Editor’s note: This is one side of a two-part opinion piece about gravel bikes. Be sure to read the other half here.
Rolling into the hills on low traffic dirt roads and paths is something that many road and mountain bike riders have done for most of our lives. It’s a safer and less stressful way to exercise than riding car-crammed tarmac. The famed RAGBRAI race/ride has been spinning up dust clouds across the state of Iowa since 1973, and Italy’s Strade Bianche has proven an annual showcase of athletic dirt road prowess since 2007. Now we have a specific name and at least two genres of specialty bikes designed to tame the unpaved. Given the history of dirt road riding that dates back before the first Tour de France, is there anything genuinely new about “gravel bikes” or is it simply clever marketing?
When the word gravel first appeared on bike frames, they were largely rebranded cyclocross bikes or hardtail mountain bikes with drop bars. Those frames have morphed over the years, and gravel bikes now have lower bottom brackets, longer wheelbases, and slacker headtube angles than CX frames for added stability and comfort. Many of those frames have also widened their stance to accommodate larger tires for additional grip and cushion, and some offer internal dropper post routing and suspension.
So what sets these new bikes apart from classic XC hardtails with drop bars or cyclocross race bikes?
Singletracks staff writer Matt Miller and I have discussed this topic a few times, and we individually typed up our perspective on the burgeoning genre. For context, Matt recently purchased a new gravel bike, and I ride an older cyclocross bike or hardtail on dirt roads.
I feel that a good portion of the “gravel genre” is just skillful marketing aimed at convincing folks to buy another bike that they likely don’t need. We already had bikes with many of the same characteristics that gravel bikes are being designed around. Anyone with a good cyclocross bike or XC hardtail already has a bike that will perform fantastically on graveled or dirt roads, and they could better spend their new-bike allowance somewhere else. Old steel road frames with spacing for 28mm or wider tires also ride nicely through the countryside.
The difference between a CX frame and that of a race-bred gravel bike is akin to the distinction between a full-sus bike with 150mm of travel being deemed a “trail bike” where a 160mm bike gets the “enduro” tag. Either the CX or gravel bike could be swapped to race cyclocross or dirt roads in nearly the same way. Similarly, a burlier adventure/all-road gravel bike is just a hardtail with drop bars. They are little more than labels.
I can understand why elite racers who compete in events like Crusher in the Tushar, Dirty Kanza, or Grinduro might want a special bike for those events, but the majority of consumers buying gravel bikes are likely not competing in elite-level races that require those unique frame and component nuances. Most of us could enjoy the same roads on our existing XC or ‘cross bikes.
For the adventure biking crowd, who want 2+” tires and suspension on their drop bar bike so they can ride any surface in front of them, well those bikes have been around for a long time. Salsa Cycles, for example, had a stock drop bar mountain bike in its line long before anyone cared to attach the word “gravel” to it. The frame was covered in cage mounts, ready to rip whatever and wherever. It’s not a new or novel notion to throw a curly-bar on a hardtail so you can have more hand positions and improved aerodynamics on long rides. What is new is that some savvy marketing folks saw a way to fabricate a genre and sell us more gear, rather than sticking with the existing “drop bar mountain bike” distinction.
So why should I care that someone made up a new bike genre? The answer is two-fold. One, I work in the bike industry, and people frequently ask me for advice on bike purchases. When friends inquire about gravel bikes, I try to steer them toward a versatile whip that best facilitates their dreamiest adventures. In most cases, the winner is a sweet hardtail that they already own. “Put drop bars and narrower tires on it if you like.” The second reason is that the words we use to describe and market things hold power and influence, and co-opting the word “gravel” as if it were a new phenomenon disregards the history and lived experiences of loads of folks who don’t like riding in traffic. I love change and nuance in life and sport, but not in this way that feels like consumption for consumption’s sake.
Finally, regardless of how I currently feel about the genre, if a gravel bike makes you want to get outside and ride, it’s likely the best bike for you. If you didn’t already own any of the aforementioned options for riding dirt roads, a slightly slackened CX frame with mountain bike tires might just make your goldilocks bed.
Read Matt’s opposite take on gravel bikes here.
I’ve gotta agree here. Brian’s argument is one of semantics – yes the difference between a “gravel” bike and a “CX” bike is akin to the difference between “trail” and “enduro”, and what’s wrong with that? We have more categories of bike than ever before, but that’s only because those distinctions help us to quickly describe the way a bike rides.
Yes the differences between a gravel bike and a CX bike are small, but they add up to something much larger. I’m not a road cyclist, so when I hop on a CX bike, I really struggle with them because they’re designed to be a race bike first and foremost. Gravel bikes to me feel a lot more comfortable generally, and it’s the small changes in tires, geometry etc. that make them feel that way and it’s helpful to have that pigeon hole to put them in.
Also don’t forget that while ‘gravel’ as a type of riding has been around for a long time, those bikes were typically (poorly) modified road bikes. Over the last few years there have been specific technological innovations that have allowed gravel bikes to be a thing. Things like reliable tubeless tires, disc brakes, geometry, lighter/stronger materials etc.
Well I disagree with most of this. I’m a mountain biker as are almost everyone I ride with and know who rides, very few of us had an old cx bike just laying around and my 10 year old XC hardtail weighs 30ish lbs. I bought a mid level aluminum gravel bike and its perfect for gravel, around 20 lbs and a blast on gravel. Most of the serious riders have done the same around here as it opens up so much more terrain and allows riding in the wet spring. Could I ride that old hardtail, of course and I did before I got the gravel bike… But it wasn’t near asuch fun on gravel/dirt roads.
