Now that you've been convinced to get yourself a "Gravel" bike to replace your "Cyclocross" bike (which was
totally unsuited for riding on gravel, you know) there's another new bike you have to add to your stable. Are you ready for "All-Road" bikes?
 |
| Can you put fenders on that? |
I'm not sure I know exactly how an All-Road bike differs from the Gravel bikes of last year, or how those Gravel bikes were so different from Cyclocross bikes before them. But if the new Cannondale Slate is an indication, I suppose the difference is that it should have a suspension fork (?). Yep. Riding on unpaved roads now requires suspension forks. Or at least, I think that's the implication here. And once people become convinced that a road bike needs suspension forks, it's only a matter of time before full-suspension becomes the "next big thing" for the road.
 |
I always considered this something
of an "All-Road" bike. "Too bad it
doesn't have suspension" though. |
Call me skeptical. I mean, I'm not even convinced suspension is needed on most
mountain bikes for cryin' out loud. That doesn't stop people from looking at my early '80s vintage Stumpjumper and saying "Cool bike! Too bad it doesn't have suspension!" But built up with mustache bars and semi-slick tires, it seems to have the ability to handle just about any kind of road surface, paved or otherwise, and a lot of off-road trails, too.
The Cannondale Slate is generating a lot of buzz with its 650B wheels and its "Lefty" single-sided suspension fork with 30mm of travel. The company
released a video of the new bike featuring cyclocross racer Tim Johnson. They declare the bike to be a "whole new type of bike" that's not about racing. The video then goes on to show the bike being ridden . . . well. . . like a race bike. It's also "much more capable" the project director declares. Well - yeah - it can go places a narrowly focused race bike can't go. But there are
lots of bikes already available that can do the same thing. If you're reading this blog, you probably already have one. They're not exactly new.
Don't get me wrong - I love the fact that people are getting excited about bikes that can fit fatter tires and handle the rough stuff. But there's more to being "much more capable" than having fatter tires and being able to ride on unpaved roads. Can the bike accommodate fenders? I don't think the Slate can. Unpaved roads get pretty nasty when it rains, though. Can it handle racks? I don't think the Slate can do that, either. But there are lots of bikes that can handle nimbly on the road, and still let a person explore the unpaved wonders -- and even keep the rider reasonably dry, comfortable, and unburdened.
 |
| That's a "capable" bike. |
When I first got into bikes, touring bikes were all the rage. They were meant mostly for paved adventures, but were capable of much more. A lot of lightly-used vintage examples are still out there, available for next to nothing. Updated with newer wheels and tires (in some cases, they can be converted easily to 650B) and they can become even more versatile. The ability to accommodate large-volume tires isn't new, either -- it's just that people kind of forgot about it as road bikes became more and more focused on racing (despite the fact that few people actually race). Funny thing, I have a
1973 Mercian Superlight that is currently shod with 32 mm tires, and it still has tons of clearance -- and that was a high-end
racing bike in its day! Bikes with decent tire clearance have long been out there, but until recently, they weren't the bikes getting all the attention.
All-Road bikes. The latest "must have" market segment, in a market that keeps getting sliced narrower and narrower. Enjoy them while you can -- before the industry moves on to the
next big thing.
I love this topic. My version of your trusty Stumpjumper is a 1990 Bianchi Advantage frame, from their "CrossTerrain" line (similar to "All-Road"), which had the wacky idea of finding a middle ground between road and mountain bikes before the abhorrent "hybrid" trend of future Advantages took hold. (I didn't have much money, so it was the best I could do, but I still love it in its third or fourth incarnation.) It's basically a Volpe with a Hi-Ten fork and stays. It came with cantis and 700cX38, but now I use 45s, because they exist, and now it can be called an "all-rounder" or "city adventure bike" that scandalously runs a 1X8, perfectly adequate for my hilly home. Interestingly, the '90 Advantage came with the last SunTour components, including a freewheel, which I still have. As far as I can tell, the main difference in geometry of the mostly CrMo frame from today's cross frame is that the top tube is about a centimeter longer. I would like to see at least one company prioritize fit over all else: one standard steel frame whose only variation is in weird stack and reach proportions. Or a fit business that consisted not of computers and calipers but a set of a hundred or so bikes built up in every conceivable proportion, and you could borrow one for a week or so. Now that would be a market segment: giving riders the sensation of a bike that fits before they own one. Then compare that geometry to what exists in the manufactured world. Maybe the matching bike wouldn't be right for all roads, but it would be perfect for THEIR roads—and bodies—and the sensation wouldn't be reserved to those who can afford custom. It's probably a dumb idea for some obvious reason, but I like thinking about it anyway.
