Originally Posted by
LesterOfPuppets
Then there's stuff like CX bikes which you can ride gravel on but they're not that great for it. I suppose a case could be made for calling gravel race bikes endurance CX bikes. Not many people would like to ride a 65 mile gravel course on a CX bike, the fairly steep angles and if you're lucky maybe you can squeeze some 35mm tires on it.
What interesting is the "gravel" geometry for one of the original as marketed gravel bikes - the Raleigh Tamland - is very close to what some CX bikes were already at EXCEPT for the BB drop. which was around 7-12mm lower compared to some CX bikes. A significant enough factor itself, the tire clearance was another aspect. Otherwise the HTA/STA/offset/CS length and overall geometrical design was not much removed from CX at all. Gravel needed to split as the things CX racers wanted to signal their membership in the popular and growing discipline (in 2012-13-14-15) were things that were putting Gravel event participants and riders off - no water bottle cage/fender/rack brazeons, more limited tire clearance, disc/cantilever issues, etc - but they were riding as much as the CX racers on less than ideal bikes.
There was an attempt at Endurance CX called Ultra Cross but it was right on the heels of Gravel so it fell out of favor fairly quick. Three Peaks, Iron Cross, Southern Cross, etc. Ur-gravel bikes were also called Monstercross too when weighted more towards the MTB side but also applied to CX bikes when attempting to fit 40mm+ tires. I've seen a handful of "Ultra CX" bikes for sale - from custom aluminum or steel makers around that time usually in the Midwest 2009-2011ish.
