Darth Lefty 

Every kind of bike is a category. Almost no one wanted a 10 speed in 1970, or a mountain bike in 1980, or a fixie in Y2K. Marketing helps with this but it’s seldom the prime mover, more like the cash-in.

subgrade

Exactly. But since hybrids are viewed as not cool ("Fred machines") by "serious" cyclists, the industry had to come up with a new marketing term to sell them. It's already gone full circle, with some brands selling "flat bar gravel bikes" - which are EXACTLY the same as hybrid bikes.

Kapusta

This^^^

Truth. All of it. Well said.

Kapusta

“Hybrid” is quite possibly the most asinine - and ultimately useless - term to make its way into the cycling lexicon.

The term is so broad as to make it meaningless.

All it means is a bike with flat bars that is not an actual mountain bike. It covers everything from fast flat bar road bikes with 23s to a rigid mtb with slicks to clunky, heavy, bolt upright, front suspended cruisers you see in AARP commercials.

One could just as easily call a “road bike” a drop bar hybrid.

Gravel bikes are just road bikes that don’t suck on gravel. These are the bikes that SHOULD be called “road bike”, but term was already taken by a form of bike that sucks on half the roads out there (and often the better half).

mstateglfr 

This isnt wrong, but it definitely also isnt an accurate blanket statement. The gravel category is so wide spanning that some do have similar trail or frame angles as MTBs from 1990 thru 2000. Sure, you could find individual geometry points on some MTBs from decades ago that will match individual geometry points on some gravel bikes now.
I certainly would bet there isnt an MTB from 90 thru 00 that matches my gravel bike's geometry though. It looks nothing like and performs nothing like any early 90s or early 00s MTB ive ridden.

Early 90s hybrids like the Univega Via Activa, Bianchi Project 3/5/7, Schwinn CrissCross and CrossCut, and Trek 750 would be what I would reference if I were to make your claim. It again wouldnt be wrong or right since the category is just so wide spanning, but it would be closer to the sweet spot.

badger1

qft

Reflector Guy

Kinda makes me think my old 1976-era Sears 10-speed with its 27x1-1/4 tires was a better gravel bike than my modern 700c/25 bike will ever be...

Chuckles1

The nice thing about gravel bikes is the low gearing. A 46/30 with an 11/34 is great for gravel and even sand, as you can sit down to put weight on rear wheel for traction and don't need a lot of torque at cranks to climb steep stretches. That and wide, grippy tires.

Wouldn't want those gears or tires on a road bike.

sarhog

Why is that set of gears undesirable to you on a road bike? 46x11 gives you 30.4 mph at a cadence of 90. That seems plenty fast to me.

str8jakett

Does it matter? n+1

cyclist2000

I thought that gearing is good for touring bikes.

pdlamb

ftw!!

fietsbob

Id have to buy a truck to go 100 miles to where there are any gravel roads not cut into seep hills to haul out logs on Log trucks..





...

70sSanO

I agree that hybrid is kinda of a catch-all for flat bar bikes that are ridden on a paved surface. Who knows, gravel might become a catch-all for all drop bar bikes that can be ridden on a non-paved surface.

Living in Southern California I know of no real gravel routes. I googled it and had to laugh. There was a list that were either a few miles or basically smoother mountain bike trails with all the climbing.

I see the appeal of gravel riding in getting away from cars on relatively flat or undulating routes that go on for miles. I like riding in dirt and it would be nice to just speed along.

John

BoraxKid

Maybe not on a road bike designed for maximum speed, but those gears are already common on touring bikes. And touring/randonneuring bikes already accept wide tires. My touring bike has 48/34/22 paired with 11/32. I currently have 28 mm tires on it, but when those wear out, I'll step up to 32 mm. I know it can handle 42 mm tires, and I think it will go a step beyond that.

My point is, the gearing you're describing as unique to gravel bikes (along with the frame geometry) has already existed for decades in the sport. Gravel bikes just repackaged the touring bike with disc brakes and a focus on riding off-road. It basically is a combination of some CX features with a lot of touring bike features.

