Genesis gives Croix de Fer "biggest update since it was introduced in 2008", with "racier" design and wider tyre clearance

I agree they look quite unsightly when not being used - there are plenty of blanking bolts on the market which sit flush to the boss and make them look less obtrusive, might help?

ErnieC wrote:

Why must almost every gravel bike have those mounting points on the fork?? We are not all into bike packing and yes I know I could ignore them (as I do with my current bike) but it looks sh1te IMO. Rant over. 

There are plenty of gravel bikes that don't have cage bosses on the forks - indeed pretty much any gravel bike not aimed at the adventure/bikepacking set.

The CdF is an all rounder, with that including the potential for bikepacking, so not having those mounts would be a huge ommission.

The Croix-de-fer is not marketed as a Gravel bike, never has been. It's been around before the phrase was even coined. It's an Adventure bike an thus has a wider role. If you want a gravel bike without the mounts, don't buy this.

Not IMO.  50+mm is the preserve of MTBs. 50mm tyres are too big, buzzy and heavy for a gravel bike.  40-50mm is the sweet spot for Gravel.

For riding rough tarmac/ hard packed gravel I would go even lower. My gravel bike currently runs 38mm, and they are plenty draggy enough. Once they wear out, ideally I would drop to 35mm but 'cos fashion I am likely to have to move up to 40 at least to get decent tyres.

Last time I did a long gravel ride - over forestry roads with somewhat chunky gravel in Kielder forest - I was on 52c tyres @ ~35psi on my Vagabond, and my cycling friend was on 38s on his Cannondale. The last quarter or third of the ride or so, the bumps and buzz of the gravel had really tired out my mate - I was still pretty good. I think lightly treaded, larger tyres may be better for gravel as a result.

Funnily enough, Dylan Johnson thinks this too. And he has had tyres properly tested for rolling resistance - larger, higher TPI, lower psi, MTB tyres can roll faster than narrower, higher PSI, gravel tyres (which then need thicker sidewalls to be robust).

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Not IMO.  50+mm is the preserve of MTBs. 50mm tyres are too big, buzzy and heavy for a gravel bike.  40-50mm is the sweet spot for Gravel.

Depends on what you mean by gravel. Up here in Scotland, few gravel routes are 'smooth' gravel, even those on forest roads, and many have often fairly prolonged sections that many would describe as traditional (i.e. 90s) mountain biking.

Meanwhile, in the US, many of the lifetime grand prix racers are switching to 50mm+ tyres, particularly for events like un-bound, because trails don't need to be too rough for tyres that size to have the upper hand in rolling and comfort.

Most gravel tyres have thicker casing to provide more puncture protection due to the narrower size compared with MTB tyres, meaning that many gravel tyres are actually slower rolling than MTB tyres. The effect of tyre tread is still very unknown, and strangely Dylan Johnson found in the wind tunnel that Conti Race King tyres were more aero than narrower Pirrelli Cinturato gravel tyres.

The conventional/traditional thinking on tyres needs to be abandoned.

Agree.

My 26" and 650b 2.1-2.2" Race Kings or RH Humptulips roll at least just as fast as narrower "gravel" tyres even on most roads. When I hit any off road sections, there is no contest.  

IMO the optimal setup for most of UK's "gravel" (mostly not gravel at all) is 27.5/650b with 2.00" ish fast rolling tyres with uniform minimal tread. 700c wheels just make the whole system unnecesarily heavy and toe overlappy.

700c 35-45mm that the marketers are pushing is an equivalent of running 23-25mm at 100PSI on rough roads in the past. 

I've settled on Humpties as the best tyre for my rides (rural backroads, bridleways, hills). My old frame even lets me use these with mudguards.