Current Carbon Gravel Bike Design - What I Would Change

Today I thought it would be a fun thought exercise to take each part of a carbon bike design for gravel and critique it with my take on what could be different. My thoughts are going to be constrained to keeping things optimized for what I believe is in the best interest of the average rider, not necessarily for racing.

My opinion being that most brands make bicycles their racers want, or the bike a designer would race, and these designs are not focused on the everyday rider. Racing many times eschews comfort, practicality, and value. Media focuses on these "halo bikes" as being the thing which is "most interesting" to the reader. It would be as if every bicycle rider only rode what the equivalent automobile in racing is for a daily driver. An unaffordable, expensive to maintain, impractical car. Why do we do this in the bicycle industry? It's stupid. 

Anyway....

Image courtesy of Factor Bikes' social media.

I'm going to use this image grab from a Factor Bikes' social media post showing a racing bike from the recent Traka gravel event in Spain which shows a reportedly new Factor gravel bike model. This will serve as a model for the misguided racing focus on gravel bike design. 

Let me first say I am not against having racing bikes. What I am saying is the influence these designs have on everyday gravel rider's bicycle choices is far too great. In fact, it should have little if any impact on gravel bike design. Why? Because the vast majority of riders don't race, and do not need racing bikes. 

My thoughts will correspond to the numbers I have placed on the image starting with the seat post at #1 and going in a clockwise rotation from there to number 7 which will end my thoughts on current design for gravel bikes. 

#1 - Seat Post: This is easy, but any design using an aero seat post generally is adding more discomfort to the rider. This is because most aero seat posts are not designed to flex along their length, like a good carbon seat post does.  

#2 - Integration: The fad these days is to tuck away all the cables out of the wind. This is easier with today's penchant for wireless shifting, but those pesky brake cables still need to be hidden, apparently. This seems fine until you want to change your handlebar/stem combo for reasons of fit, comfort, choice, or all of the above. Integrated bars and stems take away all those choices. Fine for racers. Dumb for everyone else. Let those cables be free! Losing a few watts to air drag is nothing for the average rider, but they will gain choices, and less expensive maintenance costs down the road.  

#3 - Carbon Forks: For the sake of this exercise, metal forks will be excluded. Carbon is wonderfully light, strong, and supposedly "tunable" for ride qualities.  However; no carbon fork manufacturer has decided to take advantage of the tunability of carbon for rider comfort when it comes to forks. Either it cannot be done at all, or it cannot be done without assurance of avoiding failures and thus, liability for injuries, or designers just don't care about comfort in fork designs. I'm choosing the liability fears here, but that is purely speculation on my part. Whatever the case may be, carbon forks are overly-stiff and this is especially true on race designs. 

#4 - MTB Sized Tires: My theory on this is in relation to the point above concerning forks. These big, poofy MTB tires are being employed because forks are too stiff and stems with any built-in forgiveness are not possible due to integration and weight concerns. Ditch the heavier tires, use a commonsense approach to cable management, and maybe make the fork nicer to ride for we who are not the less than 1% of riders who are top-tier racers.  

#5 - Front Derailleurs and 1X: Chain management for a 2X system is now programmable on wireless drive trains. You don't even need to think about "when to shift" anymore, and so, why do we stick to the thought that a massively out of whack chain line on 1X is okay? It isn't. Racers feel 1X is more aero. This is laughable to the ordinary cyclist.  Even if aero is a thing with front derailleurs, and even if a mechanical system relies on the rider to make shifts, a 2X system is more efficient, does not rely on huge jumps in rear cog spacing, and can be made so the parts are less expensive, especially in regard to the cassette. 

#6 - Chain Stay Length: Racers want the rear tire tucked right up underneath their rear ends. Fine for racing, perhaps. It certainly will make you feel faster because, well......you'll feel every bump. Where is the seat on a bus with the roughest ride? Right over the rear axle. Average riders do not need short chain stays. I'm not saying we need really long chain stays either. Just don't put me on a bike with a rear wheel tucked right underneath me. 

#7 - Tire Clearance: Just a thought here on tire clearances. I enjoy my 45mm and 50mm tires, but I also really like lightweight tires. There is a point of diminishing returns with regard to tire width. Especially if you want some kind of tougher casing or puncture protection. I'd rather ride a narrower tire which falls under 600 grams for my do-all roads bike choice. (Note - I did not say "gravel", although that surface is included) If I am mountain biking, I'll choose a proper MTB. I think a distinction is already there and trying to blur those lines is not only unnecessary, but confusing to consumers.  

Okay, those are my takes on current top-end gravel bike design and why I think much of what is being done is the wrong direction for most people.  I know not everyone will agree. I'd love to see what you think about these ideas. Let me know in the comments. 

 Thanks for reading Guitar Ted Productions