Gravel is the discipline of cycling that continues to evade a clear definition. Ask riders around the globe what constitutes a gravel ride and you will get a whole range of answers. It is also splitting into ever-smaller and more-bespoke niches, with drop-bar mountain bikes muddying the waters even further on where gravel and mountain biking differ. Equally, as we saw at this year’s UCI Gravel World Championships, the same can be said at the other end of the spectrum where gravel and all-road riding converge.
One area that looks to influence a great portion of the gravel market is racing. Covering big distances over rough terrain as fast and efficiently as possible is something that all riders can benefit from as technology and equipment develop. There are few riders more demanding than those at the pointy end of gravel races. Combining the distance of all-day road rides and the environment of mountain biking, gravel tech has to be capable across a whole spectrum of needs.
The contrast between UCI and other high-profile gravel races heavily influences the equipment we see at the start of each type of race. UCI races typically see riders take to the start with far more ‘road-like’ setups. By the very nature of the rules governing UCI gravel races, they will always resemble a road race more closely than other events. Under the UCI’s rules for gravel races it says, “The race should be on existing paths and (gravel) roads with a majority of paths where a car can pass. Single tracks are allowed but should be minimized. No new created paths or prairies are allowed.” It also goes on to stipulate that “The course should have a minimum of 60% off-road with cobbles being considered as off-road.”
This minimisation of singletrack is in contrast to what we see in other high-profile gravel events such as those in the the USA’s premier gravel series, the Life Time Grand Prix. In these non-UCI events, course development has resulted in gravel equipment developing at a rate of knots that would give any road bike motion sickness.
To find out what the biggest changes have been and where gravel racing tech could be heading in the future I caught up with a handful of athletes from the Life Time GP.
What have been the biggest changes in gravel tech since you got involved in the discipline?
Unsurprisingly the first thing unanimously agreed upon was the change in tire tech. Rewind a decade and 35 mm tires were the choice for most riders. Although there are some courses where this might still be the best all-around choice, the majority of racers have recently adopted 50 mm tires or 2.2” mountain bike tires. The speed of this move from the pros has caught the industry off-guard.
“Gravel is the fastest-growing discipline so we are seeing rapid evolution of tech – faster than what companies can keep up with,” says Paige Onweller, who finished third overall in this year’s Grand Prix series. This does seem to be a battle for frame design in general. Given that the development of a new bike could take three years or more, what was considered liberal tire clearance when a bike went into development could very easily be considered conservative by the time the bike makes it to production.
An example of this was Trek’s new gravel race bike, the Checkmate. With 45 mm of tyre clearance, even two years ago this would have been considered enough for the needs of gravel racing. In 2024 however, 45 mm tyres would leave many pro riders wanting more.
Beyond tire size, Payson McElveen – who finished third overall in this year’s men’s GP standings – points to more dialed geometry that is specific to the requirements of gravel racing. “I think evolution in geometry often goes overlooked, but is something that’s improved performance the last couple of years and continues to solidify gravel bikes as a unique category,” he says. The high speed and technically demanding nature of gravel racing has meant that neither typical road or mountain bike geometry quite cuts it with gravel bikes finding a hybrid. As such gravel bikes are now in general being developed with a longer front-centre and being stocked with shorter stems to compensate.
How are gravel race courses influencing your choice of bike setup and tech?
This was a far more divisive question with riders approaching it with differing perspectives. The most straightforward answer came from this year’s men’s Life Time GP overall winner Keegan Swenson. “Honestly I try to leave my bike set up pretty similar from race to race,” he says.
On the topic of what he typically changes on his Santa Cruz Stigmata: “Normally it is just a small change in chainring size – I’ll use anything from a 48-52T ring. Occasionally, I will swap the drivetrain from SRAM Red XPLR to XX SL Transmission but I have raced on Red XPLR most of the season. I also will change tires and pressure. I’d say those are the two things that get changed the most. I will also race with the [Rock Shox] Rudy suspension fork sometimes but that is pretty rare for me.”
