Minus Ten Review- 2009-7

A Shimano 11- 36T cassette. Really low gearing circa 2009.

Ten years ago on the blog I was talking about a new cassette for 29"ers. A Shimano 11-36T version which was a response to not having low enough gears for 29 inch wheeled bikes. The 36t low cog was considered "extraordinary"at the time. Really.

Up until this point you could get 11-34T cassettes and that was as low as things went. Of course, we had triple cranks in those days, so really low rear gearing wasn't necessary. Well, for most folks it wasn't. There were those out West clamoring for lower gears for their extended climbs.

This may all seem rather odd in a day when rear cog sizes have grown to 50T, but again- triple cranks. Remember those? With them you could keep your chain line straighter, have closer ratios, and not wear things out as quickly. But short chain stays, big, "plus" sized tires on wide rims, and funky-monkey rear suspension designs pushed front derailleurs, and close spaced rear cassettes, off the radar.

My prediction is that, along with a swing back from the "short. slack, and low" geometry of today, we will see front derailleurs make a comeback as well. Maybe not triple front cranks, but you never know. The geometry and gearing that is out now just seems weird to me. It is so DH focused that average climbing and descending seems to be a concept lost on most designers. Front ends wander, weight is so rearward biased, and bottom brackets scrape terra firma.

 I'm sure the geometry works in some places, but to have to have everyone deal with it is weird. It used to be that companies were known for their "geographical geometries". Trek was Mid-West single track, Specialized was West Coast driven, and Cannondale had "Eastern woods geometry". Consumers had choices. Now you may as well pick blindfolded as most geometries are pretty much identical again, as in the old "NORBA Geometry" days.

Minus Ten Review- 2009-7

A Shimano 11- 36T cassette. Really low gearing circa 2009.

Ten years ago on the blog I was talking about a new cassette for 29"ers. A Shimano 11-36T version which was a response to not having low enough gears for 29 inch wheeled bikes. The 36t low cog was considered "extraordinary"at the time. Really.

Up until this point you could get 11-34T cassettes and that was as low as things went. Of course, we had triple cranks in those days, so really low rear gearing wasn't necessary. Well, for most folks it wasn't. There were those out West clamoring for lower gears for their extended climbs.

This may all seem rather odd in a day when rear cog sizes have grown to 50T, but again- triple cranks. Remember those? With them you could keep your chain line straighter, have closer ratios, and not wear things out as quickly. But short chain stays, big, "plus" sized tires on wide rims, and funky-monkey rear suspension designs pushed front derailleurs, and close spaced rear cassettes, off the radar.

My prediction is that, along with a swing back from the "short. slack, and low" geometry of today, we will see front derailleurs make a comeback as well. Maybe not triple front cranks, but you never know. The geometry and gearing that is out now just seems weird to me. It is so DH focused that average climbing and descending seems to be a concept lost on most designers. Front ends wander, weight is so rearward biased, and bottom brackets scrape terra firma.

 I'm sure the geometry works in some places, but to have to have everyone deal with it is weird. It used to be that companies were known for their "geographical geometries". Trek was Mid-West single track, Specialized was West Coast driven, and Cannondale had "Eastern woods geometry". Consumers had choices. Now you may as well pick blindfolded as most geometries are pretty much identical again, as in the old "NORBA Geometry" days.

The Canyon Grail Gravel Bike: My Take

Canyon range topping Grail 8.0 Image courtesy of Canyon

NOTE: Large doses of "my opinion" will be handed out in gloppy dollops today. You've been forewarned.....

Canyon Bikes is a German outfit that is a "disrupter" in the bicycling marketplace. They are a very well engineered and produced bicycles sold 'consumer direct", meaning- this won't be sold through a local bike shop. I don't mind their business model, so I've no axe to grind there, but that is a huge part of Canyon's DNA and something that needs to be thought of whenever you see their bicycles. In some ways, the "checks and balances" that a traditional retail model brings to design choices is not present with Canyon. That can be a good thing or a bad thing.

That said, here is my take on Canyon's gravel bike, the "Grail". Besides the obvious religious reference the name brings up, it also conjures up the thought of earnest pursuit and desire. An interesting moniker for such a bike. Unless Canyon thinks this is the "holy grail of gravel bikes", in which case I'm going to strongly disagree. I'll get to that later......

