The cyclo-cross vs gravel conundrum: understanding the differences
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The banks of the River Charles
Posts: 2,020
Bikes: 2022 Salsa Beargrease, 2020 Seven Evergreen, 2019 Honey Allroads Ti, 2018 Seven Redsky XX, 2017 Trek Boon 7, 2014 Trek 520
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Liked 903 Times
in
486 Posts
What you really need is to have a gravel bike and a cross bike This is of course in addition to a road bike.
#28
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,863
Bikes: too many of all kinds
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1147 Post(s)
Liked 415 Times
in
335 Posts
Yeah, I have commented on that one before. Like a lot of their videos - it really depends on things like setup.
I was choosing between those two bikes. I picked the slow one (yellow CX) and set it up like the Gravel (green one) (I use 40mm tires, 2x, etc) so I have the best of both worlds for my needs - light, fast, and agile. None of the negatives apply, all it took was configuring it in 2x and then a change in tires. Everything that made the green bike faster just doesn't apply to me. For that type of riding it really comes down to tires though - 32mm tire just is going to be a lot more work and slower than a 40mm tire.
Funny, a friend who bought the gravel version didn't like it because it lacked a little agility and of course he has more pedal strike with the lower BB. Everyone has different needs...
I was choosing between those two bikes. I picked the slow one (yellow CX) and set it up like the Gravel (green one) (I use 40mm tires, 2x, etc) so I have the best of both worlds for my needs - light, fast, and agile. None of the negatives apply, all it took was configuring it in 2x and then a change in tires. Everything that made the green bike faster just doesn't apply to me. For that type of riding it really comes down to tires though - 32mm tire just is going to be a lot more work and slower than a 40mm tire.
Funny, a friend who bought the gravel version didn't like it because it lacked a little agility and of course he has more pedal strike with the lower BB. Everyone has different needs...
Last edited by chas58; 11-14-19 at 03:48 PM.
#29
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,863
Bikes: too many of all kinds
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1147 Post(s)
Liked 415 Times
in
335 Posts
Well, then there is the tandem for date nights - that creates love!
Am I wrong in thinking that GRAVEL bikes are just a more comfortable CX bike with usually more tire clearance? And the two categories are mere marketing talk to sell more bikes?
Both are drop bar bikes with larger tire clearance. Some more aggressive than others, some larger tire clearance than others.
Both are drop bar bikes with larger tire clearance. Some more aggressive than others, some larger tire clearance than others.
LoL, true.
Our large national level 30 mile mountain bike race was won on an aggressive gravel bike last year (I think it was an OPEN). This year it was a little too mudy for a gravel bike.
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,652
Bikes: Too many bikes, too little time to ride
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 424 Post(s)
Liked 442 Times
in
303 Posts
As mentioned, main differences are bb height and tire clearance (in general). Whether that affects/bother you, that's a personal question. For me, yes it matters enough that I'd want a frame with slightly lower bb and the ability to take 40mm+ tires comfortably (even though I do like steeper angles and shorter chainstays).
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: PNW
Posts: 197
Bikes: Cutthroat, Scalpel, Roubaix, Sequoia, SuperX, Diverge
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
sometimes the differences between a "gravel" bike and a "CX" bike are nothing more than the factory-equipped tires and gearing (see: Scott Addict "Gravel" vs. "CX", SC Stigmata)
Sometimes the differences between a 'gravel' and a 'cx' bike are substantial (see: Diverge vs. CruX, Checkpoint vs. Boone, Topstone vs. SuperX)
I have a Diverge and a SuperX. I legitimately have zero use for the Diverge, except for Commuting. The Diverge is just an endurance road bike with big(ger) tires. If I could get value for the Diverge, I'd sell it in a heartbeat.
It is slower steering, but impressively stable on high speed descents. The SuperX is faster in every kind of terrain, it steers much faster, is far more agile, and climbs better (due to geometry and it being about a kilo lighter)
If you think the difference between an 'endurance' bike (such as a Roubaix) and a 'race' bike such a Tarmac are enough to make you want to choose one over the other, then go for it.
