[Closed] Gravel bike or CX bike? What's the difference?

geometry, tyre clearance, weight, bottle mounts and about £300

CX is for racing and needs tyres no wider than 32mm. Comfort isn't a consideration.

Gravel/adventure is what most folk actually want. Wider tyres, more relaxed angles, comfort. Might even have rack mounts.

What Jo B said - but a couple of years back before gravel became a thing then 'cyclocross' bikes would often have rack mounts, bottle mounts, and all the accoutrements of what is now called a gravel.

A true CX is stripped down for 60 mins of effort around a muddy field, nothing more that it needs.

All above gravel bikes are better on the road between tracks where the cross bike is better off-road not that much between them generally the gravel bike is heavier.

gravel bikes are better on the road between tracks where the cross bike is better off-road

Whys that then?

Uh oh. Now you've done it. 15 pages and a ban, I reckon. Biscuit anyone?

both are not as good as a true touring bike, which is as capable and has been as capable for many many years.

Touring bike doesn’t sound cool tho 😂

Depends on the Gravel bike (and the touring bike).

In general gravel bikes originate from the USA where they have a network of unpaved roads to ride/race on. So started off as pseudo-CX bikes with less mud clearance and angles closer to a road bike. Now they've gone the other way and tend to have bigger tyres (<45mm) and more relaxed angles.

There's also slightly more burly variations like the salsa fargo and vaya. Genesis vagabond etc which are designed to take 29er wheels and tyres.

Then there's 650b gravel bikes which take MTB tyres, but keep them more compact (closer to CX wheel diameter).

Just been for  CX/gravel clubrun, whilst I like my CX bike I took the rigid 29er, I was slower up hills (I would have been anyway tbh) but was way ahead on anything even slightly uneven (ie a mildly rutted green lane or patch of gravel).

Well I find the cross bike has a shorter top tube so is sharper in turning and handling off road and is slightly shorter in height much better in mud the gravel bike has a longer wheelbase that's what I find between my two 52cm Treks one cross one gravel.

Just been for  CX/gravel clubrun

In Reading?

Well I find the cross bike has a shorter top tube so is sharper in turning and handling off road

So like the opposite of what makes modern mtb's good handlers?

In reality, very little. Unless you are picking a bike from the extreme ends of the bell curve.

Also, in reality a high end gravel or cx bike serves perfectly well as a road bike too.

You can talk about B.B. drop, stack height and reach but the differences are usually minor.

N+1 marketing

gravel - slacker head angle, more bottle mounts, room for bigger tyres.

cx- less sloping top tube to aid shouldering

see also racing gravel e.g. warbird & long distance bike packing/adventure gravel e.g. tripster AT

In reality, very little. Unless you are picking a bike from the extreme ends of the bell curve.

Also, in reality a high end gravel or cx bike serves perfectly well as a road bike too.

You can talk about B.B. drop, stack height and reach but the differences are usually minor.

N+1 marketing

Agreed, there's not much in it when you get down to the realities of riding them. I raced my CAADX today 50 mins breathing out my aris yet it has rack, bottle mounts, and I can ride it all day in comfort. It's a very different proposition to a head down XC MTB race machine, where you'd really not fancy more than a couple of hours on one, CX bikes are fundamentally comfy.

Probably the tires are the one unequivocal difference-maker - 40mm + rubber is a signfiicant change and I guess won't fit in most cross bikes.

In Reading

Yes.........

(Squints suspiciously and wonders who's rumbled me)

I'll give you a clue, I was the one that looked like I was from STW.

I went from a Ridley X-bow (definitely CX) to a Tripster AT (definitely gravel) and the difference is very noticable.

Fatter tyres, slacker head angle and flared drops make the AT far more versatile off road than the X-bow was. There's nothing I've ridden on the AT that the X-Bow couldn't cope with, but the AT makes it much more enjoyable (for me).

You can talk about B.B. drop, stack height and reach but the differences are usually minor.

Yes, there are fairly minor but they do add up.  15mm higher BB, 2 degrees on head tube, shorter top tube etc,.

I ride a track bike off road which is probably closer to a CX bike than a gravel bike (higher BB, steeper head tube etc,.) and it does feel a bit less stable than gravel bikes I have tried.

