Winners' Bikes??

It seems to me like manufacturers are missing out on a huge opportunity here. As you can see by these forums and the huge increase in attendance at these events, there is clearly a lot of interest in gravel racing. So why aren't manufacturers advertising that they have won any gravel events. In fact, I wouldn't know what any single winner of any of these races has won by looking at the results. 

It is a no-brainer here to add the model of bicycle to the results pages of these races. How hard can it be? It'll show us all what people are actually racing (and winning on) and will be free advertising for manufacturers and will also give them an incentive to make a better bike to show up higher on results. 

Someone please make this happen.

It might not matter to you but if 50% of finishers are riding a certain bike that is valuable information. Maybe knowing which bike people ride would have the opposite effect of what you think. We might find out that high-ranking riders don't all have thru-axle-equipped bikes and that QR is adequate. \n \nThe more information the better.

Disagree. If I win a race (I don't ), I object to a bike manufacturer claiming their bike won to sell more bikes unless they are sponsoring me and it's part of a contractual agreement. Any manufacturer that did that would lose my respect and my business. I tend to finish in the top 10% of the gravel races I have entered but never come close to the podium. There are dozens of bikes that would yield the same result and tens of thousands of component permutations, but there was only one constant: me.

But that's the thing Architect; we don't know what those "dozens" of bikes are. Are they the few bikes that keep getting discussed in the "Bikes" forum (e.g., GT Grade, Jamis Renegade, Salsa Warbird, Niner RLT, etc.) or are they something else that doesn't get discussed? We don't know unless we see for ourselves at a race. 

I don't poke my head in here much, but this topic was intriguing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot recall Pro Road racing results including the bike manufacturer, nor does cyclo cross, as far as I can tell.

Sometimes mtb results will include what type of bike was ridden, but many times, I don't see that there either.

Usually, it is on the manufacturer's marketing team to pick up on that and promote it. Again, you typically don't see a lot of that anymore either.

For what it is worth, I am of the mind that gravel racing tends to favor an approach which may lead to wildly differing choices depending upon the rider, race, and the demands of the conditions on any given day. For example, the winners of the most recent Trans Iowa race were on the following bikes: Co-winners Mens Open, Salsa Carbon Warbird/Surly Cross Check, Womens Open, Specialized carbon cantilever brake cyclo cross bike, Single Speed/Fixed, All City Nature Boy.

So, a wide disparity in bikes. By the way, all these bikes were in the top ten, plus a 29"er, and Trek Boone disc CX bike.

Thank you for your input Guitar Ted. Also, I love the podcasts, keep them coming. \n \nYou are right, it is not something you see cycling wide. I find it to be interesting though. I wouldn't have guessed Surleys finish that high up. They aren't race bikes. That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about.

I think the more interesting question is what tires did they run. Bag setups would be interesting too. 

There's not a big enough audience yet for "we have the bike that wins the most!" Think of it as more bang for your buck in terms of marketing. Right now the trendy thing is simply to say "we have gravel/adventure bikes!". That's it. That's all that's needed. It appeals to a why audience. It sells bikes. It works. Now eventually after a few years and every brand saying "we have gravel/adventure bikes!" marketing will begin to target specifics. Some people want gravel to be smoother. "We have built in suspension!!" Some people want a road bike but with MTB tires. "We have increased tire clearance!" Some people love tech. "We have a built in tool kit!" \n \nName a dominant wins everything Gravel racer? House hold name. We have regional names but not nation wide. Gravel racing is still more about fun than corporate dollars. You won? Awesome dude, here's a piece of wood with you name etched in it. Here's a belt buckle. Here's a handmade treasure. Personally I LOVE this aspect. Until Gravel racing becomes more about winning everything...there's just now a need to market to the small niche crowd that cares. \n \nDon't get me wrong. I love numbers and stats. It would be fun to see. But what event are we talking about winning? Gravel events are not the same. That's what makes them so fun and that's what still keeps them more about the rider and the weather than the bike. \n \nI think. Who knows. I'm about to have my second cup of coffee and my opinion could change after that.

I have seen SS win mostly, with a few fat bikes....its the rider....muddy conditions favor SS or internal gearing....

I like to know winners bikes too, but not in a corporate way. What GT mentioned about TI winners bikes is enough for me. As an enthusiast it's very interesting.

If I was a bike company...I'd 100% for sure include results where my bike was ridden in a win of a major race, at least in some sort of blog post or newsletter. Of course congratulating the rider, telling a little about the race, and the bike. It certainly is a opportunity to promote your bike. Unless it was a sponsored rider...I wouldn't take it further than that though. It's obvious that the gravel scene is growing and bike companies are taking notice. It's just a matter of time before the major bike companies have their own version of gravel grinders on the market and pro teams, or at least sponsored riders, entering the races. It's just the natural progression of the sport.

The race results are within the jurisdiction of the race promoter (whether it be a non-profit, bike club, UCI-sanctioned, post-card event, unofficial, etc)...what motivation or incentive do you think a given race promoter might have to unnecessarily commercialize their event in this way?

What if they published the make/model of the DNFs and the bottom 10% (now THAT I'd like to see!). 

Promoter might not have incentive unless the race is sponsored by a particular brand that just happens to be used by the winning rider. But the bike company certainly has nothing to lose by keeping tabs on some of the larger races going on like DK200 or Trans Iowa, ect and posting up on their site/blog/newsletter that their bike was the winning bike.

drwelby wrote:I think the more interesting question is what tires did they run. Bag setups would be interesting too. 

I'm reviving this thread to get feedback on what sort of coverage you folks would like to see from this year's Dirty Kanza. 

I'll be racing/reporting from the event again this year, so let me know what sort of things you'd like to know more about and I'll try to tailor my coverage accordingly. 

Bags, tires, check. 

Josh @ BikeRadar 

Mechanical, human failures, weather,cheaters,women in race,support stops what happens there and fun stuff. The best energy supplements etc...

Definitely the human aspect but of course we all love the gear related stuff too.

Dirty Kanza winner had a Cannondale Slate, but I think the fact that he's a  former Grand Tour rider might've had more to do with it than bike choice. He had 3 flats in the back half, nothing in the first 100 (but he did note that it's been a long time since he had changed flat himself). I don't know if he was riding tubeless or not. I think his front wheel was the stock Slate wheel, but I didn't catch his rear wheel.

Thanks! See I love hearing about that stuff. Still waiting on an interview with King. \n \nAlso, I can't help but think this post had something to do with this poster.

From his blog,a few days before DK. http://www.iamtedking.com/2016/06/toto-were-in-kansas-again/