Two Things

Fat Tires For Gravel? Nothing New, Maybe Not The Best Thing Either...

Besides cycling media, racers, and brands harping on "aero" lately, I've seen a lot of digital space given to running mountain bike tires as "gravel tires" on "gravel bikes". Okay, so here's my opinion on all of this.

First of all, most  "gravel bikes" are not, and should not be racing bikes for gravel. Just as all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Also, not everyone should be looking to racers, or gravel racing, for their direction to take for riding a bicycle on gravel. 

However; this has been, and still is modus operandi for the cycling industry in the USA. Everything revolves around racing, to the great detriment of the average cyclist and those who might become cyclists. (I know, I probably sound like Grant Petersen here) What is happening in "gravel" cycling now is a repeat of the story which happened to road cycling and mountain biking. Competitive ______ racing (fill in the blank) is the measuring stick for ALL ______ biking (fill in the blank) cyclists. The equipment is put up as the "best", and all the things racers do are "better" for you, (even though you probably are the furthest thing from those Professional racers) and their actions and equipment are the goals you are to attain to. 

This is one of the main drivers for all the weird standards, ill fitting bike designs (ill fitting for average shaped humans), and expensive bicycles. But bringing it back to the tire thing, some racer said MTB tires are "better" for gravel, and there is "no reason" to race gravel on 40mm tires. Here's the really bad part about this sort of messaging.

Most people don't consider the source and the context of commentary like this. Maybe for a particular course, and for a small handful of humans who are professional (read: Have tons of time to train, are sponsored, or paid to race) these recommendations may have some merit. But telling me not to consider 40mm tires for gravel racing is pretty bogus. What if the bike I have to "race gravel on" is also my daily driver? Maybe I have pavement for long stretches of my ride, or I commute. A MTB tire at 29" X 2.2" is kinda "not the right tire", perhaps? 

And no - none of what these racers are saying about gravel racing in terms of tires is "new". These racers, and many who are influenced by these racers just don't know what they don't know. That is a completely different story for another day. Point is, if you are not a professional racer, you may want to sift what they suggest very carefully before jumping on their bandwagon. 

Or not...... 

 When It Becomes "Not An All - Roads Bike", What Is It?

Image courtesy of Ridley Bikes

This fat tire gravel thing is leading some down a road which looks suspiciously like XC mountain biking with drop bars. I reported on the Ridley bike in a recent FN&V here. Ridley call this concept "Alpine Gravel"

Another online cycling media outlet asked if full-suspension gravel bikes were the "vision" going forward for gravel bikes.

A certain photographer I follow on social media answered back with, "You mean a drop-bar mountain bike? No." 

Some people have far more sense than the media, or cycling brands give them credit for. Just about anyone with a decent amount of time in mountain biking, gravel riding, or cycling in general can see right through all of this crap. The thing is, most of these brands and media sources don't really care. Their narrative will win out the day eventually if they keep banging the drum for whatever they deem is "The Next Big Thing" and as long as it sells units.

Drop bar mountain bikes, in and of themselves, are not a 'bad' thing. What is wrong about this is how these bikes are being sold to the naive cyclist as something 'new' and different. An XC mountain bike hard tail with drop bars is nothing new. Not even one with 29"er wheels. And especially in this instance, it is laughable to try to push this narrative.

These bikes also do not really fit the originally intended purposes of what became known as "gravel bikes". In the beginnings of all of this, the idea was to have a bicycle which would cover the area between single track and fully paved roads. A bicycle for roads, no matter what their surface was. Not single track. Not mountainous, rock infested terrain. We already had mountain bikes for this activity. We already had great choices for bicycles which did well on fully paved roads.

Somewhere along the way we have been asked to think gravel bikes are mountain bikes as well. Why? Maybe because gravel is a hot category, and XC MTB is not? Yes.....that's pretty much it right there. 

NOTE: Next week a lot of press releases come off embargo previous to Sea Otter. I'll have some news posting at odd times. Thank you for your patience in this matter and 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.

Friday News And Views

Exploded view of a Classified rear hub (Image courtesy of Classified.)

 Classified/Ridley Announce New Gravel Team:

The upstart hub/wheel company, Classified, from Belgium, has just announced a new professional five person gravel racing team. Contesting mostly UCI and Gravel Earth Series events, this team is an expansion for Classified who sponsored a one-man team for 2023. Furthermore, Classified has announced new wheels that are lighter with wider internal rim widths. 

Comments: The press release states that this is the 'first professional factory team in the gravel scene' and
the company boasts former professional road racer Tom Boonen as an investor and team spokesperson. 

It's obvious that racing on the Professional, UCI, sponsored level is seeing a shift to gravel with the UCI Gravel World Series and now with the rival Gravel Earth Series seeing some attention as well. How successful these sorts of ventures are will determine Pro racing's future. Can a gravel based series and a pavement based series coexist on the highest levels of UCI/Pro cycling? Perhaps we are seeing the beginnings of that question being asked. 

And as far as the hub goes, if you are not familiar, I have covered Classified here on these pages before. But essentially it is a two-speed, electronically shifted rear hub that supports a cassette (proprietary) that does what a 2X system on a normal bike would do without a front derailleur or multiple front chain rings.

From "Cyclingnews.com's social media on 1/22/24

SRAM Red AXS Images Leaked:

If you were on social media over the past weekend cruising bicycle related content you may have run across images of a supposed new SRAM Red Axs group.  

Images appeared from a Chinese source showing the claimed new 12 speed SRAM follow up to its top of the range electronic Red group. 

Comments: While little is known at the moment it is entirely feasible that this is, indeed, the new group set. It is a group overdue for a refresh and with the big glut of inventory from last year it would make sense that SRAM are holding back until retailers and bicycle brands can push some of that excess inventory out into the marketplace. 

The obvious thing here is that it appears that SRAM is making a play to dump more grams in an attempt to become the lightest group for road racing. Also notable is the lack of any leaked imagery showing a crank set or a front derailleur, if there actually is a front derailleur. It is possible that this was intended to be a 1X group but Pro teams insisted on a 2X option and SRAM had to wait until it could make that happen. (Just spitballing there, but it is a possibility)

This group is interesting, if indeed the images here are a real look at things to come. Personally? I think what I see isn't all that attractive, but that SRAM aesthetic and design language never really has appealed to me either. Not to mention how it works, which while clever in some ways is kind of a turn-off in others for myself. 

The FOCO Fondo Scratch Lottery (Image courtesy of FOCO Fondo YouTube)

FOCO Fondo #fakelottery Promotion:

Throughout "gravel history" there have been swipes taken at Pro road, the UCI, and even other gravel events. When other gravel based events decide to poke some fun at another gravel event, it usually is directed at one event in particular now that takes place in Emporia, Kansas every early June. That being, of course,  the Unbound events. And previously to Unbound it was directed at the DK200. (Note: I hold the two events as being separate. Your mileage may vary)

Early on, when it was the DK200, there were events like "Kantdu Kanza" or "Sterile Iowan". Now it seems that the FOCO Fondo is taking its turn at poking fun at the Unbound's loterry process in its offering of scratch-type lottery tickets to all its registrants for its June 21'st running of its event this year. 

Comments: Clever. I'll give them that much. That said, this event isn't necessarily all that much different in terms of what it costs than Unbound. In fact, it costs exactly the same amount of money per mile ($1.48/mile)for the 118 mile course to enter the FOCO Fondo as it does to get a ticket to ride the 200 at Unbound. Obviously they are different events, but this hits different than the previous instances of smaller, more grassroots swipes at bigger events. You can watch the You Tue video on the lottery tickets here. 

The new Vamoots 33 (Image courtesy of Moots Cycles)

All-Road Bikes: A New Trend?

Recently I have noted how many companies are starting to make their road bike offerings more 'terrain-friendly' in that they are not bicycles that cannot ride down certain roads. 

It used to be that any road bike was a pretty limited machine due to geometry and tire clearance limitations. Riding a gravel road on 23mm-25mm tires was something you could do, but if you are honest, would you want to? Probably not. Not worth the potential issues and rattling of bones. 

Then "gravel bikes" came along, (Hey! Just ride a cross bike or a touring bike!), and many saw an opportunity to escape the dangerous paved roads filled with distracted drivers who are speeding. The category went nuts compared to what was happening in MTB and traditional road bikes. So, you should not be surprised that those who want to offer a road bike would start to make those road bikes "all-roads" bikes instead of pavement-bound racers. 

The newest Moots road bike, the Vamoots 33, is such a beast. With the capability to accept a 38mm tire, this is truly an "all-roads" capable machine. Reminiscent of road bikes of the mid-20th Century and before which could tackle anything that a vehicle could be driven on. Gravel, bituminous, cement, dirt, or any "road" surface. 

The designers of these bikes often market these bikes by saying that they are versatile, capable bikes that "still can keep up with a club ride", because, you know, we cannot have anyone thinking these are slow bikes. As if going slow or fast depends solely on a bicycle type or design. Pfft! As if going fast as all get out is really all that matters. 

So these bicycles typically stick to skinny-tired, go-fast bike geometry, missing the boat and causing these to not be as stable and, dare I say it- fast - as a bike designed for all-roads. Jumping tire clearances is one piece of the puzzle, but a true "all-roads" bike isn't a racing bike. Racing bike geometry is for pavement racing. 

Thank You!

I just wanted to make sure I thanked all of you readers and friends for the comments on the blog, Facebook posts, messages, and texts regarding my birthday on Tuesday of this week. 

I have been extremely blessed to find myself in the position in Life that I have found myself in. I don't forget that, and I am humbled to have the shout-outs and well wishes. 

The day wasn't anything to write home about, but it was good. We had some light rain and drizzle until around 3:00pm and so I did not go out for a ride in mid-30's temps and wet conditions. But I did get to spend time with my family which is great and more important than a bike ride. Plus Mrs. Guitar Ted got me a turntable to play records on which hasn't happened for me in about 35 years.

That's it for this week! Thank you for reading Guitar Ted Productions!

Blurred Lines Or Just Bicycles? Part 2

Specialized Roubaix SL8 Apex Sport (Image courtesy of Specialized)

About three weeks ago I wrote a post concerning the blurred lines with regard to drop bar bicycles. Ten years ago a "drop bar bicycle" was generally a road racing style bike, a touring bike, or maybe a cyclo-cross bike. This new, weird segment being foisted upon the marketplace called "gravel bikes" was just coming on-line at that time. But everyone knew all you really needed was a cyclo-cross bike. These so-called "gravel bikes" were an invention by marketers to cause you to feel that you needed to buy another bicycle. That was all THAT was about. (Remember those comments?) 

Also, as I have written on these pages ad nauseum, these gravel bikes, so-called,were really meant to be "all-roads bikes", and not pigeonholed by a name like "gravel". That is like calling what we now know as "fat bikes" snow bikes. Remember that? That name was dropped pretty quickly when marketers found out that "snow" was a turn-off for consumers. 

I wanted to point those things out because today we have bicycle companies marketing bicycles which are "all-roads" bikes as "endurance road bikes" (Because why? What a weird category!) which are confusing some people because they think they might be gravel bikes. 

What?!!

This one takes up to 38mm tires (Image courtesy of Trek)

With tires from 38mm to 40mm fitting these bikes, what is the difference between these and gravel bikes? 

Well, first you need to understand what a "gravel bike" even is. 

Back in 2012 Salsa Cycles created the category with the introduction of the Warbird Titanium and Aluminum models.The tire clearance? Up to a 38mm width.

In 2012 you'd be lucky to squeeze a 28mm tire into any "road bike" of that time. So, keep that in mind.

The "endurance" name for these current, new "road bikes" is just another way to say "comfort-focused". But saying that would be....what? Marketing suicide? Can't say that now, can we? So "endurance" is the word used because, c'mon? Who doesn't want to have "endurance"?  That sounds a LOT better than "comfort-road bike". 

And what sells? Gravel™! That's what. So if you had an "endurance" road bike that you could ride on "Gravel™", well, that's a winning combination, and you wouldn't have to buy into this trendy BS called Gravel Bikes", right? 

But these are gravel bikes, aren't they? Yes. These are gravel bikes because you could easily ride these on gravel. So, what the heck? 

Is this all just marketing gone haywire? Perhaps a little bit of that is going on here. But there is a silver lining to this. People have more access than ever before to "all-roads bikes", no matter what the media wonks and marketers want to call them. 

I'd say they are just "nice bicycles".

The "All-Purpose" Bike vs "Gravel Bike"

Trek's new Domane AL-4 (Image courtesy of Trek Bikes)

Back around 2010 or so, I was banging the drum for a bicycle that could be used from pavement to nearly mountain biking. A bicycle that could be ridden comfortably and easily on any road surface, maybe even smooth dirt paths. Most importantly, it had to be a bicycle that was versatile, more universally acceptable than not, and that it should have the flared, short reach drop bars. 

This bike would need bigger, more voluminous tires than the then current standard of 25mm for road bikes and it had to eschew any hint of "racing" geometry. It had to have accessory mounting points like rack and fender mounts. 

Since that time things like disc brakes, tubeless tires, and fancy electronic shifting at decent price points has also crept on the radar for my "all-purpose" road bike. But the majority of the things I mentioned above were what drove my ideas for the bike I wanted to see. Ultimately a lot of that was realized in 2014 when the Raleigh Tamland Two came about. 

