indyfabz

Where is that? I did a road tour from Ohio home to Philly. Spent a couple of nights at Bald Eagle SP then crossed over to the Brush Valley and camped at Raymond Winter. Looking at maps of the area I saw what looked to be gravel riding in the surrounding forest.

big john

I think all the Rivendells are made in Taiwan these days, nttawwt. My friend's Atlantis was about 28 pounds without fenders or racks. Probably could have been made lighter but he didn't care. He sold it after his Rivendell "phase". He has a few Colnagos, a couple Surlys, a Sarto, an Officina Matteo, or something. He is the only guy I ever knew with a Rivendell but there was a lady with one in our club.

I've been a member of that club for 33 years and another club for about 4 years. Hundreds of members in each club. It's rare to see anyone on a steel bike and it's also rare to see steel bikes when I'm out on the road, and Southern California has a lot of recreational riders and racing clubs.

To me, a touring bike isn't something to spend a lot on, considering it doesn't need to be light and is probably going to be subject to abuse. I bought my Nishiki Seral frameset for $50 and it was new old stock. Spent money on wheels and racks and rode it across the country. My second touring bike was a Cannondale. Got the frame for $100 when a local shop went out of business. I sold it in 2021. Can't imagine how any bike could be a better touring bike than that thing.

In 2006 I wanted an "everyman" bike so I bought a Gunnar Sport and put a triple group on it. It will accept a rack, it has eyelets and long chainstays. It's about 21 pounds as it sits. Frame is about 4 pounds. It was my main road bike for 6 years. When the Seven was offered as a used bike at my lbs, I grabbed it because I wanted a more racy feel. It's a few pounds lighter than the Gunnar, has a wheelbase about 3 inches shorter, and a much steeper head angle. I've put about 55K miles on it.

unterhausen

It's in Rothrock, specifically North Meadows Rd. It's on the other side of State College from Raymond B. Winter. 50-ish miles maybe. I know there is lots of gravel around Raymond Winter, but most of the gravel riding I'm familiar with is south of there. Either in the main part of Bald Eagle or Rothrock. Or both, for longer rides.
The Lewisburg mountain bikers seem to start most of their riding in Raymond B. Winter though. I have never made it that far out on gravel, it would mean a car ride or a 100 mile day. A lot of big events start in Coburn.

Jeff Neese

With all due respect, you do know that Grant Petersen has some serious cred in the cycling world, right? He's not just some "Luddite Retrogrouch".

I don't know this for sure, but it's a pretty good bet that Grant has competed in more actual bicycle races than anyone currently posting in this thread. And he even won some of them.

He was a respected bicycle designer and created the legendary Bridgestone XO series. Was that the first "gravel bike"? They weren't called that back then. He calls "gravel bikes" no more than marketing fad, along with the addition of useless features.

He's a respected author and his writings and lectures are well attended. Even if you don't agree with him, his opinion is certainly to be respected.

And now he's running one of the premiere bicycle companies on the planet, and can't build them fast enough to meet demand. Retrogrouch maybe, but certainly no Luddite.

It sounds like you're not a good candidate for one of his bikes. I'm sure he'd be fine with that.

Maelochs

Okay ... he has drop bars on one bike ... so I will let Luddite fade.

As far as all the rest ... Adolph Hitler and Sun Myung Moon could have said the same thing. Lance Armstrong won a bunch of bike races.

As for Rivendell being "one of the premier bicycle companies on the planet," well ... sure because you set the parameters. I am one of the premier builders of out-of-production Chinabombs suited precisely and solely to my specifications .... I cannot keep up with demand, either.

I have nothing against Grant Peterson, though i don't like anything I have seen him write or any of the ideas he has expressed. Those are not judgements on his value (whatever or however that might be determined) and are only my personal opinions. I can state as fact that I hold those opinions--currently--but they are not otherwise facts.

Glad you like the guy and his bikes. Stating personal opinions as fact though ... that has already not worked well recently.

Please don't ask me or expect me to like the people you like ... or the bikes you like. We are different people and we cannot be otherwise. Accept it.

spelger

could'a been stopped for, i don't know, about 20 minutes.

spelger

ahh, you spotted that too.

Jeff Neese

Absolutely. It's not about being a "fan boy" and thinking you're wrong somehow. My point is that he's not just some jamoke and anyone that has accomplished what he has and commands as much respect as he does, should at least be considered.

I'd also recommend his lecture/presentation called "The Big Bang Theory of Bicycles". It's humorous yet very informative and insightful. Worth a watch.

Jeff Neese

That's not unreasonable. When my wife was learning to ride she was very fearful of downhills and I'd yell at her for riding the brakes. She was indeed probably going not much more then 8 mph at first. She had to learn to trust the bike.

Maelochs

I have seen the same thing with novice riders .... the sensation of growing speed on a downhill leads to growing fear, in some new riders .... but look ... the idea that some bikes are better on bad terrain than others is absolutely understood. Whether it was 30 minutes or twenty or 20 mph or eight ... I know from riding rigids versus what I have now (~140 mm travel in front and I think 100 in back) that I can blast at high speed over stuff I had to crawl over before.

