Lauf Gravel Worlds on a Lauf Seigla

Tim Cusick
Sep 7
10 min read

In the months leading up to the 150-mile race at Lauf Gravel Worlds, I understood the challenge would demand far more than fitness alone. Nebraska gravel is relentless, with rolling hills that never seem to end, stretches of exposed farm country with punishing wind, and heat that slowly grinds riders down. To survive and perform, every detail has to come together: the training, the pacing, the mindset, and yes, the equipment.

This year I was fortunate to be riding the Lauf Seigla. Lauf is one of our sponsors here at BaseCamp, but the truth is simply that this was the bike I needed to be riding. It was built for the type of terrain and demands that Gravel Worlds throws at you. When riding 150 miles, comfort becomes performance, durability keeps you in the race, and efficiency is the difference between surviving and thriving. The Seigla delivered all of that, and in this article I want to share how my setup supported my ride and helped me get the most out of the day.

With so many BaseCamp members attending Gravel Worlds this year, the questions started early. Riders wanted to know about my setup, what tires I was running, what pressures I would choose, and whether I would go with Lauf's suspension fork or the rigid fork. These are great questions, because the answers really define how the bike performs over such a demanding course. Each choice is a balance of speed, control, and comfort, and those balances matter even more when the race stretches into double digit hours.

Demands of the Event

When I planned for Gravel Worlds, I estimated my ride time at roughly ten hours at about 16 mph. That meant the event was not just a test of fitness, but also a test of resilience, efficiency, and execution throughout a long day on the bike. To approach it systematically, I ranked the demands of the course in three categories.

Durability and the ability to resist fatigue

The rolling Nebraska terrain does not let you settle in. The constant sequence of climbs and descents forces repeated changes in torque and cadence, which accumulates over time into deep muscular fatigue. I knew my setup had to minimize unnecessary strain, reduce vibration, and support my body so I could continue producing power late into the race.

Aerobic capacity

The second demand was aerobic capacity. Gravel Worlds rewards athletes who can sustain strong efforts for long durations and still respond with surges when the course or the competition requires. For me, that meant developing the ability to ride deep into my aerobic system without fading. Yes, this is highly related to durability, but it is important.

Trained gut

No matter how strong you are, ten hours is impossible without fueling. There is not much impact of the bike here, but it is important to mention.

The key: Durability as the driver of success

In a 150-mile race like Gravel Worlds, the ability to resist fatigue is one of the biggest determinants of performance. What wears riders down is not only the miles, climbing, and the heat, but also the constant pounding of rough gravel. Every vibration that travels through the wheels, frame, and contact points is a micro stressor on the body. It increases muscular fatigue by forcing small, stabilizing contractions, and it adds to the cumulative load on the upper body, lower back, and even hands. Over ten hours, those small stresses add up to real performance cost.

I knew that if I wanted to maximize performance through equipment, I needed to reduce that impact and maximize comfort. Comfort is not about luxury; it's a performance factor. The less energy I waste absorbing vibration, the more energy I can devote to pushing the pedals. The more stable and supported I feel on the bike, the more consistent I can be in my power output and cadence. Comfort extends durability, and durability extends the performance window.

System thinking in setup selection

Selecting the right setup for a race like Gravel Worlds is not about a single piece of equipment, but about understanding the entire system and how it interacts with the course demands and the rider's projected speed. Too often we isolate one factor (such as tire width or wheel depth) without recognizing that performance is the product of multiple interacting elements.

The first step is analyzing the course. Nebraska gravel is unique, with long rolling terrain, exposed stretches of farm country, variable gravel depth, and the constant threat of wind and heat. Riders need to understand how these demands will stress the body and equipment over 150 miles. The second step is projecting your likely speed across that terrain; whether you plan to average 16 mph or 20 mph changes the balance of priorities dramatically.

