mstateglfr 

you seem fun.***

big john

Like all types of bikes, it depends on who is riding them and what their intentions are. If you just want to cruise around, maybe go to the store, even a longer ride once in a while, virtually any bike will work. If you want to go on fast club rides, do 10,000 feet of climbing in 100 miles, or just enjoy the racy feel of a top level bike, you might want something more specialized. Can you do those things on a 28 pound Atlantis? Or 1982 whatever? Sure, but I don't want to.

It's the same with so called gravel bikes, which seems to be a polarizing name for some. You can ride nearly any bike on a dirt road, I've ridden 2 different "crit bikes" with 23s on dirt roads, but the bikes which are offered as gravel bikes are made with features and geometry to make dirt and trails fast and fun.

big john

Exactly what I was trying to say.

Jughed

And me personally - I'm not going to take a lightweight and expensive road bike frame offroad often. My CX bike gets beat up off road... Gravel/CX bikes are typically built stronger, are heavier and use more material.

Jeff Neese

See my response above. I didn't mean to imply that all bikes can accept tires big enough. I too own bicycles that won't fit big enough tires. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

And a touring bike on MTB trails? Yeah, nobody says that's optimum, with the long wheelbase and low bottom bracket. I didn't think MTB trail riding was what we were talking about though.

Jeff Neese

You hopefully realize that "yelling at her" is just a figure of speech, although I did need to yell sometimes for her to hear me. Substitute the word "correct". I often had to correct her when she was riding the brakes. Or how about "remind". I had to remind her not to ride the brakes. Better?

8 mph isn't unreasonable for a newbie. Her previous experience was limited to casual riding on paved and flat roads. Put someone on a dirt road with potholes and gravel for the first time, and they're not going to feel comfortable on downhills right away. It's typical that they would ride the brakes and keep their speed very low. That's probably what happened in the case under discussion.

mstateglfr 

I accept that yours schtick is to phrase opinion as fact and interject comments that tear down how others like to ride, if that riding means fast/competitive/modern.
But only so much BS passed off as fact can be posted before I cant take it anymore.
The above quotes are 10% of the crap youve posted because I dont have the energy to reply to everything.

- GP was a respected bike designer...over 3 decades ago. He hasnt put out anything innovative since. All his designs now are traditional and borrow from what was already created by others.
- GP frames the cycling industry in an 'us vs them' mentality and it is highly reductive. Instead of inclusivity(which he preaches), he writes about and practices exclusivity.
- The number of races GP participated in 40-50 years ago is of no consequence. Nobody cares that he raced bikes half a century ago and that has no bearing on the present.
- GP has 'serious cred'? His Bridgestone days are viewed in a positive light, and that was 30-40 years ago. I personally liked that he bucked the trend of groupsets and spec'd bikes into the 90s with all sorts of component brands. But again, that was 3-4 decades ago. Does he have serious cred now?...eh, I would say he moreso has a place at the table, just like your crazy and ranting uncle who you invite to Thanksgiving because your mom guilted you into it, and you just hope to make it thru the evening without any incidents.
- Yes, 30 years ago he slapped some wide rim 26" tires on a frame with goofy shaped bars. That isnt creating gravel bikes.
- Gravel bikes are as much a fad as Mountain Bikes are a fad, road bikes are a fad, or fixie/ss is a fad. These market segments rise and fall in popularity, thats pretty normal. Just because gravel bikes are the current popular style doesnt mean they are worthless or should be dismissed. Tearing down a segment of the industry to make yourself feel better and to confirm the bias of your followers is pathetic. Who cares if its the current trend? Maybe road bikes will surge in popularity again and gravel bikes will take up less floor space and marketing budget. Ok then, fine. That will mean some consumer preference has changed. None of this is out of the ordinary- trends, fads, and popularity all ebb and flow in a consumer driven economy.
- It is comical that you claim Riv is a premier bicycle company. Reality check- 5 years ago he had to send out a letter and beg people to buy gift cards in order to give his company operating cash to make it thru the winter. He said they were just a few months away from shutting down. The company's site was full of absurd crap that just cost money to carry in inventory- expensive soap, itchy clothing accessories, a hatchet...even to this day, that company doesnt know what it wants to be and doesnt like what it is. Its a mess.
- Riv actively feeds on people's emotions and fears when it comes to frame materials. Its disgusting, really.
- Bikes couldnt always fit wide tires. Even bikes from the 70s couldnt fit wide tires. They fit wider tires than traditional racing frames, but a 32mm or even 35mm max isnt 'wide'. It would be fine for hardpack and some bare gravel, but it would totally suck for a lot of other gravel. Brands often combine road and gravel together in their dropdown menu. Some separate it though, which is also fine. Why do you dislike them segmenting their offerings?


