Beginner Gravel Bikes - Help Me Decide

Ryan,

   The best advice anyone can give you at this point is to ride the bikes that you're interested in.  That Diverge that you rode might be a great bike, but it's not going to be the same as the Willard or Tamland.  

   Get the input of one of the fit specialists at your local shop.  Generally speaking most people can fit on a number of sizes from a given manufacturer/model.  It will depend on the bike you're looking at and your intended purpose to determine the better size for you.  In my opinion, 1" of standover clearance is perfectly adequate.  I'd say the Effective Top Tube and Head Tube Length are much more important in this instance.  There's also a slew of important questions your fitter will need to ask about your personal physiology.  For example, I'd even have you do a few quick flexibility assessments before putting you on the fit bike and seeing how your body deals with being on a bike.  I'd be able to see the answer to questions about posture and habits pretty quickly.  Sorry if it seems like a cop-out to say it, but defer to your fit-specialists.  Likely, if you're planning on buying a bike from that shop, they'll do a full assessment for free.  I did for my customers at the shop I managed...

N

<span>red1992v6rs</span> wrote:I think I am continuing to narrow down my selections. I think I'm going to end up going with a Raleigh Willard or Tamland. My local dealer offers them at too good of a price to pass up. Now, my next question in sizing. I'm 6'3", with a roughly 35" inseam. According to their website, it should put me on a 60 or 62. The 60s have a 33.25" stand over, whereas the 62s have a 34". Is that inch of clearance too close for a gravel bike on the 62? There is also about a half inch difference in the top tube length. Not sure if that makes a whole lot of difference. 

I have a 60 willard 1 I'm 6'1 about 33.5 inseam with long arms. Out of the box the bike was almost perfect excepting seat height and bar adjustment. I have only made a few slight adjustments since. Mine fits just right for me.

Raleigh sizes their willard series different from what other makers do. For instance my seatpost is 57 and they call it a 60 others usually use the seat post length as the size guide. 

Regarding the stand over, when I am stopped at a light or whatever with feet on the ground I am slightly touching the top tube. I actually prefer that type of fit excepting mountain bikes. Just seems to work better for me, I do not like raising my seat post to the sky. Imo one inch is probably about right. If you can sit on them and check is the best way. I took a chance and bought online sight unseen and am completely happy with my fit just going by the guide and prior experiences.
 
You are kind of a tweener and depending on your preference could probably go either size.
There is a review on here somewhere from a rider who is tall but I can't remember his frame size. I will try to find it. I know when I had a bike that was to big for me I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as a properly fitting one. That was years ago and I learned from it.

Side note about the Willard series, they have a light shock absorbing stem and seat post. Basically just a rubber bushing between metal parts that absorbs some of the rough stuff. I absolutely, 100% love it and they work and you can feel the difference. Having said that the stem is not designed to be flipped, but I do it anyway.  I have a Shock Stop stem on the way another story for another time, anyway the stock set up gives you 0 degree rise which is ok but if you are easing back into things a little rise is much more comfortable and will give you a little more upright riding position.
Keep the stock stem don't allow the shop to switch it out with a standard stem because it is an expensive item.

When I am ready for another bike it will most likely be a Tamland or a Roker because that's how much I like the geometry.
Also an interesting side note,Guitar Ted one of the founders of this site, had frame design input on the original Tamland which made its way to the Willard as well. 
Here's that review http://ridinggravel.com/gravel-news/raleigh-willard-two-quick-review/

I was leaning towards the Tamland 1 until tonight.  I got a quote from another LBS for a 2016 Specialized Crux E5 X1 that was very comparable to the Tamland 1 quote.  I'm still unsure if the 1x setup is right for me since I will primarily be riding roads and hilly roads at that.

Here's links to both bikes:

Tamland 1
Crux E5 X1

The Crux seems like a heck of a build for the price and it looks damn sexy.

I have never ridden a cyclocross bike.  Is the geometry of a cyclocross bike that different and racy that it would make a difference comfort-wise for rides?  At this point in time I'll probably be sticking to 15-30 mile rides, maybe occasionally do some longer races for fun.  I highly doubt I'd get into century territory.

Thanks to everyone.  A lot of good insight here.

I'm not familiar with the Crux but it is more of a compact racier geo than the Raleigh's you mentioned. Higher BB, shorter wheelbase, TT etc. Good Luck. Get the one you like to ride, that is something only you can decide.

Like Rover Al said, the Tamland geometry is going to make for a bike that is less racy but noticeably more comfortable. Also it will be more comfortable and versatile with the room for wider tires. You may be doing short rides now but the third water bottle mount and braze-ons for rack/fenders may come in handy on the Tamland. Another issue I see with the Crux is that the gearing is nowhere near sufficient for hilly terrain- especially if you are going to be on dirt/gravel roads. Just my 2cents but if you don't mind a couple extra pounds on the bike, I think the Tamland is more what you're looking for. But also, as Rover Al said, only you can decide.

