[Closed] Gravel bike tyres - how wide should they be?

TL:DR

42

Oops! third last picture should be this

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7819/46378324205_c3aa5fa2af_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7819/46378324205_c3aa5fa2af_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

scotroutes

TL:DR

42

I had to google that and found this definition and similar

"The average IQ of people typing TLDR in Internet forums is about 64"

But seeing as you gave the ultimate answer 42 from the Hitchhiker's Guide, you must be a few points above that.

It does raise the point, is there any way to adjust picture sizes and to have them beside each other, so a post like mine doesn't end up as a long scroll?

all depends on how fast you want to hit things and if they are tubeless or not.

mixed terrain (mud, rocks, roots and fire road "gravel") set up tubeless around 30psi front 35psi rear then nothing under 40mm

if it's just a touring bike, lots of tarmac with the odd excursion on forest paths or towpath then 30-35mm but then that's not my idea of gravel, see above for the sort of stuff i like to ride on mine

so hard to pin down as everyone has their own opinion on what gravel means. for example those doing the dirty reiver/kanza etc will try to go as fast as possible so sacrifice comfort over speed and probably run a much narrower tyre. those just trying to survive those events will run bigger in an effort to reach the end without being battered.

Looks ace 🙂

(I also now want to put silly bars and a 3 speed hub on my pompino)

simondbarnes

I also now want to put silly bars and a 3 speed hub on my pompino

Then you may also want to add the triple sprung saddle... 🙂

Looks a lovely ride, though if I was doing it I reckon I’d enjoy it more on a mountain bike.

Then you may also want to add the triple sprung saddle… 🙂

I'm not quite old enough for that yet 🙂

iainc

Looks a lovely ride, though if I was doing it I reckon I’d enjoy it more on a mountain bike.

Ah, that's the point, but it would be a boring ride on an mtb because there was nothing technical about it, so no need for all the other technology on an mtb - although the surfaces really needed mtb size tyres..

I think British gravel bikes need to have the clearance for wide tyres to make them suitable for the variety of surfaces and conditions we get here*.

After all, you can fit skinny tyres into a wide clearance frame, but not the other way around. We're in a similar situation to where early mtbs were designed more for dry California than boggy Britain.

A good option is choice of wide 650B tyres or skinnier 700c which some of the more progressive manufacturers are now doing.

.

.

*Maybe that's a Scottish perspective because we have almost unrestricted access.

Epicyclo, I am also ‘here’, so know what you mean. I have taken my Croix de Fer on a lot of rides and wished I’d taken my HT mind you 😀. That said, it only has 35c tyres on it..

Nothing there I'd call 'gravel' but it's pretty much identical to the kind of terrain/surfaces I'm used to travelling on the old M-Trax hybrid conversion, very much the same config as yr pictured bike.

I had teo sets of tyres for different uses, both by Schwalbe

Marathon Racer 35c (Tarmac and light gravel, summer farm tracks)
Landcruiser 45c (for what you are riding, in luding surfaced transfer/minor roads)

I'd keep the Landcruisers on most of the year, surprisingly capable in rough and goopy stuff, yet not too shabby on tarmac. Of course that was 26er and had full SK guards to take 1.75mm tyres. No reason to think that 40c Landcruisers wouldnt perform well.

Now I use Nano 2.1s on the monstercross. Much better all around, and lighter to boot. 40c Nanos IME may be a good all-round choice for that kind of stuff?

For most of the OPs ride, my current tyres (WTB Resolute 700x42) would have been pretty much ok. For the logging-machinery-ruined sections, proper MTB tyres.

As a general rule, and having experimented in the 700x32-47 range, my gravel tyre sweet spot is a fast rolling but slightly knobbly 40-45c tyre, which is capable enough on most of the off road I want to do, whilst still rolling well enough on tarmac.

Haven't tried 650b, but the kind of think once you start getting into the realms of 2" wide rubber, you might as well take your MTB (and if doing that sort of ride locally, I'd take my Inbred SS Rigid)

So there we have what can happen on a typical gravel ride in the Highlands.

When you consider I picked the route for its easiness you can see why I think gravel bikes need 2.35″ tyres. 🙂

It's not a gravel ride.

When you consider I picked the route for its easiness you can see why I think gravel bikes need 2.35″ tyres

Or just ride an MTB. I feel as if you are thinking of MTBs as 150mm of full suspension long slack rad-ness. but that's just one kind of MTB. On a ride like that I'd have my rigid 29er, with its 2.35 tyres, but it's still an MTB. I call it my adventure bike, but it's still an MTB. In fact it's perfect for that kind of ride. In as much as anything is. I must admit I'd have chalked that ride down to experience and not repeated it!

^ yeah, looks like classic old school xc terrain. Some good, some a bit sloggy, all part of a good unplanned day. Rigid 29er would be ideal for me there. Gravel/ATB duality.

molgrips

It’s not a gravel ride.

I suppose the big question is how do you define gravel?

If it's only applied to smooth graded surfaces, is there any point to owning a special purpose bike for such as a decent road bike will do?

I agree an rigid mtb would have been better for the bits shown on the pics, but the important bit of the mtb would have been the tyres, most of the rest is a hindrance when there's long bits of road to cover as well.

I was originally looking for a ride that would replicate the conditions the vintage bikes would have got ridden on, back when most minor roads were unsurfaced.

