Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Muppets Threads! (And Anything Else) => Topic started by: energyman on April 08, 2022, 01:52:03 pm
-
A few years ago two of us were cycling in Scotland. I was on my RST, panniered up and shod with Marathon Tour Plus tyres. No problems on unsurfaced trails when the Sustrans routes took us.
So why is all the fuss now made about Gravel Bikes when they are nothing new.
Obviously I'm missing something in my dotage ?
-
Obviously I'm missing something in my dotage ?
Maybe you're just missing that you're in your dotage...
It's OK for the next generation to come along and re-invent the wheel. That's the natural order of things, just as much as the previous generation moaning that it's all been done before...
This time round at least there's been some development, the appeal of the sports bike has been combined with some features to make it a more practical machine in several ways, mostly tyres, brakes and the clearances that permits. If you go into any bike shop (Not forgetting that for many, Bike Shop= Halfords) without any prejudice, I'd be surprised if you didn't conclude that there's a better choice of bikes now than at any time in the last 30 years, that's certainly my opinion.
We can all benefit from that, along with some of the newer luggage options. We also all benefit from the publicity and the effort going in to opening up more routes. Then there's the idea of using a bike to go somewhere, the more mainstream that becomes the better, doesn't matter whether it's called touring, trekking, bike packing or anything else.
My generation, I'm teetering on the edge of dotage, reinvented the bicycle as a chunky go anywhere machine, MTB's rule, anything else was for your grandfarther, we certainly weren't going to listen to anyone telling us we didn't need knobbly tyres or that mudguards were useful. I don't think we did any better than the current generation and probably worse.
-
A few years ago two of us were cycling in Scotland. I was on my RST, panniered up and shod with Marathon Tour Plus tyres. No problems on unsurfaced trails when the Sustrans routes took us.
So why is all the fuss now made about Gravel Bikes when they are nothing new.
Obviously I'm missing something in my dotage ?
It's a marketer's category and it isn't much about touring. On the touring side would be a Bikepacking bike, as I am reading the new bike sales guff.
The gravel bike is a road bike (as in racer) on wide tyres with wider gearing than a typical roadster, and likely these days with a slacker head angle and maybe a bit more trail.
It's for day rides on firm surfaces that might not be sealed.
They have mounts for racks and mudguards but aren't pictured new with either.
Can double as bikepacking bikes for people who think they don't need low gears.
Nearly all of them come with drop handlebars.
Your RST with the racks removed would do about the same job, as indeed does my Mercury on 50mm tyres. Except that typical gravel bikes aren't built to carry loads and run a couple of kilos lighter (carbon frames, lighter wheelsets, etc).
The gravel bike isn't called a gravel bike because it goes better on gravel than a typical tourer. It's called a gravel bike because it goes better on gravel than a typical racer.
The fuss is mainly about bike companies convincing road bike owners that they need a new bike, IMO.
OTOH it's not all hot air. The technical development behind them is the invention of wide tubeless tyres with supple sidewalls that roll just about as fast at low pressures as skinny tyres roll at high pressures, and that are much safer snd more comfortable on rough roads of all kinds.
That helps people have fun riding backroads where there's less motor traffic.
-
The gravel bike is a road bike (as in racer) on wide tyres with wider gearing than a typical roadster, and likely these days with a slacker head angle and maybe a bit more trail.
That's a good point, though it should also be noted that in the US Gravel Racing is a real thing, so it has some genuine origin rather than purely a marketing term. What we have now didn't spring from nowhere, the Specialized Tricross was a worthy step in this direction, though Cyclocross riders were inclined to correct anyone who referred to it as a cyclocross bike. I'm not sure of the timeline, but the now well established Surly Crosscheck and Genesis Croix de Fer have a place on it, I recall both came in for some criticism about not being one thing or another. As such bikes became more widespread, it was inevitable that a category would be assigned to them. "Gravel" might not be ideal, but it's the one that stuck. I don't see it as any different to "Audax" bikes, the majority of which I suspect have never been used for such. I recall conversations, in the pub pre forum days, about there being no difference between an Audax bike and the Clubman's bike around for decades before Audax came to the UK.
