Originally Posted by 63rickert

Top gear and spinning out. Eddy rode a top of 53x13. Maitre Jacques rode a top of 52x14. You are not faster than those guys. If you are spinning out you need to learn how to spin, not to keep using bigger gears to compensate for poor technique. And using big fat tires gives you bigger gears automatically.

Pedal strike? Really? When I raced a Cinelli with 82mm of drop and 700x22 tires with big wide Campy 1037/a pedals, pedal strike was there all the time. And it never mattered. It just doesn't. As high as most bikes sit today and with minimalist clipless pedals it takes some strange cornering technique - not just fast aggressive cornering - to ground a pedal. And if you do ground a pedal so what. The bike business wants to keep the BB high because they figure you are a klutz with a PI attorney. If you are not a complete klutz never think about this again. Or seek out lower BBs. Low BB corners better. Makes you more aero.

Modern retail bikes all have high trail. Again because the industry thinks you are a klutz, are going to fall off your bike. If you want massive stability to keep you upright (because you can't without it) go along with the industry and get the high trail bike. If you are just insensitive to differences in trail, take trail off your list of criteria. To me a bike with trail above 60 handles like a truck. Above 65 you have a BSO. Any imaginable downside to lower trail doesn't exist until you are talking numbers that do not exist on production bikes. Well, if you are riding technical singletrack you might want higher trail. Maybe you might or maybe you wouldn't. But you said gravel. As trail gets higher wide handlebars are required to make the bike steer at all. Wide is anti-aero. If you were worried a minute ago about spinning out, you don't want wide 'bars.

Pick a bike for reasons that matter. Not for reasons that matter to the legal department and the marketing boys.

Originally Posted by JayNYC

Assuming you have a separate wheelset with 25-28mm tires, can a gravel bike be a decent road bike?

I live in Manhattan where space is a premium, so one bike that can have multiple functions seems like a good idea to me. In talking to the owner of a reputable bike shop he seemed pretty skeptical that a gravel bike could be a good road bike. His opinion was that a dedicated road bike would always be the better choice – enough so that it would make sense to have separate bikes. So I'm wanting other people's opinion…

For starters the circumference of 650b x 47 is the same as 700C x 28. So the geometries stay pretty much the same swapping between those two wheel sizes. I've been thinking if a bike is designed to run 650b x 47, then running 700C x 28 should be just fine, and so I've been hoping to kill two birds with one bike (and an extra set of wheels). The gravel bikes I'm looking at are designed to run a variety of tire sizes – so running 650b x 47 would result in your bottom bracket being lower which would increase stability, while running 700C x 42 would raise the bottom bracket, increase the trail, and help avoid pedal strikes.

Here are my current top two contenders, and some stats for each of them at my size (size 56)…
(Imagine each with skinny wheels – don't be distracted by the fat tires on them)

Felt Breed 30
Hyroformed aluminum frame w/ carbon fork
105 level derailleurs front and back
48/32 chainrings
11-34 cassette
105 level hydraulic disc brakes (160mm front, 140mm rear)
Stack: 59.1
Reach: 38.9
Stack/Reach Ratio: 1.52
Wheelbase: 103.5
Seat tube angle: 73º
Head tube angle 71º
Rake/Offset: 50mm
BB drop: 72mm
BB height (w/ 700C x 28): 263mm
Range of gear inches (w/ 700C x 28): 25 to 116
Trail (w/ 700C x 28): 64mm
Handlebar width: 46cm
Carbon seatpost






Fuji Jari 1.1
"A6-SL Super Butted" Aluminum frame w/ carbon fork
105 level derailleurs front and back
46/30 chainrings
11-34 cassette
105 level hydraulic disc brakes (160mm front & back)
Stack: 59.2
Reach: 37.9
Stack/Reach Ratio: 1.56
Wheelbase: 102.7
Seat tube angle: 73º
Head tube angle 72º
Rake/Offset: 48mm
BB drop: 67mm
BB height (w/ 700C x 28): 268mm
Range of gear inches (w/ 700C x 28): 24 to 113
Trail (w/ 700C x 28): 60mm
Handlebar width: 42cm
Alloy seatpost
Claimed weight: 21 lbs (not sure what size that's for and that's with stock 700C x 38 wheels, would be lighter configured as a road bike)


Is there anything about those stats that would make you think a dedicated road bike would be significantly better? As a road cyclist, how would you feel if you had to ride either of those bikes instead of a similarly equipped road bike?

