johngwheeler

I'm looking at getting a bike for mixed on/off-road use and am trying to understand the difference between Cyclocross and Gravel bikes. There seems to be a lot of crossover and manufacturer variation in how they market very similar bikes.

I do not want a bike that is dedicated to Cyclocross racing and is severely compromised on the road - I expect probably 60% of my riding will be on paved surfaces, but I want the option to be able to do longish rides (a few hours, not days) on unpaved roads, dirt tracks and reasonably obstacle-free trails. I may eventually compete in entry-level Cyclocross events or longer off-road courses, e.g. gravel races.

I have another bike (Trek Crossrip) that I see more as a touring style bike even though it's sold as a cyclocross. It's relatively heavy (c. 11kg), has 700x32 tyres is quite comfortable on the road, but it feels a bit lacking off-road - a bit bone jarring because of the minimum 60psi tyres and just not very "nimble". My thinking is that would be a good choice for more sedate longer rides where I want to carry loads - I have a rack and panniers, and it's already up to about 15kg with the usual accessories fitted.

My thinking is that a lighter, more performance oriented bike might be better for off-road use, where I will be riding for just a few hours in the woods. However, I do want something that will still be comfortable and stable for road riding of 50-100km.

So, do I want a Gravel bike or a Cyclocross bike (if there really is an agreed distinction!) and who makes them? (FYI, I've been looking at the Giant TCX cyclocross bike, but wonder whether these are more race-oriented rather than for endurance rides).

Thanks for any suggestions!

John.

bch238

I have had a Crossrip Elite, which I rode on a lot of South and North Florida gravel and mixed surface (tarmac, paved greenways, smooth gravel, rough gravel, limerock, rails to trail, grass,etc.) in three years. The only upgrade was Easton EA90XD wheels and Clement MSO 40mm tires. Great bike for three years. But in November 2016, I bought a Trek Boone 5 Disc (upgraded to Stan's Grail wheelset with 35mm tubeless Schwalbe G-One Allrounds), and the Crossrip hasn't been ridden since. I ride the same stuff on the Boone that I rode before but longer and faster than I did on the 'rip. My longest ride on the Boone has been 67 miles (>100 km), all on gravel, and the Boone is plenty comfortable once the reach is dialed in. Weight with XTR trail pedals and bottle cages is 19.70 lbs.

The Boone is also a fine ride on the road. I have a second wheelset with Schwalbe G-One Speed tires that I'm itching to try out.

FWIW, My 'rip is a 52, but I went with a 54 Boone. The Boone has a longer reach than the Crossrip, but much of that is attributable to 70 mm stock stem on the Crossrip vs. a 90 mm on the Boone. I'm 5'8" and the guys at the LBS pushed a 52 Boone (despite the Trek sizing chart--I think they are racer types who prefer a downsized frame). I also have a longish arms for my height, so the 54 was definitely the way to go to get the reach I needed.

Barrettscv 

Typical Cyclocross bikes tend to be more agile and race orientated than typical Gravel bikes. However, the distinctions are in the details.

Gravel bikes tend to have longer wheelbase lengths, longer chainstay lengths (more than 425mm), lower bottom bracket positions, with a bottom bracket drop of 68mm or more. Head-tube and seat-tube angles are lower on a Gravel bike than on a race-oriented Cyclocross bike. All of these factors improve stability. Gravel bikes usually accept a 700x38, or larger tire while some Cyclocross models won't accept any tire larger than 700x35.

Using a race level Cyclocross on gravel can deliver speed on the flats and climbs, but the higher bottom bracket, smaller tires and short wheelbase on a true Cyclocross bike is a demanding experience on soft gravel while going downhill at higher speed. Most riders moderate their speed rather than risk instability on softer gravel.

A second issue related to Cyclocross geometry is the ongoing input needed to maintain stability on loose-over-firm conditions common on gravel. It's easier to hold a line on a bike with slack angles and a longer wheelbase than on a classic Cyclocross frame.

I've been using a Carbon Fiber Cyclocross bike for several years. It's fast and response, but requires extra concentration and a little luck when the gravel is soft and the substrate is less than smooth. Soft gravel and washboard is common in Missouri. I also have a Carbon fiber Gravel bike with 700x36 Clement MSO tires. It's incredibly stable and predictable at 30mph while descending choppy loose over firm gravel. It's extra comfortable over longer distances.

Ideally, a faster gravel bike will be lighter and responsive, like a race-ready Cyclocross with but with more stable geometry and room for a 700x38 tire.

Searching among racing Cyclocross models with lower bottom bracket and room for a 700x38 should yield a result: fast and stable gravel rides with efficiently maintained speed.

mstateglfr 

I genuinely am unsure of what you want after all that.

You say you want a comfortable bike for hours of unpaved riding and also for 100K rides, but you also want a lightweight performance oriented bike. I wouldnt consider a lightweight performance oriented bike to also be comfortable for hours of unpaved riding and also metric century rides.

If 11kg is heavy, then what would you consider to be 'lightweight performance' weight? Also, what budget are you looking at?
lightweight, performance oriented, comfortable for hours, and sturdy off pavement is quite the wish list...i wouldnt figure itd be cheap to combine all those...if its even possible.

Kopsis

You have some conflicting requirements and it's going to be tough to satisfy both when buying off-the-rack. Your Crossrip is representative of a typical gravel bike and can be about as comfortable as a road-style bike is going to get off-road. You need to get some rubber that you can run at *much* lower pressures. Setting up tubeless with something like the Schwalbe G-One 38mm at around 30 psi will make a world of difference -- though riding gravel is always going to beat you up a bit ... that's part of the charm.

