much less a specific 29+ rendering of a Fargo.

Maybe, (hopefully), I'll be wrong.

Have a great weekend and get some bicycling done!

Friday News And Views

The Lauf "True Grit" gravel bike Image courtesy of Lauf.

Lauf Suspension Introduces A Gravel Bike:

I heard a story from last Spring's Dirty Kanza 200 about a ride one fellow was getting to be extricated from the course after DNF-ing. He was in a car with the Lauf Suspension company's owner. I heard nothing but good things about the man and his love for gravel events. So, it comes as no surprise to me that Lauf has a complete bike now on offer for gravel grinding.

Of course, it is carbon fiber, since it is aimed at racing, which is also cued by the saddle to bar drop you see here. It also features the second generation of the Grit gravel fork. 30mm of undamped travel are on tap here. There is one thing I really like about this bike and one thing I really do not like while there is another thing that I feel is just aesthetically wrong. (I bet you can guess the last one.)

I've been an advocate for slacker head angles and longer offsets for gravel bikes for years. Just as with mtb designs, this idea has a lot of merit for the rider doing lots of gravel travel. Lauf did use a slacker 70.5° head angle which I think is fantastic, but they stopped short of going long on the offset with a 47mm offset. I suppose they are using the slacker angle to account for a slight steepening of the head angle as the fork sinks into its travel.

I do not like the bottom bracket drop here which is right in line with Euro cyclo cross geometry at 65mm. In fact, for gravel bikes, that height is ridiculous. There really is no benefit to using a high bottom bracket for gravel bikes, and it takes away from stability at high speeds on looser gravel. I'll tell you something- I stop having interest in any bike sporting CX type BB height. It basically seems to me to be a nod to making this bike a possible CX bike choice for those buying in, but to my mind, it takes away a vital facet of stability which, in my opinion, cannot be compromised on. Your mileage may vary, but Lauf made a mistake here and the bike could have been so much better. Too bad.......

Besides, The Duke wouldn't cotton to a bike making compromises that is named "True Grit", now would he? I don't think so.

Gravel World's rig

Gettin' Ready For Worlds:

Ha! How pretentious does that sound? Like I deserve to be in a "worlds"of anything! Well, I cannot help that they call the event "Gravel Worlds", so there! They let me in, so I am going.

And.....I'm taking "Captain America". (Note- My daughter dubbed the bike thus, so I am going with it.) I've done a couple of modifications here which are note worthy. The first is adding the BodyFloat seat post from Cirrus Cycles. I used the same post on my Fargo last year to great effect. The washboard gravel they have down there around Lincoln is no match for this post.

I also added the Redshift Sports ShockStop stem to the Tamland. The stem should also reduce front end induced vibrations and over the course of 150 miles, I should feel fresher than I would without it. In my test run Thursday morning I was pretty happy with how smooth it felt. Together with the BodyFloat, the bike felt much calmer in rougher stuff that would normally have your arms shaking.

Finally, since the Tamland doesn't have an under the down tube bottle mount, I swapped over the B-Rad system from the Otso Warakin and this will allow me to have two easily reached bottles, a third on the seat tube, and one stashed inside the top tube bag. With all the chances at convenience store stops, and oasis stops, I should get by just fine with that amount of water on-board.

I'm choosing to run the excellent WTB Resolute tires for the event on my White Industries, WTB rimmed wheel set all tubeless, of course. I'll have 46T/36T X 11-36T gearing for plenty of low end and good high end ranges without running a wonky chain line. I also will be using the Ritchey Venturemax bar on this attempt at Gravel Worlds.

MONe Bikes El Continente

This Gets Me:

So, I have a few things in cycling that will always get my attention- Plate crown forks, fillet brazed construction, single speed capability, and drop bar specific, non-suspension corrected designs. I also have a fascination with 29+ wheels, as I think the possibilities of that wheel size are mostly misused and misunderstood by most companies that try to use them.

