What is a Gravel Bike?

[djnotts]

I don't feel a great deal wiser as to the A to the original Q!

But this must be one surely - it'll have Salsa Cowchipper 2s and bar end shifters! Need different tyres though - suggestions for 26"?

[mattheus]

I think he'd have used narrower bars, but otherwise, yes!

[reohn2]

I don't feel a great deal wiser as to the A to the original Q!

But this must be one surely - it'll have Salsa Cowchipper 2s and bar end shifters! Need different tyres though - suggestions for 26"?

Rebld (3).jpg

A viable alternative to the Cowchippers and much cheaper:- https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/HBOOBB/on ... -handlebar

As for the tyres,what kind or terrain are you thinking of riding?
EDIT:- Schwalbe Landcruisers are a good tyre for the rough stuff,though a budget they do perform well on gravel and moderate mud emptying well and aren't too much of a compromise on tarmac.

[thatsnotmyname]

I beg to differ unitil proven otherwise.

You can conduct your own experiment, by simply googling some pics of all the riders mentioned and comparing them. There's not a whole lot of difference. Bikes have certainly changed, but the need to 'get low' hasn't.

If the rider is in a racing crouch eg; saddle further forward over the pedals,tops of the 'bars low,saddle high,with more weight on the upper body,to counter that the rider needs a strong core.

I think you are confusing flexibility with the importance of a 'strong' core. Your 'core' doesn't need to be anything other than 'normal' and most of the evidence runs contrary to such beliefs. Core muscles (and there are a lot of them) get all the stimulus they need simply from riding a bike.

The average human isn't comfortable in a racing crouch position for anything other than a very short time.

Obviously not - but they would adapt very quickly.

Anyone who isn't comfortable is more likely to regard such a bike as an instrument of torture,a term I've heard from people who've given up on cycling after trying to fold up their body and exercise in what is a restrictive range of movement after being sold bikes of a more race orientation.

That's more an issue for whoever sold them the bike - and the buyer. But that doesn't make the racing position 'absurd' - it just makes it wrong for that particular rider, at that particular time.

. Ironically, a slower rider could have more to gain from an aerodynamic advantage than a faster rider, in some circumstances

That would need explaining further to convince me of it's truth.

Worth reading this link then..

https://wattmatters.blog/home/2013/06/a ... iders.html

It should be remembered(all too frequently forgotten by many)that pro riders aren't 'normal' humans,they 'perform' in extremis with the body pushed to the limits of endurance and power,with a much higher degree of fitness than the 'normal' human,and whilst comfort is important to them,their comfort most certainly isn't the comfort of the 'normal' human,any comparison as such is delusional.

If you mean that pro riders are professional athletes, with focused and specific training regimes, then yes. But it's not just 'pros' who can ride in racing positions - countless numbers of amateur and sports riders can manage it without issue as well.

[djnotts]

I don't feel a great deal wiser as to the A to the original Q!

But this must be one surely - it'll have Salsa Cowchipper 2s and bar end shifters! Need different tyres though - suggestions for 26"?

Rebld (3).jpg

A viable alternative to the Cowchippers and much cheaper:- https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/HBOOBB/on ... -handlebar

As for the tyres,what kind or terrain are you thinking of riding?
EDIT:- Schwalbe Landcruisers are a good tyre for the rough stuff,though a budget they do perform well on gravel and moderate mud emptying well and aren't too much of a compromise on tarmac.

Missed the P X alternative - but the Salsas only a little pricier 2nd hand on eBay. Shiftrrs and brake levers also diirt cheap. I'll check Landcruisers, thanks

[reohn2]

I beg to differ unitil proven otherwise.

You can conduct your own experiment, by simply googling some pics of all the riders mentioned and comparing them. There's not a whole lot of difference. Bikes have certainly changed, but the need to 'get low' hasn't.

I don't doubt the need to get low hasn't changed but the general riding position has,let's not lose track of what we're discusussing,the ordinary cyclist optimum riding position for gravel and general riding.

I think you are confusing flexibility with the importance of a 'strong' core. Your 'core' doesn't need to be anything other than 'normal' and most of the evidence runs contrary to such beliefs. Core muscles (and there are a lot of them) get all the stimulus they need simply from riding a bike

I'm not confused at all,I'm merely stating that a strong core is needed to ride in the 'racing crouch' or more 'aggresive' riding position.You will need to point me to evidence of you POV to convince me otherwise.

