Gravel Bike

Trips, adventures, bikes, equipment, etc.
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by PH »

pete75 wrote:I thought most touring cyclists tend to buy a frame and build a bike up using the components they want. That's what I've almost always done.

That's a very narrow and possibly elitist vision of touring cyclists, people are riding all sorts, they always have. I suspect the vast majority of bikes people tour on are pretty much as supplied by a big chain. But you can't argue it both ways, it's obviously true that you don't need a specialist bike, so it must be equally true that you can use one. Either all bikes are suitable or they're not.
My local CTC group gets all sorts of bikes out, that's as it should be, there's those still on the bikes they were riding thirty years ago and others on the latest carbon or Ti. I've never heard anyone say they don't need X bike, or that they do.
Don't take my word for it, have a look through Cycle and see what people are riding. There's CJ's bike from a couple of issues ago, a carbon disc braked gravel frame to replace his traditional steely. You could point out that people were riding around the Peak District before such bikes existed, he probably knew that.
What's your opinion on what I should do to turn it into a "modern bike" and how would it be an improvement? I'm interested to know what I'm missing out on.

I haven't for a moment suggested you should - ride what you want. Neither am I saying you're missing out on anything, only you can say that. Others will make their own decisions, for some that will be to get a bike like their mate has, nothing wrong with that either. What needed pointing out? You've answered a question that no one asked.
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by pete75 »

PH wrote:
pete75 wrote:I thought most touring cyclists tend to buy a frame and build a bike up using the components they want. That's what I've almost always done.

That's a very narrow and possibly elitist vision of touring cyclists, people are riding all sorts, they always have. I suspect the vast majority of bikes people tour on are pretty much as supplied by a big chain. But you can't argue it both ways, it's obviously true that you don't need a specialist bike, so it must be equally true that you can use one. Either all bikes are suitable or they're not.
My local CTC group gets all sorts of bikes out, that's as it should be, there's those still on the bikes they were riding thirty years ago and others on the latest carbon or Ti. I've never heard anyone say they don't need X bike, or that they do.
Don't take my word for it, have a look through Cycle and see what people are riding. There's CJ's bike from a couple of issues ago, a carbon disc braked gravel frame to replace his traditional steely. You could point out that people were riding around the Peak District before such bikes existed, he probably knew that.
What's your opinion on what I should do to turn it into a "modern bike" and how would it be an improvement? I'm interested to know what I'm missing out on.

I haven't for a moment suggested you should - ride what you want. Neither am I saying you're missing out on anything, only you can say that. Others will make their own decisions, for some that will be to get a bike like their mate has, nothing wrong with that either. What needed pointing out? You've answered a question that no one asked.


In what way is it elitist?

I asked you about the advantages of modern bikes becaus, in your previous post, you said that people you knew were mostly riding modern bikes and would have done so in the past had they been available. At the very least this implies that they are better. You must think this for some reason so I merely inquired in what way you think a modern bike would be better than the somewhat old fashioned machines I ride. I may be missing out on something for all I know.

The only place I see a lot of touring cyclists is at York and Mildenhall rallys. Bikes as supplied by the big chains don't seem overly common. Probably more recumbent trikes than bog standard Galaxies and the like.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
User avatar
Traction_man
Posts: 326
Joined: 10 Jan 2020, 5:30pm
Location: Bangor NI

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by Traction_man »

pete75 wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:Great photo! And it is a gravel road (I expect it's smooth tarmac now*). But we should beware of falling into the "someone extraordinary did this so you can too" trap.


Well when I was a kid we used to go all over the place often on stuff a lot worse than that on 5 speed "racers". 27 x 1 1/4 tyres. Nowadays often go on worse than that with a normal touring bike, 32 or 35mm tyres. Nobody thought anything of it when I was young and I still do the same things with similar bikes.

This is what RSF riders did with normal touring bikes well before gravel and mountain bikes were invented.



some more great RSF images here:

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/7010 ... fellowship

cheers,

Keith
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by PH »

pete75 wrote:In what way is it elitist?

Possibly elitist because IMO you've taken a very small percentage of touring cyclists and extrapolated that to express an opinion about most. If your opinions are based mainly on those you see at the gathering of enthusiasts, it will at the very least be misrepresentative. But again, don't take my word for it, go look a bit further afield for yourself. Maybe search google images for the start location of the UK's most popular touring route, where hundreds of people a year line up under the sign to have their photo taken "C2C Whithaven". Most touring cyclists probably fall somewhere between the two. Or you could try "Touring bike" in an Ebay search, the majority for sale will be pretty much as supplied. The notion that most touring cyclists build their bikes up to their own specification is IME false.
I asked you about the advantages of modern bikes becaus, in your previous post, you said that people you knew were mostly riding modern bikes and would have done so in the past had they been available. At the very least this implies that they are better.

