Is there a difference?

Or is it just a load of cobblers to generate £?

Why would anyone bigger tyres than CX on Tarmac?

I think they’re an American invention. They don’t make much sense over here.

Slight differences in geometry I think but not big enough that anyone would need both. Depending on exact usage one might be slightly better than the other.

The term is too ill-defined (over here especially) they run the gamut from slightly-less-racey CX bike all the way to touring-bike-with-flashy-graphics, via 29er-MTB-with-drop-bars-and-less-knobbles

plenty of very good bikes in the genre though and cover a multitude of riding but the actual gravel racing scene doesn’t really exist over here.

Or is it just a load of cobblers to generate £?

Why would anyone bigger tyres than CX on Tarmac?

Its all shades of grey

A true CX bike is designed for a 1 hour race, probably in the mud

The new fad is something similar but with rack and mud guard mounts. Which a true CX bike wouldn’t have. Other things will also be tweaked for comfort etc. They are designed for on off road use so I don’t understand the tyre size comment. Oh and i think for leisure off road use 40c is popular and CX bikes are designed around 35c (well now 33c)

Wondering how fast it runs on 40c.

A CX I’m buying runs on 35c and may have clearance for 40c when it’s dryer and no so gloopy.

I like the higher BB of CX but gues the lower BB of gravel frames should handle better?

Would be interesting to test ride both though! So much choice these days 😉

Given that many of us happily ride cx bikes up hill and down dale, and have done for years, then gravel bikes are obv total bobbins from that perspective.
But if you forget that for a sec, and just look at the gravel bikes in isolation, as a ground up design, then they look boss. So if you don’t own a cx bike they have to be worth looking at. [If you do own a CX bike and are also looking at a gravel bike, then let me congratulate you on your disposable income].

A huge proportion of MTB owners in the UK would probably be better off on these sort of bikes, tbh – the 10 times a year crowd. They’re too expensive at the mo to hit this massive market of bimblers, but once they come down in price they might make a big dent there.

What ya getting Frankenstein?

Specific Gravel bikes tend to be a bit longer, bit slacker and a bit lower than CX bike bit to be honest there isn’t much on it.

I think they make quite a lot of sense in the UK for general riding.

To a greater extent, marketing bobbins unless designed to take full-on touring kit and panniers (e.g. some of the Surly / Salsa bikes are designed as tourers).

I built my wife a CX frame with short rear end and super skinny, very curvy seatstays (for mud clearance, low weight and comfort). It would also be great for riding on gravel roads, but awful for loaded touring panniers hung out the back (heels would hit the bags, very flexy and would probably snap the stays at some point).

Some “racy” CX bikes have toe overlap – but I’d just say that is sloppy design rather than an inherent / required “feature”.

davidtaylforth – Member
I think they’re an American invention. They don’t make much sense over here.

Dunno, I think they’re probably perfect for the thousands of miles of forestry and estate roads in Scotland,

Although I prefer a roadified 29er for that sort of thing.

I liked the term “Bridleslayer” someone came up with in another one of these threads. They’re not proper CX bikes, more like offroad capable drop barred bikes with touring/sportive derived geometry, typically with rack/guard mounts as a nod towards potential touring and commuting uses you can still use them to dabble in CX racing too…

Basically pretty adaptable, practical, useful bikes. No we don’t have “gravel races” here in the UK but we have plenty of places to ride such bikes…

Compared to various other cycling fashions and fads are they really so terrible?

So sugar free monstercross then?

no one road road bikes on fireroads before 2009.

you may think you did, and even have specific memories, but you didn’t.

I think they’re an American invention. They don’t make much sense over here.

All depends where you live. In the New Forest they make sense.
You can ride a 50/50 mix of road and off road with most of the off road being fire roads and you can ride for many miles..

Agree that they are only marginally different (softer) than a race CX bike but I was using things likes Surly Steamrollers with 40c tyres over 10 years ago which would pretty much be the same thing in terms of tyre and geometry (lower BB). It is the fastest way to get across the forest and there are only a few segments where I am quicker on an MTB.
A CX bike actually feels similar to a track bike due to BB height and I have used both off road for a number of years but the track bike is very limited with tyre width.

Amazing how many of the comments above have already been duped in to BS

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

I think they’re great, or have the potential to be.

You can get a bike to suit whatever kind of riding you do, from 3 Peaks old school to fat and comfy.

Marketing and branding have created a bike for every niche, but only a couple of larger manufacturers offer something truly versatile – the Genesis Vagabond looks like a particularly useful example of the way things could go.

