Friday News And Views

 USAC Gravel Nationals Moves To Minnesota:

On Wednesday it was announced on USA Cycling's site that the USAC Gravel Nationals will be held in LaCrescent, Minnesota for 2025 and 2026. 

Quoted from the announcement:

“"We are excited to bring our Gravel National Championships to La Crescent/La Crosse for 2025-2026. The region’s diverse landscape offers multiple options for developing unique courses with challenging climbs, creating a new and different experience for riders out on the course. Combining our event with their renowned annual Apple Festival offers another unique experience that our riders and their families can enjoy off the course,” said Kyle Knott, USA Cycling’s Director of National Events."

Comments: Recently it was revealed that the Robidoux Rendezvous would be on "indefinite pause" and it is not understood at this time whether the USAC Gravel Nationals move was in response to this pause or if the pause was a reaction to USAC pulling out.  Reading the tea leaves I would guess it was the former. 

The Driftless Region of Southwestern Minnesota should provide some steep climbs and harrowing descents for those chasing a Stars and Stripes jersey. It will be interesting to see how USAC develops this event. 

The venue is straight across the Mississippi River from LaCrosse, Wisconsin, so there should be plenty of infrastructure and resources for putting the event on at a level USAC will expect. Heck, it is close enough to me that I might have to go and do some live reporting on it. We will see. 

Image courtesy of Canyon Bikes

Canyon Bikes Shows New Stingr CFR Helmet:

Canyon Bikes has a new helmet with an unusual retention system. The helmet, called the Stingr CFR, boasts watt-saving aerodynamics and great cooling as well for the wearer.

The retention system, which eschews the typical Nylon straps and buckles, is called the HighBar System. It uses two arms which articulate off the main chassis of the retention system near where the rider's ears would be. These arms are micro-adjustable with a dial at the chin area. 

Canyon claims this way of retention saves watts, is cooler, and causes less wind-generated noise by the rider's ears. The helmet also utilizes MIPS technology to help protect the rider in the event of a crash.

The helmet weighs 0.6lbs and costs $299.99 USD. 

Comments: A bold move, yet one wonders why helmet manufacturers have held on to the tried and true Nylon strap system all these years. Perhaps it "just works"? Maybe, but I credit Canyon's team for trying something different. 

My concern initially from looking at this would be how this retention system would work with small faces, wider faces, and other human anomalies that may not be compatible with a rigid arm take on helmet retention. I also would have to wonder how much noise really would be reduced by these arms versus straps. I'm thinking Iowa wind doesn't care. I could be wrong...

Podcast News & More:

The recent visit I made to see Ari Andonopoulous resulted in a podcast that I have gotten some good feedback from. Ari and I talked about gravel history, mostly as it pertained to how we did things back then. We also touched upon Trans Iowa a bit. Then we talked about how much things have changed, a bit about event production, and more. In case you missed this episode, you can find it HERE. 

My vision going forward  would be to try to find more participants in the early gravel scene, and specifically from Trans Iowa, but not necessarily from the event alone. I wanted to try to get as many takes on what that time was like to preserve those memories and have a place where those facts can live on. 

But if people don't find that to be an interesting thing to listen to, I may not pursue the idea. Or I might anyway in spite of that. Ari feels folks would dig it. And what about you? Would you find this to be an interesting thing to listen to, or have curated? Let me know in the comments. Or you can e-mail me at g.ted.productions@gmail.com. 

Image courtesy of BMC Bikes.

BMC Overhauls URS Gravel Range:

BMC announced on Thursday that they had revamped the entire URS gravel bike range. The top-line URS Two has an interesting take on geometry. By the way, there is an URS One. That is the frame with the "Micro-Travel" rear end, a feature BMC have had for a few years now. 

Comments: Here we have a great example of a gravel bike being made to appeal to mountain bikers. While I feel elements of MTB geometry are interesting in gravel bikes, (slack head tube, lower bottom bracket, longer top tubes), there is one element I do not think is a good thing in a gravel bike at all. Keeping in mind that a gravel bike is really an "All-Roads" bike, not a mountain bike with drop bars. 

What I don't like is the steep seat tube angles being borrowed from MTB. This doesn't really make a road bike "better". Well, unless you use a dropper post and are scrambling up short, steep climbs on dirt. But again, a gravel bike and a drop bar MTB are two very different things, and they should be. 

Added to that is the limited (47mm in this case) tire clearance and the URS Two becomes an oddball bike. It can neither be a true MTB, (not enough tire clearance), or a good gravel riding bike, (too steep a seat tube angle). I'm sure it is okay, but at the prices people pay for such bikes, you should be getting a bike that is dialed in for one or the other thing. Not an "underbike" that is trying to be something via its geometry that it cannot truly do well. 

That's my take.

Image courtesy of Trek Bikes

Trek Announces New Checkpoint v3 and Checkmate SLR:

Trek announced the version 3 of their venerable Checkpoint bike Thursday alongside a new racing gravel bike called the Checkmate SLR. 

The new Checkpoint features all kinds of accessory mounts, tire clearance for up to 50mm tires, and the ISO rear end compliance design. 

The new Checkmate SLR differes in that it isn't as fully featured in terms of accessory mounts, and it has a narrower maximum tire clearance of 45mm. Most notably this bike features a 4mm deeper bottom bracket drop at 80mm than the Checkpoint does.

The Checkmate SLR (Image courtesy of Trek Bikes.

Trek also tightened up the rear chain stay length and steepened the seat tube angle by about one degree over the Checkpoint v3. 

Comments: Here I see a more road-focused design, which makes sense since unpaved roads are still roads, not MTB trails. I like Trek's take on things, for the most part, but I would rather see a slacker, by one degree, head tube angle and the rear end of the Checkpoint v3 on the SLR with the SLR's lower BB. 

And the frame set is 4K? Ouch! Unbelievable. I'll get a custom frame for that price, thank you very much! (In fact, I could easily buy two steel custom frames for that much!) But I am sure that Trek will sell many of these bikes since a lot of people will think that this is what they have to have to be "competitive", or something!

Thanks for reading Guitar Ted Productions! Get out there and ride those bicycles people!

Friday News And Views

Virtual Turkey Burn Reports Start Soon!