Well, I saw someone post this frame from a company called MONe Bikes on Facebook and I was like, "Dang it! There is a bike I can get behind! "  It is steel, fillet brazed, uses a plate crown fork, is a drop bar specific design with no provision for suspension, and can be set up single speed. Plus it is a 29+ wheeled rig.

Yep. I sure do like it!

Some Salsa Cycles honches asked me a couple years ago what I would do for a 10th anniversary Fargo. Well, had I seen that MONe Bikes El Continente back then, I would have just handed them the image and said, "Do that!" If I could persuade them to do it now, I would. But as the 2018 stuff will be released September 8th by Salsa, that probably will not happen. I doubt they have the hutzpah to just go with a non-sus corrected deign, for one thing, much less a specific 29+ rendering of a Fargo.

Maybe, (hopefully), I'll be wrong.

Have a great weekend and get some bicycling done!

Friday News And Views

Pre-Order Ends Today:

Just a friendly reminder that the RidingGravel.com jersey/shorts/accessories pre-order ends today.

If you've ordered anything, the deal is supposed to be all manufactured and sent out in Mid-March, so this stuff should hit about the time that good weather comes to stay. (Hopefully!)

So this year I will have this kit, and I also pre-ordered the "army green" Pirate Cycling League kit again. I like supporting that group of guys. They've truly been some of the unsung pioneers of the gravel scene. Lincoln, Nebraska had gravel grinders before anyone knew what they were. I'm talking way back.

Anyway, new jerseys are coming, and even though they aren't wool, I will wear these when I am training or riding for fun. Of course, I'll likely fly the RidingGravel.com livery at selected events. I'd like to make a jersey based off our design for the RG jersey in wool. I may have to look into that.....

Creamy. You'll understand later.......

Another Piece Of The Puzzle:

I am continuing to gather up the parts I want to get for the old frame I have in the basement put back together again. It is a fillet brazed piece and you've seen it before here on the blog. Ten years ago is when I got it, so it seems only fitting that I resurrect it now.

The Salsa Ti Regulator post will be what this Brooks C-17 gets mounted to. I expect that the result will be one super-cushy ride. Each of these components I have ridden before, but not in combination, so I have an inkling that it should prove to be a good way to go.

I'm choosing the "Natural" version of the C-17 as it will really compliment the paint scheme of the frame and the over-all look I am trying to achieve here with this bike build. I have much of the drive train sorted already, and the last bit remaining that will be a big expense will be the wheels.

So, I will be researching my choices in the wheel department. I am looking at new hubs. I really don't need to get hubs because I have some that would work, but in this instance I think I have to "do it right". The reasoning there is because I didn't "do it right" the first time I built this up, nor the second time that I built it up. I basically hodge-podged the thing and that always bugged me. It is a custom frame, for crying out loud. It deserves a top-flite build, so that's what it is going to get.

There is a reason this visual abomination exists.

When "Stiff" Isn't What Is "Good"

I was reading about a prototype "gravel bike" that will be coming out soon. In the "blah-blah" about the bike, the comment I saw that raised a red flag for me was one referring to the proposed frame for the bike. It read as follows, ".......should help improve stiffness up front"

If you ride rough, gravel laden roads, the last thing you want is a stiffer anything up front. Unless you like getting jack-hammered into submission and think that makes you more "manly" or something. I don't know. I just don't get all these "stiffer forks", "stiffer front ends" and whatnot. Obviously, there is a missing link here with "designers of gravel bikes" and "people who actually ride" gravel bikes.

Take the ugly duckling of a fork many are flocking to to relieve themselves of vibrations. That would be the Lauf Grit model. It flies in the face of the "stiffer is better" mantra by using 30mm of undamped travel. Travel- as in suspension travel. Not stiffness. 

Whatever you may think of the Lauf, it brings up an interesting conundrum when considering what many companies are saying we need in a gravel/all road bike and what many riders are actually seeking for in a gravel/all road bike. That quality riders would be seeking is less vibrations, and I am pretty certain that a "stiffer front end" and a "stiffer fork" are not going to be bringing on the "less vibrations" feelings. Yeah........I am pretty sure about that. 