Interestingly Peter Stetina has a different take on things. Instead of the courses influencing his equipment choices, he points to how races are being raced. As gravel racing continues to develop, the tactics being used within races are also changing. “If I were to time-trial Big Sugar, the fastest tire for the day is narrower, kind of a faster-rolling tire,” he says. “But in the pros, the way that we race it specifically is the guys with the most technical prowess – the guys with the mountain bike background, for example – they will attack the hardest part of the trail and they will optimize their setup for the hardest part of the course to create that gap.”
He also explains that for most age-group gravel riders and racers at these events, to have a good time and get around the course as fast as they can, mimicking the pros’ setups might not be best. “We race the singletracks or the technical sector and then kind of look around to take stock of who made it and you collaborate to increase that gap,” Stetina says. “So you almost have to overbike to make the selection and then you rely on fitness.
“Otherwise, even if you’re on a more optimized setup, if you were going to FKT [fastest known time] or time-trial the day, you’re chasing all day. I am realizing what’s best for a pro in the front is not necessarily best for your everyday gravel racer.”
On this point, Stetina is dubious regarding the wider adoption of mountain bike tires by recreational gravel riders. “I do feel it’s a little bit of a fad because it’s solely dictated by the way we race.”
For Onweller the biggest consideration is tire pressure. She points to this as something that many riders often overlook but can have a big impact on your performance out on the course. From a racing perspective finding the balance between fast-rolling tires and pressures and puncture protection is a priority. “For the most part, I keep my equipment relatively similar for most of the races,” she says. “One of the largest factors is avoiding a tire puncture, so I think it’s smart to prioritize efforts to modify tire pressure for the course and weather conditions on race day. People underestimate the importance of this. If you can avoid a puncture in the series, that consistency alone will help your results.”
McElveen’s setup has remained fairly constant this year too. As one of the early adopters of mountain bike tires he didn’t change all that much from race to race. “This year I’ve found that my go-to setup of 2.25 [Maxxis] Aspen STs, [Zipp] 303 Firecrest wheels, and [SRAM] XPLR drivetrain with either a 48- or 50-tooth chainring is ideal,” he says. “Based on testing we’ve been doing this year though, the setup described is the fastest and most efficient for a surprisingly wide variety of courses.”
This is something echoed by Dylan Johnson, someone who is also a fan of using mountain bike tires. He reveals that he has found that the rolling resistance of a tire is more to do with the casing than its width. “You could have a 40-millimetre gravel tire with a good casing or a bad casing and the same with a 2.2-inch mountain bike tire,” he says. “The casing will be a bigger determining factor to how fast the tire is than its width.”
Johnson adds that the higher volume of a mountain bike tire inherently increases the tire’s puncture resistance as there is a larger contact patch on the ground. This allows for a thinner casing to be used which is both lighter and rolls faster. “For example, a Schwalbe Thunder Burt or Continental Race King 2.2 are fast XC race tires,” he says. “The casing is thinner than most gravel tires, which means that on gravel the rolling resistance is lower.”
Where do you hope gravel tech will head in the coming seasons?
Gravel is continuously evolving and as a result, the trends that we have seen this year are all too likely to look out of date within a season or two. The speed at which wider tires have been adopted is just one example of how fast things can move. Something that came up from a few riders was that we will see wider deep-section rims to match the wider tire trend. Currently, Zipp offers the 303 XPLR wheels that are aerodynamically optimized for wider tires however with the move to 50 mm or wider tires it is likely that we will see more brands following suit with a wide-rim aero wheelset specifically for gravel. Brands like Hunt Wheels are already moving in this direction.
The hopes for greater aerodynamic influence do not stop there for Johnson. As somewhat of a visionary in early tech adoption, he hopes that the future brings more aero gravel bikes. “I think inevitably companies will care more about aerodynamics just like road cycling went through this kind of aerodynamic revolution,” he says. “I think aerodynamics will catch on to gravel cycling as well and if anything it’ll probably catch on quicker because people already understand the benefits of road cycling.
“Gravel frames need to be able to accept at least a 2.2-inch MTB tire,” he continues. “This may sound like I’m trying to be needlessly provocative but I mean every word of this: if a ‘gravel race bike’ can’t fit mountain bike tires, it’s not a gravel race bike. I also want to see frames get much more aerodynamic. Some companies are making small attempts to improve the aero of their bikes but I want to see full-on aero road bikes with mountain bike tire clearance.”