The response to last week's Virtual Turkey Burn Challenge has been surprisingly good. Thanks to everyone who sent me a note, pictures, or both. 

My plan is to start running the reports next week starting on Monday. Two will be combined together and one will run singly due to their length. 

This was a lot of fun and I hope that you all that read the reports find some inspiration and shared experiences as I roll these out next week. Tomorrow will be John Ingham's long-form paper, and Sunday will be the typical place for the GTDRI stories. So, stay tuned for Monday and see who took up the challenge and where they rode.

A Note About My Review Work:

As of today, I have brought all my reviewing work over to "Guitar Ted Productions". I won't be writing reviews for the time being anywhere else. That may change in the future. I don't know.....

I'm doing this for several reasons, and at this time, that's all I am able to say about that. I can tell you that this has been something percolating for some time and that it has been a very negative experience for the last year and a half.

So, you've likely noticed an uptick in reviews posted here and now you have some clue as to why that might be. I may designate certain days to be review days here so I still have to sort through that as I get into 2024. 

That said, I suspect that reviewing opportunities will dwindle as I am not associated with any "official outlets" at this time. That's fine with me. I've been caught up in that scene since 2006 and that's quite a long time when I think about that. So, as of now I've no idea how this will all pan out here. Things could change and maybe they won't. I just wanted to give you all some kind of notice here that this may be happening (and already is, actually) and to expect a bit more of the review stuff to continue on at least in the short term. However it all pans out, I am excited to carry onward. 

Geometry drawing courtesy of 3T

3T's New Extreme Itlalia: A Study In Geometry:

You may have noted several online purveyor's of cycling industry press releases showing off this new 3T Extreme Italia model. (3T's site on the bike is HERE) I won't get into all the technical aspects of this "aero-twenty-niner" gravel bike. It takes biggie tires and looks crazy and is uber-expensive. 

No, what I wanted to focus in on is the strange geometry choices 3T made for this bicycle. I have perused the geometry chart from 3T's site and I have some observations. You will have to scroll the page waaaaay down, but I have the chart linked HERE so you can check this out. 

First, you might note a couple things. There is no standover height listed and the largest frame size is listed as something that should fit riders from 6' to 6'5". That's a wide spread! I suspect that stand-over clearance is tough to give when you have such a wide range of tire fitment as well. Still, this is odd to leave out. Especially for a frame/fork that costs over 5G. 

Elsewhere in their marketing spiel 3T claims to be using an extreme fork offset of 61mm - 73mm coupled with what 3T says is a "slightly slacker headtube angle". So, I read that before I got to the geometry chart, and I was left thinking, "Wow! They must have gone with something far less than a 70° angle there." Nope.... Their head angles are relatively conservative, in terms of a gravel bike, using 70+ degree angles for the three largest sizes with only the smallest size under 70°. Make no mistake, the smaller sizes are slacker because they are trying to avoid toe-overlap. Period. 

The offset then becomes concerning. That's going to result in a pretty low-ish trail figure, which on the largest size with a 72° head tube angle might be pretty twitchy. Perhaps 3T is making concessions for a loaded front end here in terms of bikepacking weight, but that is not specifically spelled out, and unloaded, this would make for a bike that I wouldn't be all that interested in, in terms of potential handling issues. And for its price, I'm certainly not going to be interested in taking chances. 

The bottom bracket drop is also fairly conservative, again owing perhaps to the thought that this bike might end up being used more in a MTB-light application. But I would point out that many similarly purposed bikes have deeper bottom bracket drops for the bigger tires meant for those bikes. 

In the end, I find the asking price and the design to be a bit of a negative. Other concepts of the bike I have no issues with, but I do think mixing aero road, gravel, and MTB is s stew that is perhaps best not eaten.

New "Shorty" Stem For The Gryphon Mk3:

I am testing out those new Tumbleweed Big Dipper Bars and when I initially set the Singular Gryphon Mk3 up with those handlebars I realized that the rear cable run to the brake was on the "tight" side. 

I was using an 80mm long stem so I figured since that stretched me out a wee bit too much on that bike that a shorter stem might kill two birds at once. So, I ordered a 60mm Whisky No. 7 silver stem.

I received the stem this week and stuck it on the Gryphon. A test ride with a front bag loaded down showed that it was fine, in terms of handling, the brake strain is relieved somewhat, ( but still not 100% gone), and my position on the bike seems much improved. 

I guess I could live with the results, but that cable being a touch too short yet still bugs me. I could replace the entire full run housing and cable, or..... 

I had an idea as I was working on this post. Stay tuned and we will see if it worked or not. 

It May Not Be Much, But It Is A Podcast!

Since I host my podcast on Spotify, I get a "Spotify Wrapped" overview of the last year, (December doesn't count?), and a lot of stats to go along with that. 

Of course, since the "Guitar Ted Podcast " essentially started at the beginning of 2023, all the stat lines look impressive. But really, this isn't a big deal. The podcast, that is. I mean, we don't move the needle in comparison to many other sports and cycling related pods. 

But the point I wanted to make is that some of you do listen,and for that, I am very grateful. With all the media blasting out all around us, the fact that some folks choose to listen to myself and N.Y. Roll have banter is amazing. It really is. 

So, the numbers are the numbers. You can laugh, scoff, or make fun all you want. I don't do the podcast for "numbers". I do the podcast because N.Y. Roll and I have fun doing it. When that ceases to be the case, or if some other unforeseen thing comes along, we may stop doing recordings, no matter what the numbers are, good or bad. 

Again, if you listen, that's awesome and I appreciate you very much for doing so. The latest podcast, which is an "end-of-year" retrospective, can be listened to HERE or wherever you get your podcasts from.

That's it for this week! Thanks for reading Guitar Ted Productions.

A Search For "Gravel" Geometry": Part 4 - Inspired By History, Still "New"

 Today I will wrap up this series and in this post I am going to show what the bike design is and why this idea I started out with has garnered interest with a few folks.

But first, let's review:

Purpose: The idea is to see what, or even if, any past efforts in bicycle design have any bearings on where we are at with geometry regarding"gravel bikes" today.