Although the pics aren't gravel, most of the ride was on forestry and estate tracks but even those would have been no pleasure at all on skinny tyres and the downhills were sketchy enough with 40mm.

What bike is the solution for forestry and estate roads if not a gravel bike?

Sometimes they degenerate into stuff like I have shown for a few miles. Bigger tyres make the difference between riding it and a few miles of hike a bike, and usually it's too far to simply turn back.

Here's a few pics of what I call gravel on part of a 90 mile loop I like to do, about half of that being road work.

(It will be familiar to quite a few on here as part of the HT550).

40mm tyres, road no problem, but climbs on loose gravel mean wheelspin.

[url= https://farm1.staticflickr.com/934/41851681550_1f812cd4d9_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm1.staticflickr.com/934/41851681550_1f812cd4d9_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

It's much more comfortable on fatter tyres (here 2.35" Big Apples) and more secure on the descents for braking etc, and the BAs are just the job for cruising on cut up tarmac.

[url= https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3816/19542997988_52000c33ea_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3816/19542997988_52000c33ea_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

And best of all on very fat tyres (slick), you can ignore the surfaces within reason, and ok for distance on the road, but not as easy as with the BAs.

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7396/8731654806_fe6d0d9333_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7396/8731654806_fe6d0d9333_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

I have also ridden it on assorted mtbs, but the 40+ miles on the road component with knobbly tyres are a drag.

If I was buying a bike for the job instead of lashing something together from my attic, it would be something like the Whyte Glencoe. They seem to agree on the need for big tyres for our conditions.

If someone has ridden it on one, I'd be interested in their opinion.
(Or maybe Whyte can lend me one if they want a review 🙂 )

I suppose the big question is how do you define gravel?

If it’s only applied to smooth graded surfaces, is there any point to owning a special purpose bike for such as a decent road bike will do?

From what I understand, gravel riding is basically what we would call fire roads. It comes from the US, presumably out West, where there are lots of non-tarmac public roads that are like our fire roads, they can go on for 20-30 miles without a junction. They get surfaced and graded periodically. So 35-38c tyres will be fine. They are not like the tracks in upland Britain.

You say a 'decent' road bike will do, but really 25-28c tyres aren't enough which is what most normal road bikes have. So you need a road bike with clearance for fatter tyres. Which is what a gravel bike is. Seems straightforward to me.

a decent road bike

That's pretty much why I like the current crop of what are sold as gravel bikes and the bikes sold as cross bikes before that. Entertaining on the tarmac but not limited to it. For me (and I think, based on what I've seen, quite a lot here) that makes a road bike that can go off road, rather than a mountain bike that can go on road.

I'll add, if you're interested to see where I'm coming from, my 'road' bike is a bowman foots Cray- sold as a cross bike, still slacker than most of the newer gravel bikes and I swap between a knard and a nano that come up about 44mm and a set of 35mm slicks. Goes like the clappers on most things and if it's getting rough enough that I really wanted bigger tyres there's a good chance I'd like all the other trappings that I get with my Solaris- suss forks, dropper etc. I could run much faster tyres on the Solaris but then it wouldn't be as good for all of the muddy singletrack round here as I'd spend the entire time going sideways into the bushes

Quite where that line is will be different for everyone, the nice thing about this gravel craze is that it's opened up a lot of options for good tyres in the intermediate category that previously got largely stuck with heavy touring tyres

Down by me we don't have many trails that are well surfaced enough for a gravel bike, hence the rigid 29er. But that's just my local terrain. Horses for courses. Gravel bikes aren't replacing anything, they are just giving us more choices.

I bet the original RSF members would've chosen rigid 29ers with fat tyres if they'd had them.

swanny853

...and if it’s getting rough enough that I really wanted bigger tyres there’s a good chance I’d like all the other trappings that I get with my Solaris- suss forks...

That makes sense, but when you're already out on your gravel bike, it's not an option. It's ok for planned rides in known conditions or maintained circuits.

I look at gravel bikes as a tool for exploring and covering distance, so it's likely that there will be surfaces where narrow tyres make for hard going. You just need a drop of rain on some tracks for the ground to get soft, or loose gravel,  and the skinny tyres sink in.

That's ok for maybe a mile or a short term effort like a cross race, but if you want to ride all day it's awful hard work that can be avoided if you have fatter tyres.

I've done long distances on skinny tyres offroad. Many years ago (before mtb) I did a week touring outback tracks in Oz on a bike with 32mm tubs - which enabled me to run lower pressures. In places where conditions were soft, the tyres sank in and there were long hike a bike sections. Yet I have ridden the same sort of stuff with 2"+ tyres subsequently.

molgrips

I bet the original RSF members would’ve chosen rigid 29ers with fat tyres if they’d had them.

As it happens, I've been a member for a long time, and before that I used to ride with members when I was a lad in the late 1950s and 60s.

I think I can safely say from experience that original RSF members would ride anything from a 16" Moulton to a rod brake roadster to a lugged lightweight fixed wheel. It was never about the bike to the RSF, and all about the ride.

But nowadays, we're softies, and this RSF member wants his comforts and the ride to be no harder than it need be.

My gravel bike is a rigid 29er with fat tyres, so you're spot on, but there's too many compromises, luggage, mudguards, cockpit, etc. There was no other option when I built it.

