chunkylover53 wrote:To the OP: I am in pretty much the same boat as you. Race MTB, gravel for training, miles, couple of races a year. I was considering the same bikes as you, decided on Cutthroat. The geometry is similar for all three, but Cutthroat has a slightly longer wheelbase, slightly slacker and a bit more stack. For me, those three add up to increased comfort for banging out the miles. The only concern for me was gearing - I was concerned that a 42T big ring might leave me spinning out on some gravel races if there was a decent tailwind. Maybe, maybe not. But I felt I could live with that once or twice a year. Although all of these bikes would suit you just fine and be an excellent choice, I'm thinking the Cutthroat is what you're looking for.
Thanks. Have you had your Cutthroat long? Have you been in a situation where the 42T caused you to spin out? I can't imagine on gravel that would happen much. The only thing is that the 2017 comes with a 32/24 ring. I'm wondering if you can mount a 42T on the cranks.
Never thought about spinning out on a 42t. On my single speed bikes, I run 42tx16. Even hammering hard I tend to be fine with 90 gear inches or less -that is 42 x 13...
No, just built it up. I suspect I won't know how well the 42 works until that first gravel race on a long straight stretch of road. There are other options to increase the high gear - if you are running Sram, then you could get a 10 tooth on the smallest cog. Or with an e13 cassette you can get a 9 tooth. I know some folks are running something like the e13 with a single ring up front - really does help with range. But I'm a Shimano guy.
dropfootdaddy wrote:
Thanks. Have you had your Cutthroat long? Have you been in a situation where the 42T caused you to spin out? I can't imagine on gravel that would happen much. The only thing is that the 2017 comes with a 32/24 ring. I'm wondering if you can mount a 42T on the cranks.
Regarding comfort, unless your fit is at the extreme for the chosen frame size, then one can adjust how upright the position will be by changing stem height (ie. number of spacers) and/or stem angle for handlebar rise/drop.
IMO, unless one is racing, then weight of the bike frame is overblown. My experience has been that faster is most attributed to wheel and tire weight. For comfort on gravel I prefer CF fork, bars and seatpost. I had long been a skeptic on how much difference this could make, but wow, it was night and day. The weight difference is minimal between a good aluminum and CF seatpost bars - its all about the high frequency vibration damping.
OTOH, the weight difference between a steel and CF fork can be a pound or more. Again, IMO the weight difference is significant only if one is racing. For me the big difference between a CF and steel fork is in the ride. More comfort means less fatigue. The randonneur mag's and forums have long argued that reduced fatigue results in faster times for long randonneur events.
Wanted to thank all of you for your feedback. Funny enough, I went in a different direction and ordered a Otso Warakin. The were many things about the bike that appealed to me - stainless steel, geo, ability to shorten chainstay with a tuning chip, it can fit 2.1 tires, and the guys from wolf tooth engineered. It really fit more what I was looking for than than than the other bikes. A nice balance between teh warbird and cutthroat. It certainly is heavy, frame comes in over 2100g. But I'm ding my best to lighten up the rotational weight. I don't mind the weight so much as I really was drawn to steel.
I'm pretty excited about the build. The frame is in, and it's gorgeous. The other parts are slowly trickling in.
I'm going with Industry Nine AR25 wheels (I ordered Schwalbe 2.1 TB and 700 x 35 G ones) Ultgegra front and rear der. Shimano Hydro Shifter and brakes Specialzied Hover Handelbar Praxis Zayante Crank 48/32 with 4iiii power
For now I'll be using saddle, stem and seatpost I have lying around unit I get fitted. Will send pics
I don't know if any of the other geometry figures would influence the ride much (e.g. bottom bracket drop, headtube angle, etc.), but the stack and reach say that I would at least be comfortable like I am on the Vaya.
Add to that a 5 pound weight decrease, the flexy seat stays and thru axles and I'm super interested in upgrading to a Cutthroat.
Even, the 1x gearing has a similar range to my Vaya:
And that 38T chainring could be swapped out for a 40T to 42T to get even closer.
$4,000 sure is a lot for a bike though.
The Cutthroat cannot use more than a 38T for 1x. For 2x it can use a 42T. But with a 10-42 cassette, the 38T is plenty unless you are using it as a road bike also.