Certainly these ideas were spurred on by my personal desires, but perhaps what is less obvious to outsiders is that I was sick and tired, as a mechanic at a shop, of trying to make road racing bikes do what the "every-human" wanted those bikes to do. The average cyclist was not of the same mold as Pro racers, and as such, that sort of bicycle design, which reigned supreme for road riding, was not right for 99% of the population. Yet we had boat loads of Pro racing geometry road bikes coming at us every year. Sure, there were exceptions to that, but almost none of those exceptions fit my mold for an "all-purpose" bike, and those bicycles still didn't do what a lot of people wanted to do.

My Raleigh Tamland circa 2014

And then "Gravel™" happened. Suddenly there was an influx of rebadged cyclo cross bikes, and eventually, many companies started actually building purposed geometry into their "gravel bikes". But then the versatility, the "every-human" aspect of "gravel bikes", started to disappear. 

Now we have "race rockets" and bikes that cost 5k and up for riding "gravel". That's cool, but hey! Are you really going to commute to work, go to the post office, or pay your water bill using a seven thousand dollar blinged-out gravel bike? 

I mean, you can do that, but really. C'mon! Most of those bikes are garage queens between training rides and events. I'm talking about bikes that are reasonably priced, versatile, and can ride any road. The new Trek Domane AL-4 seems, in my opinion, to hit on a lot of my salient points here. 

This is maybe just one example of many types of bikes like this, but you just don't see a lot of people pushing a bike like this on review sites that are "gravel oriented". So, many people probably are not aware that bikes like these are out there for your "every-road" riding. 

I gotta say a few nice things about Trek here, which, to be honest, I usually don't have a whole lot of anything to say about this company. However; they position this bike remarkably well in their marketing. They are careful to not call it a "gravel bike", to their credit, and as most of you know, I feel "gravel bike" is a very regrettable name choice for this category of cycling. Secondly, Trek mostly got the geometry and versatility points correct. The Domane AL-4 even has a flared drop bar with short reach! (Okay, it's only 4° of flare, but it's something!) The bike fits up to a 38mm tire, which is pretty good for many gravel roads. Not ideal, but we are not talking about the "ideal" crushed rock road bike here. 

Trek sells the Domane AL-4 for 1700 bucks with a ten speed, full Shimano Tiagra group. That's perfect for the every-human's needs. Not too expensive, but a bike that could be your commuter and adventure/country bike on weekends easily. Not so dear that you'd not want to run errands on it, but good enough for every purpose most folks want a bicycle for. 

Yeah, you kickstand freaks will cry foul, but otherwise? THIS is what "gravel" bikes should have been.

Friday News And Views

A Maersk container ship. Image courtesy of Maersk.

Bicycle Part Shortages Predicted To Persist Through '21:

Multiple industry sources are predicting bicycle and bicycle parts shortages throughout 2021. This means that what you currently are seeing at bicycle shops isn't going to get better, and in fact, it may get worse. Multiple reasons are given, but one of the major problems is due to the bottlenecks in shipping. 

Many of you may not realize this, but 90% or more of what you use for cycling comes to you via a ship. Usually this is a "container ship" like the one shown here. Containers are filled, (which can be an issue for smaller companies because partially filled containers don't get shipped), these are then loaded onto a container ship which doesn't leave dock until it is full, then it sails across the seas, (can take up to two months), and then it must get unloaded, the containers are inspected by customs, released, trucked to warehouses, and finally goods are shipped to regional warehouses, and then to distributors, and finally (!!) to bike shops or online vendors. 

What has happened is that pandemic protocols are affecting labor and thus disrupting the system. Furthermore, as we know, demand has doubled or more. This has caused a lot of pressure on shipping lanes. Not just in bicycles, mind you, but with everything. The sudden increases are at such a high level that I have been told that over 100 container ships are sitting outside of Los Angeles harbor waiting their turn to get unloaded right at this very minute, and it has been that way for months. Added to that are docks in the Far East with stacks of containers waiting for a ship to return, and in some cases, factories have no containers at all! 

What does this all mean for us? Well, for one thing, you should baby that drive train, milking it for all it is worth because cassettes and chains, not to mention chain rings, will be hard to get in 2021. Tires will be hard to get as well. Oh, and expect prices to climb a LOT higher as demand outstrips supplies. 

I expect that as a COVID-19 vaccine gets distributed amongst the population, that many will feel the need to do events, and these events will increase demand on parts even further due to high wear and tear, or people just thinking they need to have brand new everything before an event. I'm telling you right now- that's a pipe dream next year. 

And new bikes? Ha! I've heard from several dealers that they have had to pre-order 2021 inventory and if they really get it, (not guaranteed), that will be your choice. Many are pre-selling orders they have placed and I expect shop floors will be pretty sparse, if not empty, most of next year. Oh, and don't expect to get a deal either. High demand = full boat pricing. Got a used rig? Next year is the year to ditch it. Just don't expect to be able to get a replacement. 

Gravel Worlds Updates Website- Offers New Category:

Last weekend the Pirate Cycling League unveiled a new website update for their Gravel Worlds event. They also have announced a new, ultra-distance event category called "The Long Voyage", a self-supported, 300 mile distance which should be completed within 30 hours. (Sound familiar?)

Besides this, the site has added a history page telling the back story of the Gravel Worlds event. I've shared with you readers much of this backstory here in the past, so you may already know this. If you don't know the background on Gravel Worlds, you should check this out. It's important because, really- Gravel Worlds is one of the last of the first. Let me explain.....

Back in 2005 Trans Iowa started. and we hosted a few folks from the Lincoln area who were already riding gravel, but this whole idea of putting an event on gravel was new. They got inspired by Trans Iowa and further by the DK200 in 2006 and in 2008 they put on "The Good Life Gravel Adventure" and started their own history. Many other events came about in those early days that were 'big deals', the most notable being the Almanzo 100 in 2007. However; of all the 'biggies', not many are around yet today. Barry-Roubaix and Gravel Worlds are the biggest ones left from those earliest days of Gravel.  

So, I love that Gravel Worlds has embraced this history now. They deserve to be successful and the event has evolved to be inclusive of all abilities possible and yet it still retains much of the flavor of the early gravel events. So, if you are one of those folks that thinks gravel events are all commercialized and have lost their grassroots feel, then Gravel Worlds is for you. 

And don't listen to any of the current nonsense that claims that gravel riding/racing is "something new within the last several years". Or you could just interpret any messaging of that sort to mean, "We've never really looked into the history of modern gravel events, so we are just spouting off to make ourselves look like we know what we're talking about". Because......obviously- they have no clue if that's what they are saying. Whatever.... Go check out Gravel Worlds! It's The Real Deal. (And Gravel Worlds should use that tag-line)  

The Ventum GS1 gravel bike. (Image courtesy of Ventum's site)

"Have You Seen This...?":

N.Y. Roll texted me last weekend to ask if I had seen a brand of gravel bike called "Ventom" . I replied, "No". He sends a link. I checked it out later. 

