Do we really understand what’s happening to the cycle trade?

[Bmblbzzz]

Given those assumptions, the answer is that the gravel bike will allow our standard rider to go quicker over the sorts of courses that arise in gravel bike racing. That’s what it’s optimised to do, in the same way that the tourer is optimised for load lugging, and for somewhat “off grid” use. That’s why people use gravel bikes, not read tourers, in gravel bike races: it helps them to win.

That's an important consideration for (gravel or other) racing, but what's probably more important is that it allows people with less competence and/or confidence to ride where they otherwise wouldn't be able. A mountain bike does this to an even greater extent, but involves greater compromise on road and where speed (on tarmac) is desired.

[PH]

Well.... I'm with Pete75 on this one - part of its down to ability...

It depends a lot on your capabilities and confidence.

The question pete posed was "What can you do on a gravel bike that you can't do on an ordinary touring bike?"
In that question, the rider is the same and the bikes differ. Whatever the ability or skill level, having wider tyres, lower gears that are easier to change, better brakes, stronger components... will all contribute to being able to do things not possible on a lesser bike.
Ask yourself this - Why are the riders from this most photogenic period of the RSF not riding the bikes that people were thirty years before?

[Nearholmer]

That's an important consideration for (gravel or other) racing, but what's probably more important is that it allows people with less competence and/or confidence to ride where they otherwise wouldn't be able. A mountain bike does this to an even greater extent, but involves greater compromise on road and where speed (on tarmac) is desired.

Agree with all of that.

On one of the multiple occasions when this chestnut was previously roasted, I said that it “enables one to go faster or bumpier”, and got told I was using the word “enable” incorrectly.

[Bmblbzzz]

"faster or bumpier" is a good phrase. Should be the slogan for Olympic mountain biking: citius, altius, bumpius!

[pete75]

Well.... I'm with Pete75 on this one - part of its down to ability...

It depends a lot on your capabilities and confidence.

The question pete posed was "What can you do on a gravel bike that you can't do on an ordinary touring bike?"
In that question, the rider is the same and the bikes differ. Whatever the ability or skill level, having wider tyres, lower gears that are easier to change, better brakes, stronger components... will all contribute to being able to do things not possible on a lesser bike.
Ask yourself this - Why are the riders from this most photogenic period of the RSF not riding the bikes that people were thirty years before?

How are gears easier to chnage on a gravel bike than a touring bike? Why do you think a gravel bike has lower gears? You can put whatever gear changinge mechanism you like on a touring bike, ditto for gears. In what way are the components on a gravel bike stronger, you can use the same on both. Most touring bikes will take pretty wide tyres too. I think your bias is showing here, by your implication that a tourer is somehow lesser than a gravel bike.

Because of their age and diminished capabilities I'd imagine, remember the riders will all be thirty years older now , and most weren't exactly young in those pictures.

[pete75]

What can you do ona gravel bike that you can't do on an ordinary touring bike? Do a web search for RSF images.

Quite often you can ride them on the same sort of terrain that the RSF images show people pushing bikes up.

Well.... I'm with Pete75 on this one - part of its down to ability... I'll generally fall off on any piece of off road which is even mildly technical.. even if I'm using 26" x 2.3 wide tyres... and whilst the rough stuff fellowship has a large number of photographs featuring, quite frankly very heroic (verging on suicidal) people with bicycles.. often the inverse is true when you look at photographs from the websites radavist and bike packing which feature happy people riding very capable bikes on wide smooth crushed gravel roads...

Like this you mean. Seems the norm. Easy enough to ride a so called road bike on that surface - bits of Paris-Roubaix are much worse.

[Nearholmer]

Pete75

Make yourself comfortable on the couch, close your eyes, and relax.

Now, taking all the time you need, in your own words, tell us what it is about the term “gravel bike” that evokes such negative emotions within you?

It might help to begin by recalling the first time you heard the term …….

[cycle tramp]

Quite often you can ride them on the same sort of terrain that the RSF images show people pushing bikes up.

Well.... I'm with Pete75 on this one - part of its down to ability... I'll generally fall off on any piece of off road which is even mildly technical.. even if I'm using 26" x 2.3 wide tyres... and whilst the rough stuff fellowship has a large number of photographs featuring, quite frankly very heroic (verging on suicidal) people with bicycles.. often the inverse is true when you look at photographs from the websites radavist and bike packing which feature happy people riding very capable bikes on wide smooth crushed gravel roads...

Like this you mean. Seems the norm. Easy enough to ride a so called road bike on that surface - bits of Paris-Roubaix are much worse.

Yeah.. absolutely....

...I look at that.. and think, I could actually ride that... on 26 inch wheels with 1.75 mix tread tyres, in the rain, with a 3x5 gear system and a rear rack.... in a woolley jumper

And I'd be smiling- that guys got an expression which tells me his shorts liner has popped its stitches and is making itself known in places it shouldn't...

[djnotts]

Campag's idea of "competitive" says a lot about the market for top end stuff.

"Campagnolo unveils new Super Record S Wireless groupset at a "competitive" price of $4,299
Campagnolo has announced Super Record S Wireless – a new Special Edition version of its flagship road bike groupset, Super Record Wireless.

The Italian brand's new groupset brings expanded gearing range, new wheels and slightly cheaper prices.

But at £3,526 / $4,299 / €3,990, Super Record S Wireless still costs more than Shimano and SRAM's premium offerings."