I don't know if any of the other geometry figures would influence the ride much (e.g. bottom bracket drop, headtube angle, etc.), but the stack and reach say that I would at least be comfortable like I am on the Vaya.
well, it makes a big difference in handling - especially head tube angle (which directly affects trail). I find with a slack bike I may be running wide on turns and going off my line (or off the trail) With a numerically higher head angle, I may worry about the front tire not biting hard enough and washing out in dirt.
The sharper head angle makes the bike more agile - good for pavement or cross racing. The slacker head angle makes the bike carve nice turns (not too sharp though) and easier to ride fast down hill in sketchy conditions.
BB drop for me mostly has to do with pedal smack with aggressive lean angles, although a higher BB tends to accelerate with more snap.
The Cutthroat cannot use more than a 38T for 1x. For 2x it can use a 42T. But with a 10-42 cassette, the 38T is plenty unless you are using it as a road bike also.
Out of pure interest, what would stop you putting a 40T on the bike? I can't see tire clearance being an issue and it doesn't change the capacity needed for the derailleur. Chain line would be the same (I think).
I'd actually be fine with a 38T. For me, I'd have the same range as the Vaya, except I'd effectively lose the 48/11 highest gear (which I don't use much for gravel).
Out of pure interest, what would stop you putting a 40T on the bike? I can't see tire clearance being an issue and it doesn't change the capacity needed for the derailleur. Chain line would be the same (I think).
.
The larger chainring would probably rub the chainstay. The 42t fits in a 2x configuration because it sits a little farther out from the frame versus the 1x configuration.
The larger chainring would probably rub the chainstay.
I agree. I just enjoyed the last three weekends pedaling a 2017 Cutthroat and there is not much clearance at the chainstay.
My 2 cents - this was the most enjoyable and versatile bike I've ever ridden. The tire volume and vibration reduction rear end are fantastic. The Cowchipper bars felt like it was made custom for me. This was my first trial with a 1X and it took me all of five minutes to wonder why I have a 2X (well, I do have a little more of a bailout ratio on my current ride).
I did have one issue that only required a small change in riding style. The lower bottom bracket led to numerous pedal strikes. I was riding two trails that I frequent with my MTB and CX rides. I have never had a pedal strike with either bike on either trail. Once I started to time my pedal stroke and position all was well. Definitely not a deal killer though.
I was also able to put in about 25 road miles. The larger tires give that sluggish feel on take off, but it comes up to speed quickly (and I was running 18psi F & R). My times vs the CX were within a minute of each other.
I have always avoided riding other bikes and now I have come down with a serious case of upgrade-itis.
Since the Cutthroat is largely a MTB frame, the Q factor is wider (i.e. the pedals are further apart). Would love to know if people actually notice that in practice. Or does it feel just like a road bike?
I have a fat bike and the Q factor is enormous on it. I certainly notice it, but that's at the extreme end of the scale.
I'm getting real close to pulling the trigger and building up a Cutthroat to replace my Vaya!
I didn't compare the Q between my bikes but I did notice it while pedaling. My knees were much happier with the Cutthroat. It certainly didn't seem extreme at all.
benmills wrote:Since the Cutthroat is largely a MTB frame, the Q factor is wider (i.e. the pedals are further apart). Would love to know if people actually notice that in practice. Or does it feel just like a road bike?
I have a fat bike and the Q factor is enormous on it. I certainly notice it, but that's at the extreme end of the scale.
I'm getting real close to pulling the trigger and building up a Cutthroat to replace my Vaya!
I only do 5+ hour rides on occasion but seem to adjust if it's an epic day with old school, "boost" or fat bike. That's from someone who's aging body is starting to have wear problems.
The Q factor or type of bike is more like adjusting to my wife's vs my car and what I find really important is a bike that just feels and handles well. I'm sure it could be far more important for others.
Sorry to not have any opinion on the bike models. I checked them out while shopping, Vaya the most, but fell in love with a pretty much unused Fargo. I've spent big on plastic frame and fancier parts for my trail bike but am heavy metal for gravel.
FWIW, I spend most of my time on bikes with the standard road BB width. When I switch to my mtb I don't notice a difference in the Q factor. Even a long day of 80+ mile GG on my Frankenbike conversions (rigid 26'er mtb with drop bars) I can't say I noticed the wider Q factor. For me the key setup is the saddle height and position of my knee to the pedal. This is identical on all my bikes.
![[smile]](https://cdn.websitetoolbox.com/images/boards/smilies/smile.gif)