No, I'm not going to express an opinion on other peoples choices for you to knock down. I've made an observation about what people are choosing, something that you can quite easily verify for yourself. That Surly have discontinued the LHT might be a starting point, but I'll leave the idea of better to those making the choice. If you read CJ's article about his latest bike as I suggested, he makes the case why that bike is better for him, that it isn't relevant to my riding doesn't make it wrong.
You've come into this thread to make the point that people don't need a specific type of bike. I've responded that no one (Apart from those selling them) is saying they do. I choose to tour on a flat bar, hub gear, trekking/hybrid style of bike, someone saying I don't need it would be entirely correct, but as I've never said I do it'd be a completely irrelevant point.
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by PH »

Traction_man wrote:some more great RSF images here:

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/7010 ... fellowship

cheers,

Keith

Yes, great nostalgia.
There's also plenty of great up to date images on the RSF Flickr page
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2651236@N24/pool/
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by pete75 »

PH wrote:
pete75 wrote:In what way is it elitist?

Possibly elitist because IMO you've taken a very small percentage of touring cyclists and extrapolated that to express an opinion about most. If your opinions are based mainly on those you see at the gathering of enthusiasts, it will at the very least be misrepresentative. But again, don't take my word for it, go look a bit further afield for yourself. Maybe search google images for the start location of the UK's most popular touring route, where hundreds of people a year line up under the sign to have their photo taken "C2C Whithaven". Most touring cyclists probably fall somewhere between the two. Or you could try "Touring bike" in an Ebay search, the majority for sale will be pretty much as supplied. The notion that most touring cyclists build their bikes up to their own specification is IME false.
I asked you about the advantages of modern bikes becaus, in your previous post, you said that people you knew were mostly riding modern bikes and would have done so in the past had they been available. At the very least this implies that they are better.

No, I'm not going to express an opinion on other peoples choices for you to knock down. I've made an observation about what people are choosing, something that you can quite easily verify for yourself. That Surly have discontinued the LHT might be a starting point, but I'll leave the idea of better to those making the choice. If you read CJ's article about his latest bike as I suggested, he makes the case why that bike is better for him, that it isn't relevant to my riding doesn't make it wrong.
You've come into this thread to make the point that people don't need a specific type of bike. I've responded that no one (Apart from those selling them) is saying they do. I choose to tour on a flat bar, hub gear, trekking/hybrid style of bike, someone saying I don't need it would be entirely correct, but as I've never said I do it'd be a completely irrelevant point.


Why should someone say you don't need it? Nothing wrong with trekking style bikes anymore than there's anything wrong with LHT just because Surly have discontinued it.

I hardly think the sort of cyclists who build up a bike are part of any sort of elite. Rather that's those who go to a bike shop to buy an all carbon Dura Ace or Campag Super Record road bike - what I heard some one in the trade refer to as dentist's bikes.

You're about as evasive giving a straight answer to a straighten question as is Boris Johnson.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6259
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by Bmblbzzz »

pete75 wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:
pete75 wrote:Image

I really like this photo and I think there are some interesting points in it:
The rider appears to be wearing Tudor longs! :D (I think they're not actually but look similar)
He's using the now trendy again porteur style front rack with large front bag. He could be a Jan Heine follower today (fork appears to have largeish offset so probably low trail too)
Gumwall tyres and colour-matched luggage are also in fashion again, but purely aesthetic.


My guess is that rider didn't give a damn about following trends and fashions. His luggage is matching as it's likely they only did it in that colour and 27*1 1/4" tyres almost all had brown walls. My luggage is matching - Carradice Super C only comes in black.

I think you've misinterpreted what I wrote. When I said "now trendy again" I meant these things were in fashion at some point in the past - say 1950s, 60s? - and have now, 2021, returned to fashion. I wasn't making a comment on that individual rider's choice, which we can obviously never know (unless someone recognizes him!).
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4629
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by slowster »

I think for me off road bikes fall into two categories: light enough for me to lift over a gate or fence or shoulder carry across some obstacles vs those that are too heavy for that. If a bike is too heavy to lift over an obstacle, that will inevitably influence the choice of route and terrain.

I am not suggesting lighter is necessarily automatically better. For some rides a bike like an MTB that has wider tyres and/or is more robust generally will be much the better option.

Neverthless, it's interesting how so many of the RSF archive photographs show the riders lifting or carrying their bikes over an obstacle. Obviously there is a disproportionate number of such photographs because those occasions were interruptions in the ride when it would be easy to take photographs, but clearly those interruptions were a pretty normal part of many of their rides.

In that respect most so called gravel bikes do have an advantage over many touring bikes and MTBs, in that they are usually lighter. That light weight comes at a price in terms of £££ and/or strength/durability, but I think that often for many people that will be a price worth paying.

