The sentiment from American posters is interesting because the USA is the source of 2 out of 3 of the common terms for unpaved (road) races. The defunct term “ultra cross” is a good description of the UCI course: ~50% unpaved, ~50% paved (Iron Cross)
More gravel? Now it’s a gravel race (Unbound)
More pavement? Now it’s a roubaix-style race (Rouge Roubaix)
Even more pavement? Now it’s just a road race with gravel sectors (Battenkill)
“Gravel” as a concept has always been malleable, but it does seem silly that the UCI Gravel World Championships are held on a course with so much pavement. Things will probably improve in the future, especially given all the extra attention to the event this year.
As noted, I don’t think it is too much to ask that a gravel race have……wait for it….gravel. There was no section of “gravel” longer than 5’ in the race. That just isn’t a gravel race, that is a road race with some dirt thrown in. Strade Bianche has more gravel in it than that course and that isn’t considered a gravel race either.
Also as noted, there is a big gulf in between these two extremes. I don’t understand why people are framing this discussion as if the only choices are a course like this or Unbound. It is a false analogy.
One could say the same about your comment. Mine comment is based on:
We have two road races - Strade Bianchi and Tro Bro Leon - that have significant dirt / gravel sections, so anything billing itself as a “Gravel World Championship” has to have more & harder gravel / dirt sections than these races. If not, it’s by definition a road race.
Why was the men’s only 181km in length, when the men’s road world’s course was ~274km?
The net net for me is that this just feels like a dumbed down course.
According to the video from Cameron Mason that I posted above, yes.
I didn’t bother to time any of the segments while watching the race, but it seems to align with what I saw. Was it 6’? 10’? Dunno the exact lengths, but there was nothing of any significant length, it seems….certainly not on the closing laps.
My comment saying that we should enjoy and be happy that we have coverage of a fun race to watch is gatekeeping and whiny? I think we have very different understandings of what those words mean.
Gatekeeping:
“certain individuals or groups try to assert their authority or ownership over a particular interest, hobby, community, or fandom by setting up artificial barriers to entry”
“the act of controlling or limiting access to a community… often revolves around authenticity and purity”
Hmm. Unofficial requirements to meet. Limiting what is considered gravel. I have to thank you for proving my point so quickly.
At the very least I enjoyed watching the race and will continue in the future. And it sounds like all the people actually racing really liked the course. So all good over here. Can’t say the same about others in the thread though who seem to be upset or annoyed with the race.
I will own I’m gatekeeping a very specific question: at the top ranks of professional cycling, what counts as a gravel race vs a road race. To me, this is no different than saying track races need to be run on velodromes that meet certain specifications.
Would you be okay with the track world championships being run in a carpark? If not, by your definition aren’t you gatekeeping what track cycling means?
I’m not talking about what you and your friends call a gravel ride - what my cycling group calls a gravel ride is really a road ride with a bit of dirt, but that is the reality of riding where I live
Well that’s really the point isn’t it. Riders all over are trying to avoid cars and ‘Gravel’ rides are the result. The course will depend on the available off-road tracks in the location, but if you are saying it has to be 100 miles of dirt roads without any pavement then there won’t be any European events. It’ll be great to see a US Worlds, but the event probably needs to be established first in the minds of European pros so that they make the trip. It might also need a scheduling change to fit in the same trip as the Canadian road races/MTB events.
Ok, I’ll play. I can pull up the track rules and it’ll say what a track has to be; widths, markings, banking, length. Pretty sure a carpark doesn’t fit the rules. If you can show me the rules of what a gravel race is, and what roads you’re allowed to use, I’ll eat my words. But I’d bet the gravel WC fit those rules. Maybe the rules change over time and the courses change to fit those rules. But this is where we’re at. So if the race is run according to the rules at the time, and you think it doesn’t live up to your expectations of what gravel is, then yea, that’s gatekeeping the sport and doesn’t really help anybody.
I could have the opinion that the current Tour de France isn’t real cycling anymore, it’s too easy. It should only be called the Tour de France if they do 400km stages without team support or radios, and all the current riders are just weak. Tadej didn’t actually win the Tour 3x because that’s not the “real” Tour.
The cool thing about gravel is that it’s so different depending on the location. USA’s gravel is different than European gravel, which is different than South American gravel. But it’s still gravel. This is still a young event. There’s still so much for it to grow and evolve. And can have very different courses depending on where they hold it. I just think this whole idea that we random people on the internet get to decide what is or isn’t gravel is silly.
To standardize all the events in the Trek UCI Gravel World Series and render them accessible to all levels of cyclists, the UGWS has standard course formats for all qualifier events. In addition to providing maximum safety guarantees, each UGWS course must have the following features:
…
The course should have a minimum of 60% off road with cobbles being considered as off road.
A course consisting of multiple laps on a circuit (min. 40km circuit and maximum 3 laps)
A point-to-point race either with the same start and finish venue, or with different start and finish venues. This point-to-point option is preferred and more widely applied across all UGWS events.
The race should be on existing paths and (gravel) roads with a majority of paths where a car can pass, single tracks are allowed but should be minimized. No new created paths or prairies are allowed.
The course should have a minimum of 60% off road with cobbles being considered as off road.
Saying that nobody is deciding what constitutes a gravel race, you’ve sure decided that this wasn’t a gravel race.
It doesn’t seem like anybody is going to change you mind; and you’ve decided that this isn’t gravel. That’s fine, everybody is entitled to their opinion. The fact is that a rainbow jersey was awarded to the gravel world champion and that won’t change regardless of what is said on here. Anyways, I’ve said my bit so it doesn’t benefit anybody to keep arguing what gravel is.
American gravel racer and former WorldTour pro Ted King explains that the course in Leuven was “gravel in the loose sense,” he told Escape Collective, adding that organizers are necessarily constricted in course design by wherever the race is hosted. “That contrasts pretty abruptly with something like the majority of racing in the midwest of North America which is big, long races that are purely an attritional thing. Like, who has fitness after eight hours?”
When asked what a perfect Gravel World Championship course would look like, King said it’s simple: “I want the course to be hard enough that it’s mandatory to race with knobby tires.”
And based on their power analysis, they said the worlds was most like Chequamegon.
Pretty lazy take….strange how you selectively choose quotes that fit your narrative.
In the meantime, I also made comments like this….
[quote=“Power13, post:50, topic:97052”]
To further clarify, if they want to continue to have this race ongoing and call it a gravel race, great…I just don’t think it was worthy of awarding a rainbow jersey over.
[/quote]
It is helpful in a discussion to look at the totality of what someone is saying, not just what suits your narrative.
