"Road VS. MTB style Frame Fit"
 

On average, most of the gravel bikes I see, have a top tube, Reach and chainstay length maybe 10mm longer than a standard road bike. There are bikes such as the specialized diverge or Whyte Glencoe, which tend to split the difference between a road/MTB more intimately, by offering a longer reach, top tube, and shorter length to compensate. The longer overall wheelbase paired with relatively shorter stem seems to offer an interesting compromise between the spectrum of high speed stability and low speed manevourabilty, agility.

What would you consider to be the sweet spot in terms of a truly capable multisurface bike; one that knows no compromise in the search of speed, stability and comfort?

After looking around, it seems as though light suspension, sort of like the Cannondale Topstone Carbon Lefty, or the hydraulic headset shock in Specialized bikes, and 650b wheels with thick cushioning tired seems to provide this balance. The idea of cushioning, dampening, bump absorption is what allows engineers to achieve more than ever before when it comes to a bike that truly does it all.

What do you consider a "standard" road bike?

Huh?

None. Everything's a compromise.

Long front-center is primarily about keeping the rider behind the front wheel, i.e. stability in the fore-aft direction.

Depends on what "multisurface" means.

Let me stop you there. On average most of the gravel bikes you see offer different geometry and different solutions for dealing with a surface that until 10-15 years ago was simply not where many drop bar riders were going. An in that decade of time gravel bike design has seen some significant evolution and general broadening of the range. For instance, we are at a point now where some companies offer aero gravel bikes.

The bike I want to ride. It’s personal. But, there is no such thing as “no compromise.” There are a lot of bikes that can do a lot, but as soon as you build a bike to do more than one thing really well, it's all a compromise. There is a reason that TT bikes exist.

I disagree, "cushioning, dampening, bump absorption” is what allows a rider to go faster over rougher surfaces while accepting that those things will negatively impact power transfer and will show their limits on smoother surfaces, like asphalt.

this thread so far...
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4397991a33.gif




To actually apply the gif to this thread, maybe the woman wouldnt have crashed if her suspension and front center were different. Dont think so, but maybe!

I'd feel better if she were wearing a helmet!

Here we go again....geometry and suspension muddled into an incomprehensible word stew, :foo:

The reason some gravel bikes have more MTB-like quasi-progressive geometry while others have more road-like geometry is because bike designers and cyclists in general have differing preferences. There’s no consensus on what a gravel bike is for. Some people like racing and want a road bike with bigger tires. Some people want to go bike packing. Other people want to shred downhills. That last one got taken to ridiculous extremes when Evil put out the Sammy Hagar last year or the year before, with enduro bike geometry and an accompanying marketing campaign that more-or-less openly claimed that road bikes don’t have progressive geometry because road bike designers are hidebound morons. Personally I think progressive geo really sucks when you aren’t on a steep descent, but is pretty dang good when you are on one. It all goes to show there’s really no such things as “no compromise,” and you should just try to make the compromise you like best.