Darth Lefty 

Many gravel bikes are road bikes with bigger clearance. If you would like to see a gravel bike that is harder to pin down, take a look at the Cutthroat or the Chamois Hagar

grayEZrider

A pic of my 35c shod KHS 223. A bit heavy with the gear but since the only southerly route starts two miles from home and runs eight miles with zero houses or anything (on the 8 mile dirt stretch) but woods and hills I pack plenty of tools and kit. No way would I try that 30 mile loop with my Canyon or Ironman road bikes.

sarhog

Lol! At first, I was like wow, this guy must be putting down some serious power, but after reading your explanation, I see that, because you’re able to “get” to 52x11, you think you need it. Gotcha. Downhill...for 90 seconds. Lol!

Reflector Guy

I can't speak for Boraxkid, but my big charnring is a 50 and on the typical flat level roads around here, 50x11 is my most-used combination. Mile after mile after mile.

I've often thought about trying a 52 bike sometime.

EDIT: It occurred to me just now I should check that little cog in back to see if its an 11 or a 12....

cyccommute 

Oddly enough today’s gravel bike is going the way those rigid mountain bikes did. Short travel suspension is being added because the hair on the hair shirt gravel bikes is a little too long.

cyccommute 

That bike will go a lot further on pavement than a gravel bike can go on “gravel”, especially here where the “gravel” is rather large...more like rocks.

bruce19

Advertising

cyccommute 

It’s not the term that is asinine. It the bicycles that are marketed under that moniker. The bikes were a horrible idea since they were first put out there. They were supposed to do all the things that mountain bikes could do while also being able to do all the things that road bikes could do. They did neither well.

The term has become meaningless. “Gravel bike” will eventually become as meaningless, especially as suspension is added to make the ride “better”.

Gravel bikes don’t suck on some gravel. Or, perhaps, they don’t suck on well maintained gravel roads. Once the gravel grows in size or the road is “dirt” rather than gravel or the gravel is deep, gravel bikes quickly reach their limits...just like the hybrids of old. If I were crossing the Rockies on dirt roads, a gravel bike wouldn’t even be my last choice.

Kapusta

Not sure what the point was here (not even sure which parts you are agreeing or disagreeing with) but... OK, sure.
Cheers.

mstateglfr 

You are in 50x11 at 90rpm for mile after mile? Or you are in that combo at 60rpm? We are discussing this combo at 90rpm for mile after mile after mile. Borax clarified that he pnly uses it for maybe a minute or two during brief downhill stretches, which completely changes things, but it isnt worth continuing the discussion with him.
With a 28 tire(i assume you ride paved roads based on the gearing and your location), 50/11 at 90rpm is 32.5mph. You are riding that for mile after mile after mile? If at 60rpm, you are then averaging 21.5mph for mile after mile after mile.

mstateglfr 

Its a friday, so i gonna go down the rabbit hole of a cycco post!

I dont think I have seen any literature that claimed a hybrid could do all things a mountain bike could do and also do all things a road bike could do. Thats an interesting take and if this is how they were marketed, that marketing didnt reach me back in the early 90s when they were introduced. It still hasnt reach me, actually.


Hybrids that are upright with front suspensions are also called 'comfort bikes' around me. Is that a local term? If so, it should be adopted elsewhere.
You then have-
comfort bike- flat bar with crappy front suspension that rides very upright
flat bar road bike- road bike drivetrain without drops
hybrid- mtb triple gearing with ability to handle wider tires than a traditional road bike

Hybrid doesnt seem to be meaningless, but i agree it is pretty confusing and overlapping.
And sure, 'gravel bike' may end up being the same since as a category it too is quite wide ranging. If so, ok then. So what? It just isnt a big deal if that term ends up being further segmented(it already is- gravel race bike, bikepacking gravel bike, etc).


I havent found my gravel bikes to suck on any gravel roads so far. Ive ridden gravel roads in Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and Mississippi. The most difficult has been some level B roads in NE IA in the driftless area where there was a bunch of washout along the unmaintained roads. But those are effectively unmaintained dirt roads that have ruts in them...its difficult on any bike.
As for your point that there is a limit to a bike's effectiveness, well sure there is. Thats a pretty obvious point. There is a limit to where you can take road bikes, gravel bikes, and mountain bikes. Just because there is a limit doesnt mean the bike is useless or pointless. That would be an absurd point to hold.
Lastly, if a gravel bike wouldnt even be your last choice for crossing the Rockies on dirt roads, then what would be your last choice? You would rather take a road bike? A tri bike? A track bike?

Kapusta

Boldly going we’re too many have gone before.

genejockey 

Geez, "Need". You don't 'need' a light bike. You don't 'need' a really low gear for climbing. You don't 'need' good tires with low rolling resistance. You don't 'need' brifters. Cycling is full of things we don't 'need', but which we use anyway, and which we like having. I use my 52 x 11 approaching the bottom of hills when I'm going over 35 mph and want to sustain my momentum. I don't 'need' it. But I use it. So, what's funny about that, I wonder?