BoraxKid

That might seem fast to you, but my 52x11 gives me 35 mph at 90 rpm. I like to actually go fast, not pretend that "well, this is fast enough."

mstateglfr 

How often or how long are you in a 52x11 riding at 35mph?
You are part of the rarified few amongst us if this gear combo is a need.

BoraxKid

I use my 52x11 on literally every ride I go out on. All it takes is for the road to pitch down a little, and then I just spin up through the gears until I'm in it. It's a great gear to have to help preserve the momentum gained on any descent, but it also works on a false-flat downhill. You just tuck in and spin. Easy peasy.

shelbyfv

[QUOTE=wilson_smyth;21649795]Apart from my straight bar and his drop bar.... /QUOTE]Seems that would be a fairly significant difference.

Maelochs

I have 48-38-28x14-34 on my touring bike---flatland touring. For mountain touring I would probably go to MTB rings. I find that on the flat, I spend almost all my time in the 48 ring and the top couple cogs---I spin rather than mash. If I were running 46-32 with 11-28 or 11-32, I would be again in the top couple cogs all the time. Could i do it? Sure, but it would be an unnecessary limitation. I would lose a little top end but more important, I would be carrying a lot of unused gears. Why?

For gravel I would definitely want 46-32. No doubt, based on my MTB riding. With wider, softer tires and a softer surface eating up my pedalling energy, I would want to the lower gears ... but for pavement, i find 50-34 to suit my abilities about perfectly.

mstateglfr 

Well yeah, I assumed you are on flat or slightly downhill roads when using that combo. Its just quite rare(as in a very select group) for cyclists to sustain that combo at 90rpm for even 5 minutes. Thats 3 miles of 90rpm effort in the toughest gear. Most only reach 35 when in a tuck as not many have the power and endurance to stay in such a gear for more than very short bursts.

unterhausen

If it's a marketing scheme, it's a really effective marketing scheme. Absent the current situation, it's been difficult to sell any bike that didn't take bigger tires for a couple of years now. People riding gravel had taken off before the bikes showed up.

BoraxKid

Idk what to tell you, really. What you're calling the "toughest gear" isn't tough while you're at speed. The resistance at the pedals is the same at 35 mph in my 52x11 as it is at 17 mph in my 36x16. It's just a matter of whether or not you reach that speed with assistance from the terrain, the wind, or some other external factor.

When I lived near the Allegheny mountains, my road bike had a 53/39 paired to an 11-28 x 9s cassette. I got used to climbing in the lowest two gears, and when descending I would always try to spin up to the highest gear. With a little practice, I could easily hit 40+ mph on a descent and carry that momentum as the road leveled off. The strategy was to shift to the 53x11 before the hill ended, and feel for the sweet spot where the pawls re-engage the hub while tucked in and spinning. I don't know that I ever held that pace for more than 90s, let alone 5 minutes, but it sure felt great to try.

Now, I've been practicing spinning higher cadences on my new road bike (52/36 + 11-32 x 11 spd). As the resistance gets lighter, I habitually shift into the next highest gear. On the few downhill stretches where I ride (which are closer to false flats), I've gotten into the 52x11 every time, but I run out of real estate after a minute or so, as the road pitches up again. I was probably in the 80-85 rpm range while feeling out the new bike over the last couple of weeks, so maybe not quite 35 mph (more like 32 mph). In any case, it feels amazing to go that fast, even if it is just for a minute or two.

As long as I can comfortably turn a 52x11 (or bigger), I would never want to limit my top speed with anything smaller. It just feels too good to know that I can turn that gear and go really fast without hamster-wheeling at some ridiculous 100+ rpm cadence. With today's drivetrains, there is simply no need to compromise on gear range nor comfortable steps between the gears.

I suppose if I only rode on gravel my outlook might change, but I like the pavement.

genejockey 

It's largely the same here in NorCal, at least the inner Peninsula. Lots of roads, or trails in open spaces and parks that are open spaces and parks because nobody thought the could build houses there.

Now, if I were still living where i grew up in rural Pennsylvania, I think a gravel bike would be a blast. We had plenty of what's now called 'gravel' but we called them 'dirt roads'.

genejockey 

Depending on the ride, I might use it twice in a 32 mile ride. Both times on steep drops where I end up going between 35 and 40.