Okay, and with that, let's keep in mind that the ideas that were presented in the page I shared this past week are what this post is mainly based on.  That page, which featured a bike design shared by Willie Honeman, an accomplished track racer and frame builder, is the genesis for this whole series. Willie is someone who I believe exemplifies the ideas which influenced my thoughts on gravel bike design, and in turn, ideas which have impacted the cycling industry in terms of gravel bike design. 

 Many of Willie Honeman's ideas were congruent with gravel bike design as I saw it.  I should also point out that master frame builder, Steve Garro was the one who posted about this design on his Facebook page. Steve had similar thoughts about this design being an influence on current gravel bike design. You can see my original thoughts about the bike HERE from an April 2023 blog post. 

Willie Honeman's Brennan Track bike from 1932 Image courtesy of "Classic Cycles")

  

Willie's championship winning sprint bike was built by John "Pop" Brennan, according to this information I found. Read that link's information and you will learn that Willie Honeman was the first cyclist to wear the Stars and Stripes jersey, that he advocated for helmet usage by his fellow racers, and that he rode the bike, imaged above, for racing, training, and for recreational pursuits. 

That bike is also the same that was detailed in my last post which showed the original plans for the bike. So, this gives a little better context for that drawing.

There are a lot of things about this bike that would work for me today, but the thought is to take the basic foundation here and modernize it for today's components and for me, obviously, because I would need a longer seat tube and head tube than Willie did. 

But the basics like head tube angle, offset, bottom bracket drop, and chain stay length is all easily transferable. How one approaches the extra long top tube/short stem factor in this design scaled up for my size would be the challenge here. (Yes! Short stem, long top tube, slack and "low' are NOT a new thing.) And before anyone asks, yes. This would be a single speed gravel bike.

But some things would be smart to change. Modern wheels use disc brakes and drop-outs are through axle now. Bottom bracket standards, fork length to accommodate bigger tires, and even that fork's material are all up for consideration. Do you steepen that seat tube? What about the top tube? How wide a tire are we talking about. Several salient points here that need clearing up. And then there is this....

Do I already have "that bike"?

My Twin Six Standard Rando frame has very similar numbers to the Honeman bike built by Pop Brennan. The bottom bracket drop, head tube angle, and chain stay length are all almost identical. The seat tube angle is different though. So, other than that, the Standard Rando is steel, does single speed, (although now mine is set up geared), and it is likely "close enough" to the 1930's track bike design that making a custom one-off might seem, well......unnecessary. 

Plus, the T-6 is a modernized bike with all the typical standards of a 21st century bicycle for gravel. No need to re-invent the wheel, as it were, unless there is a compelling reason to pursue this idea. Like maybe sticking to the original plans for a bike like this more closely. Otherwise I am hard pressed to see what I would learn from having to go through a custom bike build. 

Now, I am not saying I will get a custom done or not, but if I do, the working name would be "The Honeman Sprinter", since that is the inspiration for this bike.

Conclusions: Can we say with any certainty that a bike like the Brennan made for Willie Honeman influenced gravel bike design? Perhaps the answer is no if we are looking for a definitive, direct lineage, but the answer is "yes" in a general sense. Bicycles in the Pre-WWII era were made to be ridden on roads that, at that time, were still mostly unpaved. Riders that bought these expensive, custom made machines rode them all over. I read one account of a professional track rider that was from Davenport, Iowa that rode to a national event held in Chicago, raced his bike, and rode back to Davenport again. So it would seem that many of these track racing designs also had to work off-track as well, making them a forerunner of gravel bikes, in a way. 

That I found inspiration in these older designs, which I used to relate my design ideas to Raleigh in 2012, which resulted in the Tamland series of bicycles, is another facet which speaks to the relevance that these track bikes and road bikes had from the pre-WWII era as well. So, does gravel bike design owe anything to old designs like the Brennan? Probably. Yes. 

Another question: Will I have this custom single speed gravel bike built? Maybe.... Again, I don't need another gravel bike. I have the T-6 which, for all intents and purposes, is 80% of what a modernized old Brennan would be. So, why bother? (Read a review on the Standard Rando HERE)

Well, if the design sticks more to the original, (in particular, the slack seat tube), then perhaps it would be an interesting experiment and it probably would be a fun bike regardless. But that said, things like this cost money, I would need help getting parts and pieces lined up, and maybe to make it all make sense, I'd need a goal. (There is one that would make sense, but no need to go there unless the bike comes first.) 

That all said, I'm not now feeling a great need to pursue the custom Honeman Sprinter idea. Even though it might be fun to see how that design would stack up against today's bikes, I am more than sure I can tell you, at least from my viewpoint, how it would work,because of the Standard Rando. 

Again, this is all my opinion, and I'm not doing anything in this series but espousing my views on what a gravel bike should be like, for myself. So, contrasting opinions will abound, but just go dig into so-called gravel bike geometry charts and you'll see that the Honeman, the Twin Six, the Raleigh Tamland, and many others are pretty closely related. And in my opinion, that is significant from a historical point of view. Gravel bikes may be relatively "new", but I think it is safe to say that they are indeed inspired by the past bicycles that came before them. 

That brings this series to a conclusion, for now. Thanks for reading Guitar Ted Productions!

A Search For "Gravel" Geometry": Part 2 - Myths & Traditions

Delving into the world of geometry for any bicycle is a lesson in how various opinions are held in high regard, how traditions affect reality, and how reality is often nothing like what anyone thinks it is. 

Okay, so do the science. Check out the data! That should square things up, right? Right? Well, considering that humans ride bicycles, and not robots, you have one gigantic, monstrous wildcard in the equation. Consider this quote I came across in my research from an article on chriskvalecycles.com page speaking about a research paper done by a couple of scientists that was being discussed there concerning geometry and bicycles:

 "However, they do stress the extremely important point that the person-machine relationship is so complex and so variable that mathematical models and absolute statements are, at very best, only a rough guide."

"Only a rough guide"? Yep! So....how do we know anything for certain then? Great question. It just is hard to get through the cloudy, vagueness introduced by us humans. Consider confirmation bias, beliefs in personalities, hearsay, and myths passed down as "truth". Most of which are things based on theories that haven't been thoroughly vetted or are not considering this "human factor" at all. 

