The differences between cyclocross and gravel bikes are greatly exaggerated. There’s a lot
of overlap and gravel bikes essentially developed as an evolution of cyclocross bikes. On average CX bikes will have a higher BB, shorter wheelbase and slightly steeper head angles. But again, there’s overlap and this is on average. Cyclocross bike handling is still pretty sedate compared to a road bike.
With that said, I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to buy a rim brake bike these days. Plus, Euro cyclocross geometry in particular, which a Colnago will have, is going to be about as extreme as it gets relative to a modern gravel bike.
Originally Posted by
unterhausen
Usually older CX bikes had relatively small tires because the people that designed them were silly. And the UCI didn't allow bigger tires for CX pros.
This continued until well after it became obvious that gravel bikes that took larger tires were in demand. More demand than CX bikes, in particular.
Oh boy. How old are we talking about, here? Truly old CX bikes took skinny tires cause they were literally road bikes with cantilever posts brazed on. In the 90’s, everyone raced on tubulars and tires wider than about 30 mm just didn’t exist. By 2010 though, the UCI still allowed for tires up to 700x35 and bikes of the time readily accommodated tires that size and had done so for several years. I’ve personally never owned a cyclocross bike that couldn’t fit 40C tires and I’ve had four or so of them. My experience isn’t exhaustive by a long shot, but CX bikes fit up to about 40C tires typically, not rarely.
I kind of object to the claim that all of this is because “the people who designed them were silly.” It was a different time and cyclocross bikes evolved over time as about the most specialized race bikes out there. Off-the-shelf cyclocross bikes only became a thing in about the mid-90’s when brands began to jump on them as basically the equivalent of gravel bikes
today. That is, a general-purpose sport-touring type bike. And that’s when they got lots of eyelets and generous tire clearance.
”Generous tire clearance” meant something different then, too. People act as though high-quality, fast-rolling 40C+ tires have been around forever, but they’re a super new phenomenon. Back in the day, even by 2010, almost all tires of that size were trash. Fine for touring, but building a performance bike around big tires was a genuine leap because designing a bike around a component that literally doesn’t exist is kind
of hard to do.