Loading…
I think the Sutra would be perfect for you. Run what ya brung and that thing will bring you more places and on bigger more comfortable tires.
I'm currently obsessed with my Soma Supple Vitesse 700x48 tires and won't recommend any bike that can't run them. (unless they're short, then 650x48 tires are close enough)
ljsmith wrote:The thing with "gravel bikes" is that there is no such thing as a gravel bike. You can use whatever bike works best for you and your terrain. I personally recommend people find a bike that fits at least a 40mm tire, but other than that just about any bike can make a good gravel grinder.
ljsmith wrote:The thing with "gravel bikes" is that there is no such thing as a gravel bike. You can use whatever bike works best for you and your terrain. I personally recommend people find a bike that fits at least a 40mm tire, but other than that just about any bike can make a good gravel grinder.
sully wrote:I'm wondering-is there a reason I shouldn't broaden my search to touring bikes?
sully wrote:I'm specifically looking at the Kona Sutra(sadly, not available in my size for weeks and I want to be rolling faster than that) and the Marin 4 Corners(stack is a bit high for me, I think.).
sully wrote: Or am I crazy for considering touring bikes, given that I'm not expecting to ever tour longer than a weekend?
GuitarTed wrote:
Okay, devil's advocate answer here.
So, using this logic to its inevitable end, why are there any different types of bikes?
The answer is so obvious, yes? Because some bicycles do things better than others. Some "tools" are better than others for the job at hand.
Rich S wrote:I have a 2016 Kona Sutra (the touring version with the 3x9 drivetrain) that I rode at this year's Almanzo and the 5000. I DNF'd Almanzo but that was not the bike's fault at all. I also have an All City Macho Man that I usually use for gravel fun but I wanted the lower gears and bigger tires of the Kona for those two events.
I personally think the Kona rides just fine unloaded and most important is still plenty of fun. It's my daily commuter bike so I wanted something that could do it all and not feel sluggish. I've also ridden it fully loaded from Chicago to Minneapolis. It's a great jack of all trades master of none sort of bike.
I do need multiple wheelsets, LOL!
![Wink - ;) [wink]](https://cdn.websitetoolbox.com/images/boards/smilies/wink.gif)
GuitarTed wrote:
Okay, devil's advocate answer here.
So, using this logic to its inevitable end, why are there any different types of bikes?
The answer is so obvious, yes? Because some bicycles do things better than others. Some "tools" are better than others for the job at hand.
While I understand and agree with the "spirit" of your comment, the real world application is not a literal reflection of your comment. And, I think it is worth pointing out, not all of these different bicycles are designed simply to separate you from your money. They actually do work, in certain instances, better than some other bicycle choices for specific jobs. This is obvious.
So, you can say that there are "no gravel bikes", but some bicycles do work better on gravel than others, and some are purposefully designed to do gravel road riding better than others. While it isn't necessary to actually buy a bicycle designed as such, to say that they do not exist, and that they may not work better is not a wise thing to say. If it were so, then we could dispense with mountain bikes, time trial bikes, cyclo cross bikes, and on and on. That is, if we were to believe that these differences, however minute they may be, didn't matter at all.
But of course, they do matter. This is why we are here on this forum.