Of course, the bike is carbon fiber, a fact barely mentioned by most media coverage of the bike so far. I looked at a few reports, but this one from Cyclingtips is the best, most detailed I've found yet. Then again, with the oddball "Hover" handle bar/stem system, one might be forgiven for focusing on other fare here. Yes, that's an innovative take on vibration management. Yes......it is also proprietary. That can be good or bad. A few media folks have already stated their misgivings on the design, which may reflect deeper negativity towards the design, since when your host flies you out to a swank media camp for the unveiling, it isn't easy to be harsh on the product. At any rate, early commentary by others is interesting in that it doesn't go all in for the Hover system.

A look at how the Hover bar geometry works in relationship to traditional set ups. Image courtesy of Canyon

I won't get into details about the design. Go read the Cyclingtips article, but the bottom line here is either it fits you, you like it, and you won't ever want to change, or it is a big ask from Canyon to have folks compromise on fitting and ergonomics. I'm betting on the latter, but I still tip my hat to Canyon for trying something different. Beyond the striking, shocking design, here is my take on the Hover Bar system, and that will lead into why I feel Canyon missed the boat on the geometry here.

First off, they tell us that the Hover Bar is most comfortable when you ride on the hoods or even more so with your hands nearer to the stem. This is very traditional roadie positioning for rougher sections of riding in road races. Okay, fine, but.......those sections typically don't last a long time. Obviously, if road races were chock full of sections so rough that riders needed to use this position to survive them, and sit upright, not being very aero, then we would see a sea change in design to allow for more aero positioning in the drops. In fact, that's how road racing was pre-World War II. Front end design was extremely different then as compared to today.

In gravel racing, the "rough sections" are often times the entire course. Then we throw winds into the equation. If you are thinking about racing and sitting upright to make the bars work their best on this Canyon you won't be cheating the wind like the other riders around you. Even having to sit on the hoods all day isn't optimal, so Canyon's claims of great compliance may be true, but not entirely practical.

Secondly, this also leads to Canyon's choice of traditional road geometry in the front end. Weight off the bars and on your butt allows for the use of a steeper head angle with a shorter offset fork, which according to the numbers posted in the Cylingtips article, I think they are using here. That's fine until you weight the bars and the front wheel gets planted. The steep head angle (stated at 72.5°) with the short offset will make impacts want to "tuck the fork under" the rider. This was what was wrong with 29"er geometry in the beginning. Designers wanted a quicker feeling front end for 29"ers so they steepened the head angles and used the shorter offsets to achieve that. They were successful, but when used in practice it was a horribly unstable, harsh, crash prone way to get better handling due to the way forks would want to bend backward under impact, effectively making the trail figure less and therefore more unstable.

This problem was solved by using longer offsets with slacker head angles, putting the fork more in line with impacts and ridding the bikes of the mechanical trail issues while riding. This is exactly what is going on with the Canyon bike. They are effectively doing the "29"er v1" geometry mistake for a bike that is meant to be ridden in rougher terrain. The trail figure they reached is fine, but just like early 29"ers, when the rider is in the drops and fighting rough, gravelly roads in a headwind, this bike won't handle as well as a bike with a slacker head angle and longer offset with similar trail figures. Having that front wheel "out there", floating above the gravel instead of digging in is also a factor to consider here.

Otherwise I like the deep bottom bracket drop and chain stay length looks fine. The tire clearances aren't optimal, but if this is a racing bike then......fine. If it is a do everything-go anywhere at anytime bike, well then they screwed up here. You decide what they mean by limiting tire/mud clearances.

Bottom line- A striking bike that will have its fans but misses on a few key points in my opinion.

The Canyon Grail Gravel Bike: My Take

Canyon range topping Grail 8.0 Image courtesy of Canyon

NOTE: Large doses of "my opinion" will be handed out in gloppy dollops today. You've been forewarned.....

Canyon Bikes is a German outfit that is a "disrupter" in the bicycling marketplace. They are a very well engineered and produced bicycles sold 'consumer direct", meaning- this won't be sold through a local bike shop. I don't mind their business model, so I've no axe to grind there, but that is a huge part of Canyon's DNA and something that needs to be thought of whenever you see their bicycles. In some ways, the "checks and balances" that a traditional retail model brings to design choices is not present with Canyon. That can be a good thing or a bad thing.

