KiwiAmerican

The Fuji Jari is a blast. I test rode a 2.5 and loved it. I will be in the same market/situation next Fall. Hopefully I can find one on closeout. Thats my vote. Good luck!

cyccommute 

I'll add that if someone is saying "this bike will do it all", it probably does none of whatever "it" is very well. Of the 4 bikes stepeasy initially listed, the Fuji Touring is by far the better choice for extended travel. It's has longer chain stays so that bags don't have to be moved far behind the rear axle to avoid hitting them with each pedal stroke. The Jari, for example, has short stays...around 17" if I recall correctly...which makes for a nice sporty ride but put bags on it and the ride is less sporty and much more akin to wrestling match. The rider has to be on top of the handling all the time and that gets exhausting. The other two bikes are even shorter with the Willard 2 being in the race bike territory. It makes for a great bike for unloaded riding.

On the other hand, for nonleaded riding, the Fuji Touring isn't the most exciting bike to ride. It's going to be extremely stable with or without a load. Stability is something you want in certain situations but it's not going to deliver sport bike handling. It's going to be a minivan. Useful but uninspiring.

That's the reason many of us have multiple bikes. No one bike does all things well. I have a touring bike and it is nice to ride unloaded but it is a bit boring. I have a fast road bike that I don't ride nearly enough but it is exciting...and totally incapable of carrying anything more than rudimentary tools, a credit card and driver's license. That's all I need if I'm zooming around my town. But, if I'm going to go riding for weeks on end and I need to carry all my gear to do so, I take the touring bike.

My "gravel" biking is somewhat different from other locales. It's not so much "gravel" as just plain old rocks. If I'm going to go bikepacking...a few nights over several passes and on lots of jeep trails...I take a bike that is best suited to the worst conditions I expect to find. That's a mountain bike with suspension. I can fly through rock gardens that unsuspended "gravel" bikes have to crawl through. There are trade offs as with the other bikes, however. Suspension isn't all that much fun to ride on pavement. Thankfully the front suspension locks out. The knobbies are a little slow but, again, they are advantageous when varied off-road surface comes into play.

If I could only have one bike, however, it would probably be the mountain bike. It doesn't do road riding all that well but it excels at off-road. I'd rather not give up the adventure of off-road bikepacking. A good second choice would be the Fuji Touring...or LHT or Trek 920 (with modifications) or something similar. Fastish on the road would be enough.

stepeasy

I got a lot of great feedback here, the passion in the responses is fiery and I appreciate that.

There were a couple gravel bikes mentioned that I do like that were mentioned here. The Fuji Jari and the Marin I will keep an eye out for on sale. I am really wishing I could post a link here, but on Bikesdirect the:
"Shimano GRX Whipshot AL R600" , "Shimano GRX Mulekick AL R600", "Motobecane Century Pro" & "Mercier Kilo GX R20"

all seem to meet my needs. What I am specifically asking here is if anyone knows these bikes from bikes direct and can vouch for whether one or all of these would have specs consistent with a gravel bike as opposed to a cyclocross bike. It was pointed out that because these terms are the new hotness, they don't hold much merit as to what exactly a CX vs Gravel bike are, I am looking for dimensions similar to a Fuji Jari or endurance/ frame like Fuji Sportif or Trek Domane, less of an aggressive road bike, as they are slightly more neutral. Which from what I have read seems to be consistent with long gravel rides, not short CX races. Among those choices from bikes direct one frame is all Carbon, is this safe from them? One is Reynolds 520 (they have a Reynolds 853, but it is a few hundred more, unsure worth it?) and the others are Aluminum with Aluminum steering tube and Carbon Fork.

I understand the need for multiple bikes, I do not anticipate super long hauls just yet, but long enough and I am not seeking fame and fortune, just trying not to kill my neck or reaching over too far. I intend to ride pavement, but get into some trails and just go for it. If I don't have the bike I won't likely explore those opportunities so often, so that is my logic behind it. I also do not have enough experience to know exactly what I want so I am looking at spending around 1,000ish, so I can ride, have fun and re-evaluate needs down the line. There are other decisions with these bikes like 1x11 or 2x11 which Id love to hear, but for now I just want to focus on the frame design and get this bike on order asap. I would've gone used but options are limited in my area and Im growing frustrated with looking, just want to get out there.

