Genesis updates the Croix de Fer

[wafter]

Article on Road.cc here, range on the Genesis website here. This 2025 MY update appears to be the first since the 2021 MY revision following Covid; which I assume was the manifestation of alterations already in progress when the plague hit.

Headline changes are apparently:

- Dropped chainstays
- Ovalised top tube
- Increased tyre clearance to 700x47mm / 45mm with guards

I guess the changes to the frames are good if they improve comfort as stated; although I really don't like the aesthetic of the dropped stays which seems like just another modern fad, while I wonder how much difference to compliance this actually makes.

The tyre clearance has to be a good thing although still seems relatively modest for a gravel bike.. of course with the huge gamut of applications and terrains that could cover smaller remains fine for the less exteme end of things.

It seems that they've brought back the 931 stainless frameset as an addition to the Ti job after apparently being replaced by it in the past.


It's interesting to look at the component spec which was pretty cohesive and road-based up until 2020 (Sora, Tiagra and 105) before going pretty squiffy after this due to component shortages and the arrival of GRX).

While the Road.cc article mentions the use of Shimano CUES, from the Genesis website it seems that the range uses the following:

CdF 10: Sora R3000, GRX RX400 with propriatory crankset, 2x9 with 46/30 and 11-34sp.
CdF 20: Tiagra 4700, GRX RX400, RX600, 2x10 with 46/30 and 11-34sp.
CdF 30: GRX RX400, RX600, 2x10 with 46/30 and 11-34sp.
CdF 40: GRX RX610, RX822, 1x12 with 40 and 10-45sp.
CdF 50: GRX RX820, 2x12 with 46/30 and 11-36sp.

It's nice to see that after crippling the last CdF 30 with mechanical calipers (which is unforgivable at a £2300 price point, IMO) it's now back to representing the point in the range where hydro discs become available. Peering a bit deeper we can see that cost cutting is still very much alive and well however; considering that this bike comes with a mix of low-mid 10sp components when the 2020 model was mid-high end 2x11 with 105 throughout, barring the top-end GRX RD.

The CdF 30 also remains the demarcation point between the lower-spec frames with QR axles and IS-mount brake calipers, and the higher end units with through-axles and flat mount brakes.

In addition the eagle-eyed will notice a change in the frame materials; while previously only the CdF 10 used Genesis' propriatory frame steel, now the CdF 20 also shares this material as opposed to the Reynolds 725 of the outgoing model. I guess this makes sense on a couple of levels - firstly one assumes that the lower-spec steel is cheaper, while using this for the CdF 20 also means only one steel is used for this QF/IS frame geometry rather than two.

While the choice of Reynolds 725 remains unchanged for the CdF 30 and 40 frames, it's also now present on the (steel) range-topping CdF 50; marking the demise of Reynolds 853 in this application as well as the frame-only option it seems.

EDIT: Looks like they've altered the geometry somewhat compared to the outgoing model - on the medium reach remains the same but stack is down by 8mm, headtube shorter by 20mm andhead angle slacker by half a degree..


Anyway, I hope some might find this of interest. Personally for the second time I've read about revisions to this range of bikes it only serves to reassure me that I did the right thing in buying my 2020 CdF 30 when I did

 

[Brandane]

Personally for the second time I've read about revisions to this range of bikes it only serves to reassure me that I did the right thing in buying my 2020 CdF 30 when I did

Me too! Mine is a "20", from about 2015 I think. Bought it second hand from a member on here.

 

[wafter]

Me too! Mine is a "20", from about 2015 I think. Bought it second hand from a member on here.

View attachment 741285

Looks nice and IIRC markedly different to later frames with a more horizontal top tube and curved fork; both of which I prefer aesthetically.

Do like the cleaner, more minimal paint job on these earlier ones too

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Looks like a nice bike for mixed surface adventures or tours. Quite versatile in that area.

 

[wafter]

Looks like a nice bike for mixed surface adventures or tours. Quite versatile in that area.

Yeah, I think of mine as "fat road" or "road plus" - max 38mm slicks it's currently fitted with are great on crap road surfaces / smooth gravel / dry hard pack mud, however it's not so great on more challenging terrain (sloppy mud, deep ruts, grass) due to the limited tyre volume and probably more road-facing headtube / fork geometry.

