[Closed] Adventure Gravel bikes - just CX with marketing gimmicks?

I think they're an American invention. They don't make much sense over here.

Slight differences in geometry I think but not big enough that anyone would need both. Depending on exact usage one might be slightly better than the other.

The term is too ill-defined (over here especially) they run the gamut from slightly-less-racey CX bike all the way to touring-bike-with-flashy-graphics, via 29er-MTB-with-drop-bars-and-less-knobbles

plenty of very good bikes in the genre though and cover a multitude of riding but the actual gravel racing scene doesn't really exist over here.

Or is it just a load of cobblers to generate £?

Why would anyone bigger tyres than CX on Tarmac?

Its all shades of grey

A true CX bike is designed for a 1 hour race, probably in the mud

The new fad is something similar but with rack and mud guard mounts. Which a true CX bike wouldn't have. Other things will also be tweaked for comfort etc. They are designed for on off road use so I don't understand the tyre size comment. Oh and i think for leisure off road use 40c is popular and CX bikes are designed around 35c (well now 33c)

Wondering how fast it runs on 40c.

A CX I'm buying runs on 35c and may have clearance for 40c when it's dryer and no so gloopy.

I like the higher BB of CX but gues the lower BB of gravel frames should handle better?

Would be interesting to test ride both though! So much choice these days 😉

Given that many of us happily ride cx bikes up hill and down dale, and have done for years, then gravel bikes are obv total bobbins from that perspective.
But if you forget that for a sec, and just look at the gravel bikes in isolation, as a ground up design, then they look boss. So if you don't own a cx bike they have to be worth looking at. [If you do own a CX bike and are also looking at a gravel bike, then let me congratulate you on your disposable income].

A huge proportion of MTB owners in the UK would probably be better off on these sort of bikes, tbh - the 10 times a year crowd. They're too expensive at the mo to hit this massive market of bimblers, but once they come down in price they might make a big dent there.

What ya getting Frankenstein?

Specific Gravel bikes tend to be a bit longer, bit slacker and a bit lower than CX bike bit to be honest there isn't much on it.

I think they make quite a lot of sense in the UK for general riding.

To a greater extent, marketing bobbins unless designed to take full-on touring kit and panniers (e.g. some of the Surly / Salsa bikes are designed as tourers).

I built my wife a CX frame with short rear end and super skinny, very curvy seatstays (for mud clearance, low weight and comfort). It would also be great for riding on gravel roads, but awful for loaded touring panniers hung out the back (heels would hit the bags, very flexy and would probably snap the stays at some point).

Some "racy" CX bikes have toe overlap - but I'd just say that is sloppy design rather than an inherent / required "feature".

davidtaylforth - Member
I think they're an American invention. They don't make much sense over here.

Dunno, I think they're probably perfect for the thousands of miles of forestry and estate roads in Scotland,

[url= https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3816/19542997988_12ab8cbc75_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3816/19542997988_12ab8cbc75_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Although I prefer a roadified 29er for that sort of thing.

I liked the term "[i]Bridleslayer[/i]" someone came up with in another one of these threads. They're not proper CX bikes, more like offroad capable drop barred bikes with touring/sportive derived geometry, typically with rack/guard mounts as a nod towards potential touring and commuting uses you can still use them to dabble in CX racing too...

Basically pretty adaptable, practical, useful bikes. No we don't have "[i]gravel races[/i]" here in the UK but we have plenty of places to ride such bikes...

Compared to various other cycling fashions and fads are they really so terrible?

So sugar free monstercross then?

no one road road bikes on fireroads before 2009.

you may think you did, and even have specific memories, but you didn't.

I think they're an American invention. They don't make much sense over here.

All depends where you live. In the New Forest they make sense.
You can ride a 50/50 mix of road and off road with most of the off road being fire roads and you can ride for many miles..

Agree that they are only marginally different (softer) than a race CX bike but I was using things likes Surly Steamrollers with 40c tyres over 10 years ago which would pretty much be the same thing in terms of tyre and geometry (lower BB). It is the fastest way to get across the forest and there are only a few segments where I am quicker on an MTB.
A CX bike actually feels similar to a track bike due to BB height and I have used both off road for a number of years but the track bike is very limited with tyre width.

Amazing how many of the comments above have already been duped in to BS

Next we will have B road bikes and A road bikes.... And you don't even know what the differences are already 🙄

I think they're great, or have the potential to be.

