Originally Posted by
msu2001la
Both of these bikes have race-oriented geometry (the SuperX is more extreme than the CAADX), but both also make excellent gravel bikes. In terms of geometry and handling, the differences between these CX bikes and the gravel bikes I've been on are very minimal. I've never found my CX bikes to feel unstable at speed or lacking for comfort (particularly my carbon SuperX) over long distances, but also I'm talking about normal rides, not 300 mile gravel races over extreme terrain. The biggest difference I've encountered is gearing. Modern CX bikes typically run narrow-range 1x setups whereas gravel bikes have gobs of gear range out of the box.
People forget that the whole gravel scene started with guys racing CX bikes (most of which were aluminum) and they were winning these insane gravel events where the majority of participants were riding XC style MTBs that proved to be much slower. The gravel bikes that were born out of that were specifically aimed at improving the long-distance gravel race capability, and focused on comfort and compliance while still being really fast.
I don't know if people forget so much as they just weren't paying attention when it happened and maybe haven't ridden these bikes themselves? I'm not that old and have been Into Bikes for about 16 or so years, so none of this feels all that long ago, but when I just getting into it 1988-1990 seemed like ancient history so I kinda get that. But it is wild to those of us who are old enough to remember when people were excited about cyclocross bikes because of the relaxed geometry, comfortable fit and wide tires all compared to a contemporary road bike. Anyway, the point about gearing is insightful and you're right, that's a key differentiator. Back in 2010 standard CX gearing was 2x with 36-46 chainrings and 11-25 cassettes, and people were cobbling together dicey homebrew 1x systems. What a weird time!