Is A Gravelly Bubble About To Burst?

There is even a bike named "Gravel" now. (Image courtesy of Grannygear)

Well, the "dust" has settled after Sea Otter and the overall vibe from the show was that gravel "everything" was front and center. Well, that and the so-called "e-bike". Funny...... I haven't seen much, if any press coverage on that though. 

My partner Ben was there and messaged me during the festival over the weekend to say that road bikes are dead. "Nail in coffin. Rotting", was the way he put it. Another press report from the festival by the esteemed James Huang of "Cyclingtips.com" echoed the same sentiment. Now, it should be pointed out that Sea Otter was, and is still, a mountain bike festival. Road bikes did feature in the event only due to the road races around the Laguna Seca Raceway there where the venue is. But if the vibe was that "road is dead", then that is saying something. Think about that for a minute......

Huang wrote in his Sea Otter coverage, "This is no fad; gravel bikes are clearly here to stay, and there’s a growing tidal wave of interest behind them." So, as he further went on to indicate, media outlets heavily weighted toward Pro road racing were now going to be covering gravel. And why wouldn't they? If consumer interests have swung over to doing gravel events, riding gravel, and especially when purchasing new gear related to gravel, then it only makes sense to, as they say, "follow the money".

Niner's controversial full suspension gravel rig. (Image courtesy of Grannygear)

And who can blame these companies? Seriously, it is what you are supposed to do when in business- sell what the consumer wants. You may think that this whole "gravel" thing is all just "marketing". (Read- evil intentions of heartless corporations to bilk innocent people of their dollars for no good reason) That isn't how this is working at all.

People are leaving the organized, licensed crit/road racing scene in the U.S. in droves. Just a few years ago, USAC, the sanctioning body for such road events, reported a precipitous drop in license sales and participation numbers in their events fell drastically. Sanctioned mountain bike racing has shown little to no growth for years. So where were all the people going? Were they quitting cycling altogether? Many did, but most went somewhere else, and by the numbers of events seen on gravel, it would be apparent that gravel/back road events are where people are spending their time and money. Of course the industry is going to chase that. You can only blame yourselves for this, cyclists. Stop doing gravel and the industry will drop gravel like a hot potato.

But that said, has the industry gone too far with offerings for this niche segment of cycling, or will it continue to cannibalize mountain and road bike sales into the future? How does the electric motor figure into all of this? Hard to say. But one possibility here is troubling.

Breezer Bikes has debuted a new adventure line. (Image courtesy of Grannygear)

Remember when fat bikes came around in an easy to buy, complete bike format in 2011? (Pugsleys were frame/fork only from 2005-2011) Yeah, then a short two years later everyone had a fat bike in their line. Companies with zero fat bike "cred" were producing corpulent tired monster bikes and trying to surf the fat biking wave. It didn't work out.......

That "bubble" burst in 2014 and sales of fat bikes, once a sure thing for Mid-Western shops, became a tough sell. Everyone that wanted one had one. Many companies have dropped fat bikes from their lines in the last few years or have severely curtailed their offerings. Fat bikes were once a runaway sales hit, and while they will never go away, it will never be like it was for three years or so there.

One could argue that gravel-all road bikes are on the same trajectory. Companies with no background in "adventure" style bikes are now jumping in with both feet into this market. Mountain bike companies that never really pushed road anything have "gravel bikes" now. Get the picture here? It sounds a lot like the same song sung in 2011-2013 with fat bikes.

My sincere hope is that road cycling just becomes "any road cycling". That the road racing style bikes be cornered into the niche place they belonged in all along- for the committed crit racer only. The "common road bike" going forward should be what we are calling "gravel bikes" now and that silly moniker- "gravel"- should just go away. The whole point, at least for me, was that a bike with capable tires and slacker geometry with fittings to promote versatility would become the de-facto choice for most cyclists all over the U.S.A.

But the cycling industry and media keep getting caught up in traditional pigeon holes and in chasing trends so much that they cannot seem to see where this could go. That's the biggest problem I see. If it goes like it has been, I fully expect the bubble to pop, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Is A Gravelly Bubble About To Burst?

There is even a bike named "Gravel" now. (Image courtesy of Grannygear)

Well, the "dust" has settled after Sea Otter and the overall vibe from the show was that gravel "everything" was front and center. Well, that and the so-called "e-bike". Funny...... I haven't seen much, if any press coverage on that though. 

My partner Ben was there and messaged me during the festival over the weekend to say that road bikes are dead. "Nail in coffin. Rotting", was the way he put it. Another press report from the festival by the esteemed James Huang of "Cyclingtips.com" echoed the same sentiment. Now, it should be pointed out that Sea Otter was, and is still, a mountain bike festival. Road bikes did feature in the event only due to the road races around the Laguna Seca Raceway there where the venue is. But if the vibe was that "road is dead", then that is saying something. Think about that for a minute......

Huang wrote in his Sea Otter coverage, "This is no fad; gravel bikes are clearly here to stay, and there’s a growing tidal wave of interest behind them." So, as he further went on to indicate, media outlets heavily weighted toward Pro road racing were now going to be covering gravel. And why wouldn't they? If consumer interests have swung over to doing gravel events, riding gravel, and especially when purchasing new gear related to gravel, then it only makes sense to, as they say, "follow the money".

Niner's controversial full suspension gravel rig. (Image courtesy of Grannygear)

And who can blame these companies? Seriously, it is what you are supposed to do when in business- sell what the consumer wants. You may think that this whole "gravel" thing is all just "marketing". (Read- evil intentions of heartless corporations to bilk innocent people of their dollars for no good reason) That isn't how this is working at all.

People are leaving the organized, licensed crit/road racing scene in the U.S. in droves. Just a few years ago, USAC, the sanctioning body for such road events, reported a precipitous drop in license sales and participation numbers in their events fell drastically. Sanctioned mountain bike racing has shown little to no growth for years. So where were all the people going? Were they quitting cycling altogether? Many did, but most went somewhere else, and by the numbers of events seen on gravel, it would be apparent that gravel/back road events are where people are spending their time and money. Of course the industry is going to chase that. You can only blame yourselves for this, cyclists. Stop doing gravel and the industry will drop gravel like a hot potato.

But that said, has the industry gone too far with offerings for this niche segment of cycling, or will it continue to cannibalize mountain and road bike sales into the future? How does the electric motor figure into all of this? Hard to say. But one possibility here is troubling.

Breezer Bikes has debuted a new adventure line. (Image courtesy of Grannygear)

Remember when fat bikes came around in an easy to buy, complete bike format in 2011? (Pugsleys were frame/fork only from 2005-2011) Yeah, then a short two years later everyone had a fat bike in their line. Companies with zero fat bike "cred" were producing corpulent tired monster bikes and trying to surf the fat biking wave. It didn't work out.......

That "bubble" burst in 2014 and sales of fat bikes, once a sure thing for Mid-Western shops, became a tough sell. Everyone that wanted one had one. Many companies have dropped fat bikes from their lines in the last few years or have severely curtailed their offerings. Fat bikes were once a runaway sales hit, and while they will never go away, it will never be like it was for three years or so there.

One could argue that gravel-all road bikes are on the same trajectory. Companies with no background in "adventure" style bikes are now jumping in with both feet into this market. Mountain bike companies that never really pushed road anything have "gravel bikes" now. Get the picture here? It sounds a lot like the same song sung in 2011-2013 with fat bikes.

My sincere hope is that road cycling just becomes "any road cycling". That the road racing style bikes be cornered into the niche place they belonged in all along- for the committed crit racer only. The "common road bike" going forward should be what we are calling "gravel bikes" now and that silly moniker- "gravel"- should just go away. The whole point, at least for me, was that a bike with capable tires and slacker geometry with fittings to promote versatility would become the de-facto choice for most cyclists all over the U.S.A.

But the cycling industry and media keep getting caught up in traditional pigeon holes and in chasing trends so much that they cannot seem to see where this could go. That's the biggest problem I see. If it goes like it has been, I fully expect the bubble to pop, but it doesn't have to be that way.

How Are We Going To Do This?

Those two threaded holes? That's an early attempt at a disc brake mount.

Everyone that nerds out on bicycles seems to have a pretty strong opinion on "standards", (like "there aren't ANY"!), and these opinions often times will be without any regard to history. Usually "it has been done before" and the reason it didn't catch on might be one of several things. Money being one of the biggest reasons, but material technology is usually reason number one. That means that the idea was "there" but the means to make it work right was not. Materials and the way they are applied generally are the reason many innovations ultimately become realities for bicycles. Like disc brakes, for instance.

Shimano had working disc brakes for bicycles back during the bike boom of the 70's. While the calipers were heavy and clunky, and the rotors were solid steel, they did work. There were concerns , of course, and since forks of the day were spindly and not very strong, disc brakes on bicycles then were typically only mounted on rear wheels. Ironically, Shimano chose to thread on the rotor to the hub, much like a freewheel, and if you think about it, Centerlock brakes are just a minor variation on that theme.

The whole disc brake thing then "went away" for a time, but during the late 70's, 80's and 90's, mountain bikers started tinkering around with disc brakes and by the late 90's, it was going to happen. Early adopters were within the ranks of the Marin clunker gang who used the Shimano disc brakes of the time despite their tank-ish weight. Later in the 80's there was a few attempts at using disc brakes on down hill mountain bikes. The 90's saw more activity with disc brakes, maybe most famously by Mountain Cycle who had an "upside down" fork design which required disc brakes to make it work. Gary Fisher also had a bike with disc brakes at the time, but it was........ahhh.... not very good!

Most suspension forks now use the 74mm post mount standard developed by Manitou

Finally, a concerted effort to make disc brakes work cranked up in the 90's. There was the Rock Shox mechanical disc brake with their funky 3 bolt rotors. Hayes Brakes had a 22mm direct mount, Manitou had a 74mm post mount, (yes, Manitou came up with that), and there was a 51mm mount that required adapters floating around as well. Eventually, the 51mm standard got adopted as the "International Standard" while Manitou, (and ironically, Hayes after they bought Manitou), stuck with 74mm mounts which eventually became the standard across most suspension forks and now rigid mtb forks. While the 51mm "IS" standard is still around, it requires different adaptors for front and rear brakes, while the 74mm post mounts do not. 74mm isn't widely adopted by the frame builders though since it requires a bit more effort to make precisely.

Now around about 2014 Shimano unveiled plans to make a new standard called "Flat Mount", which is not unlike what Hayes was trying to do in the late 90's with its 22mm mount. The idea was that the calipers would sit flush to the frame and fork without unsightly adapters or posts sticking off forks and frames. Unfortunately, by the time flat mount came about there were many carbon forks which were using the post mount standard for road applications. To further complicate things, not many custom or high end builders liked the flat mount aesthetic on the rear chain stay, nor were too keen on not using already available IS compatible drop outs which had been refined to look rather good.

Complicating things further is Shimano's lack of interchangeable adapters to fit other types of calipers to flat mount and flat mount calipers to other types of mounts. SRAM has done more in this vein. There are issues with adapters, but one thing flat mount does do is make adapting the caliper to either a 140mm or 160mm rotor an easy affair. You just flip the adapter mount around to use one size or the other. (No 180mm or 203mm rotors can be used with flat mount Shimano calipers.)

Shimano Flat Mount Disc Brakes

Flat mount seems to have been developed to make disc brakes look sleeker and to limit rotor sizes to smaller rotors. While it confuses the market further, it probably isn't going away, since aftermarket brake, fork, and some frame makers are adopting this for road and "gravel" applications.

It also is worth mentioning that along with flat mount disc brakes Shimano also foisted 12mm front through axle for road on us at the same time. This all makes one ask a few hard questions, such as, "What is wrong with 15mm through axles?", (a standard, ironically also foisted on us partially by Shimano), and how about "What is wrong with 74mm post mount, or IS brake mounts we already have?". Don't hold yer breath for any answers to those questions, by the way.

So, in a way, Shimano has brought us full circle back to the flat mount brake, which Hayes proposed in the late 90's. Weird, huh?

The whole disc brake mounting question isn't 100% settled just yet, but it would seem that IS and 74mm post mount will be the realm of off road applications only and this flat mount technology will be the realm of road and gravel. Maybe.......

Then there is the whole through axle thing which is already changing road bike wheels and will, no doubt, upset the apple cart with regard to legacy wheels not working, people wanting certain combinations that won't be possible any longer, and with the brake thing, it will be even worse. Change is often frustrating and painful. This looks to be no different, but we've been through this before with mountain bikes, so welcome to the nightmare......again.

How Are We Going To Do This?

Those two threaded holes? That's an early attempt at a disc brake mount.

Everyone that nerds out on bicycles seems to have a pretty strong opinion on "standards", (like "there aren't ANY"!), and these opinions often times will be without any regard to history. Usually "it has been done before" and the reason it didn't catch on might be one of several things. Money being one of the biggest reasons, but material technology is usually reason number one. That means that the idea was "there" but the means to make it work right was not. Materials and the way they are applied generally are the reason many innovations ultimately become realities for bicycles. Like disc brakes, for instance.

Shimano had working disc brakes for bicycles back during the bike boom of the 70's. While the calipers were heavy and clunky, and the rotors were solid steel, they did work. There were concerns , of course, and since forks of the day were spindly and not very strong, disc brakes on bicycles then were typically only mounted on rear wheels. Ironically, Shimano chose to thread on the rotor to the hub, much like a freewheel, and if you think about it, Centerlock brakes are just a minor variation on that theme.

The whole disc brake thing then "went away" for a time, but during the late 70's, 80's and 90's, mountain bikers started tinkering around with disc brakes and by the late 90's, it was going to happen. Early adopters were within the ranks of the Marin clunker gang who used the Shimano disc brakes of the time despite their tank-ish weight. Later in the 80's there was a few attempts at using disc brakes on down hill mountain bikes. The 90's saw more activity with disc brakes, maybe most famously by Mountain Cycle who had an "upside down" fork design which required disc brakes to make it work. Gary Fisher also had a bike with disc brakes at the time, but it was........ahhh.... not very good!

Most suspension forks now use the 74mm post mount standard developed by Manitou

Finally, a concerted effort to make disc brakes work cranked up in the 90's. There was the Rock Shox mechanical disc brake with their funky 3 bolt rotors. Hayes Brakes had a 22mm direct mount, Manitou had a 74mm post mount, (yes, Manitou came up with that), and there was a 51mm mount that required adapters floating around as well. Eventually, the 51mm standard got adopted as the "International Standard" while Manitou, (and ironically, Hayes after they bought Manitou), stuck with 74mm mounts which eventually became the standard across most suspension forks and now rigid mtb forks. While the 51mm "IS" standard is still around, it requires different adaptors for front and rear brakes, while the 74mm post mounts do not. 74mm isn't widely adopted by the frame builders though since it requires a bit more effort to make precisely.

Now around about 2014 Shimano unveiled plans to make a new standard called "Flat Mount", which is not unlike what Hayes was trying to do in the late 90's with its 22mm mount. The idea was that the calipers would sit flush to the frame and fork without unsightly adapters or posts sticking off forks and frames. Unfortunately, by the time flat mount came about there were many carbon forks which were using the post mount standard for road applications. To further complicate things, not many custom or high end builders liked the flat mount aesthetic on the rear chain stay, nor were too keen on not using already available IS compatible drop outs which had been refined to look rather good.

Complicating things further is Shimano's lack of interchangeable adapters to fit other types of calipers to flat mount and flat mount calipers to other types of mounts. SRAM has done more in this vein. There are issues with adapters, but one thing flat mount does do is make adapting the caliper to either a 140mm or 160mm rotor an easy affair. You just flip the adapter mount around to use one size or the other. (No 180mm or 203mm rotors can be used with flat mount Shimano calipers.)

Shimano Flat Mount Disc Brakes

Flat mount seems to have been developed to make disc brakes look sleeker and to limit rotor sizes to smaller rotors. While it confuses the market further, it probably isn't going away, since aftermarket brake, fork, and some frame makers are adopting this for road and "gravel" applications.

It also is worth mentioning that along with flat mount disc brakes Shimano also foisted 12mm front through axle for road on us at the same time. This all makes one ask a few hard questions, such as, "What is wrong with 15mm through axles?", (a standard, ironically also foisted on us partially by Shimano), and how about "What is wrong with 74mm post mount, or IS brake mounts we already have?". Don't hold yer breath for any answers to those questions, by the way.

So, in a way, Shimano has brought us full circle back to the flat mount brake, which Hayes proposed in the late 90's. Weird, huh?

The whole disc brake mounting question isn't 100% settled just yet, but it would seem that IS and 74mm post mount will be the realm of off road applications only and this flat mount technology will be the realm of road and gravel. Maybe.......

Then there is the whole through axle thing which is already changing road bike wheels and will, no doubt, upset the apple cart with regard to legacy wheels not working, people wanting certain combinations that won't be possible any longer, and with the brake thing, it will be even worse. Change is often frustrating and painful. This looks to be no different, but we've been through this before with mountain bikes, so welcome to the nightmare......again.

I Am A Road Rider

This is a road. I like roads like this to ride bicycles on.

I was made aware of this post about "never riding a road bike on the road again". I took a gander, and you know what? I kind of took issue with the post, but maybe not for the reasons you might think.

First of all, I am a road rider. My roads just are not paved. Small technicality, but one many people make a big distinction on. I know that I have been a big advocate of riding gravel, but I have been careful about not saying anything about it being a completely different discipline in the general sense, because in my mind, it isn't.

Now, the manufacturers will tell you it is different, and the cycling media heavyweights will definitely poo-poo the idea that I am a "road cyclist". They have condescendingly called what I do "groad" riding and people that do it "groadies", as if it is something to be laughed at or sneered about. And whether that is actually true or not, that is the vibe that these editors and writers put out there.

I call it "gravel grinding, because, ironically, that's what the old roadies that trained on gravel called it before me. But the media wonks don't want to hear about that. They had to come up with a dumber sounding name themselves for it, and they succeeded, I might add. What a stupid term for road riding.

Anyway....

This is a road bike. It is pictured on a road.

The point is that the story I referenced at the top says that road riding is too dangerous. Well, yeah.......if you ride where the traffic is heavy, or fast, it is. However; we have 70,000 plus miles,  just in Iowa, of roads that are not paved. These roads have almost no traffic. These are the roads I enjoy riding all the time without fearing for my life. These are the roads I ride where I do not get buzzed by cars going 60 plus miles an hour. These are the roads where car traffic, when I do encounter it, often slows down and pulls off to the side of the road to give me more than three feet. Heck, most of the time the drivers actually wave a friendly wave at me. 

So, my question is, "Why would I want to ride on paved roads anymore?" The answer is, I do not. Because I have a resource right outside my city limits that affords me the opportunity to ride all day long and see only a handful of cars, if I see any at all. 

I can also see things I would not ever see on paved road rides. I see remote, rustic farms, animals- both wild and domesticated- and I see landmarks and natural features I'd never see on paved rides. I can ride all day by myself, or if I ride with a friend, they can ride beside me and no one gets angry about it.

That said, I did agree with the author of the tagged post above that cars are too easy to drive. Combine that with the last decade of increasingly self-absorbed cell phone usage, and you get a dangerous stew. Cyclists are not the only ones suffering from the collateral damage caused by this phenomenon. Pedestrians and other motorists are also in harms way of the "distracted driver". While some things are being done about it, and more sweeping measures should be taken, I, in the meantime, will not be found on paved roads unless it is for my commute to work.

That isn't to say riding gravel roads is completely safe from motorist doing harm to you as a cyclist. (Ask me how I know.) But I'll gladly take the odds for being hit on gravel or dirt roads against riding on paved black top roads and highways any day.

I Am A Road Rider

This is a road. I like roads like this to ride bicycles on.

I was made aware of this post about "never riding a road bike on the road again". I took a gander, and you know what? I kind of took issue with the post, but maybe not for the reasons you might think.

First of all, I am a road rider. My roads just are not paved. Small technicality, but one many people make a big distinction on. I know that I have been a big advocate of riding gravel, but I have been careful about not saying anything about it being a completely different discipline in the general sense, because in my mind, it isn't.

Now, the manufacturers will tell you it is different, and the cycling media heavyweights will definitely poo-poo the idea that I am a "road cyclist". They have condescendingly called what I do "groad" riding and people that do it "groadies", as if it is something to be laughed at or sneered about. And whether that is actually true or not, that is the vibe that these editors and writers put out there.

I call it "gravel grinding, because, ironically, that's what the old roadies that trained on gravel called it before me. But the media wonks don't want to hear about that. They had to come up with a dumber sounding name themselves for it, and they succeeded, I might add. What a stupid term for road riding.

Anyway....

This is a road bike. It is pictured on a road.

The point is that the story I referenced at the top says that road riding is too dangerous. Well, yeah.......if you ride where the traffic is heavy, or fast, it is. However; we have 70,000 plus miles,  just in Iowa, of roads that are not paved. These roads have almost no traffic. These are the roads I enjoy riding all the time without fearing for my life. These are the roads I ride where I do not get buzzed by cars going 60 plus miles an hour. These are the roads where car traffic, when I do encounter it, often slows down and pulls off to the side of the road to give me more than three feet. Heck, most of the time the drivers actually wave a friendly wave at me. 

So, my question is, "Why would I want to ride on paved roads anymore?" The answer is, I do not. Because I have a resource right outside my city limits that affords me the opportunity to ride all day long and see only a handful of cars, if I see any at all. 

I can also see things I would not ever see on paved road rides. I see remote, rustic farms, animals- both wild and domesticated- and I see landmarks and natural features I'd never see on paved rides. I can ride all day by myself, or if I ride with a friend, they can ride beside me and no one gets angry about it.

That said, I did agree with the author of the tagged post above that cars are too easy to drive. Combine that with the last decade of increasingly self-absorbed cell phone usage, and you get a dangerous stew. Cyclists are not the only ones suffering from the collateral damage caused by this phenomenon. Pedestrians and other motorists are also in harms way of the "distracted driver". While some things are being done about it, and more sweeping measures should be taken, I, in the meantime, will not be found on paved roads unless it is for my commute to work.

That isn't to say riding gravel roads is completely safe from motorist doing harm to you as a cyclist. (Ask me how I know.) But I'll gladly take the odds for being hit on gravel or dirt roads against riding on paved black top roads and highways any day.

Where They Are Getting It Wrong

So wrong on one end, so right on the other.

Everywhere you turn now, it seems that bicycle companies are hopping on the "gravel/adventure" bike theme. Sea Otter, a festival on the West Coast that concluded last month, saw a slew of new offerings for the 2017 model year. Some of these bikes are offerings from bigger brands, like the Specialized Diverge, but most are coming from mid-level brands looking to cash in on a trend. Emphasis on "cash in", and it often times shows.

I've been watching the trend with great interest, not just because I am involved with RidingGravel.com, but also because I have been beating the drum for what it takes to make a good gravel road bike on this blog for years. Long before these companies ever thought to make such beasts. That is important to note only because I have had these ideas for a long time and I'm not just coming around with criticisms made up recently. I have no horse in this race, but I do find how these bikes are coming out rather odd. It has more to do with corporate trappings and marketing than it does with what is going to actually make a good gravel road bike. What has informed these designs, many times, are things that just do not work well on gravel roads, or works poorly.

As an example, many bicycles companies are putting forth in this new niche have carbon fiber forks. Why wouldn't they? They are "road based" bikes, right? And what self respecting road bike designer wouldn't put a carbon fiber fork on a gravel road bike? Besides, they are lighter than the other options. You know, light weight sells. Well, the problem is that these are generally the same forks used on cyclo cross bikes, which value stiffness above all else. Sure, you get tire clearance for 40mm tires, but you also get the stiffest riding fork you can imagine. Not so hot an idea for gravel roads.

That steel fork might be heavy, and ordinary looking, but it works.

I've been on a few of these carbon forks. When I think of them, the word "jack hammer" comes to mind. I know of others saying similar things. What happens is that riders get their arms, upper bodies, and in worst case scenarios, even their neck and head going through the "paint shaker" routine. This isn't necessary at all, and absolutely something we want to avoid at all costs on a gravel road going machine.

The trouble is that companies are designing these bikes using components already available via parts developed for other disciplines of cycling, (cyclo cross), or that exist in catalogs from the carbon factories in the Far East. Almost none of what we see masquerading as "gravel/adventure" bikes is actually a ground up design specific to gravel road riding. The Salsa Warbird and the Raleigh Tamland being notable exceptions. Usually what we are seeing are bikes with some tweaks, or out and out cyclo cross bikes rebadged.

Some other bikes, which are new designs, and badged as gravel/adventure rigs, don't have features or geometry that is even close to what actually works on rough roads with loose gravel. It isn't hard to figure it out, because, well..........it was figured out decades ago by the European road bike designers. The historical references and designs are all there to be seen and learned from, yet the bicycles I see headed our way for gravel riding don't seem to have any of these seminal influences. Things like low bottom brackets, slack head angles matched up with long offsets, and forks that actually work with the terrain instead of fiercely resisting it. Instead, we get designs informed by the road cycling trends of the day, which are ultimately derived from American Criterium geometry. Not a design house that makes a good bike for gravel road riding.

So, I see this and find it odd. There are some companies that have gotten it close to the ideal I believe is best, but most bikes I see for this category are missing it by a country mile. 

Where They Are Getting It Wrong

So wrong on one end, so right on the other.

Everywhere you turn now, it seems that bicycle companies are hopping on the "gravel/adventure" bike theme. Sea Otter, a festival on the West Coast that concluded last month, saw a slew of new offerings for the 2017 model year. Some of these bikes are offerings from bigger brands, like the Specialized Diverge, but most are coming from mid-level brands looking to cash in on a trend. Emphasis on "cash in", and it often times shows.

I've been watching the trend with great interest, not just because I am involved with RidingGravel.com, but also because I have been beating the drum for what it takes to make a good gravel road bike on this blog for years. Long before these companies ever thought to make such beasts. That is important to note only because I have had these ideas for a long time and I'm not just coming around with criticisms made up recently. I have no horse in this race, but I do find how these bikes are coming out rather odd. It has more to do with corporate trappings and marketing than it does with what is going to actually make a good gravel road bike. What has informed these designs, many times, are things that just do not work well on gravel roads, or works poorly.

As an example, many bicycles companies are putting forth in this new niche have carbon fiber forks. Why wouldn't they? They are "road based" bikes, right? And what self respecting road bike designer wouldn't put a carbon fiber fork on a gravel road bike? Besides, they are lighter than the other options. You know, light weight sells. Well, the problem is that these are generally the same forks used on cyclo cross bikes, which value stiffness above all else. Sure, you get tire clearance for 40mm tires, but you also get the stiffest riding fork you can imagine. Not so hot an idea for gravel roads.

That steel fork might be heavy, and ordinary looking, but it works.

I've been on a few of these carbon forks. When I think of them, the word "jack hammer" comes to mind. I know of others saying similar things. What happens is that riders get their arms, upper bodies, and in worst case scenarios, even their neck and head going through the "paint shaker" routine. This isn't necessary at all, and absolutely something we want to avoid at all costs on a gravel road going machine.

The trouble is that companies are designing these bikes using components already available via parts developed for other disciplines of cycling, (cyclo cross), or that exist in catalogs from the carbon factories in the Far East. Almost none of what we see masquerading as "gravel/adventure" bikes is actually a ground up design specific to gravel road riding. The Salsa Warbird and the Raleigh Tamland being notable exceptions. Usually what we are seeing are bikes with some tweaks, or out and out cyclo cross bikes rebadged.

Some other bikes, which are new designs, and badged as gravel/adventure rigs, don't have features or geometry that is even close to what actually works on rough roads with loose gravel. It isn't hard to figure it out, because, well..........it was figured out decades ago by the European road bike designers. The historical references and designs are all there to be seen and learned from, yet the bicycles I see headed our way for gravel riding don't seem to have any of these seminal influences. Things like low bottom brackets, slack head angles matched up with long offsets, and forks that actually work with the terrain instead of fiercely resisting it. Instead, we get designs informed by the road cycling trends of the day, which are ultimately derived from American Criterium geometry. Not a design house that makes a good bike for gravel road riding.

So, I see this and find it odd. There are some companies that have gotten it close to the ideal I believe is best, but most bikes I see for this category are missing it by a country mile. 

Thoughts On The Future

Word is that there will be a whole lot more of this coming down the pike for 2016/17

In Taiwan every year now there is a big gathering of industry marketing and product managers, spec people, component makers, and representatives of factories and bike brands which all convene to decide what the future direction of the cycling industry is going to look like for the next few years. It's called Taiwan Bike Week, or TBW for short, and it has more influence upon what you see on bike shop floors and on internet sites than almost anything else does.

For instance, several years ago industry wonks noted that the wave of 29"er acceptance was waning and 26 inch mtb product was dead and dying. The thought was that the then new "enduro" scene would benefit from bigger than 26 inch wheels, but not as big as 29"ers. The 650B wheel had been floundering around for a few years already and wasn't going anywhere. Haro had tried it amongst a few other brands. It looked to be a dead wheel size, that is until the industry decided that the new long travel mtb's would use that size and reinvigorate the enduro/long travel mtb segment with something new to sell. Before the next two years had passed, 26" wheeled enduro rigs had bit the dust like some kind of extinct reptile and "27.5" wheels, (the original moniker Kirk Pacenti gave the wheel size in 2007), were all the rage. Because the industry decided it would be several years before in Taiwan.

A similar situation with regard to the industry and sagging sales in a certain segment is going to cause another paradigm shift in what you see on shop floors and on the "inner-googles" next season. Recent sales figures for traditional road bike sales show a decline and in fact, sales of road bikes have been in decline for several years now. But wait a minute...... What are those gravel grinder guys doing? And look at Raleigh and Salsa Cycles, what with their success in gravel bikes. Just think! We could reinvent road bikes and sell a pile of them! 

Plus sized wheels will also be a big deal in '16 & '17

I know what many of you are thinking- that the industry is evil, making up crap just to grab money from your wallets, with categories and twists and turns in cycling which are unnecessary and pollute the marketplace with confusion and crap. I cannot say no one in the cycling industry is doing this, because, well.....Bikes Direct....., but honestly, most companies have employees to support and somehow, someway they have to grab a piece of an ever smaller pie. It is what it is, and so far.......consumers voting with their dollars support this. Keep in mind that none of this happens without willing support of individual riders. If they don't "buy in" to something new in cycling, then the products offered will go away. (See 26" mtb as an example here.) Road bikes- the traditional, skinny, lightweight racer boy bikes- are the category that is suffering now, and if Taiwan Bike Week has dictated that these bikes don't deserve center stage anymore, I say, "Bravo!". Why? Because most people do not belong on road racing style bicycles, that is why.

So, if the industry wants to get away from those bikes and do something with more comfort, versatility, and durability than road racing bikes, then I am going to applaud that, even if it is an evil intentioned money grab, which, of course, it isn't. It should be more of what people really need in all-around, go anywhere, do anything bikes. Now we will just have to wait and see if folks can wean themselves away from the knuckle-brained idea that they need skinny tires and carbon fiber to have fun. Not that there isn't a place for those sorts of bikes, but most people are not best served by those bikes.

Which leads me to my last point, and that is that bicycles are getting so stratospherically priced that the average person cannot even relate to them. Somehow or another the industry decided that if they cannot sell more bikes, then they will sell more expensive ones to make up for it. That's a dead end game, and I think it needs to stop and stop soon. I wonder if they talked about that in Taiwan!

Thoughts On The Future

Word is that there will be a whole lot more of this coming down the pike for 2016/17

In Taiwan every year now there is a big gathering of industry marketing and product managers, spec people, component makers, and representatives of factories and bike brands which all convene to decide what the future direction of the cycling industry is going to look like for the next few years. It's called Taiwan Bike Week, or TBW for short, and it has more influence upon what you see on bike shop floors and on internet sites than almost anything else does.

For instance, several years ago industry wonks noted that the wave of 29"er acceptance was waning and 26 inch mtb product was dead and dying. The thought was that the then new "enduro" scene would benefit from bigger than 26 inch wheels, but not as big as 29"ers. The 650B wheel had been floundering around for a few years already and wasn't going anywhere. Haro had tried it amongst a few other brands. It looked to be a dead wheel size, that is until the industry decided that the new long travel mtb's would use that size and reinvigorate the enduro/long travel mtb segment with something new to sell. Before the next two years had passed, 26" wheeled enduro rigs had bit the dust like some kind of extinct reptile and "27.5" wheels, (the original moniker Kirk Pacenti gave the wheel size in 2007), were all the rage. Because the industry decided it would be several years before in Taiwan.

A similar situation with regard to the industry and sagging sales in a certain segment is going to cause another paradigm shift in what you see on shop floors and on the "inner-googles" next season. Recent sales figures for traditional road bike sales show a decline and in fact, sales of road bikes have been in decline for several years now. But wait a minute...... What are those gravel grinder guys doing? And look at Raleigh and Salsa Cycles, what with their success in gravel bikes. Just think! We could reinvent road bikes and sell a pile of them! 

Plus sized wheels will also be a big deal in '16 & '17

I know what many of you are thinking- that the industry is evil, making up crap just to grab money from your wallets, with categories and twists and turns in cycling which are unnecessary and pollute the marketplace with confusion and crap. I cannot say no one in the cycling industry is doing this, because, well.....Bikes Direct....., but honestly, most companies have employees to support and somehow, someway they have to grab a piece of an ever smaller pie. It is what it is, and so far.......consumers voting with their dollars support this. Keep in mind that none of this happens without willing support of individual riders. If they don't "buy in" to something new in cycling, then the products offered will go away. (See 26" mtb as an example here.) Road bikes- the traditional, skinny, lightweight racer boy bikes- are the category that is suffering now, and if Taiwan Bike Week has dictated that these bikes don't deserve center stage anymore, I say, "Bravo!". Why? Because most people do not belong on road racing style bicycles, that is why.

So, if the industry wants to get away from those bikes and do something with more comfort, versatility, and durability than road racing bikes, then I am going to applaud that, even if it is an evil intentioned money grab, which, of course, it isn't. It should be more of what people really need in all-around, go anywhere, do anything bikes. Now we will just have to wait and see if folks can wean themselves away from the knuckle-brained idea that they need skinny tires and carbon fiber to have fun. Not that there isn't a place for those sorts of bikes, but most people are not best served by those bikes.

Which leads me to my last point, and that is that bicycles are getting so stratospherically priced that the average person cannot even relate to them. Somehow or another the industry decided that if they cannot sell more bikes, then they will sell more expensive ones to make up for it. That's a dead end game, and I think it needs to stop and stop soon. I wonder if they talked about that in Taiwan!

All Roads Cycling

Starting out on pavement.

Over at the shop where I work we've been trying to impress upon folks that there are road bikes and then there are road bikes. You know, for any kind of road. Not just the nice, smooth blacktops or cement roads, as if there are really any of those!

Part of this "education" is breaking the mold of perceptions that skinny 23mm tires at 120psi are faster and that you should have the lightest bicycle possible. Quite frankly, the cycling brands that most folks are aware of push this concept and are continuing to foist these rigs on bike shops and consumers as "the bike" to have. In reality, there are very few folks that can really benefit from having the equivalent of an Formula 1 race car in their garage.

The standard racing bicycle is just as impractical as owning an F-1 car would be for the average person, and just as uncomfortable. Fast? Light? Yes, but at a cost that makes these bikes impractical for anything but smooth tarmac and the limber body of a fine tuned racer. That's unnecessarily limiting, and these bikes are so niche, in reality, that their glaring incompetence for average cycling needs should place them at or near the bottom of choices for cyclists. But they aren't and most of that problem is with perceptions and the brands that play on them.

So we end up slapping on racks where there are no rack mounts, tell folks kickstands don't work with carbon frames, and flip stems up or put on stem extenders. In the end, these bicycles, designed for racing or based directly off racing designs, are modded to be something they are not. Loads are carried on them that end up destroying rear wheels before their time, and of course, those hard, unforgiving 23mm tires at max pressure are not helping at all.

This silty climb would have been impossible on skinny racing treads.

 This is where the "gravel bike" comes in. Of course, this isn't really a good name for these bikes, but bikes designed to do gravel travel are perfectly suited to doing any road be it paved, rough, pot holed, gravel, or not paved with anything at all!

Four years ago there weren't many choices for this kind of bike, but now just about every company has one or more of these sorts of bicycles in their line ups. The big problem now is trying to get bike shop staff on board with this idea, and then getting that message out to the masses. This reminds me a lot of the struggles Fisher Bikes had back in the early 00's trying to get dealers to grasp the concept of 29"ers. The dealers that did get the message and translated it successfully reaped great benefits. Same deal with these "all road" bikes here. This could be big. It should be big.

One big mistake the companies that are putting these bikes out are doing is making them appear to be "like a mountain bike", or describing them by saying things like "this is a mountain biker's road bike." What does mountain biking have to do with any of this? Equating these new "all-road", go anywhere bikes with mountain biking is doing them a great disservice. The perception of mountain biking the industry puts out is one of machismo and is rather misogynistic in nature for the most part. That's just one thing wrong with this marketing plan. Many videos I have seen show these bikes in a "mountain biking" context.  Doing "rad" moves on the all-road bike shows these bikes are capable, but in the context they are shown in, it becomes a turn off. To the companies doing this sort of marketing for these bikes, it is a buzz kill, not a buzz maker.

The other mistake folks make in the industry is repackaging cyclo cross bikes as "all-road/gravel bikes". The cyclo cross geometry isn't the best for rough roads and loose gravel roads at all. Companies that don't use the easy way out, and do their own geometry have much better riding product and will have happier end users. Cyclo cross bikes, and straight up touring bikes, for that matter, are also generally way too stiff for comfortable cycling, which is paramount for getting these new bikes accepted in a wider arena.

Going where no road racing bike, and few vehicles, will ever go is a lot of fun. 

The big miss a lot of people are making is the "fun factor". These bikes can go places where "normal" road racing bikes can go, and where traffic is low to non-existent. Stressing about when you may become the next road cycling fatality? Maybe give this "all-road" cycling some thought. The sales pitch needs to be accessible to folks though, and if you listen to much of what the industry puts out, you may miss out due to how their messages miss the mark.

That's why I started doing the "Geezer Ride" in various places in Iowa. I wanted to focus on the social side, camaraderie, and all the while try to showcase how cycling on rural roads is not only accessible, but not all that hard and most of all- fun. Hopefully I was somewhat successful in that. It is something shops could do anywhere to promote safe, fun, adventurous riding and show off these new bikes that are extremely capable machines.

All Roads Cycling

Starting out on pavement.

Over at the shop where I work we've been trying to impress upon folks that there are road bikes and then there are road bikes. You know, for any kind of road. Not just the nice, smooth blacktops or cement roads, as if there are really any of those!

Part of this "education" is breaking the mold of perceptions that skinny 23mm tires at 120psi are faster and that you should have the lightest bicycle possible. Quite frankly, the cycling brands that most folks are aware of push this concept and are continuing to foist these rigs on bike shops and consumers as "the bike" to have. In reality, there are very few folks that can really benefit from having the equivalent of an Formula 1 race car in their garage.

The standard racing bicycle is just as impractical as owning an F-1 car would be for the average person, and just as uncomfortable. Fast? Light? Yes, but at a cost that makes these bikes impractical for anything but smooth tarmac and the limber body of a fine tuned racer. That's unnecessarily limiting, and these bikes are so niche, in reality, that their glaring incompetence for average cycling needs should place them at or near the bottom of choices for cyclists. But they aren't and most of that problem is with perceptions and the brands that play on them.

So we end up slapping on racks where there are no rack mounts, tell folks kickstands don't work with carbon frames, and flip stems up or put on stem extenders. In the end, these bicycles, designed for racing or based directly off racing designs, are modded to be something they are not. Loads are carried on them that end up destroying rear wheels before their time, and of course, those hard, unforgiving 23mm tires at max pressure are not helping at all.

This silty climb would have been impossible on skinny racing treads.

 This is where the "gravel bike" comes in. Of course, this isn't really a good name for these bikes, but bikes designed to do gravel travel are perfectly suited to doing any road be it paved, rough, pot holed, gravel, or not paved with anything at all!

Four years ago there weren't many choices for this kind of bike, but now just about every company has one or more of these sorts of bicycles in their line ups. The big problem now is trying to get bike shop staff on board with this idea, and then getting that message out to the masses. This reminds me a lot of the struggles Fisher Bikes had back in the early 00's trying to get dealers to grasp the concept of 29"ers. The dealers that did get the message and translated it successfully reaped great benefits. Same deal with these "all road" bikes here. This could be big. It should be big.

One big mistake the companies that are putting these bikes out are doing is making them appear to be "like a mountain bike", or describing them by saying things like "this is a mountain biker's road bike." What does mountain biking have to do with any of this? Equating these new "all-road", go anywhere bikes with mountain biking is doing them a great disservice. The perception of mountain biking the industry puts out is one of machismo and is rather misogynistic in nature for the most part. That's just one thing wrong with this marketing plan. Many videos I have seen show these bikes in a "mountain biking" context.  Doing "rad" moves on the all-road bike shows these bikes are capable, but in the context they are shown in, it becomes a turn off. To the companies doing this sort of marketing for these bikes, it is a buzz kill, not a buzz maker.

The other mistake folks make in the industry is repackaging cyclo cross bikes as "all-road/gravel bikes". The cyclo cross geometry isn't the best for rough roads and loose gravel roads at all. Companies that don't use the easy way out, and do their own geometry have much better riding product and will have happier end users. Cyclo cross bikes, and straight up touring bikes, for that matter, are also generally way too stiff for comfortable cycling, which is paramount for getting these new bikes accepted in a wider arena.

Going where no road racing bike, and few vehicles, will ever go is a lot of fun. 

The big miss a lot of people are making is the "fun factor". These bikes can go places where "normal" road racing bikes can go, and where traffic is low to non-existent. Stressing about when you may become the next road cycling fatality? Maybe give this "all-road" cycling some thought. The sales pitch needs to be accessible to folks though, and if you listen to much of what the industry puts out, you may miss out due to how their messages miss the mark.

That's why I started doing the "Geezer Ride" in various places in Iowa. I wanted to focus on the social side, camaraderie, and all the while try to showcase how cycling on rural roads is not only accessible, but not all that hard and most of all- fun. Hopefully I was somewhat successful in that. It is something shops could do anywhere to promote safe, fun, adventurous riding and show off these new bikes that are extremely capable machines.

Marketing "Average": Not Interesting But Necessary

This- Not more Mega-Halo-Pie-In-The-Sky Bikes.

Well, you all know that I am a certified "bike nerd" and as such, I love checking out the "latest-greatest" things that come out on the market. So, listen up here- I am as guilty as the next guy when it comes to being seduced by five figure bikes that get bandied about in the cycling press. However; I can't help but feel that the "upper end" has gotten bloated and over-produced. Seriously- how many of those bikes actually are sold versus entry to mid-range bikes? Why is it that there seems to be a vacuum when it comes to press and banter on a bike that costs less than 2G.

First off, before I go any further, this is not about whether or not those big dollar bikes are justified or necessary. This isn't about that. In fact, I would be one of the first to stand up and say those "halo" bikes are totally a good thing. But c'mon! There are far, far more bikes being sold for less than two thousand dollars that we almost never hear a thing about.

I read an article about a full suspension 29"er the other day. I liked what I read, and the review even referenced that the technology was available in aluminum framed examples which were assumed to cost less. Then I looked at the one they actually rode- a bike costing more than $8000.00. 

My gut reaction? "Whoa! Yeah right! Forget about that bike." The whole review was almost instantaneously forgotten. Is that a poor way to react? I don't know, but that was my honest reaction. I bet I'm not alone in that.  I also bet the marketing department of that brand wouldn't be too stoked to know that.  And that made me think. A lot.

Now for a bit of a disclaimer- I just got in a new review bike for RidingGravel.com. It's a middle of a three bike range model with all the models being sub-$1100.00. This is a bicycle that is a bit hard to talk about because, well......frankly it is boring to most. However; in my opinion, totally necessary. It's what the cycling press should spend more time on talking about. Well, that is if they weren't worried so much about regurgitating press releases on bikes you can't even get yet or spouting off about bikes with such low production numbers that they are barely relevant to most riders. That's just my opinion.

And to be fair, there are some reviewers spending time on stuff like this. Just not enough. But, you know, it isn't sexy, exciting, or "new", and that's where the industry thinks the attention is grabbed. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Marketing "Average": Not Interesting But Necessary

This- Not more Mega-Halo-Pie-In-The-Sky Bikes.

Well, you all know that I am a certified "bike nerd" and as such, I love checking out the "latest-greatest" things that come out on the market. So, listen up here- I am as guilty as the next guy when it comes to being seduced by five figure bikes that get bandied about in the cycling press. However; I can't help but feel that the "upper end" has gotten bloated and over-produced. Seriously- how many of those bikes actually are sold versus entry to mid-range bikes? Why is it that there seems to be a vacuum when it comes to press and banter on a bike that costs less than 2G.

First off, before I go any further, this is not about whether or not those big dollar bikes are justified or necessary. This isn't about that. In fact, I would be one of the first to stand up and say those "halo" bikes are totally a good thing. But c'mon! There are far, far more bikes being sold for less than two thousand dollars that we almost never hear a thing about.

I read an article about a full suspension 29"er the other day. I liked what I read, and the review even referenced that the technology was available in aluminum framed examples which were assumed to cost less. Then I looked at the one they actually rode- a bike costing more than $8000.00. 

My gut reaction? "Whoa! Yeah right! Forget about that bike." The whole review was almost instantaneously forgotten. Is that a poor way to react? I don't know, but that was my honest reaction. I bet I'm not alone in that.  I also bet the marketing department of that brand wouldn't be too stoked to know that.  And that made me think. A lot.

Now for a bit of a disclaimer- I just got in a new review bike for RidingGravel.com. It's a middle of a three bike range model with all the models being sub-$1100.00. This is a bicycle that is a bit hard to talk about because, well......frankly it is boring to most. However; in my opinion, totally necessary. It's what the cycling press should spend more time on talking about. Well, that is if they weren't worried so much about regurgitating press releases on bikes you can't even get yet or spouting off about bikes with such low production numbers that they are barely relevant to most riders. That's just my opinion.

And to be fair, there are some reviewers spending time on stuff like this. Just not enough. But, you know, it isn't sexy, exciting, or "new", and that's where the industry thinks the attention is grabbed. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Less About The Rock And More About The Roll

Note: The following originally was posted to Gravel Grinder News on 8/17/14. I thought that since not everyone reads GGN, it might be good to share this post here as well. 

 

2015 Raleigh Willard Two

Less About The Rock And More About The Roll- by Guitar Ted

With the big trade show season about to unfold for the bicycle industry, we start to look forward to what might be getting unveiled for the gravel road riding cyclists amongst us. The bicycle industry has shown some interest in catering to this genre, but not without some backlash, and subsequently the mid-summer releases were less specifically about “gravel” and more about……well, we’ll get to that in a bit here. The point is, it is becoming easier to find off the shelf solutions for gravel and back road riding. Anything from tires, rims, and components all the way up to specific designs in complete bicycles aimed at gravel and back road riders.

 

2015 GT Grade

 

 Crushed rock roads are a mainstay across many of the states in the midst of the United States, but that isn’t the only form of back road/mixed terrain riding available, and certainly it doesn’t represent what is possible all over the country. In fact, many riders don’t even know what a gravel road is and why you’d want to “grind” one. Who could blame them? While many get stuck on the name, it isn’t the point, and it is definitely not the goal of many in the industry to promote “gravel riding” exclusively. That would be selling the whole thing short of its potential, in my opinion.

 

 The gravel scene is real, and it isn’t going to go away anytime soon, but it is only a facet of what I believe could be a revolution in cycling. It is really great to have the industry come to grips with gravel riding’s specific demands, but what works on gravel roads really works everywhere from just short of road racing right up to and including some single track riding. The bicycle industry is catching on to this too. Specialized and GT Bikes, to name two, have shown short videos featuring their new “all road” bikes doing pavement and dirt, with bunny hopping and spirited sprints part of the action.

Even some of these company’s marketing spiels are saying things like, ” this isn’t about racing, but just riding bicycles“, which is a breath of fresh air in an industry that has focused too long on European Pro road racing. While that sort of cycling is exciting, it isn’t what the masses are going to do, or should do, with their bicycles. Bike shops have been filled with fast, light, hard core, unapologetic road racing machines for too long, and the mountain bike market keeps pushing longer travel full suspension bikes that really aren’t necessary for a vast majority of cyclists.

 

However; as stated above, the industry still hasn’t come to grips with just how to market these bicycles. The term “gravel grinder” was latched on to early on, but that term has been registered as a trade mark, (not by us!), and besides, it is not well understood by most cyclists anyway. What to call it then?

This is the sort of “mountain biking” most folks could be doing.

 

Yes….this probably sounds like it is coming straight from a certain retro-grouches “blug”, but if you stop to think about it, an “all -road” type, country bike capable of mixed terrain riding is a lot smarter, safer, and more fun for the kind of “just riding a bicycle” that brought us into cycling in the first place. Getting out there, using a “general purpose” bike just to have an adventure, be with friends, or to get away from it all, is the basis for most riding we do.

This same sort of bike can be your commuter, your light touring rig, an errand runner, and yes…..be ridden on gravel roads. But let’s not get stuck on what a “gravel grinder” is, or why bikes should be designed “specifically for gravel road riding”. No, let’s make it less about the rock, and more about the roll. The riding, and having fun along the way, with a light, reasonably designed bicycle that is capable on a wide variety of terrain types and roads.

We’re not going to be changing our name anytime soon here, since the rides this site promotes and the bicycles and gear we talk about are going to be measured by how they help us “grind out the miles on gravel“. (“Gravel grinder”, now do you understand?) We literally have hundreds of thousands of miles of crushed rock roads surrounding our little headquarters here, so it makes sense for many of us. However; we aren’t so short sighted that we think everything has to be about gravel riding, and we think the bicycle industry should keep moving in that general direction as well.

Less About The Rock And More About The Roll

Note: The following originally was posted to Gravel Grinder News on 8/17/14. I thought that since not everyone reads GGN, it might be good to share this post here as well. 

 

2015 Raleigh Willard Two

Less About The Rock And More About The Roll- by Guitar Ted

With the big trade show season about to unfold for the bicycle industry, we start to look forward to what might be getting unveiled for the gravel road riding cyclists amongst us. The bicycle industry has shown some interest in catering to this genre, but not without some backlash, and subsequently the mid-summer releases were less specifically about “gravel” and more about……well, we’ll get to that in a bit here. The point is, it is becoming easier to find off the shelf solutions for gravel and back road riding. Anything from tires, rims, and components all the way up to specific designs in complete bicycles aimed at gravel and back road riders.

 

2015 GT Grade

 

 Crushed rock roads are a mainstay across many of the states in the midst of the United States, but that isn’t the only form of back road/mixed terrain riding available, and certainly it doesn’t represent what is possible all over the country. In fact, many riders don’t even know what a gravel road is and why you’d want to “grind” one. Who could blame them? While many get stuck on the name, it isn’t the point, and it is definitely not the goal of many in the industry to promote “gravel riding” exclusively. That would be selling the whole thing short of its potential, in my opinion.

 

 The gravel scene is real, and it isn’t going to go away anytime soon, but it is only a facet of what I believe could be a revolution in cycling. It is really great to have the industry come to grips with gravel riding’s specific demands, but what works on gravel roads really works everywhere from just short of road racing right up to and including some single track riding. The bicycle industry is catching on to this too. Specialized and GT Bikes, to name two, have shown short videos featuring their new “all road” bikes doing pavement and dirt, with bunny hopping and spirited sprints part of the action.

Even some of these company’s marketing spiels are saying things like, ” this isn’t about racing, but just riding bicycles“, which is a breath of fresh air in an industry that has focused too long on European Pro road racing. While that sort of cycling is exciting, it isn’t what the masses are going to do, or should do, with their bicycles. Bike shops have been filled with fast, light, hard core, unapologetic road racing machines for too long, and the mountain bike market keeps pushing longer travel full suspension bikes that really aren’t necessary for a vast majority of cyclists.

 

However; as stated above, the industry still hasn’t come to grips with just how to market these bicycles. The term “gravel grinder” was latched on to early on, but that term has been registered as a trade mark, (not by us!), and besides, it is not well understood by most cyclists anyway. What to call it then?

This is the sort of “mountain biking” most folks could be doing.

 

Yes….this probably sounds like it is coming straight from a certain retro-grouches “blug”, but if you stop to think about it, an “all -road” type, country bike capable of mixed terrain riding is a lot smarter, safer, and more fun for the kind of “just riding a bicycle” that brought us into cycling in the first place. Getting out there, using a “general purpose” bike just to have an adventure, be with friends, or to get away from it all, is the basis for most riding we do.

This same sort of bike can be your commuter, your light touring rig, an errand runner, and yes…..be ridden on gravel roads. But let’s not get stuck on what a “gravel grinder” is, or why bikes should be designed “specifically for gravel road riding”. No, let’s make it less about the rock, and more about the roll. The riding, and having fun along the way, with a light, reasonably designed bicycle that is capable on a wide variety of terrain types and roads.

We’re not going to be changing our name anytime soon here, since the rides this site promotes and the bicycles and gear we talk about are going to be measured by how they help us “grind out the miles on gravel“. (“Gravel grinder”, now do you understand?) We literally have hundreds of thousands of miles of crushed rock roads surrounding our little headquarters here, so it makes sense for many of us. However; we aren’t so short sighted that we think everything has to be about gravel riding, and we think the bicycle industry should keep moving in that general direction as well.