Speaking of which, I ran a fork test in 2008 where I tried to keep everything the same except the fork. I accounted for handlebar positioning, bottom bracket height, saddle to handle bar height, and more. I ran suspension forks and rigid forks. 

I tried this 430 A/C, 38mm offset fork and 7 others on the same 29"er.

The main thing I learned there was that the human element is a powerful one. I learned that within a few rides I was able to make almost every fork work the way I wanted them to. Differences? Yes, there were, but adaption? Yes. Totally. 

And every set up has to be seen as a system, which is something I've held to be very important for years. One measurement, one change, affects everything. You cannot point at "head angle" or whatever, and say "that's going to be "this" in terms of handling. 

Then there seems to be some widely held "truths" about geometry that may have been originally thought out not because the old designers were seeking a handling trait, per se', but as a way around a materials limitation. Take, for instance, the popular "low trail" (trail figure is a measure of front end geometry) designs popularized by old French "constructuer" builders. A site I discovered during my research claims that back in the day, drop bar handlebars had a longer reach. This was due to limitations in manipulating the handlebar stock, which forced these bars to have a long reach, which in turn affected overall reach for a rider. So designers had to shorten the top tubes accordingly. This led to massive toe overlap, so the answer was, according to this source, low trail geometry. Low trail geometry features a longer fork offset which pushes the front wheel out front, further away from the rider.

Now that source's claims can be debated. But the argument put forth there is plausible, and it illustrates how a solution to a problem becomes religion after decades of use and lore are layered on top. Now the common ability to bend and shape materials helps illustrate why things like longer top tubes, shorty stems, and slacker head tube angles are becoming more popular now. This stuff isn't "new" though. In fact, it was figured out a century ago. It's just that it took a revolution in thinking about geometry, instead of just sticking to the ordinary ways, which were partially driven by traditions, but also by ease of manufacturing concerns. 

The staid old ways of thinking were entrenched in the industry for decades, until mountain bikes came along, that is, and in particular, the 29" wheel, which kind of blew the doors open on design which had been closed for so long. (Read about the story of where 29"ers came from HERE)  Old ways were rediscovered that had been forgotten, and traditional thinking and ease of manufacturing had less of a hold on bicycle design. Now is "The Golden Age" of cycling. You've had choices brought forth in the last 20+ years that were unheard of before 2010 and are now commonplace. 

Next: New freedom to dream up a "new" kind of bike. But is it really new?

A Search For "Gravel" Geometry: Part 1 - Sifting Through The Scans Of Time

 Throughout the years that this blog has existed I have done periodic forays into what geometry for certain bikes is, should be, what it was, and where it all may have come from to begin with. (Example here) This has always been one of my minor "nerd" passions and well.....here we go again! 

Recently a proposal for a certain niche build from an up-and-coming builder in California by a certain individual who stands to have an interest in writing up the story was put forth to me. In return for my participation, ($$$) I would end up, at the least, with a frame set. Okay, so that is where this all is generating from.

That propelled me into digging, once again, into the sands - or scans - of time. Internet information is not stagnant. What was available to look up in 2005, when I started this blog, is a pittance to what is available to all of us today. So, I was a bit surprised to find a LOT more information than I had a decade or more ago. 

Purpose: The idea is to see what, or even if, any past efforts in bicycle design have any bearings on where we are at with geometry regarding"gravel bikes" today. This has bearings on what this proposed project is, and eventually I'll bring that up which should bring this series full circle. But before we get there....

History: First of all, it is paramount to this discussion to understand a few things. One - Almost every technical and design attribute for modern day bicycles was conceived of in the late 1890's/early 1900's. The technology developed for bicycling spawned a think-tank that would rival anything assembled today in terms of talent and firepower in intelligence terms. All the science and math behind bicycle technology was so potent that it spawned the air industry, automobile industry, and the motorcycle industry, to name a few things. 

This resulted in ideas that, theoretically would work, but that couldn't be fully realized due to limitations in materials technology. That said, our dive isn't about soft-tail design, gear changers, or about tires, but it will concern, mainly, what the angles were for the tubes which were brazed up to make those earlier bicycles. 

Fashion & Marketing: Yes, even back then there was marketing and due to what was popular, influences infiltrated design and what came out for the public to ride. So, a lot of what we may think of as "the purity of the sport" from antiquity may actually just be marketing what was then popular. For instance, just as we had "The Lance Effect" in the 2000's, from the turn of the 19th Century to the 20th Century riders had "The Track Effect". Madison Square Garden exists because of track racing. Track racing was as big as the NFL is now in the early 1900's. There was betting, spectators galore, and lots of money to be made. So, all the young bicycle riders wanted to be track racers. Guess what kinds of bikes were sold to them? 

But that wasn't all. Even old traditions carried over affected design, and in particular, it was the old "high-wheelers", or penny farthings, that had a big effect upon design of the newer "safety bikes" well into the 20th Century. This most affected seat tube angles as the slacker angles put riders into similar positions for pedaling as they would have had on high wheeled bikes. 

And the aforementioned materials technology deficits also dictated some of what we see in terms of geometry and components. For instance, geometry had to account for the fact that steel and aluminum forming wasn't as well understood as it is today, so things like handlebars were limited in shape and therefore that affected geometry. That's just one facet. There were many others.

Next: Myths & Traditions

Let's Talk About Geometry Again

Diagram showing what "trail" is on a bicycle

With the brief return of Winter here in Iowa and elsewhere in the Mid-West, there wasn't much riding being done. So, what better time is there to grab a hot cup of coffee or tea and ruminate on the finer details of bicycle design? 

So, with that said, here are some reasons for this post today to start out with. I have written a LOT about bicycle geometry in the past, specifically concerning geometry for gravel road/rough road riding. This all came out of a research I did in the late 2000's into what older ideas were for road bikes in terms of geometry. Scouring the internet for old ideas led me to thinking more critically about what would make my perfect gravel bike. Which leads me to....