Obviously not - but they would adapt very quickly

I disagree,based on observation of other cyclists and posters on this forum who after buying bikes with such riding positions find they're suffering neck,shoulder and wrist pain.

That's more an issue for whoever sold them the bike - and the buyer. But that doesn't make the racing position 'absurd' - it just makes it wrong for that particular rider, at that particular time.

Whilst I agree about it being the fault at point of sale,but as I alluded to earlier,many people have unreasonable expectations of themselves in this respect,they see pro racers and think that is the 'norm',It isn't.That is the extreme.

Worth reading this link then..

https://wattmatters.blog/home/2013/06/a ... iders.html

Well I stand corrected,but and there always is one,that being true in the absolute ie; racing,is it true in normal riding conditions for the ordinary rider's POV ?
Of course the answer should yes but it's minimal if at all noticable.

[/quote]

If you mean that pro riders are professional athletes, with focused and specific training regimes, then yes. But it's not just 'pros' who can ride in racing positions - countless numbers of amateur and sports riders can manage it without issue as well.

I'm not disputing that many amateurs and sports riders manage it but they manage it without issue though?
FWIW I've been very fit for most of my life averaging between 6000 and 9000miles per annum,but I've also had to work in a very physical job running a business for most of my working life.That fitness is now waning due to personal circumstances and my riding is now limited,frustrating but unavoidable.
I've never been comfortable in a 'racing crouch' position and as I've posted before I see many more cyclists who try it but aren't comfortable.
I suppose it depends in which cycling circles you move in,mine has always been riding alone or on the tandem with Mr R2 in a relaxed touring fashion.
Anyway I'll leave it at that and say we'll have to agree to differ

.

[thatsnotmyname]

I'm not disputing that many amateurs and sports riders manage it but they manage it without issue though?

Depends what you mean by 'without issue' I guess. I personally never had any issues riding long and low - and in my mid/late 50s (having stopped racing several years ago), my riding position is still race oriented and I still don't have any issues with it. There are riders a good deal older than me (ie 60/70+) who are still racing vets/LVRC events just as low as when they started. Most riders will adapt to it over time, in any case. The younger you are, the quicker you adapt, probably.

I've never been comfortable in a 'racing crouch' position and as I've posted before I see many more cyclists who try it but aren't comfortable. I suppose it depends in which cycling circles you move in,mine has always been riding alone or on the tandem with Mr R2 in a relaxed touring fashion. Anyway I'll leave it at that and say we'll have to agree to differ.

I think we've highlighted the 'each to their own' aspect of this really. Asking someone new to cycling - or new to a racing position - to adopt such a position immediately is never going to work well. But as I said, people adapt. Some might take longer than others, but adaptation is a human trait.

[thatsnotmyname]

I'm not confused at all,I'm merely stating that a strong core is needed to ride in the 'racing crouch' or more 'aggresive' riding position.You will need to point me to evidence of you POV to convince me otherwise.

I missed this earlier - I think you may have edited the previous reply.

Anyway, there is no evidence I'm aware of that improved core strength (however you define it) is critical to ride effectively - in a racing position or any other. Cycling (outside of certain track sprint or pursuit events) has a very low strength demand in general, such that you don't really need to 'strengthen' any part of the body before riding a bike, or to improve your existing riding ability or performance. That's not the same as saying you don't need to 'adapt', because you probably do. But the two are not the same thing, as adaptation is not the same as intervention.

I managed to dig up a pubmed abstract review of available core strength studies which hopefully provides good reading.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19026017

[PhilD28]

........I no more suggest to anyone the benefits of a 74 vs 72 degree seat angle as that would assume we all had exactly the same proportions, we don’t.

My point and I'm sorry to labour it,throughout this discussion is that a slacker seat tube angle hinders no one because no one ever complains about not being able to get their saddle far enough forward,it's an unheard of phenomina.

Well I’m one who has that problem with 72deg seat tubes, prior to having custom frames I resorted to in line seat posts. I wonder how many more would need a more forward saddle position were they to have a professional bike fit that resulted among other changes moving their cleats back?

[reohn2]

.......The younger and fitter you are, the quicker you adapt, probably......

I think that,with my added bold sums it up,the not very flexible overweight individual(and that includes a lot of people these days)won't adapt readily if at all.

