- Very true in some cases, but it matters as well when people look to push beyond a frame/fork’s max rated tire size (as is being done right above), which is not just the AR people mentioned (again… context matters)
2 Likes
Kind of a harsh reply. I didn’t look at the numbers but have ridden the Checkpoint and it felt low and slack. I would think the LAUF would feel similar low and slack—in other words. Stable at speeds and technical terrain but sluggish in turns. Would love to hear from others that have actually ridden the LAUF.
No harshness intended, just cutting straight to geo values that I spend way too much time reviewing 
1 Like
I’ve been seriously considering a Seigla - mainly for the suspension and value for what I’m looking for - but do have some reservations about the higher bottom bracket and some reported cases of speed wobble. I’m looking more for an all-around adventure bike than a pure racer, though.
The Lauf has a high bottom bracket….one of the highest I have seen for a gravel bike (65mm BB drop). As you can see from the chart Chad posted, the Checkpoint has a lower BB, which will inherently lower the center of gravity, creating a more stable bike, especially when descending or at speed. I don’t think the Lauf will handle similarly to a Checkpoint, at all.
1 Like
I did a quick run with my Sag Sketch in SolidWorks on the Lauf Seigla, Medium size frame, with 30mm of total fork travel:
- 10% sag of 3.0mm at the fork, drops the BB by 1.1mm
- 15% sag of 4.5mm at the fork, drops the BB by 1.7mm
- 20% sag of 6.0mm at the fork, drops the BB by 2.3mm
So, the effective BB drop with a rider on board will increases by about 1-2mm, which means the unladen BB Drop of 65mm will become around 67mm BB Drop from my estimates. This puts it in the normal CX bike BB height realm and still higher than the 70-80mm range that seems more common with other gravel bikes.
Checking this from a different perspective:
- The Giant Revolt X that comes stock with suspension, it has 68-69mm BB Drop across the line.
- The new Santa Cruz also offers a suspension option, and the geo is built upon a longer rigid fork (suspension length) so the geo will be the same with or without suspension IIRC. That has 78-74mm BB Drop range between sizes.
- So, the presence of suspension doesn’t seem to be a locked connection to taller BB’s in all cases. Lauf is choosing to be different for one reason or another.
I think there is not a ton of need to make large changes in BB Drop for these bikes considering the limited amount of travel in play. Even at fork compression of 30mm, the BB Drop at that point is still only 11.5mm lower. Notable, but not likely enough to cause pedal clearance problems, since I really hope nobody is pedaling at a point of full fork smash
3 Likes
Touching back on the specifics now that I am on PC again:
-
With respect to “low and slack” on the Checkpoint you rode, that makes sense from the geo numbers. The latest gen has a good 76mm BB Drop along with a long-ish Wheelbase and Front Center. The one thing I have always considered a bit odd with the CP is the relatively steep 72.2* Head Tube Angle. They couple that with a 45mm Fork Offset to give a 65.4mm Trail value. It seems to work fine from all the reports I’ve read, but it is sort of an outlier in the broader world of gravel geos.
-
Comparing that to the Seigla via the chart I linked, this runs a slightly shorter Chainstay (-8mm at horizontal to the CP), but grows the Wheelbase by 13mm and the Front Center (Hor) by 21.3mm. That is all connected to and a result of the slacker 70.5* Head Tube Angle. They use a 47mm Fork Offset to give a final Trail of 76.2mm. All of that will lead to a level of straight line stability that is quite different from the Checkpoint IMO. Of course, this all ignores the taller BB of the Seigla which is sort of a can of worms. Higher BB’s are less “stable” and potentially more able to change directions in lean/cornering. Lower BB’s can give more stability via being closer to the ground, and potentially hold a corner better from the coupled lower center of mass when loaded properly via a dropped outside pedal.
-
This all lines up with your thoughts that the Seigla will be stable & straight focused, but not a ripper in the turns. The CP is more in the other direction with some stability but more eager to turn by comparison.