Hmm......Where have I seen that before?, I thought to myself. Because this whole frame and fork doesn't look all that unique or different to my eyes. And in fact, it isn't very unique at all. 

The Viathon from Walmart is very similar, so is the Rondo Ruut, the Ibis Hakka MX, Santa Cruz's Stigmata, and a whole host of carbon fiber niche branded bikes. Geometry is nearly identical across all of these, suggesting that (a) there is a LOT of copy-catting going on and (b) perhaps many of these frames are being chosen by these brands from a catalog at a Far East factory. 

Interestingly, the Ventum direct-to-consumer model bases its appeal in coming from the triathlon market and has testimonials from some former Pro road racers and a well known cycling media/DK200 racer. So, once again, just as with the former/current road race bike sales model, we are basing our opinions of 'worth' on racing? (Which is okay if you are are racing) I don't know that most gravel bicycle riders are racing, or that they should be racing. Maybe having fun is better than racing? Maybe.... 

Look, this is a great bike, (maybe) if you want to own a mean, nasty, flat out race machine, which, you know, is good at one thing. But this model strikes me as not a bike for the masses, not a very original design, and it is hard to see the value in their $2,000.00+ asking price for the frame/fork when, as an example, the aforementioned Viathon frame/fork is sub-$700.00 on sale now. Even at full-boat pricing the Viathon is about a grand less. And ithe Viathon was an 'okay' bike, again, if you wanted a racy rig. Now, the Ventum GS1 may very well be a better value, but it is very difficult to see it if so due to the vast similarities across so many other frames/forks like it.

In my opinion, these bikes like the Ventum are not displaying a big enough difference from other very similar looking frames/forks and with no face-to-face support after the sale, it would seem like a less than a good way to make it in the crowded market of gravel bikes. But then again, it is a seller's market now. This is also indicative of what the industry is doing to an excellent idea again- That is, the industry is homogenizing an aspect of cycling around racing. 

This is another subject for another day, and I aim to get to it, but suffice it to say that for now, this entry into the gravel bike market is not what it should be all about for cyclists of all types who would benefit more from an all-around type road bike that I have been banging on about here for over a decade. 
 

Despite the model, the shirt looks pretty good here!

The "G-Ted Logo" Shirt Review:

A couple weeks ago I announced on here that I had "G-Ted Logo" merch available via Redbubble on a page benefiting my daughter. I mentioned that each sale would have a portion of the money going to her. I receive no compensation whatsoever from this. So, this does not benefit me in the least, unless you get one of these and wear it and get someone new to read the blog. Okay? There is that.....

Anyway, I said I was getting a shirt, paid for with my own money, by the way, and that I would give y'all a bit of a review of it. Well, I've had it for over a week now and I must say, it is impressive. As impressive as a t-shirt can be, which is to say, nothing all that spectacular. 

I mean, let's face it, a t-shirt either does its job or it does not. This one does, and it better! I bought the "Premium" t-shirt model and it came out to around $34.00 with shipping and whatever else they nail you for on Redbubble. So, yeah, a very expensive t-shirt. But it shows. It's got some flat-lock stitching, the fabric is smooth and supple, and it fits very well. I got an XL sized one and I would say the fit was on the slightly generous side. Which means it is very comfortable to wear. 

The graphic is done in a very thick, almost rubbery feeling print and went through the wash and drier cycle with zero effects upon it. The graphic is pretty bold and BIG, but that's how I designed it. Oh, and as you all know, this is the graphic I have used over the years here quite a bit on the blog, so most of you probably recognize it, but there is a short story behind it, and it goes back to my job in the 80's.

I was a jewelry designer, and during certain times I also would be tasked to do art for the shop, advertisements, art for our shop logos, proposed logos for spin-off companies, and even logos for other businesses. Locals may remember the "North Bank Restaurant" or the Waterloo Greyhound Park, well I helped design those logos for those businesses. (Long gone, but maybe someone out there recalls those) 

Anywho..... I was asked to come up with ideas for a spin-off company my boss at the time was going to launch and I did a ton of sketches, some which were basically goofing off, sort of exercises in getting ideas. So, during this I came up with a cube with a skull on it that had smoke coming out of the skull's orifices. That eventually morphed into the cube idea without the skull, and with the addition of the "G-Ted" logo, I was kind of going for that 'microphone ID box thingie deal that you see on reporter's microphones on T.V. Well, this was all sketched up and then I think Jeff Kerkove eventually saw it, digitized it, cleaned it up for me, and there ya go! 

That's the tale in brief. Now you know! If you are so inclined to want your own t-shirt, hoodie, stickers, or a pin with this "G-Ted" logo, go to the Redbubble page for this merch HERE.  

And that's a wrap! Have a safe, awesome weekend! Thanks for reading!

Friday News And Views

A Maersk container ship. Image courtesy of Maersk.

Bicycle Part Shortages Predicted To Persist Through '21:

Multiple industry sources are predicting bicycle and bicycle parts shortages throughout 2021. This means that what you currently are seeing at bicycle shops isn't going to get better, and in fact, it may get worse. Multiple reasons are given, but one of the major problems is due to the bottlenecks in shipping. 

Many of you may not realize this, but 90% or more of what you use for cycling comes to you via a ship. Usually this is a "container ship" like the one shown here. Containers are filled, (which can be an issue for smaller companies because partially filled containers don't get shipped), these are then loaded onto a container ship which doesn't leave dock until it is full, then it sails across the seas, (can take up to two months), and then it must get unloaded, the containers are inspected by customs, released, trucked to warehouses, and finally goods are shipped to regional warehouses, and then to distributors, and finally (!!) to bike shops or online vendors. 

What has happened is that pandemic protocols are affecting labor and thus disrupting the system. Furthermore, as we know, demand has doubled or more. This has caused a lot of pressure on shipping lanes. Not just in bicycles, mind you, but with everything. The sudden increases are at such a high level that I have been told that over 100 container ships are sitting outside of Los Angeles harbor waiting their turn to get unloaded right at this very minute, and it has been that way for months. Added to that are docks in the Far East with stacks of containers waiting for a ship to return, and in some cases, factories have no containers at all! 

What does this all mean for us? Well, for one thing, you should baby that drive train, milking it for all it is worth because cassettes and chains, not to mention chain rings, will be hard to get in 2021. Tires will be hard to get as well. Oh, and expect prices to climb a LOT higher as demand outstrips supplies. 

I expect that as a COVID-19 vaccine gets distributed amongst the population, that many will feel the need to do events, and these events will increase demand on parts even further due to high wear and tear, or people just thinking they need to have brand new everything before an event. I'm telling you right now- that's a pipe dream next year. 

And new bikes? Ha! I've heard from several dealers that they have had to pre-order 2021 inventory and if they really get it, (not guaranteed), that will be your choice. Many are pre-selling orders they have placed and I expect shop floors will be pretty sparse, if not empty, most of next year. Oh, and don't expect to get a deal either. High demand = full boat pricing. Got a used rig? Next year is the year to ditch it. Just don't expect to be able to get a replacement. 

