I think you also have to factor in the frequency / likely occurrence of mud…realistically, most people aren’t gonna ride in the mud, unless forced to at a race. And even then, it doesn’t happen very frequently.
2 Likes
Yeah, I find this curious. Even my Endurace has the VCLS. Perhaps they are relying on tire size / frame compliance on the Grail. But seems like a cost cutting measure more than anything.
For some reason, Stetina’s current look, voice, and the overall vibe of that video made me think it was a Saturday Night Live skit, fake commercial, starring Kyle Mooney. 
1 Like
They are claiming the D-Shaped seatpost will offer compliance…although clearly it will not come close to the VCLS.
I do think this was a miss for them, spec-wise. I have the Ergon VCLS post on my Aspero and it is fantastic.
1 Like
Yeah. It feels like a little over-acting, even by Stetina standards.
1 Like
Creating a non-round VCLS specifically for this bike was probably an engineering challenge too far. And I believe this is the same non-round post shape from their road bikes, but they claim a more compliant carbon layup.
Personally I’d prefer a round post in pretty much all cases, as the proprietary post locks you in to their setback choice and annoying 1-bolt saddle clamp.
More generally it seems like most race-focused gravel bikes are on the stiffer side. Possibly another “rough feels fast” situation, like how we all used to run 21mm tires at 100+ PSI because they “felt responsive”. I tend to think more compliance is actually faster, especially when fatigue is factored in.
I think it was more realistically a volume issue…you would be limited to only Canyon gravel bikes. A round post has a larger potential audience, so more opportunity for volume which leads to lower costs, etc. And if it was developed in conjunction with Ergon, then you have shared costs, etc.
Ergon would have zero incentive to work with them on a post that only worked on Canyon bikes.
Still amazes me that more people don’t run suspension seatposts on their gravel bikes…
1 Like
So, my Crux tore up Big Sugar 53. 
I rode 47 pathfinders and they were brilliant. I was also too lazy to change my tires to my 303 FC and just ran the stock Terra C wheels and they performed flawlessly (these wheels are seriously under rated).
The Crux climbed brilliantly, descended confidently and was so nimble and sure when riding through the “chunky” gravel. In fact, about half way through I was thinking “where is all the chunky gravel people say is at Big Sugar”. At no point was I thinking I was under biked or hit a section the Crux couldn’t handle
Compliance was brilliant with the 47s, I do have the ENVE gravel bars and I was in no way beat up by the end or had any hand issues at all. I didn’t feel at anytime I needed suspension seatposts or fork.
I was also to lazy to put on my aerobars and really wish I would have; there was plenty of free speed to be had with aerobars on the course.
For anybody still looking for a race bike, I would jump on the Crux on sale for $4999.
P.S. The 53 was a really fun course. I also appreciated the sections of tarmac. Will be back next year for sure.
6 Likes
I just bought the Crux Expert for $4999. I thought it was a smoking deal. It came with the 38 Pathfinder Pros. So, it has plenty of clearance with the 47’s installed? If so, I need to get me a set of them. Also, are you running the ENVE gravel bars with the stock stem?
Yes plenty of clearance with 47s. Stock Crux stem.
Did look to me that Big Sugar winner Torbjørn Røed was riding Giant TCX, no?
1 Like
I think that is correct…he was borrowing someone’s CX bike from what I saw on various videos (I think it was on Drew Dillman’s or Joe Goetz’s BWR Kansas recap).
And Brendan Johnston second with Revolt… While I’m somewhat happy with my Revolt, I’ve been wondering if it’s worth to try TCX as a gravel rocket? Anyone having both of these?
1 Like
Personally, I would avoid the TCX as a gravel bike, unless you also do a lot of true CX racing and don’t want a bike for each discipline.
The BB drop on the TCX is very short…the Revolt is a full 2cm lower. This will have a major impact on how stable the bike feels. One of our riding buddies (who already struggles with a high CG because he is so tall) rides a TCX for gravel and has taken more than a few spills in turns that really shouldn’t have happened.
1 Like
I run a Blue Norcross (Force AXS XPLR) for CX and use it for gravel as well. They claim it can fit 45 - the max I’ve run is 40s and those had plenty of clearance. 33 and 38 during cross are no problem at all of course. With 40’s on have done a number of long gravel rides and it has handled them very well.
Feels snappy enough for CX and managed to grab some podiums with it, so overall its been a good bike for me and have been pleased with its versatility. It’s my third Blue (I have their road bike and a much older AL cross bike) and have been happy with them.
1 Like
Re-reading the thread I couldn’t pick up on why you stopped considering the Scott. Only availability or was it something else?
1 Like
I don’t have both, but I use my TCX as my roadie, gravel and CX. The geo works well to do all that. Gravel bikes tend to be not racey enough for me to use as a roadie as well.
I do swap the stem out for Crit racing so I get a bit longer and lower.
1 Like
Availability and also. Given that I bough 2 bikes, I wanted the racing bike to be uncompromisingly fast, so in the end I only considered the Kaius and the Factor……The Scott is more of a well rounded bike.
1 Like
How would you compare the kaius and mog?
1 Like
Alrighty…What about weight difference, which one is lighter with same (theoretical) groupset aso? Difference in stiffness overall and seatpost particularly?