This originally was all about what "I" wanted. I was not ever thinking about these geometry ideas for anyone else other than myself and a potential custom designed gravel going bike. Context: At the time I was using a Surly Karate Monkey as my main gravel bike. I knew it could be refined and made better to do what it was that I was falling in love with doing, namely "gravel grinding". Of course, there were others doing this as well, but at that time there were no options specifically designed for gravel, and the hope that there ever would be was not high. In fact, there may have been no notion at all that the cycling industry would ever take notice and do for us what they have done. So, keeping in mind that this was concerning my take for myself, and that any ideas that this "gravel thing" would take root were not very hopeful, I came up with a refined idea for what I thought would make a good gravel bike design on my own. 

The Raleigh Tamland Two ended up being the bike I would have designed.

Briefly I will then just say that due to a set of circumstances beginning in 2012 things turned out so that my design didn't have to be custom made. It ended up being (mostly) realized in the production of the 2014 Raleigh Tamland Two bike, which I then purchased. 

While it is true that the Tamland fit the mold of what I was after in a gravel bike, it was still based upon "my ideal" and not necessarily what a lot of other folks would think was, or would think of in the future as, "Gravel Bike Geometry". 

Much to my surprise then, the "gravel bike", as we have come to know it now, is pretty much an approximation of these ideas I put together back in the early "twenty-teens". Sure, there are variants, but the meat of what is used as geometry now for these bikes is pretty much based upon the same ideas I found back then. Note- I did not say, or ever would say "I invented gravel bike geometry". That would be preposterous. So, let's not be confused. I mined history for ideas that others came up with and by coincidence or influence, I do not know which, the cycling industry did a similar thing as well.

Now, on to something recent that appeared on social media that is relevant to this discussion....

Courtesy of Steve Garro's Facebook page

The above image, courtesy of Steve Garro's Facebook page, (he of Coconino Cycles), shows a page from a 1946 edition of "Bicycling" discussing the geometry and technical features of a frame from a "Willie Honeman", who was a three-time National Champion track cyclist and, apparently, he dabbled in frame making in the 1940's. This design being discussed is one that Mr. Honeman would have ridden on the board tracks in the late 1920's and early 1930's, but aparently was still relevant in the 40's as well.

You'll note, amongst other things, the odd nomenclature for frame parts, but what I wanted to draw our attention to was the geometry. This bike is what could be considered prototypical gravel bike geometry. Note- This is a board track bike design! In the notes on the frame, you'll see a recommendation for a slacker head tube angle for "a Road Machine to absorb some of the vibrations caused by bumpy roads." That angle range being listed as "20 or 22 degrees", which may be confusing until you realize that this is looking at the angle from 90° perpendicular to the ground to the centerline of the steer tube. The vertical line being "zero" degrees and adding degrees until you get to the steer tube angle. Reading it as we do now this would be 70° - 68°! 

A deep bottom bracket drop is also specified (Hangar drop) which turns out to be approximately 75mm. The chain stay is specified at 17" which is a bit more than 431mm. So, as I looked at this, I realized that these numbers, besides the surprisingly slack head angles recommended, were right in the same pocket I was thinking about back in 2010. 

Of course, one could argue that materials technology was part of the reason for those odd geometry numbers.  Also, you might say that this is a hold-over from earlier thoughts on rough road riding and track bikes, but here I'd have to think that while traditions may have been part of these choices, I would also assume that they did actually work in real-world applications. If they didn't, well one could assume that we'd have never heard about bikes like this. 

My main purpose here is to show that these ideas we are plumbing for gravel bikes today have deeper roots than we may have thought. This particular design offered by Mr. Honeman being but one example. 

I hope you find this as interesting as I did. I think it is fascinating to see that many ideas we have now have their roots in the past. We only refine them minutely and when materials technologies allow for things to actually be made that were designed and thought of back in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

Let's Talk About Geometry Again

Diagram showing what "trail" is on a bicycle

With the brief return of Winter here in Iowa and elsewhere in the Mid-West, there wasn't much riding being done. So, what better time is there to grab a hot cup of coffee or tea and ruminate on the finer details of bicycle design? 

So, with that said, here are some reasons for this post today to start out with. I have written a LOT about bicycle geometry in the past, specifically concerning geometry for gravel road/rough road riding. This all came out of a research I did in the late 2000's into what older ideas were for road bikes in terms of geometry. Scouring the internet for old ideas led me to thinking more critically about what would make my perfect gravel bike. Which leads me to....

This originally was all about what "I" wanted. I was not ever thinking about these geometry ideas for anyone else other than myself and a potential custom designed gravel going bike. Context: At the time I was using a Surly Karate Monkey as my main gravel bike. I knew it could be refined and made better to do what it was that I was falling in love with doing, namely "gravel grinding". Of course, there were others doing this as well, but at that time there were no options specifically designed for gravel, and the hope that there ever would be was not high. In fact, there may have been no notion at all that the cycling industry would ever take notice and do for us what they have done. So, keeping in mind that this was concerning my take for myself, and that any ideas that this "gravel thing" would take root were not very hopeful, I came up with a refined idea for what I thought would make a good gravel bike design on my own. 

The Raleigh Tamland Two ended up being the bike I would have designed.

Briefly I will then just say that due to a set of circumstances beginning in 2012 things turned out so that my design didn't have to be custom made. It ended up being (mostly) realized in the production of the 2014 Raleigh Tamland Two bike, which I then purchased. 

While it is true that the Tamland fit the mold of what I was after in a gravel bike, it was still based upon "my ideal" and not necessarily what a lot of other folks would think was, or would think of in the future as, "Gravel Bike Geometry". 

Much to my surprise then, the "gravel bike", as we have come to know it now, is pretty much an approximation of these ideas I put together back in the early "twenty-teens". Sure, there are variants, but the meat of what is used as geometry now for these bikes is pretty much based upon the same ideas I found back then. Note- I did not say, or ever would say "I invented gravel bike geometry". That would be preposterous. So, let's not be confused. I mined history for ideas that others came up with and by coincidence or influence, I do not know which, the cycling industry did a similar thing as well.

Now, on to something recent that appeared on social media that is relevant to this discussion....

Courtesy of Steve Garro's Facebook page

The above image, courtesy of Steve Garro's Facebook page, (he of Coconino Cycles), shows a page from a 1946 edition of "Bicycling" discussing the geometry and technical features of a frame from a "Willie Honeman", who was a three-time National Champion track cyclist and, apparently, he dabbled in frame making in the 1940's. This design being discussed is one that Mr. Honeman would have ridden on the board tracks in the late 1920's and early 1930's, but aparently was still relevant in the 40's as well.