More agility means more aggressive geometry and that generally means moving to a CX-racing bike. But that's going to put you in an even stiffer frame with typically less tire clearance. I can endure an hour of racing on my CX bike (with tubulars at 20 - 25 psi), but for rough gravel or trail riding I have a dedicated steel gravel bike with a slightly noodly frame, big 43mm tires, and a Brooks saddle. It's heavy and not very nimble, and after a couple hours I don't care because I know I'd be beaten to a pulp on the CX bike.

If you can do N+1 without hitting S-1, then consider adding a CX race bike to your stable and use it for rides that are mostly road and/or good gravel, while keeping the Crossrip for rides that are mostly bad gravel or trails. If you need to keep to one bike for both, you might consider something like the Otso Warakin (https://otsocycles.com/pages/warakin) which has a somewhat clever system for tweaking the geometry by moving the rear axle. The Kona Private Jake also has sliding rear drop-outs that will let you shorten the wheelbase a bit when running smaller tires (though Kona's system doesn't let you change head-tube angle the way Otso's does). But if you think any off-road capable bike is going to give you that "cornering on rails" agility on pavement that you get on a true road bike, you probably need to adjust your expectations.

johngwheeler

Yes, I am probably after the mythical "one bike to rule them all", which I suspect doesn't exist.

My budget is < US$2,500.

Realistically I am not going to be racing very much, if at all, and this would be at a pretty informal level, so I don't need an all-out gravel racer.

The solution may be to get some new tyres / wheels for my Trek Crossrip, which is quite a comfortable bike, and this can be my offroad gravel/tourer (and also my commuter bike). A second bike would be more for short-ish rides (a couple of hours in the most part) and more for exercise and "thrashing about the trails".

I tried the Giant TCX Advanced Pro 2 and like it - not as aggressive and race-oriented as I expected - I felt pretty comfortable, but only rode it on roads. This nice and light (c. 8.5kg without pedals). I'll look up its geometry compared to a dedicated gravel bike design to see where and how much it varies.

John.

johngwheeler

Excellent suggestions and comparison of the two bike types; thanks!

I will look at getting some fatter tyres for my Trek (currently has the stock Bontrager 700x32) and using this for longer, more sedate rides.

I'm very tempted by the Giant TCX CX bikes - they felt very nice for a short test ride on the road, very agile & quick and excellent brakes. How it would be after two hours off-road, I don't know! The saddle was a bit hard, so I could see that being something to replace.

Thanks,

John

TimothyH

There was some good information re gravel vs cyclocross bikes in the "I don't want an adventure bike" thread recently.

https://www.bikeforums.net/recreation...e-options.html


-Tim-

HTupolev

H5s are bombproof rubber bricks, intended for people who need consistent commute timing, or for those who don't know how to avoid broken glass and also don't know how to fix a flat. IMO, replace the tires with something more performance-oriented before deciding what else you need in a new bike.

johngwheeler

The H5s are fine on the road, but I've found they do prefer to stay above their minimum pressure of 60psi. This is not that comfortable over the bumps, so a tyre I could run at 40psi with the same or better puncture resistance would be what I would look for. Probably 38-40mm. Sound right?

CliffordK

The REI CO-OP ARD 1.4 is rated at 19 lbs, 1.1 oz. You could probably build a similar bike a bit lighter, but one would spend an arm and a leg.

How much is it worth to shave a couple of pounds off of your Trek Crossrip?

googldocs1101

You should try out the CAADX range by cannondale. I have one along with a CAAD10. On the CAADX I have gravel grinded, cyclocrossed and commuted on it. It has relaxed geo and rack/fender mounts. I am also running 700x40c tires on it currently.

johngwheeler

It's more a question of suitability for purpose than the weight per se. My Trek is now much heavier with commuting accessories fitted (rack, kick stand, D-lock on the frame) and I don't want to strip it down every time I want to ride for exercise.

I think the weight won't be an issue for longer rides at a more sedate pace, or for cyclo-touring, where I would be carrying panniers with gear in any case. A 2kg difference in bike weight becomes far less significant if I'm carrying 15kg of other gear. I think the Trek could make a nice gravel bike or light tourer with some bigger tyres on it.

The lightweight bike idea is to have something that is much easier to thrash around the road or trails, with a vague idea of cyclocross type rides in the future (although this is not very widespread in Australia at the moment).

But I've got a pretty good idea of what I want now, and have learned a fair bit about bike design in the process :-)

John.

Dave Cutter

That may be easier to fix than you think.

My search for a bike that would help me get in more winter miles led me to get a new Gravel bike. It was on sale... the price was right... and I liked the color scheme. Could a desirable paint job on a Cross bike have won me over to a Cross bike instead? Sure... if the price was also right. After all since I am not going to be competing... the small differences are meaningless.

Stop trying to sell yourself. Visit some bicycle shops... and let some flashy new bike win you over. You'll not likely ever regret it.

johngwheeler

So the cure is to just give in to temptation!

Think I'm reaching for my credit card now......

Just need to find a way to gently break the news to She-who-must-be-obeyed...


John

Dave Cutter

That has always been my modus operandi.

All my wife's have seemed to just accept it. At least for a while.

johngwheeler

Hmm, let's hope that N=2 does lead to S = 1!

I mean, 4 measly wheels - that's just one car, which most folks have, right? :-)