Looking for a titanium or steel gravel bike with a short chainstay
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
Looking for a titanium or steel gravel bike with a short chainstay
It seems that titanium gravel bikes have a rather long chainstay (430 mm+). I found J. Guillem Atalaya with 420 mm chainstay and Litepseed Ultimate Gravel with 425 mm. And Bearclaw Thunderhawk with 428 mm chainstay. Is this it?
In terms of steel there is a Marin Nicasio Ridge with 420 mm chainstay and Cotic Escapade with 425 mm chainstay. But I can't think of any other steel bike with a chainstay shorter than 430 mm. Can you?
In terms of steel there is a Marin Nicasio Ridge with 420 mm chainstay and Cotic Escapade with 425 mm chainstay. But I can't think of any other steel bike with a chainstay shorter than 430 mm. Can you?
#2
Senior Member
Off the top of my head:- T-Lab X3 ti. 2020 Norco Search XR steel (650b frame). Rondo Ruut steel models.
Edit: Just remembered the Nordest Albarda. Steel (a bit heavy) or ti. Lower bb position.
Fugio and Breezer Inversion are 425mm.
I'm sure there's more out there.
Edit: Just remembered the Nordest Albarda. Steel (a bit heavy) or ti. Lower bb position.
Fugio and Breezer Inversion are 425mm.
I'm sure there's more out there.
Last edited by tangerineowl; 01-24-20 at 04:26 PM. Reason: txt
#4
Senior Member
The soma fog cutter is 424mm, marketed as an endurance bike. The wolverine says 427mm (min) and double cross disc is 425mm.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 2,266
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 714 Post(s)
Liked 800 Times
in
475 Posts
As someone who builds steel gravel bike frames as a hobby, I can tell you that anything shorter than 425mm is very difficult to achieve and still have clearance for wide tires and a road crankset. At less than 425mm, there is also the possibility of the tire contacting the seat tube with a 73 degree seat tube angle and a large tire like a 700x47. A curved seat tube can solve the seat tube contact issue, but the further forward you push the tire, the less room there is between the tire and the chainrings. Titanium adds to the problem by requiring larger diameter chainstays that don't dimple easily for tire clearance..
I normally do 425mm on my frames. I go to 430mm for a larger rider that requires a slacker seat tube angle. On 650b frames I usually do 420mm stays.
I normally do 425mm on my frames. I go to 430mm for a larger rider that requires a slacker seat tube angle. On 650b frames I usually do 420mm stays.
Likes For dsaul:
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
As someone who builds steel gravel bike frames as a hobby, I can tell you that anything shorter than 425mm is very difficult to achieve and still have clearance for wide tires and a road crankset. At less than 425mm, there is also the possibility of the tire contacting the seat tube with a 73 degree seat tube angle and a large tire like a 700x47. A curved seat tube can solve the seat tube contact issue, but the further forward you push the tire, the less room there is between the tire and the chainrings. Titanium adds to the problem by requiring larger diameter chainstays that don't dimple easily for tire clearance.
I normally do 425mm on my frames. I go to 430mm for a larger rider that requires a slacker seat tube angle. On 650b frames I usually do 420mm stays.
I normally do 425mm on my frames. I go to 430mm for a larger rider that requires a slacker seat tube angle. On 650b frames I usually do 420mm stays.
1. How would you rate the compliance decrease between 430 and 420 mm chainstay of a steel frame? The common notion is that the longer the chainstay the more movement it can provide so shorter, at least in theory, should also mean less comfortable, yes?
2. Why there is so little steel bikes with the seat stays connected somewhere in the middle of the seat tube (Marin Nicasio Ridge is one of the rare examples of that approach)? When carbon is considered, this lower cross-section point is considered as more comfortable than connecting seat stays with the seat tube at the top tube level.
3. Do you use a bended seat stays (like Litespeed Ultimate gravel bike has) for increased rear-end comfort or this is just a gimmick in your opinion?
4. What do you do to increase the stiffness at the bottom bracket area? My steel Jamis Renegade Exploit is very comfy but also flexes a lot when pedaling hard. Is it possible to get a comfy steel bike that will be also very power efficient?
5. Do you use different seat post diameters (for example 27,2 and 30,9) and if so, how would you rate the compliance decrease when going from 27,2 to a wider seat tube diameter?
Thanks!
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 2,266
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 714 Post(s)
Liked 800 Times
in
475 Posts
thank you very much for your answer. If you don't mind I have a few more questions to you:
1. How would you rate the compliance decrease between 430 and 420 mm chainstay of a steel frame? The common notion is that the longer the chainstay the more movement it can provide so shorter, at least in theory, should also mean less comfortable, yes?