TBH I think we come from very different cycling backgrounds,mine being touring,yours more race oriented one,hence our different perspectives.
And I do agree that once at a young age one adopts the 'racing crouch' it becomes a more natural position,my position in this discussion has been one of people coming to cycling at whatever age and fitness level with unreasonable assumptions of one's riding position.I see these overweight people almost daily on sub 9kg race oriented bikes with 23/25mm tyres looking very uncomfortable,and console myself that atleast they're getting out on the bike,whether there cycling career will last is anyone's guess though.
At least if they buy a 'gravel' bike there's the option of bigger section tyres

[reohn2]

I'm not confused at all,I'm merely stating that a strong core is needed to ride in the 'racing crouch' or more 'aggresive' riding position.You will need to point me to evidence of you POV to convince me otherwise.

I missed this earlier - I think you may have edited the previous reply.

Anyway, there is no evidence I'm aware of that improved core strength (however you define it) is critical to ride effectively - in a racing position or any other. Cycling (outside of certain track sprint or pursuit events) has a very low strength demand in general, such that you don't really need to 'strengthen' any part of the body before riding a bike, or to improve your existing riding ability or performance. That's not the same as saying you don't need to 'adapt', because you probably do. But the two are not the same thing, as adaptation is not the same as intervention.

I managed to dig up a pubmed abstract review of available core strength studies which hopefully provides good reading.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19026017

A strong(er) core can only help rpcycling,more so in a crouched position.

[thatsnotmyname]

A strong(er) core can only help rpcycling,more so in a crouched position.

Well, in that sense a 'strong core' is never going to be a bad thing for anyone - cyclist or not. I guess the only issue is whether it is critical for cycling performance. And the current evidence is certainly not favourable in that context. Plenty of other good reasons to have a strong/healthy core though, so no argument there..

[reohn2]

........I no more suggest to anyone the benefits of a 74 vs 72 degree seat angle as that would assume we all had exactly the same proportions, we don’t.

My point and I'm sorry to labour it,throughout this discussion is that a slacker seat tube angle hinders no one because no one ever complains about not being able to get their saddle far enough forward,it's an unheard of phenomina.

Well I’m one who has that problem with 72deg seat tubes, prior to having custom frames I resorted to in line seat posts.

Which I'm sure solved the problem on the 72 deg frame,without the need for a steeper seat tube angle.
The difference between a 74 and a 72 angle for an average sized rider is 20 to 30mm fore and aft.The average difference between a layback and inline seatpost is 20 to 25mm,which isn't a problem going forward,going rearward for someone with a 73 or 74 angle is a real problem.

I wonder how many more would need a more forward saddle position were they to have a professional bike fit that resulted among other changes moving their cleats back?

Not many,if any I should think.
Moving the cleats back after reading Steve Hogg's article (thanks to Colin531 of this parish) provided me with instant extra power particularly when climbing or accelerating,I concluded from that I wasn't using my feet as levers the same,therefore reducing the need of calf muscles,whatever it worked a treat

[reohn2]

A strong(er) core can only help rpcycling,more so in a crouched position.

Well, in that sense a 'strong core' is never going to be a bad thing for anyone - cyclist or not. I guess the only issue is whether it is critical for cycling performance. And the current evidence is certainly not favourable in that context. Plenty of other good reasons to have a strong/healthy core though, so no argument there..

No it isn't critical but as we agree a strong core can only ever help in all sorts of ways,particularly with the all too common 'bad back' syndome,which can be brought on by bending,particularly tall people,I'm 1.83m so ask me how I know

[The utility cyclist]

I'm not disputing that many amateurs and sports riders manage it but they manage it without issue though?

Pro riders don't manage it without issue though do they? Go watch pro racing, ever wonder why they rest their forearms on the bars for long periods instead of being in the drops, it's a fact that pro racers do not manage it without issue, they are just a bit better at sustaining it because they have to and indeed mentally blocking out the aches and pains but still it has an effect that can decrease performance.
If you were being paid to do a task that involved discomfort and in some cases having to mentally block out the aches and pains, you too would look like you were out the ordinary to joe bloggs, the reality is they aren't that much different to amateurs/sports cyclists as these people either don't race anywhere near as much because they have a day job or can simply just jack it in whenever.
I'm sure many on here have done long tours with a load unsupported and being in a position on the bike for hours on end, no masseuse at the end of the each day to help them yet still managed long days in the saddle.