Gotta buy some new bikes. Gravel and mtb. Bang for buck?

[Tandem Rider]

IME, they are two different bikes, ridden two different ways, and I use mine on different types of trails. There are a lot of trails here that a gravel bike with Gravelkings on it will leave you walking, the trails are too rugged. There are a lot of situations where an MTB leaves me feeling like this is almost riding a fat bike on pavement. I use my gravel bike more, but that's because I can easily ride it to the forest roads and blue/green trails from home and the MTB requires loading up and driving.

I would wait until I moved, check out the local situation, and then buy the one that looks like it will fill the biggest gap first. That way you can get some local intel on what really works for the locals.

[jonbek]

Hudski. 3 for 1.

[fourflys]

I see a lot of chatter about only considering MTBs from something like 2015+.. no doubt those are fantastic bikes, but I don't think you instantly get a crap bike (geometry, etc-wise) if you get something older. Certainly if you buy a late 80s/early 90s MTB, you'll have a very roadish geo, but that are bikes built before 2015 that are very serviceable.. I picked up a "grail bike" for me this past year (2011 Ibis Mojo SL) and it is fantastic!

I do realize MTBs have changed a lot over the years, but I also think the changes are more or less impactful depending on how/what you ride.. I don't bomb down trails at top speed any longer, I'm more of an XC rider at this point and I think that means some of the bigger changes (super short stems, slacker angles, ever wider bars, etc) might not be that big or better of a change for me.. maybe I'd be amazed if I rode a new Mojo, but I don't know..

Not trying to talk anyone out of buying a newer bike, just some food for thought from a roadie that occasionally likes to get dirty..

[benb]

I would have said the same thing until I went and test rode bikes this spring.

The geometry changes are basically ridiculous, and yes they make a big difference even for XC riding.

My riding might be considered a little rougher than XC if you are considering XC as glorified cross with artificial obstacles but it's still mostly XC.

The new geometry makes huge differences climbing for example. On the really really steep stuff it just keeps the bike much more in control in all ways.. picking a line, avoiding wheelspin, and avoiding wheelies.

If you haven't rode anything new from the past 5-7 years yes you will be amazed.

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by benb

I would have said the same thing until I went and test rode bikes this spring.

The geometry changes are basically ridiculous, and yes they make a big difference even for XC riding.

My riding might be considered a little rougher than XC if you are considering XC as glorified cross with artificial obstacles but it's still mostly XC.

The new geometry makes huge differences climbing for example. On the really really steep stuff it just keeps the bike much more in control in all ways.. picking a line, avoiding wheelspin, and avoiding wheelies.

If you haven't rode anything new from the past 5-7 years yes you will be amazed.

fair enough.. If I find I ride MTB a lot more when I move to Oregon next year, I'm sure I'll look to upgrade. I do have the aversion to MTB vs road because I have to load the bike up, etc like others have mentioned. But I also usually enjoy it once I'm out there, so.. hopefully I get a bit more flexible once I'm not commuting 120 miles a day..

[benb]

I consider myself really lucky that there are multiple trail systems I can ride to from my house with no need to take the car.

FWIW I'm pretty sure I said last year "It can't be that big of a difference" and someone else said the same thing to me that I needed to try new bikes before I'd get it.

[NHAero]

We helped my buddy buy a new Specialized Epic a few months ago and I should ride it to see how much it is different from my 2013 Pivot MACH 429. HTA 66.5 vs 69.3.

Originally Posted by benb

I would have said the same thing until I went and test rode bikes this spring.

The geometry changes are basically ridiculous, and yes they make a big difference even for XC riding.

My riding might be considered a little rougher than XC if you are considering XC as glorified cross with artificial obstacles but it's still mostly XC.

The new geometry makes huge differences climbing for example. On the really really steep stuff it just keeps the bike much more in control in all ways.. picking a line, avoiding wheelspin, and avoiding wheelies.

If you haven't rode anything new from the past 5-7 years yes you will be amazed.

[fourflys]

so I was doing some reading and found this, thought it was pretty interesting and appropriate to this discussion:

"In the rough
Mountain bikes have a notably slacker head tube angle because designers found that as they built bikes around increasingly slack HTAs (early production mountain bikes had HTAs not much slacker than road bikes), the bikes became more immune to the effect of hitting rocks and bumps when riding at speed. Nail a rock and the bar no longer gets twisted out of your hands sending you to the ground seemingly faster than gravity should allow. Today’s mountain bikes hit rocks and respond like someone punching the Terminator—with mild bemusement.

The slacker head tube angle plays an interesting role in gravel bikes. Because of the rough surfaces gravel bikes are meant to roll over, slowing the handling down some makes sense—again, less reactive to rocks and bumps. That slacker angle adds a second useful feature. The bigger tires of a gravel bike increase the likelihood of toe overlap, not just for smaller riders, but in all but the largest sizes, and sometimes even then. By building around a slacker HTA, that kicks the front wheel forward, increasing the clearance, though it’s still true that I encounter toe overlap on any bike in my size running a 40mm tire."

