I'm looking to purchase a new bike and the current 23% off deal on the Grail CF SL 7 AXS has caught my eye.
My current bike is a 2014 Kona Kahuna hardtail and I'm finding lately I've been using it more for long-ish distance rides (by mountain bike standards anyways, 70 – 80 km) on mixed pavement and light gravel than proper MTB trail use.
I want to pick up a gravel bike that I can use to start working up to more proper 100 – 200 km long distance rides. I'm leaning more towards the Grail than the Grizl for 3 main reasons:
- "Faster and lighter" sounds very appealing after slogging this stupid mountain bike around.
- I already have the hardtail for rougher single track terrain and "adventure" purposes.
- The Grail is on sale and the Grizl isn't.
In reading some threads I keep seeing a lot of fairly technical discussions comparing frame geometry specs between the two bikes and claiming that the Grail is really more suited for short to medium distance sprints rather than long distance treks.
My question is essentially how significant is this difference in frame geometry and long-distance comfort when it comes to real-life riding experience and not just spec sheet comparisons? Is this a "this bike is going to absolutely destroy your back on long-distance rides" situation? Or is it more "both bikes are pretty fine for long distance rides, but the Grail is just a little less optimal".
by CouchEnthusiast
13 Comments
I have a grizl and my friend rides a grail.. we both go on 100-150km rides together and i never heard him complain.. so no worries
I have done a 180km bike ride on a Grail CF SL 8, the double decker model. No problems at all, I was fairly comfortable.
Get a proper fit and you won’t have any issues. I can ride my grail cf sl 7 100km+ easily. The geometry is more aggressive but that is what I love about it. It doubles perfectly as a road bike if need be.
I have the older model. It’s so much more comfortable than my road bike that I now ride it exclusively (two wheelsets) and the road bike is stuck on the trainer.
It’s not as “comfortable” as a MTB but I would never take my mountain bike for a 100mile road ride.
I have Grail CF SLX and rode the Kattegattleden 390km in 1 day last month and have no complaint. As others said, as long as we have good bike fit then there gonna be no problem.
The only drawback is maybe it will be a bit pricey if you want to buy the gear groove aero extension.
I did a century (100 miles) with my Grail. Quite comfortable. But maybe you should also look at the Endurace if you are going to be riding pavement.
The Grail has a bit less stack and a bit more reach, but they’re so close that it doesn’t really matter. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet, there’s nothing that would prevent the Grail from being a good choice for long rides.
I’ve ridden a 210 km ride with 4500 m vertical on a pretty “aggressive” gravel bike. As others have said, fit is key, so go get measured before you buy and get it adjusted so it’s right for you
very much appreciate all of the responses, this is exactly the kind of reassurance I was hoping for!
I do all of my gravel and road ultra races on the grail. Love it.
Have the double decker Grail CF 7 as well and am riding 60 miles regularly on road and trails with no issues
In terms of frame geometry as it relates to fit, the grail and Grizl are nearly the same. I think the Grizl comes with a shorter overall cockpit which will shorten the reach a good bit. IMO aggressive bikes can be comfortable, but they’re more comfortable when you’re putting down power and get less comfortable as your stamina starts fading. Depending on where your fitness is at, you may need to work up to it.
I’ve did a 138 mile ride on my Grail less than a month after purchase. It’s a fantastic and very capable bike.
I think the difference is more that a Grizl has way more in the way of attachment points, which make it possibly better suited to carrying gear. If you aren’t over-nighting or riding really rough gravel, I wouldn’t consider the Grizl.