According to his podcast, he’s pretty much decided to run this same rig for Leadville.
RIP another great CX bike…
3 Likes
Haven’t listened to the podcast but was thinking about what has changed between this year and last when he determined it wasn’t faster and the answer is obvious, aero bars were banned at the race.
So for very chunky gravel type races, hard tail + aero bars is probably the fastest setup, but with without aero bars then drop bar MTB style is next best.
1 Like
I get the feeling that if aerobars were still allowed, he would just use them on his dropbar hardtail.
Maybe, people change their mind for all sorts of reasons. My main point was he tested both last year and said flat bar + aero extensions tested faster.
I still don’t get the gravel dropper. A dropper post needs to be pretty rigid to work. CX tall seat tube + dropper post should equal awful rear ride quality on paper. Unless you’re on a proper forest/rocky trail, I’d do a Ergon leaf spring post over a dropper any day here. If you need/want a dropper, you’re on the wrong bike and going to land on your face.
-
True with at least some droppers. But this one offers the Reverb AXS XPLR on the one build, that includes the Active Ride suspension setting. Just drop a bit and you get what amounts to a suspension seat post.
-
Not ideal since it requires a lower saddle height, if someone wants max height and suspension in conjunction with the dropper, but it is a feature that is present here (and maybe a PNW version?) that can otherwise negate the stiffness you mention.
- Rather bold statement that totally ignores a person’s abilities at the very least. A dropper is a merely tool. Who wants one and why will vary greatly as well as what it means to their riding with it.
3 Likes
Well said! I’ve heard multiple people say you don’t need a dropper on gravel, but I wouldn’t ride without mine. I feel much more in control when I can drop my seat on the steep/loose/single track descents that always seem to be included on “gravel” routes around me.
1 Like
I mean, this bike just swung the pendulum hard into the MTB direction (geo wise specifically), so a dropper is not a stretch in my mind (nor is the suspension that comes with the same build kit). As of now, there is that one build direct from SC and anyone could upgrade any other build with a dropper (and/or fork) as desired.
I know it’s not what I would want, but I also recognize people are different… and often want different things as a result. All good to have a wide range of options to suit a wide range of preferences, IMO.
1 Like
Hey, I really like the new approach with the Stigmata 4. I prefer fast gravel rides and a little racing, and I find my current 58 cm Stig 3 to be a bit sketchy at speed (think 40 MPH on packed gravel with a bit of loose over hard…). On the Stig 3 I run a 120 mm stem to get a good position for aero and comfort. Things I like on the Stig 4: I could run the L frame, and benefit from a shorter seat tube (more exposed post for smoother ride), lower BB and longer wheelbase for more stability, and slacker HA for slower steering. I would run a 90-100 mm stem on the Stig 4 for the same position, and I am thinking with that position the weight distribution for fast corners will be fine. I think what some might be missing here in terms of weight distribution is that the chain stays on the Stig 4 are also longer, so with a longer than stock (70 mm) stem, weighting of the front wheel may be fine to avoid pushing.
I am pretty sure this geo will suit me fine with the right set up, and will feel safer and more stable at speed, especially when I am tired. The bike seems to work for Keegan for racing so… I am not an MTB trail on a gravel bike type (I prefer riding the MTB), so the short stem, while likely suitable for steeper terrain, is not right for me.
I get if one is CXer, this is not the right bike-I have never thought that it makes sense for gravel and cross bikes to be the “same”, as the races are totally different. For me, a more stable bike makes sense for long rides, and slack HA makes sense as long as one gets their position between the wheels right for climbing. Slow speed handling is just not something I really care about much, I would much rather have a bike which gives confidence in fast sweeping corners on gravel roads-the low BB and longer wheelbase should really help out there-on my Stig 3, riding at speed feels more sketchy than it needs to be and a more “planted” bike would suit me just fine.
The bold statement above is incorrect. The chainstays are as follows:
- V3 = 425mm
- V4 = 423mm
So the V4 is actually 2mm SHORTER than the V3. Regardless, the 2mm delta at the rear pales in comparison to the 50mm longer Front Center on the V4.
- There is no way that a mere 2mm (even if it was in the proper direction, which it’s not) would offset that lengthy front change. These values get worse when you look at the actual Horizontal values, which relate more directly to the pure weight distribution issue that I care about.
For reference, here is your V3 58 vs V4 L:
- I agree that this is likely to help and may be a proper blend between the V3 and V4 with a partial hybrid of geo & weight distribution. Particularly so with the comments you have related to your V3 experience. I think you are headed in the right direction based on your goals and preferences.
- That is no direct endorsement of handling or results AFAIC. Keegan obviously excelled and seemingly had no issues on the V3, and his success on the V4 says more about his abilities than the bikes, IMO. From all I’ve heard, his riding skills are top level on par with his fitness… such that he can probably shred on just about anything.