From there, the setup choice becomes a systems equation built on five elements:

Aerodynamics (quantifiable) – At higher speeds, aerodynamic drag dominates total resistance. Deep wheels, tighter frame shapes, and narrower frontal area can yield meaningful gains above 18–20 mph.
Rolling resistance (quantifiable) – Tire volume, casing construction, and pressure determine how efficiently energy is transferred to the ground. The slower you plan to ride, the larger the contribution of rolling resistance relative to aero drag.
Weight (quantifiable) – Over 150 miles of rolling terrain, weight is less about single climbs and more about cumulative cost. Every extra gram must be accelerated and carried, but the effect is smaller compared to aerodynamics and rolling resistance unless the course is highly vertical.
Handling (subjective) – Wider tires and more stable geometries deliver confidence when gravel gets loose or descents steepen. That confidence can be the difference between holding pace and losing time to hesitation.
Comfort (subjective) – Comfort directly impacts durability. Over 8–12 hours of racing, reduced vibration and improved rider stability preserve energy and delay fatigue.

The key is that none of these elements exist in isolation. Aerodynamics, rolling resistance, weight, handling, and comfort combine to form the system, and their importance shifts with the expected speed and course features. For example, at 16 mph rolling resistance and comfort rise in importance, while at 20 mph aerodynamics quickly becomes the decisive factor. A successful setup is not the "fastest" in one category, but the one that balances all elements to match the rider's power, speed, and durability against the course demands.

My setup chart

My brain thinks in charts and data (sad but true), so I often visualize needs this way. As I review my targeted average speed and the course, I rank my system items on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being a lower need, 10 being a higher need), and it would look like this:

Comfort as the key selection

For me, the goal was clear. To break the ten-hour barrier, I would need to average around 16 miles per hour. That target speed shaped my setup decisions. At 16 miles per hour, aerodynamics cannot be ignored, but rolling resistance and comfort durability drive the performance equation. This is where balance becomes critical. A bike that is too focused on aerodynamics may not hold efficiency on rough gravel, and a tire chosen only for low rolling resistance may punish you with fatigue. The only way to ride strong for ten hours is to find the right combination of all five.

Blending these five factors on my Seigla setup came down to two key decisions. The first was whether to run the suspension fork or the rigid fork, a choice that would directly influence both comfort and efficiency. The second was tire selection, including width, tread, and pressure, which would determine the balance of rolling resistance, grip, and durability.

Fork selection

One of the biggest questions I got from BaseCamp riders leading into Gravel Worlds was whether to run the suspension fork or the rigid fork on the Seigla. It is a fair question, because fork choice sits at the intersection of comfort, efficiency, and weight.

For me, the decision was simple. I own the rigid fork and have tested it in a race or two, but I will always compete utilizing the suspension fork, particularly in this race. Over 150 miles of rolling Nebraska gravel, the suspension fork makes a direct contribution to durability. Every vibration absorbed by the fork is energy that my body does not have to absorb. Over the course of ten hours, that matters. It reduces the strain on my upper body, lowers the micro fatigue in my core and arms, and keeps me fresher. Comfort translates into durability, and durability translates into performance.

There is often a perception that a suspension fork sacrifices speed, either through added weight, bob, or aerodynamic penalty. But on the Seigla, these are not enough of a factor to outweigh the benefits. In fact, testing has shown that the suspension fork may not be a disadvantage aerodynamically at all. Dylan Thomas did a set of aerodynamic tests that indicated the fork can perform equal to or even slightly better than the rigid in terms of drag. That means the choice does not force a compromise in one area to gain in another.

The way I looked at it, the suspension fork was not about luxury, but about efficiency. It made the bike smoother, made me more resilient, and allowed me to sustain my effort deeper into the race. On a course defined by long miles of rough gravel, it was one of the most important decisions in my setup.

Tire selection

The second big decision was tire choice. I have long been a fan of the Tufo Thundero line, because they tick all the boxes I care about for gravel racing: they roll fast, are relatively light, and have proven tough enough to survive long days without worry. I trust the feel of these tires, and that confidence matters when riding aggressively for ten hours.

The real decision came down to width. My two options were the 44 or the 48. On my Reserve rims, the measured widths were closer to 45 and 50 millimeters. Both were solid options. The 44s offered a slightly lighter and narrower profile, while the 48s promised more volume, more stability, and greater protection against fatigue and punctures.

When I compared the numbers, the performance was close. Rolling resistance was not dramatically different, and both fell within an acceptable range for weight. That meant the choice came down to my guiding principle for this race: durability. I wanted to minimize fatigue and protect myself from breakdown in the late miles. In a close decision, durability wins, and that pointed me toward the 48s. The MMR Section 2 mud did make me regret the wider choice, but that did not last.