So, if you are working for a company that is seeking to bring out a model for gravel/all road riding, don't make the front end stiffer! That's the wrong direction. Make the front end more compliant, more comfortable, and hopefully, better looking than the Lauf Grit fork.

If you take my suggestions to heart, we'll be heading in the right direction. For once.......

That's all for this weekend. Stay warm, stay upright! Get out and ride if ya can.  

Friday News And Views

Pre-Order Ends Today:

Just a friendly reminder that the RidingGravel.com jersey/shorts/accessories pre-order ends today.

If you've ordered anything, the deal is supposed to be all manufactured and sent out in Mid-March, so this stuff should hit about the time that good weather comes to stay. (Hopefully!)

So this year I will have this kit, and I also pre-ordered the "army green" Pirate Cycling League kit again. I like supporting that group of guys. They've truly been some of the unsung pioneers of the gravel scene. Lincoln, Nebraska had gravel grinders before anyone knew what they were. I'm talking way back.

Anyway, new jerseys are coming, and even though they aren't wool, I will wear these when I am training or riding for fun. Of course, I'll likely fly the RidingGravel.com livery at selected events. I'd like to make a jersey based off our design for the RG jersey in wool. I may have to look into that.....

Creamy. You'll understand later.......

Another Piece Of The Puzzle:

I am continuing to gather up the parts I want to get for the old frame I have in the basement put back together again. It is a fillet brazed piece and you've seen it before here on the blog. Ten years ago is when I got it, so it seems only fitting that I resurrect it now.

The Salsa Ti Regulator post will be what this Brooks C-17 gets mounted to. I expect that the result will be one super-cushy ride. Each of these components I have ridden before, but not in combination, so I have an inkling that it should prove to be a good way to go.

I'm choosing the "Natural" version of the C-17 as it will really compliment the paint scheme of the frame and the over-all look I am trying to achieve here with this bike build. I have much of the drive train sorted already, and the last bit remaining that will be a big expense will be the wheels.

So, I will be researching my choices in the wheel department. I am looking at new hubs. I really don't need to get hubs because I have some that would work, but in this instance I think I have to "do it right". The reasoning there is because I didn't "do it right" the first time I built this up, nor the second time that I built it up. I basically hodge-podged the thing and that always bugged me. It is a custom frame, for crying out loud. It deserves a top-flite build, so that's what it is going to get.

There is a reason this visual abomination exists.

When "Stiff" Isn't What Is "Good"

I was reading about a prototype "gravel bike" that will be coming out soon. In the "blah-blah" about the bike, the comment I saw that raised a red flag for me was one referring to the proposed frame for the bike. It read as follows, ".......should help improve stiffness up front"

If you ride rough, gravel laden roads, the last thing you want is a stiffer anything up front. Unless you like getting jack-hammered into submission and think that makes you more "manly" or something. I don't know. I just don't get all these "stiffer forks", "stiffer front ends" and whatnot. Obviously, there is a missing link here with "designers of gravel bikes" and "people who actually ride" gravel bikes.

Take the ugly duckling of a fork many are flocking to to relieve themselves of vibrations. That would be the Lauf Grit model. It flies in the face of the "stiffer is better" mantra by using 30mm of undamped travel. Travel- as in suspension travel. Not stiffness. 

Whatever you may think of the Lauf, it brings up an interesting conundrum when considering what many companies are saying we need in a gravel/all road bike and what many riders are actually seeking for in a gravel/all road bike. That quality riders would be seeking is less vibrations, and I am pretty certain that a "stiffer front end" and a "stiffer fork" are not going to be bringing on the "less vibrations" feelings. Yeah........I am pretty sure about that. 

So, if you are working for a company that is seeking to bring out a model for gravel/all road riding, don't make the front end stiffer! That's the wrong direction. Make the front end more compliant, more comfortable, and hopefully, better looking than the Lauf Grit fork.

If you take my suggestions to heart, we'll be heading in the right direction. For once.......

That's all for this weekend. Stay warm, stay upright! Get out and ride if ya can.