In the end, I see these two bikes are notably different when it comes to how the weight distribution plays out, coupled with the noted geo differences above. If I had to pick between the CP and Seigla, I’d pick the CP since it has decent stability, but the shorter front and longer rear would help weight the front wheel better, which is what I value when cornering one of these bikes at real speed.
But my preferences are not the same as a great many gravel riders. I have seen great comments on the Seigla along with other LLS (Long, Low, Slack) gravel bikes. So much depends on the rider, their skills and preferences, and where they ride. Great to have all these options, but it can make picking a bike that really fits a rider’s expectations a challenge 
4 Likes
I’ve been riding/racing the Marin Headlands 2 since January of this year. I couldn’t be happier. I didn’t purchase it as built by Marin though. It was built up with a Rival 1 (which isn’t an option from Marin). I also put on some Roval Terra wheels, discover bar/seatpost and a cane creek eesilk stem. Handling is great, ride is great, and it’s fun not seeing anyone else with my bike.
1 Like
Was at the LBS yesterday. They sell BMC. Man, those URSs sure are pretty.
@moukari I’m catching up on old posts and trying to get people’s perspective on the Seigla. I’m super interested in it but have concerns about 1) speed wobble reported online by some and 2) any noticeable riding difference due to the high bottom bracket. Related to 1), I think I’m interested in a more all-around / adventure gravel bike (rigid fork, fork mounts, etc) versus something designed for pure racing, but have seen enough bike packing setups to know that the Seigla can work. Anyway, I’m interested in your thoughts on 1) and 2). Thanks!!
2 Likes
@mcneese.chad so true. Regarding the Seigla geometry, it seems to me like the seat tube angle may be misleading in that if you trace the tube down it intersects forward of the bottom bracket. One of my other concerns with the Seigla’s geometry has been getting my seat far enough forward since I like to be over the bottom bracket, but this might be less of a concern.
1 Like
Yeah, their geo shows 72.9* effective from BB to the Effective Top Tube location where the measure the angle too.
Their notes below shows 72.5* Actual STA and the need to run a zero offset post. Its sort of the MTB problem again, and some means functional saddle height may impact actual fore-aft range differently.
Could play into bar reach issues as well as weight distribution too for taller riders with the more slack angle. But thats a guess without a deep dive in CAD along with some fore-aft analysis.
1 Like
Hi! Last week I did some sketchy gravel downhills at 60 kph with a bar bag, I didn’t notice any speed wobbles and haven’t had any before either. I don’t know what is the reason for them, but I find the fork very stable.
Comparing to a cx bike I had before I don’t think the BB is too high, for me Seigla feels like a fast and nimble bike which is also super steady in corners. The tire choice will maybe affect a bit too.
I think it will do as well as a adventure bike as a race bike, I did a 300km day a month ago and next week I will do European Championships with it in Belgium. It is a great bike, the best I’ve ever had 
4 Likes
@moukari thank you so much for this. What tires are you running? Good luck at the European Championships. Let us know how you do!
1 Like
Thanks, I think they will be S-Works Pathfinders (42 mm). Good rolling and good grip for a semi slick tyre. I got a new pair of them very cheaply from bike-components.de. For me they have been very durable. I have now about 3 000 km with my older pair with zero issues and a lot of long rides, the longest was 512 km all the way to the arctic circle from my home this week I will build another pair of wheels to my Seigla, they will have 29x2.2” Racekings.
Anyone tried pathfinder 47 on a factor ostro gravel ?
Dylan Johnson does, but he needs to shave the side knobs down.
3 Likes
Hes running 11s shimano also, im running 12s sram 2x and i doubt ill have as much room.
Maybe I’ll buy a set and do a roll down test
That I can’t comment on…are you running 1x? DJ is running 2x. Eliminating the FD should help improve clearance.
I’m running 2x. I’m trying to have my 2024 unbound set up figured out by December
1 Like