From here: https://cyclingindependent.com/the-a...ad-tube-angle/

[Likes2ridefar]

Interesting I suppose I need to reconsider my ban on suspended bikes. The reason I quit was at speed catastrophe breaking bones as described above…

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by fourflys

so I was doing some reading and found this, thought it was pretty interesting and appropriate to this discussion:

"In the rough
Mountain bikes have a notably slacker head tube angle because designers found that as they built bikes around increasingly slack HTAs (early production mountain bikes had HTAs not much slacker than road bikes), the bikes became more immune to the effect of hitting rocks and bumps when riding at speed. Nail a rock and the bar no longer gets twisted out of your hands sending you to the ground seemingly faster than gravity should allow. Today’s mountain bikes hit rocks and respond like someone punching the Terminator—with mild bemusement.

The slacker head tube angle plays an interesting role in gravel bikes. Because of the rough surfaces gravel bikes are meant to roll over, slowing the handling down some makes sense—again, less reactive to rocks and bumps. That slacker angle adds a second useful feature. The bigger tires of a gravel bike increase the likelihood of toe overlap, not just for smaller riders, but in all but the largest sizes, and sometimes even then. By building around a slacker HTA, that kicks the front wheel forward, increasing the clearance, though it’s still true that I encounter toe overlap on any bike in my size running a 40mm tire."

From here: https://cyclingindependent.com/the-a...ad-tube-angle/

MTB front+rear geometry has seen a big change due to accommodating the HTA° change, so the bikes still climb well and can handle tight+fast+off-chamber corners. Part of this is handlebars/stem/rims/tires.

A lot of gravel bikes are designed to plow straight ahead downhill ("stability") and the geometry hasn't changed much other than to slack the HTA° to kick the trail number higher. The handlebars/stem philosophy isn't really there yet, and since there's pretty big aero losses with the right width bars, probably isn't going to get there easily.

Some of the worst riding bikes are modern gravel bikes that combine older cyclocross rear ends with modern progressive gravel front ends. Wandering confused at low speeds and stiff difficult maneuvering at high speeds in tight spots.

I've been reading a ton of mid-century cycling design and I've concluded there's an idealized handling line for most gravel bikes based around trail, wheelsize/tiresize, and reach/stem length - in the manner there was one for road racing bicycles based on the same parameters. Right now modern MTB geometry is significantly better and more advanced than modern gravel bike geometry.

[TronnyJenkins]

Thanks for all the useful comments. I didn’t realize geometries had changed so much either. I think getting there and exploring what routes (gravel or mountain) I do by the house and as well filling the biggest “hole” in my stable first will be wise. My brother in law who will live two streets over will let me borrow his old Specialized full suspension mtb, though I suspect it’s a 2009 or so 26er.

[tommyrod74]

The differences in mountain bike geometry from seven years ago to today are pretty stark. That said, a good rider can easily get on a bike from before that time and be very fast. People don’t really want to hear this, but the new(est) geometries are more about making average riders better, rather than really helping extremely skilled riders go even faster - speaking of XC bikes here primarily, where climbing ability (for racing purposes) is the primary concern.

In general, this is no bad thing. It just means that for most areas of the US - where people don’t live near long, steep climbs and descents - some of the most progressive XC bikes are too much.

It also means that an older XC bike is more than sufficient for most people’s trails, and for anyone’s gravel needs.

[lorenbike]

I've tried the whole gravel bike on singletrack thing and never could get used to drop bars on trails, even fairly mellow. And I say this as a huge fan of rigid SS. Flat bars, a dropper post, and decent tire clearance (aka not 40mm gravel tires) are going to be the main advantage to enjoying trails. So many options for tires these days too, you can get a fast rolling MTB tire, and a hardtail (even rigid with 2.6 or larger tires) will still be fine to pedal to the trails and on gravel roads. Goodluck!

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by tommyrod74

The differences in mountain bike geometry from seven years ago to today are pretty stark. That said, a good rider can easily get on a bike from before that time and be very fast. People don’t really want to hear this, but the new(est) geometries are more about making average riders better, rather than really helping extremely skilled riders go even faster - speaking of XC bikes here primarily, where climbing ability (for racing purposes) is the primary concern.

In general, this is no bad thing. It just means that for most areas of the US - where people don’t live near long, steep climbs and descents - some of the most progressive XC bikes are too much.

It also means that an older XC bike is more than sufficient for most people’s trails, and for anyone’s gravel needs.

I can understand why modern slacker HTAs, longer FC, shorter CSs, and short stem/wide bars helps on steep descents. I'm not understanding why the same helps climbing.

[HenryA]

Originally Posted by NHAero

I can understand why modern slacker HTAs, longer FC, shorter CSs, and short stem/wide bars helps on steep descents. I'm not understanding why the same helps climbing.

Me too, and more.

It seems generally that modern XC bikes are made to work well on modern trails which I think are often very different from what we rode 30 years ago when it was mostly what started as foot paths or animal trails and woods two track.

I can see some advantage to keeping the front wheel in contact while the rear is fully hooked up. But thats a riding technique thing as much as bike geometry.