2. Why there is so little steel bikes with the seat stays connected somewhere in the middle of the seat tube (Marin Nicasio Ridge is one of the rare examples of that approach)? When carbon is considered, this lower cross-section point is considered as more comfortable than connecting seat stays with the seat tube at the top tube level.
3. Do you use a bended seat stays (like Litespeed Ultimate gravel bike has) for increased rear-end comfort or this is just a gimmick in your opinion?
4. What do you do to increase the stiffness at the bottom bracket area? My steel Jamis Renegade Exploit is very comfy but also flexes a lot when pedaling hard. Is it possible to get a comfy steel bike that will be also very power efficient?
5. Do you use different seat post diameters (for example 27,2 and 30,9) and if so, how would you rate the compliance decrease when going from 27,2 to a wider seat tube diameter?
Thanks!
1. How would you rate the compliance decrease between 430 and 420 mm chainstay of a steel frame? The common notion is that the longer the chainstay the more movement it can provide so shorter, at least in theory, should also mean less comfortable, yes?
2. Why there is so little steel bikes with the seat stays connected somewhere in the middle of the seat tube (Marin Nicasio Ridge is one of the rare examples of that approach)? When carbon is considered, this lower cross-section point is considered as more comfortable than connecting seat stays with the seat tube at the top tube level.
3. Do you use a bended seat stays (like Litespeed Ultimate gravel bike has) for increased rear-end comfort or this is just a gimmick in your opinion?
4. What do you do to increase the stiffness at the bottom bracket area? My steel Jamis Renegade Exploit is very comfy but also flexes a lot when pedaling hard. Is it possible to get a comfy steel bike that will be also very power efficient?
5. Do you use different seat post diameters (for example 27,2 and 30,9) and if so, how would you rate the compliance decrease when going from 27,2 to a wider seat tube diameter?
Thanks!
1.Compliance(flex) in a triangulated steel structure is not something that happens. I believe that the reason shorter stays feel harsher is because they place the axle closer to being under the saddle and rear wheel impacts are transferred more directly to the rider.
2.Attaching the seat stays to the middle of the seat tube is a awful design from an engineering standpoint. You see something that will flex to provide some comfort and I see something that is likely to collapse because the load is being transferred to an unsupported tube at its weakest point.
3. I do use S-bend seat stays, but only because I prefer the look of them over straight stays. They do not flex once they are welded into a triangular structure. They will move horizontally, but not vertically.
4. The bottom bracket doesn't flex. It has 4 tubes welded to it and it is not long enough to have any mechanical advantage over those welded joints. The flex you see is actually the top and down tubes twisting over their length and the chainstays flexing horizontally. To make the frame stiffer, use larger diameter tubes.
5. All of my gravel frames use 27.2 seat posts. My mountain bike has a 30.9 seat post, only because I wanted the option to use a dropper post. I can't tell the difference between them, but the MTB has a 2.8 inch rear tire that absorbs most of the hits at 12psi. The flex of a seatpost is going to be depend on the angle of the seat tube and the amount of post that extends out of the frame. It stands to reason that a smaller diameter post will flex more, given that both posts have the same wall thickness.
Likes For dsaul:
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
I have one more question for you.
Is T47 bottom bracket a better choice in terms of power transfer and why there are none steel bikes with press fit bottom bracket (I found a couple of titanium bikes with press fit, but I don't know if this solution is prone to the same issues that with a carbon frame, mainly cracking, weird noises). What is your opinion about that?
Thank you!
#9
FLIR Kitten to 0.05C
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Posts: 5,331
Bikes: Roadie: Seven Axiom Race Ti w/Chorus 11s. CX/Adventure: Carver Gravel Grinder w/ Di2
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked 406 Times
in
254 Posts
Yes, I know but I still want to know what makes bike a comfortable one and how I can improve the compliance without loosing the fun ****or (power efficency, short chainstay etc).
I have one more question for you.
Is T47 bottom bracket a better choice in terms of power transfer and why there are none steel bikes with press fit bottom bracket (I found a couple of titanium bikes with press fit, but I don't know if this solution is prone to the same issues that with a carbon frame, mainly cracking, weird noises). What is your opinion about that?
Thank you!
I have one more question for you.
Is T47 bottom bracket a better choice in terms of power transfer and why there are none steel bikes with press fit bottom bracket (I found a couple of titanium bikes with press fit, but I don't know if this solution is prone to the same issues that with a carbon frame, mainly cracking, weird noises). What is your opinion about that?
Thank you!