Expanding on that point, though also veering OT - As Audax has increased in popularity over the last few years, here in the UK at least, the prevalence of "Audax" bikes being used has declined. Some riders have gone for outright road bikes, but many for wider tyre Gravel bikes, I have to resist putting my dotage hat on and telling some them I was Audaxing on 35mm tyres before they were born... The reality is IMO that now there's such a good choice of wider tyres and disk brakes free up the restrictions of DP's there's no reason not to use wider tyres.
-
So it's less about bike and more about tyres. Having the clearance in the frame / forks to fit suitable tyres may be the key feature.
-
So it's less about bike and more about tyres. Having the clearance in the frame / forks to fit suitable tyres may be the key feature.
Yes mostly, if you gave a designer a road bike and asked them to make something with similar characteristics, but able to accommodate wider tyres and with some off road capability, the typical gravel bike is what you'd get. Other differences to the frame - the BB has come up a bit to increase ground clearance, front centers are longer to maintain toe/tyre clearance (Though not always by enough) and there's usually better fittings for luggage. Chainstays might be a littlie longer, of shaped, to avoid heel strike. The important stuff like steering geometry is pretty much identical, so they still wouldn't be my first choice. Seat angles have also remained pretty constant, another thing that would rule them off my wishlist.
Then of course there's the stuff other than the frame that makes a bike, particularly the gearing, not so long ago people were mocked for having more than a 26T cassette, now people brag about being able to run twice that, sometimes I'm sure they're the same people. Bar shapes - all sorts of experimentation going on.
Some of the stuff I like, some I don't, I appreciate having choice and as I said upthread there's plenty at the moment (Whether any of it is actually in stock is another matter)
-
The best summation of what makes a gravel bike (versus road bike) I've found is here...
https://www.theproscloset.com/blogs/news/road-bikes-vs-gravel-bikes-6-key-differences?utm_content=tribikes300&gclid=CjwKCAjwur-SBhB6EiwA5sKtjgGwJHQ_FlY9qVWf4gtT3sM0Y6PkWMH119fidbxpzUIYE6i2gb06GxoC7VUQAvD_BwE
As a hobbyist framebuilder, I'm interested in the geometry used for gravel bikes, particularly trail. Some makers (Salsa with the Warbird series) favor high trail (high 60mms-low 70mms) while other makers prefer to end up with more neutral figures in the upper 50s. IT seems to be all over the map and so far "unsettled law" with one exception: From that I can see, there are very few gravel bikes made with low-trail geometry for obvious reasons*.
Since the topic of luggage was mentioned, this article has an interesting take on gravel vs bikepacking bikes...
https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2021/01/08/bikepacking-bikes-the-difference-between-gravel-and-proper-bikepacking/
I inherited my late father's mid-'80s tourer, identical to mine which is setup for road touring. I assembled his in a way that favors riding on gravel so it is my new "gravel" bike. It is the same bike, but the difference is different wheels, wider tires, fewer racks and lighter weight as a result. These differences have made for a really noticeable difference between the bikes and the gravel bike is better suited for riding on loose, rougher surfaces unladen. However, it is wise to keep in mind there's different kinds of gravel. A fresh pour of 3/4-minus is different from pea gravel, washboard, sub-ballast and heavy ballast. While my "gravel" bike works superbly on "groomed"/good/benign gravel roads even at speed on it 39mm tires, it is no match for the heavily ballasted logging roads my Nomad handles so superbly. It is a matter of frame geometry, tire section width, wheel diameter and...for me, the presence of a long-travel suspension seatpost. For nearly any rough surface, my Nomad (and my dedicated Enduro-Allroad) are "better" gravel bikes than my faux gravel bike because of their features are all optimized for the task.
Best,
Dan.
*EDIT: I momentarily and completely forgot about the bikes championed by Jan Heine of the "new" Rene Herse. He has had considerable good luck riding bikes with low-trail geometry in all sorts of gravel and rough surfaces and in fact, has built much of his company's success on that very thing.
-
Some of the stuff I like, some I don't, I appreciate having choice and as I said upthread there's plenty at the moment (Whether any of it is actually in stock is another matter)
True, wise words in my view. :)
Best,
Dan.
-
Several years ago a bike shop salesman was telling me that the next big thing was the new 27.5 inch wheel size, it was faster and lighter than other run of the mill tires sizes, and it was brand new. He had never heard of 650b. And he was not very interested in talking to me when I told him that 650b was an older tire size that a lot of French utility bikes had.
