Old 04-05-19, 12:22 PM
  #95  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,603

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10944 Post(s)
Liked 7,470 Times in 4,179 Posts
Originally Posted by Spoonrobot
I'm of the same mindset. I had read all the whitepapers and forum posts (written by road industry personas) about how frame/fork was a minor part of compliance compared to other parts of the bike and the tires. Then I started riding my gravel bike on mtb trails and paying attention to how much worse it rode than my cross bike. Double OS steerer/fork with MTB frame tubes - "gravel bike." Then I saw the Ritchey video which made me cut up some of my broken frames to measure the wall thickness, then I started measuring and weighing the new gravel bikes and frames when they came into the shop and now here I am arguing on the internet about it.

Funny too, I rode a early 90s Cannondale R900 aluminum frame/fork that had a reputation for being extremely stiff and uncomfortable but a great racing bike. That frame has thinner tubing, smaller diameter tubes and is almost a full pound lighter than most gravel frames on the market right now. It's kind of a "duh" thing to say but it illustrates how the acceptable compliance window has shifted significantly now that we've all been marketed heavier stiffer frames and forks but with much wider tires than 25 years ago.
After reading a few of these comments, im curious to heat what you are riding right now?

Oh- and what was the 2OS frame you refer to?
mstateglfr is offline