T47 has been very slow to gain any market traction at all. BSA by and large worked, and most people use a Shimano Hollowtech 24mm spindle which easily has external bearings for BSA....T47 is like BB386EVO in that it allows you to have a 30mm spindle in a metal frame....BB386EVO actually lets you do 30mm spindle cranks within even a BSA shell. Trek actually IIRC is the first major bike brand to start selling T47 frames--no other major on-the-shop--floor bike brand does as of now AFAIK.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 2,266
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 714 Post(s)
Liked 800 Times
in
475 Posts
I agree with Marcus Ti on all of the above. The only real benefits to T47 are putting the bearings back into the shell and the ability to use a down tube larger than 38mm. For some off road and larger sized frames, a down tube larger that 38mm is desireable, but it just doesn't work too well to try to attach them to a 38mm BSA shell without squashing them into an oval. The current crop of T47 bottom brackets are very expensive, as are the necessary taps for chasing the threads. If the standard doesn't catch on, you'll be left with a frame that you can't find bottom brackets for.
#11
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 15
Bikes: J.Guillem Atalaya Gravel, Orient All-Road, & Tomir mountain
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
7 Posts
More on the Atalaya
@sweetspot,
Thanks for finding the Atalaya! Part of what allows the 420mm chainstay is the cast titanium BB/chainstay assembly. It's dropped on the drive side to clear the chainring and provide plenty of stiffness without resorting to a chainstay bridge. Jan-Willem (founder of Van Nichols and owner of J.Guillem) is very much coming from a road background and really spent a lot of time and effort keeping the rear end close and efficient.
As far as the press fit (BB86) bottom bracket goes, it's been a non-issue for us in the US and J.Guillem in NL. The benefit is a ~15mm wider shell, which allows for a wider/stiffer down tube and more tire:chainstay clearance as well as better-supported bearings. The tolerance and wear issues you see in some carbon frames aren't an issue- Ti stays the size it is machined to. As long as you stick to standard Shimano/SRAM/Rotor/Easton BBs and away from the oversized models designed for creaky carbon frames you'll be A-OK. We've tried some aftermarket BBs in the past and because the Ti doesn't give, the aluminum cups can be deformed enough to cause a lot of drag. T47 has some advantages for sure, but not enough at the moment to justify the added cost, weight, and parts availability challenges- and a framebuilder will have to weigh in on the impact of the larger shell on chainstay length. Shimano undermined the BB86 standard when they didn't issue frame tolerance ranges when the standard was launched- which meant that there was a lot of experimenting among manufacturers to see where the pass/fail line is. At this point we just don't see creaky BBs on JG BB86 frames- and it's rare to hear about issues with Giant, BMC, or Pivot (who all use the standard) as well. And given BB86's widespread use, you know that parts will be available long into the future.
Compliance-wise, tires and tire-pressure are by far the biggest contributor- there's an early post on the Silca blog that suggests that within a given category, the difference between stiffest and most compliant frames equates to a few psi. They have a beta pressure calculator on their website that I've found to be pretty spot-on for gravel. Seatposts can make a difference when they're engineered for compliance (Cannondale SAVE, Syntace HiFlex, Ritchey Flexlogic), but it's less noticeable on a road or gravel bike simply because there's less post exposed than on a similar mountain bike. While wheels shouldn't matter, I do think that there's something special to Spinergy's gravel wheels, for what that's worth: given the same bike/tires/pressure they ride somehow 'quieter' than similar-weight and -width wheels I've ridden. There's probably an aerodynamic downside to the larger diameter spokes, but when fitted with wide knobby tires it's probably in the noise (and they can be had with bladed spokes for a small upcharge). I've only grabbed a set off a demo bike for ~40mi and there's a hint of windup when starting from a trackstand, but I look forward to spending more time with them, especially on big days.
When building bikes for customers we have to keep those short stays in mind when it comes to SRAM AXS FD battery clearance (~38mm tire max, vs 42-43 for 1x), but aside from that they just make the bike more lively and (to me) fun. The Atalaya is a bike that a road cyclist will hop on and feel fast, both nimble in twisty singletrack and confident at speed. It's on the stiff/responsive end of the gravel spectrum no doubt, but with the right tires (up to 700x43mm or 27.5x2.1in) and pressures for your terrain is a bike that you can happily spend all day on (which, Superbowl notwithstanding) exactly what I plan on doing tomorrow. In the meantime, please feel to reach out any time!
Thanks for finding the Atalaya! Part of what allows the 420mm chainstay is the cast titanium BB/chainstay assembly. It's dropped on the drive side to clear the chainring and provide plenty of stiffness without resorting to a chainstay bridge. Jan-Willem (founder of Van Nichols and owner of J.Guillem) is very much coming from a road background and really spent a lot of time and effort keeping the rear end close and efficient.
