While that could be true for the general TR population…this is literally the “Best RACING Gravel Bike” thread, so I think it’s reasonably safe to assume that most of us are racing these bikes. That’s at least the context we should be operating under.
While I don’t completely disagree with you that the use of big MTB might be a little overdone, there are plenty of races that have far more than 90sec of terrain where a larger tire is absolutely the right tool.
What else is there?
Hystersis + Suspension Losses = Impedance
Aero
Weight
I don’t think the “science” has moved on. The only new stuff from 2025 is from John Karrasch and Cycling News. The former generally reinforcing what we already thought with respect to the first two variables. The latter; confusing and often contradictory findings from the Silverstone Pedaling Efficiency Rig.
Gravel tires, 50mm and smaller, have been getting faster but at the same time seem to be giving up puncture resistance and durability to do so. This may be a worthwhile trade, but often isn’t, given the relative speed for the Dubnital/Thunder Burt.
I do not think that there is any new science that disputes the current framework, nor do I think wide tires are an outdated 2024/25 concept. Choosing the right tire for the course is important to many, while to many others, we’ve settled on just running 2.1s/2.2s.
I was partially on XC tires in 2023 and 2024, and went all in for 2025. My results have been better. The fastest XC tires may have drawbacks and limitations, but gravel tires as a whole have not surpassed them. I’ve heard many different privateers talk about how slow XC tires feel pulling through or going off the front and almost in the same breath talk about getting bounced around on the rough stuff so much with narrower tires without realizing they are discussing two different variables of vastly different magnitude.
While I think that “horses for courses” is an acceptable viewpoint, I’m not entirely sure it’s supported by the framework that led everyone into wider tires in the first place. Previously “we” were overweighting BRR hystersis metrics, and now I feel “we” are overweighting aero losses.
But as I said, I’m doing better on XC tires, I get through more selections and the selections where I am eliminated are much more contentious than when I was running gravel tires. From what I see racing, I think most riders would be faster on XC tires.
IMO “Race Gravel” will settle at 50mm clearance, 45mm just seems a little too narrow even with all the aero claims. Schwalbe at least seems able to make tires that are “just as fast” and as the sport is able to generate and internalize more aero results the difference may be minimal when evaluated in the whole.
Ronan over at Escape Collective has been doing some very detailed work on tire width, pressure, etc all in ‘real world’ settings. So far it has just been with road tires though. It’ll be interesting if he expands his work to off-road tires.
It this actually the case though? Comparing the new-ish Hutchinson Caracal to the Thunder Burt it seems like the former has better puncture resistance and grip? And rolling resistance though they were tested at different PSI (which makes sense given they are different widths)
This is what I do. I run a 2.1 in on some courses or rides that are a bit more rowdy. But I personally find that these wide tires don’t feel/handle on as good on pavement or nice gravel, so in those cases I run a narrower tire which I enjoy/feel more confident riding on
BRR tests smooth surface wet grip and it does that very well, but knobby tires consistently score worse there. The Caracal also has better smooth surface wet grip than a 2.4" Barzo but I know which one I’d take for cornering on gravel.
How much of the course are you actively cornering?
Optimizing for edge cases does not lead to increased overall performance.
Escape Collective (and Cycling News) has an issue with making assumptions about tire construction when comparing different tire widths within the same brand and product line. The testing with the P Zero fails to account for the difference in construction of the larger models and attempts to generalize what is a specific result. This is the same issue they had publishing the results from Marc Graveline’s trial with Pirelli MTB and Gravel tires with suspension fork.
While it’s easy to think we are expecting too much, but if someone is going to say “Get ready to rethink accepted wisdom” they need to be able to accurately measure, monitor, and track every variable between tires under test. While there are many, there are certainly not too many. Nor is exorbitant cost or complexity an issue.
There may be new entrants and new types of testing, I do not think there has been a general upheaval of the framework at the cutting edge. It’s following the same pattern with the same results that has been building for several years.
Simply put, what is different from 2024/2025 that would make this statement correct? Nothing was provided, for either the specific claim or evaluated as whole.
It depends on where those edge cases are happening. I did a race earlier this year on mostly tame gravel. I ran my Race King 2.2’s, mostly because I was too lazy to swap tires for a fun early season race. I honestly thought I’d regret the tire choice at the start line. What I forget about the course was how many loose corners there were all day long, including several in the last quarter mile. The difference in cornering traction/confidence between a 2.2 MTB tire at 18-19psi and a 45mm gravel tire at 25+ psi is huge. And most corners (at least early and late in gravel races) are selection points where people are pushing it as hard as possible trying to break the elastic. At one point, I was on the front going into a corner and not even pushing that hard and about 5 guys in our group slid out trying to make the corner at the same pace. And no, we certainly didn’t wait for them. Whether you call them “edge cases” or not, gravel races are often decided at selection points. Unless you are treating a gravel race like an individual TT, optimizing for selection points can often be better/faster than optimizing for the majority of the race.
The context was a claim that Caracals have more grip than Burts (per the BRR wet grip test). I was simply saying that by that same logic they have more grip than a 2.4” Barzo as well. It was an example to show the irrelevance of the BRR wet grip test as a proxy for offroad grip.
