Originally Posted by
msu2001la
More to the point of this thread, Cannondale apparently sees no difference between CX and Gravel when it comes to high level racing geometry and frame design. This is backed up by results from recent years of gravel racing, where Cannondale endorsed athletes won several high-profile gravel races on the same SuperX that was used by pro UCI CX racers. They've doubled down on this with their new bike. Ted King already raced one of these new bikes this year at Unbound, and has noted in the past his preference for racing the SuperX for gravel, rather than Cannondale's gravel bike (which he has raced in the past, even with a Lefty fork).
Here's a quote from earlier this year:
“I’m running a Cannondale SuperX in most of my gravel races," King told Bike Perfect. "The Topstone is an incredible rig too, but I tend to opt for that on rides geared more towards exploration. If speed is on the line, I’m generally going with the SuperX." https://www.bikeperfect.com/features...l-bike-gallery
I'm going to guess that at the top end they spend hours more daily than I can on a bike, have more strength and flexibility, and will finish things like Kanza/Unbound hours faster than me (I'd like to do it next year and just hope to finish), so are in less need of the more relaxed geometry. Over 30-50 miles I've averaged about 14-18mph on the gravel depending on if its unpaved rail trail or real gravel with hills and how big the hills are, for 100 miles I'm down to 12-14mph and I'm hopeful to be able to maintain that for longer. They're averaging more like 18-20 for the whole distance and that has to make a difference in what geometry matters.