As far as the press fit (BB86) bottom bracket goes, it's been a non-issue for us in the US and J.Guillem in NL. The benefit is a ~15mm wider shell, which allows for a wider/stiffer down tube and more tire:chainstay clearance as well as better-supported bearings. The tolerance and wear issues you see in some carbon frames aren't an issue- Ti stays the size it is machined to. As long as you stick to standard Shimano/SRAM/Rotor/Easton BBs and away from the oversized models designed for creaky carbon frames you'll be A-OK. We've tried some aftermarket BBs in the past and because the Ti doesn't give, the aluminum cups can be deformed enough to cause a lot of drag. T47 has some advantages for sure, but not enough at the moment to justify the added cost, weight, and parts availability challenges- and a framebuilder will have to weigh in on the impact of the larger shell on chainstay length. Shimano undermined the BB86 standard when they didn't issue frame tolerance ranges when the standard was launched- which meant that there was a lot of experimenting among manufacturers to see where the pass/fail line is. At this point we just don't see creaky BBs on JG BB86 frames- and it's rare to hear about issues with Giant, BMC, or Pivot (who all use the standard) as well. And given BB86's widespread use, you know that parts will be available long into the future.
Compliance-wise, tires and tire-pressure are by far the biggest contributor- there's an early post on the Silca blog that suggests that within a given category, the difference between stiffest and most compliant frames equates to a few psi. They have a beta pressure calculator on their website that I've found to be pretty spot-on for gravel. Seatposts can make a difference when they're engineered for compliance (Cannondale SAVE, Syntace HiFlex, Ritchey Flexlogic), but it's less noticeable on a road or gravel bike simply because there's less post exposed than on a similar mountain bike. While wheels shouldn't matter, I do think that there's something special to Spinergy's gravel wheels, for what that's worth: given the same bike/tires/pressure they ride somehow 'quieter' than similar-weight and -width wheels I've ridden. There's probably an aerodynamic downside to the larger diameter spokes, but when fitted with wide knobby tires it's probably in the noise (and they can be had with bladed spokes for a small upcharge). I've only grabbed a set off a demo bike for ~40mi and there's a hint of windup when starting from a trackstand, but I look forward to spending more time with them, especially on big days.
When building bikes for customers we have to keep those short stays in mind when it comes to SRAM AXS FD battery clearance (~38mm tire max, vs 42-43 for 1x), but aside from that they just make the bike more lively and (to me) fun. The Atalaya is a bike that a road cyclist will hop on and feel fast, both nimble in twisty singletrack and confident at speed. It's on the stiff/responsive end of the gravel spectrum no doubt, but with the right tires (up to 700x43mm or 27.5x2.1in) and pressures for your terrain is a bike that you can happily spend all day on (which, Superbowl notwithstanding) exactly what I plan on doing tomorrow. In the meantime, please feel to reach out any time!
Likes For Lindarets:
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
@sweetspot,
Thanks for finding the Atalaya! Part of what allows the 420mm chainstay is the cast titanium BB/chainstay assembly. It's dropped on the drive side to clear the chainring and provide plenty of stiffness without resorting to a chainstay bridge. Jan-Willem (founder of Van Nichols and owner of J.Guillem) is very much coming from a road background and really spent a lot of time and effort keeping the rear end close and efficient.
As far as the press fit (BB86) bottom bracket goes, it's been a non-issue for us in the US and J.Guillem in NL. The benefit is a ~15mm wider shell, which allows for a wider/stiffer down tube and more tire:chainstay clearance as well as better-supported bearings. The tolerance and wear issues you see in some carbon frames aren't an issue- Ti stays the size it is machined to. As long as you stick to standard Shimano/SRAM/Rotor/Easton BBs and away from the oversized models designed for creaky carbon frames you'll be A-OK. We've tried some aftermarket BBs in the past and because the Ti doesn't give, the aluminum cups can be deformed enough to cause a lot of drag. T47 has some advantages for sure, but not enough at the moment to justify the added cost, weight, and parts availability challenges- and a framebuilder will have to weigh in on the impact of the larger shell on chainstay length. Shimano undermined the BB86 standard when they didn't issue frame tolerance ranges when the standard was launched- which meant that there was a lot of experimenting among manufacturers to see where the pass/fail line is. At this point we just don't see creaky BBs on JG BB86 frames- and it's rare to hear about issues with Giant, BMC, or Pivot (who all use the standard) as well. And given BB86's widespread use, you know that parts will be available long into the future.