What I'd like in a gravel bike is something with the profile and geometry of an easy handling audax or touring bike, but with clearance for 2"+ tyres.

Maybe when I have finished my cull of excess bikes, I'll have an excuse to buy something like the Whyte, but as usual, it will need to be singlespeed or hub gear capable.

At the moment I have adapted a 29er hardtail purely to get the tyre sizes, but there are a lot of compromises to do so.

Interested to what these are. I don't feel compromised on my Salsa.

Sorry, edited original before I saw your next post, but answered your question.

EDIT: and now I'm editing this. 🙂

Your Salsa is a very competent bike, and so is my converted TD-1, but one killer for me is the sloping top tube.

I find a horizontal TT much more comfortable for extended hike a bike, so it's something I would specify in a bike that would be likely to see plenty HaB. I'd probably want the tube profile flattened as well.

Interesting.

I've never been able to get comfortable with the bike over my shoulder in the traditional style. The TT always rests on a bone in my shoulder and hurts like hells bells. So I put it flat across my back and put my hand either under or over the top tube and hold it there. I'm usually wearing a Camelbak which helps. Back in the day if I was wearing a rucksack for 'bikepacking' I'd rest it across the top of my rucksack and I'd barely have to hold it. This made me wonder if some kind of strap arrangement for this would help.

I think I can safely say from experience that original RSF members would ride anything from a 16″ Moulton to a rod brake roadster to a lugged lightweight fixed wheel. It was never about the bike to the RSF, and all about the ride.

See, this sounds like bragging. Of course it's about the bike - you're riding one, it matters. You don't have to obsess over pointless details, but your bike has to function. A bike has to have some benefits to the activity otherwise you might as well leave it behind and just go for a walk. Of course, lots of people get worked up over stuff that doesn't matter, and argue over what's 'better'. But thinking about your bike doesn't have to be that. You yourself have discussed the pros and cons of bikes (even in this very thread), which is perfectly reasonable, it just goes to show that the bike matters even when it doesn't.

I'm reflecting the attitudes that the old timers I rode with had, basically any bike, anywhere, any time.

It's fun to do that, but my own opinion is that the bike matters very much, and the RSF missed a golden opportunity to put pressure on the British bike industry when it was at its zenith.

Otherwise I wouldn't have put so much time and effort in trying to get it right.

epicyclo,

From what you describe, have you looked at something like a Velo Orange Polyvalant?

Interesting list of bikes here

What I’d like in a gravel bike is something with the profile and geometry of an easy handling audax or touring bike, but with clearance for 2″+ tyres.

Peregrine?

Wouldn't recommend one round strathpuffer though!

That makes sense, but when you’re already out on your gravel bike, it’s not an option. It’s ok for planned rides in known conditions or maintained circuits.

This strikes me as a strange argument. There are plenty of rides where I hit points and think 'hmm, the big full suspension bike would have been great here' but that doesn't mean I ride it everywhere just in case.

Any bike is going to be a compromise for just about any ride and pretty much by definition will be out of it's depth somewhere, it's just the compromise that suits you and not generalising it to everyone.

Again, if you want my perspective- I've run the mountain bike rigid and on fast tyres as an explorer and it was great for the 'riding around' off road parts, but it didn't feel like it made it 'better enough' on the smooth bits or the tarmac to compensate for the compromise on the rougher stuff. If I lived somewhere different the point at which I hit that compromise might be different.

2.25 is the sweet spot I've settled on for now. Currently a Singular Swift with Jones bars.
Schwalbe RR on the front, and another on the rear with the knobbles cut off to make a semislick. I'd have bought something less knobbly, but the RR was in the shed already.

It's made for a bike that is barely compromised on the road, but is still actually enjoyable to bomb down roughish fireroad descents on.

I did sixtyish miles of Tour de Ben last week with a mate on a proper gravel bike. He's got it up for sale now with plans to resurrect an old steel MTB into his gravel bike.
His hands and shoulders were killing him by the end of the day, due mainly to the deathgrip on the hoods on every descent, controlling speed to avoid getting into trouble on his weedy tyres.

A good option is choice of wide 650B tyres or skinnier 700c which some of the more progressive manufacturers are now doing.

These two options are not as different from each other as you may think. Take a look at this, its a two part article but the conclusion isnt online yet

https://www.ukgravelbike.club/2019/03/03/the-versatility-conundrum-one-mans-battle-with-wheels-formats-and-tubeless-tyres/

His hands and shoulders were killing him by the end of the day, due mainly to the deathgrip on the hoods on every descent, controlling speed to avoid getting into trouble on his weedy tyres.

A few years before MTBs hit the UK (and before buying my first ATB) I had cut my grownup/distance cycling teeth on a 1980s road bike. This was ridden everywhere and I took scenic shortcuts where available ie canal towpaths, farm tracks, woodland trails. FFWD and though I had enjoyed what MTB had to offer I still missed the touring bike, and in some ways a (rigid) ATB. So I experimented with a few rigid MTBs trying to touralise-ificate them with old fashioned touring/comfort high-sweep bars, hybrid 1.75 tyres and full guards, kickstand, racks etc. I had some success, but then entirely by luck/coffee stop I chanced upon a Genesis Vagabond demo in a bike shop.