I know some riders that like to show off that they have bought the best latest fads. One of them had cracked his carbon frame on his travel bike, needed a new bike. Got the latest thing, a gravel bike, but with aluminum frame. (I think he downgraded from carbon to aluminum because he got his wife one too, thus the cost of two bikes.) Another one of that group saw it and had to get one too, but his new gravel bike was more upscale with a nicer paint job on his carbon frame. And another one could not be left out of the conversation so he had to get carbon wheels for his new carbon gravel bike. The marketers really scored a bullseye with that marketing pitch. These guys used to only ride on 23 or 25mm tires. One of those guys put 28mm tires on his gravel bike, I think he was less sold on the wide tires thing than the others.
That said, I think that the manufacturers had finally realized that there were some people out there that wanted to buy expensive bikes that had wider tires, so needed to come up with a marketing pitch. I built up my first touring bike in 2004, put 37mm tires on it. People laughed at my balloon tires (one of my friends called them balloon tires), but tires of that width are more mainstream these days, and they were becoming more mainstream before gravel became a thing.
I am not really sure if the marketing pitch revolving around 1X drivetrains and gravel bikes were somehow related or if it was only coincidence that they happened at about the same time. But, that might be part of it too. The manufacturers could charge as much for a 1X system as a 2X system, but it cost less to make and a lot less to assemble and adjust when selling the new bike. And from a component manufacturer perspective, the 1x systems are better for another reason, those huge cassettes sell for a fortune when you need a new one.
-
The best summation of what makes a gravel bike (versus road bike) I've found is here...
https://www.theproscloset.com/blogs/news/road-bikes-vs-gravel-bikes-6-key-differences?utm_content=tribikes300&gclid=CjwKCAjwur-SBhB6EiwA5sKtjgGwJHQ_FlY9qVWf4gtT3sM0Y6PkWMH119fidbxpzUIYE6i2gb06GxoC7VUQAvD_BwE
...
That comparison of road vs gravel bikes, that indicated that gravel has a more upright posture. I had not seen that written before, but that makes sense, in part because I think a lot of people that bought road bikes don't like leaning that far forward but they do not want to put a higher stem on their road bikes, thus they can buy a gravel bike and get the posture that they want without people commenting that they are not as aero.
I on the other hand bought a 35 degree stem for my road bike very soon after I bought the bike. It has the same posture as my touring bikes and rando bike.
-
*EDIT: I momentarily and completely forgot about the bikes championed by Jan Heine of the "new" Rene Herse. He has had considerable good luck riding bikes with low-trail geometry in all sorts of gravel and rough surfaces and in fact, has built much of his company's success on that very thing.
Yes. Heine disdains the term gravel bike, though. Just as he denies that his wide, supple tyres with and without knobs are gravel tyres.
He calls the bikes he likes all-road bikes, and he makes the point frequently that they are built to go well on tarmac and gravel, just as his tyres are.
I think all-road is a more accurate qualifier than gravel for this kind of bike. But I also think it invites confusion because a lot of people these days identify roads with tarmac. Hence they would think an all-road bike was good on all tarmac roads only. I think that's why most marketers prefer the description gravel bike. But then that leads to the confusiin that got this thread going. :D
-
I've been in gravel bikes (in a place where there is hardly any gravel because even the forest lanes are tarmac) since around the turn of the century my LBS told me to learn about bikes if I wanted to be at ease about my cycling. I prefer Heine's term "all-road bike" as less dishonest than "gravel bike" and less off-putting than "comfort bike", which is what all these wider tyres, under whatever name, are aimed at.
There's a wonderful photograph in or on one of the Thorn bibles that shows Mr and Mrs Blance in what looks to me (by the color of the soil and its texture and the surrounding greenery, such as it is) like a long way south in South America, probably the Argentine. It's a killer gravel road that would be quite at home in Australia or Africa or Central Asia. If Robin Thorn wants to mention with British understatement that "Thorn has been into gravel bikes since before they were even named," that's all the evidence required.
... it is wise to keep in mind there's different kinds of gravel. A fresh pour of 3/4-minus is different from pea gravel, washboard, sub-ballast and heavy ballast.
You need a bike for each type of gravel, Dan.
-
You need a bike for each type of gravel, Dan.
Oh, boy! ;D I was looking for a reason for n+1... ;)
Best,
Dan.