Unsurprisingly it can't hold a candle on rough terrain to a slack hard tail with fat knobblies, but as a versatile, road-centric ride the Genesis is hard to beat

 

[Falsesummat]

Solid workhorse type bike. My 2021 725 frame/ steel fork was bliss to ride LEJOG 2021. Currently running 40mm schwable supremes under full mudguards. All the bike i could ever want

 

[chriswoody]

Some nice looking bikes, apart from the dropped seatstays which I don't like. Interestingly the Geo numbers are almost identical to my Kona Sutra LTD, apart from Stack which is much larger on the Genesis. Definitely be interesting to ride one and see how it compared, especially given it has smaller Reynolds tubing compared to the fatter Kona Chromoly tubing that my bike has.

I really don't like the component choices though, the one drivetrain I would be interested in is the 1x, on the Cdf 40, but a 40 tooth chainring married to a 10 - 45 cassette, really? I don't have leg muscles like Chris Hoy and would much prefer a smaller chainring like a 34 tooth, which sadly GRX won't take, or a wider cassette like 10-52. I much prefer it when a manufacturer takes a much more pragmatic approach and mixes and matches components, so rather than the limiting GRX crankset on there, pop something else that will allow a wider range of chainring sizes.

Another component choice that I'm baffled by is the flat mount brake standard that Shimano have inflicted on the world. Post mount is a much more versatile standard, especially on bikes like this that are advertised as adventure bikes and are clearly built as such. The lower price point CDF's actually have IS mounts which is brilliant, because they will have an IS to Post mount adapter on there, which in turn means you can increase the brake rotor size all the way up to 180mm, something that's incredibly difficult to do with flat mount. Why 180mm? well those of us that like to tour off road with our gravel bikes also like to be able to safely stop them as well and since I've increased my front brake to 180mm it's given me much better control and safety on long gravel descents.

I'd also like to see manufacturers offering SRAM and mixed drivetrain choices as an option as well, alongside Shimano, giving customers genuine choice, rather than being restricted to the one brand.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Yeah, I think of mine as "fat road" or "road plus" - max 38mm slicks

New spec says that’s now 47mm. Thus tyres are getting as wide as 1990s mtn bikes. It’s like back to the future 😁

 

[wafter]

Some nice looking bikes, apart from the dropped seatstays which I don't like. Interestingly the Geo numbers are almost identical to my Kona Sutra LTD, apart from Stack which is much larger on the Genesis. Definitely be interesting to ride one and see how it compared, especially given it has smaller Reynolds tubing compared to the fatter Kona Chromoly tubing that my bike has.

I really don't like the component choices though, the one drivetrain I would be interested in is the 1x, on the Cdf 40, but a 40 tooth chainring married to a 10 - 45 cassette, really? I don't have leg muscles like Chris Hoy and would much prefer a smaller chainring like a 34 tooth, which sadly GRX won't take, or a wider cassette like 10-52. I much prefer it when a manufacturer takes a much more pragmatic approach and mixes and matches components, so rather than the limiting GRX crankset on there, pop something else that will allow a wider range of chainring sizes.

Another component choice that I'm baffled by is the flat mount brake standard that Shimano have inflicted on the world. Post mount is a much more versatile standard, especially on bikes like this that are advertised as adventure bikes and are clearly built as such. The lower price point CDF's actually have IS mounts which is brilliant, because they will have an IS to Post mount adapter on there, which in turn means you can increase the brake rotor size all the way up to 180mm, something that's incredibly difficult to do with flat mount. Why 180mm? well those of us that like to tour off road with our gravel bikes also like to be able to safely stop them as well and since I've increased my front brake to 180mm it's given me much better control and safety on long gravel descents.

I'd also like to see manufacturers offering SRAM and mixed drivetrain choices as an option as well, alongside Shimano, giving customers genuine choice, rather than being restricted to the one brand.

lol - FWIW while I agree with the first paragraph I'm on the other side of argument with most of the rest

Granted I guess it depends on the terrain you're riding on (I quite like 1x on my MTB, which I'm really itching to get out on today as it happens... but I digress), however I don't think that 1x has any place on any road-leaning gravel bike. Perhaps they've gone with the 40t chainring to retain some top end for this reason..?

