>>1778990I think your point is that "gravel bike" marketing is annoying and caters towards consumerism. A point I would not disagree with.
In my eyes, however, most goods are advertised in this way. It's the world we live in. But gravel bikes are also just a good idea that are becoming popular.
I agree with OP that a gravel bike, being specifically defined as an endurance road bike with >= 35mm tire clearance & rack mounts, is a good "general-bike" design. Yea most of us have and will continue to ride the bikes we have. A gravel bike is just a fucking bike. No you don't NEED one as bike companies would have you think. But that's not a grand conspiracy, it just advertising. Taken at face value, the specific design of a gravel bike is a good idea. The draw backs of having extra tire clearance are minor, while the added versatility is actually pretty big for people with trails as described in
>>1778971To summarize, there is inherent consumerism occurring with "gravel bikes" that feels like they are being forced down our throats as the next toy to buy buy buy. But unfortunately it's also actually a good idea that is becoming popular BECAUSE it's a good idea. If you see through the advertising and think about why your non-race road bike can't fit >28mm tires you might realize, yea, a "gravel bike" is kinda just a good idea.
After reading all that back, I think the real benefit of this "gravel bike" nonsense is basically the normalizing of increased tire clearance on quick asphalt bikes. Downsides are small, benefits are large.
