Not at all. I’m more interested in data than either of their opinions.
Interesting, just watched the bicycle station full buildup video. (Those guys are really killing it with their brand of informed, unfiltered commentary.) If this bike is positioned as a next-gen Caledonia-5 (All road bike), it is a really good option for 2026.
Of note - they tried to fit a 47 Pathfinder Pro (that typically measure 46) and it literally didn’t fit on the new bike! The 42c slicks it came with were already tight.
My 1st gen Aspero 5 can fit a 44.5 measured pathfinder Pro with 5+mm of clearance (biggest constraint is the seattube.). It appears they didn’t increase rear tire clearance from prior gen. Interestingly, they fitted a standard, budget-version 2024 Aspero and it easily fit the 47 Pathfinder with good clearance.
LOL at the tire size bellyaching. Cam Jones won Unbound on a bike running 50/45 mm tires, many of the fastest bikes out there weren’t on 2.2s. The trend is reversing back towards narrower tires, too many people realized how much it sucked pushing mountain bike tires on the tarmac they have to ride in order to get to the offroad stuff.
2.2s are fantastic for certain surfaces but let’s stop pretending that isn’t a niche use case for the gravel market.
Which bikes capable of clearing at least 50mm tires were raced on tires skinnier than that because “the trend is reversing”? Cam Jones won on those tires because they were the widest that could fit his frame.
While there are some conditions or courses on which I might choose skinnier tires, no way I’d buy a gravel frame that can’t clear 2.2s at this point.
I’d love to have that as my main road bike today.
How many bikes can do this? I can think of Allied… Any others?
I am with you… I wish Gravel bikes had more clearance. Even if tires settle in the 45-50 range having more options is always better.
I don’t understand what Cervelo was thinking with this bike. A little Mud and the rear tire will not move with that small clearance on the “Seat tube”.
3T Extrema Italia
Giant Revolt, Lauf Seigla
Argon 18 dark matter
Ridley ASTR RS clears 2.2 Race Kings aswell. That bike does have some “aero” features
If you’re following the right people, it’s been enlightening to learn how some of the 2.2s are:
- much lower RR - Watts to hold a given speed (even in Class I gravel!!) any time you are on gravel
- far more compliant (less body stress for medium-long rides)
- Reduced risk of punctures (due to lower tire pressures)
- Safer - more cornering traction on loose + greater ability to recover from obstacles not seen (pack riding)
The cons
- Aero disadvantage (however, only in play during times when pulling up front or on a solo breakaway).
- Rolling resistance of 2.2s is higher on smooth pavement
- Slower spin-up of heavier wheels during a sprint or successive accelerations - particularly on pavement.
From a RACING, pure watts perspective, many gravel races in the US will favor the lower RR of the big tires. But for some courses with gucci gravel and significant pavement (or at least on the “Moments that Matter”) might favor the type of tires that fit the new Aspero 5. BWR-CA and UCI Gravel Worlds come to mind here.
From an everyday/training GRAVEL bike perspective you definitely are going to enjoy the larger tire clearance and thus want to get out on your bike.
When product design an all road bike
But marketing insists it must be called “gravel” because that’s what sells
Well, Dylan’s deep dive video on tire size indicated that wider wasn’t always better in all conditions.
I don’t think a bike like this needs to fit 2.2s, but if they would have just made it clear 50s I think they would have avoided a lot of this debate. As reviewers noted, feels like this leaves the Caledonia in a weird spot since they ended up making the Aspero a quiver-killer all-road bike / endurance bike.
That said, I found some of the “is this the future of road bikes???” reviews humorous because I’ve been riding a Factor Vista for the last 5 years. It’s been the future of road bikes for a while.