With a rigid bike each rut or root is its own obstacle demanding a whole routine of aiming the wheel, lifting the front end, pedaling a little and adjusting for the inevitable slide when the back end hits a different root at a different height and angle, trying to drop the front wheel in a controlled fashion--though often it too would hit a root and slide off, which required another correction .... trying to keep the weight transfer moving forward and not just up and down, while sliding side to side --same or different side at different times---with both ends .... while trying also to flex the while body from toes to hands to absorb the shock of each impact.

With big travel, it is possible to just hit the section fast and miss a lot of the roots and the suspension keeps the wheels on the ground and the frame isolated from the shock.

Since we all understand the principle, why argue over the numbers, which are not to the point. Cyccommute made it clear he didn't actually measure, and it seemed clear to me that the numbers were an indication, not a precise description, which illustrated the story and highlighted the difference between shocks and no shocks.

If we are doing serious math with accurate measurements and known values, sure ,,, then the number matter. If we are just looking for ways to tear down someone with whom we do not agree ... well, I will not address that.

(And no, I will not disclose whether or not Cyccommute paid me to post this.)

terrymorse 

Here's a little recap of what makes a gravel bike different from a road bike. Let me know if I've missed something:

Gravel Bike vs Road Bike

• longer wheelbase (smooth out the bumps)
• will fit much wider tires (smoother ride, better traction)
• higher stack height (better low speed control (?), lower speeds don't need aero position)
• higher bottom bracket (less likely to ground pedals)
• lower gearing (lower speeds, don't need high gears)

What about the differences between gravel bikes and cross bikes? There must be some differences.

DangerousDanR

What I see in GP is someone with an emotional attachment to a time and place in the past who can't accept that modern engineering has flattened his works of the past. Those double top tube frames are laughable. Use modern 3D design software and get the tube size right. Makes me think they built a batch of frames and then found out that they speed wobbled at 10 MPH.

I find him to be distasteful at best. He is marketing "free range organic sustainably harvested non-GMO Carbon neutral steel is reel" trendiness to affluent trendy hipsters who don't seem to know their burro from their burrow.

Engineering is a cruel master. What you did 30 years ago means absolutely nothing. What are you doing today is what matters, and his bikes of today are sub-standard in so many ways.

Maelochs

As I understand it, CX bikes are pure competition bikes designed specifically for CX courses. They have light frames with just enough space inside to be thrown over a shoulder. Maybe higher bottom brackets to keep the pedals out of deep mud, and gearing for speed--lower than a road bike but not MTB-low. They also generally have steeper angles for quicker handling. CX bikes aren't designed to carry much but a water bottle.

Gravel bikes are recreational bikes. They have slower, slacker geometry, and are generally rack-ready with plentiful lugs for bottle cages. The tend to have longer wheelbases for stability and a more relaxing ride.

At least, that is my version.

PeteHski

This is the truth! I worked for decades in motorsport and saw a few dinosaur engineers seriously suffer. Some of them were able to keep up with the times, but there were some who just didn't and they made a sad sight in their later years. For example, Ron Tauranac was a very prominent engineer in the 60s and 70s, but was an embarrassing presence in the 90s and 2000s. Sad but true.

shelbyfv

Credit where due, he's developed a niche that provides his family with a nice life in a very desirable location w/o the 9-5. That said, when I see him promoting $2K frames with Altus components I wonder if he may be laughing on way to the bank.

PeteHski

Yep, he appears to have found a lucrative marketing niche, which is what you might expect from someone who was a Marketing Director.

Jughed

Gravel bikes have geometry geared for endurance. CX bikes have shorter chain stays, even higher BB, shorter stack height, flat top tube.

Everything about the CX bike is race specific. You sit on "top" of the cross bike - you feel very high up when riding one.

The gravel bike also comes with all sorts of mounting points for extra water bottles, bags...


Why I love my CX bike (gravel bike would be the same):

I was on my local paved MUPS yesterday - it runs dead flat along a canal. The levee along the canal has 4 levels of gravel roads with some 15-20% short climbs and choppy surfaces in some areas. I went out on the gravel, climbing, small jumps, downhills - and back on the flat paved path, in the drops at 23-24 mph.

PeteHski

He appears to be "heavily marketing" retro-bikes, so he can't claim any high ground in that respect. I'm a non-professional rider, but I find more benefits in modern bikes, which are not actually all "race" bikes. Did bike racing actually drive the general move to disc brakes, 1x drivetrains and gravel bikes?

PeteHski

What about those riders who actually ride them on gravel trails? Those who only use them mostly, or only on pavement probably get some benefit from the more comfortable wider tyres. So it doesn't surprise me that gravel bikes are becoming more and more popular. I think some of it is driven by an escape from the increasing road traffic (that would be my personal reasoning for buying one) and also because modern mountain bikes are becoming more focused toward more gnarly terrain. I know my mountain bike would be massive overkill for gravel riding. I could put slightly wider rubber on my endurance road bike, but a dedicated gravel bike would be better.

