Hannah Otto was supposed to ride it (new Pivot Vault) at The Rad, but was sick so held out. So I’d expect to see her on it at Big Sugar.
It’s got 50mm clearance, so big step in the right direction but not officially rated for 57/2.2s. Will be interesting to see what Kenda tire Hannah squeezes in their for Big Sugar and whether she tries a 2.2 Rush. On their prior frame, I believe 45s were a tight fit, so this will give her a lot more options.
The Vault does looks interesting. I’m not sure I really need the seat post elastomer system, and while I’m in favor of frame mount options this has like ALL the mounts. I wonder what the frame weighs, given mounts and suspension system. I believe it’s also a PFBB, which while not a dealbreaker is not my first choice. At a minimum, nice to see some bikes with racy geometry and 50mm+ stated clearance hitting the market!
Is there anything else that beats a Giant Revolt frameset for the money in the UK or Europe - that will take a 2.2 race king or thunderburt?
£1400 for the current or £1800 for the new integrated frameset.
An Aspero frameset is like £3000. Astr is 4+. Can’t buy a seigla. I guess there is always the chinese open mould option but - if you were trying to ignore that.
Lack of UDH is a bummer on the current Revolt. I have to think they’ll add one as a running change.
The low-mod Astr seems like a nice option, though not sure if/when they’ll offer it as a frameset only.
Why can’t you get a Seigla? Are they not available in Europe? Just checked and they very much are in the US. And holy hell, the Seigla Rigid with Red XPLR and nice wheels for under $6k is still maybe the best value anywhere….
I did the math and ended up with a Revolt 
Super happy with it 
If I got a new gravel bike it would be this. They also sell aero bars for the one piece cock pit
This is interesting. I can’t remember which podcast I heard it on but someone mentioned there is a lot of “low hanging fruit” with gravel bikes and aero design choices. Seems like this is an example.
Yeah, if I was in the market right now, I would be giving that frame a hard look. Probably just the base version, though. Would prefer a round seatpost the added weight is neglible.
Kinda looks like a road bike with gravel clearance?
def would go base model - 200g is nothing
@Jolyzara yeah, its like they took there kanzo fast and made it better, the kanzo was a great bike when i owned it
Only thing missing is a storage box. MOG still the gold standard.
Does anyone have one of the newer GS1’s? Curious as to real world experience with clearance - it’s rated for 48 but would love to know if anyone has fit something larger and where the limiters were.
Roy with G4G does. I can hit him up! I wanted to get one but $ was tight so I went with an older Revolt. I think you should be able to get a 50 in there. Maybe a 2.25 in the fork?
If it is rated for 48, that means it has at least 6mm clearance with tires that measure 48mm. So, if you were to bump up to a 52mm tire, you should still have 4mm clearance. There’s a few outliers to that, but generally how it should work.
Yep, definitely understand the rating system, but given the variability and where the fitment issues come into play, first-hand experience would be helpful when trying to push the limits like that.
If it’s the side knobs that Rob, those can be trimmed off if it’s the sidewall of the tire or the seat to or the top of the fork crown, there’s less that you can do Without changing wheels or tire profiles.
Huh, Paige was able to fit 2.2 (55.88mm) tires f/r on her Checkmate that’s said to handle only 45mm. I saw her only cutting off center tread so I’d be curious how much clearance she had on the sides out back. She finished 4th at Big Sugar so presumably it was ok as it wasn’t muddy.
I feel like Trek is often more cautious with tire clearance allowances than others…
At 1:39 you can see she basically cut off all the knobs on the rear tire. She’s running DT Swiss gravel wheels that are 24 internal, so the tires most likely measure a few mm below 2.2, maybe around 53mm? Clearance standard is 45mm+6mm each side = 57mm, so it makes sense that it just about fits. She’s also on 1x, so no front derailleur clearance issues.
This also fits with my own experience. My gravel bike has 45mm official clearance and the distance between the chainstays and fork is 58mm both. I run 2.1 Thunder Burts without much issue (51mm measured), but wouldn’t want to go bigger.
Would be nice if we could have actual geometry measurements instead of this nonsense. Chainstay width, seatstay width, fork width and height.
It isn’t “nonsense”. They are strict regulations re: how you can communicate tire widths that are safe to run on bicycles.
We are the pointy end of the spear. We understand things like tire clearance, regular maintenance, etc. The overwhelming majority of the bike buying population doesn’t. The regulations are there to protect them, not us.
Sure, they should continue to have an official clearance number. But there seems to be so much variation in the actual clearance.
For the same race, Lachlan could only fit a 44 in the rear of his SuperSix Evo SE, which also has 45mm official clearance. So it doesn’t seem like the clearance +12 mm calculation always works. Maybe because it has 4mm shorter chainstays and he runs 2x.