Reflector Guy

90 rpm? No. I never claimed that, so I hope I didn't inadvertently make it appear as if I did.

BoraxKid

okay, buddy. I guess "on the flat" = "downhill" in your world? those are some fine reading comprehension skills you got there!

BoraxKid

I see you are a cyclist of culture as well. As I said in my earlier post, it is EXTREMELY FUN to hold 35 mph after the road flattens out, and that's the whole point of being on the bike. Some people just don't like fun, I guess.

genejockey 

Exactly. Who doesn't like going fast?

Gresp15C

Truth be told, there's always been a battle between the marketing categories of bikes, and regular cyclists who are just looking for the kinds of bikes that we like to ride. My guess is that marketeers perceived a gap in the market, filled it with a new or recycled design concept, and named it after a racing event that didn't yet have a bike named after it.

There's your new category. For most of us, the categories are just an obstacle to finding the bike we want, and are best ignored. The last new bike I bought was sold under more than one category, but it's the same bike, and I didn't change how I ride it, when its category changed.

Moreover, sometimes the public decides that a bike has a better use than its original intended purpose. Lots of people bought early mountain bikes with no intention of riding off road. Those same bikes would probably satisfy a lot of people today, who are steered towards a "gravel" bike. Including me. I don't really have a good excuse for why my bike has 700c instead of 26" wheels, but is otherwise a classic mountain bike with smooth tires and fewer gears, that I ride on pavement.

Maelochs

A brief semi-logical assessment of this : People who want to sell bikes see that there are people who want to buy a kind of bike that are not being sold, so they make and start selling that type of bike. That is in fact, what they are Supposed to do, Far from being a nefarious scheme, that is called a responsive market and it is the goal of a market economy. Recognize a demand, supply the demand, customer and manufacturer are both better off. Sorry this bothers some people.

No, for Most thinking people categories are useful short descriptions. The descriptions change, the categories get renamed, but at least in my experience it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to be able to figure them out.

Anyone who cannot find a bike s/he likes because of category titles doesn't know what kind of bike s/he wants, and doesn't know much about bikes. Try learning to read and understand spec sheets, and suddenly the meaning of the category title becomes clear.

"Endurance" bikes are a good example. They started as race bikes with shorter top tubes and taller head tubes, moving the rider's weight more toward the back. Then some became more racy with shorter head tubes, just with clearance for much wider tires. Some stayed relaxed and some went for really wide tire clearance. Look at the progression of the Giant Defy, look at the Caledonia, Cervelo's newest, which has a n aero option (!). But does the category title really keep you from reading the very precise descriptions of what these bikes actually are, which descriptions can be found online from many sources? And are you complaining because before buying a $4K bike you actually have to read a few paragraphs?

And yet .... neither the Defy nor the Caledonia are "gravel" bikes (mostly, through they could pass) nor are they "race" bikes, and while they could be used for either, I think we can all see that if you want to race you get a TCR or an R5 or S5. It is not that hard to figure out .... for many, I guess. But we are all different.

Well we are all glad you didn't stop riding the bike when its category changed because it no longer met your needs. I guess this sort of ... proves that you initial rantings against categories were a bit overstated, eh? You seem to have figurrd out how to buy the right bike despite the fact that (as you claim,) categories are just an obstacle to finding the bike we want .... "

And this bothers you? Again, this demonstrates that people are Not hindered by arbitrary "categories" from finding, buying, and riding the bikes of their choice.

I used a rigid MTB ('88 Bridgestone MB4) as a commuter for many, many happy miles, and also took it light-touring and trail-riding. When I looked at it I didn't ask what category it was in, I asked about the components. But ... what do I know.

Probably it has 700c wheels because there is a much wider range of tires available which covers a much wider range of uses.

Not sure how this relates to your irrational hatred of categories, but I am glad you somehow managed to buy the bike you want despite them.

This whole post should be read tongue-in-cheek. One good rant deserves another, and afterwards we can shake hands and admit that we are both very silly sometimes, but that;'s okay .... that;'s just the category into which we fit.

walnutz

He is literally the only user on my ignore list. >_<

As for the discussion: I used to think they were a marketing gimmick until I rode one. I agree with what someone said above: they are really the bikes most people should be riding. Comfy, fun, functional, fast enough.

cyccommute 

Cannondale in the 90s catalog (page 41) has ad copy that says “On paved roads or dirt roads, our fitness bikes are a fun, healthy form of exercise” and show the bike on a grassy double track. The Specialized RockCombo was marketed as drop bar “mountain bike” but was targeted more towards the hybrid side. Vintage Trek doesn’t include the complete catalog for 1990 but that’s when they introduced their “multitrack” line. The 1993 catalog copy for the 7900 Multitrack does say “From technical trails to teeming city streets, put this beauty through its paces and it never breaks a sweat.”

Edit: Trek even now says of their Dual Sport “Dual Sport 3 is a high-performance hybrid bike with upgraded components that stand up to long rides on a variety of surfaces, from city streets to gravel trails and more! ”. The implication is still there that it’s capable of mountain biking as a hybrid.