2016 enter the monstercross. Had never heard of one. It ticked most of my my road-touring/ATB boxes. Rode it and loved it. Made it mine.

First thing I did was ride on the hoods. Everywhere. Second thing I did (on the hoods) was stack off-road during a descent (in the FOD). Time to lay off the hoods, at least on downhill sections.

Going back to the 1980s I remembered my old Carlton roadie had secondary/auxiliary/crosstop brake levers. They had let me ride in the woods without cricking my neck to see over everything.

So surely it makes sense on a monstertour (I may have just invented that hateful word) drop-bar setup to run wide and shallow drops with cross-top levers?

Sweet-spot I've found for variable wet/dry/on/off-road conditions are the WTB Nano 2.1s

OTOH and in the dry (on past 26er incarnations) like the OP I favoured 2.35 Big Apples. They were heavy old things though. Would be interested in trying something similar for the Vagabond in 29er flavour if anyone has any suggestions?

swanny853

This strikes me as a strange argument. There are plenty of rides where I hit points and think ‘hmm, the big full suspension bike would have been great here’ but that doesn’t mean I ride it everywhere just in case

You have misinterpreted what I was saying, so I probably didn't word it very well.

Rather than repeat myself, I think bedmaker's post just after yours probably sums up nicely the difference having bigger tyres make on a decent length of ride on the actual conditions we have on our gravel roads.

And really it's not much to ask - a bit more clearance to allow for wider tyres on gravel bikes. Those who want skinny tyres can have them, and those that want wider can have them too. Everybody's happy then.

Malvern Rider

...First thing I did was ride on the hoods. Everywhere. Second thing I did on the goods was stack off-road during a descent (in the FOD). Time to lay off the hoods, at least on downhill sections...

Should always be in the drops for descents. You've got the brakes handy, and although it's counter-intuitive you're less likely to OTB.

On the hoods your CoG is high, in the drops it is low (although slightly forward), but the leverage force is less.  The guys who are fit and flexible enough to use really low bars benefit even more from this.

Make a wee model with cut out cardboard, and measure the change of the CoG lever length in the different positions and you'll see what I mean, or at least work out what suits you.

.

BTW Monstertour - who can argue with that? Well done. I might stop creating dissent by calling my bike a gravel bike and use that instead. 🙂

Will this do it?

http://www.bikepacking.com/news/bearclaw-beaux-jaxon-gravel-plus/

(29x2.6" tyres in a 405mm axle-to-crown fork!)

More seriously, I see what the OP means. I do a lot of riding in the Dales, and often mix in easy off road stuff with long road sections. I prefer being on my rigid 29er offroad, but I sometimes get a train out of Leeds and cycle home and would rather not be dragging it along 40-50 miles of tarmac.

The MTB geometry isn't really needed for a lot of the offroad bits, just the clearance for fast rolling 2.2-2.3" tyres.

I made a klaxxon noise at that^

Looks ace.

Shame it doesn't seem to have provision for hub-gears/SS?

I run 29 2.6 and 29 3.00 on my gravel adventure bike.

legometeorology

Will this do it?

Looks enticing. 🙂

I'd want mudguards with tyres that size - they have the ability to redistribute sizeable amounts of the track on you.

All it needs is the ability to SS it or fit a hub gear.

So once you have relatively bigish tyres, what's the benefit of drop bars? Hand position and aero ability?

Wondering if you could get that from jones loops or something similar instead?

if you look at a lot of the folks ultra-distance eventing, then jones loops or various drop bar shapes are pretty much the main choices, to be honest I do love a loop bar, but find drops just that bit better for keeping on the cadence with a singlespeed. Ultimately its down to what works for you comfort and performance wise.

benp1

So once you have relatively bigish tyres, what’s the benefit of drop bars?...

Headwinds. 🙂

A long haul on the road sitting up into a headwind is a right pain.

They are also good descending on unkempt track because you're in the hooks and can still have a loose grip. On a rigid bike, your wrists will thank you for that.

But really any bar that gets you a comfortable position. It's not a religion.

So once you have relatively bigish tyres, what’s the benefit of drop bars? Hand position and aero ability?

What they said. And, it functions well as my middle-aged belly-fat monitoring device. The pencil test. Right now I can pinch and retain a mostly-full pencil-case. Or a cartridge pad. Working my way down to a couple of marker pens. Looking forward to a 4b.

BTW Monstertour – who can argue with that? Well done. I might stop creating dissent by calling my bike a gravel bike and use that instead. 🙂

Monstertour you say???

Ye olde original Kona Sutra. Maybe proven to be well ahead of its time with clearance for big tyres and slidey dropouts for your fixed/hub gears.

scotroutes

Ye olde original Kona Sutra. Maybe proven to be well ahead of its time with clearance for big tyres and slidey dropouts for your fixed/hub gears.

Konas do lend themselves nicely to that purpose. 🙂

[url= https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2560/5706510702_f57a197a96_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2560/5706510702_f57a197a96_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

[url= https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2084/5705945159_c6bfc0f785_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2084/5705945159_c6bfc0f785_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Must pull it back out of the attic.

If you were actually riding on gravel rather than the terrain in your pictures then I find 23c are okay as I am not bothered by comfort as don't ride far. Better in the summer on dry gravel though as when it is wet the 23c sink in a bit too much so are slower than a wider tyre s for the fastest I would probably go 28c if it fitted in my frame.

kerley

If you were actually riding on gravel rather than the terrain in your pictures then I find 23c are okay as I am not bothered by comfort as don’t ride far...