The VSF TX400 Rohloff weighs over 17kg. A Merlin Malt equipped with Claris shifters weighs 11.3kg and costs only £600. Even though the latter lacks mudguards, racks and lights and would likely have a much shorter life span, I think it would be the choice of many of those RSF members.
Last edited by slowster on 6 Feb 2021, 2:50pm, edited 2 times in total.
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by pete75 »

Bmblbzzz wrote:
pete75 wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:I really like this photo and I think there are some interesting points in it:
The rider appears to be wearing Tudor longs! :D (I think they're not actually but look similar)
He's using the now trendy again porteur style front rack with large front bag. He could be a Jan Heine follower today (fork appears to have largeish offset so probably low trail too)
Gumwall tyres and colour-matched luggage are also in fashion again, but purely aesthetic.


My guess is that rider didn't give a damn about following trends and fashions. His luggage is matching as it's likely they only did it in that colour and 27*1 1/4" tyres almost all had brown walls. My luggage is matching - Carradice Super C only comes in black.

I think you've misinterpreted what I wrote. When I said "now trendy again" I meant these things were in fashion at some point in the past - say 1950s, 60s? - and have now, 2021, returned to fashion. I wasn't making a comment on that individual rider's choice, which we can obviously never know (unless someone recognizes him!).


What I meant was I don't think those things were trendy then just what was available.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6259
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by Bmblbzzz »

pete75 wrote:What I meant was I don't think those things were trendy then just what was available.

There's a significant overlap...
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6259
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by Bmblbzzz »

slowster wrote:Neverthless, it's interesting how so many of the RSF archive photographs show the riders lifting or carrying their bikes over an obstacle. Obviously there is a disproprtionate number of such photographs because those occasions were interruptions in the ride when it would be easy to take photographs, but clearly those interruptions were a pretty normal part of many of their rides.

There could be another factor; it could be that, compared to now, it was more common to ride on rural footpaths as distinct from bridleways and byways. In fact, it could be the distinction wasn't so readily made back then. I've seen the very same point, that a bike should be light enough to lift over a stile, made in an early '30s cycling magazine (I think that predates the RSF but not, of course, that style of riding).
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by pete75 »

slowster wrote:
The VSF TX400 Rohloff weighs over 17kg. A Merlin Malt equipped with Claris shifters weighs 11.3kg and costs only £600. Even though the latter lacks mudguards, racks and lights and would likely have a much shorter life span, I think it would be the choice of many of those RSF members.


A waste of 600 quid in my opinion. If I was after a new bike of that type I'd spend another 600 quid and get this https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m1b0s225p38 ... S-Wayfarer. Twice the price and about 5x better value for money.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4629
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by slowster »

pete75 wrote:A waste of 600 quid in my opinion.

If it fulfils the purpose and expectations for which it was bought, then it's not a waste. If someone buys a VSF TX400 Rohloff for rough stuff riding, only to find it's too heavy for the rides they want to do, then that indeed would be a waste, and a far more expensive one.

pete75 wrote:If I was after a new bike of that type I'd spend another 600 quid and get this https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m1b0s225p38 ... S-Wayfarer. Twice the price and about 5x better value for money.

I have a Wayfarer. If I were riding a route where I thought there was a good chance I would have to lift it over a gate or fence or shoulder carry, I would take my - much lighter - carbon forked gravel bike.
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by pete75 »

slowster wrote:
pete75 wrote:A waste of 600 quid in my opinion.

If it fulfils the purpose and expectations for which it was bought, then it's not a waste. If someone buys a VSF TX400 Rohloff for rough stuff riding, only to find it's too heavy for the rides they want to do, then that indeed would be a waste, and a far more expensive one.

pete75 wrote:If I was after a new bike of that type I'd spend another 600 quid and get this https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m1b0s225p38 ... S-Wayfarer. Twice the price and about 5x better value for money.

I have a Wayfarer. If I were riding a route where I thought there was a good chance I would have to lift it over a gate or fence or shoulder carry, I would take my - much lighter - carbon forked gravel bike.


Whether or not a bike is too heavy to lift or carry depends on the rider not the bike. I've seen my son lift the TX400 compete with full camping load over a 5 bar gate without any apparent effort.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
peetee
Posts: 4292
Joined: 4 May 2010, 10:20pm
Location: Upon a lumpy, scarred granite massif.

Re: Gravel Bike

Post by peetee »

The suitability of one particular type of bike over another, be it touring, cyclocross, hybrid, gravel or mountain (suspension or otherwise is as much about the terrain and strengths of the rider as it is the design and componentry of the bike.
I have a tourer with knobbly tyres which I use as a gravel bike. I barely use it around here because the vast majority of trails are rough and rocky. If I still lived near the New Forest, for example, I’m sure I would have clocked up hundreds of miles on it by now.
The older I get the more I’m inclined to act my shoe size, not my age.
Post Reply