What is a "Gravel" bike really ?

[energyman]

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 ?

[PH]

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.

[Moronic]

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.

[PH]

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. 

[JohnR]

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.

[PH]

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)

[Danneaux]

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.

[Danneaux]

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.

[mickeg]

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.

[mickeg]

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.

[Moronic]

*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. 

[Andre Jute]

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.

[Danneaux]

You need a bike for each type of gravel, Dan.

Oh, boy! I was looking for a reason for n+1... 

Best,

Dan.

[martinf]

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.

[mickeg]

...
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. 

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.