If you are testing on some of the roughest sections of a course like Big Sugar, we know wider tires are gonna do better (up to what width? ). But there are a lot of smoother gravel and roads, as well. Are wider tires the best choice in those sections? Maybe, maybe not.
If not, do the gains realized in the rougher sections offset the losses in the smoother sections?
That illustrates the complexity in only using short segments for testing.
It is similar to aero testing….in the late 00’s and early 10’s, there was a LOT of extrapolation going on based on some testing. But as we learned more, gathered more data and developed new testing protocols, we found out that many of the “rules” of aero were wrong……helmets that were deemed fast were actually slow, 19mm tires were replaced by 23mm tires, etc.
Riders know the course, they know enough to classify the different sections along the course and to calculate the impacts of different setups. It’s not rocket science. This method is used according different disciplines and sports, gravel racing is not special.
And again, I need to respectfully point out that your main argument seems to be that this method is not perfect (which it isn’t) while failing to provide any alternative. Are you implying that this is an impossible problem to solve and one shouldn’t bother and just keep using the same 40mm tires everyone else is using ?
And, even if you disagree with this method, my main point remains, which is that teams/riders need to test more, regardless of the protocol.
This comparison was already made in this thread but here goes anyway: there was a GCN video few years ago, where they tested a section of pavé on the Paris-Roubaix course. Conclusion was that a hardtail with big tires was the fastest on this particular section. Does that mean you should run a hardtail for Paris-Roubaix? No, not at all. The rest of the course is extremely fast and you’d have no chance to follow the head of the course.
So no, it’s not that simple.
The more varied the terrain, the more difficult it is to optimize for every given situation. Something that doesn’t really happen in road racing - except maybe Paris-Roubaix. There will be tradeoffs on both ends at some point.
I think top riders are already testing a lot. It’s just not always public info like in the DJ videos. If you want to test different tires in a race setup, please go ride and post your findings as some users here already did. It’s really time intensive and many amateurs have lower hanging fruits to pick before they save a couple watts in RR from a faster tire.
Yeah, and as a consequence, Paris-Roubaix is the road race where manufacturers have always experimented a lot (including suspension tech). Having plenty of sections of bad cobbles where I live (including one segment I have to cross daily on my commute), I can understand how they shape road races.
Yes, and this shows the importance of route design in races. I remember incarnations of the BWR where back then the fastest setup for pros was a road setup with 28 mm tires. Now that won’t cut it for gravel races.
XC has developed similarly, the courses have gotten more and more technical over the years. With few (sometimes notable) exceptions rides opt for full suspension XC bikes as opposed to hardtails. Overall, this is a good development for us regular people as that has resulted in XC bikes that are much more capable on trails.
I hope the evolution of gravel racing will do something similar. I really love how my aero road bike rides, but it is damn annoying that I sometimes have to turn around when the road becomes gravel or the cobbles so bad that I’m close to puncturing. (Ask me how I know. ) There is something to be said for a road bike that can handle short segments of gravel without you having to give it a second thought. Or a bike that feels at home offroad, but connecting offroad segments on pavement doesn’t feel like an exercise in stupidity.
This just talks to the fact that you don’t optimize for a single segment, you need to optimize for the entire race, and that includes knowing (guesstimating) where the critical action will happen and weighting that accordingly. This leads to inherent compromises that mean that with the exception of a pan flat road race on consistent tarmac quality, you probably aren’t riding the optimal setup for anyone segment (you could be close to optimal)
Nothing too earth shattering here but a couple points:
“I believe tire sizes are near their limit and we’ll see a lot of new options between 45 mm up to 2.2”. One thing to keep in mind is that tire size is very course-dependent. The anticipated speed and course conditions are major factors in the tire size”
“I find it very interesting that some bikes are still launching with 45 mm max tire clearance since that would be a limiting factor very quickly.”
Also what a luxury to have 50mm clearance frame and not be scared to run 2.2. I know its been brought up before but these pro riders really get to push the boundaries and if they rub their frame they can just get a new one. I don’t have that luxury. Lets not forget DJ’s frame for example is only a 50mm clearance. I don’t think Felt would warranty my frame if i rub it raw using 2.2s for example.
so… what’s the hold up? BB shell width and accompanying Q-factor? Longer chainstays? Toe overlap? We have a saying in german: einen Tod muss man sterben…
The holdup I believe is brands and their prod dev team and new frames releasing were probably in the pipeline 3-4 years ago with the molds and such. I don’t think they anticipated the needs of racers to want these types of bikes this fast compared to their ‘adventure’ builds.
