Help me find a gravel bike for Bonnie

[Erik Timmerman]

Looking for a new bike for my wife. She does shorter rides, but is aiming for bigger things next year. Entry is in for Rooted (short course) and we are thinking about another RAGBRAI. She isn't going to be aggressively racing any races she does enter and is not interested rowdy Class IV riding.

She is 5'4ish

We just sold her XS Rocky Mountain Solo - it was just too small. I think it's biggest issue was a too short head tube.

She really likes my daughter's 2020 Kona Libre CR/DL 49cm - that size has pretty much been renamed 52cm most measurements stay the same, but TT seems to be more sloped. She did her longest rides on this bike and felt pretty comfortable. However even on this bike when she is riding she is mostly riding with just her fingertips on the tops. So I feel like it would be nice if the bike was touch shorter, but if it goes smaller, the head tube might be shorter.

We've tried a few Diverges, a 52 and a 54. 54 definitely too big. 52 was OK, but not great. The Futureshock stem doesn't have much adjustability or really any adjustability at all.

She liked the 53cm Ibis Hakka. It was way too big for her though. Saddle was practically sitting on the TT. Headtube was long enough and with spacers and a conventional stem the bars were higher than the seat. I could almost see buying this bike one size smaller and just figuring it out.

My question is are there any FREE resources to compare geo of these bikes and others?

I can most easily get Specialized and Ibis. I've been watching for used Konas, and have been considering Canyon as well.

 

[scott43]

Geometry Geeks

The world's biggest open geometry database. Find bikes by name or numbers. Easily compare bike geometry side-by-side.

geometrygeeks.bike

I mostly do mine in Excel for ease of access..

 

[Tony S]

So I feel like it would be nice if the bike was touch shorter, but if it goes smaller, the head tube might be shorter.

Why can't you just leave the steerer tube long on the smaller bike?
A top tube that's too long just doesn't work, as you obviously know

 

[Tony S]

She liked the 53cm Ibis Hakka. It was way too big for her though. Saddle was practically sitting on the TT. Headtube was long enough and with spacers and a conventional stem the bars were higher than the seat. I could almost see buying this bike one size smaller and just figuring it out.

Wow, the tt on this model seems super long. The 53 would probably be too big for me and I'm 3" taller than she is. Their rider height guide seems way off. Then again, it's a chart, not a bike.

 

[scott43]

I suppose a longer head tube gives a higher cockpit. But you could space up the bars if you have the adjustment flexibility.

You could also do shorter stem to compensate for the longer top tube..but if it's significant, it might lead to other fit issues.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Why can't you just leave the steerer tube long on the smaller bike?
A top tube that's too long just doesn't work, as you obviously know

A lot of them are already cut on complete bikes. On the Specialized There's no chance to do that at all.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Geometry Geeks

The world's biggest open geometry database. Find bikes by name or numbers. Easily compare bike geometry side-by-side.

geometrygeeks.bike

I mostly do mine in Excel for ease of access..

It's hard to figure out which numbers really matter. On the XS small Rocky and the 49cm Kona some numbers were exactly the same. Like the reach I think was 383mm on both, but the fit was radically different. It makes you wonder if they are all measuring the same thing or not.

 

[scott43]

It's hard to figure out which numbers really matter. On the XS small Rocky and the 49cm Kona some numbers were exactly the same. Like the reach I think was 383mm on both, but the fit was radically different. It makes you wonder if they are all measuring the same thing or not.

They are measuring the same thing...but the frame of reference is not constant because of the amount of variability in the build. For instance, Reach is an objective formula. However, it does not account for seat tube angle. It measures the horizontal distance from the BB centre to the centre of the top head tube opening. But what if you're looking at a 70d seat tube angle and a long top tube? Radically different. Anyone who thinks that you can take a reach measurement and away you go, it's possible it's right..but likely it won't be. So you kinda have to have an existing "good fit" bike and then start putting the numbers in to see where you're up and where you're down. I still think Effective Top Tube is the leading indicator.

 

[cantunamunch]

It's hard to figure out which numbers really matter. On the XS small Rocky and the 49cm Kona some numbers were exactly the same. Like the reach I think was 383mm on both, but the fit was radically different. It makes you wonder if they are all measuring the same thing or not.

1. Do you care about the lower triangle at all? Just wondering what your thinking is on the crit bike<--->hardtail spectrum.

