I could probably write a full article on this because it comes up every year for the UCI World’s but here goes…
“gravel” - a loose aggregation of rock fragments
“gravel bike” - name given to drop bar bikes that deviated from cyclocross bikes in the mid 2010’s for the purpose of riding on mixed surfaces, but in the case of the USA/Canada, mostly “gravel” surfaces (see first definition)
“gravel cycling” - name given to the sport ridden on primarily a “gravel bike” but depending on the course can be anything from a road bike up to a MTB or fattie. Gravel cycling is not limited to riding on “gravel”, but includes gravel, dirt roads, rail trails, single track, double track, multi-use paths, through buildings, etc. The limit is maybe surfaces that are so rooted and gnarly as to be MTB or fattie only terrain.
American centric folks look at the UCI courses and pronounce “that’s not gravel!” because they believe gravel cycling is racing on “gravel”. It’s not. It’s mixed surface riding. It’s like “mountain biking”, where we don’t exclaim “that’s not a mountain!” when we watch a mountain bike race.
To confuse things further, BWR says they are not “gravel cycling” races but “unroad” races. But really, BWR is true “gravel cycling”. It’s unfortunate that we didn’t call gravel cycling “unroad” or “all road” to begin with but that has to do with the explosion of the sport on the mainly “gravel” roads in the USA and once the name sticks (Ie "mountain bike), it’s unlikely to change.
UCI gravel worlds is a legit gravel race. It just may not be the type of gravel cycling you experience locally. It does not have to be 200 miles of Kansas gravel either.
I was surprised at how much I enjoyed watching UCI gravel worlds! It was so fast and so furious! Maybe like a rowdy Roubaix?
There was def a push for the “mixed terrain” nomenclature in New England, with one of my fave gravel events getting big pushback for “it not being gravel” because it was so much gnar. So, we use “New England Gravel” to suggest a level of gnar that reduces overall speed on a course. I kind of like that each geographic region has its own flavor of gravel–keeps things interesting!
A lot of the pros remarked that team tactics were almost nonexistent. Everyone was fighting for position and and placings even among their country team.
I think if a gravel race is so gnar that people are having trouble on 40C tires, then you might have an enduro MTB race. Also, if it’s less than 40% offroad then it’s really pushing towards a road race. I should go look at what the UCI definitions are cuz I’ve never looked. Not even sure they’ve fully defined it.
Good discussion buried here. Unpaved/mixed surface riding is probably my favorite discipline, but the bar for what’s allowed in a “gravel” event here in the northeast gets lower (higher?) every year. Give us ATV/snowmobile trails, doubletrack, sure … especially when it’s a cut through, any alternative to road. But rooty single-track, creek beds, I don’t know. I like your 40c comment, a mixed surface ride should be doable on 40c - when you feel like you need 55s and suspension it’s hard to call that “gravel”.
While I might agree, the gravel pros are running mt bike tires for their events and they are testing faster–so, using a tire width as determination of “gravel” is not going to work.
What’s widths are they testing out, because that’s interesting. Also, what tread patterns? I don’t really care personally how hard a course is, although once it seems I’d want suspension then just call it a MTB race. But if wider is testing faster on the gravel courses I wouldn’t be opposed to going 48s, 55s, whatever I have clearance for.
Am I allowed to mention the Escape Collective here? It’s in the Performance Process podcast. They interviewed Dylan Johnson and he, Keegan and Stetina have all done testing individually and came to the same conclusion. I’d have to go relisten to remember the widths. I’m still on 38s, and too cheap to buy new tires for a while.
OK? And it spawned a little sidebar about what tires to run. I don’t think there’s any dispute that in “gravel” you need to be prepared for almost every off-road passable terrain you can imagine. But that said, there’s a limit to what’s enjoyable on an actual gravel rig.
Their testing was aimed at lifetime grand prix races though, which tend to be very rough. Id argue that those tires are overkill for the gravel most people ride. Personally given most of my gravel rides is a combination of road/gravel, I’d also rather run a narrower tire and give up some gravel performance.
Also 50+mm tires on a 700c bike feels terrible IMO. Nothing i want from my bike
Course design… Lots more single track that is just super tight and filled with hazards… LTF events can be pretty gnarly with rocks and such but most if not all are on fire roads with way more line options… BWR is like… We are going to send you up and down this rock face and into this single track and if you fall… or thier is the ditch or catcus… goodluck
I mean they are great events but they are way more gnarly then LTF events are.
When i say the gravel people ride, I’m talking about what they ride on a day to day basis though. Gravel paths and fire roads, most likely with a mix of pavement and gravel. YMMV but personally I’d also rather spend the 15 min of a ride I’m on technical features feeling very underbiked than spend the other two hours feeling like I’m hauling around monster truck tires
It’s not so much that the really big tires are “faster”, it’s that they’re faster on the parts of the course where the selection is made in the pro races, IE: the most technical parts of the course.
This isn’t typically quite the same in the amateur races, which are way more like long gravel time trials than an event where people are aggressively trying to create gaps on the tech sections.
The folks that I have talked to have pretty universally suggested that they would probably be on something a fair bit different if they were trying to optimize for a more time trial like race.