And just a bit more about context – since I live in Manhattan I always start my rides on pavement. The club rides around here are almost always geared towards road bikes (though that's slowly changing). But I'm in my "happy place" when I get away from cars/traffic and onto trails. Most of the trails are paved, but my favorite ones are gravel and/or dirt, and the ones that are paved almost always have a problem with tree roots. So the road bike configuration would be used for club rides and when I just want to do an easy ride on one of the well-traveled routes around here (Central Park, "River Road" along the Hudson, etc.), and the gravel configuration would be used when I'm being more exploratory and/or getting out into nature.

Thanks in advance for your input!

Originally Posted by cyclintom

A "gravel bike" is nothing more than a cyclocross bike. And a cyclocross bike is nothing more than a road bike with enough clearance to fit wider tires.

Originally Posted by cyclintom

A "gravel bike" is nothing more than a cyclocross bike. And a cyclocross bike is nothing more than a road bike with enough clearance to fit wider tires. In some cases they have slightly more relaxed geometry and slightly more weight because real CX bikes get a mighty pounding. I did a great deal of my off-road riding on a road bike with 23mm tires on it. 28's are a lot better though when you hit deep dust or deep gravel. If you intend to ride fast off-road you can get maybe 32 mm knobbies but remember that on a CX bike they can slide out not for a lack of traction but because a light bike can float over the top of the trail.

Rather than worry about what sort of bike, worry about learning how to ride in those conditions because bicycles have been on dirt roads from the first bicycle.

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

so much to disagree with.

1- a gravel bike is different from a cyclocross bike. Trends have pushed those styles further apart. CX being 1x and limited in the granny since it gets to a point where off the bike makes more sense. Gravel being a mix of 1x and 2x depending on the brand and whats good for your terrain. Typically the gearing range is greater. Tires are typically wider on gravel bikes. Geometry is typically more relaxed on gravel bikes. Again- all this is generalizations, but those generalizations are based on actual bikes and trends.
Your claim that a gravel bike is nothing more than a cyclocross bike which is nothing more than a road bike that can fit wider tires is funny. A tricycle is nothing more than a bicycle with an extra wheel. A road bike is nothing more than a beach cruiser with gears, drop bars, different geometry, and thinner tires.
really- thats basically what your post shows.

2- while 23mm tires work for a great deal of your off road riding, that would be absolutely terrible for many others. You have to be able to see this. 23mm on anything but paved roads around me would be slow, bumpy, and unsure. My paved road bikes dont even run 23 at this point since there is simply no benefit. They have 25mm, 27mm, and 30mm effective tire widths. Smoother, more comfortable, and just as fast rolling.

3- 28mm tires would be terrible around here for deep gravel. Where do you live or what crazy skill do you have where 28mm tires work well for deep gravel riding?

4- as for a tire floating over gravel due to the bike being too light...ah what now? This actually happens to people? You are saying a 17# bike will slide out on gravel while a 23# bike will stay planted? So the rider's 150#-250# of weight isnt enough and that extra 6# of bike weight is what keeps a bike from floating over loose gravel?
I will dig and plant a 28mm tire bike into loose gravel whether it weighs 5#, 15#, or 25#.

Originally Posted by J.Owen

Although I don't disagree with this, keep in mind that manufacturers are slicing and dicing this segment even more as time goes on. i.e. Cannondale now has the SuperX/CaadX, and the Topstone, the latter being a little more "gravel" than cyclocross.

Originally Posted by cyclintom

What is really obvious is that you simply don't have any experience. I started riding off-road with Keith Bontrager. A very good friend was Keith's head machinist. Almost immediately it became clear that in most TRAIL riding you don't need knobbies or even wide tires. And in those days 23 mm WAS wide. So continue to hold any opinion you like. But don't expect anyone with any experience to pay them any heed.

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

I could tow a pontoon with a geo tracker, but itd make more sense to use a half ton pickup.
I could ride gravel on 23s, but itd make more sense to use wider tires.

I will gladly say that I dont have the experience that many others in this world have. But I have enough experience to recognize that experience doesnt always equate to expertise. There are a lot of people in life with experience who hold absurd views.

I have a gravel race in 2 weeks. Ill silently check to see how many people are on 23mm tires or even 25. Heck, include 28 in there. Ha, thatd be a rough ride for sure.

Originally Posted by cyclintom

It depends entirely on the course. As I said - They rode Paris-Roubaix on 23 mm tires for years. This year the stage of the Tour that went over the Paris-Roubaix course had two more cobblestone sections than the Paris-Roubaix and the tires they ran were 26 mm. Do you really think you have better judgement than those Pro's?