Thanks and Happy Mardi Gras⚜️

Russ Roth

Absolutely love this paint job.

You can look up touring bike geometry for both trek and fuji to get a decent idea of frame dimensions and see how the gravel bikes you're looking at work from there. Paying attention to chainstay length, fork rake, steering angle and to some extent headtube length. When I was looking for a cross bike last fall I noticed that a lot of what were labeled cross had new geometry and they were much more like gravel bikes many of which seem to share a lot of dimensions with touring bikes. My Blue was sold as a gravel touring bike and in that regards it does well. I've looked at bikes direct multiple times and have worked on bikes from there. From my experience the bikes really need a proper build when they show up or they won't work well. Once the time was taken to properly tune them they were fine. The frames always just felt cheap to me, always a little heavier but competently made and an ok value. If one seems to tick all the right buttons you won't go wrong with them it seems.

stepeasy

I can check for a Marin,they are priced well, but for the money it just seemed like the components were a bit superior on the bikes direct one. There is a Marin dealer around I could take look into

Maelochs

You can post links with ingenuity .... I hear ...... https:/XXX/www.bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/disc-brake-road-bikes/kilott-gx-r20-gravel-disc-brake-road-bikes.htm
or ttp://www.bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/disc-brake-road-bikes/kilott-gx-r20-gravel-disc-brake-road-bikes.htm and let people figure ou the mystery.

https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...road-bikes.htm

I couldn't find the rest ...

BD bikes tend to have a couple years' old frame technology---not cutting edge, but what was cutting edge a little while back, so you won't get the lightest bikes .... the build kits are usually decent, often with cheaper brakes and cranks, but not necessarily bad because of that, heavy seats and bars and stems sometimes .... and you definitely want to keep an eye on the wheels because there is no guarantee they were built with great care. No real problem, except they might loosen up a little after some miles. Just take the bike in for a tune-up and it will be fine.

BD bikes come partially assembled, which means you will need to adjust the breaks and derailleurs, and at least check to see that spoke tension is close to even ..... but they are solid bikes, not cheap crap. And ..... if you like, you can hang the parts on a better frame later on.

Maelochs

Also .... and
under 21 pounds for a steel bike with wide tires .... impressive.

stepeasy

Ok, I believe I should actually be able to post now.

Here is the page on bikes direct all of these bikes are on: https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/cross_bikes.htm
The Whipshot. https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...oadbike-xx.htm
The Mulekick. https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...oadbike-xx.htm
The Mercier Kilo. https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...road-bikes.htm
The Century. https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...oadbike-xx.htm

Maelochs

Please note: I have not compared the geometry on these bikes. I am basingmy thoughts on the pictures and descriptions ….


Okay …. I love the Century because I am spoiled.

Ultega just rocks as a geroup set. 105 is all you need and Tiagra is really good (I own two Tiagra-quipped bikes and two 105 bikes, 1 Ultegra, so not just parroting PR) …. I like the CF frame (though I’d like it more if I knew th weight---I could research that.

The Century is not full Ultegra … it has 105 brakes (not in any way an issue.)

However, the Century is more road-geared …. If you were riding road with some gravel it would be great (I can do light off-road with a 50-34x11-32, the Century offers 11-34.) However, for mostly gravel riding I would probably want to drop to maybe a 48-32 crank or 46-30 or whatever.

The Century comes with 28-mm tires, meaning you would need to buiy off-road tires (38 is the min for serious gravel, a more serious gravel-rider once advised me, though you could get by with 28s if you had to.)

However and also …. The Century might not have rack mounts. I cannot tell from the pic. Still there are ways to mount racks …..

The Century would be closest to your Sportiv … except no rack mounts and CF frame.

I very much like the Mulekick. Al frame (for me_) means less worry about rough handling, CF fork means it is more comfortable on the road. Also, it is tapped for a rack.