That said, here is my take on Canyon's gravel bike, the "Grail". Besides the obvious religious reference the name brings up, it also conjures up the thought of earnest pursuit and desire. An interesting moniker for such a bike. Unless Canyon thinks this is the "holy grail of gravel bikes", in which case I'm going to strongly disagree. I'll get to that later......

Of course, the bike is carbon fiber, a fact barely mentioned by most media coverage of the bike so far. I looked at a few reports, but this one from Cyclingtips is the best, most detailed I've found yet. Then again, with the oddball "Hover" handle bar/stem system, one might be forgiven for focusing on other fare here. Yes, that's an innovative take on vibration management. Yes......it is also proprietary. That can be good or bad. A few media folks have already stated their misgivings on the design, which may reflect deeper negativity towards the design, since when your host flies you out to a swank media camp for the unveiling, it isn't easy to be harsh on the product. At any rate, early commentary by others is interesting in that it doesn't go all in for the Hover system.

A look at how the Hover bar geometry works in relationship to traditional set ups. Image courtesy of Canyon

I won't get into details about the design. Go read the Cyclingtips article, but the bottom line here is either it fits you, you like it, and you won't ever want to change, or it is a big ask from Canyon to have folks compromise on fitting and ergonomics. I'm betting on the latter, but I still tip my hat to Canyon for trying something different. Beyond the striking, shocking design, here is my take on the Hover Bar system, and that will lead into why I feel Canyon missed the boat on the geometry here.

First off, they tell us that the Hover Bar is most comfortable when you ride on the hoods or even more so with your hands nearer to the stem. This is very traditional roadie positioning for rougher sections of riding in road races. Okay, fine, but.......those sections typically don't last a long time. Obviously, if road races were chock full of sections so rough that riders needed to use this position to survive them, and sit upright, not being very aero, then we would see a sea change in design to allow for more aero positioning in the drops. In fact, that's how road racing was pre-World War II. Front end design was extremely different then as compared to today.

In gravel racing, the "rough sections" are often times the entire course. Then we throw winds into the equation. If you are thinking about racing and sitting upright to make the bars work their best on this Canyon you won't be cheating the wind like the other riders around you. Even having to sit on the hoods all day isn't optimal, so Canyon's claims of great compliance may be true, but not entirely practical.

Secondly, this also leads to Canyon's choice of traditional road geometry in the front end. Weight off the bars and on your butt allows for the use of a steeper head angle with a shorter offset fork, which according to the numbers posted in the Cylingtips article, I think they are using here. That's fine until you weight the bars and the front wheel gets planted. The steep head angle (stated at 72.5°) with the short offset will make impacts want to "tuck the fork under" the rider. This was what was wrong with 29"er geometry in the beginning. Designers wanted a quicker feeling front end for 29"ers so they steepened the head angles and used the shorter offsets to achieve that. They were successful, but when used in practice it was a horribly unstable, harsh, crash prone way to get better handling due to the way forks would want to bend backward under impact, effectively making the trail figure less and therefore more unstable.

This problem was solved by using longer offsets with slacker head angles, putting the fork more in line with impacts and ridding the bikes of the mechanical trail issues while riding. This is exactly what is going on with the Canyon bike. They are effectively doing the "29"er v1" geometry mistake for a bike that is meant to be ridden in rougher terrain. The trail figure they reached is fine, but just like early 29"ers, when the rider is in the drops and fighting rough, gravelly roads in a headwind, this bike won't handle as well as a bike with a slacker head angle and longer offset with similar trail figures. Having that front wheel "out there", floating above the gravel instead of digging in is also a factor to consider here.

Otherwise I like the deep bottom bracket drop and chain stay length looks fine. The tire clearances aren't optimal, but if this is a racing bike then......fine. If it is a do everything-go anywhere at anytime bike, well then they screwed up here. You decide what they mean by limiting tire/mud clearances.

Bottom line- A striking bike that will have its fans but misses on a few key points in my opinion.

The New SIR 9 From Niner

Niner Bike's new SIR 9- The "what the El Mariachi should be like" bike.

