[Closed] Adventure Gravel bikes - just CX with marketing gimmicks?

I don't really care what we call it, but I've just taken delivery of a bright orange On-One Bish Bash Bosh and it looks fantastic! Shame mrsnickb is at work and I'm at home looking after the kids... might require a cheeky evening ride!

Nick

My stoater rohloff gets me up and down all I need it to in my riding the only limiting factor in the whole set up is me

I don't really care what we call it, but I've just taken delivery of a bright orange On-One Bish Bash Bosh and it looks fantastic! Shame mrsnickb is at work and I'm at home looking after the kids... might require a cheeky evening ride!

Oooh, tell me how you get on with the BBB - I'd just spotted it the other week and very tempted. Possibly a bit too spendy for me but ticks all the boxes for the N+1 bike...

Trek 920

A long-standing model with a current incarnation that may back up my (albeit half-arsed) assertion that so-called 'gravel' bikes are simply re-invented ATBs that are more comfortable to go the distance?

As for what to call these type of bikes, I've so far read such genre/descriptions as:

Gravel
Dirt-touring
Adventure
All-road

Is the search for a multi-purpose bike moniker a victim of market hype or of too many options/confusion?

The Kona Sutra has been around for 10 years 😆

A long-standing model with a current incarnation

To be fair they've mostly just re-used the name, the 920 historically was their top end Steel MTB, and nothing like the current model in design or intent.

Trek used 520 and 720 designations for their tourers in the past, and since the steel MTB line has been dead for years it probably made more sense to them to re-use 920 to extend the touring range.

The Kona Sutra has been around for 10 years

Just backs up what we said earlier, these bikes were always still there in the background but in the back of the catalogue and mostly ignored (at least by the popular media and trendy types), but it's nice that they are now focussing more effort on bringing new models in and new technology to the old models*.

* although new technology and tourers can be shaky ground, some peopel VERY set in their ways, some for good reason, others not so!

To be fair they've mostly just re-used the name, the 920 historically was their top end Steel MTB, and nothing like the current model in design or intent.

Thnks for putting that straight amedias, my memory lets me down. (Without meaning to derail the thread) Looking at the 1994 trek catalog (1st year of the 920?) it seems the 920 was really just a grip-shift Alivio version of the STX rapidfire shifting 930, making it their lowest-spec steel mtb in the 'Singletrack' range (970 at the top)? In which case the reasoning for re-using the name for an alu frankenroadbike is anyones guess.

[url] http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/d/15846-3/1994.pdf [/url]

Is the search for a multi-purpose bike moniker a victim of market hype or of too many options/confusion?

I thought about a re-name for 'CX' for the first Croix de Fer and ended up describing it to a few people as a rubbish CX-race bike that was better at what most of us used a CX bike for. People either got it or they didn't. It was just a bike for roads joined with bridleway link-ups to stop winter miles getting dull.
'All-road' always worked for me since they're not really 'all-terrain' in the way ATBs are/were - try riding one on natural off-road terrain and you'll not get far or manage it for long. Stick to vaguely road-like terrain and they're great.

I still think they're not as all-round as the sales pitch from some would try to pretend but a truly practical all-round bike would be too Fred-like for most. I like riding drops on bikes like this anyway, despite them being a pretty poor option for off-road riding imo. Bars for bikes like this are like tyres, divided or compromised based on your road<>off-road bias.

amedias

My mistake confusing this the 520

[img] [/img]

With this the 920

[img] [/img]

Let the industry dream up new niches, it's just means more bike options for us 😀

I pick a bike that's suitable for what I want to use it for. I wanted a carbon road bike that would take mudguards and wide tyres during winter, so I bought a disc brake "gravel bike". Its happy riding crappy roads on winter night rides, but I'll swap the tyres and take the guards off for the (few days of) summer.

I'm also glad there's more options for 40C+ drop bar disc brake bridleway bashing bikes coming through, doesn't sound as catchy as a Bridleslayer though .

@malvern yes, what I should have typed was the 9X0 series was their steel MTB series, and you're right about the 920 being lower end, I should remember I as [i]had [/i]a 970 for a while! 😳

model number minutia argumetns aside , their new 720 'light tourer' looks pretty nice. 🙂

jameso - Member
Is the search for a multi-purpose bike moniker a victim of market hype or of too many options/confusion?

I thought about a re-name for 'CX' for the first Croix de Fer and ended up describing it to a few people as a rubbish CX-race bike that was better at what most of us used a CX bike for. People either got it or they didn't.

So it really IS all your fault them jameso ! 😀

Next we will have B road bikes and A road bikes.... And you don't even know what the differences are already

We already do have A and B road bikes!

So it really IS all your fault them jameso !

Why we need names for use types is a bigger topic .. The best term I've heard relating to all this is 'Unracing' from Grant Petersen. https://www.rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?ID=109
So many things going on in bike design now that help people see that race bikes are a poor model for basing a bike on if you have no desire/likelihood to race at a high-ish level and too much industry time and energy has gone into race stuff for too long. We all buy into it to a point but most of our bikes are compromised to some extent because of it. Even if that's only in terms of lifespan, not 'performance'. Those non-race design cues and ideas aren't new at all but it's good to see signs of a swing towards bikes that involves comfort, practicality etc. For that I even have to like fat bikes : )

Who cares about the naming… so many of these bikes are looking great fun.

