What is the most advanced gravel bike do date?

The spirit of Grav-lo-cross. No but seriously, cyclocross and gravel go here!

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
wheelsONfire
Posts: 6283
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
Location: NorthEU

by wheelsONfire

What is the most technically advanced gravel bike to date?
Anyone that have an idea?
Bikes:

Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)


Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



blaugrana
Posts: 457
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 9:49 pm

by blaugrana

Most advanced to do what? Because almost by definition, gravel bikes are a compromise. If you want a very light and stiff bike, just put 32mm tyres on a modern road bike. If you want the most capable bike offroad, then a mountainbike. All gravel bikes fall somewhere in between, but still, what does "technically advanced" mean?

Do we care about aero? because some are doing that.
If weight matters most, then bikes CX like the Specialized Crux or Giant TCX can be good gravel bikes and the frames are very light.
For bike packing or very long races, having plenty of mounts might be helpful. It's not like putting threads on a frame is the most technically advanced thing in the world, but if you need them, it's good to have them.
Then there are brands that are starting to do gravel suspensions. That could be considered progress, but mountain bikes have had that for ages, and it's not clear that they are a worthy trade off on gravel.

At the end tyre choice is probably the most important thing in the bike, so of course clearance for the tyre you want to run should be the priority in any case.

User avatar
andreszucs
in the industry
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:15 am

by andreszucs

Do date, is mine. Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Last edited by andreszucs on Sun Jun 12, 2022 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
andreszucs
in the industry
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:15 am

by andreszucs

.

ooo
Posts: 1590
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

Road boost gravel bikes are most advanced, like Focus Atlas with front 110x12 and rear 148x12.
Non road boost gravel bikes are becoming obsolet and incompatible with stiff road boost wheels
'

User avatar
andreszucs
in the industry
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:15 am

by andreszucs

ooo wrote:Road boost gravel bikes are most advanced, like Focus Atlas with front 110x12 and rear 148x12.
Non road boost gravel bikes are becoming obsolet and incompatible with stiff road boost wheels
I mean, for one to believe that an axle standard is any better than adding suspension… Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

spdntrxi
Posts: 5791
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

no such thing because... it depends
2024 BMC TeamMachine R Building
2018 BMC TImeMachine Road
2002 Moots Compact-SL- getting aero look makeover
2019 Parlee Z0XD - "classified"
2023 Pivot E-Vault - completed project, full Xplr package

kervelo
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:58 am
Location: Finland

by kervelo

ooo wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 2:56 am
...most advanced, like Focus Atlas...
That must be the reason we always have so many riders with their Atlas bikes on the starting lines of major gravel events. 😉

Moving to the boost rear may be a bold move, but so far it has no support from other brands.

User avatar
andreszucs
in the industry
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:15 am

by andreszucs

kervelo wrote:
ooo wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 2:56 am
...most advanced, like Focus Atlas...
That must be the reason we always have so many riders with their Atlas bikes on the starting lines of major gravel events. Image

Moving to the boost rear may be a bold move, but so far it has no support from other brands.
I think using Boost rear the way it now is overkill for gravel, but I see the benefit of 148mm spacing for add more gears! The purpose of boost is to have more width between flanges and build a stiffer wheel for classes like All mountain and Enduro since it goes airborne often. Now for gravel, different needs. Gravel wants high efficiency on the road (small jumps between cogs at high speed) and also able the clear the big hills. 148mm would allow 6.5mm extra free hub space to add gears if the flange spacing would stay the same as standard, 15 speeds, 16 speeds, maybe more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

yinzerniner
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:54 pm

by yinzerniner

andreszucs wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:14 pm
kervelo wrote:
ooo wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 2:56 am
...most advanced, like Focus Atlas...
That must be the reason we always have so many riders with their Atlas bikes on the starting lines of major gravel events. Image

Moving to the boost rear may be a bold move, but so far it has no support from other brands.
I think using Boost rear the way it now is overkill for gravel, but I see the benefit of 148mm spacing for add more gears! The purpose of boost is to have more width between flanges and build a stiffer wheel for classes like All mountain and Enduro since it goes airborne often. Now for gravel, different needs. Gravel wants high efficiency on the road (small jumps between cogs at high speed) and also able the clear the big hills. 148mm would allow 6.5mm extra free hub space to add gears if the flange spacing would stay the same as standard, 15 speeds, 16 speeds, maybe more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Also boost and super boost add tire clearance/size which is probably more important than adding gears.

6mm larger tires goes a long way in terms of traction and tire suspension.

User avatar
andreszucs
in the industry
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:15 am

by andreszucs

yinzerniner wrote:
andreszucs wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:14 pm
kervelo wrote:
ooo wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 2:56 am
...most advanced, like Focus Atlas...
That must be the reason we always have so many riders with their Atlas bikes on the starting lines of major gravel events. Image

Moving to the boost rear may be a bold move, but so far it has no support from other brands.
I think using Boost rear the way it now is overkill for gravel, but I see the benefit of 148mm spacing for add more gears! The purpose of boost is to have more width between flanges and build a stiffer wheel for classes like All mountain and Enduro since it goes airborne often. Now for gravel, different needs. Gravel wants high efficiency on the road (small jumps between cogs at high speed) and also able the clear the big hills. 148mm would allow 6.5mm extra free hub space to add gears if the flange spacing would stay the same as standard, 15 speeds, 16 speeds, maybe more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Also boost and super boost add tire clearance/size which is probably more important than adding gears.

6mm larger tires goes a long way in terms of traction and tire suspension.
Tires bigger than 38mm starts to make a gravel bike slow on road, at that point I would want a mtb to do a better job on the dirt!

Boost is completely unnecessary for gravel, a standard wheel is plenty stiff for the intended modality.

I vote for more gear, 15sp 9-46t or 10-50t (for the 9T haters), would allow for a super fine resolution while coasting at fast pace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

spdntrxi
Posts: 5791
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

I have a E13 TRS Race or whatever cassette.. yeah I hate the 9T
2024 BMC TeamMachine R Building
2018 BMC TImeMachine Road
2002 Moots Compact-SL- getting aero look makeover
2019 Parlee Z0XD - "classified"
2023 Pivot E-Vault - completed project, full Xplr package

yinzerniner
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:54 pm

by yinzerniner

andreszucs wrote:
Mon Jun 13, 2022 1:50 am
yinzerniner wrote:
andreszucs wrote:
Sun Jun 12, 2022 5:14 pm
kervelo wrote:
That must be the reason we always have so many riders with their Atlas bikes on the starting lines of major gravel events. Image

Moving to the boost rear may be a bold move, but so far it has no support from other brands.
I think using Boost rear the way it now is overkill for gravel, but I see the benefit of 148mm spacing for add more gears! The purpose of boost is to have more width between flanges and build a stiffer wheel for classes like All mountain and Enduro since it goes airborne often. Now for gravel, different needs. Gravel wants high efficiency on the road (small jumps between cogs at high speed) and also able the clear the big hills. 148mm would allow 6.5mm extra free hub space to add gears if the flange spacing would stay the same as standard, 15 speeds, 16 speeds, maybe more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Also boost and super boost add tire clearance/size which is probably more important than adding gears.

6mm larger tires goes a long way in terms of traction and tire suspension.
Tires bigger than 38mm starts to make a gravel bike slow on road, at that point I would want a mtb to do a better job on the dirt!

Boost is completely unnecessary for gravel, a standard wheel is plenty stiff for the intended modality.

I vote for more gear, 15sp 9-46t or 10-50t (for the 9T haters), would allow for a super fine resolution while coasting at fast pace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
For YOUR USES 38mm seems like the inflection point between "gravel" and "mtb" but for others it's different. Also in some cases for other riders they'll use the extra tire size for better traction/suspension while not needing the on-road compromises of a MTB.

Again, everyone's different but completely dismissing other viewpoints because they're note exactly aligned with yours is foolish.

Some could say your 15 speed idea is foolish, especially since you can effectively get that many gears with a GRX setup without having to change any freehubs standards, or design a new cassette/chain/ring/derailleur combo.

https://bikepacking.com/gear/wide-range-grx-2x11/
http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=DERS&KB=30, ... H&DV=teeth

But I wouldn't because I'm sure you have your reasons for wanting something that is at least a few generations away.

User avatar
andreszucs
in the industry
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:15 am

by andreszucs

yinzerniner wrote: Again, everyone's different but completely dismissing other viewpoints because they're note exactly aligned with yours is foolish.
I’m sure you’re referring to other comments before mine as well, because I also felt dismissed. Also, I’ve used ‘I VOTE’…meaning, I respect other ideas, but I vote for mine, democratic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



satanas
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:45 pm

by satanas

Road Boost is IMHO a totally pointless and extremely annoying attempt at planned obsolescence and proprietary parts lock in. All it really achieves is worse heel clearance, almost zero front hub options, higher Q factor, etc. Maybe if you're trying to build a bike with AXS + 2x and wide tyres the extra FD to tyre clearance might be useful but otherwise I can't see any point at all, and will be diligently avoiding it. :-(

As for "most advanced" that depends on what matters to you - aero, suspension, tyre clearance, weight, something else???

Post Reply