Doesn't feel any less comfortable though as comfort and handling are two different things.  Comfort for me is a bike that fits really well and that can be a track bike or a mountain bike.

Probably the tires are the one unequivocal difference-maker – 40mm + rubber is a signfiicant change and I guess won’t fit in most cross bikes.

This is true, I’ve fitted 38-40mm rubber on a cross bike but that would be the limit.

I’ve also done a 400k audax on one though, change of wheels, move a few spacers, add a brooks  and it was comfy for 14 hours of riding

Fatter tyres, slacker head angle and flared drops make the AT far more versatile off road than the X-bow was. There’s nothing I’ve ridden on the AT that the X-Bow couldn’t cope with, but the AT makes it much more enjoyable (for me).

two of the three things you have reference there are component changes though.  Everyone can put flared drops in their bike and a lot can whack 38cm tubeless on with no issues.

I’ll give you a clue, I was the one that looked like I was from STW.

Beard, green gloves 😉

Beard - tick

Rigid - tick

Single speed - tick

SSUK race plate still in spokes in blatant violation of the rules - tick

Suggesting pub stop rather than cafe - tick

two of the three things you have reference there are component changes though.

That's not really true though, fitting fatter tyres is dependant on the frame, and the point several other posters have made is that a racing CX frame is usually designed to take narrower tyres, as evidenced by the number of people struggling with mud clearance on CX frames with 33s at the Scottish CX series. Edit: didn't read your post properly, you've sort of hinted at this anyway.

I also wouldn't be comparing either type of bike to a true touring bike. I had a Salsa Vaya which by all accounts isn't even a heavy duty tourer. Much as I wanted to love the bike, when I wasn't using it as a tourer it was just heavy, dead and slow steering, not really what you want in a CX bike OR a gravel bike, which to me are supposed to be just road bikes designed for looser surfaces.

I race CX (badly, slowly) and would be happiest on a gravel bike, it'd still handle better than the 29er I'm racing at the moment, but retain the decent tyre clearance. Problem is, £ for £, gravel bikes seem heavier than CX bikes, not sure why that is, probably the new marketing uplift mentioned above...

So... if you had a cross bike that you one used on gravel rides (is there such a thing?) would it then be a gravel bike? Or still be a cross bike? Mine's called an 'Adventure Tour Race' bike, so has all bases covered. Except commuting, which is what I use it for mostly...

Problem is, £ for £, gravel bikes seem heavier than CX bikes, not sure why that is

I expect things like rack mounts, mudguard mounts, bottle cage mountain x3 all cost a bit of money and so the bike gets specced down and heavier as a results. Also a cross bike is a focussed race bike so weight is a key selling point whereas the average gravel bike rider could be buying a lighter road bike but they're not so weight is not a prime consideration, comfort maybe more important.

The term gravel bike is an adventure in terminology which will bring out the pedants and the nay sayers. 🙂

To me a gravel bike is basically a bike suitable for covering distance on natural terrain and roads.

I agree with ton in that it's a cross between a touring bike and an mtb without the optimisations for technical riding such as suspension but with wide tyres, and with its control set up for long distances on road, so likely to be dropbar.

CX bikes are almost right but their clearances are way too small, and genuine ones are not designed for long day comfort.

It's the sort of bike that always has been available with a bit of bodging, but it's good to see it get its own niche because we will get some development on the genre.

I like gravel bikes. 🙂

I agree with ton in that it’s a cross between a touring bike and an mtb

Aren't classic touring bikes more heavily built than the modern 'gravel' bike?  To cope with being loaded up?  That's not to say you couldn't tour on a gravel bike of course.

if you had a cross bike that you one used on gravel rides (is there such a thing?) would it then be a gravel bike? Or still be a cross bike? Mine’s called an ‘Adventure Tour Race’ bike, so has all bases covered

Ah but in the US they have gravel races as well as CX races...!

Ah but in the US they have gravel races as well as CX races…!

As they do in the UK. Often with catchy names like "Grinduro"

Aren’t classic touring bikes more heavily built than the modern ‘gravel’ bike?  To cope with being loaded up?  That’s not to say you couldn’t tour on a gravel bike of course.

