I must admit, I still don’t understand some of these gravel bikes. They kind of seem like the CUV of the bicycle world to me.
1 Like
I realize this isn’t everyone, but it is definitely me.
1 Like
Yeah, they embraced the “Long, LOW, Slack” with this geo. Makes me wonder on the stock crank lengths they will offer and if they will tend to the shorter option like we see in MTB?
Rock strikes may not be an issue for all the intended users, but when you add in the option for the fork on one build (and user swaps for others), I could see that as more of an issue over time.
Totally unrelated, but I was also surprised to see this listed as not compatible for 650b/27.5" per their FAQ. Seems they are all-in for 700c compared to the prior gen that fit 700c x 45mm or 650b x 53mm [2.1"]. I guess the 50mm max for 1x (45mm for 2x) is what they aim to cover the agro users wanting lots of tire.
1 Like
Is it just me, or pretty similar in concept to the Fezzari Shafer? Except the Stigmata with a little longer wheelbase, little longer reach and lower stack, slightly steeper Head Tube?
This, the Fezzari and many others are in that “progressive geo” realm. I looked at maybe 70+ bikes in my most recent gravel bike search. I recorded around 40+ different ones in my personal geo chart. I skipped adding most bikes with Head Tube Angles slacker than 71* since that isn’t what I wanted.
There are probably at least a dozen or more that fall under that HTA. They will also have long WB and front center that generally define this style of gravel bike. It’s a growing category with more options seemingly with each new model release, just like the LLS trend we say in MTB that started a decade or so ago.
ETA: Bike Insights still has an error or two in their Stig chart, but it’s getting closer. Here it is against the Shafer
Stig is notably longer for Reach & Front Center, which drive Wheelbase out too.
ETA 2.0: Here is a list of “Progressive Gravel” bikes from BI. I can’t speak to all of them, but many are models that I left out after a quick skim of their geo chart are present.
2 Likes
I bet it will be on sale come Christmas. 
1 Like
already I guess? $7700 with suspension and 1x Force AXS, available in 2-4 days at Mikes Bikes.
I think there’s a very narrow niche of terrain where a drop bar suspension gravel bike is the best option. It’s gnarlier than most gravel routes in the US (including Unbound, where a 40mm suspension fork is not needed), but not as gnarly as the divide route - where something like the cutthroat with MTB tire clearance would be the better bike.
Maybe the right bike for the Rift race in Iceland?
3 Likes
I picked up my Purple People Eater ( gen 3 Stigmata when they were on sale early this spring. Without riding the gen 4 I’d be pretty comfortable saying I like the geo of mine better. That UDH would be pretty nice, though!
2 Likes
For the geo-geeks, here is the V4 / V3 comparison to show just how different this new bike is to the old one.
-
This is a very large shift in design and philosophy & handling. The new geo leads to a very different weight distribution between Front & Rear tires that may not matter in all cases, but sure will in some potentially risky ones. It will be rock steady holding a line from the length & slack head tube angle. But that benefit conversely makes cornering (particularly on flat or loose conditions) done best with greater emphasis of getting forward & low via MTB style, to get sufficient weight & grip on the front tire.
5 Likes
I dunno…I know a lot of people were complaining about how rough the course was this year, but when I did it in 2021, I really had no issues with my 40c tires. yeah, the washboard sections on the backside sucked hard, but they would have sucked on the Stig 4.0, as well.
Going back to the discussion of how the bike industry takes one trend and slaps it into other categories, the UDH is a good example, IMO…while it may make sense for this bike (since it is designed to be a bit rowdier), I’m not certain it makes sense for gravel as a whole and certainly questioning it’s need for road.
Now, if it is just that much superior of a solution (and I agree that standardizing a DH spec is a good thing), then fine. But from what I have heard on some different pods (i.e.Geek Warning) there are questions about how it will work on road bikes due to short chainstays, heel rub, etc.
1 Like
I already thought my V3 Stiggy was the perfect blend of a CX race bike and a gravel rig. Not really interested in the V4, if I need more bike offroad, I’ll just grab an MTB. It’s not like an XC race bike is going to be that much slower on a course where I need a suspension fork and dropper post on my gravel bike. Maybe it’s different out west, but I live in Michigan.
Even though I have a dedicated road bike, if I didn’t, I think I would be totally happy with a road wheelset on the V3. V4? I dunnno. I guess if you could only have ONE bike for road, gravel, and easy singletrack, V4 could be that.
5 Likes
I also agree the V3 was probably the best blend to be a ‘do it all’ bike. I was actually looking for before buying my Exploro RaceMax but couldn’t find one in my size.
3 Likes
Canyon grizzle
Specialized Diverge str
BMC URS
Or even better get a new Epic World Cup!