His V3 from last year:
-
-
Swenson turns to Zipp for the cockpit: ServiceCourse SL-80 bars paired with a 130mm -6 degree Service Course SL stem. (per Velo article)
-
His V4 from this year:
-
-
Outside of that, from my review of the V4 pics of his bike, I am nearly certain that Keegan “sized down” for his frame. The stem length (130mm+?) and lengthy seatpost exposure sure point to that for me.
-
That choice is likely due to his apparent preference for a lower bar setup (from lower Stack & Head Tube) than he might get with the next size bigger frame. Stack drops 24mm or 15mm depending on the size swap (M vs L or L vs XL). It seems he took the roadie approach where this smaller size selection is common, and then paired with a long stem to get the proper rider reach along with greater drop.
-
This matters with respect to handling since he will be getting a frame with 21mm (M vs L) to 24mm (L vs XL) shorter Wheelbase & Front Center, while having the same 423mm Chainstay. So, assuming the same rider position between sizes, the front wheel will have more weight on it from the frame downsize + longer stem.
-
My gut says that the smaller frame was used for aero considerations, but it could be related to the handling as well. Maybe he chose aero above all else, even if he would have preferred a longer bike. But there are also -17* stems and such that could get him lower with a larger bike, so I also think he may have like the double benefit of aero AND shorter bike for handling as a 2fer. Pure speculation on all of the above of course, but I sure think it’s all possible for those reasons.
3 Likes
You’re probably aware by now, but for anyone reading this later Dylan did end up using the drop bar HT MTB at Leadville and is convinced it was the right bike for the course. He’s got plenty of stuff out there are social media about it for people that are interested so I’ll leave it at that.
Mostly agreed, although I am curious about the published chain stay numbers… One review I read claimed the chain stays on the V4 are 1 cm longer, and given the increased tire clearance, one would expect this to be necessary. I guess I need to go have a look at a frame in person with tape measure!
Yeah, Keegan for sure sized down with his V4 vs V3, as expected to keep the reach numbers closer and take advantage of lower stack. My approach would also be sizing down from 58 to L, even though I still get a longer reach (which is what I am looking for, along with the lower BB and longer wheelbase and shorter seat tube). Indeed, I am sure a low bar position and aero concerns were paramount for Keegan, but I am surely not as flexible as him, and will probably not get that low and long over the bike!
Of course Keegan could likely ride just about anything and win, but he is quite particular about his set up-I saw at SBT last year he had no top cap on his stem to get as low a bar position as possible on the V3 (which does have a pretty tall stack).
My point is still that given what I am looking for, I think the V4 will suit me better, and that with careful set up of my position I do not think I will have too much rearward bias in weight distribution: current bike position has changed, with a more forward position combined with a bit shorter crank-it will be interesting to see… Right now, V3 works, but I could use more stability and length to feel better on the bike at speed, and over long distances.
-
The current V4 values are easy to see on the Santa Cruz site and matched with Bike Insights and Geometry Geeks.
-
The V3 numbers I have in my own sheet were originally from SC’s site too. And those match between the same reference sites above.
-
I’d question the site you read for possible error, and possibly a bad model or data comparison on their part. All the data I see shows minimal difference at the rear.
- Agreed. Your V4 plan sounds great to me for your needs.
SMALL?#?$?! Holy Moley!!! 
Santa Cruz places him in a Large based purely on his 5’ 10" height. Double downsize apparently per SC.
Would be interesting to know his V3 size and compare that geo to the Small V4. Either way, this Small V4 is the most “racy” and CX or road-like geo version he could ride on the brand.
3 Likes
That’s a side effect of many of these slacked out bikes (gravel or MTB). Many people need to size down to get the right reach. (Or they but their usual size L and find out they should have gotten a M).
Of course, it’s not usual to go down two sizes. But pro racers aren’t typical.
It doesn’t strike me as odd that he’s on a Small. I understand the trend towards longer top tubes paired with shorter stems, but with stack numbers that we’re seeing combined with the shorter stems(which in turn makes reducing stack via a long negative stem), you’re not left with many options if you’re at all on the “racy fit” side. I’d be on a Small as well, coming from a 54cm Crux at 5’10" and still end up a few MM’s higher with the same stem and effective reach. Gravel bikes, and road bikes to a point, are built to sell to the masses, most of which probably leave a stack of stock spacers under the stem, and aren’t really built for the niche geometries.
Same here, at just shy of 5’ 10". I’ve had my current gravel bike a few years now and it’s a few mm’s lower than that small. I’d hesitate to get anything much taller than what I’m on now.
Another brand and model with a different geometry philosophy.
7 Likes