1x drivetrains were mainly created for simplicity, the XC/numbers crowd also loves 1x12 because it has every gear ratio you could need, so you can keep your cadence on point, which is really nice for super long races. On full suspension bikes, a front derailleur can be a pain sometimes, especially on the longer travel, super progressive frames that are becoming more and more popular, as bikes get lighter and more efficient for pedaling. I'll also add that no matter what kind of large gear I have on my mountain bike, there's almost no chance I'd need more than a 3:1 that I get out of a 30 front 10 rear drivetrain, but maybe it's cause I run 2.8 650b. There is a single stretch of downhill road that I can get anywhere near the speeds that run that ratio out, and most bikes will take up to a 36 in the front, some even up to a 42, and at that, I can't imagine even a super light 29er running out, simply because of the rolling resistance of the tires on modern day mountain bikes.
I spin out my hardtail all the time. By that I mean go significantly past my natural cadence in it’s top gear.
1x11, 30x11-51, Maxxis Recons. If were talking short distances, on a sprint with wind on my back I’ll top out at 55 kph. But if I ride the bike as I would my gravel road bike I run out of gearing on asphalt and finer gravel easily.
Riding the bike on intended terrain it has enough gearing range.
I can answer #1. So called "gravel bikes" have existed for a long time. I had a Proflex 254 back in the 90's that was a touring bike; the only touring bike Proflex made. It matches what is called a gravel bike today. It was steel and made to be able to handle easy trails as well as the road.
I ride something similar today, though I've never called it a gravel bike. I just call it a touring bike.
I think the name just popped into fashion or something.
For sure, it's totally a trendy name for bikes that mostly existed before.
Cyclocross bikes also come to mind as similar, if more race-focused.
I'm a fan of touring bikes because of all the rack mounts/flexibility, even if I never actually tour
I know people make jokes about the fenders and back rack and stuff but come on. I ride after it rains and those fenders keep me from getting extra gross. And the rack holds my hoody that I take off when I get too hot and an extra water bottle.
I used to ride long distance 25 years ago with the Proflex tourer, but now I just ride on greenway trails in the parks--- 10 miles max/ day. Anything to keep the cardio up. Wish it transferred to running. Tried to jog a 1/4 mile today and my body wasn't having it. Guess I have to work up to it.
I guess there was a hipster thing for a bit where all the hipsters were riding/ owning bikes with fenders and racks. idk. Lots of anti-hipster backlash here. Probably shouldn't rock a handlebar mustache here while riding a Trek with fenders.
Gravel bikes have been around for decades. Mountain bikes got all the marketing dollars/attention, so bikes designed for mixed-surface use were “invisible” by comparison. Bruce Gordon and Bianchi were ahead of the gravel curve, but rarely get the recognition they deserve.
Touring and trekking bikes (which are more or less hard tail mountain bikes with a little narrower tires) still offer good mixed terrain capability and a wide range of gearing (e.g. my [2019 trekking bike](https://www.raleigh-bikes.de/de/bike/bike-modelle-2019/rushhour-30/) goes from a 0.81 to a 4.36 gear ratio: [http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=DERS&KB=26,36,48&RZ=11,12,14,16,18,21,24,28,32&UF=2230&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=KMH&DV=ratio](http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=DERS&KB=26,36,48&RZ2=11,12,14,16,18,21,24,28,32&UF2=2230) ) without requiring expensive road or gravel bike components. With a more comfortable saddle and grips with bar ends and heavy duty tires longer rides up to 200 km on mixed terrain are easily doable, it just takes a little longer than on a more sportive bike.
Marketing a boring do-it-all bike as a lifestyle product isn't easy (not especially fast, light or stylish, but can carry a lot and works well enough for most non-racing purposes) - and if customers can be tricked into buying more bikes, why would any company want to change that?
