For those who might question the geometry and feel the bike isn’t “race-oriented” enough, here’s a pretty good review from Ben Delaney (see link below). His conclusions follow my thoughts on these long wheelbase/reach gravel bikes. You look at the numbers and assume it’s only good at going in a straight line or bombing downhills. But the long wheelbase and reach are combined with a very short stem (and I’d guess short reach bars as well). The effective reach isn’t actually that long and the bike still feels responsive while keeping the advantages of the long wheel base. I’ve got a newer checkpoint (which is also a long wheelbase/reach bike) and there is nothing about the handling that holds me back in any races (including tarmac sections) and the long bike has so many advantages when it gets chunky. When I got into gravel racing, I had a strong bias for wanting my gravel bike to just be a road/aero race bike with more tire clearance. Then I realized that the geometry of a road bike brings very little benefit to the gravel game while having limitations. Is “quicker handling” really a significant factor in gravel racing? After initially going with road geometry for my gravel race bike (an expensive mistake), I’m now sold on long bikes for gravel racing that can roll over anything (technical off road or smooth tarmac, take your choice).