Compliance-wise, tires and tire-pressure are by far the biggest contributor- there's an early post on the Silca blog that suggests that within a given category, the difference between stiffest and most compliant frames equates to a few psi. They have a beta pressure calculator on their website that I've found to be pretty spot-on for gravel. Seatposts can make a difference when they're engineered for compliance (Cannondale SAVE, Syntace HiFlex, Ritchey Flexlogic), but it's less noticeable on a road or gravel bike simply because there's less post exposed than on a similar mountain bike. While wheels shouldn't matter, I do think that there's something special to Spinergy's gravel wheels, for what that's worth: given the same bike/tires/pressure they ride somehow 'quieter' than similar-weight and -width wheels I've ridden. There's probably an aerodynamic downside to the larger diameter spokes, but when fitted with wide knobby tires it's probably in the noise (and they can be had with bladed spokes for a small upcharge). I've only grabbed a set off a demo bike for ~40mi and there's a hint of windup when starting from a trackstand, but I look forward to spending more time with them, especially on big days.
When building bikes for customers we have to keep those short stays in mind when it comes to SRAM AXS FD battery clearance (~38mm tire max, vs 42-43 for 1x), but aside from that they just make the bike more lively and (to me) fun. The Atalaya is a bike that a road cyclist will hop on and feel fast, both nimble in twisty singletrack and confident at speed. It's on the stiff/responsive end of the gravel spectrum no doubt, but with the right tires (up to 700x43mm or 27.5x2.1in) and pressures for your terrain is a bike that you can happily spend all day on (which, Superbowl notwithstanding) exactly what I plan on doing tomorrow. In the meantime, please feel to reach out any time!
Thanks for finding the Atalaya! Part of what allows the 420mm chainstay is the cast titanium BB/chainstay assembly. It's dropped on the drive side to clear the chainring and provide plenty of stiffness without resorting to a chainstay bridge. Jan-Willem (founder of Van Nichols and owner of J.Guillem) is very much coming from a road background and really spent a lot of time and effort keeping the rear end close and efficient.
As far as the press fit (BB86) bottom bracket goes, it's been a non-issue for us in the US and J.Guillem in NL. The benefit is a ~15mm wider shell, which allows for a wider/stiffer down tube and more tire:chainstay clearance as well as better-supported bearings. The tolerance and wear issues you see in some carbon frames aren't an issue- Ti stays the size it is machined to. As long as you stick to standard Shimano/SRAM/Rotor/Easton BBs and away from the oversized models designed for creaky carbon frames you'll be A-OK. We've tried some aftermarket BBs in the past and because the Ti doesn't give, the aluminum cups can be deformed enough to cause a lot of drag. T47 has some advantages for sure, but not enough at the moment to justify the added cost, weight, and parts availability challenges- and a framebuilder will have to weigh in on the impact of the larger shell on chainstay length. Shimano undermined the BB86 standard when they didn't issue frame tolerance ranges when the standard was launched- which meant that there was a lot of experimenting among manufacturers to see where the pass/fail line is. At this point we just don't see creaky BBs on JG BB86 frames- and it's rare to hear about issues with Giant, BMC, or Pivot (who all use the standard) as well. And given BB86's widespread use, you know that parts will be available long into the future.
Compliance-wise, tires and tire-pressure are by far the biggest contributor- there's an early post on the Silca blog that suggests that within a given category, the difference between stiffest and most compliant frames equates to a few psi. They have a beta pressure calculator on their website that I've found to be pretty spot-on for gravel. Seatposts can make a difference when they're engineered for compliance (Cannondale SAVE, Syntace HiFlex, Ritchey Flexlogic), but it's less noticeable on a road or gravel bike simply because there's less post exposed than on a similar mountain bike. While wheels shouldn't matter, I do think that there's something special to Spinergy's gravel wheels, for what that's worth: given the same bike/tires/pressure they ride somehow 'quieter' than similar-weight and -width wheels I've ridden. There's probably an aerodynamic downside to the larger diameter spokes, but when fitted with wide knobby tires it's probably in the noise (and they can be had with bladed spokes for a small upcharge). I've only grabbed a set off a demo bike for ~40mi and there's a hint of windup when starting from a trackstand, but I look forward to spending more time with them, especially on big days.
When building bikes for customers we have to keep those short stays in mind when it comes to SRAM AXS FD battery clearance (~38mm tire max, vs 42-43 for 1x), but aside from that they just make the bike more lively and (to me) fun. The Atalaya is a bike that a road cyclist will hop on and feel fast, both nimble in twisty singletrack and confident at speed. It's on the stiff/responsive end of the gravel spectrum no doubt, but with the right tires (up to 700x43mm or 27.5x2.1in) and pressures for your terrain is a bike that you can happily spend all day on (which, Superbowl notwithstanding) exactly what I plan on doing tomorrow. In the meantime, please feel to reach out any time!