Gravel Worlds Updates Website- Offers New Category:

Last weekend the Pirate Cycling League unveiled a new website update for their Gravel Worlds event. They also have announced a new, ultra-distance event category called "The Long Voyage", a self-supported, 300 mile distance which should be completed within 30 hours. (Sound familiar?)

Besides this, the site has added a history page telling the back story of the Gravel Worlds event. I've shared with you readers much of this backstory here in the past, so you may already know this. If you don't know the background on Gravel Worlds, you should check this out. It's important because, really- Gravel Worlds is one of the last of the first. Let me explain.....

Back in 2005 Trans Iowa started. and we hosted a few folks from the Lincoln area who were already riding gravel, but this whole idea of putting an event on gravel was new. They got inspired by Trans Iowa and further by the DK200 in 2006 and in 2008 they put on "The Good Life Gravel Adventure" and started their own history. Many other events came about in those early days that were 'big deals', the most notable being the Almanzo 100 in 2007. However; of all the 'biggies', not many are around yet today. Barry-Roubaix and Gravel Worlds are the biggest ones left from those earliest days of Gravel.  

So, I love that Gravel Worlds has embraced this history now. They deserve to be successful and the event has evolved to be inclusive of all abilities possible and yet it still retains much of the flavor of the early gravel events. So, if you are one of those folks that thinks gravel events are all commercialized and have lost their grassroots feel, then Gravel Worlds is for you. 

And don't listen to any of the current nonsense that claims that gravel riding/racing is "something new within the last several years". Or you could just interpret any messaging of that sort to mean, "We've never really looked into the history of modern gravel events, so we are just spouting off to make ourselves look like we know what we're talking about". Because......obviously- they have no clue if that's what they are saying. Whatever.... Go check out Gravel Worlds! It's The Real Deal. (And Gravel Worlds should use that tag-line)  

The Ventum GS1 gravel bike. (Image courtesy of Ventum's site)

"Have You Seen This...?":

N.Y. Roll texted me last weekend to ask if I had seen a brand of gravel bike called "Ventom" . I replied, "No". He sends a link. I checked it out later. 

Hmm......Where have I seen that before?, I thought to myself. Because this whole frame and fork doesn't look all that unique or different to my eyes. And in fact, it isn't very unique at all. 

The Viathon from Walmart is very similar, so is the Rondo Ruut, the Ibis Hakka MX, Santa Cruz's Stigmata, and a whole host of carbon fiber niche branded bikes. Geometry is nearly identical across all of these, suggesting that (a) there is a LOT of copy-catting going on and (b) perhaps many of these frames are being chosen by these brands from a catalog at a Far East factory. 

Interestingly, the Ventum direct-to-consumer model bases its appeal in coming from the triathlon market and has testimonials from some former Pro road racers and a well known cycling media/DK200 racer. So, once again, just as with the former/current road race bike sales model, we are basing our opinions of 'worth' on racing? (Which is okay if you are are racing) I don't know that most gravel bicycle riders are racing, or that they should be racing. Maybe having fun is better than racing? Maybe.... 

Look, this is a great bike, (maybe) if you want to own a mean, nasty, flat out race machine, which, you know, is good at one thing. But this model strikes me as not a bike for the masses, not a very original design, and it is hard to see the value in their $2,000.00+ asking price for the frame/fork when, as an example, the aforementioned Viathon frame/fork is sub-$700.00 on sale now. Even at full-boat pricing the Viathon is about a grand less. And ithe Viathon was an 'okay' bike, again, if you wanted a racy rig. Now, the Ventum GS1 may very well be a better value, but it is very difficult to see it if so due to the vast similarities across so many other frames/forks like it.

In my opinion, these bikes like the Ventum are not displaying a big enough difference from other very similar looking frames/forks and with no face-to-face support after the sale, it would seem like a less than a good way to make it in the crowded market of gravel bikes. But then again, it is a seller's market now. This is also indicative of what the industry is doing to an excellent idea again- That is, the industry is homogenizing an aspect of cycling around racing. 

This is another subject for another day, and I aim to get to it, but suffice it to say that for now, this entry into the gravel bike market is not what it should be all about for cyclists of all types who would benefit more from an all-around type road bike that I have been banging on about here for over a decade. 
 

Despite the model, the shirt looks pretty good here!

The "G-Ted Logo" Shirt Review:

A couple weeks ago I announced on here that I had "G-Ted Logo" merch available via Redbubble on a page benefiting my daughter. I mentioned that each sale would have a portion of the money going to her. I receive no compensation whatsoever from this. So, this does not benefit me in the least, unless you get one of these and wear it and get someone new to read the blog. Okay? There is that.....

Anyway, I said I was getting a shirt, paid for with my own money, by the way, and that I would give y'all a bit of a review of it. Well, I've had it for over a week now and I must say, it is impressive. As impressive as a t-shirt can be, which is to say, nothing all that spectacular. 

I mean, let's face it, a t-shirt either does its job or it does not. This one does, and it better! I bought the "Premium" t-shirt model and it came out to around $34.00 with shipping and whatever else they nail you for on Redbubble. So, yeah, a very expensive t-shirt. But it shows. It's got some flat-lock stitching, the fabric is smooth and supple, and it fits very well. I got an XL sized one and I would say the fit was on the slightly generous side. Which means it is very comfortable to wear. 

The graphic is done in a very thick, almost rubbery feeling print and went through the wash and drier cycle with zero effects upon it. The graphic is pretty bold and BIG, but that's how I designed it. Oh, and as you all know, this is the graphic I have used over the years here quite a bit on the blog, so most of you probably recognize it, but there is a short story behind it, and it goes back to my job in the 80's.

I was a jewelry designer, and during certain times I also would be tasked to do art for the shop, advertisements, art for our shop logos, proposed logos for spin-off companies, and even logos for other businesses. Locals may remember the "North Bank Restaurant" or the Waterloo Greyhound Park, well I helped design those logos for those businesses. (Long gone, but maybe someone out there recalls those) 

Anywho..... I was asked to come up with ideas for a spin-off company my boss at the time was going to launch and I did a ton of sketches, some which were basically goofing off, sort of exercises in getting ideas. So, during this I came up with a cube with a skull on it that had smoke coming out of the skull's orifices. That eventually morphed into the cube idea without the skull, and with the addition of the "G-Ted" logo, I was kind of going for that 'microphone ID box thingie deal that you see on reporter's microphones on T.V. Well, this was all sketched up and then I think Jeff Kerkove eventually saw it, digitized it, cleaned it up for me, and there ya go! 

That's the tale in brief. Now you know! If you are so inclined to want your own t-shirt, hoodie, stickers, or a pin with this "G-Ted" logo, go to the Redbubble page for this merch HERE.  

