Originally Posted by
33yearslate
It seems like, ideally, if money and space were no issue, I'd have a road bike, gravel bike, and mtb, and alternate depending on the terrain.
The only rule about what kind of bike and how many you should have is...
N+1
Originally Posted by
33yearslate
My reason for leaning a bit more into wanting an mtb over gravel in the short term I think (but please let me know if I'm thinking about this wrong) is because:
a. It will be easier to find a group of people to ride with on mtb since it's more of a "defined" sort of activity given the terrain. I imagine there are less "gravel" clubs or groups out there than mtb. It seems like opportunities for socializing would rank like this: mountain > road > gravel?
WAY more road clubs/teams/group rides than any other discipline.
Originally Posted by
33yearslate
b. If I want to explore those more technical paths, I'm just not skilled or experienced enough to do so in a gravel bike since I haven't been riding long, and the terrain simply looks difficult (sometimes dangerously so) to me. I'll accept the speed penalty for a smoother ride.
c. I have plenty of opportunities to ride roads (and occasionally smooth gravel) if I return to the north east. But exploring rough terrain on an mtb in Southern California is sort of a once in a life-time opportunity. The extensive mountains make SoCal unique. So I want to take advantage of that. The loss of speed on tarmac and smooth dirt seems like an okay compromise to me for what an mtb can open up, especially given the mountainous environment.
A gravel bike is a compromise. A road bike is a compromise. A MTB is a compromise. If riding technical terrain is a priority for the kind of riding you want to do, buy the bike that does that best (for you), and accept where its short-comings are.