You'll note, amongst other things, the odd nomenclature for frame parts, but what I wanted to draw our attention to was the geometry. This bike is what could be considered prototypical gravel bike geometry. Note- This is a board track bike design! In the notes on the frame, you'll see a recommendation for a slacker head tube angle for "a Road Machine to absorb some of the vibrations caused by bumpy roads." That angle range being listed as "20 or 22 degrees", which may be confusing until you realize that this is looking at the angle from 90° perpendicular to the ground to the centerline of the steer tube. The vertical line being "zero" degrees and adding degrees until you get to the steer tube angle. Reading it as we do now this would be 70° - 68°! 

A deep bottom bracket drop is also specified (Hangar drop) which turns out to be approximately 75mm. The chain stay is specified at 17" which is a bit more than 431mm. So, as I looked at this, I realized that these numbers, besides the surprisingly slack head angles recommended, were right in the same pocket I was thinking about back in 2010. 

Of course, one could argue that materials technology was part of the reason for those odd geometry numbers.  Also, you might say that this is a hold-over from earlier thoughts on rough road riding and track bikes, but here I'd have to think that while traditions may have been part of these choices, I would also assume that they did actually work in real-world applications. If they didn't, well one could assume that we'd have never heard about bikes like this. 

My main purpose here is to show that these ideas we are plumbing for gravel bikes today have deeper roots than we may have thought. This particular design offered by Mr. Honeman being but one example. 

I hope you find this as interesting as I did. I think it is fascinating to see that many ideas we have now have their roots in the past. We only refine them minutely and when materials technologies allow for things to actually be made that were designed and thought of back in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

Friday News And Views

 The Ships Are Coming In:

I have mentioned before in this space that when the inventory hit the warehouses that we'd go from zero to overstocked in a big hurry. Well, it has started already. 

I have seen several sales promotions recently within the last two weeks, and I bet there will be many more on the heels of this starting now. (Ditto for other segments in the economy)

The image here is all taken from promotions I have seen online. 15% - 30% off is not uncommon to see, and I suspect that deals will be available throughout the Winter as bicycle season wanes in this hemisphere. The big question is, "Will there be any takers?" Inflation is eating up discretionary income at an alarming pace. Given that utilities and necessities to make it through Winter will likely be somewhat of a burden on many, I would be surprised if sales were anything but tepid. 

But I could be proven wrong there. Time will tell all.......

Apologies for making you read upside down!

New WTB Vulpine 700 X 40mm Tires;

 I guess no one noticed that the tire I used to demonstrate the tubeless mounting techniques I posted earlier this week was a new WTB Vulpine 700 X 40mm tire*. Well, I guess I slipped that one by y'all right out in the open! 

Anyway, yeah..... New tire day again and I always am excited to see how tires will turn out once they are mounted. The anticipation of the process, the outcome once I am done, and then that first ride. Good stuff! 

But I have to say that I was a bit deflated, (sorry for that pun!), by the tire as it was evident to me at the onset that the casing didn't look like a 40mm casing. It's funny when your mind and eyes can hone in on details after you've done something so many times. I just knew this tire would be a bit narrow, and once I had it on, (at 40psi, by the way), I was saddened to find that my suspicions were correct. This wasn't a 40mm tire. 

Now with a few days under the tires and a couple of short rides, one tire measures just shy of 40mm and the other just shy of 39mm. Ehhhh!  Yeah, close, but not quite. Quibbling over a millimeter? Yes. And what is more, the promise was 40mm. And maybe these will get there. We'll see. 

At least they are fast, supple, and smooth. I liked the 36mm Vulpines, and these should be a bit better. Still, I'd love a wider one of these. (*Standard Disclaimer)   

The new Litespeed Ultimate G2 frame Image courtesy of Litespeed

Excuse Me- GT Bikes Would Like To Have  A Word With You:

Litespeed made a splash this week with the introduction of a titanium ('natch!) frame which they dubbed the "Ultimate G2". A new platform which they claim is "..a bike that accelerated and climbed with the targeted stiffness found in premium carbon gravel bikes.."

Whoa! Big claim there. So what did they do? Well, Litespeed says that; "It starts with the new visual signature of the Ultimate G2: Interlock Dropped Seatstays." What's that mean? Well, just think of GT Bikes' "Triple Triangle" design and you'll be there. That's really all this is. Also- I am not claiming GT developed the design first. I realize that others did a similar thing as well previous to GT Bikes. That said, it was GT that made hay with this and put the design on the map.

Look familiar? Image courtesy of Litespeed

Comments: So, how does a triple triangle thing make a bike stiffer? It effectively shortens the top tube and seat tube, thereby making those lengths of tubing less flexible than they would have been. 

This should make the rider 'feel' faster because the tubing will be less effective at absorbing vibrations than it would have been without the triple triangle deal, and let's face it- what a rider feels has a lot more to do with 'speed' than the stopwatch does. (Cue high tire pressure believers here)

Not only does this new Litespeed bike have the ol' Triple Triangle' signature here, but they have some pretty backward geometry going on as well. Larger sizes have less than 70mm of bottom bracket drop, a 72° head tube angle, and 50mm of fork offset. Wow! Talk about a 2015 gravel bike design, this is it in spades. 

But it will sell and some folks will think it is the bee's knees. Ride on then.....

British Gravel Ride Book:

I know that this has been out a while now, but I just came across it on social media of late and thought I'd get a few opinions from my U.K. readers on what they thought about this. 

So, what does the "greatest gravel rides in the U.K." even mean? How do you contextualize this thought?  Well, for me it starts out by knowing that the U.K. is 1.7 times larger than Iowa. Okay, we have about 70,000 miles of gravel and dirt roads here. According to what I can find on Google, the UK has approximately 33.528+ miles of unpaved roads. I'm not sure that is close, but that's still a LOT of unpaved road ways. To distill that down to "great gravel rides" in one book? I don't think that's an easy task. But you folks in the U.K. know better than I.

I think it would be fun to go find out though! I'll have to see to it before I get to aged to pedal! 

