Whats the point of obsessing over bespoke gravel bikes for every conceivable event when most of them are barely distinguishable from one another in terms of actual performance? Is the marginal gain really worth the financial and logistical headache of maintaining multiple, highly specialized bikes?
For example, the difference between a bike optimized for, say, the Gravel Worlds and one geared towards a more casual, multi-surface event like the Tour Divide is largely a matter of tweaks to the gearing, tire selection, and perhaps a slightly different handlebar setup.
Are we really to believe that these minor variations justify the expense and hassle of maintaining an entire quiver of gravel bikes, each one painstakingly customized for a specific type of event or terrain? Its a classic case of diminishing returns, where the law of marginal utility applies in full force.
Furthermore, the trend towards extreme specialization in gravel bikes seems to be driven more by marketing hype and the endless pursuit of novelty than any genuine, data-driven need for highly specialized bikes. Its a case of the emperors new clothes, where riders are convinced that they need the latest, greatest, most highly specialized gravel bike in order to remain competitive, when in reality, the differences between these bikes are largely cosmetic.
Id love to hear from riders who have actually experimented with multiple, highly specialized gravel bikes and can speak to the actual benefits and drawbacks of this approach. Do the benefits of having a bespoke bike for every event really outweigh the costs, or are we just chasing our tails in pursuit of some mythical, unattainable ideal of optimal performance?
For example, the difference between a bike optimized for, say, the Gravel Worlds and one geared towards a more casual, multi-surface event like the Tour Divide is largely a matter of tweaks to the gearing, tire selection, and perhaps a slightly different handlebar setup.
Are we really to believe that these minor variations justify the expense and hassle of maintaining an entire quiver of gravel bikes, each one painstakingly customized for a specific type of event or terrain? Its a classic case of diminishing returns, where the law of marginal utility applies in full force.
Furthermore, the trend towards extreme specialization in gravel bikes seems to be driven more by marketing hype and the endless pursuit of novelty than any genuine, data-driven need for highly specialized bikes. Its a case of the emperors new clothes, where riders are convinced that they need the latest, greatest, most highly specialized gravel bike in order to remain competitive, when in reality, the differences between these bikes are largely cosmetic.
Id love to hear from riders who have actually experimented with multiple, highly specialized gravel bikes and can speak to the actual benefits and drawbacks of this approach. Do the benefits of having a bespoke bike for every event really outweigh the costs, or are we just chasing our tails in pursuit of some mythical, unattainable ideal of optimal performance?