This bullet deserves to be pulled from the rest because it is just hilarious. I find irony and absurdism to be some of the funniest stuff around though.
- GP hates on gravel, calls gravel a trend, and yet he missed out on an incredible opportunity to be a leader in what gravel is today and be viewed by a market as an actual pioneer. He pushed riding for the fun or riding. He pushed riding to explore. He pushed wider tires. He pushed lower gearing. He pushed distance riding. And yet here we are- GP hates on a segment that grew from all those things he pushed. That is dripping in irony.



Hey Jeff- try being a bit more truthful and even in your telling of history and reality.

livedarklions

I am having a hard time even seeing why this is a topic at this point. This category has been around long enough that it can't just be written off as a fad, and I've never heard anyone actually claim they don't understand the concept. I like all the pretty pictures, though, so thanks gravel-riding guys! Keep enjoying the hell out of your bikes, you have my permission even if the OP doesn't approve.

big john

No, I understood that. I was just saying we all don't have such bikes. I actually don't know what size tires my bikes before 1992 could take because I always rode 23s and never tried anything bigger until the 1992 bike.

Of course tires are a huge factor on all types of off roading. I rode motorcycles off road for 10 years and we tried all kinds of tires. I would wear out a rear tire once per month. I ran 9psi front and 30ish in the rear.

On my enduro type bike I use 2.8 tires with 15 psi front and 20 psi rear. I borrowed a gravel bike for a short time and it had 38mm tires. I didn't have enough time to try different pressures but rode it with around 50 psi, iirc. I use 100 psi on the road bike on 25s.

big john

Maelochs

WARNING: RIDICULOUS TEXT EDIFICE AHEAD

So some stuff got me thinking … or doing what I call thinking …

Part the First:

Rivendell … a company based on and motivated by one odd person’s odd ideas. Being odd myself (according to some) I can sympathize. I don’t agree with all of it, and like any person with a strong sense of self and a strong sense that disagreement is a sign of folly, Mr. Peterson has stretched and expanded his ideas possibly beyond where they actually correspond to the real world … but it is his company, his ideas, and all that.

But what is Really at the root of Mr. Petersons’s ideas? Is it the thought that racing has ruined cycling, or that race-based marketing has ruined cycling, or that most people are too stupid to know what they want, or what?

It seems at least part of what Mr. Peterson does is based on the bikes he grew up with, and the idea that what brought him joy as a child ought to be good for everyone … and he pretty clearly does seem to think his way is the best way. Okay, no problem.

Is any of what he says relevant to what is and has been actually happening? Loosely.

I could liken some of what went on (and goes on) in the bike industry to the automobile Muscle Car era …. A lot of (mostly) men fell in love with horsepower---even if they would only rarely use it---and a lot of younger men saw a powerful car as a reinforcement of personal power, as presenting a strong image---and adolescent and slightly older males do want to portray strength and virility, which seems natural---and race-car drivers were seen as brave chevaliers going forth into dangerous, often lethal battle, overloaded with courage and testosterone (look how many dated models) with no fear and the overwhelming desire to win---and image with resonates with young men to this day.

So, a lot of young men bought cars with way too much horsepower for the chassis or brakes, and had a lot of fun playing with dangerous toys … and even though for most of their lives, the cars were not used any differently than any other car, one could always rev the engine and feel more powerful.

Would most of these drivers’ automotive needs have been satisfied with a basic four-door sedan? Yes, and the choice would have been much more practical and efficient---but the cars also filled emotional needs. Nobody wanted to drive mom’s station wagon or dad’s hand-me-down drab sedan.

