The UCI doesn’t hold nearly as much weight in gravel as it does road or mtb though. I wonder the the prize purse for gravel is in UCI vs Lifetime/others? Can top gravel racers make enough and make their sponsors happy without doing any UCI races?
A lot of brands have made both UCI legal TT bikes and non-UCI legal TT bikes at the same time. They market the latter to triathletes as being better options for them and in many cases just straight up faster since they can ignore the UCI rules. There is a significant number of gravel riders who want the fastest bike possible (both pros and amateurs…and assuming 32 is faster) and never do UCI races. Is it enough for these brands like it is for the tri market? I’m sure brands are doing their homework
I’m sorry, in the US the UCI has zero influence on gravel. I actually can’t think of a major US gravel race that cares about the UCI or follows its dictates. Europe might be different, but the US gravel market is large enough on its own to support 32” bikes if the UCI bans them. Assuming of course 32” gravel bikes turn out to be the better option.
Part of me really hopes the UCI does ban 32” bikes, and the bike manufacturers build them anyways because that’s want the consumer decides to buy
Well, you just stated a few reasons why the US is, and will continue to be an isolated backwater in International cycling. American exceptionalism seeps into cycling.
from my perspective, his comments are just stating the fact that the UCI doesn’t have significant influence on US gravel racing. And the US market is big enough to support a different wheel standard. That has nothing to to with “exceptionalism”, it’s just the current landscape. Of course US gravel (and all bike racing) is a tiny fringe sport, but that has nothing to do with whether US gravel races bow to the UCI.
I think the piece about the UCI not having significant influence over US gravel is accurate, but I think to suggest that the US market is robust enough to wholly justify a major international manufacturer (like Spcialized or other) developing and producing a bike that may not really sell in other markets, is a bit of a stretch and likely where the impression of “exceptionalism” is coming from.
I’d even argue that although there will definitely be a large (maybe the vast majority) number of US gravel bike purchasers that do not care if a bike is UCI compliant or not, knowing that the bike could never be raced in a UCI governed/informed race would certainly dissuade a good group of people.
Let’s say the UCI bans 32" bikes for UCI gravel events and the big US gravel races don’t adopt the ban. Assuming 32" bikes are a significant advantage (TBD), racers will be on them at US races and amateurs will be buying 32" bikes rather than 700c. And amateurs buying gravel bikes is the biggest cash cow for the major brands right now. Even if 32’s were only sold in the US (not likely even with a UCI ban), there is no way a brand like Specialized would sit on the sidelines and let their competitors grab all that market share. The US is the biggest market for gravel bikes by a good margin. I think the big question is how much impact a UCI ban on 32’s would make in Europe. There is a much higher chance they could sway the EU market, but there are plenty of gravel races in the EU (and all over the world) that the UCI has no say in. And a big reason the UCI may never have a say in these races is because many organizers (and racers) tend to hate the heavy-handed approach of the UCI. My guess is that even the UCI isn’t dumb enough to push rules on gravel right now. They are trying to get their claws into the growing gravel space and pushing rules is only going to hurt their chances of getting a piece of that pie.
I just bought a new 700c gravel bike today and have a nice garage full of 700c wheels and tire options. I really wish 32" wasn’t coming, but I think it’s inevitable because I believe it will be faster. And as a competitive racer looking for every edge, I’ll likely be spending some dumb $'s chasing it for the next several years as the standard gets worked out. If 32 doesn’t happen, the UCI won’t be the reason.
Is it though? We barely have the market to keep any cycling brand alive, let alone a niche design. If big bike brands are going to rely on solely the American market to buy a bike I would be surprised if it stayed around long. Especially with the US economy right now. My cycling budget is shrinking every year to pay for other things in life. Buying into a completely different wheel standard isn’t anywhere remotely on my radar.
That’s assuming there is a market share. I still think people are overestimating the desire for 32” wheels from the general public. Cycling is a niche. Gravel cycling is a niche, although growing, within cycling. Gravel racing is a niche within a niche within a niche. And those who care about maximizing every aspect to the point of buying a new bike solely to be faster is even smaller. I bet 90% of people cycling never race. And even less care about being the fastest. Heck I race and even I am not sure I’d want to buy a new bike standard just to be faster. People ride gravel to a, get away from cars, and b, for adventure or fun. Most people at gravel events aren’t even racing. They just want to finish or ride with friends.