-
My Raven Sport Tour, with drop bars and lightweight 42 mm tyres, no racks but with saddlebag, lighting and mudguards is my equivalent "gravel bike" for surfaced roads and easy tracks and paths.
IMO more generally useful and less hassle to clean than the gravel bikes sold now, due to the Rohloff/Chainglider combination. A bit heavier, but I can still lift it over gates if necessary.
-
...
I think all-road is a more accurate qualifier than gravel for this kind of bike. But I also think it invites confusion because a lot of people these days identify roads with tarmac. Hence they would think an all-road bike was good on all tarmac roads only. I think that's why most marketers prefer the description gravel bike. But then that leads to the confusiin that got this thread going. :D
Agree with the confusion this leads to.
I am in USA and have always lived in cities, so I think of "all roads" as meaning paved with asphalt or concrete. But I have owned enough British wheeled equipment that I figured out what Tarmac is.
I have driven a lot of country roads that were gravel, so I am quite familiar with such roads. But, I do not think of them as being in the category of "all roads" for a bicycle.
When I think of a gravel bike, I think that is what my Lynskey would essentially be if I removed the fenders (mudguards) and dyno powered lights. I bought that frame and built it up to be a light touring bike, has a titanium frame, I installed the steel fork, 3X8 drive train. I typically have 35mm or 37mm tires on it. That is the widest tire that will fit with fenders. Manufacturer says that 45mm tires will fit, but that is without fenders. Lynskey does not consider this frame to be one for a gravel bike, this is their touring model, I think their gravel frames have lighter tubing and might have a smaller diameter downtube. My Lynskey without racks in the photo.
There are very few Rohloff hubs in use in my region, so when I think of gravel I think of a derailleur drive train, not an IGH. I am well aware that the Rohloff was originally intended to be a mountain bike hub, but I only think of Rohloff hubs as touring hubs.
I have seen a lot of road bikes with bikepacking gear. I also have seen plenty of full suspension and hardtail mountain bikes with bikepacking gear. Thus, I do not think of bikepacking bikes as being a category of bikes, if you refer to a bikepacking bike to me that means it could be any kind of bike. There however are people that feel that only a bike ridden off-pavement (off-tarmac) are bikepacking bikes.
I have a frame bag that will fit in the main triangle of my Nomad Mk II, but it leaves room for one water bottle in the frame too. But that is all I have for the category of bikepacking gear.
The bikepackers want their saddlebags to be oriented so that the bike bag is narrow and long, oriented along the bike axis, so they would not consider my Carradice Nelson Longflap to be bikepacking gear because it is wider than it is long to them. Once I asked someone that considered himself to be a bikepacker why they do not consider using something like Carradice bags, he scoffed at how stupid my question was, he said that their bags have to be narrow so they do not catch on trees as they ride past. But he could not explain how that made any sense when you consider how wide handlebars are, especially when a lot of gravel bikes are fitted with flared wider bars instead of narrower conventional drop bars.
My point on saddle bags for bikepacking I think shows that the bikepackers themselves are somewhat confused about what bikepacking is.
-
Is there really any genuine confusion? These names are not intended to be definitive, just general labels so people have an idea about what sort of bike is being talked about and an idea for the retailer of where to display it and who to market it to.
I've already referred to audax bikes, I know several people who have a better idea about what sort of bike that is than they do about what Audax itself. Then what about Hybrids? it's a classification that covers anything with straight bars that doesn't fit in another category, from straight bar road bikes to smooth tyred MTB's.
I'm much in the mindset of a bike being a bike, ultimately defined by the use the rider puts it to. That can lead to further confusion - I have 4 Audax bike, 5 tourers, 7 shopping bikes, 2 delivery bikes and 1 that fits under the desk. Yet I'll still use the readily available labels so I don't have to make full explanations every time I refer to one.
There is nothing new about bikes being used on unsurfaced roads and tracks, bikes were around before most roads were surfaced and in some parts of the World it's still not unusual for that to be commonplace. What's new is that there's a type of bike easily available in the mainstream that has certain attributes and features that weren't commonplace a few years ago.
-
I inherited my late father's mid-'80s tourer, identical to mine which is setup for road touring. I assembled his in a way that favors riding on gravel so it is my new "gravel" bike. It is the same bike, but the difference is different wheels, wider tires, fewer racks and lighter weight as a result. These differences have made for a really noticeable difference between the bikes and the gravel bike is better suited for riding on loose, rougher surfaces unladen.