If you want to hook stuff to the bike, and need a bunch of connections, you could get a 'gravel' bike, or you could get a "less racy" type of CX bike (like a CAADX, for example) as many of them are multi-purpose. Some (CruX is a good example) are pure race bikes and don't have any type of connections for a rack or fenders, etc (easy to get around, but still less convenient)
Sometimes the differences between a 'gravel' and a 'cx' bike are substantial (see: Diverge vs. CruX, Checkpoint vs. Boone, Topstone vs. SuperX)
I have a Diverge and a SuperX. I legitimately have zero use for the Diverge, except for Commuting. The Diverge is just an endurance road bike with big(ger) tires. If I could get value for the Diverge, I'd sell it in a heartbeat.
It is slower steering, but impressively stable on high speed descents. The SuperX is faster in every kind of terrain, it steers much faster, is far more agile, and climbs better (due to geometry and it being about a kilo lighter)
If you think the difference between an 'endurance' bike (such as a Roubaix) and a 'race' bike such a Tarmac are enough to make you want to choose one over the other, then go for it.
If you want to hook stuff to the bike, and need a bunch of connections, you could get a 'gravel' bike, or you could get a "less racy" type of CX bike (like a CAADX, for example) as many of them are multi-purpose. Some (CruX is a good example) are pure race bikes and don't have any type of connections for a rack or fenders, etc (easy to get around, but still less convenient)
Last edited by sgtrobo; 12-26-19 at 04:07 PM.
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,765
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6882 Post(s)
Liked 10,872 Times
in
4,637 Posts
Just find a bike that you like, and ride it. It’s really that simple.
Likes For Koyote:
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
"As mentioned, main differences are bb height and tire clearance (in general). Whether that affects/bother you, that's a personal question. For me, yes it matters enough that I'd want a frame with slightly lower bb and the ability to take 40mm+ tires comfortably (even though I do like steeper angles and shorter chainstays)."
Maybe the question should be the difference between a cross bike and a GOOD gravel bike. A GOOD gravel bike will be designed for comfort over a much longer time in the saddle (definitely not a characteristic of a cross bike where you spend maybe 30 minutes riding at a time) and usually will have a slacker head tube angle to make is less jumpy and take less effort to keep in a straight line over 100 miles. GOOD gravel bikes also have lots of vertical compliance build into the frame while a cross bike designer would say "what the heck is vertical compliance?"
Maybe the question should be the difference between a cross bike and a GOOD gravel bike. A GOOD gravel bike will be designed for comfort over a much longer time in the saddle (definitely not a characteristic of a cross bike where you spend maybe 30 minutes riding at a time) and usually will have a slacker head tube angle to make is less jumpy and take less effort to keep in a straight line over 100 miles. GOOD gravel bikes also have lots of vertical compliance build into the frame while a cross bike designer would say "what the heck is vertical compliance?"
Last edited by gravelslider; 12-05-19 at 03:09 PM.
#36
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,535
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10901 Post(s)
Liked 7,390 Times
in
4,148 Posts
"As mentioned, main differences are bb height and tire clearance (in general). Whether that affects/bother you, that's a personal question. For me, yes it matters enough that I'd want a frame with slightly lower bb and the ability to take 40mm+ tires comfortably (even though I do like steeper angles and shorter chainstays)."
Maybe the question should be the difference between a cross bike and a GOOD gravel bike. A GOOD gravel bike will be designed for comfort over a much longer time in the saddle (definitely not a characteristic of a cross bike where you spend maybe 30 minutes riding at a time) and usually will have a slacker head tube angle to make is less jumpy and take less effort to keep in a straight line over 100 miles. GOOD gravel bikes also have lots of vertical compliance build into the frame while a cross bike designer would say "what the heck is vertical compliance?"
Maybe the question should be the difference between a cross bike and a GOOD gravel bike. A GOOD gravel bike will be designed for comfort over a much longer time in the saddle (definitely not a characteristic of a cross bike where you spend maybe 30 minutes riding at a time) and usually will have a slacker head tube angle to make is less jumpy and take less effort to keep in a straight line over 100 miles. GOOD gravel bikes also have lots of vertical compliance build into the frame while a cross bike designer would say "what the heck is vertical compliance?"
What is good for me in terms of geometry would annoy others. And vice versa.
If someone views a good gravel bike as one with a suspension fork/stem/seatpost with 80mm of trail, then they wont view my gravel bike as good since it has a rigid fork, stem, seatpost, and 56mm of trail. Yet I view my bike as a good gravel bike.