Swenson was not as opinionated on the future of gravel tech but did hope for more developments regarding comfort. “I am not sure where gravel tech will go in the next few years but I hope bikes continue to get more and more capable along with being more comfortable,” he says. “I think suspension will play a big role in this.”
The topic of gravel suspension is met with a mix of opinions. For the majority of riders, the move to 2.2-inch mountain bike tires has negated the need for suspension. The added compliance of a higher-volume tire has removed the appeal of a suspension fork. The weight and the aerodynamic penalties associated with fitting a suspension fork are often not worth any potential benefit. This could change in the future if brands work out a way to aerodynamically optimize suspension forks. On this topic, Johnson reveals that if the penalties were small enough he would run a suspension fork at Unbound because of how fast and rough the terrain is. However, because of the speed of the race, it is simply not a consideration at this time.
Onweller, meanwhile, has hopes for more gravel-specific testing. “I would like to see gravel tech focus on testing for gravel-specific conditions,” she says. “For example, the terrain, speeds, and length of our races are drastically different from road races and even vary greatly from one gravel race to another. I think the evolution of equipment now requires more resources for athletes and brands to do appropriate testing.
“Brands that prioritize this generally will have an upper edge since the gravel tech is evolving so fast,” she continues. “Otherwise, you are just stuck trying to respond to changes already happening. It takes a long time for a company to modify things such as tire compound, bike frame. or clothing for example, and I think people underestimate the time it takes for those changes.”
Are gravel bikes making themselves redundant by becoming more capable?
For a long time now, those sceptical about gravel bikes have insisted that they are just retro mountain bikes with the industry reinventing the wheel and giving it a new name. In the past season, it might look like we have reached a stage where these naysayers have a point. Talk of suspension forks, 2.2-inch tires, and bikes becoming more capable all sound like the hallmarks of a mountain bike. The question is, does this trend put the gravel bike’s days at risk and will the result be that drop-bar mountain bikes replace gravel bikes? Overwhelmingly the answer looks to be no.
According to the riders asked, geometry was the biggest difference separating gravel bikes from mountain bikes. Mountain bikes are inherently designed to be used in very technical environments, for the most part at slower speeds. “The geometry is totally different, and most mountain bike hardtails won’t come close to fitting a gravel-sized chainring,” McElveen says. “If you try throwing a drop bar on a hardtail mountain bike, the fit will be terrible unless you spend a lot of time finding creative stem and seat post options. They also handle completely differently, and the position on a hardtail mountain bike isn’t optimized aerodynamically.”
The issue of chainring compatibility is increasingly becoming a consideration for gravel bike designers. Races are faster than ever, resulting in riders looking to often fit 48/50-tooth chainrings to their bikes. As bikes become more capable and tire clearance increases this area around the bottom bracket is a growing point of contention. As the chainstays sit increasingly wider the size of chainring that can be fitted without interfering with the frame is becoming limited.
Swenson takes a different view on this topic. Instead of seeing the gravel bike’s days as numbered he instead believes it could be the hardtail mountain bike that could be at risk of extinction. “I don’t think gravel bikes will ever replace a proper full-suspension mountain bike but I do think they will slowly replace the hardtail bikes,” he says. “They are not too far from hardtails as is. They just need a bit more tire clearance and a bit more front travel.”
What makes a good gravel race that separates it from a road race or mountain bike race?
The topic of what exactly constitutes a “good” gravel race looks to be completely open to interpretation and is heavily influenced by the rider’s background. McElveen as a mountain biker personally likes to see courses with technical sections that require skill along with fitness. “I of course love when gravel courses include some sections that are more technically challenging, but I think the courses that make for the best racing are the ones that have the most diversity” he says. “When that is the case, there is a lot of room to be creative bike setup-wise, tactically, [and] pacing-wise.”
The largely undefined nature of gravel is something that is celebrated by McElveen. The range of riding that falls under the umbrella of gravel is one of the reasons he believes it resonates with so many people. Although he welcomes the complete spectrum of gravel racing, including races that sit right on the boundary between road and gravel, he explains, “I think for the highest profile races, the courses should demand the best of the riders and contribute to pushing the industry toward more innovation, not reaching back for road-style setups that already exist.”