I do agree about the gearing generally though for the rest of the range; IMO for most casual riders even the sub-compact gravel stuff on offer is still too highly geared for most uses. For sedate riding on the road I use the 36t middle ring on my Fuji 99% of the time, so on a double I'd expect something in the region of a 42/26 would be far more useable than the current industry-low of 46/30 on the GRX RX600... although I guess this is more of a Shimano problem than Genesis.

Personally I like flat mount (apparently introduced as a road bike standard in the name of aero, for what that's worth) and thought that post mount was on its way out... although looking at where it's still used perhaps that assumption was incorrect. I'd have thought IS would have been the hardest to adapt to larger disks, although tbh I find the 160s more than enough on my CdF - perhaps my rides are just less hardcore than yours... Are you running cable or hydraulic calipers?

I'd be happy with one brand if they gave me what I wanted!

 

[wafter]

New spec says that’s now 47mm. Thus tyres are getting as wide as 1990s mtn bikes. It’s like back to the future 😁

Indeed; I'd like to try something that wide but I've got no chance with guards on.

 

[All uphill]

I agree on the points about gearing. My Spa now has a 42/26 and 34/11, which works really well for me. The 42 will cover 95% of my riding and the 26 is very welcome on the other 5%.

With the previous 46/30 I would be making frequent fd changes here in Somerset and Devon.

 

[chriswoody]

Perhaps they've gone with the 40t chainring to retain some top end for this reason..?

That's what I'm thinking as well, it seems a lot of modern Gravel/Adventure bikes are specced more for the road or Gravel racing rather than the more laid back, easier riding that I like to indulge in. It is definitely a Shimano/SRAM issue, more so than a Genesis issue, however, there are components out there that brands could spec that would make it easier for tinkerers like me to customise their bikes.

Are you running cable or hydraulic calipers?

I'm running hydraulics on my bike, Post Mount Hope RX4, four piston calipers mated to SRAM Rival levers. Luckily the earlier Sutra's were specced with IS mounts, so all I needed to do was spend €5 on a different mounting bracket to re-space the caliper to 180mm and throw a 180mm disc on. It is overkill for a lot of rides, but when I'm bikepacking I do really notice the difference.

I'd be happy with one brand if they gave me what I wanted!

I kind of think that no one brand offers the perfect bike, given how individual our needs and preferences are. Also our immediate environment and where we do the most of our riding will also greatly influence the type of bike we need. My Kona was probably 80% perfect when purchased and I've spent the last five years fine tuning/tinkering and generally making it into the perfect bike for me.

In that regard I think the CDF is a generally excellent base bike, if they only offered SRAM builds as well! My points were really small nitpicking based just on my own preferences, I know most won't agree!

 

[All uphill]

Out of interest @wafter what are the differences you notice between riding the Genesis and your Fuji?

It seems to me gearing, tyres and wheelbase length account for nearly all the differences between my steel bikes. I wonder if you'd agree?

 

[wafter]

I agree on the points about gearing. My Spa now has a 42/26 and 34/11, which works really well for me. The 42 will cover 95% of my riding and the 26 is very welcome on the other 5%.

With the previous 46/30 I would be making frequent fd changes here in Somerset and Devon.

Nice - that sounds ideal. Even with the modest hills around here I seem 50/50 split between the CdF's 50/34 chainrings.

What crankset, FD and shifters are you running? I assume nothing that could be conveniently integrated into a Shimano Hollowtech environment..

That's what I'm thinking as well, it seems a lot of modern Gravel/Adventure bikes are specced more for the road or Gravel racing rather than the more laid back, easier riding that I like to indulge in. It is definitely a Shimano/SRAM issue, more so than a Genesis issue, however, there are components out there that brands could spec that would make it easier for tinkerers like me to customise their bikes.

Yes; I guess while they're evidently pushing more towards the off-road direction they're still very much biased towards the road end. Perhaps an "interesting" way to integrate 1x into the range, but then I guess they're no easy answer and I should be glad as a 2x fan that the bulk of the range remains with this format.

Unfortunately it seems that everything is framed from the perspective of performance; presumably to make it easier to sell new gear off the back of alleged performance gains. Conversely how do you sell something to people like us who get the greatest joy from simply getting out, and are unimpressed by another gear, a 1% mass saving, electronic everything...?

