Trying to make sense of the GRX builds leaves me wondering once again why Shimano is just using numbers after GRX to name the gravel groups. All the road groups have cute names and the mtb stuff has effectively removed the Deore umbrella. It seems really sloppy.
I'm sure they would see it as being incredibly precise, but yeah, I agree that from a consumer perspective, it's confusing. I mean, the road stuff has alphanumerical part designations (like "FC-9200") *and* recognizable names, so why is it just "GRX" for all of the gravel stuff? I've always held the opinion that the gravel category was never taken totally seriously by Shimano initially, and that would seem to reinforce that notion.
Thanks for the writeup! No idea if you have any actual numbers, but interested to hear why you think more people will ride this than the SuperX. I'd love to read about either, and maybe it's just a Boulder thing, but I feel like I see a metric ton of Cruxes, Asperos, etc. around relatively speaking.
Ha ha, I constantly have to remind myself that Boulder is definitely not always (ever?) representative of the general cycling public. It's just a hunch, but if only given the more reasonable price points, the greater versatility, and what I'm expecting is a cushier ride, I can't help but think the Topstone is the more popular option of the two overall.
James, I'd be curious to hear how you personally feel about the decision to keep the top tube shorter than the more 'progressive' gravel bikes like the Stigmata that you refer to. If you end up reviewing the Topstone, could you expand on that specific detail and the pros/cons of long vs short top tubes?
I'm riding a stigmata right now and I really like the handling/stability of the longer geo.
That said, my body doesn't like the longer reach (I already sized down to a small Stigmata and I'm 5'9"), I think for long days i'd be happier with a geo similar to the Topstone; I used to have a specialized roubaix and it had similar specs.
Yep, like I said, the whole longer/lower/slacker thing isn't universally better for *everyone*. As with most things related to bikes, frame geometry does not exist on a one-dimensional, linear scale.
I'm a bit shorter than you and find a longer reach to work quite well, but with shorter legs and a longer torso for my height, and I also generally prefer my gravel bikes to feel a little more like my mountain bikes.
I'm wrapping up my review of the Pivot Vault, which has a noticeably shorter reach and front end than the Stigmata for a given size. Does that make it "worse"? Nope, it just makes it different.
I’m genuinely not trying to sneak out of giving an answer, but I genuinely believe it’s an issue of, “it depends.”
I *love* my Stigmata, in particular the MTB-inspired handling. But I also ride a lot of dumb stuff on my gravel bike that a lot of other people won’t (and enjoy it), and also have shorter legs and a longer torso, so that sort of geometry definitely works for me.
But if I were looking for something to serve double-duty as a ‘cross bike, I’d lean more toward a more traditional layout with a shorter reach for the greater low-speed agility.
These larger MTB tires are more about better rolling resistance than suspension. I’d argue they should have ignored a suspension fork on gone for full 2.2 clearance.
Yes, but it's still not a universal rule that larger MTB tires are *always* faster than more conventionally sized gravel ones. It'll still depend on the casing construction, tread design and rubber compounds, and so on, not to mention the ground conditions.
Completely understand that viewpoint. I wanted larger tires for more comfort being a bigger guy, and then that naturally led me to Dylan Johnson as he was running massive tires on his gravel bike. As I read/watched his stuff, the rolling resistance argument grabbed my attention. I ended up getting a Lauf Seigla, and I am running the 29X2.2 Conti Race Kings.
I've run all sorts of wheel/tire setups on gravel, the last of which was my Zipp 303 Firecrest wheels with Vittoria Terreno Zero 700X40 tires. That combo felt very fast on my local (Nebraska) gravel. I was certain the Race King setup would feel like a couch and be slower. Dude, I'm here to tell you it rips. I'm still running the Zipps on those Contis as well. You can certainly feel the drag on the pavement compared to my previous setup, but it is nowhere near what I thought it would be. On gravel this combo just sings along.
No need to convince me of the benefits of bigger tires. I’ve been running ~50 mm Furious Freds for almost a year! They’re the old generation so they’re wickedly fast and light (370 g!), but also rather fragile.
Trying to make sense of the GRX builds leaves me wondering once again why Shimano is just using numbers after GRX to name the gravel groups. All the road groups have cute names and the mtb stuff has effectively removed the Deore umbrella. It seems really sloppy.