PS thanks for bringing the Spinergy wheels into the conversation. I am certainly intrigued by them.
#13
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 15
Bikes: J.Guillem Atalaya Gravel, Orient All-Road, & Tomir mountain
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
7 Posts
Thank you very much! Very informative. But it got me thinking. It looks like Atalaya is the titanium bike that offers plenty of stiffness, but at the cost of compliance (you said that it is not the comfiest and I read a review stating basically the same). So you buy a titanium bike for its comfort but at the cost of stiffness and when you want the stiffness you lose comfort. So what is the point when you can get the desired stiffness from carbon and at the same time you can engineer compliance to that frame whereas titanium you can make either compliant or stiff. I am thinking about a bike like Vielo V+1 which also has a short chainstay, is plenty stiff but at the same time has nice flexing rear end and a very compliant fork.
PS thanks for bringing the Spinergy wheels into the conversation. I am certainly intrigued by them.
PS thanks for bringing the Spinergy wheels into the conversation. I am certainly intrigued by them.
You're welcome! I don't know that the focus of modern Ti is comfort- the material (as used in bikes) certainly has some liveliness that you don't always feel in other materials, but the frame shouldn't be the first stop when it comes to comfort. Good tires, a reliable gage, and a willingness to experiment with pressures are a lot less expensive and more effective there.
That said, titanium is particularly well-suited to gravel bikes. There's the liveliness, a slight springiness (or 'planing') that can be built in and does add something to the ride. But moreso you have durability, and longevity. In a sport where it's not uncommon to have rocks kicked into the downtube or a bike topple over at a rest stop, you don't need to worry about actually using a Ti frame. You can strap bags to a (raw) Ti frame or knock a muddy wheel out of true and not worry about wearing through the finish, let alone causing structural damage. And I personally take pleasure in the thought that Ti frames are disproportionately passed on rather than retired due to wear or crash damage- you can be reasonably certain that the Ti frame you buy today will be someone's town/errand/commuter bike in fifteen or twenty years' time.
What a lot of us missed was the moment where many off-the-peg carbon frames became more expensive than Ti- which just isn't the case any more. Both materials can be had across the price spectrum, but there's a lot more overlap than people seem to realize. Maybe it's nostalgia or trickle-down prestige from the custom builders, but many riders tend to connect emotionally with Ti in a way that they don't with carbon. And if you're looking at a mid-range or higher carbon frame I think that it's absolutely worth taking a good look at what you can get in Ti- our GRX bikes aren't much more than a good quality carbon frame with similar parts and our AXS builds are close to or less than most similar premium brands'.
Likes For Lindarets:
#14
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
sweetspot
You're welcome! I don't know that the focus of modern Ti is comfort- the material (as used in bikes) certainly has some liveliness that you don't always feel in other materials, but the frame shouldn't be the first stop when it comes to comfort. Good tires, a reliable gage, and a willingness to experiment with pressures are a lot less expensive and more effective there.
That said, titanium is particularly well-suited to gravel bikes. There's the liveliness, a slight springiness (or 'planing') that can be built in and does add something to the ride. But moreso you have durability, and longevity. In a sport where it's not uncommon to have rocks kicked into the downtube or a bike topple over at a rest stop, you don't need to worry about actually using a Ti frame. You can strap bags to a (raw) Ti frame or knock a muddy wheel out of true and not worry about wearing through the finish, let alone causing structural damage. And I personally take pleasure in the thought that Ti frames are disproportionately passed on rather than retired due to wear or crash damage- you can be reasonably certain that the Ti frame you buy today will be someone's town/errand/commuter bike in fifteen or twenty years' time.
What a lot of us missed was the moment where many off-the-peg carbon frames became more expensive than Ti- which just isn't the case any more. Both materials can be had across the price spectrum, but there's a lot more overlap than people seem to realize. Maybe it's nostalgia or trickle-down prestige from the custom builders, but many riders tend to connect emotionally with Ti in a way that they don't with carbon. And if you're looking at a mid-range or higher carbon frame I think that it's absolutely worth taking a good look at what you can get in Ti- our GRX bikes aren't much more than a good quality carbon frame with similar parts and our AXS builds are close to or less than most similar premium brands'.
You're welcome! I don't know that the focus of modern Ti is comfort- the material (as used in bikes) certainly has some liveliness that you don't always feel in other materials, but the frame shouldn't be the first stop when it comes to comfort. Good tires, a reliable gage, and a willingness to experiment with pressures are a lot less expensive and more effective there.