In this way, racing (after it caught on a little in North America) has been used to sell bikes, too. As I said elsewhere, the majority of bikes sold in the US are not racing bikes and are not even similar in any way to racing bikes …. But people with strong and singular visions often tend to a certain myopia …

Think about how much has been said about the damage White Europeans have done to the world … I always laugh. White Europeans messed up and also developed—some goods, a lot really bad---a tiny portion of Europe, a little of Africa, and some of North and South America. Most of Africa, India, much of South America and all of freaking China and Mongolia and parts of Siberia---about two-thirds of the world and two-thirds of the human population---are not white and were not affected much by white Europeans through most of history … but the people who are all up in arms about the white patriarchy tend only to look at Europe and North America, and fail to see their own giant blind spot. Humorous--and also not.

Grant Peterson blames the influence of racing …. But for many years with both cars and bikes, racing was where developments were made. I guess it was okay until Grant’s personal cycling preferences were developed, and then it turned bad.

Whatever, he likes what he likes and he builds—and sells—what he likes, and good for him.

As for his business---several years back he got overextended, and put out a call to owners and fans to donate money so he could stave off bankruptcy. From what I read, he raised like $215,000 in ten-dollar donations from people who like what he does.

He could have gone to a bank for a bridge loan, which is what most small businesses would have done. He chose the route he chose … and it worked.

However … people do tend to drink Koolaid if the flavor is to their liking …. Popularity is proof of nothing but popularity.

Part the Next:

So … what about the idea that for most riders a simple bicycle will serve all their needs?

Well … hmmmm. Depends what some other person thinks some other person really “needs.” It is all about the definition of “need.”

I own a mountain bike. There is no steel-framed, rigid-forked bike anywhere, no matter how artful the lugs and dropouts, which can match my Cannondale Rize. So that much of that idea is shot down right away. Or … is it that people don’t need (in some person’s opinion) to ride anything more challenging than mostly flat, mostly smooth packed-earth trails, and pavement?

And if a simple bike is all anyone needs … why would there be so many different models sold by the person who thinks simple bikes are better? Why not just one simple, do-it-all bike? It seems even proponents of the exceedingly simple admit that there are bikes better suited to different situations.

And when one considers “simple” one has to again make definitions. A brifter? Friction shifting? V-brakes, rim brakes? Centerpull brakes? Dual-pivot rim brakes? Mechanical discs? At what point does one accept that placing the sole of one’s shoe on the front tire is too simple?

Seems to me the whole “simple is better” argument is pretty limited … I mean, anyone who has ever worked on a freewheel or freehub knows that there is nothing “simple” about all that. Once multiple gears are involved, “simple” goes right out the window.

Some people think friction shifting is simple … well the mechanism is more simple than an indexed shifter, but neither a shifter or a derailleur is “simple.” It all comes down to definition, and “simple” tends to mean “the amount of tech I like.”

Should we all be riding single-speeds with coaster brakes? Or for greater purity, shouldn’t we all be riding brakeless fixies?

Nothing simpler than a brakeless fixie.

Oh, no, that wouldn’t do … because track bikes are brakeless fixies, and racing has ruined the bike industry, right? (Besides which, almost no one wants to ride one. They are great for what they are good for but not much else, and most people don’t want to ride fixies at all.)

And where exactly is the “race” influence hurting bikes?

Is the poison in the geometry? Is it the quest to achieve the bent-over, stretched out posture of road racers which is making bikes less simple, or too racy? But every company which produces race-geometry bikes produces a whole host of other bikes. And every race-geometry bike has adjustable seat posts and steerers and stems---at least until the last few years when the integrated stem/handlebars came into vogue---and even those are usually offered only on the most race-oriented of any company’s bikes … and who can argue that race technology is bad on a bike that the rider plans to race?

If it is just steep head-tube angles and short wheel bases … then gravel bikes ought to be all the rage, with their longer wheelbases and slacker steering.

So what exactly is the evil wrought by racing on the bike market?

As for disc brakes … they had to be forced onto the racing market, and were initially resisted fairly strongly by the actual racers. Can’t blame racers for discs.