As mountain bikes become better and better proper mountain bikes, rather than all terrain bikes, and people realise that 700c bikes really don't need to be poor copies of proper road racing bikes, then this category will be needed more and more, and welcomed by many people… just call it whatever you want. I haven't seen a name for these bikes I like yet… and just calling them “bikes” isn't enough… so just suck up the rubbish names and love the bikes.

looks like James has already said what I wanted to say, while I was slowly jabbing away at my tablet

I've got a GT Grade Carbon Ultegra which is billed as "enduroad". Does that mean I can use it for enduros and on the road? 😉

Jameso has it spot on for me,

A truly practical all-round bike would be too Fred-like for most

[img] [/img]

My very-fred style bike.

Daft handlebars : ?
Full Mudguards : ?
Dynamo + F+R Lights : ?
Low 19" gear : ?
High 95" gear : ?

It's a genuine do-it-all utilitarian bike for me, just as home in the wilds of the cairngorms as it is for my daily commute to work or for overnight bivvys, if it is a marketing fad/gimmick then it's a bloody good one and i approve 🙂

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I had a gt grade (Ultegra carbon) on loan from the lbs for a couple of weeks. I don't know what exact genre it's supposed to be, but it has done my commute, the local fast chaingang, fire roads and singletrack with relative ease. It worked so well, I got one. Won't replace my race bike or my full sus, but I ll probably be spending more time on it than either of the others.

My giant tcx is versatile enough to complete the "Reading Roubaix" 105kms of road, track, bridle paths & singletrack in Sept last year (finished 1 off the podium!). Who said no gravel races in the uk? We're talking populated south east and there are the Wiggle cx sportif rounds that restart in February, Woodcote Oxfordshire.

The cycling network gravel bike review is worth a watch to compare bike virtues.

I don't know what exact genre it's supposed to be, but it has done my commute, the local fast chaingang, fire roads and singletrack with relative ease. It worked so well, I got one. Won't replace my race bike or my full sus, but I ll probably be spending more time on it than either of the others.

Same for my Diverge.

I don't know exactly what it's supposed to be, other than a bike. A bike that's really good to ride in all sorts of conditions and places. Also, as above, it won't replace my big bouncy beast for maximum-enduro-gnar-schralp, nor will it replace my Brompton for integrated transport excellence, but it's the bike I ride the most right now.

Weirdly triple is not a guarantee of a low gear. The road triple is an odd beast sod with a 30 tooth inner ring. Although I believe you ca swap to a smaller inner. But the middle is limited to a smallest ring of 39

The Trek Cross Rip is a triple but has a 28 sprocket at the back so not that low gearing from stock

I do find it odd that more of these versatile bikes don't come with a sub 30" gear. I know its not trendy but it certainly makes things more versatile. Good to see Genesis with 34 teeth rear blocks this year I don't see that as wall climbing like they claim. If 34 34 is all you need why does the vagabond get 28 36 and the Tour De fer 24 34? Maybe they can ride up overhangs

As of this afternoon, my Vaya now has 26 34. Just need the weather to improve so i can find a suitable cliff to try riding up.

As of this afternoon, my Vaya now has 26 34. Just need the weather to improve so i can find a suitable cliff to try riding up.

Try cutting your steerer down. It'll make that speed hump feel less like Everest.

😉

Happy Christmas, and a happy new year, Jerry!

My very-fred style bike.

Try cutting your steerer down. It'll make that speed hump feel less like Everest.

Happy Christmas, and a happy new year, Jerry!

And to you, CFH :).

I finally did the deed the other month with the Kaffenback steerer. I've kept the cut off bit for the next time we meet.

Daft handlebars : ?
Full Mudguards : ?
Dynamo + F+R Lights : ?
Low 19" gear : ?
High 95" gear : ?

Proof that even the new term gravel bike doesn't even mean one thing. The list above to me would mean touring bike (or adventure bike in today's terms)
To me a gravel bike is based on a a road bike that can take wider tyres and typically have disc brakes.

If you actually need / want the features of a 'gravel bike' (or any bike) for the type of riding you do then it isn't falling for marketing guff.

I use my Warbird more than anything else... So much so I've now sold my road bike. What made the difference were the hydro disc brakes and CX1 groupset. I've tried canti brakes, mini-V brakes and BB7s before on various bikes and they were always a bit rubbish when you went properly off road, but the hydro discs are brilliant. It's just like riding a rigid Mtb with little tyres.

Road, winter miles, off road trails, fire roads... The lot. Especially useful when the Garmin sends you down something it swears is a road but reality has other ideas.

If you run Di2 you can use a short cage XTR clutch mech on drop bar shifters, so that's taken care of there.

Especially with the advent of discs on 'road' bikes everything is really just on a continuum from road race to mountain bike, with tyre size, geometry and braze ons to fulfil different needs as required. There is no need for strict categorisations. Saying, 'this is a gravel bike' or 'this is monstercross' is not really helpful.

Sam - Member
...Saying, 'this is a gravel bike' or 'this is monstercross' is not really helpful.

A Gryphon with rack and mudguard mounts and mudguard clearance for 2.35 Big Apples would be the perfect gravel (do it all) bike. 🙂