That said, titanium is particularly well-suited to gravel bikes. There's the liveliness, a slight springiness (or 'planing') that can be built in and does add something to the ride. But moreso you have durability, and longevity. In a sport where it's not uncommon to have rocks kicked into the downtube or a bike topple over at a rest stop, you don't need to worry about actually using a Ti frame. You can strap bags to a (raw) Ti frame or knock a muddy wheel out of true and not worry about wearing through the finish, let alone causing structural damage. And I personally take pleasure in the thought that Ti frames are disproportionately passed on rather than retired due to wear or crash damage- you can be reasonably certain that the Ti frame you buy today will be someone's town/errand/commuter bike in fifteen or twenty years' time.
What a lot of us missed was the moment where many off-the-peg carbon frames became more expensive than Ti- which just isn't the case any more. Both materials can be had across the price spectrum, but there's a lot more overlap than people seem to realize. Maybe it's nostalgia or trickle-down prestige from the custom builders, but many riders tend to connect emotionally with Ti in a way that they don't with carbon. And if you're looking at a mid-range or higher carbon frame I think that it's absolutely worth taking a good look at what you can get in Ti- our GRX bikes aren't much more than a good quality carbon frame with similar parts and our AXS builds are close to or less than most similar premium brands'.
The durability of titanium is a thing that for sure is important for me. Especially that I want to ride with my son and I have a nice child seat that you mount on a seat tube. I can use it with a titanium bike, but there is no such possibility with a carbon frame. I can buy a carbon bike with rack mounts and mount a child seat on it but I don't feel that it will be 100% safe.
#15
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 15
Bikes: J.Guillem Atalaya Gravel, Orient All-Road, & Tomir mountain
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
7 Posts
We spec the ENVE G Series fork on our (US) builds and don't have any experience with the V+1 so can't compare directly. But with that said, I would say that the G Series does a good job at balancing the compliance with stiffness and durability. It's the same sort of stacked spring problem as with the frame- the tires have an order of magnitude more impact than the fork, followed by the bars and potentially wheels. For ultimate comfort, active suspension like a Lauf fork or Redshift stem make a massive difference- but they come with downsides in the forms of weight/cost/unwanted movement/aesthetics that won't be acceptable to everyone. After tires/pressure, the biggest front end difference someone who doesn't want active suspension can make is a compliant bar- the ENVE G Series gravel bar has a great shape and reduces buzz noticeably and is a great place to start and I've heard that the Canyon biplane bar is pretty comfy (but won't be for everyone).
Likes For Lindarets:
#16
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
We spec the ENVE G Series fork on our (US) builds and don't have any experience with the V+1 so can't compare directly. But with that said, I would say that the G Series does a good job at balancing the compliance with stiffness and durability. It's the same sort of stacked spring problem as with the frame- the tires have an order of magnitude more impact than the fork, followed by the bars and potentially wheels. For ultimate comfort, active suspension like a Lauf fork or Redshift stem make a massive difference- but they come with downsides in the forms of weight/cost/unwanted movement/aesthetics that won't be acceptable to everyone. After tires/pressure, the biggest front end difference someone who doesn't want active suspension can make is a compliant bar- the ENVE G Series gravel bar has a great shape and reduces buzz noticeably and is a great place to start and I've heard that the Canyon biplane bar is pretty comfy (but won't be for everyone).
#17
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
sweetspot
You're welcome! I don't know that the focus of modern Ti is comfort- the material (as used in bikes) certainly has some liveliness that you don't always feel in other materials, but the frame shouldn't be the first stop when it comes to comfort. Good tires, a reliable gage, and a willingness to experiment with pressures are a lot less expensive and more effective there.
That said, titanium is particularly well-suited to gravel bikes. There's the liveliness, a slight springiness (or 'planing') that can be built in and does add something to the ride. But moreso you have durability, and longevity. In a sport where it's not uncommon to have rocks kicked into the downtube or a bike topple over at a rest stop, you don't need to worry about actually using a Ti frame. You can strap bags to a (raw) Ti frame or knock a muddy wheel out of true and not worry about wearing through the finish, let alone causing structural damage. And I personally take pleasure in the thought that Ti frames are disproportionately passed on rather than retired due to wear or crash damage- you can be reasonably certain that the Ti frame you buy today will be someone's town/errand/commuter bike in fifteen or twenty years' time.
What a lot of us missed was the moment where many off-the-peg carbon frames became more expensive than Ti- which just isn't the case any more. Both materials can be had across the price spectrum, but there's a lot more overlap than people seem to realize. Maybe it's nostalgia or trickle-down prestige from the custom builders, but many riders tend to connect emotionally with Ti in a way that they don't with carbon. And if you're looking at a mid-range or higher carbon frame I think that it's absolutely worth taking a good look at what you can get in Ti- our GRX bikes aren't much more than a good quality carbon frame with similar parts and our AXS builds are close to or less than most similar premium brands'.