I think a large problem is the divergence from common standards.. while I know some is probably unavoidable, back in the day I suspect you could run pretty much any combination of crankset / deraulleurs / brakes / shifters.. now a lot of the time you can't even mix and match within brands.

As much as I respect(ed) Shimano for their product quality and range, the more I learn about what works for me the more restrictive and unappealing I find offerings from the main brands.. which is a shame as they still retain some elements that really appeal (hydro disks and STIs, for example).

I'm running hydraulics on my bike, Post Mount Hope RX4, four piston calipers mated to SRAM Rival levers. Luckily the earlier Sutra's were specced with IS mounts, so all I needed to do was spend €5 on a different mounting bracket to re-space the caliper to 180mm and throw a 180mm disc on. It is overkill for a lot of rides, but when I'm bikepacking I do really notice the difference.

Certainly sounds capable! My CdF just has single-pot 105s but I find them great for both feel and outright stopping power. Conversely the Ragley has 180mm SRAM DB8s, which feel a bit grabby and harder to modulate; not sure if this is down to the disk size, units themselves or my inexperience.

Again, granted I don't ride loaded on either bike and am a pretty sedate rider too.

I kind of think that no one brand offers the perfect bike, given how individual our needs and preferences are. Also our immediate environment and where we do the most of our riding will also greatly influence the type of bike we need. My Kona was probably 80% perfect when purchased and I've spent the last five years fine tuning/tinkering and generally making it into the perfect bike for me.

In that regard I think the CDF is a generally excellent base bike, if they only offered SRAM builds as well! My points were really small nitpicking based just on my own preferences, I know most won't agree!

Indeed; I guess that's part of the fun if you can find the parts to get to where you want to be. I think if I buy anything else new it'll likely be a frame to build up to my own spec.

IMO my CdF came close to perfect out of the box; at least for my ideals at the time - I shortened the reach a bit with an 80mm stem and really don't like the high gearing or narrow Q-factor of hte 105 crankset; which is currently the reason it sees barely any use. A bit more tyre clearance would be nice too, but it's not a deal-breaker for what I ride and since most is on road anyway 38mm slicks are a decent compromise.

There are design elements I'd prefer (lugged frame, horizontal crossbar, curved fork..) but while steel the CdF isn't meant to be a retro-styled bike so I can forgive it these.

Personally not much of a fan of SRAM, although the few limited experiences I've had of their products I've been pleasantly surprised. I think genesis do use their parts on some of their other bikes.

Out of interest @wafter what are the differences you notice between riding the Genesis and your Fuji?

It seems to me gearing, tyres and wheelbase length account for nearly all the differences between my steel bikes. I wonder if you'd agree?

A difficult one to answer tbh as the most obvious differences are in the components, while the period within which I rode the two together was brief and quite some time ago.

Broadly speaking they both feel pretty similar; with geometry of contact points setup to be almost identical between the two. The Genesis lighter and perhaps a bit more responsive although both are a fair bit more ponderous than the old road bike. Subconsciously I feel like the Genesis is perhaps a bit stiff at the front end, although that might just be psychological because of the straight fork.

Unurprisingly the hydro disks on the Genesis are far, far better for power and to a lesser extent modulation than the min-Vs on the Fuji.

The shifting on the CdF's STIs is more crisp and convenient than the Fuji's bar end shifters, however this is only an issue when you're pressing on / on rough ground and want to keep your hands planted. This is offset by the fact I rarely have to move from the Fuji's 36t middle ring, while as previously noted I'm forever shifting between the two front rings on the CdF.

Not only do I prefer the 3x gearing format on the Fuji, I also get on a lot better with the wider Q-factor of the MTB cranks and wide, flat pedals versus the skinny Q of the road crankset and SPDs on the CdF - this being the main reason I don't ride it currently as the Fuji has spoilt me and I quickly get hip and knee pain on the CdF now

 

[All uphill]

What crankset, FD and shifters are you running? I assume nothing that could be conveniently integrated into a Shimano Hollowtech environment..

All four of my bikes have square taper BBs.

Three of them have Spa cranksets, and my main bike (Spa Aubisque) has Sora shifters.

My 1994 flat bar Marin Stinson has weird shifters. They are Shimano Deore XT flatbar shifters which work like dropbar shifters, you push the brake levers down to change gear!

The Temple has bar end shifters.