That's a wrap for this week! October starts this weekend! Wow! better get out and ride before Winter comes!

Friday News And Views

 The Ships Are Coming In:

I have mentioned before in this space that when the inventory hit the warehouses that we'd go from zero to overstocked in a big hurry. Well, it has started already. 

I have seen several sales promotions recently within the last two weeks, and I bet there will be many more on the heels of this starting now. (Ditto for other segments in the economy)

The image here is all taken from promotions I have seen online. 15% - 30% off is not uncommon to see, and I suspect that deals will be available throughout the Winter as bicycle season wanes in this hemisphere. The big question is, "Will there be any takers?" Inflation is eating up discretionary income at an alarming pace. Given that utilities and necessities to make it through Winter will likely be somewhat of a burden on many, I would be surprised if sales were anything but tepid. 

But I could be proven wrong there. Time will tell all.......

Apologies for making you read upside down!

New WTB Vulpine 700 X 40mm Tires;

 I guess no one noticed that the tire I used to demonstrate the tubeless mounting techniques I posted earlier this week was a new WTB Vulpine 700 X 40mm tire*. Well, I guess I slipped that one by y'all right out in the open! 

Anyway, yeah..... New tire day again and I always am excited to see how tires will turn out once they are mounted. The anticipation of the process, the outcome once I am done, and then that first ride. Good stuff! 

But I have to say that I was a bit deflated, (sorry for that pun!), by the tire as it was evident to me at the onset that the casing didn't look like a 40mm casing. It's funny when your mind and eyes can hone in on details after you've done something so many times. I just knew this tire would be a bit narrow, and once I had it on, (at 40psi, by the way), I was saddened to find that my suspicions were correct. This wasn't a 40mm tire. 

Now with a few days under the tires and a couple of short rides, one tire measures just shy of 40mm and the other just shy of 39mm. Ehhhh!  Yeah, close, but not quite. Quibbling over a millimeter? Yes. And what is more, the promise was 40mm. And maybe these will get there. We'll see. 

At least they are fast, supple, and smooth. I liked the 36mm Vulpines, and these should be a bit better. Still, I'd love a wider one of these. (*Standard Disclaimer)   

The new Litespeed Ultimate G2 frame Image courtesy of Litespeed

Excuse Me- GT Bikes Would Like To Have  A Word With You:

Litespeed made a splash this week with the introduction of a titanium ('natch!) frame which they dubbed the "Ultimate G2". A new platform which they claim is "..a bike that accelerated and climbed with the targeted stiffness found in premium carbon gravel bikes.."

Whoa! Big claim there. So what did they do? Well, Litespeed says that; "It starts with the new visual signature of the Ultimate G2: Interlock Dropped Seatstays." What's that mean? Well, just think of GT Bikes' "Triple Triangle" design and you'll be there. That's really all this is. Also- I am not claiming GT developed the design first. I realize that others did a similar thing as well previous to GT Bikes. That said, it was GT that made hay with this and put the design on the map.

Look familiar? Image courtesy of Litespeed

Comments: So, how does a triple triangle thing make a bike stiffer? It effectively shortens the top tube and seat tube, thereby making those lengths of tubing less flexible than they would have been. 

This should make the rider 'feel' faster because the tubing will be less effective at absorbing vibrations than it would have been without the triple triangle deal, and let's face it- what a rider feels has a lot more to do with 'speed' than the stopwatch does. (Cue high tire pressure believers here)

Not only does this new Litespeed bike have the ol' Triple Triangle' signature here, but they have some pretty backward geometry going on as well. Larger sizes have less than 70mm of bottom bracket drop, a 72° head tube angle, and 50mm of fork offset. Wow! Talk about a 2015 gravel bike design, this is it in spades. 

But it will sell and some folks will think it is the bee's knees. Ride on then.....

British Gravel Ride Book:

I know that this has been out a while now, but I just came across it on social media of late and thought I'd get a few opinions from my U.K. readers on what they thought about this. 

So, what does the "greatest gravel rides in the U.K." even mean? How do you contextualize this thought?  Well, for me it starts out by knowing that the U.K. is 1.7 times larger than Iowa. Okay, we have about 70,000 miles of gravel and dirt roads here. According to what I can find on Google, the UK has approximately 33.528+ miles of unpaved roads. I'm not sure that is close, but that's still a LOT of unpaved road ways. To distill that down to "great gravel rides" in one book? I don't think that's an easy task. But you folks in the U.K. know better than I.

I think it would be fun to go find out though! I'll have to see to it before I get to aged to pedal! 

That's a wrap for this week! October starts this weekend! Wow! better get out and ride before Winter comes!

Death Of The Top Tube

Spanish brand "UNNO" just announced the Dash. (Image courtesy of UNNO)

I've been keenly interested in mountain bikes since the late 1980's. Since that time, there have been several permutations of mountain bikes and much evolution in thought within the mountain bike design community. 

This is perhaps most evident in some of the newer designs I have seen in the last several years. Things are at such a state that, if it were possible to time-travel backward and show these bikes to designers from 20 years ago, they might just cause quite the stir. I'm positive that would be the case. Take this bike I am featuring today from the Spanish brand UNNO. Their Dash model is a 150mm/140mm travel dual suspension, "all-mountain" bike.

Something like 25 years ago now, in the seminal mountain bike magazine known as "Dirt Rag" (R.I.P.), there was an article I recall which gathered together a symposium of then current movers and shakers in the mountain bike design and manufacturing communities. There were questions about where MTB design might be going in the future. 

Of course, suspension design was a hot topic then, and "all-mountain", "free-ride" bikes like Cannondale's  Super V were blowing the doors off of conventional design theories. Those Super V bikes were polarizing- You either loved them or thought that they were the ugliest thing ever designed, but they were a portent of things to come. 

Catalog snip of a Cannondale Super V 3000.

But however they affected people, those bicycles and others were challenging the conventional design thought of the day. How much suspension travel was too much? How would longer travel forks integrate with the rider and the ergonomics of the bicycle?

I recall that one of the so-called "limiting factors" for design was front end height. Keep in mind that all throughout the 1990's the 'pinnacle' of mountain bike design was thought to have been achieved by the then ubiquitous "NORBA geometry hard tail". It might be hard to understand this now, because examples of such bikes are rare anymore.