The Mulekick has the 46-30 crank which is better for off-road (IMO) and it has my favorite BB, a BSA-threaded shell with Shimano. No messy press-fit. The gearing is maybe a little low for primarily road use.

The Mulekick comes with 38-mm tires… ready to hop right into the dirt, yet still decent for road use.

The Whipshot is basically the Mulekick with 1x …. And I am not a fan of 1x. For a person doing mostly off-road, I guess the 1x might be better—quicker shifts with just a rear derailleur as opposed to sometimes needing to shift a front derailleur …. It depends on how and where you ride.

Lastly, the Kilo. This bike looks like a real bargain. 46-30 and 11-34 for good off-road gearing, hydro discs, threaded BB, rack-ready. Decent wheels, tubeless-compatible. It comes with fat tires.

The price reflects that it doesn’t have the very best of everything …. But everything it has looks to be more than good enough.

I’d say … choose your budget limits, and decide what kind of riding you really plan to be doing. If you buy a fat-tire bike with low gearing, you will have to get at the very least a second set of tires for the road, and might find yourself doing most of your riding in just the top couple of gears—not that that is necessarily a problem. You will have to work really hard to keep up on fast group road rides, but if that isn’t how you ride anyway …..

The Century is more road-oriented. You would need (or might want to) to buy (at least) some fat tires---and you would have to swap tires before dirt and road rides. A lot of folks end up buying a spare wheel set and having road and off-road set-ups ready to go.

All of these look like decent bikes. Which one (or whatever other) might be best for you …. Only you can tell … and only after you have bought one and ridden it for a while.

stepeasy

Thanks so much, can I ask on your comment about the Century being closest to the Fuji Sportif? Do you mean being closest to it in that it is also more "endurance" aka relaxed and the others are going to be more aggressive (CX/Road)? Fit is a big concern to me here, I know I can make changes by component but if I can select something built to a better starting point for me (back & neck consideration) I will opt for that. After re-reading the Century Pro, I can see what you mean and my off-roading woad probably be on the lighter end anyway so I am not opposed to going that direction if there's no issue with the CF blowing apart on me somehow?

Maelochs

(Skip to the end to avoid the bloviating ... )

The Century is actually kind of odd in terms of geometry. According to the sizing chart it has a pretty short head tube but a high stack, a very long top tube, but a moderate reach. I wonder if this is a case where everybody measures things differently.

Comparing a Century to a Sportiv (52 cm frame)
52 Centruy Sportiv
Seat tube angle 72.5 73.8
Head tube angle 72.5 71.5
Head tube length 150 150
chain stay 425 415
effective top tube 571.5 530
stack 575.5 554
reach 390 369
wheelbase 1021 995

The Century Looks like it is sort of an endurance frame …. But as it compares to the Sportiv, maybe a little more stable with a slightly longer wheelbase.

It does look to me (based on these pics (https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...pro-my2-21.jpg and Fuji Bikes | Sportif 1.5 Disc) that the Sportiv has a much more angled top tube and a higher stack (sort of the height from the center of the BB to the center of the head tube.) This makes me wonder about hwo people measure their frames (because everyone does it differently.)

However, the Sportiv and Century are both set up as mostly road bikes, with 50-34 cranksets and 11-32 or 11-34 gearing. The pedaling would be comparable. On the road (for me) a 50-34 or so chainring is about perfect—I can go about 33 mph at 90 rpm (with a little help from gravity) and still climb most hills, even weak as I am.

If you mostly road the Sportiv on the road, the Century should feel similar in effort expended.

The Mulekick has a short head tube, much longer (430 mm) chain stays and a wheelbase comparable with the Century. It also has a slacker head tube. This is more set up for gravel (IMO)---a little more stable on a shifting surface, and probably a little more sluggish on pavement (marginal differences, probably.)

With a 46-30 cranksset, it is designed to be pedaled at lower speeds

With a 46-tooth chainring and an 11-tooth cog pedaling 90 rpm you would hit 30.76 mph. At 70 rpm you would be doing 23.92 mph.

