Gravel / CX Bike differences and recommendations

[fortunatemango]

Check his YouTube channel, he’s also does a 1x CX/gravel conversion, which are now fashionable, although that may break your budget, plus you won’t be able to use wider tyres. The hybrid conversion if you just do the basics should give you what you want for a reasonable spend.

I will definitely be binge watching his YouTube channel for inspiration. Thanks for pointing it out to me, don’t think I’d have come across it otherwise.

 

[DRM]

Don’t think he’s racing just wants drops and fatter tyres to be able ride on and off road.
£200 budget isn’t going to buy a modern bike marketed as gravel even used (esp given where prices are at currently)

One other thing to bear in mind is a CX bike may only have room for 33 mm max tyres as that is the UCI maximum width allowed, so worth looking into if you’re hoping to go gravel tyre wide

 

[vickster]

One other thing to bear in mind is a CX bike may only have room for 33 mm max tyres as that is the UCI maximum width allowed, so worth looking into if you’re hoping to go gravel tyre wide

My CX Team so clearly not a race bike came with 35mm knobblies, would have taken a 38 for sure (I used with 32mm slickish Duranos)

 

[figbat]

I have just scrolled through the thread you posted and all I can say is wow! I’m very impressed. The transition and end product is amazing!!

I note that it took you over a year to source parts and do all the research etc. which is probably the biggest throw off for me tbh.

But other than that it is the option that excites me the most without doubt! I can imagine there being a massive sense of accomplishment as well as pride in the bike that you have built yourself.

Also, if you don’t mind me asking, how much did it all cost?

It took a year because I was in no rush and was biding my time on getting cheap parts. Overall, excluding the donor bike, I reckon about £150 - the brakes were the biggest expenses. I could have done it cheaper - for example I bought a new crankset and chainring - but it wasn’t about the cost for me, it was about the pleasure of doing it.

 

[Paul_Smith SRCC]

Paul, many thanks for Your detailed response. The information you have provided is very interesting and even more so useful to know.

The photos of the bikes and especially the gif showing the transition are great.

Based on your message, a gravel bike definitely appeals more. However, all the gravel bikes I’ve seen are circa £500 at the very least. The only CX bike I’ve seen under £300 is the Specialized Tri Cross.

Do you think the Tri Cross is more racey or endurance/gravel orientated? I have seen a fair few sellers who have got them with mud guards and pannier racks which makes the bike very appealing to me.

To elaborate on something I referenced in my post "Comparing geometry between brands will vary", that's because how far back from a more focused performance model designers choose to dial back to their more compliant models will vary. In the case of the Specialized Tri Cross looking at the current geometry personally I'd still list that as a Gravel Bike, all be it one closer to a CX geometry than my example of a Van Nicholas Rowtag, using that example yes it's more focused towards a CX set up but the geometry will still offer stability to carry luggage.

One brand may have one model that they hope will tick both boxes and another brand may have one design for each, with the example I used I referenced Van Nicholas as they have a CX and Gravel bike at the same price point, so each can have a more focused set up specific to that role. I dare say being European a CX focused bike is more on their radar than an American brand who no doubt feel their is not enough demand to have a focused bike for each role. Laterally thinking the same applies to Van Nicholas of course, they are a European brand and make bikes for that market. Back in 2001 when they were called Airborne and starting to supply to the UK they did not have an Audax style lightweight tourer, a popular bike here in the UK but not in Europe so they did not cater for a demand they didn't have; so I help design the bike that became the Yukon.

 

[Trickedem]

To elaborate on something I referenced in my post "Comparing geometry between brands will vary", that's because how far back from a more focused performance model designers choose to dial back to their more compliant models will vary. In the case of the Specialized Tri Cross looking at the current geometry personally I'd still list that as a Gravel Bike, all be it one closer to a CX geometry than my example of a Van Nicholas Rowtag, using that example yes it's more focused towards a CX set up but the geometry will still offer stability to carry luggage.

One brand may have one model that they hope will tick both boxes and another brand may have one design for each, with the example I used I referenced Van Nicholas as they have a CX and Gravel bike at the same price point, so each can have a more focused set up specific to that role. I dare say being European a CX focused bike is more on their radar than an American brand who no doubt feel their is not enough demand to have a focused bike for each role. Laterally thinking the same applies to Van Nicholas of course, they are a European brand and make bikes for that market. Back in 2001 when they were called Airborne and starting to supply to the UK they did not have an Audax style lightweight tourer, a popular bike here in the UK but not in Europe so they did not cater for a demand they didn't have; so I help design the bike that became the Yukon.

Paul, I chanced upon this thread as I am thinking of getting a gravel bike. I have a Yukon and it's a fab bike. I've done LEL, PBP and several tours and it is still going strong. Thanks.