But imagine a steep head angle- 71°- and a what would be considered laughably slack now 73° seat tube angle. Consider that 29" wheels did not exist- Everyone was on 26"ers, and that was the ONLY choice. Then throw in the "long travel" forks which were 80mm, with 38mm fork offsets, and you can begin to see that these bikes were radically different than what we have today. My favorite feature of bikes from that era are the stem lengths. Think about this factoid; A 135mm long stem was considered as "short" in those days! 

And all of that hampered the Cannondale Super V's and other designs of their time. So when the designers were asked what the limits were, these conventions were where they were coming from. You simply could not imagine a fork with longer than 100mm travel because it would jack the front end up so high, mostly due to that steep head angle, that the bike would be laughable. Top tubes would become so sloped, to accommodate stand over, that these bikes would look like- excuse me here, but this was the term back then- "girl's bikes". 

Boy! Have we come a long way in many areas, but I wanted to paint a picture here of where we've come from in terms of design. Top tubes? What top tubes? If ever there was a bike that could claim the name "full-suspension mixte'", it would be the UNNO above, and I think this is a design which features currently held design maxims which- in my opinion- will be gone in the future as well. We've rid ourselves of those pesky top tubes, the seat tube will be next!

GAS GAS trials moto (Image courtesy of Motocross Action)

I think about motorcycle trials bikes here. These bikes typically have no saddles or any provision for one. Of course, they have a motor to propel them, so pedaling is not a concern. How would one eliminate the seat tube to gain maximum clearance for the rider on a bicycle? How about eliminating the seat post/seat tube idea and making a telescoping seat tube instead? 

The unit could be so compact that it would take that bike in the first image and make it look a heck of a lot more like the motorcycle to the left. (Or a parallelogram linkage saddle which could be raised and lowered.) Imagine it with an integrated electric motor/transmission, such as what we are seeing proposed now for HPC/ebikes, and you could easily see something that looks a heck of a lot like the trials bike here. 

Just like the elimination of conventional top tubes seemed unthinkable to that panel of experts in the late 90's, this idea may seem out-to-lunch to you now. However; I think it has legs, especially when you see how goofy that provision for a seat post is on the Dash above. The top tube is dead! Seat tubes? We're coming for you next!

Death Of The Top Tube

Spanish brand "UNNO" just announced the Dash. (Image courtesy of UNNO)

I've been keenly interested in mountain bikes since the late 1980's. Since that time, there have been several permutations of mountain bikes and much evolution in thought within the mountain bike design community. 

This is perhaps most evident in some of the newer designs I have seen in the last several years. Things are at such a state that, if it were possible to time-travel backward and show these bikes to designers from 20 years ago, they might just cause quite the stir. I'm positive that would be the case. Take this bike I am featuring today from the Spanish brand UNNO. Their Dash model is a 150mm/140mm travel dual suspension, "all-mountain" bike.

Something like 25 years ago now, in the seminal mountain bike magazine known as "Dirt Rag" (R.I.P.), there was an article I recall which gathered together a symposium of then current movers and shakers in the mountain bike design and manufacturing communities. There were questions about where MTB design might be going in the future. 

Of course, suspension design was a hot topic then, and "all-mountain", "free-ride" bikes like Cannondale's  Super V were blowing the doors off of conventional design theories. Those Super V bikes were polarizing- You either loved them or thought that they were the ugliest thing ever designed, but they were a portent of things to come. 

Catalog snip of a Cannondale Super V 3000.

But however they affected people, those bicycles and others were challenging the conventional design thought of the day. How much suspension travel was too much? How would longer travel forks integrate with the rider and the ergonomics of the bicycle?

I recall that one of the so-called "limiting factors" for design was front end height. Keep in mind that all throughout the 1990's the 'pinnacle' of mountain bike design was thought to have been achieved by the then ubiquitous "NORBA geometry hard tail". It might be hard to understand this now, because examples of such bikes are rare anymore.

But imagine a steep head angle- 71°- and a what would be considered laughably slack now 73° seat tube angle. Consider that 29" wheels did not exist- Everyone was on 26"ers, and that was the ONLY choice. Then throw in the "long travel" forks which were 80mm, with 38mm fork offsets, and you can begin to see that these bikes were radically different than what we have today. My favorite feature of bikes from that era are the stem lengths. Think about this factoid; A 135mm long stem was considered as "short" in those days! 

And all of that hampered the Cannondale Super V's and other designs of their time. So when the designers were asked what the limits were, these conventions were where they were coming from. You simply could not imagine a fork with longer than 100mm travel because it would jack the front end up so high, mostly due to that steep head angle, that the bike would be laughable. Top tubes would become so sloped, to accommodate stand over, that these bikes would look like- excuse me here, but this was the term back then- "girl's bikes". 

Boy! Have we come a long way in many areas, but I wanted to paint a picture here of where we've come from in terms of design. Top tubes? What top tubes? If ever there was a bike that could claim the name "full-suspension mixte'", it would be the UNNO above, and I think this is a design which features currently held design maxims which- in my opinion- will be gone in the future as well. We've rid ourselves of those pesky top tubes, the seat tube will be next!

GAS GAS trials moto (Image courtesy of Motocross Action)

I think about motorcycle trials bikes here. These bikes typically have no saddles or any provision for one. Of course, they have a motor to propel them, so pedaling is not a concern. How would one eliminate the seat tube to gain maximum clearance for the rider on a bicycle? How about eliminating the seat post/seat tube idea and making a telescoping seat tube instead? 

The unit could be so compact that it would take that bike in the first image and make it look a heck of a lot more like the motorcycle to the left. (Or a parallelogram linkage saddle which could be raised and lowered.) Imagine it with an integrated electric motor/transmission, such as what we are seeing proposed now for HPC/ebikes, and you could easily see something that looks a heck of a lot like the trials bike here. 

Just like the elimination of conventional top tubes seemed unthinkable to that panel of experts in the late 90's, this idea may seem out-to-lunch to you now. However; I think it has legs, especially when you see how goofy that provision for a seat post is on the Dash above. The top tube is dead! Seat tubes? We're coming for you next!