20.5 lbs with fork is pretty decent 
Thank you! My “its a 2nd bike” value oriented brain is kinda stuck on $5000 ceiling, plus compatibility with my Tarmac’s SRAM groupset. Something is going to have to give, and the first to go will be full drivetrain compatibility if I insist on going more MTB than road. Had my eye on Diverge for a year after talking with friends that have ridden both Checkpoint and Diverge around here. FWIW re: Canyon I’m a little disappointed because 2 of the 7 Canyon Aeroads on Wed drop ride have had issues requiring a frame swap and it was a somewhat painful process (similar what I endured after buying 3T online).
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).
3 Likes
Regardless of labels like “race” & “rowdy” this really boils down to handling differences between the bikes and preferences of each rider. You can “race” or get “rowdy” on any of these bikes. To a degree, it’s the range of over/under biking that is discussed in other avenues here, where the rider is also a key piece of the puzzle determining how it all works together.
- Sure, the basic aim here is to keep the touch points (hands, booty & feet) similarly located, but alter the handling characteristics of the bike under the rider. The Reach & Drop to the rider hands can be similar while the bike has very different feel on the road.
-
This is highly subjective and not universal. Based on my experience across many bikes, but particularly my 2015 Boone and 2020 Warbird, I have a clear preference for “racy” bikes with shorter wheelbase and steeper head tube angles (to pick a couple of the larger factors in bike feel).
-
I am potentially an edge case, but I rip my gravel bikes on roads that have real corners that can be ridden at a very fast pace. Our area does include mile long straights with a few 90’s tossed in. But we also have winding corners up and down that require actual cornering technique to hit at any speed I want to roll. From discussion with others in my area during my search, and loaning my bikes out as well, I know that others do also like a more snappy handling bike closer to a CX than MTB.
-
With all of that above, I have done stuff on my Boone & 33mm CX tires that put me on the ground on the Warbird with 40mm gravel tires and it’s supposedly better “gravel specific geo” & wider tire. The 3 falls I had on the Warbird were due to insufficient weighting on the front tire in corners. Operator error to be sure, but it’s because the Warbird takes a more deliberate rider placement to keep front grip where it’s essentially automatic (at least for me) on the Boone. I went so far as to replace the stock 90mm stem with a 110mm stem just to get more weight on the front tire of the Warbird. It worked and made it handle and perform more to my liking, but it still felt odd at times and I lost faith in the bike so I sold it.
-
As I mentioned above, these long and slack setups give stability, but they necessarily change how they corner. Weight distribution is a key element here, and the crux to what I found matters to me at least. Stretching the Front Center by over 60mm [2.36"] will alter the weight on that front tire even if (or more correctly… *because) *the rider is in the same exact reach and drop location relative to the BB between these different geos. There is no free lunch, so that all means some give and take. When we take advantage of one attribute, we sacrifice a bit on a related one. There is no right or wrong here in absolute terms. It’s down to what a rider wants.
-
This bike is great and will work well for the people that want what it can deliver. It’s great that we have a growing range of bikes that can meet a mix of preferences. But I know from experience that I would not like this bike for my preferences or riding.
For reference, here is the Stig V4 with my new Stallion. I still have to finish the build to get a first ride, but after many months of research and comparison to several bikes (owned and test ridden), it’s clear that each of these bikes will handle differently.
ETA: After watching the vid above:
- Per Ben’s comments, he admits the notable handling difference between this “playful” MTB inspired geo and “race” bikes (around 8:10+).
Watching his fall at 16ish in, it sure looks and sounds a whole lot like the issues I have with this basic geo.
-
Stealing the auto term of “understeer” (you want to turn, but the machine is steering less than the input you apply & want to get) is what happens early. This mid-corner to exit aspect is potentially a result of high speed, long front center + slack head tube angle that gives insufficient front tire grip. This eventually transitions to “oversteer” (more turning than input or desired) at the end as desperation to fully make a corner lead to overcorrection and rear traction loss followed closely with front loss.
-
His fall is different than my pure front end washout falls (I lost front grip first), but I feel that both are results of this style of geo and mistakes by the riders (me & Ben) to not fully address a situation correctly (but made at least tricky or more difficult by the bike). I may be totally off base, but I am not at all surprised by that fall.
-
That short stem may help get the bars to rotate and input fork/wheel angle, but it is not an automatic connection to the road for input/output. That understeer aspect parallels the geo aspect perfectly and likely would have been a different result on a more “racy” bike, at least in that instance.
7 Likes
I think you should consider the Crux as well, but more broadly it all boils down on which components you use on each bike
I have a Tarmac SL7 and (finally) a Crux… I wanted a completely different bike, so I built the Crux accordingly… I have done few rides so far, but I can tell you they are very different
SL7 with 38c-c rapide handlebar, D shape seatpost and Rapides CLX with 26c Turbo Cotton feels completely different to a Crux with a flexy seatpost, short stem, gravel handlebar, shallow rims and 48c Tubeless tyres
1 Like