Gravel is as old as cycling! —Rene Herse content

[witcombusa]

Is it still a gravel bike if I ride it on dirt? Or will I need a dirt bike for that...???

Incremental marketing. What it takes to get folks to buy something else from them than what they told you you needed last time.

[EB]

Wait wait wait but Tom Ritchey rides a road bike with 28s up Dirt Alpine on the SF peninsula every day… but he’s in the mountain bike hall of fame. So is gravel hall of fame like a tire size thing like a UCI race?

[phishrabbi]

I'm unable to ride my road bike with 25mm tires in the loose sand which pervades the dirt roads I ride in the Colorado front range. My rear wheel would spin out on ascents and I would crash and hurt myself on descents if I were to try it.

However, on my cross bike with 38mm knobbies, I can ride these roads just fine.

[rain dogs]

The only thing more annoying than sharing the profound insight that any bicycle can be ridden on a gravel surface with varying levels of suitability, is.....

hating on the concept/definition of "Gravel" while simultaneously trying to redefine/reconceptualize it to some other equally vague, tangential idea. We've already been doing this dance for what? 4, maybe 5 years? Are people still writing these articles?

Do the same people have the same reaction when they see someone riding a "Mountain" bike on asphalt roads? Or a "Road" bike in the mountains.

Over/under when we stop writing such "but...but...gravel" editorials? I say 2025.

[paredown]

This part rang true

Locally, we had the Spokane River Roubaix – which I raced way back in the 1990s with my college cycling team (above). We all entered the race on our road bikes, with 21.5 mm tubular tires! We were definitely ‘grinding’ through the loose gravel back then. I remember it was epic, but not that much fun – simply because we didn’t have bikes suitable for gravel yet.

The few times that we rode gravel BITD--it was "grinding' too--on skinny tubulars. You could do it--and even go fast some of the time, but it could be hairy on the loose stuff...

Thought experiment--how much worse than a current purpose built gravel bike, would a quality race frame from say the '70s (lets say Reynolds 531; '70s because of clearances/more relaxed geo), shod with a set of wheels built with current wider rims and current gen tires? (throw in what would fit--like rando bars maybe, a mtb rear and wide cluster etc?)

This is not meant to imply that nothing has improved--but I'm curious how stable you would feel, and how efficient/inefficient it would be?

[reuben]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

The only thing more annoying than sharing the profound insight that any bicycle can be ridden on a gravel surface with varying levels of suitability, is.....

hating on the concept/definition of "Gravel" while simultaneously trying to redefine/reconceptualize it to some other equally vague, tangential idea. We've already been doing this dance for what? 4, maybe 5 years? Are people still writing these articles?

Look, I've built the box for gravel and it HAS to fit. And don't give me any of that square peg/round hole crap. Just push harder and it'll fit, I'm positive. Count of three, OK? One, two, PUSH!!!

[NHAero]

I wonder how many who hate on the bikes that take chubby tires have ridden one. I've ridden D2R2 on 28mm road tires and last year on 38mm tubeless tires (and disc brakes, horrors). It was easier and more fun on the latter bike. My Bob Jackson maxes out at 32mm tires, I think if it had been built for 38mm tires, and properly sized for me, I'd never have bought another bike, brakes not withstanding.

What I see in my older friends (my age) who don't get different bikes every year (month?) like some of us, is that their old road bikes are really limited in the tire size and they get a "gravel bike" and love it. I'm thinking of one with an older Colnago, and another with a Trek. What's the problem? Sure there's marketing wrapped up in this.

One final point. When I rode the 109 mile all-paved loop in VT in October, I ended the day feeling good, nothing hurt. I debated whether to take the Firefly (700Cx25) or Strong (650Bx38) and took the Strong. I feel that part of the reason I felt so good if the extra cush of the bigger tires at about half the pressure.

[shoota]

Originally Posted by paredown

Thought experiment--how much worse than a current purpose built gravel bike, would a quality race frame from say the '70s (lets say Reynolds 531; '70s because of clearances/more relaxed geo), shod with a set of wheels built with current wider rims and current gen tires? (throw in what would fit--like rando bars maybe, a mtb rear and wide cluster etc?)

Can confirm that this works well, I've done it several times. The biggest factor around here is tire width. Acceptable starts at 38mm. If you can fit that in your 70/80s frame then you aren't losing out on much.

[dustyrider]

Originally Posted by RWL2222

Thats the point of the article pretty much. Too bad my framing of it threw you off.

Hey don’t let my lack of interest in something I already believe deter you. I’m sure the rhetorical question hooked plenty of folks.

[rain dogs]

I find it curious that on a forum that celebrates "N+1" so much that owning 28 bikes is regularly celebrated, that the concept of adding a gravel bike to the "collection" is seen as not only as unnecessary, but solely for those who are slaves to the marketing overlords.

Will all the versatility of the gravel bike befuddle people and be to much a big concept change from the regular necesssary dilemmas of:
"SLX or MAX?"
"Wired or Wireless?"
"Aero road or Aero climbing road?"
"Fully integrated cockpit vs semi integrated?"
"9200 vs 9100 vs 9000?"

[NHAero]

+1

Originally Posted by rain dogs

i find it curious that on a forum that celebrates "n+1" so much that owning 28 bikes is regularly celebrated, that the concept of adding a gravel bike to the "collection" is seen as not only as unnecessary, but solely for those who are slaves to the marketing overlords.

Will all the versatility of the gravel bike befuddle people and be to much a big concept change from the regular necesssary dilemmas of:
"slx or max?"
"wired or wireless?"
"aero road or aero climbing road?"
"fully integrated cockpit vs semi integrated?"

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

i find it curious that on a forum that celebrates "n+1" so much that owning 28 bikes is regularly celebrated, that the concept of adding a gravel bike to the "collection" is seen as not only as unnecessary, but solely for those who are slaves to the marketing overlords.

+2

[mtechnica]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

The only thing more annoying than sharing the profound insight that any bicycle can be ridden on a gravel surface with varying levels of suitability, is.....

hating on the concept/definition of "Gravel" while simultaneously trying to redefine/reconceptualize it to some other equally vague, tangential idea. We've already been doing this dance for what? 4, maybe 5 years? Are people still writing these articles?

Do the same people have the same reaction when they see someone riding a "Mountain" bike on asphalt roads? Or a "Road" bike in the mountains.

Over/under when we stop writing such "but...but...gravel" editorials? I say 2025.

Lol this

Also a gravel bike is a specific kind of bike.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

I find it curious that on a forum that celebrates "N+1" so much that owning 28 bikes is regularly celebrated, that the concept of adding a gravel bike to the "collection" is seen as not only as unnecessary, but solely for those who are slaves to the marketing overlords.

Will all the versatility of the gravel bike befuddle people and be to much a big concept change from the regular necesssary dilemmas of:
"SLX or MAX?"
"Wired or Wireless?"
"Aero road or Aero climbing road?"
"Fully integrated cockpit vs semi integrated?"
"9200 vs 9100 vs 9000?"

?? have you looked through the "show me your gravel bikes" thread?

many many people here own modern gravel bikes. I dislike when people show up in threads and characterize "the forum" as having a single opinion that is simply not true.

[witcombusa]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

I find it curious that on a forum that celebrates "N+1" so much that owning 28 bikes is regularly celebrated, that the concept of adding a gravel bike to the "collection" is seen as not only as unnecessary, but solely for those who are slaves to the marketing overlords.

I suspect there are folks here with a LOT more than only 28 bikes...

I'm only using the term 'bike' going forward. Not even old or new.