If there is anything one can say about this "gravel category" of bikes, (can I reiterate how dumb this name was to be used for these bikes here again? ), it is that everyone, and every company, has its interpretation of what "that" means.
It isn't like a gravel bike is one certain thing. Not like it was with say, 1990's XC MTB bikes, or French style rando bikes, or with road racing bikes. All niches of cycling that have a certain parameter that the bikes have to fit into to be "that" style. Gravel bikes still are kind of a "Wild, Wild, West" sort of genre, and that's fun.
That said, things are pointing to a homogenization of the style and some of that is evidenced by trends I am seeing out there now. There are hints of what is to come in the future as well. This isn't going to be an all-encompassing look at all things "gravel", it is just my take on the scene. You may have a differing opinion, or some of your own examples to share. That's fine. Here are my thoughts....
 |
| Co-Op's ADV 1 650B bike (Image courtesy of REI) |
650B Is Fading:
Early on in the gravel bike's developmental period, WTB introduced "Road Plus" tires which was an outgrowth of their idea from the MTB side where an optional wheel size was afforded to 29"er riders by using the 650B format. This resulted in "B+", or what has been now called "Plus Sized" tires. That idea was the basis for "Road Plus" which was an idea that would give gravel bikers an option to run a more voluminous tire in a frame normally limited to 40-42mm tires in a 700c format.
Subsequently many gravel bikes were designed to accept either 700c or 650B tires and wheels. This "compromised" geometry choices a bit, especially when thinking about bottom bracket drop and chain stay length. However; recently designs have been put forth that handle 700c X 50mm or even slightly wider tires. This not only covers the needs of those who want volume in their gravel tires, but it works fine for 40mm-42mm tires too. This negates the "need" to accommodate 650B tires and wheels. The geometry can be tightened up and tuned for better performance with one wheel size.
Now, that isn't to say that 650B is dead. I'm not intimating that at all here. But you are going to see less and less of that "multiple wheel size" capability in marketing and 650B will likely find its home in bike packing rigs, smaller sized gravel bikes, and niche offerings. Tire manufacturers will have a say in this as well. Less 650B offerings are already being noted. That's another indicator to me that the wheel/tire size is fading in popularity.
 |
| The revised Santa Cruz Stigmata (Image courtesy of Santa Cruz Bikes) |
Suspension & Dropper Posts:
Here is another trend. Suspension fork compatibility and dropper post routing on the same bike. These bikes, much like Santa Cruz's revised Stigmata, shown above, are "gravel bikes for mountain bikers". It's a trend I see more of, and I think it hints at something different around the corner to come.
There is an element of folks out there that want a simpler off-road capable bike that can "do it all". Gravel bikes appeal to these folks with one big problem: They are not "off-road" bikes and that's where these folks also want to go.
Gravel, as a concept, was never meant to be "that bike that does off-road/all-terrain". It was meant to be a bike for "all roads". Be those paved, not paved, or somewhere in between. Mountain biking, (again, another misused name if ever there was one), was thought of as being "that bike for everything off-roads". Now the gravel bike is being pushed toward that 'off-road' usage category and this will begin to morph into "something else".
What that "something else" is, I am not sure of at this point. All I know is that 40mm of gravel suspension fork travel is a joke, and drop bars off road are not all that popular. Suspension forks on a gravel road is overkill and the forks are too heavy. Again, you can get a suspension stem and get better results than you can with a gravel suspension fork, and there is no maintenance. Suspension forks on gravel bikes is laughably inept and not a well thought-out concept for on-road or off-road usage.
That's why I feel that at some point we will see a sea change. Suspension travel will have to increase, drop bars will make less sense, and then.... Hard tail revival? Maybe drop bars stick around and we get revised Fargos/Cutthroats? See what I mean.....
 |
| SRAM "T" Type rear derailleur (Image courtesy of SRAM) |
Drive Train Changes:
There will be a lot of changes to come in terms of drive train choices. First and foremost of these will be the death of the traditional derailleur hangar for both off-road/MTB and gravel drive trains.
SRAM started the sea change to this new, "dual-sided" hangar type for a rear derailleur which essentially integrates the hangar into the main chassis of the derailleur, making the connection to the frame more solid. This was only made possible by through axles, and to a lesser extent, derailleur "clutches" which stabilize the pulley cage. Both these things help derailleurs become more resistant to being ripped off, bent, or damaged than the previous, flimsy designs of the past.
Shimano will adopt something similar, and frame designers are all about this change as it eliminates the need to make a derailleur hangar and it simplifies manufacturing of the frame. I see this as a win-win for consumers and manufacturers.
Yes....old stuff won't work on new frames. (Possible exception is a UDH hangar) But the industry has done this before. 1994: Threaded steer tubes are eliminated by "Aheadset", threadless head sets. 1 1/8th supplants 1' steer tubes at about the same time. I can go on... We all lived, and many of those old bikes are still around being ridden. It'll be fine....
Another thing I see coming is electronic shifting in a cheaper, more affordable format. It's being hinted at by SRAM with their sweeping range of AXS, but even more so by off-brand, Chinese manufacturers of really inexpensive electronic drive trains. We're talking a complete group set for the price of a couple of high end Shimano Di2 rear derailleurs here. The big brands (SRAM/Shimano) will have to respond at some point with entry-level, electronic 9/10/11 speed stuff that can be sold on a complete bike for less than 2k. This means that mid-level, less expensive electronic shifting bikes for gravel will also be a thing.
