Pretty low-end spec, which indicates to me they are uncertain about the market acceptance of the concept, but an interesting take on the situation.
Pretty much MTB geo, including suspension-adjust fork length for a 100mm travel fork and clearance for a 2.3 tire (which means a 2.4 or 2.5 will likely fit easily).
It’s seems like a reasonable path, but I’d bet bike (and component) companies are concerned where that path might end. I think they are making a good % of the their profits in the gravel segment right now. Blurring the lines might be good, maybe not so good. Scott did a “Gravel” hardtail MTB last year, seemed really dumb not to put some drop bars on it.
I couldn’t find specs on that Ridley. Not sure if it uses road or MTB/boost rear spacing and that chainring looks small in the pic. Hopefully have room or at least a 42t up front. I’d personally like to see them go to boost in the rear. And and I’d to see SRAM merge XPLR and MTB groupsets into a single offroad group.
Looks like Boost spacing and a BB92…
Advertised as “pure MTB geometry” but no indication on what the max chainring size would be. Comes spec’d with a 32T.
While obviously very expensive, can someone evaluate the geometry of this Baum DBM vs the conventional gravel geometries? I don’t know enough about MTB geometries to know where to look for the differences. Looking at the medium, I think the stack and reach appear reasonable maybe moreso for a 560mm top tube length vs their 575mm specified, but again not quite sure.
The Baum DBM can accept up to a 44T chainring. 2.25” tire clearance standard or 2.4” with Boost.
I saw one of these at a bike show, and my very scientific test of picking it up, it felt insanely light…
Hmmm…
someone already uploaded the geo data to bikeinsights. Almost matches my Trek Procaliber SL from 2016. What’s old is new again…