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

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...947cc11c_k.jpgUntitled 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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

the uber cool well researched name..

I lost interest in replying to your every reply to me. This is dumb- you dont like the category and many others like the category. You dont like the category because it doesnt meet your standards for what a gravel bike should do. It apparently should handle and ride like a mountain bike.
This picture isnt anything I have ridden, even when I was in Colorado. I rode gravel roads. Its super great that you ride difficult remote paths that may be categorized in some liberal way as roads. When the path is made up of 1 foot wide or wider buried boulders, that isnt a gravel road in my view.

This is the same thing as arguing about the definition of hybrids or gravel bikes, its just a different subject- we are arguing about gravel roads. I look at what you cite as a gravel road and 1- dont recognize that as such and 2- agree that such a path wouldnt be much fun on a gravel bike. Use a fatbike or a mountain bike- either will be more forgiving.
Seriously though, whats the point in all this? I have 0 desire to ride a mountain bike on gravel roads and you have 0 desire to ride a gravel bike on whatever type of road is in that picture. An MTB would be slower and less comfortable for me and a gravel bike would be slower and less comfortable for you. Sounds good to me then that both categories can continue to exist and people can choose the best bike for their needs.

So, mountain bikes are better than gravel bikes on really rough terrain.

Other than earning top marks in the “Stating the Obvious” category, what is the point here?

It really depends on the skill of the rider...It's also really difficult to interpret what " rough terrain" really means. What's rough to one person, is a walk in a park for another.

It never ceases to amaze me what people will choose to debate and disagree with on Bike Forums.

:foo:

I hacked together a "gravel bike" over the last couple of years using a Yeti ARC-X cyclocross frame that was made from 2008-2010. I've been a Yeti fan since I started riding MTB's in the early 90's so that's why I went with that frame.

I inherited my dads Trek road bike about 13 years ago but never rode it. Prior to almost 2 years ago I had only been riding mountain bikes for the last 20 years. In the 90's I rode MTB and road bikes when I was racing MTB's but got tired of riding road... I've been doing allot of riding on the paved river trail near my house so much the last few years a friend suggested I find a Yeti ARC-X cyclocross frame and swap over the parts from the Trek. The Yeti's aren't easy to find but I ended up getting one and built it with all the Trek parts. It worked great until I joined a weekly "gravel" ride that a local brewery does. I quickly found out that the road gearing won't work for the steep dirt sections that are around here even with the 3x10 gearing it had. So I used an old Shimano XT derailleur and bought a XT cassette and the shift spacing worked with he 105 shifter. That was much better. I also bought a set of Paul cantilever brakes from a friend when I first built up the Yeti.

Last year I upgraded the drive train to the new Shimano GRX gravel bike components and went with the 2x11 gearing instead of the 1x11. Overall it works great for all around riding including trails I ride my MTB on and strictly road rides. I'm currently running 700cx40 Maxxis tires. Before that I was using Panaracer Gravel Kings, 42 in the front and 38 in the rear. The only thing I wish the bike had now is disc brakes. But the Paul's work really good for the most part, except on some really steep dirt downhills.

I would post a photo of the bike but I got an error saying I need to make 10 posts before I can.

Asphalt is expensive, pea gravel is cheap. As the world is filling up with “cycling paths” pea gravel is everywhere. A little racer with skinny tires is a crash waiting to happen, but I have seen a Cervello on pea gravel. High end racers are built for speed in the wind, my ultegra brakes need Skinny tires, my touring bike takes cantis, it can wear huge tires

There is a country song that states she was country before country was cool.

Being old 82 and living on a farm I was a gravel rider before it was cool!!!

Gravel bikes, kind of fall into my thread about advertising. If a mfg advertises a bike as a "gravel" bike it must the the latest and greatest bike to have. But the true fact is virtually any bike that has tires somewhat wider than a race bike tire can ride on gravel.

Welcome to the forum.

The local forest service has started using a weird amalgam of dirt and gravel to pave gravel roads. It's really nice, at least when it's new. I'm curious how it will hold up over time. Better than cinder bike trails, but I prefer actual gravel.

Earliest Tour D France was run over gravel roads, the durable surfaces then, and still are cobblestones..
Northern France & Belgium they still make them part of bicycle races....

So, what's a gravel bike?

Click HERE for the answer.:geek: