Almost as light and fast as a road bike. But a bit more upright riding so it's more comfortable. Wider and more treaded tires means tram lines, pot holes, curbs etc. are less of a problem and can handle rough surfaces and not just asphalt. Mounting points and wider forks allow for mudguards / fenders so rain is no problem. The wider space allows for studded tires during winter. Also easier to mount panniers / luggage carriers to carry stuff home from the stores.
While I love my road bike for long rides on the weekend, I use my gravel bike daily. And it also allows me to go places I cannot go with the road bike, without having to go all mountain-bikey.
Btw, for road biking we often compare aerodynamics using "wattage per dollar". It can be surprising what then should be the first things to improve.
Cutting the bike weight or tuning for aerodynamics seems kind of pointless because I have one or two panniers on board to carry the stuff I need for work (towel and dopp kit, change of clothes, lunch, laptop, etc...). Also, exercise is one of the reasons I'm choosing to commute by bike so having to work a tiny bit harder isn't necessarily bad.
I ride a heap, I ride MTB, commute and also a gravel bike for fun, so I feel no shame getting that e-assist on the commute. I don't need it for the fitness, I'm just getting to work!
One of the big benefits of a gravel bike is indeed the tires, they can be tubeless so no more annoying pinch flats, and they can be run at really comfy pressures depending on your personal preference.
Not sure if you misunderstood my comment? I'm all for electric bikes (my GF is getting one today actually) and how they enable many more people to bike. I love seeing parents bike their kids to school on this big ebikes, zooming past hundred cars in a gridlock. But _if_ you're not going electric, a gravel is a great bike. If you're going electric, most of the problems a gravel solve aren't really a problem.
I've one on a Specialized Levo and it works great.
I've been commuting daily on a mountain-bike (chosen for the comfort of a full suspension and the braking power of disk brakes), and switching from the factory all-terrain tires to road tires about 2/3 the width has been a huge improvement: a lot less rolling resistance, and a lot more grip, especially when it's raining (despite less width).
Slick large volume gravel tires are also sold by most bicycle tire brands. Most of them are tubeless compatible which remove the need for reinforced heavy tires as any puncture usually seal itself thanks to sealant.
I've also commuted for years on thin cotton road tubulars so it really depends on the kind of roads your are riding on. But having high volume will certainly improve comfort and also allow for better grip in the wet and better ride when the bike is loaded which is often the case if you are commuting.
For me, the minute rolling resistance tradeoff between the gravel tire and a commute tire is worth it. The road and bike network here kinda suck for smoothness, I'd rattle apart if I ran a road tire.
Everyone's commute is slightly different and while I use my gravel as a commuter just like You do, there's always the matter of personal preference.
What if You prefer to ride in regular clothes and "style" is a thing? Those dutch bikes someone mentioned a few comments ago are great for that.
What if You're riding through dense traffic / cityscape half of the time? A narrow bar fixie perhaps?
I like being able to get some exercise while commuting as well, but that's not necessarily true for everyone.
I think most casual bike riders don't recognize them as a separate bike from road bikes. So they think it's either a dutch styled bike or a road bike, and if neither fit they end up commuting by car or so instead.
You still also have the classic problem that higher end bikes lose all the commuter friendly features. Carbon forks and frames often lose mounting points for fenders+rack. The marketing vision of a gravel bike is someone expecting to get muddy and who isn't trying to stuff a laptop into a saddle bag. Durable, maintenance friendly choices like threaded BBs and easy cable routing go away. You're stuck with heavy bikes with poor gear ranges, super low end components, cable brakes, etc.
Gravel bikes are sold in many different kinds, and different materials. Steel, alu, titanium, carbon, you name it. They are also build with different use in mind. Some are "racing" gravel with many lightweight high end components, other are made for bikepacking with provision for fenders, front and rear racks and usually more common standards. Those are commuters friendly.
Link: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hVZNsMpWmxk/V9rqVdtLBHI/AAAAAAAAQ...
I think Canyon is selling bikepacking gravel bike as well (Grizl). There are choices, you just need to look for them. It's true that these days availability is a problem but it's a problem with everything cycling related.
Hmm, not my experience at all. At least the market here there are no "cheap" gravels. For around $1k-$1.5k (which is the cheapest gravels available here) I've gotten hydraulic breaks, Shimano GRX groupset, an OK weight etc.
Atrocious US land use & infrastructure makes this less practical for many trips in the US, where destinations are widely spaced to allow for free/easy car parking and evasive maneuvers are often required for safety, and steep/off-road shortcuts are often useful to avoid traveling miles out of one's way on a network of arterial roads designed for fast & easy car travel at the expense of everything else, including human life. A gravel or hybrid bike is better suited for this sort of riding.
Marin Muirwoods RC came close, but was overpriced for a banger bike.
I specify those things because my Bike of Theseus went through MANY variations before I got it to where I was happy!
With the exception of the absolute professionals, most people "Racing" these events are just there to finish them, and the pros? It's basically just a road race. Gravel offers no significant challenge in handling your bike, and any reasonable set-up can win if it's light enough and the rider is fit enough. The Aero arms race certainly matters in time trials, but I remain unconvinced there's enough benefit for the actual racing. I know US Midwest gravel races are effectively flat, but acceleration is greatly improved with a light bike too.
This is all really easy stuff to answer. For instance. 75kg rider + bike. Make the bike 1kg lighter. Go up a 8% grade for 1 kilometers at 300 watts Time saved by 1kg weight reduction? 30 seconds out of 40 minutes.
Or suppose we add 300grams to the frame to make it aero, which is typical. If that reduces the CdA by .02 out of .25, you are at about a breakeven point. JUST during the 1km climb. Then you save time on all the flats and non technical downhills.
Acceleration is even less affected by bike mass. People forget that bike mass is a tiny % of total system mass (our fat asses). And mass is only one of 4 major components that affect acceleration. I'm happy to run through some acceleration scenarios if you like.
People can argue about analytics around equipment till pigs fly. It's all still just an order of magnitude smaller than the differences between being fit and not fit and a stronger rider versus a weaker rider or a coached rider versus un-coached rider.
The sport has separated into riding enthusiasts and equipment enthusiasts and the bike companies have completely brainwashed equipment enthusiasts.
Your times don't make any sense either... 8% for 1km takes vastly less time than you're talking about at the power levels you're talking about. You're probably off an order of magnitude there. A rider with an FTP of around 300 will probably climb closer to 10km @ 8% in 40 minutes.
Nothing is more tiring than being at the start of a race and there's someone with a $10k+ bike and a gut talking smack about bikes to someone everyone else knows is going to win the race and the guy with the $10k bike is getting dropped & pulled from the race. One person spent all their time on training and the other spent all their time researching & buying equipment.
I've ridden heavy bikes, and I've ridden light bikes. Light bikes feel better, rotational weight mattering more than anything else.
Yes, please continue! I'm digging your analysis.
1. "lower BB" references a lower bottom-bracket, the part that holds the axle to which the cranks attach.
2. "CX", or cyclo-X is short for cyclocross, which is a style of bicycle race which takes place over varied terrain conditions such as pavement, wooded trails, grass, steep hills and obstacles requiring the rider to quickly dismount, carry the bike while navigating the obstruction and remount.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclo-cross
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclo-cross_bicycle
The cyclocross bikes appear similar to road racing cycles, the major differences between them being frame geometry, and wider clearances for cx bikes to fit larger tires and generally still function after accumulating large amounts of mud and other debris.
edit: Thank you @jerrycrunch! I've incorporated your bb info.
Sortof. The key defining difference is that a cyclocross bike meets the UCI rules for cyclocross, while a gravel bike doesn't. In a sense, the gravel bike trend is the result of consumers rejecting the UCI's definition of what an off-road-capable drop-bar bike should be.
That being said depending on your leg length to upper body torso length you can of course size a cyclocross bike up or a gravel bike down and achieve sort of the same effect. In my opinion these types of geometry questions do not come up nearly enough in relation to the rider, however, as someone with a very long torso is going to be quite uncomfortable with a bike with a short top tube even if the "size" of the bike is correct for their leg length / height. And of course the opposite can also be true. Ideally we should be sizing and matching frame geometry to the persons geometry regardless of the intended use case of the bike.
Or in other words, subjectively, weight on your body doesn't cost as much as weight you're hauling whether on your back or on your bike.
Nope, I can't explain it either, but I've got over 3000 miles hiking/backpacking and it holds true. Can't measure it, didn't try, but I can assure you that feeling worn down is roughly equivalent to being worn down. Getting a pound of weight off your back and into your belly (or the reverse when you fill up with water) is noticeable.
I sold my fancy lightweight cyclocross bike around this time and built myself a fully custom bike with a hodgepodge of parts - I wanted something that looked a bit vintage cool and also not as stealable so I went with the pinnacle of late 1980s touring frames (steel) which is obviously not light but not all that heavy either. Bought lightweight 29er rims + 35C quality touring tires, wide flared dirt drop bars, nice 9sp bar end shifters with a triple crank up front (9sp being my favourite in that you can still friction shift it easily if needed and the bar ends can easily switch from indexed to friction at the flick of a switch). The thing absolutely flys on gravel, pavement, dirt roads, shitty sidewalks - basically is my do everything bike for general use from groceries to exercise.
Anything that's made of metal symply was never competitive to begin with
While this is a "on the paved road" race... you should check out Horribly Hilly Hundreds in Wisconsin - https://www.horriblyhilly.com
As long as I don't weigh my ideal weight and aren't planning on becoming a machine myself, I have zero interest in spending anything in optimizations which will make my bike a better one. I don't care if it could go faster or be more lightweight, spending 600€ for the bike was enough. The cheapest 30€ Schwalbe tires are good enough; I didn't even have a single flat tire this summer after I learned to avoid driving over blackberry branches.
And I really enjoy it. During this summer, with the extreme heat, where I loved the 28°C in the shade of the woods I was thinking about how much I'm going to hate this fall, and now that it's here, I love breathing that cold, fresh air and smelling the humid forest. The only thing I hate is when there's frozen snow on pavement in the winter.
The only thing I spend money on for biking is quality clothing appropriate for the seasons and accessories like good smartphone holders or bags.
As a casual rider you'll be the bottleneck for years before your gear matters even the slightest
For absolute performance, maybe, but for enjoyment of riding the gear definitely matters. For a beginner it's important that the ride is enjoyable so they don't get discouraged and call it quits.
For relative performance against yourself, and in all honesty that's most of us really get out of it in the end, it's good to see times drop and speed increase just because you bought a better bike.
For me it was the other way around, I moved from a very aero cheap fixed gear to a boxy (but with a plentiful cassette) midlevel gravel bike. I was expecting that the gears I had extra would make me have faster times, however the fat tires and less aero profile makes me about half a minute slower for a 6km round. The power I'm pushing however, has increased, maybe because I can keep it more uniform by shifting to lower gears when I get into windier sections. Shrug.
All I want to say is that good gear is beneficial, maybe not for performance, but definitely for enjoyment of a ride. And at the beginning that's pretty important for someone to build a habit out of riding.
IMO there is not actually a ton of what you talk about. If anything, it's the opposite, a ton of really inexperienced folks posting about their first 20 mile ride. Note that this isn't a bad thing, just that serious cyclists aren't really hanging out there.
Calling a kit cosplay attire is silly though. There are huge benefits to a bib and a jersey.
I'm not wearing spandex because I need to be the fastest guy. I'm wearing it because it has a chamois, convenient pockets, and is a bit more aero (which means that days with a killer headwind are slightly less bad)
It is however really important to get the posture and pedaling technique right. Way too many people in expensive gear do push-only instead of a push-pull. That’s like biking 101. It’s much better to get that smooth pedaling and core support. It’ll prevent injuries and fatigue.
I have a modern race bike, less than 3y old with some but not all of the latest aero features. I also still own my 30y old racing bike that I used to race until 20years ago (it was already old bike then). It stays at my parents place and I ride it maybe twice a year. If you ask any bike reviewer he will tell that old bike is obsolete, feel much slower and make me lose 45s over the course of a 50km ride according to the data given by the manufacturer. If you ask me, sure I feel a difference, mostly in feeling, when I start riding the bike. But after 5 minutes all this is forgotten and I enjoy the ride as much as on my more modern bike. And that bike is perfectly fine surrounded by superbikes in a group ride. Actually I did one this summer with a group that tend to stay together but ride at a fast steady pace until the last 20k where the wait "policy" disappear and people start to attack the climbs at max pace. I ended up in the 5 rider leading group out of maybe 40 and I was totally out of shape.
That old bike would sell for 300-400€ in the second hand market right now. The difference with a 2k and 8k modern bike is much lower.
But I also recognize that there are those who are already super efficient and want to get the absolutely most out of their gear, even improving it as much as possible, which is really ok by me. I wish I were at that point, but I think I'd first have to go to the gym for that.
Let’s not forget that the most important aspect of averaging 20mph on grave roads: drafting, low body weight and high fitness.
If you watch footage of the unbound gravel race they mention, the winners are with a group of riders until the very end.
The fastest riders are professionals sponsored by the companies trying to sell you this aero gear.
If you want to ride faster ride in a group, find your ideal body weight and spend money on a coach. Only then spend money on bike parts beyond the basic lubricated chain, correct tire psi, etc.
Long distance gravel cycling is a relatively new sport and technology and engineering is still in its infancy. There is only minimal design crossover between a fully aero triathlon bike designed for going 112 miles as fast as possible, and a bike ridden for 350 miles by a top finisher at a race like Umbound XL.
Jan Heine isn’t even trying to sell you aero parts. Maybe tires, a journal subscription, or some nice looking parts, but his brand doesn’t sell aero parts. His website doesn’t even offer the aero fairings he used, nor HS r contact info for the framebuilder that built the bike he raced.
And he of course conveniently ignores all this stuff makes about 1/10th the difference rider fitness makes. He is a very fit/accomplished racer, at least he controls that variable, he does most of the test riding himself.
If there's one piece of equipment to buy first & ASAP, it'd be a powermeter and something to display the readout on.
Riding in a group is of course great, but first You got to have the legs to catch up and then the body weight / metabolism to keep up. Having the core / flexibility to be able to spend hours in somewhat aero position doesn't hurt either.
It always makes me laugh to see slightly overweight people on carbon frames. Having a few kilos over myself, I always thought I'd rather spend money / time / effort losing 3-4kg of fat, rather than mulling over how to shave 100g off of the groupset or 300g of wheels weight...
Sarcasm over, one of the funniest cycling stories i ever encountered. My work had a little low-key "bike club", a few guys cycling on warm evenings. One of the partners was a key member so over time non-bike guys started wiggling in for networking purposes.
One guy, with no clue how to ride, drops 2k++ on a full carbon bike, high end components etc. Cometh the first hill, and we find ourselves waiting at the top. 2 mins, 5 mins, finally 10-15 mins in one guy turns around to check up.
The carbon bike cyclist figured how to shift up, but didn't know how to shift down, and was trying desperately to climb in a downhill gear.
Not just keep up, if you are riding in a group you need to be fit enough to take your turn on the front where you aren't draughting (at least if the group you are riding with is your team).
The actual team dynamics of professional road racing are fascinating, much like F1 they'll often pick the strongest and expect everyone else to support them.
To improve speed, make the bike more comfortable so muscles can be more relaxed. To improve speed further, reduce cross section while maintaining a comfortable ride. For the last few percent, get a suit that sits tight.
All the rest is for those that want to save five seconds over an ironman ride, where group riding is not allowed. But hey, tri bikes do look cool, have fun.
All that said, I do agree with your sentiment that shedding a few bricks is going to be more beneficial than shedding a few thousand on a new bike (or rims!). Hell, you might save yourself a divorce in the process!
But reading "The secret race" by Hamilton (one of Armstrong's team mates), they do focus obsessively on it. They would often ride for hours, then take sleeping medication and go to bed without eating.
Ah, the smell of fresh gatekeeping in the morning. You don't know what road these people are on, just their current state. For all you know, they've already dropped dozens of pounds and are happy with their own improvements. Never look down on a fat person on a bike.
It's definitely very significant for european-style touring races, but people overstate it for even high-level amateur rides especially in flatter areas. Which is most gravel riding.
The problem is that there are so many variables with riders. For example, just a slight change in head position can increase drag more than any improvement in frame tube shape could save.
Weirdly "aero socks" are both a thing and make a big difference to the point that they are heavily regulated by the UCI.
Any cylindrical part of the bike or rider is going to perform badly so if you can encourage the airflow to stay attached around it you reduce the amount of effort required to move you forward, hence aero clothing being a big deal.
If you're a serious cyclist then it's pretty easy to spend money on good quality clothing.
Silly question but can I do these trails on my full suspension mountain bike, or will I be mercilessly mocked and possibly chased out of town?
I already have a mountain bike and a road bike so not keen to add a third!
There's always the debate / meme of "are gravel bikes just 1990's hardtail mountain bikes with drop bars?" and ... the jury's still out on that one ;-)
AFAIK a full suspension is an overkill, but if it's what You got, go for it. You'll just be a bit slower.
If You're looking for some testing, perhaps try to just get yourself a new pair of gravel tyres that fit Your wheels. That's by far the biggest source of resistance. If it's fun, pick up from there. There are plenty of videos on youtube on how to hack into a gravel bike a cheap old frame (either hardtail MTB, or some CX / touring frames). Doesn't have to more than 100-200EUR / USD in the end.
Yes. It will be a bit more work on the pedalling front vs a dedicated gravel bike, but I doubt you will encounter any bike snobbery. I have gravel trails near where I live, and you see all kinds of bikes tackling them.
I would however lock out the rear suspension, and probably the front too. The high volume tires at the right pressure will likely provide all the suspension you need for gravel and your pedaling will be more efficient.
As far as being mercilessly mocked, that reminds me of an old adage. We spend our youth worrying about what other people think. In middle age we decide we don't care what other people think. As we get older, we finally realize no one was thinking about us.
> I already have a mountain bike and a road bike so not keen to add a third!
Why would you say that? :)
In addition, their rolling distance tests include one factor which most standardised rigs didn’t: the losses from hysteresis when uneven surfaces have to lift/return your mass over a bump. I think soft wide tyres would be even more advantageous than most people realise once real losses on real roads are factored in, and compared at speeds most cyclists go at (i.e most people don’t average 30kph). In fact, even using average trip speeds as the comparator would be daft because that would include downhill sections where riders are actually braking, or don’t really care about rolling resistance because the difference between 50 and 55kph downhill makes no practical difference.
Josh Poertner from Silca is also good but has things to sell.
Of course what everyone is saying above is right -- fitness and rider weight matters the most. But it is fun to look at this stuff especially once you have achieved some level of fitness.
I would not have guessed that. Could a more efficient shape be made?
https://cyclite.cc/en/products/handle-bar-aero-bag-01
https://torstenfrank.wordpress.com/2021/12/07/aerodynamik-vo...
There's lots of things you can do - apart from losing a lot of weight, clothing and helmet design is probably the simplest, there's some good references to things that can be done here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12283-017-0234-1#...
>I don’t always use the aero tuck. I find that it’s not very comfortable for more than a few minutes at a time
I cycle on a time trial bike (not on gravel) - which has a higher saddle and longer frame so back and arms can get straight and horizontal. It took a lot of effort to get comfortable physically and mentally in that position (you hands feel a very long way from the brakes) and you do loose quite a bit of control in that position, but I don't see why a slightly higher saddle and arms horizontal but wider with hands at the edge handlebars in line with legs wouldn't be possible.
But then again if roadies were really all that concerned about aero and efficiency they'd switch to recumbent bikes...
Bar bags of any size or shape are really slow.
A much better solution is something like a Tailfin aeropack[2].
I cannot recommend him, his videos or articles enough. He lives on the bike, literally, and he applies an unrivaled dedication and passion to thinking and writing about this stuff while on the road. He has tests, science and real world experience to back him up too.
Also, MotoGP is absolutely worth a deeper look for anyone who found this article interesting. They've recently started taking aerodynamics to another level with front and rear winglets in a way that wasn't done before.
I have an idea about that, and I would like to explore it. Not having a mechanical engineering background, what do you think would be the best way to build a prototype, patent it, etc? Is there any engineering firm that would provide such service, let's say in Europe?
