Originally Posted by
gravelslider
"As mentioned, main differences are bb height and tire clearance (in general). Whether that affects/bother you, that's a personal question. For me, yes it matters enough that I'd want a frame with slightly lower bb and the ability to take 40mm+ tires comfortably (even though I do like steeper angles and shorter chainstays)."
Maybe the question should be the difference between a cross bike and a GOOD gravel bike. A GOOD gravel bike will be designed for comfort over a much longer time in the saddle (definitely not a characteristic of a cross bike where you spend maybe 30 minutes riding at a time) and usually will have a slacker head tube angle to make is less jumpy and take less effort to keep in a straight line over 100 miles. GOOD gravel bikes also have lots of vertical compliance build into the frame while a cross bike designer would say "what the heck is vertical compliance?"
Couldnt disagree more.
What is good for me in terms of geometry would annoy others. And vice versa.
If someone views a good gravel bike as one with a suspension fork/stem/seatpost with 80mm of trail, then they wont view my gravel bike as good since it has a rigid fork, stem, seatpost, and 56mm of trail. Yet I view my bike as a good gravel bike.
There is simply no consensus on what 'good' is, nor should there be. The market is diverse and it allows each user to find what they view is good. Its a fantastic situation to face as a consumer.
The spectrum on what a gravel bike is quite wide and inclusive right now. I fail to see the harm in that. I will sometimes question why a bike is designed a certain way, but its usually out of curiosity versus contempt.