I have the opportunity to get a leftover 2016 Willard 2 at a great price. It however is a 58cm. My current bike measures as a 58cm, which I think feels a little small because there is little seat adjustment compared to a modern bike. Now, the dealer can also get me on a 2017 Tamland 1 for $300 more than the Willard. What are your opinions about the tradeoffs: \n \nWillard 2 - 58cm size, Aluminum, 105 groupset, 40mm tires \n \nTamland 1 - 58cm or 60cm size, Steel, 105 groupset, 32mm tires, +$300 \n \nAs a reminder, I am 6'3" with a 35" inseam. \n \nI apologize on my undesiciveness. I can't make a decision to save my life, especially when it comes to spending a decent amount of money. \n \nHere is also a picture of my current bike(not my bike personally ): http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jzCciZ3JwYE/S5PX7Zt2IVI/AAAAAAAAMzI/PMnb08yvyF0/s1600-h/DSC_0005.JPG

A proper fitting bike is worth more than a few hundred dollars. My suggestion is what Raleigh recommends about sizing their bikes. Can be found on their website. Either a 60 or 62. That is your decision to make. A 58 seems small now then go with a 60~
What's the Tamland going for? 

Biggest factor is aluminum versus steel. Both will serve you well. I would have bought the Tamland if I had the budget for one and I just might when they go on sale in the spring or year end closeout or maybe a Roker~

^^  What RoverAl said.  Get fitted and buy a bike that fits regardless of which frame material you prefer.  Modern bikes are measured in so many different ways these days, especially with the advent of sloping top tubes, by the different manufacturers that it's difficult to compare one to another.  Stack and reach are the best measurements for sizing purposes w/effective top tube the next best.  Based on your photo, the Fuji looks much larger than a 58cm.  And based on the amount of seat post showing, it appears too large for you rather than too small.  Just opinion of course but I would double check your measurements.

RoverAl,

The Tamland is going for a little over $1,300. Great price considering the MSRP is $1,900.

DrSpoke,

I apologize for the confusion.  The bike I pictured was not mine personally, it was just an example of the model that I am riding.

That's a great deal, for a 17 Tamland, a Reynolds 631 steel bike with that groupset, thru axles carbon fork and more. Get fitted like Dr. Spoke said it will be well worth it. 
One other thing, on Raleighs site they have a chat window that pops up and are very helpful. When I was researching bikes they were very well informed and helpful they actually seemed like guys that ride their bikes.. I would give them a try to answer any questions about the bikes.

I'm only chiming in because I have a 60cm Willard and the Tamland is basically the same geometry. Being 6'1' 33.5 inseam I think the the 58 would be to small for you. 

Based on that photo of the vintage Fuji, you are going to enjoy your new ride whatever it may be. 

 Modern bikes are measured in so many different ways these days, especially with the advent of sloping top tubes, by the different manufacturers that it's difficult to compare one to another.  Stack and reach are the best measurements for sizing purposes w/effective top tube the next best. 

http://www.raleighusa.com/bikes/road/all-road/tamland/tamland-1

One more voice to the chorus... I'm 6'3 and my 60cm Willard 2 fits me well, so a 58cm seems small for you OP.

yes, at 6'3" a rider is almost certainly looking at the largest frame size made of common bikes. Usually called 61-64cm.
Check the stack and reach, for the real size, the 'number' size is only an idea. Also compare to the stack and reach of your current bike.

Well, I finally pulled the trigger.  I picked up my 2017 Raleigh Tamland 1 last Friday.  I went with a 60cm based on the input from my LBS as well as input from Raleigh themselves.  They felt it would give me a more upright position compared to a 62cm, which is what I was looking for.  Of course it snowed on Sunday (friggin' winter).  I was very surprised by the weight.  It feels like it is 10 pounds lighter than the old Fuji.  With that being said, I am not at all regretting staying with steel.  I don't think I would notice the extra couple pounds anyways.  I'll hopefully be able to report how it performs when I am able to take it on longer rides.  It might not be until spring though since I don't want to get it all salty from the roads.  If anybody would like pictures or anything, I'd be happy to.

Thank you everyone for your input and advice.  I'm excited to have officially joined the gravel community.

