Whats the justification for prioritizing tire size and tread pattern over bike geometry and suspension when it comes to gravel bike setup? It seems like the industry is pushing 40-50mm tires as the gold standard, but isnt that just a Band-Aid solution for poorly designed frames and lack of suspension? Shouldnt we be focusing on creating bikes that can actually handle rough terrain rather than relying on tire technology to bail us out?
What are the actual benefits of these wider tires, and are they worth the added weight, rolling resistance, and decreased efficiency? How do they compare to a well-designed hardtail or full-suspension bike in terms of comfort and control? And what about the whole gravel category - is it just a marketing term to sell us more gear, or are there actual design benefits to a bike thats specifically designed for mixed-surface riding?
If were really looking to create bikes that can handle rough terrain, shouldnt we be pushing for more radical design changes, like longer wheelbases, slackened head angles, and more travel? Or is that just too much to ask from an industry thats more interested in selling us the latest and greatest rather than creating genuinely innovative products?
What are the actual benefits of these wider tires, and are they worth the added weight, rolling resistance, and decreased efficiency? How do they compare to a well-designed hardtail or full-suspension bike in terms of comfort and control? And what about the whole gravel category - is it just a marketing term to sell us more gear, or are there actual design benefits to a bike thats specifically designed for mixed-surface riding?
If were really looking to create bikes that can handle rough terrain, shouldnt we be pushing for more radical design changes, like longer wheelbases, slackened head angles, and more travel? Or is that just too much to ask from an industry thats more interested in selling us the latest and greatest rather than creating genuinely innovative products?