Big tyres are the best thing since discs.
It’s not a race is it?
Comfort suits the changing demographic too – older newbies who like the look of a drop bar bike, don’t come from a roadie background or see why buying a ‘road bike’ means you have to suffer.

More versatile tourers AND more comfortable road bikes sound good to me.

I’ve got a Salsa gnarmac thing and CX bike that I use for races and shorter offroad rides. I think you need to look at each bike on it’s merits. Both of mine are very different in geometry and the Salsa has all the fittings for guards and racks. I wouldn’t want to do a 100 miles road or offroad ride on my CX bike, but it’s excels round a muddy field.

I think if anything the term “CX bike” has been used to describe things that aren’t really CX bikes so the lines are a bit blurred.

Excepting the fact that for many years a good number of manufacturers have simply jazzed up their touring or commuter/hybrid frames, and added some nobbly tyres to make not very good cross bikes…….. or, in fact, make gravel bikes but without the advertising budget.

If ‘gravel’ is too divisive (or American) a term then all-road is perhaps better. I have a Stoater that I take on long road rides where about a third of the route is on gravel / unmade roads or tracks. It’s perfect for that. Plus it has rack and mudguard mounts, discs, two water bottle cages, and wears anything from 28c – 35c tyres (not tried larger). I keep up with friends on traditional road bikes (just) but am quicker on byways etc.

FunkyDunc – Member
Amazing how many of the comments above have already been duped in to BS…

I think they’re more like a reversion to the general purpose dropbar bikes that were ridden in my youth. Tyre sizes were generally in the 1 ?” size (abt 38mm) and we rode them everywhere and used them for all purposes including what is now called mountainbiking.

The move towards motorised transport killed them off because the majority of riders left were sports oriented, so “road” bikes evolved into thinly disguised race bikes over a few decades.

I think it’s a case of welcome back proper bike and here’s a new name. 🙂

(Not to mention they are so much better than what we used to ride).

^ exactly that, they are more ‘all-purpose bike’ than anything else but there’s suddenly a new name for it and manufacturers are putting some effort into them again, which is nice.

They never went away but they were mostly just referred to with handwaving and mutterings of tourers.

Credit to the marketeers for managing to make them exciting to people again.

essentially:

all purpose bike – weight – accessories + skinnier tyres + higher gearing => evolved to road racer or CX racer depending on your bent.

all purpose bike – accessories + bigger tyres + lower gearing (+ suspension eventually) => evolved into MTB

And then the manufacturers focussed all their efforts into the new niches and the good old all purpose bike sat languishing and unloved at the back of the catalogue and with no real improvements, now they’re throwing shiny new graphics at them and putting some of the tech developed in other areas to good use making some really really good ‘bikes’

^ exactly that, they are more ‘all-purpose bike’ than anything else but there’s suddenly a new name for it and manufacturers are putting some effort into them again, which is nice.

They never went away but they were mostly just referred to with handwaving and mutterings of tourers.

Credit to the marketeers for managing to make them exciting to people again.

This ^^

It largely depends on how you define each genre of bike anyway. A traditional CX (back before it became the next must-have thing) was a very specific machine for racing around muddy fields for 1hr.

But now CX has become quite a broad definition and within that there are more road-ified CX bikes (gravel road), more burly CX bikes (monster-cross, adventure-cross) and more touring oriented CX (enduroad, adventure road).

I see it as a continuation of the way the road bike market went from it’s focus on ever more race-oriented bikes to bikes that the average consumer would actually be capable of riding – the sub-genre of “sportive” road bikes.

There’s a lot of cross-over between them all I think, one of those Venn diagrams with closely overlapping circles.

I think they’re more like a reversion to the general purpose dropbar bikes that were ridden in my youth. Tyre sizes were generally in the 1 ?” size (abt 38mm) and we rode them everywhere and used them for all purposes including what is now called mountainbiking.

I’m quite glad they’re reverting to be honest. The bigger the variety of bikes on the market the better, but yeh the marketing BS is irritating.

There’s a lot of cross-over between them all I think, one of those Venn diagrams with closely overlapping circles.

something like this, feel free to argue over the exact terms and placements and overlap 😉

The draw to these bikes is probably;

disc braked
road bike like geometry
ability to take 40c tyre

Makes an ideal bike for road/light off road mix at high speeds, doesn’t matter what term is used to describe it.

Whatever you call it, the “gravel” or “adventure” genre is ideal for 90% of my riding: a mix of 4 days per week commuting, weekend roadie sessions, occasional touring, fire road rides with the kids in tow (literally, on a tagalong) and popping to the shops.

Some would cover the above needs with several bikes, but it’s only one for me… due having a MTB for trails and the 5 other bikes in our house being for my wife and kids!