Depends on the touring bike, one* came out on Sunday and didn't cope as soon as we turned off the road.

The problem is a "touring" bike is anything from a winter/audax style road bike with pannier mounts for B&B hopping. To a Surly Troll, or even an Ice Cream Truck if your tour is going off grid in Alaska.

Then a gravel bike is anything from a gravel racing bike from the USA with skinny tyres, naff all clearance and no superfluous braze ons, to a Salsa Fargo with 27.5x3" tyres.

There's probably more overlap between what's described as a "gravel" bike and a "touring" bike than there are bikes that sit far enough outside the overlap. Not many touring bikes that wouldn't handle at least some unpaved roads, and not many gravel bikes aimed at racing without mudguard eyes and somewhere to mount luggage. If you walked into a shop and said "I want a gravel bike" they could sell you almost anything, from a CX bike to a MTB.

*of the old skool dawes galaxy variety

To be fair, my Gravel bike is my Touring bike, but then a version of it was also sold as a Cross bike too.

I rather like the invention of the Gravel term as it does try to differentiate between race and non-race types. Too many folk bought Cross bikes for commuting when they didn't really want once but there was no good descriptor.

Of course you can tour on anything - I'm talking about shop labels.

thisisnotaspoon

Depends on the touring bike, one* came out on Sunday and didn’t cope as soon as we turned off the road...

*of the old skool dawes galaxy variety

I'd take one of those anywhere I could take a gravel bike.

In fact I've been keeping and eye out for a cheap Galaxy 531ST frame so I don't ding my lightweight lugged 531c bike doing that sort of thing.

If you walked into a shop and said “I want a gravel bike” they could sell you almost anything, from a CX bike to a MTB.

A shop that hasn't kept up with the times yes.  If you came to my shop I and asked for a gravel bike I would offer you a range of gravel bikes and they wouldn't be CX (but could be close) but would definitely be nowhere near an MTB.

If however you came in and asked for a bike that could be used to ride on gravel then the conversation would be different as I could offer you a CX bike, a gravel bike, an MTB and so on.

If you want to visit my shop just look out for "Pedantic cycles"

I’d take one of those anywhere I could take a gravel bike.

In fact I’ve been keeping and eye out for a cheap Galaxy 531ST frame so I don’t ding my lightweight lugged 531c bike doing that sort of thing.

Could read that either way. Either you're under using your gravel bike of over using the tourer!

I've ridden one down the trail in question too, but with the best will in the world even with CX tyres it wasn't an appropriate bike and it turns a fast flowy 3minute bit of singletrack with the occasional jump into a 10-15 minute faffy puncture risking stressful slippery rooted nightmare. It's the sort of trail that a well ridden CX/Gravel bike wouldn't lose much time on Vs an averagely skilled MTB but that's where the fun Vs appropriateness balance tips IME, you can make something more challenging and therefore more fun upto a point, then it just becomes risky and slow.

I've got CX, MTB and fat bikes to choose from, and recently sold the 531st tourer (and still have a road bike). On an average chilterns "XC" loop though the speed difference between the off road bikes was negligible. The CX (aka gravel) bike will climb a smidgen quicker, and is definitely quicker on the road, but all that's immediately lost as soon as the speed picks up off road.

I'm with Scotroutes on this one; if you're not actually racing, then you develop the bike that best fits the type of gravel or touring that you do.  For me, it's a flat barred Croix de Fer CX frame, with a triple chainset and light-ish wheels that are currently wearing 40mm tubeless.  It has toured in the Alps on standard 32mm road slicks and frequently does big days across Scotland, like last Saturday in the rain:- Dundee to Kyle of Lochalsh.  This was using roads, a fair bit of NC7 grit trail, disused old A9 sections and then up and over the Corrieyairick before A82 & 87 to Kintail.  Comfortable all day, quick up climbs and competent on mild off-road, it works for most things and it's compromises and occasional adjustments work for me.  Although I did find a couple of occasions on that trip when a snorkel would have been handy....

A Croix de Fer isn't a CX bike is it?

A Croix de Fer isn’t a CX bike is it?