Yes, I'm sometimes surprised how much changing a few components can radically change the bike, even though I'm sometimes at a loss to explain or understand. It makes me cautious about making recommendations beyond my specific experience. I was out on my Alfine Mercury in the brief spell of fine weather last weekend, it is a different ride to the other Mercury, partly the gearing which makes you work harder, then rewards you for doing so, but something else that I can't define.
I have a bike more than I have space for and this seems to obvious one to go, then i ride it...
-
Then what about Hybrids? it's a classification that covers anything with straight bars that doesn't fit in another category, from straight bar road bikes to smooth tyred MTB's.
I was thinking how to classify the bike I recently put together: Road bike frame with Ergotec AHS handlebars and fitted with 40-622 GravelKing SK tyres (plus Rohloff gears). It's neither a proper road bike nor a proper gravel bike but would do both functions quite well so I decided it's a hybrid. Some of my local roads feel as rough as gravel surfaces because of repeated pothole filling and patching.
-
The best summation of what makes a gravel bike (versus road bike) I've found is here...
https://www.theproscloset.com/blogs/news/road-bikes-vs-gravel-bikes-6-key-differences?utm_content=tribikes300&gclid=CjwKCAjwur-SBhB6EiwA5sKtjgGwJHQ_FlY9qVWf4gtT3sM0Y6PkWMH119fidbxpzUIYE6i2gb06GxoC7VUQAvD_BwE
As a hobbyist framebuilder, I'm interested in the geometry used for gravel bikes, particularly trail. Some makers (Salsa with the Warbird series) favor high trail (high 60mms-low 70mms) while other makers prefer to end up with more neutral figures in the upper 50s. IT seems to be all over the map and so far "unsettled law" with one exception: From that I can see, there are very few gravel bikes made with low-trail geometry for obvious reasons*.
Since the topic of luggage was mentioned, this article has an interesting take on gravel vs bikepacking bikes...
https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2021/01/08/bikepacking-bikes-the-difference-between-gravel-and-proper-bikepacking/
Finally got around to looking at the links. Great choices, and superbly relevant. Thanks Dan.
The first was even funny. :D It sets out to explore with the reader new to cycling whether they would enjoy a road bike or a gravel bike purchase more. And concludes with ... drum roll!!! ... be like me and buy one of each. ;D
So it's less about bike and more about tyres. Having the clearance in the frame / forks to fit suitable tyres may be the key feature.
Pretty much.
I prefer Heine's term "all-road bike" as less dishonest than "gravel bike" and less off-putting than "comfort bike", which is what all these wider tyres, under whatever name, are aimed at.
Or Safety Bike. But that's been used.
As I imagine you're well aware, Andre, what's different about the new-generation tyres is their ability to combine speed with comfort. If you live somewhere with real gravel roads though, there's another aspect again: flotation. The gravel layer doesn't need to be deep for that to matter.
Is there really any genuine confusion? These names are not intended to be definitive, just general labels so people have an idea about what sort of bike is being talked about and an idea for the retailer of where to display it and who to market it to.
Genuine? ;D
I don't think the confusion matters much, if that's what you're asking rhetorically. But I think there is confusion, from people outside the scene, as evidenced in the original post.
It is easy to imagine that a gravel bike must be especially good to ride on gravel. As in, better on gravel than any other kind of bike. Just like a touring bike is the best kind for touring and a road racing bike is the best kind for road racing.
And yet as various comments here point out, mountain bikes and wide-tyred expedition tourers are more versatile on gravel than gravel bikes.
You offered a handy reminder up thread where you said the US holds gravel races. Many of which, interestingly, have paved sections. What's marketed as a gravel bike might be represented more accurately as a gravel racing bike, just as many bikes marketed as road bikes are road racing bikes.
And here we meet again the other sort of confusion potential, as attested to by mickeg: road racing in cycle jargon means paved road racing, but the "paved" is silent.
When marketers talk about road racing bikes and gravel racing bikes, the "racing" is also silent. They wouldn't want their customers to think that these were only for racers. ;D
Jan Heine's all-road bikes are nearer to all-road touring bikes, in so far as he doesn't race on them and they are built to carry bags (albeit, at the front):
(https://www.renehersecycles.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/IMG_5648.jpg)
He's a fan of mudguards, too.