While I can’t find specific ad copy for all hybrids that states that the bikes “could do everything”, retailers certainly marketed them that way. The name certainly implies that it is a hybrid between road bikes and mountain bikes. As a ride leader, I had numerous people show up at mountain bike rides on a 700C hybrid and then struggle with too tall gears and too narrow tires. I have to send a number of them back home because they couldn’t cope with mountain bike trails nor keep up with the group.

The term “comfort bike” is a manufacturers designation. But hybrids evolved. Gravel bikes are undergoing evolution now as well. There are dropbar roadish bikes and flatbar mountainish bikes. There are bikepacking gravelish bikes and pure racing gravel bikes. Every bike class undergoes some evolution because the manufacturers are tying to get people to buy new bikes. That’s capitalism.

As a fairly old term, it’s expected that “hybrid” would have a lot of overlap. Back in the early days of hybrids they were horribly expensive...some of the earliest models (usually custom) sold for more than mountain bikes. I consider the term meaningless in that the bikes won’t do what they were originally intended to do. They wouldn’t do that from their inception.

“Gravel bike” will become confused and overlapped as much as other bikes including, but not limited to, hybrids. Mountain bikes started out as a single (or few) model in a bike line. Early on, it was a kind of “go anywhere, do anything” bike (a bit like hybrids but more capable). Then we got cross country mountain bikes, downhill mountain bikes, all mountain, hardtails, full suspension, etc.

I didn’t say that gravel bikes “suck”. I said they are limited. I can take you on roads in Colorado...both on the plains and in the mountains...that would severely test the narrower tires and rigid nature of any gravel bike. I had to look up “level B” because I’m not familiar with the term. That sounds like about 20,000 miles of roads within a 100 mile radius of me. I could also find another 20,000 miles of roads...not trails but roads...would have an even lower classification than “...receiving a lesser level of maintenance”. This is a fairly common example of a pretty good dirt mountain road

Untitled by Stuart Black, on Flickr

There are ones that are much, much worse. Eastern Colorado has lots of roads that are either deep gravel or even blown out sand dunes. Rigid bikes do very poorly in either of those mediums. Suspension allows better control and is less likely to throw the rider off the bike because the front wheel rides up and over the kind of stuff instead of digging in to them and bogging down.

The limits become much less as you move up that list. No, mountain bikes may not be the best on pavement but they are capable enough to at least ride some distance on pavement. I’ve ridden one for the better part of a 50 mile day on mixed pavement and dirt. A gravel bike might have been able to handle part of the dirt but not all of it...at least at much over walking speed. Going downhill riding the brakes because the bike isn’t capable of handling the road is frustrating. I’ve watched people on gravel bikes creep down rocky descents that can ride a mountain bike through at 15+ mph. I hate going slow downhill! They might be able to go faster uphill but it’s still uphill and that’s the sucky part of any ride.



A hardtail mountain bike. The bikes you suggest I wouldn’t even consider at all. I’ve done it on a rigid mountain bike...the “gravel” bike of its day...and paid the price. The outside half of both hands was numb for 6 weeks. I’ve since done similar rides on a softtail with a suspension fork and it’s a lot less damaging to the hands.

Gresp15C

Many years ago my spouse and I went on a hiking trip in the "pre-Alps" of France. We rented the cheapest car we could get. It was late in the season, so all of the "gravel" roads were at various stages of being washed out. Our strategy evolved thusly: We'd drive until we thought the road was no longer passable in our little car, park at the next clearing, and start hiking.

Invariably, we'd reach the trail head, and there would be parked cars. Almost all of them were old 2CV's. So for everybody's "gravel," there's a bigger gravel waiting for you around the bend.

In my neck of the woods, if you get high enough to reach that kind of gravel, you're airborne.

cyccommute 

Your “fire roads” must be a lot smoother than the ones in my area. Honestly, we don’t have “fire roads”. Ours are more logging, stock, or 4x4 roads than something built during a fire or for mitigation.

They may be capable but there are more capable bikes available. We could all wear hair shirts and ride saddles made of nails but most don’t have that kind of dedication.

I assure you that I could ride most anything on any kind of bike...I’ve been mountain biking from the first days...but I wouldn’t find it enjoyable. Bicycling on rocky roads is already hard enough without adding those hair shirts and nail saddles.

Maelochs

The photo you show sure doesn't look like a 16 percent incline. Could it be you cherry-picked the best section and he cherry-picked the worst?

It matters, because the worst is the limiting factor. It is no good if I can do fine on the easiest 95 percent and die on the tough bits.

Anyway .... not sure quite what people are fighting over, here. one person says that mountain bikes do better on tougher terrain than gravel bikes .... and? Seems obvious, doesn't it. Another person says gravel bikes can go anywhere .... yeah, and if I carry it a lot, a tricycle can, too. The point is what amount of suffering one will tolerate. And each of us has a different threshold.

Not quite sure about the nature of the dispute, except that we tend to be competitive people.

thehammerdog

the uber cool well researched name..