Electronic CUES? I think so. SRAM will have to do something as well, but the common rider who sees an eBike/HPC as being "not where I want to go" and wants a more technologically advanced bike? I think that's a big chunk of the riding populace that would definitely bite on electronic shifting at a lower price point. Enterprising You Tubers are already showing us how it can be done and Chinese brands are only all too happy to oblige them and their subscribers. As I said- SRAM and Shimano are not going to sit idly by and watch this eat into their market share without a response.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments. Thanks for reading Guitar Ted Productions.
9 comments:
I watched a “race report” video from a famous gravel racer who competed, and won a small-town, 100 mile event in Pisek, ND. I was intrigued how he talked about selecting his gear for the particular conditions: specifically the use of aero bars and a 2x drivetrain. His video highlights some of the aspects of gravel bikes from the “racing” perspective. Interesting food for thought!
I think we’ll see more dropper posts with suspension for all-road bikes. Maybe something like a Redshift Shockstop or Cane Creek eesilk with 50 mm (or more) of dropper travel. The utility is similar to off-road biking: It would allow all-road riders to drop the seat a few mm’s when pedaling through rough terrain for a little extra crotch clearance; full drop when bombing down hills for lower center of gravity. PNW Components has their Coast suspension dropper with 100 or 120 drop and 40 mm of travel.
It's all exciting from the technology standpoint, but it also shows how much all this tech is driven by racing. And it shows that if bike industry wants to push all this on us, then they missed the demand by a mile yet again, as 90%+ cyclists don't race and never will.
The good thing is that it won't make older designs fully obsolete, just less cutting edge. My bike rolls on 650B, 2x9 drivetrain, friction shifting. I see no need for latest and greatest.
I largely agree with your thoughts here, however I still see a bright future for analog (cable operated) drivetrains. Not everyone wants electronic shifting all the time. I like electronic shifting for long rides, where it provides a very real benefit in terms of reduced hand fatigue. But on shorter rides, or mountain bike rides, I actually prefer not having to worry about charging a battery and mess with that stuff. Man, I’m starting to sound old…
@MG - I agree that cable operated systems will continue, but I think a large part of the riding public wants "easy", as in something that needs low/no maintenance, which an electronic drive train speaks to. (And explains the e-bike thing for the majority of those users that buy them)
But cables will always be the least expensive way to go, so they aren't going away any time soon, with that I can agree.
The common theme is always the industry is constantly selling items, without sales they perish. Me, I love my SRAM AXS. But do I need it? Not really, it is nice for the reasons MG stated above. I would disagree a bit with him on long ride statement a skoosh. I would rather have a mechanical shifting bike for the Tour Divide or some other long distance multi day event where support is not an option. I know, semantics, but still a skoosh. I do not like the trend of front suspension on gravel bikes. If I need a fork to dampen the gravel, I should be looking to a Lauf fork. Again that is a preference in an item. I am of the opinion, all these changes are to push product and force product obsceneness. This only reinforces my opinion that cycling is not pocket book friendly (do people even know that expression anymore?)
It will be very interesting to see how this mountain bike-ification (great term!) plays out. It seems to create an interesting dilemma for marketers and consumers. The new Stigmata you posted is a great example. Is the Stigmata a gravel race bike with a slammed stem as ridden by Unbound winner Keegan Swenson? Or is it a drop bar MTB with "singletrack prowess" as claimed by SC copywriting? For off-road use many riders will want to spend more time in the drops. But the stack height on a race bike that allows a racer to slam their stem is very different from the stack height needed for a drop bar mtb like the Fargo where the handlebar is often setup with the drops as the primary riding position.
@Scott - That's a great observation, Scott! It would seem that "gravel race bike" and "drop-bar MTB" are two things which are diametrically opposed to each other when considering set up/ergonomics/handling concerns.
There’s basically two geometries of gravel bike being made. There’s the ones based on road-like geometry that is designed for road and smoother gravel. The outgoing Stigmata is an example of that. Then there’s XC MTB-like geometry that is designed for rough gravel and light XC (which this new Stigmata is). I predict sone day the industry will invent marketing trends to distinguish between these types.
I think many people are buying gravel bikes with the idea of it serving dual purposes. I bought an Aspero that became both my race road and gravel bike. I just swap wheelsets between 700x28 carbon aero wheels and 650x48 aluminum wheels. So fully doing the WTB Road Plus thing, though the Aspero also has flip chips to adjust geometry if I want to optimize for the stock 700x42 wheels I have too. By serving double duty, I saved money not buying another bike, and any upgrades I make or maintenance I do is like doing that to two bikes, so it takes less time and is more easily justified. I love it.
The people I talk to that like the MTB-like gravel bikes generally do so for one of a few reasons: 1. They previously only rode on pavement and are worried about handling the bumps so want as much stability and suspension as possible 2. They want the bike to serve as their gravel and light XC bike (they maybe already have a full sus or just want to dabble in MTB) 3. There are some races where there’s a fair bit of trail or very rough roads where it’s not clear if a road-like gravel bike or hardtail is faster overall, so they want a middle option.
Unfortunately bike geometry is very nuanced and I think most people buying gravel bikes don’t understand the differences between the two types. Those MTB-gravel bikes will be really stable on rough downhills, but that slack front end means there’s less weight on the front wheel and unless you really move your body to compensate it’s way too easy to wash out the front wheel in loose turns. That’s something I hadn’t thought of until someone else mentioned it. How many buyers realize or are told that?
Of course, with proper technique that can be overcome, just like a road-gravel bike isn’t too different from an early MTB and can be ridden effectively on light XC trails. (My 44 cm plus flared drops aren’t that much narrower than a 90’s flat bar ;).
Post a Comment