You're welcome! I don't know that the focus of modern Ti is comfort- the material (as used in bikes) certainly has some liveliness that you don't always feel in other materials, but the frame shouldn't be the first stop when it comes to comfort. Good tires, a reliable gage, and a willingness to experiment with pressures are a lot less expensive and more effective there.
That said, titanium is particularly well-suited to gravel bikes. There's the liveliness, a slight springiness (or 'planing') that can be built in and does add something to the ride. But moreso you have durability, and longevity. In a sport where it's not uncommon to have rocks kicked into the downtube or a bike topple over at a rest stop, you don't need to worry about actually using a Ti frame. You can strap bags to a (raw) Ti frame or knock a muddy wheel out of true and not worry about wearing through the finish, let alone causing structural damage. And I personally take pleasure in the thought that Ti frames are disproportionately passed on rather than retired due to wear or crash damage- you can be reasonably certain that the Ti frame you buy today will be someone's town/errand/commuter bike in fifteen or twenty years' time.
What a lot of us missed was the moment where many off-the-peg carbon frames became more expensive than Ti- which just isn't the case any more. Both materials can be had across the price spectrum, but there's a lot more overlap than people seem to realize. Maybe it's nostalgia or trickle-down prestige from the custom builders, but many riders tend to connect emotionally with Ti in a way that they don't with carbon. And if you're looking at a mid-range or higher carbon frame I think that it's absolutely worth taking a good look at what you can get in Ti- our GRX bikes aren't much more than a good quality carbon frame with similar parts and our AXS builds are close to or less than most similar premium brands'.
#18
Senior Member
Totally forgot to mention the steel Rodeo Labs Flaanimal 5.0. Though it has a carbon seat tube.
Can be run at 415mm chainstay.
Can be run at 415mm chainstay.
#19
Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Atalaya vs Ruut Ti
Hi all,
Glad I found this forum, I'm considering getting either the Atalaya or the Rondo Ruut Ti but I can't find a single review on the Rondo. I like the aesthetics of it a little more but that's a small part of the evaluation. I'm going to go ride them and that will give me some insight, but I wondered if anyone here has experience with either bike or has heard anything about the Rondo?
Many thanks for the help!
Glad I found this forum, I'm considering getting either the Atalaya or the Rondo Ruut Ti but I can't find a single review on the Rondo. I like the aesthetics of it a little more but that's a small part of the evaluation. I'm going to go ride them and that will give me some insight, but I wondered if anyone here has experience with either bike or has heard anything about the Rondo?
Many thanks for the help!
#20
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,448
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3146 Post(s)
Liked 1,711 Times
in
1,033 Posts
Hi all,
Glad I found this forum, I'm considering getting either the Atalaya or the Rondo Ruut Ti but I can't find a single review on the Rondo. I like the aesthetics of it a little more but that's a small part of the evaluation. I'm going to go ride them and that will give me some insight, but I wondered if anyone here has experience with either bike or has heard anything about the Rondo?
Many thanks for the help!
Glad I found this forum, I'm considering getting either the Atalaya or the Rondo Ruut Ti but I can't find a single review on the Rondo. I like the aesthetics of it a little more but that's a small part of the evaluation. I'm going to go ride them and that will give me some insight, but I wondered if anyone here has experience with either bike or has heard anything about the Rondo?
Many thanks for the help!
https://www.bikesuperior.com/rondo-fietsen/
#21
Full Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Ellay
Posts: 340
Bikes: 2002 Eddy Merckx Team SC Resto-Mod; 2019 Ibis Hakka MX; 2017 Spot Brand Ajax Belt Drive
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked 192 Times
in
121 Posts
The Knolly Cache comes in steel or titanium with 422mm chainstays
Likes For mattcalifornia:
#23
Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Hey, thanks for the reply. He actually has both bikes and, restrictions willing, I'll go there and check them both out next week. I live in NL.
Cheers!
Cheers!
#24
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,448
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3146 Post(s)
Liked 1,711 Times
in
1,033 Posts
I was looking at the Atalaya myself, thinking it had some cool features, like the hollow, cast BB yoke, and just a cool, classic look to the geometry. I didn’t really know what kind of geo I wanted for gravel, or even what size tires would be optimal, but a great deal on a T-Lab X3 made the Ti decision for me. The Rondo looks more modern in terms of geometry, but I’ve not looked at it closely.
Please share your thoughts on the Rondo after you check it out.