@Chas, thanks for the share! And to anyone on the forum, if you have any questions regarding my new Noble Bikes let me know.
Also since I designed the Raleigh Tamland/Roker/Willard. If any of you have technical questions regarding those bikes, don't hesitate to ask I'll check in regularly to answer questions.
@TaTaToothy, for sure would love to add a 60cm to the GX5. There are no technical reasons as to why I can't do it. Simply can't afford the tooling for another size right now.
Big drawback of being a tiny startup, not a lot of money in the bank
Probably late this year or early next year. The frames are technically ready to do this, but I have to develop the bill of materials for the framesets as well as the packaging and graphics. The lead-time for production is typically 60-90 days from the moment you place a purchase order with the factory so it will take some time.
First priority is to get a shipment of bikes going so I can start to sell bikes, but gravel framesets will be part of the second shipment.
For someone looking at cyclocross vs gravel, how would you describe the dynamic handling difference between the two. I see the gravel bike is lower, longer, maybe slacker with more stack. That and the 33 vs 40mm tire clearance.
Dynamically, I would assume the cross bike would be more agile, designed to be ridden more aggressively, accelerates a little faster, could corner harder/sharper, less worry about pedal strike.
While the gravel bike would be more stable in loose terrain, and fast decents, a bit easier and more comfortable to ride, require a little more intention on turn-in and a generally more relaxed demeanor.
Well you pretty much nailed it with your post. But I will elaborate a little as well.
The Cross bike is specifically designed for a relatively short race 45-60 minutes, that is typically held on a tight twisty course. Head Angle, Fork Offset and wheel diameter are different from the gravel setup and as you mention the cross bike is setup so that it handles quicker, but at the cost of stability.
the Stack height is also lower, resulting in a more aggressive riding position. This is great if you're trying to go as fast as possible for 45-60 minutes, but not so great if you're going to be on your bike for 5 hours plus on a 100 miler.
The BB drop is greater on the gravel bike and yes the BB height as a result is lower than the cross bike, but the difference is not as big as you might think. Both the GX3 and GX5 are designed around 40mm tires and they have a substantially larger diameter than 33mm cross tires. So while the BB drop on the gravel bikes is greater, the larger wheel diameter lifts it up a little. The cross bike does have a higher BB though, so less chance of pedal strike.
Your summary of the gravel bike is pretty much perfect.
"While the gravel bike would be more stable in loose terrain, and fast decents, a bit easier and more comfortable to ride, require a little more intention on turn-in and a generally more relaxed demeanor."
One of the things that contributes to this is the slightly longer chain stay. There's a lot of people that want the CS to be as short as possible, but having ridden both a cross bike and a gravel bike back to back on loose stuff, I have to say that I'm a big fan of the extra stability the longer stay brings. So yes, the gravel bikes for sure are more stable in pretty much every condition. I love the way they ride, haven't been on a "proper" road bike in years.
Thanks for pitching in, let me know if this makes sense.
That is perfect. I hadn’t thought much about the 40mm tires and the BB drop, but that makes sense. 40mm tires on a CX bike would make a tall bike.
That makes sense on the Chain stay. While short chain stays are fashionable on road race bikes and possibly make the bike more responsive on acceleration, I took a cross bike on 33mm tires into fast turn on a freshly graded gravel road, and my reaction was WHOA – Careful here! Felt a lot different than a mountain bike. On subsequent laps I found myself doing the mountain bike thing of sticking my butt back over the rear wheel (a dropper post might have helped to, lol). I can see how the stability of a longer chain stay would pay off big in those conditions.
For those of you interested, Ben from mountainbikeradio just posted the podcast interview we did at Sea Otter. If you own a Raleigh Tamland/Willard/Roker, in the beginning we talk about the design process for those bikes and the cooperation with Guitar Ted.
After that we jump over to Noble bikes and how I evolved the design for the bikes I did for Raleigh to my own Noble Bikes. It may get a little tech nerdy at times, but I love to talk about bikes, so there you have it.
I have to say I've been happy with my Willard. I use it on the road, gravel (the one "gravel" race I've done had some decidedly mtn bike stretches), and for cross. I wish it was a little more nimble on the cross course, although improving the motor would yield the biggest gains. But as a "do it all" on a budget, it's hard to beat.
I'll be taking a close look at your new offerings!
Nice interview mark. I enjoyed it. I liked the interviewer's comment that a wife is a good thing to have when you need someone level headed and supportive. ;-)
do disk brakes limit the amount of compliance you can have in the front fork? My old school caliper forks with the J curvature in them tend to have a lot of compliance - I can see them flex and absorb bumps. Disk forks don't seem to have this absorption.
Do you feel much of a difference with a lower bottom bracket all other things being equal? Some of my old school mountain bikes look like they have a 45mm drop (and a bottom bracket height of 295mm) and they do great off road (although not as easy to go downhill as a modern mtb).
@chas, It was a funny interview, I was a little nervous at the start, but Ben is a great guy, so it turned to a normal conversation pretty quickly and we had a good time.
In general you can state that disc brakes limit compliance in a fork. The fork leg has to be stronger to absorb the load from the disc brake. and forks with more J-bend will be easier to bend. The drawback is that they are also pretty flimsy when it comes to steering precision. It's one of the reasons I like forks with more offset. They accomplish two things. More offset=more compliance, and in order to keep the trail number the same you will need to run a slacker head tube angle. Slacker head tube angle also equals more compliance. A skinny steel fork will be more compliant, but you don't get the steering precision.
A lower BB does not make a huge difference based on my experience, but bicycle geometry and the ride quality is never one number. BB height has some influence as does head angle, seat angle, reach of effective TT length, head tube length, fork offset, fork length, wheel/tire size, chain stay length. Putting all of them together to end up with something that handles well is where the magic comes from.
I personally don't stop there. I have a large database of basic bike fits and use the information in the database to select what would most likely be the best fit component for stem length, handlebar width and crank length. Of course this is based on averages, but because I have a lot of fit data it end up working very well out of the box for most people.
The challenge is that riding styles and preferences continually change and evolve. Nobody in the industry is still making mountain bikes with geometry from the early 2000's and for good reason. So I always end up playing with the numbers, prototyping and evolving.
Mark at my end I am really starting to enjoy my Roker Comp and right now it is more bike than me. I still haven't made up my mind on the Sram 1x but my good guess is eventually I will swap it out to Shimano 2x.
Mark_Landsaat wrote:@Chas, thanks for the share! And to anyone on the forum, if you have any questions regarding my new Noble Bikes let me know.
Also since I designed the Raleigh Tamland/Roker/Willard. If any of you have technical questions regarding those bikes, don't hesitate to ask I'll check in regularly to answer questions.
Cheers
Tech question regarding the Roker Comp: What are the headset bearing spec's/dimensions? Thanks!
Headset spec for Roker frames is internal angular contact bearing for 1.125"-1.5" tapered steerer. The FSA No.42 or equivalent is the one that will work. See link below.
Yes, that's correct, 45/45 upper and 36/45 lower. There's a bunch of different companies offering this style headset. Let me know if you have any other questions.
![[smile]](https://cdn.websitetoolbox.com/images/boards/smilies/smile.gif "Smile - :)")
![[thumb]](https://cdn.websitetoolbox.com/images/boards/smilies/thumb.gif "Thumb - :thumb:")