There are lots of problems with the bike industry. It’s not a market problem, it’s the business structure of the bike industry. There is a reason X-Lab is making a big bet/investment into going after the US market. If you think there is a problem with market demand for innovative new products in the US, go onto the Specialized Website and check availability of the new Epic 9 or Crux 5. They can’t make them fast enough, even the $15k versions are sold out. If Scott (or any of the other major brands) had a compelling 32" gravel bike to sell right now and they prove to be faster, they would be on back order for the next year trying to produce enough to keep up.
I agree with all that. And that’s why I say “TBD” based on whether 32" bikes turn out to be significantly faster. But if they are, the demand will be there. And yes, high end cycling is a tiny fringe market compared to most retail, but big bike companies are in the business of addressing that market. There are lots of high end markets (hand bags, watches, fashion, sports cars, etc.) are also a fringe markets, but as long as there are people lining up to pay ridiculous prices for these items, companies will serve them. And while I agree with your sentiment on racing being a small percentage, that has never stopped weekend warriors from buying the fastest/best bikes. Go to the local coffee ride and look at the number of $10k+ bikes lined up. It’s no different than folks buying a new Porsche GT3 to drive to work. It’s a fashion show for a lot of folks and they want the latest and greatest even if they don’t race. And that’s cool if it makes them happy.
This would be a much easier estimation to make with better information. From my perspective it only takes a couple thousand people to drive some parts of the cycling industry. ~$10,000 full carbon aero gravel bikes that fit 55s happened in basically 3 years on the prospectus of that many people, maybe even less.
Gravel bikes themselves initially came about from significantly lower ridership than we have today but given the materials and design I have to wonder how much lower development costs contributed.
While I agree with some of your points, I’m still skeptical on how big the US market actually is that will be wanting to buy these bikes. Especially smaller riders unless that can figure out a way to make the geometry better.
And I do think it’ll depend on how much better 32” wheels end up being. And I think there’s a sweet spot. If they’re just a little bit faster, not many people will shell out $5,000 to be 10 seconds faster over 5 hours. But on the other end, if they’re crazy fast and an instant advantage, I could see that hindering progress because I could see even local races changing rules. Nobody wants to show up to a race and lose solely because somebody bought a special bike. And if taller riders or people with more money now have a major advantage, it wouldn’t surprise me if some races create a separate category to keep people happy.
Regarding the Crux 5, I think there are a few factors that we might be overlooking. One, we have no idea what Specialized’s stock is. They could have only made a couple hundred frames and bikes and that’s why they’re sold out. If they showed the actual number of bikes made and sold we’d have a bigger picture.
I don’t know. I could be wrong. We’ll have to see if the UCI bans them and what that does to the market. I think, for better or worse, that Cam Jones result at Unbound played a part. Him finishing 10th behind 4 or 5 guys riding the Crux put a major dent into the 32” hype. It was all the talk leading into the race but it was all Crux since the race ended. Maybe the timeline changes if he had won.
Unfortunately, by this logic the Crux 5 would be subject to the same relegation. As would anything S-Works overall - too expensive and too fast compared to whatever baseline is used.
Equipment regulations in this manner are very hard to create without reductive logic that becomes meaningless, or over-regulation that can hardly be enforced without destroying the sport by alienating the most productive participants. Easily seen in motorsports.
But on the other end, if they’re crazy fast and an instant advantage, I could see that hindering progress because I could see even local races changing rules. Nobody wants to show up to a race and lose solely because somebody bought a special bike. And if taller riders or people with more money now have a major advantage, it wouldn’t surprise me if some races create a separate category to keep people happy.
Fallacy? Reduction to Merckx TT Rules
The perfect marginal estimation for 32" wheels is less than many other equipment gains, which are now taken as standard. It’s likely about the same, or less than the difference between previous generation gravel tires and the fastest XC tires for example. Probably less than aero wheels too.
Although, it does seem that gravel geometry can be made to work down to 5’, perhaps an inch or two lower. Which would include essentially all of the potential gravel market. There is still quite a bit of data to generate before a determination can be made.