You should never go out an buy a bike because some marketing guy came up with a new word for a bike with X minor differences. However… lets remember how we got here. First, for a great many years, road bikes got more focused on road racing, with geometry and tire clearance better suited to the Tour de France than the Tour de Neighborhood. CX bikes stayed… well… about the same. People started purchasing CX bikes because they needed tire clearance or wanted fenders for blah months or (wait for it) their state was 90% gravel roads. But pure CX bikes (especially those of a few years ago) tend to just a bit off for long rides on gravel. A little bit longer, a little more slack seemed to feel better. And some point some marketing guy took this and ran.
Yet, someone came to me and said they wanted a bike with “curly-swirly” bars as they say, I couldn’t recommend a gravel bike fast enough. They are comfortable on the road, they are comfortable on gravel, they are poised regardless of the conditions. Typically they are geared better, think average Joe and not racer Joe.
I’ve been riding dirt roads and smooth trails on road bikes for a long time. The only problem is that road bikes at some point could not longer accept wide tires (i have vintage 10 speeds which have plenty of space for a 32mm, and a newer road bike with clearance for 25mm). Drifting away from the race-oriented side of things and slackening up road bikes for mixed-surface riding is a cool, but you definitely don’t need a gravel bike if you already have a ‘cross / hybrid / xc. That being said, if mixed-surfaced rides are your cup of tea and are in the market for a new roadie-style bike, it’s hard not to give a gravel a serious look.
I really do not like the gravel bike as a category. In general I do not like bikes to get into hair splitting categories, like gravel and cyclocross, or endurance road and performance road. I can find examples of endurance road, cyclocross, and gravel bikes that are far too similar to warrant separate categories. So what’s the problem with the semantics? There are two main ones that I see:
In the late oughts, cyclocross bikes were getting more and more versatile due to better designs and more tire availability. Gone were the days of bespoke frames, nuances of cantilever brake adjustment, and tubular tires. Disc brakes, tubless tires, and better frame designs allowing for 40mm tires made our cyclocross bikes more fun and versatile, but still tough and racable. Now with gravel bikes coming out, cyclocross bikes are going back to being dedicated race machines with barely sufficient clearance for 32mm tires. So why not buy a gravel bike? Well, gravel bikes are now becoming encumbered with extra braze-ons, low and slack geometry, dropper posts, 2x drive trains, and even suspension. None of that is appropriate for racing. This situation just kinda sucks for people who race cyclocross but want to have a bike thats both racable and rideable (and know that the popularity in gravel events in the oughties is due to the popularity of cross in the oughts.) There’s too many things about gravel bikes that make them bad for technical riding in bad conditions.
I think overspecialization is bad for bike companies. If the cross bikes and gravel bikes and / or hardtails in a bike manufactures product line are truly different, then they will have different molds or tube sets for each. Those tooling and development costs need to be amortized over fewer bike sales, which drive up costs for the consumer and for the manufacturer. In addition, you end up with having products that are competing with your own products, and confusing customers. Again there are so many cross bikes that clear 40mm tires, and so many gravel bikes where 40mm is the maximum. That’s just dumb. If I were a cycling product manager, I would only manufacture 1 CX/gravel frame and spec it with 700×32 or 40mm tires and 1x for the racers, and 650x50mm tires for the gravel set, which also has the handy side effect of dropping the bottom bracket slightly.
The gravel craze is just a phase. People were tired of road racing for 3-4 hours only to get dropped, so they started racing cyclocross. Then they got tired of driving 3-4 hours to race for 54 minutes. So now they’re driving 3-4 hours to race 8 hours on gravel. They’re going to get tired of that too. People are always looking for the next thing, thinking its going to revitalize the sport for themselves or for their business. Product managers need to stop trying to stoke the N+1 effect or the race format dujour and focus on their core competencies and drive toward efficiency and delivering the best possible product to consumers, which is usually the most versatile one. There will always be the core market base of folks who ride all the time and won’t quit the sport, these people ride enough such that they need to replace their equipment with some frequency. That’s the hard market but that’s the real one.
Great article, and I have to agree with you. One question: why is only hardtails mentioned as being gravel-viable? What about a lightweight full-suspension XC with dual lockout? Wouldn’t that be just as (or at least close to) efficient on gravel. I would argue that the suspension is a blessing when you come across the really rough stuff and/or the washboard bumps at high speed.
I like the frugal simplicity of biking but that’s because it works for me. A steel h/t plus bike and trail Geo as is used for bike pack adventures or kind of do-all is the ticket. No racing, big drops, gaps etc… and this offers just the right feedback with some cush a 58 year old set of bones finds as good compromise. I agree- If you have the cash laying around just to spend, by all means let’s feed the marketing Dept and save up for the next nuanced rig that’s 98.5% of you/we may ride or own already. Maybe for many who don’t wrench or care to learn, swapping tires, wheels or handlebars is too much effort or time. The cost of n+1 is the answer. 🙂
good post. refreshingly honest.
fyi the links to matt’s article are not working.
Correction -> RAGBRAI in it’s current form is primarily a paved road endeavor although there are some optional gravel loops.