I'm late to the party.  I like to color of your bike!  I like the orange - it's just enough of a contrast; 3 colors is perfect (green, black, orange).  Keep the black bar tape.  I was recently in the same position with an N+1 bike; I wanted a less dedicated road bike and considered the bikes you listed.  I really wanted to like the Crux but I also wanted fenders so the Crux was out.  I was able to find a used 2017 Giant TCX which fit my bill almost to a 'T'.  It's a great winter/crappy weather bike, I've fitted it fenders (with a little 'Yankee Ingenuity') and swapped out the seat for something with a little more padding so I can just hop on and ride.  The 2017 TCX lists for $1250 which was inline with your budget; I was lucky to find a 2017 for $900!  Got it from a Mtn biker who thought he might like CX but didn't.  Anway, enjoy your ride!

red1992v6rs wrote:
... I was only able to ride it a few miles on Saturday due to limited time.  And of course it snowed on Sunday (friggin' winter).  I was very surprised by the weight.  It feels like it is 10 pounds lighter than the old Fuji.  With that being said, I am not at all regretting staying with steel.  I don't think I would notice the extra couple pounds anyways.  I'll hopefully be able to report how it performs when I am able to take it on longer rides.  It might not be until spring though since I don't want to get it all salty from the roads.  

Congrat's on the new bike! I agree completely with your assessment of steel not making much difference.   

I have '72 Fuji Finest which replaced my '71 Fuji S10S, a predecessor to your Sport10.  I'm thinking of replacing the brakes on my Fuji with some Tektro's that have longer arms and then going to 650b wheels that will allow even wider tires.  As is, the Fuji will easily fit a 700x32mm so long as I don't want fenders. A 35mm tire might even fit so this bike is definitely worthy of riding gravel.  It's not that I "need" another gravel bike, but I know I'll ride it more if I can take it anywhere.

As for waiting til spring to ride, I'd suggest taking a look at the Nokian Hakka W240 tire in a 40mm width.  It's got an aggressive tread, 240 carbide studs and at 40mm it'll still knife through snow to the pavement or hardpack.  I've got a Frankenbike outfitted with the Schwalbe Marathon Winter tires that aren't quite as good in the snow as the Hakka but i has 200 studs that are amazing on ice.  Yes, if there's a will there's a way to ride in the winter. :-)

Enjoy!
Greg

Very nice looking rig, I am very tempted to buy one if I can get the right price.She looks like it can take a load for touring. Would you mind posting a pic of the other side I would like to se the other side of the rear triangle. \nThanks

Al,

I apologize for the delay.  I fell off the side of the earth for a little while.  I'll try to get some pictures up within the next couple days.  I'll put them in the 2017 Raleigh Tamland thread here since they will be more relevant there.

Here is the Alpkit Camino.  Very good price for a Ti bike.

 

Nubster wrote:Frame material debates can go on forever with no definite answer. Short answer...if built properly...frame material doesn't matter that much. I love carbon. I love steel but hate the weight. Yes...there's lighter steel but you pay a high price. Aluminum...I've had harsh and not so harsh. My newest bike is aluminum and I'm very happy with it. I wouldn't get too hung up on material...especially at this price range. 

Agree heartily with frame material comments. It's not the material -- but the design, engineering, and manufacturing quality control that makes the difference in frame quality, and price. The Haanjo is a good balance of all of these virtues, at a very reasonable price -especially if you shop around. I upgraded to to a Ritchie Swiss Cross steel frame and high end components last fall, which I use for high speed paved road romps, and with 35mm GK Tubless for maintained dirt and gravel roads. But I've held onto my Haanjo comp with it's 40 mm Tubeless Ramblers for muddy conditions, and for double track farm roads. Of course, the Ritchie Swiss Cross frame set costs about the same as the complete Haanjo Comp bike.

I recently changed the fork from steel to CF on my Dean Torres CX bike and couldn't believe the difference.  The pound of weight was "nice" but there was a huge difference in the ride - much much less vibration to the bars.  I also found the CF seat post to absorb more vibration than the Ti post it replaced.

At least a decade ago, Tom Ritchy or Keith Bontrager (sorry, don't recall which), had a very nice summary of the differences in the properties and ride characteristics of the popular frame materials (CF, Ti, Steel, Aluminum).  In short, his summary was that all of the materials "could" be used to build a frame which was equally stiff ("responsive" in marketing/sales speak).  Compliance, or flex, is simply the opposite of stiffness so a more compliant frame is simply less stiff.  The key takeaway from the article, for me anyway, was that there are intrinsic differences in absorption of high frequency vibration (energy).  From greatest absorption to least: CF, Ti, Steel, Al.  

For a road bike, it is easy to feel the difference in materials when riding on coarse pavement (chip-and-seal and oil-and-chips are the common names out here in Colorado).   Riding gravel, regardless of the frame material a stiff "responsive" bike without suspension is not going to smooth a washboard road. A more compliant bike will certainly help, but this compliance will be seen as frame/fork flex when sprinting.  More rake and longer chain stays make a bike more compliant (comfortable).

One low(er) budget option is to purchase an aluminum or steel bike with a CF fork and add CF bars and seat post. 

It's all a compromise which is why enjoy so many different bikes. :-)