This just talks to the fact that you don’t optimize for a single segment, you need to optimize for the entire race, and that includes knowing (guesstimating) where the critical action will happen and weighting that accordingly. This leads to inherent compromises that mean that with the exception of a pan flat road race on consistent tarmac quality, you probably aren’t riding the optimal setup for anyone segment (you could be close to optimal)
Nothing too earth shattering here but a couple points:
- “I believe tire sizes are near their limit and we’ll see a lot of new options between 45 mm up to 2.2”. One thing to keep in mind is that tire size is very course-dependent. The anticipated speed and course conditions are major factors in the tire size”
- “I find it very interesting that some bikes are still launching with 45 mm max tire clearance since that would be a limiting factor very quickly.”
Also what a luxury to have 50mm clearance frame and not be scared to run 2.2. I know its been brought up before but these pro riders really get to push the boundaries and if they rub their frame they can just get a new one. I don’t have that luxury. Lets not forget DJ’s frame for example is only a 50mm clearance. I don’t think Felt would warranty my frame if i rub it raw using 2.2s for example.
so… what’s the hold up? BB shell width and accompanying Q-factor? Longer chainstays? Toe overlap? We have a saying in german: einen Tod muss man sterben…
The holdup I believe is brands and their prod dev team and new frames releasing were probably in the pipeline 3-4 years ago with the molds and such. I don’t think they anticipated the needs of racers to want these types of bikes this fast compared to their ‘adventure’ builds.
There could be brands who are scraping what they had in the pipeline and adjusting. But we’re such a small niche of a niche of a niche where it might not change as the general public see ‘adventure builds’ as slow, heavy, tons of mounts, fat tires vs ‘race’ where the max is 42/45.
Two posts above is an interview with a pro. Riding at speed in a pack can result in a flat because you can’t see what’s coming and unload the bike. Bigger tires have a bit more flat protection, apart from providing more comfort over long days/courses. It might be niche today to run mtb tires on a gravel bike. What about in 2025/2026?
I saw the post. Brands are behind no doubt. We all agree on that. What I’m getting at is that brands might not be scrambling to update their pipeline of gravel builds as we just saw with Trek and Canyon. - I’ve even said in this very thread or the other gravel race tire thread that 50mm should be minimum for a race bike moving forward. It’s going to take a bit of time before we see more race specific gravel frames like the Mog, Revolt, Stiggy etc that can accommodate what we all want. It’ll happen for sure in a slow trickle. Wouldn’t be surprised if we see boost frames.
The main bottleneck right now is the combination of short(ish) chainstays, road(ish) Q-factor and 2x gearing. Eliminate 1, or ideally 2 of these and big XC tires are possible. The new Sram 13spd will unlock a lot of it
The main bottleneck is convention.
It’s possible to achieve short chainstays, large tyre clearance and clearance for large chainrings with elevated or dropped chainstays, Its possible to design and manufacture a bike without a drive side chainstay.
The answer to me is pretty obvious: the move to 1x is a done deal. Just like in the mountain bike world it allows for more freedom in bike design as well as better tire clearance. 2x will become niche. Yes, I get the arguments in favor of 2x, but as soon as 2x compatibility makes certain frame geometries and tire clearances impossible, manufacturers will make more of their bikes 1x-only.
That’s also why rim brakes are dead and we are all on disc brakes.
Another thing I’d like to see are more modular cranks (something Rotor already does). Get one pair of cranks with different axles for different frames and chain lines.
MTBs ditched front derailleurs because they don’t work when full of mud and geting rid of them simplifies rear suspension design, not because of geometry and tyre clearance.
I suspect that for road and gravel the Classified rear 2x Hub or similar systems are going to be the real FD killer. The gear steps in 1x13 are just too big and the range too small.
MTBs ditched rim brakes because discs are better when the rims are covered in mud and dirt, that discs allowed new types of suspension design was serendipity.
Road bikes have switched to disc because they allow for cheaper more aerodynamic carbon fibre wheels. In the dry 622mm alloy rotors ( box section rims) are more than adequate. I suspect there is also a cost of manufacture element to the switch to disc brakes on road bikes in fact pretty much all bikes. Its much faster to assemble a disc brake that has slot in brake pads that a caliper that has pads that have 3 degrees of freedom to adjust.
Actually this doesn’t solve much and many at the front of the race will prefer the 12 speed MTB cassette. The reason is they want to run a larger front chainring and still have a bailout gear in the back for steep long climbs.
The 13 speed cassette is better than the original XPLR, but when racing out West the 10-50/10-52 cassette is better.
Outside of alloy rims being “adequate”, none of the above is accurate.
Disc brakes are more expensive and require more time / labor / precision to install and carbon wheels are significantly more expensive that alloy rims.
Would a bike without a drive side chainstay be UCI legal? Not a big deal for me, but it would be for a pro wanting to race UCI Worlds.
-
Bike companies need to stop worrying about whether their designs are UCI legal. It impacts far less than 1% of their customers. They need to build the bikes that people want or are better.
-
a bike w/o a drive side chainstay would either be a flexy mess (and dangerous because of chain skipping) or it would have to be so beefed up to make it stiff enough to resist pedaling forces that it would be ridiculously heavy.
As I said convention, radically dropped and elevated seat-stays would probably fall outside the double diamond UCI standard frame “boxes” and be illegal as well.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the UCI mandated max tyre diameters for road and for gravel bikes.
I’m building a MOG now, and am sticking with the XXSL and 10-52 for this exact reason. Here in the east we’ve got some real steep stuff too, just usually not as long as what you run into out west. But, definitely don’t want to sacrifice the 52 in favor of the 46.
Edit: Although, I’ve done dumber things than having the 13SP Cassette, Derailleur, and a new chain that I could swap in. Wireless makes that not much of an issue.
No, getting rid of the FD enabled new suspension designs and geometries. You can find some more details in this singletracks.com article. This is not a controversial point.
Shimano held onto the belief that there was a future for front derailleurs on the MTBs side until the previous generation (M9000-series XTR and lower). They even threatened reviewers if they converted their 2x test bike to 1x. That was way past the point where the MTB industry had already decided that mountain bikes should be 1x.
I reckon the same is happening for gravel bikes now, Shimano is (almost?) missing the boat.
Disc brakes allowed for much bigger tire clearance as rim brakes are limited to 28 mm. Yes, I know V-brakes exist, but they had been displaced by disc brakes for good reason on the MTB side.
Since aerodynamic fairings are not UCI legal, rim brakes have an aero advantage, especially if they are hidden inside the frame. (This typically compromises performance as they are exposed to more dirt and grime, and the cables have to take a more windy route.) There are some compromises you have to do for wheels with rim brakes as the rim needs to be strong enough to serve as a brake track.
This.
I really hate how slowly road bikes have evolved compared with tri bikes and mountain bikes. The way disc brakes (as an option!) were allowed into the (road bike) pro peloton was ludicrous. They acted as if this was completely new, unproven technology from Mars.
There are quite a few tri bikes that do not use a double-diamond shape. So for special applications, that might make sense.
I think looser restrictions on tube profiles and such could leave tons of room for innovation. Triathletes have had integrated hydration systems for how many years now? That seems like a pretty good idea to me, at least as an option for some riders.
No, getting rid of FDs had nothing to do with new geometries, ( its not even mentioned in that article you linked?) its all about suspension design, like I already said.
Open the article and search for (the section headers) “suspension performance”, “tire clearance” and “frame structure”.
Chain tension is a huge factor in suspension performance and a FD messes that up as you can have very different chain tension at similar gear ratios. Feel free to search for more articles on that subject.