If you live in the Highlands, you can get all sorts of surfaces on any ride of a decent length.

On the bit in the last pic your 23c tyres would have been just as good because it was into HaB or RSF territory anyway, but it would have been unpleasant getting there.

There was a track shown on the OS map, but it was overgrown. The lead up had got progressively rougher and softer and eventually unrideable.

The total loop is about 68km around Ben Wyvis, about 4km on road, and ascent just under 2,000 metres. At the time that pic was taken there was a big HaB to that loch, but last time I went round the track had been renewed and was good gravel.

However there's still about 2km of HaB in the loop depending on how wet the moor is. It's a reasonably rigorous ride at my age but younger riders should enjoy it.

If anyone wants to do it, I have a GPX. I've not published it because there's some crossing of trackless moor and a bit of Rough Stuff and I don't want to be responsible for the unprepared getting into trouble. But if anyone here wants it, just ask.

I must be such a no skills bad handling southern wuss as I’m looking at getting a drop bar bike with room for 2.1 knobblies, just because my current “adventure/gravel/cross/endurance” bike only takes 33mm knobblies.
My body is in pieces after an off road ride on that.

If you live in the Highlands, you can get all sorts of surfaces on any ride of a decent length.

I am sure you can, but your question specifically states gravel and not mud, fields, rocks. Almost every ride I do contains gravel sections and I have used a lot of different tyres over the last 20 years - 23c, 25c, 28c, 32c, 37c, 43c, 1.95, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4 and more in slick and knobbly varieties.

My conclusion is for hard packed gravel it really doesn't matter - grip is not an issue, speed differs a bit and comfort can differ a lot so choose the tyre that best fits the compromise for you. For me it is down at the 23c/25c end.

I have a Swift with a 2.3 in the back and a 3.0 Knard in the front. I also have a Pickenflick, currently wearing 40c Nanos. If I’m heading out for a long ride that’s mainly off-road on unknown surfaces I’ll take the Swift. If it’s mainly road and I’m confident the off-road will mostly be actual gravel then I’ll take the Pickenflick. You can call either or both of them gravel bikes if you like. Or not. It doesn’t matter. 🙃

kerley

I am sure you can, but your question specifically states gravel and not mud, fields, rocks....

The point of the post was that when riding on gravel roads you can come across severely deteriorated conditions, and your bike becomes luggage unless it is capable of dealing with that.

A gravel bike that can't handle the variety of conditions that occur on a gravel road or do a bit of  greenlaning isn't a gravel bike IMO, it's a roadbike.

My experience with narrow tyres on gravel is you spin out on the loose stuff on the climbs, and fast descents are sketchy because braking hard will have you off, and then you have to get through the deep pile of loose gravel at the bottom of the dip.

That's in the dry. When it's wet skinny tyres sink in and become hard work, and it's rare to find a completely dry track.

I've ridden long distances on skinny tyres in all these conditions, and it's a recipe for misery.

If what we're riding up here isn't gravel, what is it? What can we call the Highland roads that have existed for hundreds of years and are unsurfaced?

Here's one built in much the same manner as a Roman road (about 1730) with a fairly typical surface.

[url= https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5690/21338689511_6794734b49_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5690/21338689511_6794734b49_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

EDIT: abbreviated.

My 2015 Plug 3 won't even take a 42c tyre, I struggle with 38c to be honest. I've run a lot smaller too, and it's been fine, you just keep some pressure in them and realise that it's not an ATB, it's a gravel bike. They're quite good for the roads in Lincolnshire and Rutland though, which may as well be gravel in a lot of instances.

[img] [/img]

But, if you need that much rubber, you could go down a wheel size, or use a different bike.

the faithful Kona is ideal for a lot of stuff, steel, rigid, and I can run either 27+ or 29er for thick sticky mud where you need frame clearance and dig.

[img] [/img]

I don't do trail centres and extreme stuff so don't really need suspension, but if I did, I'd build a bike for doing that too.

Obviously, I know not everyone has the space to keep three bikes, or the budget for that matter, in which case a Monster Cross type affair is probably ideal, but they're not a gravel bike. 🙂

Things have changed around here in the last 11 months. 🙂

cogwomble

...in which case a Monster Cross type affair is probably ideal, but they’re not a gravel bike.

My opinion is that they are the proto-gravel bike, the rider's solution to a problem for which the market didn't have a category at the time.

Then the manufacturers saw that loads of people were modifying their bikes for that purpose, and produced the first gravel bikes. These were based on the cx model, but were generally limited in tyre size to cx sizes.

Riders continued to modify 29ers, because the cx tyres weren't a patch on the comfort or capability of the much wider mtb tyres.

Now we can get bikes like the Whyte Glencoe or the Kinesis Tripster (650bx52) and it's only a matter of time before the other mainstream manufacturers follow and wide tyres become the standard in the category.

All this seems deja vu. I remember the arguments that no one needed wider than 2" for a mtb, and how many of the racers used 1.9", and then how unsaleable mtbs that could only fit those widths became, almost instant obsolescence.