At my usual pace of 15 mph, I would be in the middle of the cassette (46x17) doing 70 rpm. At 80 rpm I would be around my flat-land comfy-cruising speed at 17.72 mph. Plenty of room to go faster or slower. With a 50-tooth large ring, I could hit about that same speed at 75 rpm … a lot easier for an old guy like me to maintain.

I have a Cannondale tourer with a 48-tooth front ring (a 48-38-28 triple, actually) and I generally feel that it is undergeared. Realistically it has capacity beyond my own but I still find myself using only the top couple cogs. With a 46 …. On the road … I wouldn’t be getting much benefit out of half the cogs, I think. And I would have very little use for the entire inner chain ring.

Off-road that all changes. Off-road I would definitely want the 46-30 because with softer surfaces and a little less traction, with a 50-34 the top gears would rarely get used, but the inner ring would probably get a fair amount of use (smaller steps between gears and easy access to a lower range for short, steep hills.)

If you plan to do mostly road riding …. Well, I don’t know you. You might have legs of steel and lungs like leather bellows.

I do know that I was on a group ride (before I got too slow) and it was a very slow group ride (billed as a recovery ride) and a guy who was trying out his new gravel bike was talking about how hard he had to work to keep up with 46-30 rings---and he was really fit and fast. On a normal group ride he would have been dropped.

If you plan to do a lot of gravel and just relaxation riding on the road, or if you plan to haul a lot of gear, the 46-30 crankset could be perfect for you.

Tl;Dr: The century is set up more like a road bike, with gearing similar to the Sportiv. The others are more geared toward gravel. Any bike can work anywhere, but it makes sense to buy a bike built for what you plan to use it for most.

indyfabz

I still cannot figure out what those needs are in terms of touring specifics. For example, what sort of terrain? That's relevant to gearing. How much gear to you plan on carrying and how (e.g., frame bags, racks and panniers)? That is relevant to issues such as fork material, brazeons for racks and frame geometry (e.g., rear panniers, short chainstays and big feet don't always play well together).

If you just want to do gravel day rides then fine. But you introduced the element of touring yet seem to be ignoring the touring-specific considerations. Or did I miss something?

Maelochs

If you ride almost all pavement but it is torn-up pavement, get a road-gerared bike with fat tires.

If you plan to ride a lot of gravel, get a gravel-geared bike.

If you plan to do tous ….. what kind? What kind of terrain, what length?

You can do credit-card touring on anything. Loaded touring takes a bike really only great at loaded touring. Loaded off-road touring takes a completely different bike.

If the Sportiv was what you wanted …. Look for something close to that with fat tires. If not …. Decide what the tool needs to do, and you will know what tool you need.

stepeasy

As for the touring, I wrote this title some time ago and I get that it is misleading now. I don't plan on doing anything super far, but day trips where I can get a rack or 2 on somewhere that will enable me to do light camping at best. I realize now that most bikes will accommodate this. I rode a touring Fuji and it was not quite what I wanted, did not feel lively to me if that makes sense. As for the comments on the geometry and gearing, thank you oh so much. I will report back with what bike I end up getting soon. Looking up numbers on frame dimensions isn't hard but it has been difficult trying to interpret that on my own, can't say enough thanks on breaking it down for me. I can see that as was said, you need to find the right tool for the job and consider the goals of the bike. Ultimately I think I will end up with two bikes but I am going to get my start again with just one and make due.

stepeasy

Ok great, so decided on a bike. My remaining question is on size. I am 6'-1" and on an endurance frame road bike (Trek Domane, Fuji Sportif) I have been a 58cm. I have tried a Fuji Jari and was also at 58cm. I do not like to reach for the largest frame I can be put on. That being said the chart from the Mulekick is listed below.
https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...oadbike-xx.htm
MuleKick ALU / Mulekick ALU Sizing Guide
fits most as follows:
47cm - 5'2" to 5'5"
50cm - 5'5" to 5'7"
53cm - 5'7" to 5'9"
55cm - 5'9" to 5'11"
58cm - 5'11" to 6'1"
61cm - 6'1" to 6'3"
63cm - 6'3" to 6'5"+


There is a 58cm available and 63cm. It appears that I would ideally be on a 61cm. Any thoughts on whether the 58cm would be a fit similar to the bikes I mentioned, or would I be best suited to a 61cm and I can maybe go with a different bike and wait until 61cm comes back in stock?