'Coz those Hakka numbers are pretty strongly crit; most of the Diverges will be further towards HT. (Esp. the E5 Evo)

2. Do you mind running 650b? 2a. Toe overlap been an issue at all?

 

[Ron]

For instance, Reach is an objective formula. However, it does not account for seat tube angle. It measures the horizontal distance from the BB centre to the centre of the top head tube opening.

and its relative to where your seat ends up on the railing and stem length and drop. they are usually calculated with a 25-20mm setback post so you can run a straight post or even flip it around on a diverge. (caveat: knee to pedal spindle angle and cleat placement)

The stack on the 53 is quite low too. I don't get the low stacks on gravel bikes although it becomes more of an issue with larger frames.

Maybe I missed it but how tall is she? Does she have "avg" length legs and arms? Is she comfortable in a more aggressive posture of 40-45* or more of the 45-50* upper body angle? What crank length is on the Hakka? I wouldn't go shorter than a 60 stem so just keep that in mind but you can also run a narrower Bar than most bikes are spec'd with. My problem with a lot of smaller gravel frames is the HTA, they get quite steep. Where Im going with this is, is it better to be on a slightly smaller frame, which accommodates shorter legs and/or arms and a more upright posture, or a slightly longer frame which could accommodate longer legs/arms or a more aggressive posture. its a give and take. you can run a more upright stem on the diverge, that's not an issue. here's where "women specific" geo does have its place. women tend to have shorter legs and arms so it really screws up the concept of bikes built by rider height.

The low seat for shorter people is a function of a 700cc tire, its going to be at least that height. I wouldn't worry about that as long as she has enough standover and you can always run a shorter crank. although a smaller frame probably has a 165 crank, it is more efficient to go even shorter. (I run 167.5's)

for my .02$, I think the diverge is one of the best gravel rigs out there.

 

[Tony S]

The stack on the 53 is quite low too. I don't get the low stacks on gravel bikes.

I have a suspicion.

Gravel bikes are mostly sold to already-committed roadies. Roadies are all anxious that they're going to end up feeling or looking like grannies on their L.L. Bean hybrid klunkers, or, at best, like mountain bikers (eek!). They want to be low and lean like [name your grand tour hero here]. It's just like they used to be macho about having a corn cob cluster. My guess is that on the sales floor bikes that have more road-like geometry sell better to this audience.

 

[Ron]

@Tony S its all about the ego of the rider. If roadies would understand the the fastest bikes ridden are in TT positions, meaning hands out front and very straight flat back, head down. the rider is not low on the bars, quite the opposite. Aero is not about always being the lowest on the bars and it has nearly nothing to do the the saddle to handlebar drop. But I digress. For gravel you dont want to super low, you need to maneuver and see the road. For me, I want to see what's around me too. And, finally, any bike that you're not comfortable on, you are most likely not being efficient and you are certainly not enjoying the ride as much.

 

[Tony S]

any bike that you're not comfortable on, you are most likely not being efficient and you are certainly not enjoying the ride as much

 

[scott43]

You guys are even more out there than I am! I don't think it's crazy with the geo. Gravel is a spectrum, right? How much gravel? Some folks are looking for more road oriented, some want more gravel. Some should probably be on a hardtail. Just choose wisely based on your use case. But the statement about comfort and really, fit, that's 100% true.

 

[scott43]

I have a suspicion.

Gravel bikes are mostly sold to already-committed roadies. Roadies are all anxious that they're going to end up feeling or looking like grannies on their L.L. Bean hybrid klunkers, or, at best, like mountain bikers (eek!). They want to be low and lean like [name your grand tour hero here]. It's just like they used to be macho about having a corn cob cluster. My guess is that on the sales floor bikes that have more road-like geometry sell better to this audience.

Honest question: do you think there is a divide between roadies and mtb'ers anymore? Most folks I know do both..maybe not equally..but both. I'm curious what other people see.

 

[Ron]

if we're talking the avg gravel rding of grade 2-3,with some shorter grade/level 4 stuff (thats pretty much what we ride here) then a proper gravel bike applies, if you're talking grade 4-5+ stuff as the majority of terrain, its really getting into adventure geo and thats more where the rigid or hardtail comes into play. And, yeah, there's still a rift between roadies and MTB riders for sure. more from a not understanding road riding than animosity. I dont see any of that. its more like, "road riding is boring", not challenging etc.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

A 49cm Hakka came into the shop today and she will take a spin on it tomorrow.

 

[cantunamunch]

Bonus: the frame builder is Bonnie's size

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Whoa, what are those bars?

 

[cantunamunch]

Whoa, what are those bars?

She made those, basically a riser version of Jones H bar, except you're seeing the riser flipped upside down.

And yes, that is a negative compact frame, the TT drops about 4cm over 50