There could be brands who are scraping what they had in the pipeline and adjusting. But we’re such a small niche of a niche of a niche where it might not change as the general public see ‘adventure builds’ as slow, heavy, tons of mounts, fat tires vs ‘race’ where the max is 42/45.
Two posts above is an interview with a pro. Riding at speed in a pack can result in a flat because you can’t see what’s coming and unload the bike. Bigger tires have a bit more flat protection, apart from providing more comfort over long days/courses. It might be niche today to run mtb tires on a gravel bike. What about in 2025/2026?
I saw the post. Brands are behind no doubt. We all agree on that. What I’m getting at is that brands might not be scrambling to update their pipeline of gravel builds as we just saw with Trek and Canyon. - I’ve even said in this very thread or the other gravel race tire thread that 50mm should be minimum for a race bike moving forward. It’s going to take a bit of time before we see more race specific gravel frames like the Mog, Revolt, Stiggy etc that can accommodate what we all want. It’ll happen for sure in a slow trickle. Wouldn’t be surprised if we see boost frames.
The main bottleneck right now is the combination of short(ish) chainstays, road(ish) Q-factor and 2x gearing. Eliminate 1, or ideally 2 of these and big XC tires are possible. The new Sram 13spd will unlock a lot of it
It’s possible to achieve short chainstays, large tyre clearance and clearance for large chainrings with elevated or dropped chainstays, Its possible to design and manufacture a bike without a drive side chainstay.
The answer to me is pretty obvious: the move to 1x is a done deal. Just like in the mountain bike world it allows for more freedom in bike design as well as better tire clearance. 2x will become niche. Yes, I get the arguments in favor of 2x, but as soon as 2x compatibility makes certain frame geometries and tire clearances impossible, manufacturers will make more of their bikes 1x-only.
That’s also why rim brakes are dead and we are all on disc brakes.
Another thing I’d like to see are more modular cranks (something Rotor already does). Get one pair of cranks with different axles for different frames and chain lines.
MTBs ditched front derailleurs because they don’t work when full of mud and geting rid of them simplifies rear suspension design, not because of geometry and tyre clearance.
I suspect that for road and gravel the Classified rear 2x Hub or similar systems are going to be the real FD killer. The gear steps in 1x13 are just too big and the range too small.
MTBs ditched rim brakes because discs are better when the rims are covered in mud and dirt, that discs allowed new types of suspension design was serendipity.
Road bikes have switched to disc because they allow for cheaper more aerodynamic carbon fibre wheels. In the dry 622mm alloy rotors ( box section rims) are more than adequate. I suspect there is also a cost of manufacture element to the switch to disc brakes on road bikes in fact pretty much all bikes. Its much faster to assemble a disc brake that has slot in brake pads that a caliper that has pads that have 3 degrees of freedom to adjust.
Actually this doesn’t solve much and many at the front of the race will prefer the 12 speed MTB cassette. The reason is they want to run a larger front chainring and still have a bailout gear in the back for steep long climbs.
The 13 speed cassette is better than the original XPLR, but when racing out West the 10-50/10-52 cassette is better.
Outside of alloy rims being “adequate”, none of the above is accurate.
Disc brakes are more expensive and require more time / labor / precision to install and carbon wheels are significantly more expensive that alloy rims.
Bike companies need to stop worrying about whether their designs are UCI legal. It impacts far less than 1% of their customers. They need to build the bikes that people want or are better.
a bike w/o a drive side chainstay would either be a flexy mess (and dangerous because of chain skipping) or it would have to be so beefed up to make it stiff enough to resist pedaling forces that it would be ridiculously heavy.
). But there are a lot of smoother gravel and roads, as well. Are wider tires the best choice in those sections? Maybe, maybe not.
) There is something to be said for a road bike that can handle short segments of gravel without you having to give it a second thought. Or a bike that feels at home offroad, but connecting offroad segments on pavement doesn’t feel like an exercise in stupidity.