I’ve recently gone from two bikes
A Cannondale Habit lefty and a Caadx to a one “bike to do it all” (well 1 to suit where I ride now) I chose a Salsa Vaya as I love steel and it can run 700x50 tyres. Recently flirted with 650b wheels but sold them to stick with 700c. Plan to run Specialized Roubaix tubeless for fast tarmac touring style riding and if needed can swap to a gravel tyre quite easily.

A gravel bike that can’t handle the variety of conditions that occur on a gravel road or do a bit of greenlaning isn’t a gravel bike IMO, it’s a roadbike.

Nope, it is a gravel bike designed to ride on gravel road. If your gravel roads include boggy moorland and rocks they are not gravel roads. Not that it matters, you ride the bike that works for those routes and that bike would be more mountain bike than gravel bike.

Nope, it is a gravel bike designed to ride on gravel road. If your gravel roads include boggy moorland and rocks they are not gravel roads. Not that it matters, you ride the bike that works for those routes and that bike would be more mountain bike than gravel bike.

You need to get the word "gravel" out of your head. We don't live in the American mid west. Gravel bike is just the name that stuck because of it. Very few people in the uk that I know ride their gravel bikes purely on road and gravel. Almost every ride will involve some singletrack, stone farmtracks, mud (it is the UK) and various other surfaces. None of which are so rough that they require a mountain bike, and it also does not mean that there "gravel" bike should be called anything else.
While Im here.... I also laugh at the heros spouting about the fact that they ride everywhere on 25mm tyres. That doesnt make you a riding god, it just makes you ill prepared and disadvantaged.

A gravel bike that can’t handle the variety of conditions that occur on a gravel road or do a bit of greenlaning isn’t a gravel bike IMO, it’s a roadbike.

Nope, it is a gravel bike designed to ride on gravel road. If your gravel roads include boggy moorland and rocks they are not gravel roads. Not that it matters, you ride the bike that works for those routes and that bike would be more mountain bike than gravel bike.

This is all getting a bit silly now... I don't see much point in defining gravel bikes in some narrow sense of being a bike designed for well maintained gravel tracks and not much beyond.

If gravel bikes simply fill the gap between mountain and road bikes, in the UK perhaps that gap often requires larger tyres than in say the USA. I would guess that's all epicyclo is getting at.

legometeorology

...in the UK perhaps that gap often requires larger tyres than in say the USA....

I think even there they will trend away from California clearances.

I read a while ago about a ride along the Dalton, one of the great gravel highways in Alaska, and the conditions encountered there are very similar to what we get. It's under constant repair so there's miles of deep loose stuff, mud and deep ruts, and violent weather can transform it overnight.

And if that isn't gravel what is?

^ Tour Divide / GDMTBR is basically a gravel route - some tarmac, a lot of gravel county roads, some natural off-road. Mostly forest access and county roads. Divide racers are mostly on 29ers with drop or MTB bars, sus or rigid forks. Good MTBs for longer rides. You could do a few days of that terrain on a 650B gravel bike but you'd get more beat up. Yet plenty of riders have toured remote areas on 26" ATBS.

I see 'gravel' bikes as just better road bikes for what most of us ride in the UK - bad road surfaces, not racing, like to avoid A/B roads by using byway shortcuts or enjoy a bit of underbiked exploring. But primarily it needs to be a good road bike more than a good MTB.

Similar to the rides round here condition-wise which was perfect for Singular Gryphon. Just got rid it though as ultimately the weight of was a slog after long, muddy rides. Now it's either the rigid Ritchey for all conditions or the Tripster for thrills (and spills) and dryer rides. Too old to feel beat up beyond a certain point now every ride so a little comfort is good!

And if that isn’t gravel what is?

Wait, do you mean gravel race, gravel adventure or gravel-grinding?

I don’t see much point in defining gravel bikes in some narrow sense of being a bike designed for well maintained gravel tracks and not much beyond.

You may not see the point but that is what they were designed for. Just as a road bike is designed for the road and an mountain bike is designed for off road.
It is like asking what are the best tyres to put on my road bike to ride a downhill course, the point is you need to get the bike right first before worrying about what tyres to use.

If you were actually riding on gravel rather than the terrain in your pictures then I find 23c are okay

Really? I thought that fatter tyres rolled faster* and betterer on uneven surfaces?

*Up to a point, factoring in increased weight and decreased aerodynamic efficiency.

^ Exception proving a rule, I think. Or a case of enjoying whatever you ride rather than saying it's optimised (all good). I find 23c rubbish on tarmac compared to a wider tyre, never mind anywhere else 🙂

Kerley

You may not see the point but that is what they were designed for...

Indeed, but the design is primitive, as in early days, for the type.

Just modify your statement for a moment and apply it to mtbs and the demand for wider tyres 20 or so years ago.

Manufacturers have responded to market pressure and mtbs now have clearance for wider tyres - up to 5" in some cases.

Are they not mtbs still?

To test your opinion, let's look look at one, the Whyte Glencoe.

Is that a gravel bike or not?

How about all the other recent gravel bikes with clearance for wide tyres, how about them?

jameso, who knows a thing or two says above:

"I see ‘gravel’ bikes as just better road bikes for what most of us ride in the UK – bad road surfaces, not racing, like to avoid A/B roads by using byway shortcuts or enjoy a bit of underbiked exploring. But primarily it needs to be a good road bike more than a good MTB."