Are we just going to gloss over the Xlab gravel bike that’s $3200???
Yes, I am. If we’re talking BEST RACING gravel bike? Look at the spec for that bike. Or their own summary of “Adventure ready gravel bike built for control, comfort, and conquest”. Everything about that bike screams built by AI and sort of AliExpress junk to me. But yeah, it’s cheap.
Yeah, and it’s not that cheap. There are lots of bikes from known/trusted brands in the $3k-$4k range. Maybe not with carbon wheels, but I just don’t see that bike being cheap enough to take a flyer on an unknown entity that may or may not be supporting you a couple years depending on whether they make it in the US market. My rule for bike frames, wheels, and handlebars is that I’ll only buy from a proven company that has shown the ability and desire to police quality and support their products. The consequences of a quality issue are just too high on those parts.
Hard to know the quality of that bike based on pics. X-lab and Branta might turn out to be a great brand with fantastic support, time will tell. They have some history as a manufacturer, but being a customer facing brand trying to enter an established market is a different deal. I do think the big brands are in trouble and that one (or more) of these Asian direct to consumer brands eventually get established and start disrupting the industry. It’s incredibly dumb that a decent bike costs $3k+. Buying a brand name bike is like buying a luxury bag or cloths. The actual cost to manufacture is a tiny fraction of the selling price. It’s such a broken industry with all the layers of inefficiency, someone is eventually going to disrupt it in big way. The Shimano/SRAM groupset dependency makes a total disruption harder, but I bet it will eventually happen.
I’ve come to believe that the best gravel race bike is simply the one you enjoy riding and that suits the kind of racing you actually do. Since getting into gravel, I’ve raced an aluminum Diverge, a Ridley Kanzo Fast, Cervélo Áspero, and a Scott Addict. The events I focus on are more dynamic, road‑race‑style gravel— actual measured 40-45mm tires are typically the right choice, and our average speeds are typically 20-21 mph or higher.
And yet, I keep coming back to my aluminum Diverge. It’s not any slower, and over the years I’ve tested a lot of theory and setup’s on it (outside of 2.2” tires). This bike has fallen off a rack on the highway, been used on mountain bike trails, and generally abused—yet it just keeps coming back for more.
The uncomfortable truth is that the rider and the fit matter far more than the frame. Don’t get me wrong: the Diverge only shares the OEM frame at this point—everything else is built exactly how I want it. But it works. I went 3rd overall at a local race this past weekend, which definitely made this fat dad pretty happy.
I wanted to share this because I think it’s something new racers—or anyone without unlimited budget—should hear: you don’t need a $10k+ bike to be competitive or happy. You need the right fit, the right equipment, and time on the bike.
For the record, my Diverge weighs 19.5 lbs ready to roll (no bottles).
Top gear doesn’t make a top rider.
This doesn’t help me convince my wife I need a new bike…
Yeah, that definitely needs to be moved over to the unpopular opinions thread. 
You guys are doing it wrong, or read it wrong. I told her I bought the entry level bike and I need to add badass parts to it 
Absolutely. I raced last weekend and was going to force myself to run faster rolling 50’s because the course was 50% pavement. After doing a recon of the start and running into a few sandy sections, I swapped on my trusty race king 2.2’s. With a very fast slight downhill finish line on pavement, I knew the 2.2’s would suck if it came down to a sprint, but I prioritized the dirt sections and knew I’d enjoy the race more running them with no stress on the selective spots and in sketchy/loose corners. It’s a “C” race and I suck at sprinting anyway. Tires were awesome for the first ~45 minutes when the big selections happened but they sucked on the long pavement section in the middle of the race (but didn’t suck enough to get dropped). Lots of hard efforts and wasted Kj’s trying to stay attached on the asphalt. I rolled in with a group of 13 sprinting for 6th and ended up last in the sprint for 18th overall despite having great legs. It was still my best/fastest finish ever in that race and we averaged over 22mph. So, maybe I gain a handful of positions in the sprint if I had run 45’s or 50’s, but maybe I don’t make that early selection running smaller tires in the sand. Zero regrets, I just like racing that setup. More fun and safer is always going to trump results when it’s not an A race.
What frame is this you are fitting 2.2’s.
Having the options to “run what you bring” is key for me. BWR has so many off road and singletrack sections I really enjoyed the flow and dropping of others. I doubt I’d have maintained the front group on the road anyway with Alexey trying to create the split. My point is: enjoy you. If you prefer 32’s…go for it.
Lauf Seigla. Pretty good clearance with 2.2’s, can squeeze in a 2.4 if needed in the dry.
Well, I guess if there’s a new Crux it’ll be an Unbound release. Bummer. But the bike posts are up for the race tomorrow and they are not anything new from the specialized riders.
All I can say is this better be with the wait lol I’ve been holding into my 2022 Crux just waiting …
wtf is taking so long? The current Crux is still a sick bike today. It’s almost timeless. However it looks so out of place compared to every other brands race gravel bike. A little embarrassing for the one of the big brands ..