But the "expanded gearing range" may be a good thing!

[pq]

It is strange how people get so agitated about gravel bikes.

I have one, and thanks to it, my old CX bike is now on permanent touring bike duties, my heavy duty tourer only gets used when I want to carry camping gear and my MTB almost never gets used at all. Since all those other bikes are capable off roaders (and I've ridden all of them a lot off road) why have they all been cast aside in favour of my gravel bike? Well the short version is that for me it does the job better. I could go off road on any of my bikes. I could even get my old fag-paper clearance (brakeless) track bike down from the attic, pump up the perished Clement 3s it's still shod with and go off roading on that. Heck, there's a guy in town with a vintage motorpace bike complete with 64T chainring and 24" front wheel - I could use that too. I could, but I'm not going to, because these bikes are much like my old CX bike - not as good off road as my gravel bike. The old chestnut about doing rough stuff on a traditional tourer is just a less extreme version of that. And I know because I've done that too. I even go off road from time to time on my best road bike because of a convenient short cut I sometimes take on road rides.

Gravel bikes became meaningful when you could first get drop bar levers for hydraulic brakes. Hydraulic disc brakes are fantastic off road and they make bigger tyre clearance possible. My gravel bike has 50mm tyres with room for more, and it's that combined with MTB braking which blows all my other off-road capable bikes out of the water. Gravel groupsets have all sorts of nice-to-have non-essential features, but it's what those new levers facilitated which really made gravel bikes a thing. Before that, to get a bike with similar off road capabilities to my gravel bike, you'd have to get an MTB. But the thing is, I don't want an MTB. I want something with the riding position of a slightly toned down road bike which is more capable off road than my old tourer. Before gravel bikes were a thing I improvised - I had an MTB with drop bars for a while, and my heavy duty tourer gets quite close to a modern gravel bike. They were good off road, but my gravel bike is better for trundling around the hills where I live on tracks and paths.

If you don't want a gravel bike, don't get a gravel bike. But trying to rubbish them on the grounds that you can go off road on a tourer is just silly. Actually I can put front/rear panniers + mudguards on my gravel bike, but for touring, I prefer my touring bikes, so I only did that once.

[mattheus]

Pete75

Make yourself comfortable on the couch, close your eyes, and relax.

Now, taking all the time you need, in your own words, tell us what it is about the term “gravel bike” that evokes such negative emotions within you?

It might help to begin by recalling the first time you heard the term …….

As you've spent just as many words praising the term as everyone here put together, I hope once Pete has given his testimony that you will return the favour.
I could understand it if you were selling the blimmin things .. oh wait, is that the reason? Are you actually a corporate sock-puppet?? Go on, tell us which bike company - we can keep a secret!!!

[PH]

Like this you mean. Seems the norm. Easy enough to ride a so called road bike on that surface - bits of Paris-Roubaix are much worse.

That's a lovely photo. I expect it's a really nice calendar, I used to have a bit of a thing for artistic calendars (No, not the Pirelli sort), but I never thought they were a realistic representation of the real world. That picture doesn't tell me that in order to ride that track I'll need that sort of bike, or wear that kit, or only ride in perfect light. OTOH why would it bother someone else if I wanted to? Because you could use a different bike and don't need a bike like that, doesn't make it an unsuitable one. I think the anti-fashion or the anti-marketing stance makes no more sense than the fashion and marketing. The bikes should be judged on their merits. I think it's a good thing that bikes with wider tyres, lower gears and better brakes have become fashionable. Not because they're fashionable, but because they're better bikes than the ones those riders would have bought a decade or so ago. Cue someone posting another classic RSF image of someone in khaki shorts with a pipe in their mouth, proving what could be done on kit from their era. I am sceptical that the riders in those images, often just as artistically posed as the one above, would make the same choices if presented with today's options.

[Nearholmer]

As you've spent just as many words praising the term as everyone here put together, I hope once Pete has given his testimony that you will return the favour.

I told you months, possibly years, ago, why I’m quite comfortable with the term, but I’ll repeat: it conveys meaning; if you say it, people know what it means. It’s like wombat, or pargetting, or neophobia, or a host of other words, possibly all words; it aids communication.

In this case, and in the UK context, it’s a useful shorthand for a family of bikes and a family of ride-types.

If I’ve understood correctly the endless grumbling about it on this forum, the main objections to it are, in no particular order:

a) that is is American;
b) that it was coined after the grumblers in question reached the age of twenty-one;
c) that it is used in advertising to sell bikes;
d) that it is imprecise; and,
e) that is is fashionable among young people.

All true, but I still find it useful, so am content with it.

[rareposter]

I think it's a good thing that bikes with wider tyres, lower gears and better brakes have become fashionable. Not because they're fashionable, but because they're better bikes than the ones those riders would have bought a decade or so ago.

Careful now, you'll get accused of being an Industry Shill. You're clearly a sleeper cell for Big Bicycle, a marketing man's dream cos you've been hoodwinked by the Evil Cycling Corporation into believing that somehow, that 1974 rod-braked 3-speed is not as good or capable as this carbon disc-braked 12-speed!



Anyway, can't stop, the post has just arrived, I think it's another cheque from Shimano from when I said the other day about how good Di2 is...

[Jdsk]

...
b) that it was coined after the grumblers in question reached the age of twenty-one;
...

That's interesting. For use of English I usually reckon 15.

Jonathan