Originally Posted by
JonathanGennick
Gravel and adventure bikes are hybrid bikes good for a variety of surfaces, and yet are not generally derided like hybrid bikes traditionally have been. Why the difference? Is it down to focus? Does focusing on gravel roads and/or gravel racing provide an optimization target that is lacking with traditional hybrid designs?
Seems like the original hybrids, the 80's ATBs, were much more capable than their hybrid counterparts of today and there were even "touring" models that filled the same niche as today's "adventure" bikes. In the time since, it seems like hybrids swung to appeal more towards road/pavement use (even though some hybrids come equipped with superficial off-road-i-ness additions like super knobby tires and front shocks). The gravel and adventure bikes simply seem to be a correction factor to the urban hybrid and swinging back towards the original intent of the ATB. Having more different styles of drop bars and frames with more braze-ons is always nice though.
I don't know if one variety is looked upon more favorably than the other, maybe just that the Gravel/Adventure category is "new". The naming definitely evokes some sort of nature-filled escape whereas the hybrid evokes cruising around suburbia. I will say, I am pretty fond of my Trek FX which has been "confused" with an "adventure" bike since I equipped it with dirt drop bars, front/rear racks, fenders. Seems to work fine for commuting through the scorching radiation of summer pavement and blistering winds of winter, dodging cavernous potholes and climbing steep hills made for fossil fueled vehicles. <-- See all marketing, that sounds more adventurey
BTW, I'm calling dibs on a new category of bikes! "Urban adventure" or "Urb-adventure!" (or is it Ur-bad-venture)!