Got a PX Tempest a year ago. Great bike but out of price range.
What I would say is whatever gravel bike you go for, budget for 2 sets of wheels (inc discs, cassette, tyres etc).
Having one road set and one gravel set makes it an even better bike.
Saw a bike the other day ( think it was a light blue Darwin) looked tall at the front, drops, biggish tyres. They’ve obviously heard you.
By the time the drops are the height of a 29er XC bike you just have a too-narrow XC bar position, I think of the grips and the front tyre making a triangle and that tall narrow triangle isn't much good for stability/control. imho the high/drops thing isn't very compatible with handling a bike over anything tricky off-road but it's fine for touring very easy, open tracks.
I had a couple of frames made a while back that tried the MTB geometry, short stem ideas, tall fronts etc. tbh I thought it all added up to either a very jack-all-trades bike that was a bit dull on lanes or trails, or a great US 'county roads' kind of bike. But even on the Ridgeway I preferred my 29er. Anyway... all subjective stuff and only posted for the chat, not saying either way of doing it is wrong/right.
(prob should move this post to the 'progressive gravel bikes' thread)
If you’d said it was going more off road I’d have said don’t get a sram equipped one but it’s fine for tarmac (as it was designed for it) go shimano GRX if you think you’ll do more gravel in the future.
Why's that? I'd naturally favour Shimano anyway, but that might be quite limiting.
I'm selling a Whyte 2018 Friston on gumtree. Newcastle way.
1750 new, on for 1200. Sub 1000 miles.
@kevt it's a 54cm (I'd say it's a large frame?). I'm 185 cm could probably fit someone a bit shorter and taller (defo for someone taller).
Ok ta, too big for me
Anyway… all subjective stuff and only posted for the chat, not saying either way of doing it is wrong/right.
(prob should move this post to the ‘progressive gravel bikes’ thread)
@jameso It's very interesting though. I'm fascinated by different designers takes on geo and how bikes are intended by the designer to fit etc. I can't get my head around the apparently diametrically opposed opinions.
I can’t get my head around the apparently diametrically opposed opinions.
People like riding different sorts of bike, it is that simple. Many people love big tyres and relaxed geometry bikes for gravel riding but I just find those bikes really dull to ride.
I ride a steep angled fixed gear on narrow tyres because that is what I enjoy riding but if most people tried riding it they would throw it in the nearest hedge within 100 metres.
Regarding geometry, one of the things I really want is less toe overlap. That means some combination of longer front centre and slacker head angle to create room for my feet. Doing that means some combination of shorter stem and/or steeper seat angle/longer stays to get the weight distribution back.
All this because I find the toe overlap an issue on steep techy climbs.
Conversely, I'd imagine someone living out in East Anglia would quite possibly want to complete opposite.
Edit: the key to how much of the about for me is pedal/shoe focused. I can't find a clipless shoe to suit my feet so flat pedals and shoes on a gravel bike seem to involve being further forward. Maybe I should consider old skool clips and straps.
I can’t get my head around the apparently diametrically opposed opinions.
In what way, that people don't arrive at a general consensus on good geometry/design?
Many people love big tyres and relaxed geometry bikes for gravel riding but I just find those bikes really dull to ride.
I ride a steep angled fixed gear on narrow tyres because that is what I enjoy riding but if most people tried riding it they would throw it in the nearest hedge within 100 metres.
Dunno about throwing it in a hedge, but I'd pinch-flat it not long after that 100m : )
In what way, that people don’t arrive at a general consensus on good geometry/design?
Yeah, sort of. Not about how individuals like to ride any given bike, that's just preference.
More about the the gravel bikes are road bikes with big tyres vs they are an entity to themselves
Or, I was reading about 2 bikes, hardtails from the LLS school. One designer had designed the bike to fit in a certain way, longer reach/ett for a given size. The other much shorter for a given size because far too many people were riding bikes that were too big. That bike was barely longer than a few years older bike that was far too short by modern LLS standards. And people are still arguing about 68 vs 64 degree head angles for xx trail use.
Dunno about throwing it in a hedge, but I’d pinch-flat it not long after that 100m : )
Doesn't happen - I use very tough tyres and have them fairly high as I hate the feeling of softer tyres (another thing people will differ on!)
The new Boardman carbon adv 9.0 looks a bargain
