Forum menu
the first even slightly nobby grav tyre is 1.2mm pimples 25W. So I think I’ll stay with my assertion
Yep, fair point, I hadn't really looked at tread patterns.
But I can’t see how we can compare the mtb tyres as they were all tested at a standard pressure
MTB tyres are compared at 25 and 35psi, gravel tyres at 33 and 44psi I think. Makes it a wee bit difficult to compare across although right enough that's the sort of difference in pressure I run (30psi on MTB, 40psi on gravel).
Had a gravel bike but sold it. Too poor off road and slow on road.
I dont ride on the drops on my road bike, why on earth they would be any use off road I have no idea!?
I have a steel HT for local south downs type riding. the gravel bike was horrid on them when dry (rough) and poor in the mud. XC bike floats nicely and tires me out a fraction.
If i lived where I had actual gravel roads, like the new forest then maybe I'd consider a gravel bike. But for most xc i think they're poor. And as you say, if avoiding the road, maybe an xc bike is best
Full suss for the fun when not riding from home.
I dont ride on the drops on my road bike, why on earth they would be any use off road I have no idea!?
because aerodynamics still apply off road on the planet I live on.
The older interior testing regime. Testing at a standard pressure always favours the wider tyres.
Yep, although I generally run my XC tyres at around 25psi for 'grav' and grav tyres at 30-35ish, in both cases as a sweet spot for grip/RR vs pinch puncture protection, so I reckon it all evens out. In essence I (think I) tend to run a pressure that results in consistent deflection.
MTB tyres are compared at 25 and 35psi, gravel tyres at 33 and 44psi I think. Makes it a wee bit difficult to compare across although right enough that’s the sort of difference in pressure I run (30psi on MTB, 40psi on gravel).
Yeah, all true, so exact comparisons aren't possible, although as we've all previously the test is idealised vs the real world. On balance I'd still claim that XC tyres are certainly not slower than Grav tyres though, all other things being equal-ish, which seems somewhat counter-intuitive and contrary to received wisdom.
The other interesting thing about the RR results is that continuous centre treads seem to be an irrelevance when it comes to rolling resistance, e.g. the Nano, which I really like, is poor. Perhaps indicates that most RR comes from carcass deflection, and equally that road noise probably isn't a great indicator of RR either.
There's also a Zinn/Velonews rabbit hole to go down on RR btw.
do aerodynamics really matter on a leisure ride??
I dont ride on the drops on my road bike, why on earth they would be any use off road I have no idea!?
Neither do I, generally - but I find the hoods, slightly back swept tops and foreward loop of my bars give a useful range of effective, comfortable positions.
[img] 
[/img]
I think the rolling resistance thing is an interesting one, obviously wider tyres do come with an aero penalty but for a lot of off road that's maybe less of an issue (although debatable) but in xc wider tyres mean better rolling resistance and somewhat pushed by the industry but at the same time we are told Gravel bikes are fast with their skinny tyres.
I wonder if for smooth gravel roads that we don't have lots of in the uk, the Gravel bike/tyres are faster but then anything beyond that a Race King/Thunder Burt etc will be faster. That's what I find anyway, any kind of rough-ness to the surface, I find I either slow down a lot or you have to attack it like section of pave at Paris Roubaix, which is loads of fun but often ends up with a flat...and that's a lot slower!
Also it has been suggested that the RR tests done on that site need to be taken with a pinch of salt, one they are conducted on smooth drums which doesn't reflect the real world (even for the road). Also I read that some tyres will be sticker when leaving the factory (ie Maxxis) but that will wear off after a ride or two and they speed up but for these test they are factory new.
I think in terms of speed though (and obviously speed is not everything) it does come down to what's fast for you. If you take Jared Graves XC hardtail, a ARC frame, under forked by 30mm (100mm fork on a 130mm frame), race kings (no matter what the weather),slammed 90mm stem, a 32 chainring with a tiny cassette etc, for most it would not be fast but it is/was for him. But then equally I am sure most who have raced xc will have been passed by a trail/enduro bike. And the same is going to be for any kind of off road. I am slower on a gravel bike over most places but I am certain that someone else would be the opposite.
To the OP maybe just try both if you can and see what suits.