So … upon what is the “racing ruins cycling” argument based?

Grant Peterson makes and sells a certain style of bike and some people like them … possibly as much for his professed philosophy as for the bikes, but it must be said, the craftsmanship is pretty good … personally I don’t care for fancy lugs and dropout … I like things more simple ….. but there is a sort of bicycle art of a certain era expressed in Rivendell bikes.

To me though … it really is a sort of “fanboi” appeal, though I do not mean the sort of derogatory implications usually associated with the word. Simply, people like the Peterson approach for reasons not directly supported by logic in all cases … but there is a significant emotional appeal in personal transport, as mentioned above. People who buy bikes for more than tooling around the neighborhood tend to identify with their bikes and the imaginings based on the bikes … and even some of the “tool around the neighborhood” folks feel it … Electra Townies sell for a reason.

I have no issue with people who get their emotional stroking from Grant Peterson’s philosophies, nor do I have any concern over what bikes people buy---beyond hoping folks get bikes they like and will ride, because bikes and riding can be so much fun.

If people buy the hype from Trek or Specialized or Rivendell—and just because he doesn’t call it “hype” doesn’t mean Mr. Peterson’s stuff isn’t---and/or if people buy the bikes from those manufacturers---or from boutique frame builders, working in steel or carbon or even bamboo—it is all the same to me. People who think that Trek’s ad copy, or Rivendell’s, is “true fact’ … well, okay. If it resonates with you, it does, and if you buy a bike which you find fulfilling, everybody wins.

I see no reason to tear down Trek, Specialized, Giant, Cervelo … or Rivendell or Gunnar or anyone else … based on their ad copy, or their buying public, or much else … though some major corporations (not mentioning names) have gotten a little heavy-handed with copyright infringement …

As for Mr. Peterson, I don’t dislike him even though I disagree with some of what he thinks … or think some of what he thinks is not based soundly in reality … I respect his views (as much as I have seen of them) and agree in general with some. I really don’t have any interest in learning more.

If some folks strongly dislike his views or his practices, that is their business. I think at first I was a little irked when Mr. Peterson’s name came up because I am a little put off by the acolyte/master vibe a lot of Peterson supporters put off … but that is my problem, which I need to fix. The guy is just some guy. His bikes are his bikes, and I can see the value he offers there.

I get some small sense that Mr. Peterson really does think that only he has figured it out and everyone else is stupid … but again, my issue to address. He can think what he wants. He certainly can design and build certain types of bikes well.

Maelochs

I really like mstateglfr's Post #157 because it addresses clearly and specifically some of the issues we have been discussing,.. Well formatted, well-reasoned (IMO) and while obviously not neutral, not overboard. Logical, and supported. Good Internet forum writing, IMO.

terrymorse 

To be fair, until the recent change to disc brakes, it was not possible to put fat tires on a road bike. The lack of frame clearance just didn't allow it.

I use 25mm tires on my bike. I could try to fit 28mm tires, but the clearance is so tight that I'm worried it would rub the chain stay.

EDIT: I'm late to the pile-on, as big john already answered similarly above:

Maelochs

Oh, and one positive about Mr. Peterson ... apparently he designed Bridgestone's MB series,a s well as the RBs. I had an MB4 and it was just a wonderful bike.

I could buy another, if I wanted, and build it up as it was .... but nowadays I have no interest in a 30+ pound bike with rigid forks. Three or four decades ago they were really nice bikes, which could do everything except pure road-bike stiff. Swap the tires to slicks and do long (if not exceptionally fast) road rides, put on knobbies and ride trails (again not exceptionally fast as it was a rigid) and slap on racks and roll out on tour .... I did a ton of commuting plus all the other stuff on that bike and remember it quite fondly.

big john

I see you added this. It wasn't a rough trail by mtb standards. It was in the low altitude hills near the city. Lots of slippery hardpack with some ruts. A modern gravel bike would be ok there. No loose rocks or sand sections, no hairball descents.

unterhausen

I'm glad this morphed into a Grant Peterson thread. If it weren't for threads like this, I wouldn't have thought of Grant Peterson in over a year. Now we have reset the clock.

big john

I had a fully rigid steel Nishiki in the early 90s. Great bike for dirt roads and mild trails and if I had it now I would go with friends on their gravel bike rides. When the chainstay snapped I tossed it, though.