Well it's either named after the pass in the Alps and it's a lightweight climbing bike, or it's a steel cross bike that happens to share it's name with an alpine pass? Whichever way it's probably wrong to someone, it's a moderately tubby CX bike (albeit a very "gravel" orientated one for the pedants), or a tourer.

Hence there's barely a fag paper between the definitions of tourer/gravel/CX in a lot of cases. If people don't believe me, go down to an actual CX race and see the menagerie of bikes that are raced, there's everything from Fat bikes to road bikes if it's dry (and probably a lot of "gravel" bikes)!

That’s not really true though, fitting fatter tyres is dependant on the frame, and the point several other posters have made is that a racing CX frame is usually designed to take narrower tyres, as evidenced by the number of people struggling with mud clearance on CX frames with 33s at the Scottish CX series. Edit: didn’t read your post properly, you’ve sort of hinted at this anyway.

I also wouldn’t be comparing either type of bike to a true touring bike. I had a Salsa Vaya which by all accounts isn’t even a heavy duty tourer. Much as I wanted to love the bike, when I wasn’t using it as a tourer it was just heavy, dead and slow steering, not really what you want in a CX bike OR a gravel bike, which to me are supposed to be just road bikes designed for looser surfaces.

I race CX (badly, slowly) and would be happiest on a gravel bike, it’d still handle better than the 29er I’m racing at the moment, but retain the decent tyre clearance. Problem is, £ for £, gravel bikes seem heavier than CX bikes, not sure why that is, probably the new marketing uplift mentioned above…

Previously I had a Merida CX500, raced CX on it with 33's and also did the Dirty Reiver twice on 38 g ones with no issues and no lack of comfort.

I've now got a Marin Cortina CX - full carbon, ultegra hydros etc.. I run gravelking Sk's on one set of wheels and 28c road tyres on another. in road form I've done 400k audaxes and 100k training rides with the local club and it will be doing the DR next year.

I've no issue with 'gravel' bikes in principle, but as someone who has done a 'lot' of gravel riding I've yet to find a Cx bike lacking, with the caveat that I've never tried out 50c tyres on a drop barred bike.

In terms of true touring, rack mounts etc. that's another misnomer I think. Everyone is going for soft luggage anyway which you can whack on to anything

Is the answer marketing?

I dunno about marketing - didn't the marketeers adopt it after the riders (or magazines) had decided it was to be called "gravel". (Shame the name gnarmac didn't stick,  as invented by a STWer 😀 )

It’s the sort of bike that always has been available with a bit of bodging, but it’s good to see it get its own niche because we will get some development on the genre.

I like gravel bikes.

Pretty much this. I'd have killed for the current crop of gravel bikes when I used to live in loughborough- plenty of routes that were too much road to really be fun on the mtb, but enough nice off road to be worth being able to.

I'm not sure how much difference there is really though outside of the super specialist CX race or drop bar MTB type of bikes- my Bowman was probably in relatively early for the current gravel trend and has a lot of the same features (longer, slacker, bigger tyres clearance) but it was still designed as a CX bike. Just a CX bike for how the designers were riding it, out and about in the woods as well as racing. So I suppose in a rambling way I'm suggesting that it's down to intent?

If you want to visit my shop just look out for “Pedantic cycles”

What goes around comes around.

I want to ride on mountains. What sort of bike should I be looking for? (These mountains have some roads on them, and some gravel, for futher info).

I want to ride on mountains. What sort of bike should I be looking for? (These mountains have some roads on them, and some gravel, for futher info).

Welcome sir, have you had a nice day so far?  Yes, parking is a nightmare isn't it.

So you want to ride on a mix of rocky/rough ground, road and gravel.  What sort of % do you typically spend in those areas

Oh, 80% gravel and 10% between the other two you say.  In that case if you are happy to compromise on the rocky, rougher terrain then I would suggest a gravel bike.

Great, that is a good choice.  Do you want me to wrap it or will you ride it home.

two of the three things you have reference there are component changes though.  Everyone can put flared drops in their bike and a lot can whack 38mm tubeless on with no issues.

If I'd put 38mm tyres in my Ridley I wouldn't have got to the end of the street on it.

Anyway, it's cool that there are lots of similar bikes to choose from, as long as you know what you're looking for.

I’ve put flared drops on my Ridley X-bow. Is it still a cross bike?