There is simply no consensus on what 'good' is, nor should there be. The market is diverse and it allows each user to find what they view is good. Its a fantastic situation to face as a consumer.
The spectrum on what a gravel bike is quite wide and inclusive right now. I fail to see the harm in that. I will sometimes question why a bike is designed a certain way, but its usually out of curiosity versus contempt.
#37
Senior Member
One of the weird consequences of the gravel bike radiation has been the parallel growth of misconceptions about cyclocross bikes and their geometry. Mostly that, as race-focused bikes, they will be much twitcher and hard to ride than a gravel bike. It’s funny, because not so long ago, everyone knew that if you wanted a more-relaxed road style bike, a cyclocross bike was what you should get. While one of the good things (imo) about gravel bikes taking off has been cyclocross becoming a more race-focused category, that doesn’t mean the geometry is unsuitable for gravel riding. Especially now in the Age of Disc, as CX bb heights get lower, tire clearances get more generous and wheelbases get longer, most will be very suitable as gravel bikes. Personally I couldn’t justify having a cyclocross and a gravel bike. It just makes no sense. Too much overlap.
To this day, both categories are wide enough and encompass enough different philosophies that it’s still best to think about what you’re looking for in a bike and look carefully at the options that are available. You can’t just buy a generic CX bike or gravel bike and know what you’re getting the way you basically can with a road bike.
Yes. This is well put. These days, most cross bikes are “legitimate cyclocross racing bikes,” which is helpful if that’s what you’re into (as I am). But they’re as usable as ever as gravel bikes.
To this day, both categories are wide enough and encompass enough different philosophies that it’s still best to think about what you’re looking for in a bike and look carefully at the options that are available. You can’t just buy a generic CX bike or gravel bike and know what you’re getting the way you basically can with a road bike.
Yes. This is well put. These days, most cross bikes are “legitimate cyclocross racing bikes,” which is helpful if that’s what you’re into (as I am). But they’re as usable as ever as gravel bikes.
#38
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,863
Bikes: too many of all kinds
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1147 Post(s)
Liked 415 Times
in
335 Posts
I have a Diverge and a SuperX. I legitimately have zero use for the Diverge, except for Commuting. The Diverge is just an endurance road bike with big(ger) tires. If I could get value for the Diverge, I'd sell it in a heartbeat.
It is slower steering, but impressively stable on high speed descents. The SuperX is faster in every kind of terrain, it steers much faster, is far more agile, and climbs better (due to geometry and it being about a kilo lighter)
It is slower steering, but impressively stable on high speed descents. The SuperX is faster in every kind of terrain, it steers much faster, is far more agile, and climbs better (due to geometry and it being about a kilo lighter)
make is less jumpy and take less effort to keep in a straight line over 100 miles. GOOD gravel bikes also have lots of vertical compliance build into the frame while a cross bike designer would say "what the heck is vertical compliance?"
"effort to keep straight" I hear this stated a lot.
In my personal experience, it doesn't matter much to me. I can ride any (production) bike with no hands - so riding in a straigh line all day isn't a problem. For me, the biggest drawback is stack height. If I'm sprinting, I'm down low. But if I'm doing a steady effort long ride, I'm gonna get a little tired of being in a lower position after 5+ hours.
Cargo: Couple of water bottles, frame bag, seat bag and I'm good.
CX bikes don't do great with panniers, if you are old school (and they would be hard to mount anyway). But they do slightly better with frame bags because they have more room in the rear triangle.
Anyway, food for thought.
Last edited by chas58; 12-10-19 at 09:19 AM.
#39
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 91
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
i plan to get some gravel rides in, and then do 3-4 cx races every fall. always been a road bike guy, so this seems like the biggest factor for me. am i wrong? is 1x pretty cool on gravel too?
#40
Full Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 399
Bikes: TCX & CAAD3 SAECO
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked 118 Times
in
66 Posts
I have a CX bike and I use it for road, occasional CX and gravel. I run a 1x 40t up front with 11-42 in back. Its great on road, gravel and cross. Coming from a 2x road bike I don't miss 2x at all. The CX geo is fun, nimble and aggressive. I don't miss my road bike at all, I have no need for a gravel bike. It's all marketing jargon. A wide tire clearance CX bike is the 1 bike to rule them all.