If you have a course with a lot of turns on it and 2" deep fine gravel a wider tire would be useful if not faster. You ride what you feel comfortable with.

There are horses for courses so don't pretend one set-up is good for everything.

And please don't pretend that your judgement is better than that of someone else who might be just as comfortable with narrower tires on a lighter bike. I went out yesterday and did 47 miles and 2300 feet of climbing. I passed everyone but one young kid and I'm 74 in another couple of days. Does that mean that all of those people I passed should use the same setup as me?

Originally Posted by Spoonrobot

Are you just saying this cause it sounds like a convincing thing to say or have you done testing and reached this conclusion independently?

After 6 months of group rides, mixed gravel centuries, training crits, bandit cross races and friendly singletrack time trials; I have concluded exactly the opposite. One bike, one set of tires and one wheelset has been not just good but great for everything. 650bx42/47 is fast enough, wide enough and has enough traction that I don't really need any thing else. I will concede that at times I have removed the fenders in the interest of not destroying them on drops and such.

Originally Posted by cyclintom

I have 8 bikes in my garage including 2 CX bike one with drops and the other with a flat bar. If I feel like it, I can spoke and true a wheel in 30 minutes. Thankfully the newer wheels put and end to that. I have a Time VX Elite with 28 mm tires that I can ride on any of the Bay Trails around SF bay. A large part of these are gravel. I have a Basso and a Pinarello with 25 and 28 mm tires tube and tubeless. I have disk and rim brakes. I dumped full suspension bike recently because I can go over the same courses available to me including LOTS of steep climbing faster on a CX bike than a Full Suspension 29er. I just pulled two other bikes apart including an Eddy Merckx and a Pinarello Torino so that they would take up less room. I have a Colnago CLX with 25's on it that I intend to change over to tubeless. I'm climbing 12% climbs in a 39-25. I averaged almost 15 1/2 mph over a 10 mile course that had me come to complete stops at 5 stoplights.

So don't pretend that somehow you're the only one that knows anything about bicycles. I've been riding as an adult for 40 years and I have ALWAYS been on the best technology. I've raced sailboats including very large ones from San Francisco to Catalina. I was a semi-pro motorcycle racer. I'm an engineer that worked to design new technology including medical instruments that saved literally millions of lives. So I have some idea of what technology is.

So, as I said, perhaps you should consider that other people may both use different methods that you do and know more about it than you do. FENDERS???

Originally Posted by cyclintom

Well, I can't disagree that manufacturers are trying to segment the market with modifications. But they are in general so small that there is actually more change from company to company than between models.

There was the legendary Jobst Brandt who rode a 27" bike with 27 1/4" wheels with 1 1/4" tires. This guy would hold the "Jobst Rides" over on the San Francisco peninsula. He would be going 25 mph on the road and ride off down a dirt path without so much as a pause. He would climb in a 48-19. Most of his rides would be 100 miles long.

Originally Posted by WhyFi

Aye aye, Mr President.

Originally Posted by cyclintom

Don't you think that the sort of "racing" he is doing is somewhat described by the fact that he has fenders on his bike? Now I ride with some young people that are bike commuters and they have fenders on their bikes and they can ride uphill a lot faster than me what with a 45 year age difference but I would hardly say that they would know what is best for racing on any surface.

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

Oh bless your heart for thinking fenders say anything about one's ability to ride well.

Originally Posted by cyclintom

You shouldn't pretend knowledge you don't have.

Originally Posted by Lazyass

I've read about him, I understand he didn't even carry a water bottle. I've ridden my 27x1 1/4" on hardpack trails and it was fine. The larger diameter is nice, same as the theory for the 29er MTB craze. I just like 27's overall.

Originally Posted by HTupolev

Such as assuming that someone who does lots of their riding on fenders doesn't have actual racing experience?

Originally Posted by cyclintom

So you prefer to assume that someone that is "racing" with 42 mm tires on gravel and with fenders is a uniquely qualified racer?

Originally Posted by Spoonrobot

I retract my post, no reason for this sort of thing. This is what happens when I stray from my home forums

Originally Posted by HTupolev

No, I wouldn't assume anyone is a uniquely qualified racer based purely on the bike that they ride.

But I wouldn't assume that they aren't a qualified racer based purely on the knowledge that they could be happy dropping their stable to a single allroad bike, either.

Originally Posted by cyclintom

Huh? Do even you know what you just said?