I think we can both agree on that, but I'd just add gravel bikes need clearance for tyres to handle those surfaces.

As riders discover the versatility of a gravel bike with large tyres, the demand for gravel bikes with big tyres will increase, and manufacturers will ignore that demand at their peril.

This will not disadvantage the riders like you who prefer skinny tyres, they will still be able to fit them and ride on smoother surfaces, or fit wider tyres suitable for rough stuff and go exploring.

That sort of bike is an ideal candidate for 2 wheelsets, one for the commute, and one for the weekend.

We had more or less this same discussion a year ago, and I predicted that gravel bike tyre sizes would get larger. Since then we are seeing just that trend.

It will be interesting to check back in another year's time ands see where the trend has gone - it's usually me who is the retrogrouch. 🙂

Really? I thought that fatter tyres rolled faster* and betterer on uneven surfaces?

Yes, wider tyres (than 23c) do roll faster on uneven surfaces, however what I said was that I find 23c "okay" when riding a mix of road and gravel not the they were the fastest. I don't know what the fastest tyre is for a mix of road and gravel but the tyres I enjoy are narrower tyres and find them fine on gravel and lighter on road. On overall rides combining 50/50 road/gravel my fastest times are on narrow tyres.

In the spirit of breezy banter I proclaim NO! Unless you got your 2 in front of your 3 and meant 32c 😉

OP! The answer: 32c-40c tubeless FTW. On gravel.
Boggy bridleways and humongous clarty rock gardens need bigger nobblier. Dust-dry summer trails are a free for all depending on the state of your fillings.

I don’t see much point in defining gravel bikes in some narrow sense of being [b]
a bike designed for well maintained gravel tracks and not much beyond.[/b]

You may not see the point but that is what they were designed for. Just as a road bike is

Actually no, Seven Cycles suggest that you need a [url= https://www.sevencycles.com/discipline/road-mid-reach.php ]Mid-Reach road bike[/url] for that; when the gravel track becomes a little less well manicured (but not gnarly enough for a proper [url= https://www.sevencycles.com/discipline/mountain-race.php ]mountain bike[/url], and yes they'll sell you one of those too), then you need a [url= https://www.sevencycles.com/discipline/gravel-road.php ]gravel bike[/url]!

Seven's mid-reach road bikes straddle the space between traditional road bikes and mixed-terrain bikes [Gravel Bikes].

Personally I think it's a deliberately vague and amorphous term created by the bike industry to sell you more bikes than you need. When fat bikes caught on and became the 'must have' trend, they rapidly went from being fully rigid with cable brakes to full sus. with hydros and droppers; gravel bikes have done the same and now also come in full sus./dropper flavours (which I'd argue probably aren't best suited to road work); we may well end up with Plus and/or Fat gravel bikes too at some point if the industry thinks they can sell them.

I've always ridden a mix of (mostly country roads) & off-road on semi-slick equipped hardtails and continue to do so (in the meantime Gnarmac came and went without catching on). Technically, I suppose, it's a hybrid (or perhaps a rigid mountain bike) but I ride 'gravel' in today's parlance. It's probably more bike than I need but I'm happy with it.

Personally I don't get too hung up on definitions (such as where a full sus. gravel bike with wide tyres officially becomes a mountain bike), I just enjoy pootling about on my bike.

I see ‘gravel’ bikes as just better road bikes for what most of us ride in the UK – bad road surfaces, not racing, like to avoid A/B roads by using byway shortcuts or enjoy a bit of underbiked exploring. But primarily it needs to be a good road bike more than a good MTB.

That's pretty much what I use my Arkose for, though I think in some ways it's more capable off road than the mtbs I was riding in the early '90s. Tubeless and hydro brakes are big advantages, and bridleways are a lot more interesting when you need to pick a line rather than just ploughing through. I have 28s on my road bike these days, much better than being beaten up on 23s and they don't feel any slower. I have 37s on the Arkose but may go up to 40s.

I don’t see much point in defining gravel bikes in some narrow sense of being a bike designed for well maintained gravel tracks and not much beyond.

You may not see the point but that is what they were designed for.

Some yes, but not all of them are designed just for well maintained gravel roads.

Thinking about this more, I wonder if it's worth thinking about trail topology and trail surface separately.

Epicyclo's final picture above (copied below) is certainly a gravel road. And because that track is the 'topology' of a road, i.e. gentle bends and inclines (no drops, jumps, berms, steep chutes, rooty off cambers or anything), there's no need need at all for mountain bike geometry. But with a surface like that I'd much rather have tyres at least 2" wide, and even slick 650b+ tyres wouldn't be overkill.

On the other hand, there are red sections at trail centres and jump lines at a bike parks where the trail surface is much smoother. But because of the windy topology, you want the large standover, the high front end, the wide bars, etc, of an MTB. But 2" tyres may be perfectly fine.

I'd like to make it clear I'm not saying that you can't ride on gravel roads with skinny tyres, because I do that quite often on a variety of bikes.

What I am saying is you are greatly disadvantaged if you do.

For example braking.

This part of the HT550 (steeper than it looks) is a hazard on narrow tyres if you don't get on your brakes early.

The gravel near the bottom is loose and you risk losing the front end if you brake heavily there. Plus the stream crossing is full of loose rocks which will more easily deflect a narrow tyre and bring you to grief.