I dont ride on the drops on my road bike, why on earth they would be any use off road I have no idea!?
THIS! For me I find drops all wrong for off road, beyond fire roads.
The tops are too short a reach and no brakes.
The hoods are much better than they used to be for off road but they still feel as if your hands are going be bounced off when breaking hard plus why on earth do I want all my weight all the way out there?
The drops, again flared bars are way better than drops used to be for off road and it is a lot of fun to descend in the drops on a fire road but anything else, I don't want to have to crane my neck just to see down the trail.
I do think it's funny that in the 90's hybrids came out with "look you can have a road going bike with all the comfort and control of a flat bar" and now you can have an "off road bike with all the comfort of drop handlebars"!
I do like my gravel bike, I feel very luck to have one, but I just couldn't recommend it for a truly capable off road bike. XC is always the king of the all rounder for me...I even won a road crit on an xc bike (albeit it just a club one).
"For that kind of ratio, I’d generally pick the gravel bike. Speed I gain on the road far outweighs the time it costs me off-road (obviously a bit terrain dependant)."
Are speed gains/losses the determining factor for many of us I wonder? Or is it about which bike delivers the most overall fun for the routes we tend to ride?
I tried my cross bike, with 38mm tyres, on local off-road trails, which require about a 50:50 road/trail split to get to them and link the good bits together. I hated it. It might have been a tiny bit faster on the road than my xc hardtail (though not really sure about that), but it wasn't any more fun on the road and it was an awful lot less fun off-road. That's due to the nature of the trails i ride. they're just too rough, rocky, droppy, to be much fun with skinny tyres and no suspension. yes, they can be ridden on that bike, but slowly and with constant fear of breaking something.
If I lived near a big forest with lots of fire-roads, or smooth flowy singletrack, I'd probably ride the skinny bike a lot more often, but i don't.
I’ve tried a couple of gravel bikes and just don’t find them fun even on the mildest off road sections. A decent HT or Stooge is just a comfier, more fun place to be IMO. Then again speed and getting aero aren’t the goals or related to fun for me. I’d always sacrifice speed for comfort and ability to mess about. YMMV though OP
I dont ride on the drops on my road bike, why on earth they would be any use off road I have no idea!?
I used to think this but a good set of flared drops are perfectly fine. I ride mellow trail and some chunky bridal way on my gravel bike and doing that on the drops is so much better than flat bars on a gravel bike. You have so much more control over breaking and steering.
“For that kind of ratio, I’d generally pick the gravel bike. Speed I gain on the road far outweighs the time it costs me off-road (obviously a bit terrain dependant).”
Are speed gains/losses the determining factor for many of us I wonder? Or is it about which bike delivers the most overall fun for the routes we tend to ride?
Well, it was in reply to it being a race.
I live in Cardiff and there's a lot of riding available in the Valleys that is tracks across the tops of the mountains. You need a fair bit of road to ride out there and to link them up, but there are lots of rough tracks and fire roads. The rough tracks are pretty rocky though, and there's plenty of old fashioned singletrack to link them up, some of it steep up and down.
So I bought a Salsa El Mariachi, sadly the penultimate model year, and out in rigid forks and a narrow flat high sweep bar. It's absolutely perfect. I can do any technical singletrack on it (especially now it has a dropper) and I can go quite fast on all but the rockiest trails because I fitted 2.35 fast rolling tyres (Racing Ralph Addix speed). It also has MTB gears so I can get up anything rideable.
However being rigid and having steep angles it's awesome on road. I don't feel slow and I have the gears to attack the steepest climbs. Riding out of the saddle is great as it's rigid.
It's far more capable than a gravel bike but not particularly compromised on road. I called it my adventure bike before that was a thing. Also brilliant for all day bike packing and what not. I rode it flat out at Swinley a lot too, far quicker than I'd have gone in drop bars. You could also call it flat bar monster cross 🙂
If I had to have one bike this would be it. And I wouldn't even be that upset. That said, it's geography dependent as down here it is rocky, steep and there's lots of road.
Are speed gains/losses the determining factor for many of us I wonder?
Faster average speeds mean you can go further in the time you have which means more rides are available to you. A bit of extra speed could increase your riding area by quite a lot.