Jeff Neese

Not disagreeing with anything you're saying. But let's face it - it's always been possible to put fatter tires on a bike and ride gravel roads - people have been doing that for decades. But now every major manufacturer has a separate web page for their "gravel bikes", as though there is something inherently different about them. Naturally they make a lot more money selling this "new" type of bike, than they would if they just offered different wheelsets. If marketing can convince people they need an entirely new bike, more power to them. I didn't say I didn't respect it from a business perspective.

I think someone else used the example of putting a separate setting on a convection oven and including a wire rack, and calling it an "air fryer", because air fryers are all the rage. Perfect example. Or when CDs came out, manufacturers started marketing their loudspeakers as "digital ready" (which if you know anything about audio, is a ridiculous phrase when applied to speakers). It occurs in every industry - you gotta move product somehow. More power to them.

Maelochs

Yeah, uh, No.

Most of my bikes will simply not accept tires wide enough to ride gravel. My two Workswells are about maxed at 30 mm and 32, my Raleigh about the same. Never tried wide rubber on the Cannondale .... even my Fuji Wunderbike cannot fit wide enough rubber for real gravel riding. It was designed for road work. Doubt I could fit 38s and I wouldn't want less for gravel.

Yeah, sure, we all rode our 27x1 1/4 Schwinns over everything ... but they didn't handle it all that well. And for hours of gravel, I wouldn't want to be out there on 32s .... I don't have enough teeth left that I want to rattle the remaining ones too badly. (Of course the real issue is more of flotation and traction with wider tires.)

I am sorry that some people are so lost in their own hype that they think everything is hype---and yes, a huge proportion of what we read, see, and hear in this country is inflated, exaggerated, or just made up. But as a thinking person, I need to be able to tell what is true. And whether anyone else can see it (or chooses to or not to) ... there are a Lot of people who love to ride gravel, and they use wider tires than many road-bike frames can accommodate. Also, the slacker geometry and longer wheelbases makes the bikes more stable on shifting surfaces.

These are not just the same frames with wider wheels and different decals. if you keep claiming that ... you are simply ignoring easily researchable fact.

These are real things. If you doubt it, do what I suggested earlier, to Mr. Rydabent, I think---google gravel rider clubs, go to their Facebook pages, and check them out. Go there and look at the bikes they ride and then try to convince Them that they all fell for Big Bike's hype and that they wasted all their money and should be riding vintage Schwinns.

See, this is one of those topics where we can either maintain our personal biases---and hasn't that gotten old already?---or we can gather new information. Personally, even though it is sometimes painful and embarrassing at the moment, I like to be shown when my biases are blinding me to the facts, because I live in the real world and ignoring reality can be dangerous.

I really have no more to say here. There have already been so many excellent explanations in this discussion ... if a person chooses to ignore that with which he disagrees, that is a choice. Not my choice, so not my business.

big john

I don't know how lucrative it is. His own numbers indicate annual sales of $2.8 million. Who knows how much he ends up with but as recently as 5 or 6 years ago he was rumored to be in financial difficulties.
By comparison the most recent sales I can find for Cannondale, for example, are around $850 million.

To say he "can't keep up with demand" is just silly. The bikes are made in Taiwan. If there was huge demand they could just increase production but that would involve spending more and risking more. If a model is "sold out" it just means the frames were produced in a small batch in a production run.

Jeff Neese

Sure. Nobody said that any bicycle will fit big enough tires for gravel riding, and you listed some of yours which will not. I have a couple of those too, but those are NOT my gravel bikes. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

The ones that DO handle big enough tires, those are my gravel bikes. I have one with drop bars, one with flat bars, and one with a set of Albatross bars. Because of where we live, 80-90% of all our riding is on dirt/gravel roads. It's mostly about the tires.

big john

This is BS, pure and simple. And where is this "marketing" some are complaining about? What are the useless features?

As for putting big tires on older bikes, some can fit them but many can not. My road bikes from 1992 until now are mostly limited to 25mm tires except the one which was limited to 23s. My Seven, which is from about 2010, will not take 28s. I've ridden it on some dirt roads and it is the wrong tool for the job, as was the CAAD5 before it and the Landshark before that. My Gunnar will accept 28s but has a Kestrel fork, so that's about it.

My friend brought his Atlantis with those huge tires on some rough trails with our mtb group and it was definitely a fish out of water. A modern, lightweight gravel bike would have been a much better choice. People go fast on modern gravel bikes, no matter what you call them or who approves of them. I've seen it, they are real and they have their place.

PeteHski

I think Maelochs summed it up well. None of my current bikes are ideal for gravel riding. My road bikes have limited tyre clearance, road focused geometry and gearing, while my mtb would be massive overkill. I do actually ride the odd gravel trail on my mtb, but if I was doing a lot more gravel riding I would get a bike designed specifically for the job. What we have today is more specific choice and I only see that as a positive thing.