I know you cannot make fitting decisions for me, just looking for some guidance..

Maelochs

Fitting is really tough .... sometimes. Every person has different proportions.

I tend to ride 56 cm frames although I am around 6-1. I have freakishly long limbs and a torso like a basketball. On my Sportif I get some low-speed toe-overlap, but reach and stack are perfect. On my racier Workswell, reach is a little longer and stack a little lower, but it is still comfortable for long rides. I know sort of the range in which my body tends to work, and I can add or subtract spacers and swap stems and bars and get a wide range of fits (I have some bars with 70-cm reach and some with like, 120 .... the tops are in the same place but the hoods, if at the same part of the curve, are much further forward.) With reasonable stems and bars, you have a huge range of reach adjustment. Spacers can only go so high (for safety and depending on how long the steerer might be) and obviously the stem is limited by the height of the head tube ... can't go much lower without a hacksaw.

What I do is get a bike, stand it up by my washer/dryer (enough support to lean on) and put a milk crate or something on the other side. That way I can put one foot on the pedal, and hold myself up with the other.

From hear aI can play with saddle height and fore-and aft and tilt (a little) to get to a place where the relationship between my saddle and the pedals (the bottom bracket, actually, as the pedals move (optimally)) gets me comfortable leg extension without compromising my limited hip flexibility.

Then ... measure. I measure bb to top of seat post, BB to top center of the saddle top of the head tube to the top of the seat tube, top of the head tube to tip[ of the saddle (this is a relative measurement---every saddle is a different length which is why to me, the real important measurement is to the imaginary extension of the seat post through the top of the saddle.) I raise a vertical from the BB up past the seat top ( I have actually drawn grids on big pieces of cardboard, and made cardboard triangles to measure.) I need to know where the top of the seat post (or actually, the imagined extension of the seat post through the top of the saddle) is relative to the BB---height above at a right angle up, distance back from that vertical line---and also total length from BB to saddle top. That remains pretty constant always (except as my legs and spine compress with age.)

Then I lean forward to what I think is the farthest I can comfortable hold, and then to whatever is actually comfortable. I generally don't use my hands for balance; instead I swing my arms forward with elbows slightly bent in approximately my comfortable riding position. . I look at where my hands fall and try to move the bars to about that location. If I cannot get there, I estimate .... and measure. I measure everything I can think of, so that I can know my contact points in space relative to whatever else--head tube top, saddle center top, seat post, BB .... and of course during all this I measure stack and reach.

I can get pretty close with all this. I pretty much always have to adjust the saddle a few millimeters and a few degrees of tilt, and also, it changes depending how much I am riding (fitness is wonderful, when I have some.)

When I look at geometry charts of bikes online or in catalogs, I have some clue what the numbers mean to me because I have something to which to compare them. Take any three people the same size, and each one will need a different fit. A lot of frames can be stretched to fit a lot of sizes---too big is useless, but too small can generally be made to work---but you obviously want to find the optimal frame size which gives to the widest range of adjustments through your comfort zone.

it gets really tricky because it seems no two manufacturers measure the same specifications the same way, and Bikes Direct ---- they have ridiculous variances in measurement, frame to frame. Some describe the bike by the actual seat tube, the virtual seat tube, BB to seat tube top, BB to junction of seat and top tubes .... maybe they just imagine numbers. You have to look closely.

Stack (the vertical (perpendicular to the floor) distance from BB to top-center of the head tube) is important because it tells you how low you can go, and approximately how high. Reach, the horizontal (parallel to the floor) from the vertical up from the BB to the vertical down through the center of the top of the head tube, is pretty useful in that it tells you approximately where the stem can be. Both are affected by head- and seat-tube angles (as you raise the saddle it moves back, and so forth) but they are useful numbers.

As far as going further .... have you checked out https://www.competitivecyclist.com/S...ulatorBike.jsp ? it works pretty well for some folks, not so well for others.