I ride a Cotic Escapade (could easily be any of the others mentioned above) with 29er Hope wheels, 105 / XT gears and 37c tyres. In the winter, it gets guards and in the summer a rack for tours.

I’ve had road, flat-bar hybrid and CX bikes to cover these needs in the past; but found that the more relaxed geometry, drop bars and MTB parts compatibility are the best combination for me.

Other than a MTB, this is the type of bike I spend money on. On the evidence from this thread, I’m not alone – and this probably explains the market’s offer of this sort of bike.

I always did like touring/bikepacking at least as much as mtb. My style is nowhere fast but days in the saddle over all terrains – ie bridleways, rupps, mostly country lanes. Carrying small tent/panniers or large saddlebag depending. So much so that I keep converted mtb hybrid in the stable so it can be forced into longer-distance multi-surface touring mode. If it had disks, drops and pannier mounts on forks then it would be near-perfect. I spent ages trying to identify such a bike and figured the closest to have been the discontinued (cromo) Dawes Sardar. Now there seems to be lots of options which is a big thumbs up from me.

An ‘adventure’ bike seems like a match made in heaven for my type of riding, and whilst it may be a small niche I don’t see the hype can hinder if only to further development. I only don’t have one as time and money constraints dictate otherwise.

I’m waiting with interest to see where Shimano will go with CX / gravel groupsets.

How long until we finally get compatibility between drop bar shifters and clutch mechs? SRAM seem to be one step ahead on this one (and also charging a healthy premium for the lack of competition).

I have a Pinnacle Arkose 2 and its ace. Makes muddy singletrack fun again, can handle smallish drops and roots etc. Also makes linking up bits on the road less of a drag (ahem).

I honestly have no idea if its a CX bike or Gravel Bike. To me its just a great mix of hardtail MTB and winter roadbike.

I’m waiting with interest to see where Shimano will go with CX / gravel groupsets.

How long until we finally get compatibility between drop bar shifters and clutch mechs? SRAM seem to be one step ahead on this one (and also charging a healthy premium for the lack of competition).

I’m waiting for SRAM to launch E-Tap with hydraulic disc brakes, that’s set to be the game-changer for the “all-road” market.

CDF30 here, I think it fits this category….. Great fun on road and tame off road, use it for touring with panniers, fire road and windfarm rides with the kids, winter road rides.

Also have a carbon Defy for summer road rides, love them both and not really much overlap in use.

What’s a wind farm ride? Does that need another sort of bike?

As some have already alluded to, it’s the CX moniker that’s been mis-used for years. Most of the bikes sold in that category have actually been all-road tourers/ commuters/city-bikes. Calling them Gravel Bikes/All-Road bikes just helps differentiate them from the CX bikes with racing geometry, no mudguard/rack mounts etc.

I struggled for years trying to explain what my VN Amazon was used for. Now, it’s easy 😉

I’ve been racing a Niner RLT for the past two seasons, and that’s supposed to be a gravel bike, when you look at the geometry sheets from Niner for the BSB they’re fully fledged cross bike and the RLT, there is no difference in bottom bracket drop, head tube is a little steeper and the chainstays are a tiny bit shorter, but that’s your lot. Do I feel like the RLT hampers me, no it’s a nice neutral handling bike, don’t clobber the pedals mid corner, and with the lower bottom bracket than some cross bikes, it’s a slightly lower jump to get on.

paul4stones – Member
What’s a wind farm ride? Does that need another sort of bike?

😀 I reckon it might, yes !!!

As others have said, gravel/adventure is really just ‘all purpose’. I cut my teeth on a Carlton Cyclone road bike and day-toured on it (with no luggage), often slipping and sliding around offroad transfer trails. Then, before I was even hardly aware of the CX genre (was vaguely aware that weird people raced road bikes offroad) I bought what was known back in the 80s as an ‘ATB’ (all-terrain bike) and got hooked with successive mtbs for the next 20-odd yrs, modding and trying to make them work as all-round bikes that I could also dick around in the woods on.

Isn’t ‘gravel/adventure’ simply the ATB reinvented to be more useful on the road/carrying luggage? My pulled-straight-from-the-air theory is that people who see a multi-purpose bike as ‘hype’ or ‘uber-niche’ are themselves possibly more likely to be into more race-orientated cycling and see much investment in regular all-round (yet ‘performance’) cycling as a bit weird?

A Dawes Galaxy then?

A Dawes Galaxy with better brakes and bigger tyres.
🙂

Sounds great.

Not that much real choice if you want discs, a triple, big tyres and rack and guard mounts though.

A Dawes Galaxy with better brakes and bigger tyres.

Sounds great.

I can think of one…..