Over here it's mid-autumn and soon we'll be getting some rain. On the route I mainly ride, there is a fair bit of gravel and on weekends lots of gravel bikes, almost universally not wearing mudguards. When it gets a bit wet, their riders all have sloppy slicks of mud running up their backs.
The most recent Thorn megabrochure touts the 650b Mercury on wide tyres as a superb gravel bike. That made sense to me, and was part of what led me to purchase one. I think it is not quite a superb gravel racer. But it is a superb gravel tourer.
-
As I imagine you're well aware, Andre, what's different about the new-generation tyres is their ability to combine speed with comfort. If you live somewhere with real gravel roads though, there's another aspect again: flotation. The gravel layer doesn't need to be deep for that to matter.
I'm not embarrassed about admitting to choosing my bicycle's tyres for comfort -- it's my enemies who claim that demanding speed as well is undignified. You've probably read "In praise of riding low pressure tyres fast" at http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3798.msg16360#msg16360 (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3798.msg16360#msg16360), so I add it merely to keep the record straight for those who come after us.
I grew up in South Africa where there were still some gravel roads, superbly well made and kept. I remember them fondly for teaching me the fluid style of the miles-long tail-out controlled slide in a bakkie (British light delivery truck, Australian ute, American truck, Japanese Hi-Lux) as the fastest point-to-point progress across the countryside, which was superb training for Porsche rallying on much rougher "roads". I chuckled at "floatation" and confidently predict that the next big thing will be electric-powered smooth- but fat-tyred "gravel" bikes which will look suspiciously like the twenty-niners that the marketers ruined for themselves by bullying ERTRO into sanctioning thin rims with fat tyres, an engineering perversion. As long as they don't call the electric gravel bikes "floaters"*.
*For those without the benefit of a louche Australian episode in their education, a floater is a dish served by the only street stall open in Melbourne when the pubs close. It consists of a meat pie of uncertain origin floating in a thick pea soup of exemplary sliminess, and you were said not to be a man until you could hold it down.
-
For those without the benefit of a louche London episode in their education, a floater is something unsightly spotted in the can/ John/ head/ loo/powder room .
But we digress.
-
...
It is easy to imagine that a gravel bike must be especially good to ride on gravel. As in, better on gravel than any other kind of bike. Just like a touring bike is the best kind for touring and a road racing bike is the best kind for road racing.
And yet as various comments here point out, mountain bikes and wide-tyred expedition tourers are more versatile on gravel than gravel bikes.
You offered a handy reminder up thread where you said the US holds gravel races. Many of which, interestingly, have paved sections. What's marketed as a gravel bike might be represented more accurately as a gravel racing bike, just as many bikes marketed as road bikes are road racing bikes.
And here we meet again the other sort of confusion potential, as attested to by mickeg: road racing in cycle jargon means paved road racing, but the "paved" is silent.
When marketers talk about road racing bikes and gravel racing bikes, the "racing" is also silent. They wouldn't want their customers to think that these were only for racers. ;D
...
I now realize in my previous post that one thing I neglected to mention is that a bike that is marketed as a gravel bike needs to be light weight for the racing crowd.
I am in terrible shape after not getting much exercise during the winter, did a 53 mile (~~ 85km) ride yesterday on my Nomad Mk II, trying to expedite getting in better shape faster, and was pretty sore at the end. Most of that ride was on a gravel trail. Chose the Nomad for its 57 mm tires, as we have had a lot of rain in the past week, expected some mud. And was not sure if there was any remaining frost in the ground that can make for a hard bumpy ride. And the Nomad Mk II is not light weight. If it was drier and the ground less soft from water saturation, my Lynskey (titanium light touring) bike with 37 mm tires would be preferred for the lighter weight.
In USA the bikes that are marketed as gravel bikes usually have brifters and drop bars, often with flared bars that have wider drops than the upper part of the bars. And my Nomad Mk II has drop bars, thus visually my Nomad would look like a lot of other "gravel" bikes if I removed the fenders and rear rack. (The Nomadk Mk II has a Rohloff shifter, but you have to look closer in comparing the bikes to notice that.)
My point is that my Nomad Mk II might look similar to a gravel bike, but because it is much heavier, I would not consider it to be a gravel bike. If someone saw the bike and asked if that is a gravel bike, I would say no, it is more of an expedition touring bike.