I'm sure they would see it as being incredibly precise, but yeah, I agree that from a consumer perspective, it's confusing. I mean, the road stuff has alphanumerical part designations (like "FC-9200") *and* recognizable names, so why is it just "GRX" for all of the gravel stuff? I've always held the opinion that the gravel category was never taken totally seriously by Shimano initially, and that would seem to reinforce that notion.
Thanks for the writeup! No idea if you have any actual numbers, but interested to hear why you think more people will ride this than the SuperX. I'd love to read about either, and maybe it's just a Boulder thing, but I feel like I see a metric ton of Cruxes, Asperos, etc. around relatively speaking.
Ha ha, I constantly have to remind myself that Boulder is definitely not always (ever?) representative of the general cycling public. It's just a hunch, but if only given the more reasonable price points, the greater versatility, and what I'm expecting is a cushier ride, I can't help but think the Topstone is the more popular option of the two overall.
James, I'd be curious to hear how you personally feel about the decision to keep the top tube shorter than the more 'progressive' gravel bikes like the Stigmata that you refer to. If you end up reviewing the Topstone, could you expand on that specific detail and the pros/cons of long vs short top tubes?
I'm riding a stigmata right now and I really like the handling/stability of the longer geo.
That said, my body doesn't like the longer reach (I already sized down to a small Stigmata and I'm 5'9"), I think for long days i'd be happier with a geo similar to the Topstone; I used to have a specialized roubaix and it had similar specs.
Yep, like I said, the whole longer/lower/slacker thing isn't universally better for *everyone*. As with most things related to bikes, frame geometry does not exist on a one-dimensional, linear scale.
I'm a bit shorter than you and find a longer reach to work quite well, but with shorter legs and a longer torso for my height, and I also generally prefer my gravel bikes to feel a little more like my mountain bikes.
I'm wrapping up my review of the Pivot Vault, which has a noticeably shorter reach and front end than the Stigmata for a given size. Does that make it "worse"? Nope, it just makes it different.
I’m genuinely not trying to sneak out of giving an answer, but I genuinely believe it’s an issue of, “it depends.”
I *love* my Stigmata, in particular the MTB-inspired handling. But I also ride a lot of dumb stuff on my gravel bike that a lot of other people won’t (and enjoy it), and also have shorter legs and a longer torso, so that sort of geometry definitely works for me.
But if I were looking for something to serve double-duty as a ‘cross bike, I’d lean more toward a more traditional layout with a shorter reach for the greater low-speed agility.
These larger MTB tires are more about better rolling resistance than suspension. I’d argue they should have ignored a suspension fork on gone for full 2.2 clearance.
Yes, but it's still not a universal rule that larger MTB tires are *always* faster than more conventionally sized gravel ones. It'll still depend on the casing construction, tread design and rubber compounds, and so on, not to mention the ground conditions.
Completely understand that viewpoint. I wanted larger tires for more comfort being a bigger guy, and then that naturally led me to Dylan Johnson as he was running massive tires on his gravel bike. As I read/watched his stuff, the rolling resistance argument grabbed my attention. I ended up getting a Lauf Seigla, and I am running the 29X2.2 Conti Race Kings.
I've run all sorts of wheel/tire setups on gravel, the last of which was my Zipp 303 Firecrest wheels with Vittoria Terreno Zero 700X40 tires. That combo felt very fast on my local (Nebraska) gravel. I was certain the Race King setup would feel like a couch and be slower. Dude, I'm here to tell you it rips. I'm still running the Zipps on those Contis as well. You can certainly feel the drag on the pavement compared to my previous setup, but it is nowhere near what I thought it would be. On gravel this combo just sings along.
No need to convince me of the benefits of bigger tires. I’ve been running ~50 mm Furious Freds for almost a year! They’re the old generation so they’re wickedly fast and light (370 g!), but also rather fragile.
It would be cool to see a comparison of the Inverted forks. Cane Creek vs C'dale!
The last gen ditched the Ai.
OMG, totally forgot about that version. Maybe because I'd always thought of it as Topstone 1.5 rather than a total redesign.
I clearly need to catch up on some sleep.
No Ai, but it had lights! Haha.