There was also a second layer of confidence in this decision; the Seigla's geometry is designed with big tires in mind. Tire width has a much bigger impact on head tube angle and trail than people think, and I find the Seigla handles best with a tire in the 50mm size, as that gives a reasonably slack head tube angle and stable speed control. Running the wider option not only gave me more comfort and durability, but also made the bike track (and corner, but let's face it, there weren't many) the way it was intended to. That integration of design and equipment sealed the decision.

In the end, the 48 millimeter Thunderos gave me the right balance of speed, toughness, and ride quality. Over 150 miles, that balance was critical.

Wide gravel tire vs. MTB tire and the impact of speed

At first glance a 48 millimeter gravel tire and a cross country MTB tire look nearly the same. Both measure around 50 millimeters on a modern wide rim. Both offer significant volume and the promise of durability. But the way they perform depends heavily on speed.

Rolling resistance data shows that MTB tires tend to perform better relative to gravel tires as speed increases. At higher speeds, the more open tread and construction of a MTB tire can deform less under load, leading to lower hysteresis losses.

My plan for Gravel Worlds was different. I targeted an average speed of 16 miles per hour to break the 10-hour barrier. At this speed the efficiency advantage of a gravel tire remains significant enough. The tread pattern and casing design of a gravel-specific tire reduce rolling resistance more than a MTB option at lower to mid-range speeds. In addition, gravel tires provide a faster, more responsive road feel that keeps momentum on rolling terrain.

Had my target been 20 miles per hour, I might have considered a MTB race tire to capture the efficiency gains that appear at that higher speed. But at 16 miles per hour, the balance clearly favored the wide gravel option. I was able to retain the comfort and durability of a 50 millimeter casing while still benefiting from the lower rolling resistance that mattered most at my speed.

This is why speed goals need to shape equipment decisions. The right tire is not just about size, it is about how that tire performs across the speed range you actually expect to ride.

Tire pressure

Tire selection is only half the equation. Pressure is where you fine tune performance to match the course and your priorities. For Gravel Worlds I ran 24 psi in both the front and the rear.

It is common to see riders run a little more pressure in the back than the front. The reasoning is sound, since the rear wheel carries more of the rider's weight and is often the first point of contact for impacts, but for me, equal pressures created a better overall balance. The Lauf suspension fork absorbs vibration and small hits up front, so matching the pressures front and rear makes the bike feel more even and predictable. This is more of a personal feeling then a specific engineering benefit.

Personal reflections

I came into Gravel Worlds a little short on fitness compared to my usual standard, but I had the benefit of a deep winter base. That foundation gave me the underlying aerobic strength I needed to stay in the game and execute my plan. On race day I got a bit lucky and had a good day, but I know the choices I made in setup played a big part in turning that good day into a strong result.

I was disciplined from the start. I held back in the opening ninety minutes, which turned into closer to two hours, thanks to the mud. Once the race opened up, I began to push forward, moving up steadily through the field. In the second half of the race, I gained roughly forty positions, and that progress was supported directly by my focus on durability and comfort.

The Lauf Seigla and my setup choices worked together to keep me fresh enough to use my fitness when it mattered most. The suspension fork reduced the constant pounding, the wider Thunderos balanced speed with toughness, and my pressure setup gave the bike a stable and predictable feel. Instead of fighting fatigue, I was able to stay smooth and efficient.

I would love to tell you that I suffered deeply in the final hours, but the truth is a little different. Of course I was tired (no one finishes 150 miles of gravel without fatigue), but I did not fall apart. I finished strong, and that was the best confirmation that the balance I sought in my setup was the right one. Durability and comfort were not just nice to have; they were the foundation that allowed me to turn limited fitness into a satisfying performance. The Lauf Seigla and my setup were a key part of finishing strong.

At BaseCamp, we believe that every cyclist has the potential to achieve greatness, no matter where they start. Our mission is to create a community-driven training environment where cyclists and triathletes of all levels can train together, support each other, and grow stronger, faster, and more confident in their abilities. Our cycling training programs are expert driven and tailored to your needs. Whether you're a seasoned pro or just getting started, BaseCamp is where you belong.