This year the UCI had 16 events on the calendar for the gravel series they run. For 2024 that series will see 9 new events added and in a truly "world-wide" fashion as the series is run in Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America. Interestingly there are no events in this series in South America.
Comments: On the one hand, it is amazing to see how gravel events are becoming a world-wide phenomenon in competitive sport. But that said, "gravel" racing, at least in the Modern Era which begat what we know as the genre today, was developed in the USA. Having one event on the calendar is a bit strange then. The series is pretty Euro-focused, despite the far-flung events in Africa and Australia. That's fine, but if you are running a "World Championship Qualifying Series", then petty much ignoring North America with but two events - one each in Canada and the US, then I think that's really a pretty arbitrary "world championship". At least "Gravel Worlds" in Nebraska completely understands who they are in the gravel scene.
But then again, saying anything in sport is a "World Championships" is pretty much akin to fantasy. The gravel thing the UCI is doing is simply racing at a high level for those fortunate enough to partake in the activity. Besides that? It's meaningless.
Oh! Did I mention the series naming sponsor is Trek? Yeah...... No real comment about that, just noting the fact.
 |
| Gravel National Championships paid out $60,000.00 to winners |
Big Money, Big Time Racing In Gravel:
As you long time blog readers know, I have written a "State of the Gravel Scene" opinion piece since what? 2018? Every January 1st that's hit the blog here.
Well, interestingly, I came across what could easily be called a "State of Professional Gravel Racing" write up on cyclingnews.com the other day.
I've said that big time money was infiltrating racing and that this, more than anything else, would motivate several changes in gravel racing. Well, the piece I read makes this infinitely clear. You can check it out HERE.
In typical "professional cycling journalistic manner", much of what is NOT Pro gravel racing is treated in a condescending manner and assumptions abound regarding the status of gravel riding from the "Pro" viewpoint, which is that "if you are not seriously racing, with all that entails from the rider's and promoter's part, you don't count".
I will gladly take on any dissenting opinions to that statement, because what Cycling News is doing is simply trotting out the same old lines which have been used in regard to competitive road racing at a Pro and semi-Pro level for decades. The reactions against those narratives are, ironically, one of the big reasons gravel racing was popular in the first place.
And the piece is simply blind to this and the existence of grassroots racing/riding is mentioned but it is obvious that this media outlet sees it as something that should give way to "ways for riders outside the heartland to gain recognition", as if becoming "somebody" in gravel racing is the goal here. This sort of tone-deaf, ignorant thinking is exactly what will turn gravel racing into the dead end road racing, crit racing, and MTB racing on the sanctioned side in the USA went into in the past.
But we'll see..... I doubt history will repeat itself again, right? (sarcasm alert)
 |
| Image of John Ingham by Mary Grove |
Reaction To John Ingham's Guest Post:
About a week ago, I featured a guest post on this blog authored by John Ingham which ran on Saturday. If you missed that, I highly recommend checking it out. You can look on the right sidebar here for "Featured Post" or click THIS LINK.
The post is a long-form, annotated article which is of a caliber far, far above what I could ever aspire to. And it also was a big risk, seeing as it is a very long post for a blog, and there hasn't been anything posted here like it before. How would you - the dear readers of this blog - take to such a big post with that sort of subject matter?
Well, much to my surprise and pleasure, apparently you folks really like what John wrote. I had some very complimentary comments on the post, and the numbers? Oh my! This was by far and away the best showing for a Saturday post ever. And it may rival a first day total here for any post I have published. It easily out-performed most posts here by twice the amount of views on the first day!
Now, I cannot promise any more such high-quality content here in the future. I can only say that I am honored and humbled by being able to present John's fine talents, thoughts, and work here on "Guitar Ted Productions". And also, THANK YOU readers for your reading of that post, if you did, and for being so accepting of something so radically different here on the blog.
 |
| The Cervelo Rouvida geometries. (Image courtesy of Cervelo) |
The Cervelo Rouvida Morphs From Gravel To Road:
This week Cervelo announced a new electrified bike which is fine and dandy. That, in my opinion, wasn't what was the big deal here. The most interesting part was that Cervelo recognized that road riders want one thing and gravel riders want another thing. The Rouvida answers both needs in one bike. The way Cervelo does this is what is most interesting.
The bike has different drop out inserts for the front and the rear which can alter head tube angle, bottom bracket drop, and even the chain stay length. Essentially, the inserts "rotate" the frame slightly to make these changes effective.
The downside? Well, besides the fact that the electronics make this bike very expensive, you also need to do a firmware update to account for the switch which - you guessed it - can only be done at a Cervelo dealer. That, by the way, will probably be the way forward for the electrification of bicycles. The "independent" mechanics will get shut out since they won't have the capabilities to diagnose and update electronic parts on bicycles.
But that's another story. the interesting bit here, to my way of thinking, is the geometry morphing design of the Rouvida. You can read more about this bike HERE.
And that brings us to the end of another week here at Guitar Ted Productions. Thanks for reading and have an awesome weekend!
2 comments:
The marketing and design choices for that Rouvida is strange. It’s like you get two bikes in one, but not really because you have to go to a dealer to convert it back and forth. Who wants to do that? That’s a big negative to me.
And they don’t really say what it is they change. I don’t see how the motor *has* to be reprogrammed for road riding if it works just fine in gravel mode which will include riding pavement at times. I don’t know why they don’t explain what’s different about it at all. If there’s good justification, let’s hear it. Otherwise, why complicate things? And even if it’s justified, then for the price they are charging it should be as simple as a button press.
@Nooge - You get no argument from me on those points. call me a Negative Nancy, but in my view the eBike dealers and brands are taking their cues from the automotive world and making EVERYTHING brand and dealer specific.
There was some cycling media outlet that had one of their journalists on a video saying that this proprietary electronic bike stuff was out of hand and that what should be happening is industry standard motor mounts, battery sizes, and backward compatibility. I don't know what that guy was smoking, but it had to be pretty powerful. There is NO WAY that is ever going to happen in the electrified bicycle world. That ship sailed a LONG time ago.
So this Rouvida is just par for the course, in my view and the consumer gets shafted by these practices again. No surprises there.
Post a Comment