You can get a bike to suit whatever kind of riding you do, from 3 Peaks old school to fat and comfy.

Marketing and branding have created a bike for every niche, but only a couple of larger manufacturers offer something truly versatile - the Genesis Vagabond looks like a particularly useful example of the way things could go.

Big tyres are the best thing since discs.
It's not a race is it?
Comfort suits the changing demographic too - older newbies who like the look of a drop bar bike, don't come from a roadie background or see why buying a 'road bike' means you have to suffer.

More versatile tourers AND more comfortable road bikes sound good to me.

I've got a Salsa gnarmac thing and CX bike that I use for races and shorter offroad rides. I think you need to look at each bike on it's merits. Both of mine are very different in geometry and the Salsa has all the fittings for guards and racks. I wouldn't want to do a 100 miles road or offroad ride on my CX bike, but it's excels round a muddy field.

I think if anything the term "CX bike" has been used to describe things that aren't really CX bikes so the lines are a bit blurred.

[quote="Garry Lager"]Given that many of us happily ride cx bikes up hill and down dale, and have done for years, then gravel bikes are obv total bobbins from that perspective.Excepting the fact that for many years a good number of manufacturers have simply jazzed up their touring or commuter/hybrid frames, and added some nobbly tyres to make not very good cross bikes........ or, in fact, make gravel bikes but without the advertising budget.

If 'gravel' is too divisive (or American) a term then all-road is perhaps better. I have a Stoater that I take on long road rides where about a third of the route is on gravel / unmade roads or tracks. It's perfect for that. Plus it has rack and mudguard mounts, discs, two water bottle cages, and wears anything from 28c - 35c tyres (not tried larger). I keep up with friends on traditional road bikes (just) but am quicker on byways etc.

FunkyDunc - Member
Amazing how many of the comments above have already been duped in to BS...

I think they're more like a reversion to the general purpose dropbar bikes that were ridden in my youth. Tyre sizes were generally in the 1 ?" size (abt 38mm) and we rode them everywhere and used them for all purposes including what is now called mountainbiking.

The move towards motorised transport killed them off because the majority of riders left were sports oriented, so "road" bikes evolved into thinly disguised race bikes over a few decades.

I think it's a case of welcome back proper bike and here's a new name. 🙂

(Not to mention they are so much better than what we used to ride).

^ exactly that, they are more 'all-purpose bike' than anything else but there's suddenly a new name for it and manufacturers are putting some effort into them again, which is nice.

They never went away but they were mostly just referred to with handwaving and mutterings of tourers.

Credit to the marketeers for managing to make them exciting to people again.

essentially:

all purpose bike - weight - accessories + skinnier tyres + higher gearing => evolved to road racer or CX racer depending on your bent.

all purpose bike - accessories + bigger tyres + lower gearing (+ suspension eventually) => evolved into MTB

And then the manufacturers focussed all their efforts into the new niches and the good old all purpose bike sat languishing and unloved at the back of the catalogue and with no real improvements, now they're throwing shiny new graphics at them and putting some of the tech developed in other areas to good use making some really really good 'bikes'

^ exactly that, they are more 'all-purpose bike' than anything else but there's suddenly a new name for it and manufacturers are putting some effort into them again, which is nice.

They never went away but they were mostly just referred to with handwaving and mutterings of tourers.

Credit to the marketeers for managing to make them exciting to people again.

This ^^

It largely depends on how you define each genre of bike anyway. A traditional CX (back before it became the next must-have thing) was a very specific machine for racing around muddy fields for 1hr.

But now CX has become quite a broad definition and within that there are more road-ified CX bikes (gravel road), more burly CX bikes (monster-cross, adventure-cross) and more touring oriented CX (enduroad, adventure road).

I see it as a continuation of the way the road bike market went from it's focus on ever more race-oriented bikes to bikes that the average consumer would actually be capable of riding - the sub-genre of "sportive" road bikes.

There's a lot of cross-over between them all I think, one of those Venn diagrams with closely overlapping circles.

I think they're more like a reversion to the general purpose dropbar bikes that were ridden in my youth. Tyre sizes were generally in the 1 ?" size (abt 38mm) and we rode them everywhere and used them for all purposes including what is now called mountainbiking.

I'm quite glad they're reverting to be honest. The bigger the variety of bikes on the market the better, but yeh the marketing BS is irritating.

There's a lot of cross-over between them all I think, one of those Venn diagrams with closely overlapping circles.

something like this, feel free to argue over the exact terms and placements and overlap 😉

[img] [/img]

The draw to these bikes is probably;

disc braked
road bike like geometry
ability to take 40c tyre

Makes an ideal bike for road/light off road mix at high speeds, doesn't matter what term is used to describe it.

Whatever you call it, the "gravel" or "adventure" genre is ideal for 90% of my riding: a mix of 4 days per week commuting, weekend roadie sessions, occasional touring, fire road rides with the kids in tow (literally, on a tagalong) and popping to the shops.

Some would cover the above needs with several bikes, but it's only one for me... due having a MTB for trails and the 5 other bikes in our house being for my wife and kids!

I ride a Cotic Escapade (could easily be any of the others mentioned above) with 29er Hope wheels, 105 / XT gears and 37c tyres. In the winter, it gets guards and in the summer a rack for tours.

I've had road, flat-bar hybrid and CX bikes to cover these needs in the past; but found that the more relaxed geometry, drop bars and MTB parts compatibility are the best combination for me.

Other than a MTB, this is the type of bike I spend money on. On the evidence from this thread, I'm not alone - and this probably explains the market's offer of this sort of bike.

I always did like touring/bikepacking at least as much as mtb. My style is nowhere fast but days in the saddle over all terrains - ie bridleways, rupps, mostly country lanes. Carrying small tent/panniers or large saddlebag depending. So much so that I keep converted mtb hybrid in the stable so it can be forced into longer-distance multi-surface touring mode. If it had disks, drops and pannier mounts on forks then it would be near-perfect. I spent ages trying to identify such a bike and figured the closest to have been the discontinued (cromo) Dawes Sardar. Now there seems to be lots of options which is a big thumbs up from me.

An 'adventure' bike seems like a match made in heaven for my type of riding, and whilst it may be a small niche I don't see the hype can hinder if only to further development. I only don't have one as time and money constraints dictate otherwise.

I'm waiting with interest to see where Shimano will go with CX / gravel groupsets.

How long until we finally get compatibility between drop bar shifters and clutch mechs? SRAM seem to be one step ahead on this one (and also charging a healthy premium for the lack of competition).

I have a Pinnacle Arkose 2 and its ace. Makes muddy singletrack fun again, can handle smallish drops and roots etc. Also makes linking up bits on the road less of a drag (ahem).

I honestly have no idea if its a CX bike or Gravel Bike. To me its just a great mix of hardtail MTB and winter roadbike.

I'm waiting with interest to see where Shimano will go with CX / gravel groupsets.

How long until we finally get compatibility between drop bar shifters and clutch mechs? SRAM seem to be one step ahead on this one (and also charging a healthy premium for the lack of competition).

I'm waiting for SRAM to launch E-Tap with hydraulic disc brakes, that's set to be the game-changer for the "all-road" market.

CDF30 here, I think it fits this category..... Great fun on road and tame off road, use it for touring with panniers, fire road and windfarm rides with the kids, winter road rides.

Also have a carbon Defy for summer road rides, love them both and not really much overlap in use.

What's a wind farm ride? Does that need another sort of bike?

As some have already alluded to, it's the CX moniker that's been mis-used for years. Most of the bikes sold in that category have actually been all-road tourers/ commuters/city-bikes. Calling them Gravel Bikes/All-Road bikes just helps differentiate them from the CX bikes with racing geometry, no mudguard/rack mounts etc.

I struggled for years trying to explain what my VN Amazon was used for. Now, it's easy 😉

I've been racing a Niner RLT for the past two seasons, and that's supposed to be a gravel bike, when you look at the geometry sheets from Niner for the BSB they're fully fledged cross bike and the RLT, there is no difference in bottom bracket drop, head tube is a little steeper and the chainstays are a tiny bit shorter, but that's your lot. Do I feel like the RLT hampers me, no it's a nice neutral handling bike, don't clobber the pedals mid corner, and with the lower bottom bracket than some cross bikes, it's a slightly lower jump to get on.

paul4stones - Member
What's a wind farm ride? Does that need another sort of bike?

As others have said, gravel/adventure is really just 'all purpose'. I cut my teeth on a Carlton Cyclone road bike and day-toured on it (with no luggage), often slipping and sliding around offroad transfer trails. Then, before I was even hardly aware of the CX genre (was vaguely aware that weird people raced road bikes offroad) I bought what was known back in the 80s as an 'ATB' (all-terrain bike) and got hooked with successive mtbs for the next 20-odd yrs, modding and trying to make them work as all-round bikes that I could also dick around in the woods on.

Isn't 'gravel/adventure' simply the ATB reinvented to be more useful on the road/carrying luggage? My pulled-straight-from-the-air theory is that people who see a multi-purpose bike as 'hype' or 'uber-niche' are themselves possibly more likely to be into more race-orientated cycling and see much investment in regular all-round (yet 'performance') cycling as a bit weird?

A Dawes Galaxy then?

A Dawes Galaxy with better brakes and bigger tyres.
🙂

Sounds great.

Not that much real choice if you want discs, a triple, big tyres and rack and guard mounts though.

A Dawes Galaxy with better brakes and bigger tyres.

Sounds great.

[img] [/img]

[quote=Rusty Spanner ]A Dawes Galaxy with better brakes and bigger tyres.

Sounds great.
Not that much real choice if you want discs, a triple, big tyres and rack and guard mounts though.
I can think of one.....

I can think of a few more....

Salsa Vaya
Salsa Fargo
Surly LH(D)T
Spesh AWOL
Spa Ti Adventure
SJS/Thorn will do something to suit
Trek 920
Kona Sutra

There's more too, enough to refute the point about there not being much choice anyway, and if Spesh and Trek are in on the game you know it's mainstream and any bike may need a few contact point on gearing changes.

Actually, there are a few. 🙂

Disc Trucker, new Spa, AWOL.
My budget is about £1300, if you've any more?

Edited, just seen your list.
The Salsa's and current Spa are out of budget.

The Trek and Kona are decent, might have another look at those.

I'm just frustrated at having to wait for a Disc Trucker to turn up.
The Vagabond is excellent value and ticks a lot of boxes for me too.

The Salsa's out of budget.

If you look around you can get deals, when I bought my AWOL my LBS was offering Vayas and Fargos @1100

Weirdly triple is not a guarantee of a low gear. The road triple is an odd beast sod with a 30 tooth inner ring. Although I believe you ca swap to a smaller inner. But the middle is limited to a smallest ring of 39

The 920 has lower gearing as it uses bar end shifters. But I don't think it would take 40c tyres

The Trek Cross Rip is a triple but has a 28 sprocket at the back so not that low gearing from stock

I do find it odd that more of these versatile bikes don't come with a sub 30" gear. I know its not trendy but it certainly makes things more versatile. Good to see Genesis with 34 teeth rear blocks this year I don't see that as wall climbing like they claim. If 34 34 is all you need why does the vagabond get 28 36 and the Tour De fer 24 34? Maybe they can ride up overhangs

The 920 ...But I don't think it would take 40c tyres

what makes you think that? It comes with 29x2.0 knobblies as standard so will easily take 40c with guards I would think

I don't really care what we call it, but I've just taken delivery of a bright orange On-One Bish Bash Bosh and it looks fantastic! Shame mrsnickb is at work and I'm at home looking after the kids... might require a cheeky evening ride!

Nick

My stoater rohloff gets me up and down all I need it to in my riding the only limiting factor in the whole set up is me

I don't really care what we call it, but I've just taken delivery of a bright orange On-One Bish Bash Bosh and it looks fantastic! Shame mrsnickb is at work and I'm at home looking after the kids... might require a cheeky evening ride!

Oooh, tell me how you get on with the BBB - I'd just spotted it the other week and very tempted. Possibly a bit too spendy for me but ticks all the boxes for the N+1 bike...

Trek 920

A long-standing model with a current incarnation that may back up my (albeit half-arsed) assertion that so-called 'gravel' bikes are simply re-invented ATBs that are more comfortable to go the distance?

As for what to call these type of bikes, I've so far read such genre/descriptions as:

Gravel
Dirt-touring
Adventure
All-road

Is the search for a multi-purpose bike moniker a victim of market hype or of too many options/confusion?

The Kona Sutra has been around for 10 years 😆

A long-standing model with a current incarnation

To be fair they've mostly just re-used the name, the 920 historically was their top end Steel MTB, and nothing like the current model in design or intent.

Trek used 520 and 720 designations for their tourers in the past, and since the steel MTB line has been dead for years it probably made more sense to them to re-use 920 to extend the touring range.

The Kona Sutra has been around for 10 years

Just backs up what we said earlier, these bikes were always still there in the background but in the back of the catalogue and mostly ignored (at least by the popular media and trendy types), but it's nice that they are now focussing more effort on bringing new models in and new technology to the old models*.

* although new technology and tourers can be shaky ground, some peopel VERY set in their ways, some for good reason, others not so!

To be fair they've mostly just re-used the name, the 920 historically was their top end Steel MTB, and nothing like the current model in design or intent.

Thnks for putting that straight amedias, my memory lets me down. (Without meaning to derail the thread) Looking at the 1994 trek catalog (1st year of the 920?) it seems the 920 was really just a grip-shift Alivio version of the STX rapidfire shifting 930, making it their lowest-spec steel mtb in the 'Singletrack' range (970 at the top)? In which case the reasoning for re-using the name for an alu frankenroadbike is anyones guess.

[url] http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/d/15846-3/1994.pdf [/url]

Is the search for a multi-purpose bike moniker a victim of market hype or of too many options/confusion?

I thought about a re-name for 'CX' for the first Croix de Fer and ended up describing it to a few people as a rubbish CX-race bike that was better at what most of us used a CX bike for. People either got it or they didn't. It was just a bike for roads joined with bridleway link-ups to stop winter miles getting dull.
'All-road' always worked for me since they're not really 'all-terrain' in the way ATBs are/were - try riding one on natural off-road terrain and you'll not get far or manage it for long. Stick to vaguely road-like terrain and they're great.

I still think they're not as all-round as the sales pitch from some would try to pretend but a truly practical all-round bike would be too Fred-like for most. I like riding drops on bikes like this anyway, despite them being a pretty poor option for off-road riding imo. Bars for bikes like this are like tyres, divided or compromised based on your road<>off-road bias.

amedias

My mistake confusing this the 520

[img] [/img]

With this the 920

[img] [/img]

Let the industry dream up new niches, it's just means more bike options for us 😀

I pick a bike that's suitable for what I want to use it for. I wanted a carbon road bike that would take mudguards and wide tyres during winter, so I bought a disc brake "gravel bike". Its happy riding crappy roads on winter night rides, but I'll swap the tyres and take the guards off for the (few days of) summer.

I'm also glad there's more options for 40C+ drop bar disc brake bridleway bashing bikes coming through, doesn't sound as catchy as a Bridleslayer though .

@malvern yes, what I should have typed was the 9X0 series was their steel MTB series, and you're right about the 920 being lower end, I should remember I as [i]had [/i]a 970 for a while! 😳

model number minutia argumetns aside , their new 720 'light tourer' looks pretty nice. 🙂

jameso - Member
Is the search for a multi-purpose bike moniker a victim of market hype or of too many options/confusion?

I thought about a re-name for 'CX' for the first Croix de Fer and ended up describing it to a few people as a rubbish CX-race bike that was better at what most of us used a CX bike for. People either got it or they didn't.

So it really IS all your fault them jameso ! 😀

Next we will have B road bikes and A road bikes.... And you don't even know what the differences are already

We already do have A and B road bikes!

So it really IS all your fault them jameso !

Why we need names for use types is a bigger topic .. The best term I've heard relating to all this is 'Unracing' from Grant Petersen. https://www.rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?ID=109
So many things going on in bike design now that help people see that race bikes are a poor model for basing a bike on if you have no desire/likelihood to race at a high-ish level and too much industry time and energy has gone into race stuff for too long. We all buy into it to a point but most of our bikes are compromised to some extent because of it. Even if that's only in terms of lifespan, not 'performance'. Those non-race design cues and ideas aren't new at all but it's good to see signs of a swing towards bikes that involves comfort, practicality etc. For that I even have to like fat bikes : )

Who cares about the naming… so many of these bikes are looking great fun.

As mountain bikes become better and better proper mountain bikes, rather than all terrain bikes, and people realise that 700c bikes really don't need to be poor copies of proper road racing bikes, then this category will be needed more and more, and welcomed by many people… just call it whatever you want. I haven't seen a name for these bikes I like yet… and just calling them “bikes” isn't enough… so just suck up the rubbish names and love the bikes.

looks like James has already said what I wanted to say, while I was slowly jabbing away at my tablet

I've got a GT Grade Carbon Ultegra which is billed as "enduroad". Does that mean I can use it for enduros and on the road? 😉

Jameso has it spot on for me,

A truly practical all-round bike would be too Fred-like for most

[img] [/img]

My very-fred style bike.

Daft handlebars : ?
Full Mudguards : ?
Dynamo + F+R Lights : ?
Low 19" gear : ?
High 95" gear : ?

It's a genuine do-it-all utilitarian bike for me, just as home in the wilds of the cairngorms as it is for my daily commute to work or for overnight bivvys, if it is a marketing fad/gimmick then it's a bloody good one and i approve 🙂

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I had a gt grade (Ultegra carbon) on loan from the lbs for a couple of weeks. I don't know what exact genre it's supposed to be, but it has done my commute, the local fast chaingang, fire roads and singletrack with relative ease. It worked so well, I got one. Won't replace my race bike or my full sus, but I ll probably be spending more time on it than either of the others.

My giant tcx is versatile enough to complete the "Reading Roubaix" 105kms of road, track, bridle paths & singletrack in Sept last year (finished 1 off the podium!). Who said no gravel races in the uk? We're talking populated south east and there are the Wiggle cx sportif rounds that restart in February, Woodcote Oxfordshire.

The cycling network gravel bike review is worth a watch to compare bike virtues.

I don't know what exact genre it's supposed to be, but it has done my commute, the local fast chaingang, fire roads and singletrack with relative ease. It worked so well, I got one. Won't replace my race bike or my full sus, but I ll probably be spending more time on it than either of the others.

Same for my Diverge.

I don't know exactly what it's supposed to be, other than a bike. A bike that's really good to ride in all sorts of conditions and places. Also, as above, it won't replace my big bouncy beast for maximum-enduro-gnar-schralp, nor will it replace my Brompton for integrated transport excellence, but it's the bike I ride the most right now.

Weirdly triple is not a guarantee of a low gear. The road triple is an odd beast sod with a 30 tooth inner ring. Although I believe you ca swap to a smaller inner. But the middle is limited to a smallest ring of 39

The Trek Cross Rip is a triple but has a 28 sprocket at the back so not that low gearing from stock

I do find it odd that more of these versatile bikes don't come with a sub 30" gear. I know its not trendy but it certainly makes things more versatile. Good to see Genesis with 34 teeth rear blocks this year I don't see that as wall climbing like they claim. If 34 34 is all you need why does the vagabond get 28 36 and the Tour De fer 24 34? Maybe they can ride up overhangs

As of this afternoon, my Vaya now has 26 34. Just need the weather to improve so i can find a suitable cliff to try riding up.

As of this afternoon, my Vaya now has 26 34. Just need the weather to improve so i can find a suitable cliff to try riding up.

Try cutting your steerer down. It'll make that speed hump feel less like Everest.

😉

Happy Christmas, and a happy new year, Jerry!

My very-fred style bike.

Try cutting your steerer down. It'll make that speed hump feel less like Everest.

Happy Christmas, and a happy new year, Jerry!

And to you, CFH :).

I finally did the deed the other month with the Kaffenback steerer. I've kept the cut off bit for the next time we meet.

Daft handlebars : ?
Full Mudguards : ?
Dynamo + F+R Lights : ?
Low 19" gear : ?
High 95" gear : ?

Proof that even the new term gravel bike doesn't even mean one thing. The list above to me would mean touring bike (or adventure bike in today's terms)
To me a gravel bike is based on a a road bike that can take wider tyres and typically have disc brakes.

If you actually need / want the features of a 'gravel bike' (or any bike) for the type of riding you do then it isn't falling for marketing guff.

I use my Warbird more than anything else... So much so I've now sold my road bike. What made the difference were the hydro disc brakes and CX1 groupset. I've tried canti brakes, mini-V brakes and BB7s before on various bikes and they were always a bit rubbish when you went properly off road, but the hydro discs are brilliant. It's just like riding a rigid Mtb with little tyres.

Road, winter miles, off road trails, fire roads... The lot. Especially useful when the Garmin sends you down something it swears is a road but reality has other ideas.

If you run Di2 you can use a short cage XTR clutch mech on drop bar shifters, so that's taken care of there.

Especially with the advent of discs on 'road' bikes everything is really just on a continuum from road race to mountain bike, with tyre size, geometry and braze ons to fulfil different needs as required. There is no need for strict categorisations. Saying, 'this is a gravel bike' or 'this is monstercross' is not really helpful.

Sam - Member
...Saying, 'this is a gravel bike' or 'this is monstercross' is not really helpful.

A Gryphon with rack and mudguard mounts and mudguard clearance for 2.35 Big Apples would be the perfect gravel (do it all) bike. 🙂