Aerzon

I was looking for your reply...
Never change Tomato Coupe, never change.......

terrymorse 

Grant who?

Since the subject has transitioned to old guys who design bikes, I humbly submit the name Tom Ritchey. He's been at it for 50 years, is still making frames out of steel, but he's not stuck in his ways. For example, his forks are carbon (his "mentor" Jobst Brandt thought carbon was terrible stuff for a bike), his frames are disc brake ready.

The Ritchey Outback frame would be my choice for an expedition bike. Sensible design for a "go anywhere, do anything" bike.

Jeff Neese

I had a 1983 Trek 720 and it wouldn't have been good on MTB trails either, even if it could have fit big tires (which it couldn't).

livedarklions

I'm sure someone who hates that idea will turnip.

Atlas Shrugged

To say that legacy bikes were “Gravel Ready” is silly. That would be like saying that my 67 VW Bug was race ready because, with enough modification, it could compete in the Formula V series in its day.

Let's see what today's gravel bikes have. Robust, lightweight frames, wide tire capability (38mm+), wide ratio indexed gearing (450%+), tubeless tires, numerous braze-ons, gravel-specific geometry (low bottom bracket, longer wheelbase, longer top tube, slack angles), Disc brakes, modern lightweight robust wheels. Regardless there would be so many compromises that it would be more work than worth it to convert a legacy bike. But as usual, no one who rides their current gravel bike is judging or denigrating those who elect to modify a legacy bike, it's the other way around.

tomato coupe

And, until COVID hit, you could buy a full carbon Ritchey.

base2 

Plus one to you, sir!
I have a Ritchey Ascent because it is a rigid mountain bike designed to happily accept drop bars, 700c/650b, disc brakes & vertical drop outs so that I can run internal gear hubs, dynamos, derailleurs, whatever I darn well please.

I bought a Soma Buena Vista for the same reasons.

I did not buy a Rivendell Platypus which I had been lusting for for reasons of style because it's hopelessly dated, limited. For utility cycling, sure. The Platypus would be good for that. But, I can pick up any 30 or 40 year old bike at the Co-Op or Craigslist for thousands of dollars less & effectively have the same bike. So why spend the thousands of extra dollars to have a bike that looks good & "art-y" & "classic" before it ultimately gets beat up banging against the bike rack at the grocery store where ultimately it will get stolen?

His use case does not align with the price point. If he made & marketed a $500 oma/opafiets framesets, he'd make a killing & actually fulfill the mass market appeal he claims his current backwater niche techno-time capsule bikes address. The rock & hard place of his brand will not allow that, obviously.

In my view, Grants bikes actively eschew any freedom of use afforded by modern advances. I think that's a little sad, in it's own way. He used to be a visionary. He could take a lesson from Tom Ritchey, the guys at Merry Sales that own Soma, the guys at Surly, the guys at All City, the guys at QBP that own Salsa. All bringing more diverse, and more useable bikes to the masses, doing it better & cheaper.

In typing this, I realize GP is no guardian of the "everymans" bicycle from "big bike" that is the subtext of his whole brand image.

Eric F 

This is the kind of riding where a gravel bike shines...

You COULD ride a road bike (and people do), but will struggle in the dirt, are more susceptible to flats, and gearing will make some sections very challenging. You COULD ride a MTB (and people do), but there is enough pavement that it will make easy rolling more work.

My gravel bike ride yesterday is the kind of ride that I wouldn't do on any of my other bikes. It was more than 50% pavement with some sustained pedaling at 20mph+, but also included some paved climbing sections at 17%. It included fast and flat dirt roads, a moderate-to-steep dirt road climb, a couple of dirt road descents with some significant rain ruts and loose sections, and a 1.5 mile twisty singletrack descent. My road bike is the worst possible choice for this route, but I could do it on my MTB. I would be faster on the descents, but slower on the climbs, and definitely slower on the road. The variety of experiences packed within one route is a big part of what attracts me to riding my gravel bike.