The racers on gravel bikes are likely to use time trial bars too, as there might be some fast sections where they can ride in straight lines on a good surface. But if I was a bike manufacturer, I would never sell a bike to an amateur with time trial bars, I can understand why you do not see that on new gravel bikes in stores. I usually do not think of a gravel bike as having a suspension, but this one does. Note the 1X drivetrain that I mentioned in my previous post that is common on gravel bikes.
https://bikepacking.com/plan/lael-wilcox-2019-tour-divide-gear-list/
-
*For those without the benefit of a louche Australian episode in their education, a floater is a dish served by the only street stall open in Melbourne when the pubs close. It consists of a meat pie of uncertain origin floating in a thick pea soup of exemplary sliminess, and you were said not to be a man until you could hold it down.
Almost, Andre, but not quite. I grew up in Melbourne, and the only time I saw a pie floater was on a TV magazine segment about the peculiarities of Adelaide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie_floater
As for the bike front, there the battle is already lost.
Trek proudly touts the benefits of its rear suspension deisign, to which it attaches the description Full Floater.
https://www.trekbikes.com/au/en_AU/inside_trek/full_floater/
No doubt it's the shit.
-
Yep,
The pie floater is definitely an Adelaide delicacy!
Mike
-
Wellll, at the risk of trivializing/tangentializing a Very Serious Conversation, I can say I encountered a floater long before gravel bikes were a Thing. The variant I came to know--but not embrace, as you'll see--seems to have been a contemporary of the Melbourne floater described by the 'Strayan Tendency.
But hey, maybe it's just a Southern Hemisphere thing: In the early 1980s, I was living in Lusaka, Zambia, just as the most obvious effects of the IMF's structural adjustment programs began to make themselves felt in daily life. One of the topics of the day was the SAP's effect on the quality of SAB's Castle and Lion beers (the former renamed Mosi-oa-Tunya but the latter not Simba, that being a Zairois brew and hence déclassé.) The problem was that "floaters" had now appeared in the beer -- small, barely-discernible items of uncertain composition, colour and provenance, but definitely Not A Good Thing, no matter how thirsty you were. Zambians have a way with words, so "floaters" they became in daily parlance, the object of mockery and despairing raised eyebrows.
I've steered clear of them ever since. ;)
And as a PS: Here's more on the subject of "gravel bikes" from Jan Heine on an evidently A-grade bike for the gravelly Oregon Outback, one with 26" wheels, no less: https://www.renehersecycles.com/journal/ (https://www.renehersecycles.com/journal/)
-
All right, you guys, I give over. You've all eaten more floaters in more Australian (and African! and British!) cities than me. I admit, I ate only a bite of the disgusting thing in Melbourne.
Out for a ride on my gravel bike, because The Crane, having belatedly heard that it is a gravel bike, now insists that for its twelfth birthday I show it some actual gravel -- which will be difficult because even the smallest lane around here is decades-old blacktop. Maybe I can find some loose gravel on top of tarmacadam repairs.
Digging down into the topic "What is a "Gravel" bike really ?" it occurs to me that defining the thing negatively, it surely isn't a bike on which irreplaceable historic coachwork* can be chipped by flying gravel, or any steel bike for that matter, especially these days when manufacturers misled by environmental propaganda cover even steel bikes with soft water-based paints. By extension then, a gravel bike is best made of some corrosion-resisting material: aluminium, titanium, carbon fibre (and I'm not so sure about any resin/fibre composite because it is brittle and small pointed impacts can crack it).
* See the last three pages of the photo essay at http://coolmainpress.com/AndreJute'sUtopiaKranich.pdf
-
thankyou so much guys, I have read all the discussion of gravel and road bikes here (https://www.bikethesites.com/best-gravel-bikes/).
I kinda hit the wall contemplating which type of bike to buy. So will need your views on this.
Maybe I share with you guys my cycling habits.
I do mostly PCN/pavement cycling (~90%) and sometimes road (~10% of the time)
Most of the time I go around 20-40km on east coast PCN on rented bikes.So I have been looking for hybrid bikes. Another reason is from what I read here, hybrid bikes hit a higher speed than mtb (i'm looking to do longer distance in the future)
So far I have short listed 2 bikes that are within my budget and looks good on the spec. In fact on the verge of buying this weekend.
1) Diamondback Insight 2
2) Polygon Helios F300 (the shop told me its hybrid? seems like flat bar road bike)