And that's a wrap! Have a safe, awesome weekend! Thanks for reading!

Gravel Grinder News: Guitar Ted Defines Gravel Riding Terms

It's a gravel road. Period.

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

This whole deal with riding bicycles on gravel has generated a huge trend in cycling. No doubt it is on par with the mountain bike craze of the 80's/90's and the "ten speed", so called "bike boom" of the 70's. Along with those bumps in bicycle popularity came several terms which remain in our bicycling vocabulary to this day. Today I am going to discuss, rate, and define some terms that have sprung up around this gravel cycling scene. Some well known, some maybe not so much.

First of all, I should disclose that I asked folks who follow me on Twitter about terms for gravel riding that annoyed them. Some of their feedback has informed today's post as well. 

My system will work like this: First I will list the "Term", then a rating of that term, then my definition and discussion, which may include bits of feedback I received on Twitter. Keep in mind that this is not an unabridged version, nor is it anyone else's opinion but my own when it comes to the veracity of the terms described here. This is my version of "the facts", and it may not conform to yours, or your beliefs.

With that said......onward.

"Gravel" (As A Category Within Cycling): Rating: Really Dumb. Definition and Comments: Well, anymore it is whatever marketing says is a product for riding off-pavement. I've seen shoes that ten years ago would have been readily accepted and described as "mountain bike shoes" now done up in a different color and with the "Gravel" label plastered onto the box the shoes come in. You get the picture here. Really this is an unfortunate and lazy label that grew from how the cycling industry understood cycling. Namely- from a racing perspective, and not as an "every-man's transportation, transformative" viewpoint, which is what I was advocating for back in the day. The term "gravel" is so limiting, and the cycling industry really has fouled the waters with the use of this term. But here we are. It's what we have to work with now. Still.....really dumb.


Gravel Bike (See Above Also): Rating: Unfortunate, uninspired, short-sighted. Definition and Comments: A bike that you ride on gravel, that works for what you want and are doing, is a gravel bike. That said, the industry is trying to move this category more towards what amounts to a wider tire clearanced road racing bike. This was not what I had wanted to see ten years ago. My vision was for an "any-road" bike that most people would be better served by, rather than the racing bike derived "road bikes" of the 90's-2000's. Bottom line: Many brands within the industry are bent upon ruining this category, seemingly. Ditto for many in the current entrenched cycling media.


Gravel Grinder (See Also "Grinder"): Rating: Cool if you know the history. Dumb if you don't. Definition and Comments: Completely misunderstood and misused term. Originally anyone training on road bikes on crushed rock roads in the Mid-West of the US called what they were doing "gravel grinding". This was a term coined back decades ago, long before Trans Iowa, and long before anyone ever thought riding on gravel roads was a "good thing", which, by the way, a LOT of people still think is a crazy idea. Nowadays many events call themselves "gravel grinders" because it seems like the thing to do, or because it makes their marketing sound more "mainstream gravel". All I know is that many times when the term is used out of context and without understanding where it came from it becomes annoying to many folks. (See "Gravel Race/Event/Ride" below)

This was called "gravel grindeing" for decades before the current gravel scene started. The term makes sense when applied correctly. (Image of T.I.v14 by Celeste Mathias)

 Groad (See Also "G-Road"): Rating: Really Dumb. Definition and Comments: A conjunction of the term "gravel road" I first saw used in an "Outside Online" article by Frank Bures in 2013 which was describing the burgeoning gravel scene. Whether or not Mr. Bures came up with this term, I've no idea, but I do know I was dismayed when I saw he used it. If the reaction I got from Twitter is any indication, most folks find this term extremely annoying.  

Groadie: Rating: Juvenile. Definition and Comments: A contraction of "gravel roadie" which is kind of ironic since most gravel riders would not identify as a roadie. In the end, it just comes off as some juvenile terminology for a cyclist which just sounds dumb to outsiders and exclusionary to the casual cyclist. It should be banished from our vocabulary. We're smarter than this......

Grav-Grav: Rating: Seriously? Definition and Comments: I've seen this used for what riding on gravel roads is, or for what the activity surrounding an event is, and frankly, it's really childish. I know.....I know. Some people are just being silly out there and trying to have some fun. #OkayBoomer Yeah......

Gravel Race/Event/Ride: This is a bit different, but this is a term that I wanted to cover because some folks are saying their events are "gravel" events when....well, are they really? I used to hold a standard for events wanting to get on my old Gravel Grinder News calendar. The event had to have a course with more than 50% of its mileage in gravel. It also could not have more than 10% of its course mileage in single track.

Imagine if these two simple prerequisites were in force for events today. I'm betting there would be a LOT fewer events under the "gravel" category. And frankly, I am okay with that. There are "back roads" events that should promote themselves as such, and there are fire road events that should present themselves as such. There are events with miles and miles of dirt roads that call themselves "gravel grinders" that should not call themselves that.

 See, this is what happened when we assigned the term "gravel" to mean "off-pavement cycling". It's misleading, it causes misunderstandings, and it ultimately turns many people off. I'm all for calling events on miles of crushed rock roads "gravel events", because that's what they are, and calling them that informs would-be participants that is what they can expect. Calling a ride with mostly dirt roads and pavement sections a "gravel grinder" is not informing would be participants correctly. Nor is it good to call a mostly paved ride with unpaved sectors a "gravel event".

To wrap things up: Again- these are just my thoughts and opinions, and a few comments I gathered from Twitter which seem to support my views. You may disagree. Cool!  I'm all ears and would love to hear the reasons why I am wrong, if you think I am. I also would love to know if you have other terms for the gravel scene which you've heard that you think are silly, dumb, or irritate the bejesus out of you. List those in the comments and I may do a "Part 2" on this. Stay tuned for a follow up on some other things I learned from Twitter users that are subjects that bother them related to gravel riding.That post will publish here on Saturday.

Gravel Grinder News: Guitar Ted Defines Gravel Riding Terms

It's a gravel road. Period.

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

This whole deal with riding bicycles on gravel has generated a huge trend in cycling. No doubt it is on par with the mountain bike craze of the 80's/90's and the "ten speed", so called "bike boom" of the 70's. Along with those bumps in bicycle popularity came several terms which remain in our bicycling vocabulary to this day. Today I am going to discuss, rate, and define some terms that have sprung up around this gravel cycling scene. Some well known, some maybe not so much.

First of all, I should disclose that I asked folks who follow me on Twitter about terms for gravel riding that annoyed them. Some of their feedback has informed today's post as well. 

My system will work like this: First I will list the "Term", then a rating of that term, then my definition and discussion, which may include bits of feedback I received on Twitter. Keep in mind that this is not an unabridged version, nor is it anyone else's opinion but my own when it comes to the veracity of the terms described here. This is my version of "the facts", and it may not conform to yours, or your beliefs.

With that said......onward.

"Gravel" (As A Category Within Cycling): Rating: Really Dumb. Definition and Comments: Well, anymore it is whatever marketing says is a product for riding off-pavement. I've seen shoes that ten years ago would have been readily accepted and described as "mountain bike shoes" now done up in a different color and with the "Gravel" label plastered onto the box the shoes come in. You get the picture here. Really this is an unfortunate and lazy label that grew from how the cycling industry understood cycling. Namely- from a racing perspective, and not as an "every-man's transportation, transformative" viewpoint, which is what I was advocating for back in the day. The term "gravel" is so limiting, and the cycling industry really has fouled the waters with the use of this term. But here we are. It's what we have to work with now. Still.....really dumb.


Gravel Bike (See Above Also): Rating: Unfortunate, uninspired, short-sighted. Definition and Comments: A bike that you ride on gravel, that works for what you want and are doing, is a gravel bike. That said, the industry is trying to move this category more towards what amounts to a wider tire clearanced road racing bike. This was not what I had wanted to see ten years ago. My vision was for an "any-road" bike that most people would be better served by, rather than the racing bike derived "road bikes" of the 90's-2000's. Bottom line: Many brands within the industry are bent upon ruining this category, seemingly. Ditto for many in the current entrenched cycling media.


Gravel Grinder (See Also "Grinder"): Rating: Cool if you know the history. Dumb if you don't. Definition and Comments: Completely misunderstood and misused term. Originally anyone training on road bikes on crushed rock roads in the Mid-West of the US called what they were doing "gravel grinding". This was a term coined back decades ago, long before Trans Iowa, and long before anyone ever thought riding on gravel roads was a "good thing", which, by the way, a LOT of people still think is a crazy idea. Nowadays many events call themselves "gravel grinders" because it seems like the thing to do, or because it makes their marketing sound more "mainstream gravel". All I know is that many times when the term is used out of context and without understanding where it came from it becomes annoying to many folks. (See "Gravel Race/Event/Ride" below)

This was called "gravel grindeing" for decades before the current gravel scene started. The term makes sense when applied correctly. (Image of T.I.v14 by Celeste Mathias)

 Groad (See Also "G-Road"): Rating: Really Dumb. Definition and Comments: A conjunction of the term "gravel road" I first saw used in an "Outside Online" article by Frank Bures in 2013 which was describing the burgeoning gravel scene. Whether or not Mr. Bures came up with this term, I've no idea, but I do know I was dismayed when I saw he used it. If the reaction I got from Twitter is any indication, most folks find this term extremely annoying.  

Groadie: Rating: Juvenile. Definition and Comments: A contraction of "gravel roadie" which is kind of ironic since most gravel riders would not identify as a roadie. In the end, it just comes off as some juvenile terminology for a cyclist which just sounds dumb to outsiders and exclusionary to the casual cyclist. It should be banished from our vocabulary. We're smarter than this......

Grav-Grav: Rating: Seriously? Definition and Comments: I've seen this used for what riding on gravel roads is, or for what the activity surrounding an event is, and frankly, it's really childish. I know.....I know. Some people are just being silly out there and trying to have some fun. #OkayBoomer Yeah......

Gravel Race/Event/Ride: This is a bit different, but this is a term that I wanted to cover because some folks are saying their events are "gravel" events when....well, are they really? I used to hold a standard for events wanting to get on my old Gravel Grinder News calendar. The event had to have a course with more than 50% of its mileage in gravel. It also could not have more than 10% of its course mileage in single track.

Imagine if these two simple prerequisites were in force for events today. I'm betting there would be a LOT fewer events under the "gravel" category. And frankly, I am okay with that. There are "back roads" events that should promote themselves as such, and there are fire road events that should present themselves as such. There are events with miles and miles of dirt roads that call themselves "gravel grinders" that should not call themselves that.

 See, this is what happened when we assigned the term "gravel" to mean "off-pavement cycling". It's misleading, it causes misunderstandings, and it ultimately turns many people off. I'm all for calling events on miles of crushed rock roads "gravel events", because that's what they are, and calling them that informs would-be participants that is what they can expect. Calling a ride with mostly dirt roads and pavement sections a "gravel grinder" is not informing would be participants correctly. Nor is it good to call a mostly paved ride with unpaved sectors a "gravel event".

To wrap things up: Again- these are just my thoughts and opinions, and a few comments I gathered from Twitter which seem to support my views. You may disagree. Cool!  I'm all ears and would love to hear the reasons why I am wrong, if you think I am. I also would love to know if you have other terms for the gravel scene which you've heard that you think are silly, dumb, or irritate the bejesus out of you. List those in the comments and I may do a "Part 2" on this. Stay tuned for a follow up on some other things I learned from Twitter users that are subjects that bother them related to gravel riding.That post will publish here on Saturday.

Pushing The Limits

I liked the Venture 650B X 47's. Now they have a 700c X 50mm.

The "bigger is better" bug has bitten every form of cycling. Road tires that are 25mm wide are now considered "skinny". Mountain bike tires in the 2.25" range, once considered too wide for XC, are barely even on mountain biker's radar nowadays. Of course, fat bikes, "plus bikes" , and yes- even gravel bikes, are all pushing, or have pushed, tire volume and width boundaries outward. In some cases, too far.

Take fat bikes, for instance. Once the realm of the 3.8" - 4.0" tire, they soon saw sizes balloon to 4.8" wide, and then everyone was thinking that it would just, you know, automatically get wider. So, there was Vee Tire who did this ginormous five plus inch wide tire, and then.........everything just kind of stalled out. You can say the same for 29+ and 27.5"+ too. Things just reached and went just beyond their logical ends. Just beyond what made sense for most folks. Sure, there are a few oddities, but for the most part, I do not foresee those different sizes getting bigger. If anything, there has been some pull-back. 29" X 3.0 is now 29" X 2.6"-2.8". The 27.5" X 3.0 is now 27.5" X 2.6"-2.8" as well.

But here is a weird thing. 700c tires are a range where there are many "gaps" in tire types. Those "gaps" are getting to be smaller and smaller too. The WTB 700 X 50mm Venture that was just announced is just such a tire. In 1998 parlance, a 2.0" tire with slicker center section and outer knobs was an XC racing tire. There was no "gravel/back road" scene back then to slot these tires into. Not in marketing terms, at any rate. Now we have 700c X 50mm Venture tires, (and Schwalbe G-One Bites), which for all intents and purposes are "go-fast" XC racing treads reborn as "gravel tires". At nearly two inches in width, it is hard to see these tires as "road" type treads.

The Schwalbe G-One Bite was just recently released in a 700 X 50mm size.

So, let's go back a little over ten years ago. Salsa Cycles released their Fargo 29"er drop bar bike. It was heralded as an "adventure bike", a bike that took mountain biking back to its roots as an exploratory, touring/bike packing sort of activity. It had no provisions for a front suspension fork, and in that way, it was a true throwback to 1979-80 mountain biking and yet it was thoroughly modern with 29" wheels and disc brakes. I bring this bike up because it was waaaay ahead of its time, and these newer, wider "gravel tires" are just now catching up to what this bike really was all about.

Now, thinking about how many newer gravel bikes are hyping their ability to swallow two inch wide tires in either 700c or 650B, and thinking about how many of these gravel bikes have no suspension, many braze ons, and capabilities far exceeding those "one trick pony" full suspension rigs, and you might start seeing how the original Fargo called this theme out over a decade ago.

This whole "gap" where there wasn't anything from about 45mm to 52mm in tires for gravel bikes seems to be filling in. The question is, at what point do we say that these are really mountain bike tires, 29"er tires, or "monster cross" tires? The Fargo example would say 2.0" and above is a mountain bike/29"er tire, but these "gravel bikes" are making the lines blurry.

If we keep seeing the bikes being offered to fit these 2.0-2.2" tires, I think a couple of things are going to happen. First, there will be no "monster cross" bikes anymore. Everyone will label these drop bar rigs as "gravel" bikes, (wrong term, but whatever), and the old "monster cross" name will be shelved like "hybrid" has been shelved. The "hybrid" I refer to is the 1980's/early 90's term for 700c X 40-45mm tired bikes that were set up like a hard tail mountain bike. These morphed into the "pavement bikes" we see on bike paths today. Secondly, the term "mountain bikes" will only refer to a bike with fat tires and at least 100mm of front suspension travel. Handle bar type will not figure in to this. So, a modern Cutthroat with front suspension would be a mountain bike despite its drop bar spec. A fully rigid bike with a flat bar, like a flat bar Journeyman, would be a "gravel bike".

But none of that matters if the boundaries have been crossed already and we actually see some "pull-back" where gravel bikes only go to 45mm tires, or maybe even narrower. Take, for example, the new GT Grade, or Cannondale's Topstone, or some other newer gravel bikes that list 42mm as being the biggest tire they will handle.

In my opinion, that's where it is going. I think 45mm tires are going to be the wider limits on most gravel bikes and anything 2.0" and wider will be mountain bike territory, regardless of handle bar type.Perhaps we've reached the logical limitations of what a "gravel/All-Road" bike should be for most folks. The next few years will see the major bike manufacturers decide this for us. It should be interesting......

Pushing The Limits

I liked the Venture 650B X 47's. Now they have a 700c X 50mm.

The "bigger is better" bug has bitten every form of cycling. Road tires that are 25mm wide are now considered "skinny". Mountain bike tires in the 2.25" range, once considered too wide for XC, are barely even on mountain biker's radar nowadays. Of course, fat bikes, "plus bikes" , and yes- even gravel bikes, are all pushing, or have pushed, tire volume and width boundaries outward. In some cases, too far.

Take fat bikes, for instance. Once the realm of the 3.8" - 4.0" tire, they soon saw sizes balloon to 4.8" wide, and then everyone was thinking that it would just, you know, automatically get wider. So, there was Vee Tire who did this ginormous five plus inch wide tire, and then.........everything just kind of stalled out. You can say the same for 29+ and 27.5"+ too. Things just reached and went just beyond their logical ends. Just beyond what made sense for most folks. Sure, there are a few oddities, but for the most part, I do not foresee those different sizes getting bigger. If anything, there has been some pull-back. 29" X 3.0 is now 29" X 2.6"-2.8". The 27.5" X 3.0 is now 27.5" X 2.6"-2.8" as well.

But here is a weird thing. 700c tires are a range where there are many "gaps" in tire types. Those "gaps" are getting to be smaller and smaller too. The WTB 700 X 50mm Venture that was just announced is just such a tire. In 1998 parlance, a 2.0" tire with slicker center section and outer knobs was an XC racing tire. There was no "gravel/back road" scene back then to slot these tires into. Not in marketing terms, at any rate. Now we have 700c X 50mm Venture tires, (and Schwalbe G-One Bites), which for all intents and purposes are "go-fast" XC racing treads reborn as "gravel tires". At nearly two inches in width, it is hard to see these tires as "road" type treads.

The Schwalbe G-One Bite was just recently released in a 700 X 50mm size.

So, let's go back a little over ten years ago. Salsa Cycles released their Fargo 29"er drop bar bike. It was heralded as an "adventure bike", a bike that took mountain biking back to its roots as an exploratory, touring/bike packing sort of activity. It had no provisions for a front suspension fork, and in that way, it was a true throwback to 1979-80 mountain biking and yet it was thoroughly modern with 29" wheels and disc brakes. I bring this bike up because it was waaaay ahead of its time, and these newer, wider "gravel tires" are just now catching up to what this bike really was all about.

Now, thinking about how many newer gravel bikes are hyping their ability to swallow two inch wide tires in either 700c or 650B, and thinking about how many of these gravel bikes have no suspension, many braze ons, and capabilities far exceeding those "one trick pony" full suspension rigs, and you might start seeing how the original Fargo called this theme out over a decade ago.

This whole "gap" where there wasn't anything from about 45mm to 52mm in tires for gravel bikes seems to be filling in. The question is, at what point do we say that these are really mountain bike tires, 29"er tires, or "monster cross" tires? The Fargo example would say 2.0" and above is a mountain bike/29"er tire, but these "gravel bikes" are making the lines blurry.

If we keep seeing the bikes being offered to fit these 2.0-2.2" tires, I think a couple of things are going to happen. First, there will be no "monster cross" bikes anymore. Everyone will label these drop bar rigs as "gravel" bikes, (wrong term, but whatever), and the old "monster cross" name will be shelved like "hybrid" has been shelved. The "hybrid" I refer to is the 1980's/early 90's term for 700c X 40-45mm tired bikes that were set up like a hard tail mountain bike. These morphed into the "pavement bikes" we see on bike paths today. Secondly, the term "mountain bikes" will only refer to a bike with fat tires and at least 100mm of front suspension travel. Handle bar type will not figure in to this. So, a modern Cutthroat with front suspension would be a mountain bike despite its drop bar spec. A fully rigid bike with a flat bar, like a flat bar Journeyman, would be a "gravel bike".

But none of that matters if the boundaries have been crossed already and we actually see some "pull-back" where gravel bikes only go to 45mm tires, or maybe even narrower. Take, for example, the new GT Grade, or Cannondale's Topstone, or some other newer gravel bikes that list 42mm as being the biggest tire they will handle.

In my opinion, that's where it is going. I think 45mm tires are going to be the wider limits on most gravel bikes and anything 2.0" and wider will be mountain bike territory, regardless of handle bar type.Perhaps we've reached the logical limitations of what a "gravel/All-Road" bike should be for most folks. The next few years will see the major bike manufacturers decide this for us. It should be interesting......