ReplyDeleteI remember that line of bikes - and particularly the Volpe. Granted, they still make that model, but it's not quite the same. I remember that original generation was a lugged frame and was billed much the way the Bridgestone XO-1 was - but with 700c wheels instead of the XO's 26-in. But yeah -- bikes like these have been out there for a while -- regardless of what people called them. The fit concept is an interesting one, by the way. Probably not likely to get traction with the industry though.
DeleteYes, it's lugged, but with a unicrown fork, unlike the XO-1. And true, as far as the industry is concerned, trial and error works great.
DeleteI don't have a problem with gravel bikes. They should have clear differences from cyclocross bikes - longer chainstays and lower bottom brackets - that give a different ride. Add the room for bigger tires and fenders and they are good frames for people who aren't enamored by racing geometry. A good gravel bike is basically the equivalent of an old sports tourer.
ReplyDeleteAs for "all road" or a "bikepacking" bike, I would agree I'm not sure of the need.
I agree with you in general on this topic, but I think there is more to say about so-called allroad bikes. Rivendell has been pushing similar bikes for years, using the name "Country Bike," and while they seem since to have moved further toward city cruisers, their Sam Hillborne and Atlantis are still very much of this type.
ReplyDeleteThe Cannodale is a (relatively) large company's marketing take on what Jan Heine/Compass bicycles, Boulder, and so forth have been pushing for years: fat 650B'd bikes (but with fenders, racks, and lights) that ride fast on pavement but that can handle dirt and gravel. The Ravn (named for a town in Alaska, if I understand it correctly) pushes this rando type of bike toward the dirt end of the spectrum -- IIRC, it was largely built around Compass's new 559 X 50 lightweight road tires.
Personally, I can see a connection -- at least a marketing connection! -- between the Cannondale and the eminently sensible Ravn, so IMO, marketing hype aside, I think it's a good development. Me, I want 622 for dirt, and I hope before too long to get a local builder to try his hand at building a (his term) "road bike for dirt" that lets me use the wonderfully light new wheels I had built from Velocity Blunt SS's and Furious Freds.
I absolutely agree. But I'm definitely skeptical of the need for suspension.
DeleteI like gravel bikes, despite the marketing. A good gravel bike will have clearance for big tires or fenders, long chainstays and a lower bottom bracket than a cyclocross bike. They are basically old sports tourers and the best solution for someone wanting a new bike without racing geometry.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about "all road" or "backpacking" bikes, though.
I wouldn't want to leave anybody with the impression I'm against these developments. Gravel bikes, all-road, bkepacking, etc. I'm just a bit skeptical of a lot of the marketing. And I am Very skeptical of the need for suspension on a road bike, even if it's a "rough" road. Fat tires and versatile bkes are great! They're also not exactly new.
DeleteHmm...Maybe we'll start seeing bikes that are designed for suburban streets, as opposed to "city" bikes.
ReplyDeleteWas there ever a 27" wheeled bicycle considered all road?
ReplyDeleteSurely nobody called them that. They were just "bikes." A lot of sport touring bikes in the 70s had the kind of geometry and tire clearance to cover a wide variety of terrain. Tire choices are probably better today, though.
DeleteHmm, this sounds like another supply and demand trap. Supplying product to a solution no one asked for. Check out the trailing off of 29ers. I seem to recall someone attempting a 29er road bike. What happened to that great all road plan? I agree this nitch is silly cool.
Delete