Niner Bikes announced a new SIR 9 bike today. The steel hard tail is an evolution of their first model which was introduced in 2005. This new SIR 9 is more in the "modern geometry" vein and also sports the ability to be a 27.5+ bike or a straight up 29"er bike. They also figured that most folks that have a hankerin' for a steel 29"er hard tail probably will also be inclined to do a bit of "bikepacking" (read- bike camping) and Niner added a bunch of braze on points for hard mounted frame bags.

This all makes sense. Steel frames are regarded as being tough and up to the task of the back country cyclist. Hard tails eschew the complications of a full suspension bike. Plus, many regard hard tails as being more efficient, especially for touring/bikepacking/bike camping. The SIR 9 started out as Niner's flagship XC oriented hard tail SS/geared bike. The times have changed and so Niner offered up an update of this iconic model.

Interestingly, I find that Niner's evolution of the SIR 9 stands in stark contrast to what Salsa Cycles did when they ditched off their legacy steel hard tail model, the El Mariachi, in favor of a low end spec, aluminum hard tail dubbed the Timberjack. Many thought that Salsa would update their El Mariachi, steel hard tail 29"er, to be a "plus bike" compatible rig and that they would update the bike to "modern geometry" standards. Much like what Niner has done with the SIR 9.

The reinforced chain stay yoke that Niner developed for the SIR 9 is very complex and an interesting solution.

 Oddly enough, the Salsa Cycles Timberjack is not really even in the same vein as the former El Mariachi. It then seems rather ironic that Niner Bikes has upstaged Salsa in regards to this sort of bike. The SIR 9 would appear then to be exactly what the former champions of the El Mariachi were hoping to see from Salsa. A trail bike with bike packing as a standard focus. A bike with a short rear/long front center and a slack head angle. Steel tubes and modern amenities.

So, when I see this new SIR 9, I see "what the El Mariachi should have morphed in to". A steel hard tail that could be single speed, geared, and has modern geometry and "adventure by bike" capabilities. Not a rebadged, price point, aluminum tubed, poorly spec'ed model.

At least devotees of the steel hard tail 29"er have a champion in Niner Bikes.

The New SIR 9 From Niner

Niner Bike's new SIR 9- The "what the El Mariachi should be like" bike.

Niner Bikes announced a new SIR 9 bike today. The steel hard tail is an evolution of their first model which was introduced in 2005. This new SIR 9 is more in the "modern geometry" vein and also sports the ability to be a 27.5+ bike or a straight up 29"er bike. They also figured that most folks that have a hankerin' for a steel 29"er hard tail probably will also be inclined to do a bit of "bikepacking" (read- bike camping) and Niner added a bunch of braze on points for hard mounted frame bags.

This all makes sense. Steel frames are regarded as being tough and up to the task of the back country cyclist. Hard tails eschew the complications of a full suspension bike. Plus, many regard hard tails as being more efficient, especially for touring/bikepacking/bike camping. The SIR 9 started out as Niner's flagship XC oriented hard tail SS/geared bike. The times have changed and so Niner offered up an update of this iconic model.

Interestingly, I find that Niner's evolution of the SIR 9 stands in stark contrast to what Salsa Cycles did when they ditched off their legacy steel hard tail model, the El Mariachi, in favor of a low end spec, aluminum hard tail dubbed the Timberjack. Many thought that Salsa would update their El Mariachi, steel hard tail 29"er, to be a "plus bike" compatible rig and that they would update the bike to "modern geometry" standards. Much like what Niner has done with the SIR 9.

The reinforced chain stay yoke that Niner developed for the SIR 9 is very complex and an interesting solution.

 Oddly enough, the Salsa Cycles Timberjack is not really even in the same vein as the former El Mariachi. It then seems rather ironic that Niner Bikes has upstaged Salsa in regards to this sort of bike. The SIR 9 would appear then to be exactly what the former champions of the El Mariachi were hoping to see from Salsa. A trail bike with bike packing as a standard focus. A bike with a short rear/long front center and a slack head angle. Steel tubes and modern amenities.

So, when I see this new SIR 9, I see "what the El Mariachi should have morphed in to". A steel hard tail that could be single speed, geared, and has modern geometry and "adventure by bike" capabilities. Not a rebadged, price point, aluminum tubed, poorly spec'ed model.

At least devotees of the steel hard tail 29"er have a champion in Niner Bikes.