Shopping

Image courtesy of Scott Sports

I was looking at "The Fleet" the other day and I am noticing trends in the gravel segment. This has me thinking, 'Is it time for a new gravel bike?'

The tire sizes which are seen as being 'normal' for gravel have ballooned up wider and wider. I no longer have a bike which can handle the widest gravel tires available. 

Then you have geometry. Things have gone a bit lower and slacker in terms of the more 'adventure' oriented gravel bikes. 

And, if I were to heed what my friend N.Y. Roll says, any bike without down tube storage is stupid. 

Well.....that may be a bit aggressive, but it is a fashionable feature to include on a frame these days. . 

 

Image courtesy of Dangerholm social media

I noticed last week a new version of Scott's Addict gravel bike was released. The marketing copy stated this model was more about adventure than racing. Okay....this grabbed my attention. I looked into it a bit deeper. Hmm..... I can see this is what might be best for me. That is, 'if' I were to go shopping now. 

The geometry is very good. They have a GRX equipped 12 speed model in the range. It isn't crazy expensive. It isn't that lovely lilac color of the more expensive model, but....ya know....it's fine. It's okay. I'd likely swap in my BERD spoked wheel set with blue anodized Industry 9 hubs anyway, and those would look weird on a lilac colored frame and fork. 

The eighty-five hundred buck model has a very specific integrated stem too, which as spec'ed, would be too long for me, and this cheaper model has a stem I could easily swap. So, there is that as well. (I've no idea if a frame set is offered)

The new Addict has an interesting fork. The blades bow outward, which Scott claims has the effect of giving the rider more comfort. It also allows for larger tires, and the inside the fork bottle mounts.  

It is an enticing bicycle. For my needs, at any rate. IF I were to get something like this it would immediately replace the Noble GX5 and put the Raleigh Tamland on permanent retirement. (Can't bring myself to get rid of that Tamland since I had a hand in its development) 

Anyway, just dreaming here now. If you have any suggestions you think would be great for me, hit me up in the comments. Thanks for reading Guitar Ted Productions. 

What's In A Name?

Video image grab from THIS YouTube video.

 NOTE: Large doses of "my opinion" will be handed out in gloppy dollops today. You've been forewarned.....

Recently at Eurobike Scott Bicycles had a little surprise that was posted on a couple websites. This bicycle is interesting for one reason only. It is notable because of what Scott called the bike. The Scott Scale GR. (GR = "Gravel")

The bike caused an immediate uproar in the comment sections wherever it has been written about. Folks are arguing about what it is and how it should or should not be used. 

Look - this is all about names. That is all. It has absolutely zero to do with riding the bike the name is slapped on. We only have ourselves to blame for all of this nonsense. How certain bicycles came to be known in a general sense has done more to cause confusion, disruption, and unnecessary arguments than anything else about cycling has in the past or present.

Remember when these were called "snow bikes"?

One of the best and most rare examples of where a bicycle was named incorrectly and subsequently was renamed was when the fat bikes were first introduced in mass retail as "snow bikes". 

The name made sense because, at the time, fat bikes were revolutionizing Winter riding. However; consumers weren't getting the idea that Winter riding was "fun" and were relying on their shallow take, which was, 'bicycles were not ever ridden in Winter' and "Who would want to do that anyway?" The bike was discounted as a non-viable choice before a test ride could be offered. 

Retailers very quickly moved to "fat bike" to describe the corpulent-tired bicycles and focused on capability, fun, and stability as the message. And "...oh yeah, you can ride these in Winter if you want as well." This put the correct idea in the heads of many consumers and the fat bike revolution took off for a while there. Had we stuck with "snow bike" the amount of bikes sold would have been far, far less than what has been sold. 

And to the fat bike's benefit, the name it was finally saddled with did not describe where you rode it, which - in my opinion - is probably a good thing. Names matter. Words have power. Naming your bike a "snow bike" or a "fat bike" does different things in the mind of a human being. So too does "gravel bike". This is where the Scott Scale GR comes back into the story here. 

The Scott Scale GR obviously comes from a completely different evolutionary line of bicycles than does your typical "gravel bike". It doesn't take a genius to see that it is an XC racing MTB with a rigid fork that has "adventure nipples" attached to its legs. Scott can call their bicycles whatever they want as far as trademark law is not violated. And why wouldn't they call it a "gravel bike"? It is one of the hottest categories in cycling. Especially when one of their own has stated that they like using a MTB for gravel riding. 

Originally called "all-terrain bikes", these became known as MTB's.

So, what the heck is it anyway? Well, to answer that question, we have to go all the way back into early mountain bike (MTB) history when a company called "Mountain Bikes" existed. 

Yes, the term was a brand name. All other bikes of its ilk were known as "all-terrain bikes". However; the brand "Mountain Bikes", started by fat tire pioneers Gary Fisher and Charlie Kelly, had too cool a name for just one brand to "own it" and suddenly everyone was calling their "all-terrain bikes" Mountain Bikes. Soon to be abbreviated to "MTB". 

Once again, a bad choice. Had "all-terrain" stuck instead of mountain bike, we maybe would have seen an even wider adoption of fat-tired 26" wheeled bikes across the nation, not just where there were mountains, or where younginz thought they could do "mountain bike things". Had all-terrain stuck I think "all-road" would have followed. But "gravel" got stuck to this drop-bar, all roads type of bike and so, well...... What the heck does "gravel" even mean? 

Getting back to the Scott bicycle. It is really an "all-terrain' bike, but yeah.... Good luck with that! It will never be known as that and people will attach "gravel" to a bike these days just because it gets the eyeballs and the comment sections going. Mountain bike? That would have done little to attract any attention. Scott marketers did exactly what a good marketing department should do. Use a name that gets attention. Whether that makes sense or not doesn't really matter.