Anybody recently purchase a Litespeed gravel bike?
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Anybody recently purchase a Litespeed gravel bike?
If anyone owns a Litespeed that they purchased relatively recently, I was wondering if you could measure the headtube length? Doesn't matter if it's an Ultimate, Ultimate G2, Watia, or Cherohala.
Basically there is a problem on their website where their geometry numbers don't tie out--either the stack numbers are about 20mm too high or the headtubes are about 20mm longer than what they state. The guy at Litespeed agrees there is a discrepancy but simply told me he is "sure the stack numbers are right", which isn't the same thing as "I measured and confirmed".
Any other comments you have on the bike are of course appreciated as well. Thanks!
Basically there is a problem on their website where their geometry numbers don't tie out--either the stack numbers are about 20mm too high or the headtubes are about 20mm longer than what they state. The guy at Litespeed agrees there is a discrepancy but simply told me he is "sure the stack numbers are right", which isn't the same thing as "I measured and confirmed".
Any other comments you have on the bike are of course appreciated as well. Thanks!
#2
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,851
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2134 Post(s)
Liked 1,644 Times
in
826 Posts
I'd press Litespeed for measurements. When I have called them in the past, they have been very responsive.
Likes For stlutz:
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,860
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6950 Post(s)
Liked 10,958 Times
in
4,685 Posts
Some random Litespeed of any old vintage, size, and model is not going to provide any useful information for your purchase decision; it'll just muddy the water. You need precise info on the model and size that YOU are considering. If Litespeed can't provide that, then that, in itself, is a very useful piece of information.
#5
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Just to close out the discussion, Litespeed's response to my questions was that they have a money-back guarantee. That's good, but not really an answer.
So yeah, if you're fussy about fit make sure you run the posted geometry data of any bike you're looking at through a geometry calculator like bikegeocalc.com or bikegeo.net. Because everybody includes stack/reach numbers in addition to angles, tube lengths and so forth, one can verify that data is correct since they are supposed to tie out. Litespeed wasn't the only company I ran across with numbers that were way off, but the other company understood that they were wrong and fixed their website.
In the end, I decided to go with a Lynskey.
So yeah, if you're fussy about fit make sure you run the posted geometry data of any bike you're looking at through a geometry calculator like bikegeocalc.com or bikegeo.net. Because everybody includes stack/reach numbers in addition to angles, tube lengths and so forth, one can verify that data is correct since they are supposed to tie out. Litespeed wasn't the only company I ran across with numbers that were way off, but the other company understood that they were wrong and fixed their website.
In the end, I decided to go with a Lynskey.
#6
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,431
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: 3132 Post(s)
Liked 1,700 Times
in
1,027 Posts
stlutz what do you mean, exactly, by the numbers don’t “tie-out”? How did you determine there was a problem with either stack height or HT length based on the website geometry charts?
#7
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I mean that if you go the sites I linked above and enter in all of the frameset measurements from the manufacturer, they should yield stack & reach figures that match what the mfr. publishes in those same geo charts. (Note that there is always a little wiggle room due to factors like headset cups--I'm talking about being off by 2cm, not 2mm).
You do it for a Specialized, Cannondale etc. (i.e. companies with the resources to QA their websites), the raw data always results in the published stack/reach numbers. For smaller companies, I've found that they seem to be more prone to make errors when the data gets moved from their design drawings to their websites.
You do it for a Specialized, Cannondale etc. (i.e. companies with the resources to QA their websites), the raw data always results in the published stack/reach numbers. For smaller companies, I've found that they seem to be more prone to make errors when the data gets moved from their design drawings to their websites.
#8
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,431
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: 3132 Post(s)
Liked 1,700 Times
in
1,027 Posts
I mean that if you go the sites I linked above and enter in all of the frameset measurements from the manufacturer, they should yield stack & reach figures that match what the mfr. publishes in those same geo charts. (Note that there is always a little wiggle room due to factors like headset cups--I'm talking about being off by 2cm, not 2mm).
You do it for a Specialized, Cannondale etc. (i.e. companies with the resources to QA their websites), the raw data always results in the published stack/reach numbers. For smaller companies, I've found that they seem to be more prone to make errors when the data gets moved from their design drawings to their websites.
You do it for a Specialized, Cannondale etc. (i.e. companies with the resources to QA their websites), the raw data always results in the published stack/reach numbers. For smaller companies, I've found that they seem to be more prone to make errors when the data gets moved from their design drawings to their websites.
#9
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
If a geo calculator spits out, say, 414, something is wrong
#10
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,431
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: 3132 Post(s)
Liked 1,700 Times
in
1,027 Posts
For example, the 12mm-thru axle, carbon gravel forks Ritchey WCS Carbon Gravel and Whisky No. 9 MCX are not rare bits and differ by 32mm (383 vs 415).
Though WCS Carbon Gravel Cross clears 40mm rubber, even their 48mm tire clearance WCS Carbon Adventure is only 393mm long, still a 22mm difference on the MCX.
I don’t know how rare 415mm length forks are— current Lauf Grit SL is 416— but definitely 405mm gravel forks are quite common. Stock carbon fork fitment on the Jamis Renegades is their ECO fork at 405mm. Here again, recognizing that Ritchey bits are not uncommon OE spec bits, there could be 22mm of variance if the WCS Carbon Gravel Cross were fitted rather than the ECO.
So yeah, assuming 395mm forks in the calculator while being aware 405mm forks are not uncommon, does reduce error to 10mm less than what you’re estimating in the Litespeed numbers.
I don’t know if you’re seeing that kind of disconnect across the Litespeed range, which would indicate a systemic issue, but particularly in the gravel realm, you need to know the fork length to accurately confirm Stack Height, because there is significant variance in length across fork length in this very dynamic and broad category.
#11
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
My simplification was just that. And I agree that it would be better for these companies to include fork lengths in their charts.
But on the other hand, the Ultimate is in many ways closer to an endurance road bike in terms of geometry than new gravel bikes (like their own Ultimate G2). If they were spec'ing that bike with a 415mm monstercross fork, that would be weird in itself. A shorter 383mm fork actually makes sense in some ways, although that would mean that the bike would not support the advertised 45mm of tire clearance (and if they went with an MCX fork they would be in the 50s).
And yes, I found conflicts with other bikes on their site, and the differences aren't always consistent from bike to bike.
But on the other hand, the Ultimate is in many ways closer to an endurance road bike in terms of geometry than new gravel bikes (like their own Ultimate G2). If they were spec'ing that bike with a 415mm monstercross fork, that would be weird in itself. A shorter 383mm fork actually makes sense in some ways, although that would mean that the bike would not support the advertised 45mm of tire clearance (and if they went with an MCX fork they would be in the 50s).
And yes, I found conflicts with other bikes on their site, and the differences aren't always consistent from bike to bike.
Likes For stlutz: