Do I need a Cyclocross or a "Gravel Grinder"?

johngwheeler

I'm looking at getting a bike for mixed on/off-road use and am trying to understand the difference between Cyclocross and Gravel bikes. There seems to be a lot of crossover and manufacturer variation in how they market very similar bikes.

I do not want a bike that is dedicated to Cyclocross racing and is severely compromised on the road - I expect probably 60% of my riding will be on paved surfaces, but I want the option to be able to do longish rides (a few hours, not days) on unpaved roads, dirt tracks and reasonably obstacle-free trails. I may eventually compete in entry-level Cyclocross events or longer off-road courses, e.g. gravel races.

I have another bike (Trek Crossrip) that I see more as a touring style bike even though it's sold as a cyclocross. It's relatively heavy (c. 11kg), has 700x32 tyres is quite comfortable on the road, but it feels a bit lacking off-road - a bit bone jarring because of the minimum 60psi tyres and justnot very "nimble". My thinking is that would be a good choice for more sedate longer rides where I want to carry loads - I have a rack and panniers, and it's already up to about 15kg with the usual accessories fitted.

My thinking is that a lighter, more performance oriented, bike might be better for off-road use, where I will be riding for just a few hours in the woods. However, I do want something that will still be comfortable and stable for road riding of 50-100km.

So, do I want a Gravel bike or a Cyclocross bike (if there really is an agreed distinction!) and who makes them? (FYI, I've been looking at the Giant TCX cyclocross bike, but wonder whether these are more race-oriented rather than for endurance rides).

Thanks for any suggestions!

John.

johngwheeler

oxoman wrote:

I have a 2016 TCX SLR2 and it currently weighs in at about 10kg with its current wheels and gearset. I will lighten it at some stage but i only got it because it was on offer and i was after something for local trails around me, rather than use my XC based Anthem. I will also be doing beginner cyclocross races in the next season. I have used it to commute to work on a couple of times but found it hard work due to gearing. I am changing the gearing to suit my use as the 46 / 36 paired with 11 / 28 isn't ideal for some of the more lumpier stuff i do. As to the difference between gravel and cyclocross bikes i really cannot see a huge difference.

Thanks for the feedback. I had a look (but not a ride yet) of the Giant TCX SLR 1 and the Advanced Pro 2 (very nice, but pricey!). They both feel way lighter than my Trek, especially the carbon bike....I'm tempted.

Like you, I'm a bit concerned about the gearing. Both bikes have SRAM Rival - 40T + 11-32 cassette. I'm wondering whether steep road hills will be difficult with 40-32 compared to my current 34-32 lowest gear (but maybe a lighter carbon frame would make up for that). I'll just have to ride the bike up a hill to see how it goes.

I'm also wondering whether the geometry of the Giant TCX lends itself to stable road riding over long distances or whether I would find it it either too aggressive or twitchy? How do you find yours?

Thanks,

John

tangerineowl

Personally I think the TCX geo is more in the cyclocross-racing camp.

Have a look at the On-One Bish Bash Bosh range, for a more endurance-geo frame.

You're correct about the steep hills with that 40/32 combo. Not good.
The On-One comes standard as 42/42.

johngwheeler

oxoman wrote:

I found mine ok on the road apart from it feeling lardy due to bigger tyred and aggressive tread for off-road stuff. I also wish I'd had hydraulic brakes, not that anything wrong with the mechanical ones fitted. Bare in mind I'm comparing it against 2 8kg road bikes.

Out of interest, do you know the weight of your bike? I picked up both the carbon Advanced Pro 2 and the SLR 1 and they were suprisingly light. There wasn't a great deal of difference between the carbon and aluminium - noticeable yes, but significant, maybe not. I think the deciding factor between carbon and alloy would be the ride quality; I'll have to try both.

Another question for you. Did you find the sizing of the Giant TCX to feel a bit larger than other bikes with the same physical dimensions. My Trek 54cm (seat post) is very close to the actual dimensions of the Giant Medium/Large, but the latter felt a lot bigger to me. I'm not sure if this is because the handlebars were lower, or the stem longer, but it was almost too much for me. I'd have to ride one to see if it's doable, but it didn't feel right.

Thanks,

John

trek_dan

The Crossrip should be fine for purpose, just need some better tyres and get used to how it handles I would guess.
11kg isn't too bad for a disc equipped cyclocross bike without spending a small fortune.

johngwheeler

trek_dan wrote:

The Crossrip should be fine for purpose, just need some better tyres and get used to how it handles I would guess.
11kg isn't too bad for a disc equipped cyclocross bike without spending a small fortune.

You're not trying to talk me out of getting an n+1 bike are you? :-)

But you're probably right regarding my Trek. With fatter tyres it would probably be fine on the gravel, at least at my level of speed & ability. However, I don't see the Trek as a great "mud bike" - grass and packed-down trails, yes; serious off-road terrain, less so.

The main driver was actually not the suitability of the bike for the terrain I'm interested in, but more the fact that I have the Trek set up as a commuting / touring bike, with a rack, panniers, Topeak bags etc. The current tyres (700x32) are fine for this configuration. With empty panniers it now weighs well over 15kg.

My idea was to just get another bike for fun and exercise, with the emphasis on off-road capability.

I take your point; most bikes can be adapted to be at least usable for a variety of activities. The desire for a specific bike for each type of cycling one might encounter is no doubt a huge conspiracy created by the cycle manufacturing industry :-)

Thanks,

John.

DeVlaeminck

I'd go for a cross race bike - my opinion is swayed slightly by owning a steel Genesis CdF which is a good enough bike but I do miss my old Empella cross bike if I'm going out for a bit of an on road off road ride just because it was nimbler on the rough stuff. I realise there are lighter gravel bikes which may be fine but unless you actually want to tour on it and so long as the geometry is comfortable I can't see a down side to a cross racer (assuming it has bottle cages).

johngwheeler

oxoman wrote:

I love my TCX, I got it for fun riding on flatter off road stuff and its delivered what i wanted. My only criticism is the gearing could be better for off road, ok if your really fit but hard work otherwise. Mine is now 46/34 & will soon be 11 / 32 on the back, possibly bigger if I can do it. Bare in mind I'm doing XC stuff in the peak district I'd normally do on my full sus Anthem rather than flattish stuff. N+1 has to be done if you can.

Good to hear. I'm not sure how I'd like 1x11 groupset with less range than my current 50/34 - 11-32. I do use the 34-32 on steep hills and am grateful for it. The equivalent on a SRAM 40 11-32 is close to my current 34-28 - OK, but harder work. A 40-42 would be nicer, and some SRAM cassettes do have this, just not on the bikes I'm looking at.

Maybe I just need to "man-up" and grow some muscles...

onionmk

FWIW A lot of gravel riders prefer CX bikes because of the more 'nimble' feeling from a steeper head tube /shorter chainstay (short wheelbase essentially). On the flip side, gravel bikes tend to have more clearance for wider tyres..

Check out the BikeRadar video below where they discuss this subject- It might help you decide.

https://youtu.be/av5GTicV1NE

johngwheeler

oxoman wrote:

John, just as an update, gave mine a serious 62 mile offroad ride today. Whilst i enjoyed it i missed the 24 / 36 granny gear off my XC bike and the suspension when it got really rough. If i could replace it, i would have hydraulic brakes through axles and smaller front crank set plus bigger range on rear cassette. At the end of the day if using on the road its pretty much ok as is, i got mine to do what its supposed to do and whilst its ok it could be a lot better. I will be upgrading mine furtehr as replacing it isn't an option for a while.

That sounds like a pretty serious test ride. What sort of terrain / tracks did it cover? How comfortable did you feel by the end of it? One of my concerns with a more CX-race geometry is whether it would beat me up during long rides, but it sounds like it's doable (unless you needed a week to recover after your ride :-) )

I tried a TCX Advanced Pro 2 today and really liked it - very smooth. The lowest gear (40-32) was OK on a short road hill, but I could see that it would be tiring going uphill off-road. The SRAM Rival gears were really nice, BTW. Much better than my Shimano Sora.

koreanbaz

I don't race or anything, but go out with guys on MTBs. So to make life easier. I have just fitted a 11/40 11 Speed. ''Tis a breeze for this fat old 54 year old.