It's the sort of risk that you can take at a trail centre maybe, but here if you get it wrong there's no one to come and pick you up, it's a long long walk to anywhere, and no phone reception. There's lots of these sorts of descents on any gravel road up here.

On wide tyres you can treat it as you would on an mtb.

[url= https://farm1.staticflickr.com/911/41277724685_b2b9fabe88_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm1.staticflickr.com/911/41277724685_b2b9fabe88_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Another example is climbing. (Same stretch of HT550, but further along.)

It's pretty obvious that's a hefty climb, and with it being steep the gravel tends to get the soil washed away, so the climb is often on a very loose surface even on a good day like I had here.

On skinny tyres, you are now facing the opposite problem, trying to maintain any sort of pace on the climb. The back wheel will spin out and it's too steep to regain traction, so then it's push the bike uphill a bit further, remount and ride until the next bit of the too frequent loose gravel, and repeat ad nauseum.

[url= https://farm1.staticflickr.com/963/40371292480_936fcf87a8_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm1.staticflickr.com/963/40371292480_936fcf87a8_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Again wide tyres cope much better with this and far more of the ascent is rideable.

(Bike is a Pompino with a 3 speed hub for the info of those gaping at it in stunned admiration at its beauty. It handles very nicely on gravel - its limitations are its tyres and its engine 🙂  )

for the riding pictured I would take this:

[img] [/img]

Wearing 2.1 WTB nanos

[img] [/img]

Fast on the road, capable off road.

OK I would probably prefer a rigid 29er with disc brakes, marginal gains and all that, but this question was answered 25 years ago.

wzzz

...but this question was answered 25 years ago.

A 25 year mtb potentially makes a pretty good gravel bike. That Orange looks spot on.

The older mtbs have steeper HAs than current mtbs, but they're perfect for road/gravel; shortish TTs so the reach isn't too great for drop bars, but still ok for other bars; and possibly go up a size on one's normal choice for mtb.

I'd want to get as big wheels on it as possible though.

I'm actually doing that experiment with a Raleigh Ravine right now.

Nice lugged frame, decent butted steel, and it's looking promising. I've sized it up to see if a 650b wheel would fit with a fattish tyre, looks ok, so I'll be building wheels soon.

Fast on the road, capable off road.
OK I would probably prefer a rigid 29er with disc brakes, marginal gains and all that, but this question was answered 25 years ago.

I own a 1992 Breezer. The Arkose is just as capable off road, has much better brakes, and is much quicker on road.

Brian - if you are so certain about what you want, and you have a plethora of wheel/gear/brake options already available to you, why not just get someone to build the frame you want? It needn't be horrendously expensive and you can fund it by selling some of the other bikes.

Bejebus! the arguing on this thread was dull.

Nice pics though.

Dull arguing bit:
Gravel IMO is riding on some sort of surfaced road/path.
CX-adventure, adventure cross, Monster-cross or most stuff on that continuum is what used to be referred to as XC-jeycore*-lite after everyone grew up and decided that misspelling gay didn't make it any less offensive.

So in answer to the OP's original rhetorical question, slicks, or something very close. Because if you need more than slicks then you're just not gravel dahhling.

Bejebus! the arguing on this thread was dull.

Clearly you need to be more emotionally invested then, throw yourself into the fray more fully, work out whatever is holding you back and let go, perhaps you're scared you'll be embarrassed, shamed, dismissed? It happens to us all. And not all us will ever be lucky enough to stand out, to define what a gravel bike really is. But some of us will. That's the hope that keeps me going, helps me find meaning in it all.

(I'm also a bit bored of work today.)

As riders discover the versatility of a gravel bike with large tyres, the demand for gravel bikes with big tyres will increase, and manufacturers will ignore that demand at their peril.

Yes and no. I've got a Vagabond (monstercross), a CAAD-X (CX) and a charge Plug (SS-gravel).

The vagabond is great offroad with 2.1" tyres, but it's a bit of a heavy beast to get upto speed compared to the CAAD-X. So there's a point somewhere between 35mm and 52mm where adding more width aids cushioning but in order to build it light would probably actually make it more puncture prone on rough stuff. The plug I'm building up with ~40mm semi slicks to split the difference (both the caad-x and vagabond have fast rolling knoblies). I'm not sure I'd want to take the Vagabond to something like the Dirty Reiver, but it would be great on the Gravel Dash (never ridden either event, just basing on photos and reports).

The same reason you don't get plus or fat DH bikes. A fat DH bike would be awesome, but would probably need 2kg+ tyres to survive which would make it somewhat less awesome.

So there’s a point somewhere between 35mm and 52mm where adding more width aids cushioning but in order to build it light would probably actually make it more puncture prone on rough stuff. The plug I’m building up with ~40mm semi slicks to split the difference

See the first reply on this thread.

So in answer to the OP’s original rhetorical question, slicks, or something very close. Because if you need more than slicks then you’re just not gravel dahhling.

Agree. At no point on my rides on gravel roads in my area do I need more grip - not up climbs and not on corners. The width chosen is just simply down to comfort if that is a concern.

At no point on my rides on gravel roads in my area do I need more grip – not up climbs and not on corners. The width chosen is just simply down to comfort if that is a concern

That just means you're not going fast enough.