Originally Posted by
Clyde1820
I agree that largely the "gravel bike" concept is a marketing thing. Such roads and trails have always been there. And there's generally always been a type of bike functionality that seems to eat such stuff up.
Well, yes and no.
Its not like they are just slapping this term on bikes that were already in production. 10 years ago there were barely any options that truly resemble what are now sold as “gravel bikes” I know this because in 2010 I was looking for exactly this type of bike: A relatively lightweight road bike with slightly relaxed geo that could clear 38mm tires.
The options at the time were touring bikes, CX bikes, or one of the few drop-bar mtbs. All could be made to work fine, but none are really quite the same thing.
Are these a novel concept? No. These largely resemble what “road” bikes were several decades ago before the “road” bikes became specialized for pavement racing and largely useless on many roads out there.
I think most of the hate and “its just marketing” talk comes from people who have not spent much (if any) time on some of these bikes.
Two friends of mine just bought CF Salsa Warbirds. They both sold their equally expensive “road” bikes within a month. One sold her hybrid as well. Anyone telling me that this kind of bike was available 10-20 years ago under a different name (touring, CX, drop bar MTB) is full of it has not ridden one.
Gravel bikes are a desperately needed return to truly useful and versatile road bikes, and are likely going to be the future of road bikes as people leave the abusive relationships they have been stuck in with Pavement Racing bikes.
And what exactly is the problem with a marketing term? Terms describe things. How is this different from “Road”, “Cx”, “Touring”, Beach Cruiser”, or one of the many types of mountain bike?