Stetina shares this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of preserving the “gravel grinding” essence of the sport and a move to very road race-style races that are not necessarily as accessible to recreational riders. He also thinks the same for technical courses that could alienate riders who have not come from a mountain biking background. He believes the ideal balance lies in maintaining the adventurous spirit while allowing for technically challenging sections that cater to different rider preferences.
Onweller prefers minimal singletrack, citing the lack of a mountain biking background to support this view. Although not a fan of singletrack, she does advocate for more technical gravel sections, especially on flatter courses as a way to break up the racing and potentially force splits. “I think the addition of double-track selection points or more technical gravel is always a fun addition to break up the racing, particularly if the course is more flat,” she says. “But for me, I don’t see the need to try and make gravel racing a mountain bike race – there are plenty of single-track races for those who want to go mountain biking.”
Johnson and Swenson share the view that equipment considerations are part of the equation of a good gravel race. Swenson puts it succinctly: “The perfect course should make you feel like you have the wrong bike at some point. It should have gravel, trail, and pavement.”
This view of having to pick your equipment based on your skill set, fitness, and interpretation of the course is something that many riders enjoy in gravel as there is no “right or wrong” tool for the job. Johnson goes one step further, adding that there should be a distinction in the support on offer in a gravel race compared to a road race. “They should not have the same level of mechanical and nutritional support as a road race,” he suggests. “Riders should need to fix their mechanicals, not be able to swap bikes, and with minimal feed zones riders should work out how to carry all the hydration and nutrition they need for the day.”
Where do you think there is room for improvement with gravel equipment and tech?
It’s a hard task to predict what the future holds. If you had asked anyone five years ago how wide a gravel tire needed to be you would likely have heard that a 45 mm tire was the largest anyone thought necessary. There are no better riders to ask what they hope for the future than those who push their equipment to the limit by the intensity and volume of its use and the environment it is used in.
The issue around frame design, tire clearance, and gearing appears likely to be a major hurdle in the coming seasons. The desire to run larger tires and a wide gear range presents a challenge for frame design and drivetrain compatibility. Stetina highlights the difficulty of achieving optimal tire clearance while accommodating road-sized gears. Without making the bottom brackets wider or chain stays longer there needs to be a creative solution to facilitate 50-tooth chainrings and 2.2-inch or even 2.4-inch tires.
Stetina highlights that gravel “is the ultimate proving ground for equipment durability. I’ve had things happen in gravel racing that no one’s ever considered, like your rear derailleur hanger slowly rattling loose due to so much jarring over enough races.” With gravel bikes mostly being unsuspended, the continuous high-frequency vibrations of gravel are relentless on components. Even at 63 kg Stetina firmly believes that gravel racing is harder on his equipment than mountain biking.
No matter where you look in the bike racing world, aerodynamics is almost always rearing its head. As much as we are starting to see aerodynamics come to the fore in gravel, Johnson believes there is still a long way to go. “I want to see gravel bikes that look more like road bikes,” he says. “I think it’ll probably catch on quickly because people already understand the benefits of road cycling. The biggest difficulty is that aero road bikes are extremely stiff and you don’t necessarily want a gravel bike to be extremely stiff.”
Ultimately a more comfortable bike is a faster bike. Beyond an aero-profile suspension fork that Johnson is hopeful of seeing in the future, other riders are keen to see greater compliance integrated into bikes. Stetina highlights the potential for more passive alternatives to full suspension, such as split seatpost designs. He also thinks there is room for improvement in headset/stem style dampers that could suspend the rider’s contact points without hampering the aerodynamics of a bike.
Overall the future of gravel looks to borrow less from road and mountain biking. As gravel racing becomes increasingly more professional the demands of the top racers in the sport are becoming more specific. This is likely to see more bespoke gravel-specific products coming to market, doing away with the need to adapt existing products. SRAM’s 13-speed Red AXS XPLR groupset is a testament to gravel becoming the driving force for new developments.
It certainly will be interesting to see where current trends head and how the evolution of gravel race tactics will influence the equipment used.
Did we do a good job with this story?