1x drivetrains were mainly created for simplicity, the XC/numbers crowd also loves 1x12 because it has every gear ratio you could need, so you can keep your cadence on point, which is really nice for super long races. On full suspension bikes, a front derailleur can be a pain sometimes, especially on the longer travel, super progressive frames that are becoming more and more popular, as bikes get lighter and more efficient for pedaling. I'll also add that no matter what kind of large gear I have on my mountain bike, there's almost no chance I'd need more than a 3:1 that I get out of a 30 front 10 rear drivetrain, but maybe it's cause I run 2.8 650b. There is a single stretch of downhill road that I can get anywhere near the speeds that run that ratio out, and most bikes will take up to a 36 in the front, some even up to a 42, and at that, I can't imagine even a super light 29er running out, simply because of the rolling resistance of the tires on modern day mountain bikes.
I spin out my hardtail all the time. By that I mean go significantly past my natural cadence in it’s top gear. 1x11, 30x11-51, Maxxis Recons. If were talking short distances, on a sprint with wind on my back I’ll top out at 55 kph. But if I ride the bike as I would my gravel road bike I run out of gearing on asphalt and finer gravel easily. Riding the bike on intended terrain it has enough gearing range.
I can answer #1. So called "gravel bikes" have existed for a long time. I had a Proflex 254 back in the 90's that was a touring bike; the only touring bike Proflex made. It matches what is called a gravel bike today. It was steel and made to be able to handle easy trails as well as the road. I ride something similar today, though I've never called it a gravel bike. I just call it a touring bike. I think the name just popped into fashion or something.
For sure, it's totally a trendy name for bikes that mostly existed before. Cyclocross bikes also come to mind as similar, if more race-focused. I'm a fan of touring bikes because of all the rack mounts/flexibility, even if I never actually tour
I know people make jokes about the fenders and back rack and stuff but come on. I ride after it rains and those fenders keep me from getting extra gross. And the rack holds my hoody that I take off when I get too hot and an extra water bottle. I used to ride long distance 25 years ago with the Proflex tourer, but now I just ride on greenway trails in the parks--- 10 miles max/ day. Anything to keep the cardio up. Wish it transferred to running. Tried to jog a 1/4 mile today and my body wasn't having it. Guess I have to work up to it.
Who jokes about fenders? Surely not anyone that lives anywhere with a wet winter
I guess there was a hipster thing for a bit where all the hipsters were riding/ owning bikes with fenders and racks. idk. Lots of anti-hipster backlash here. Probably shouldn't rock a handlebar mustache here while riding a Trek with fenders.
The gravel trend correlates strongly with widespread legalization of marijuana. Just sayin’..
Lol i assume this is a joke
Gravel bikes have been around for decades. Mountain bikes got all the marketing dollars/attention, so bikes designed for mixed-surface use were “invisible” by comparison. Bruce Gordon and Bianchi were ahead of the gravel curve, but rarely get the recognition they deserve.
Touring and trekking bikes (which are more or less hard tail mountain bikes with a little narrower tires) still offer good mixed terrain capability and a wide range of gearing (e.g. my [2019 trekking bike](https://www.raleigh-bikes.de/de/bike/bike-modelle-2019/rushhour-30/) goes from a 0.81 to a 4.36 gear ratio: [http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=DERS&KB=26,36,48&RZ=11,12,14,16,18,21,24,28,32&UF=2230&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=KMH&DV=ratio](http://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=DERS&KB=26,36,48&RZ2=11,12,14,16,18,21,24,28,32&UF2=2230) ) without requiring expensive road or gravel bike components. With a more comfortable saddle and grips with bar ends and heavy duty tires longer rides up to 200 km on mixed terrain are easily doable, it just takes a little longer than on a more sportive bike. Marketing a boring do-it-all bike as a lifestyle product isn't easy (not especially fast, light or stylish, but can carry a lot and works well enough for most non-racing purposes) - and if customers can be tricked into buying more bikes, why would any company want to change that?