In this article, we use so-called affiliate links. With every purchase through these links, we receive a commission from the merchant. All relevant referral links are marked with . Learn more.
Big comparison: 16 gravel bikes in the test
- 3T Exploro Primo (Tip: sports equipment) >> available here
- Bergamont Grandurance Expert >> available here
- Bulls Machete
- Canyon Grizl CF SL 6 AXS (Tip: Test winner)
- Conway GRV 9.0 >> available here
- Corratec Allroad C2
- Fuji Jari Carbon 1.3
- Giant Revolt Advanced 2 (Tip: All-rounder)
- Koga Colmaro Extreme >> available here
- Marin Headlands 1 >> available here
- Megamo West 10
- Merida Silex 700 (Tip: Offroader)
- Rondo Ruut AL1
- Rose Backroad GRX RX820 (Tip: Test winner) >> available here
- Trek Checkpoint ALR 5 (Tip: Price/performance) >> available here
- VSF Fahrradmanufaktur GX-500 >> available here
Not so long ago, you would have been invited to a gravel bike test and the entire market presence would have fitted into the editorial office, including the box. In recent years, the latest offspring of the bike industry has not only grown up, but has also become numerous and diverse - with price ranges of 10,000 euros, equipment variants in almost uncountable combinations, specialisations in every conceivable direction and brand names that you had never heard of before. In order to organise a fair and consumer-friendly test, the field had to be narrowed down. It had to be all-rounders up to 3000 euros, which seems to be about the financial sound barrier for the average customer - no suspension, no engines, no mechanical brakes.
Percentage weight distribution of the test gravel bikes
Wheels with relatively more weight on the front wheel (right) follow steering commands more spontaneously and have more grip at the front limit, but the limit range is smaller and the steering is more susceptible to ruts. We weighed sitting on the lower link and the brake levers.
Gravel bikes up to 3000 euros: The absolute middle class
The candidates that took part in the professional comparison in the lab and on the test lap represent the entire middle class of gravel bikes that you can currently buy. Apart from expensive titanium and exotic wood, all frame materials are represented, the shifting monopolists from Shimano and SRAM contribute groupsets in nine different variants, and not all the designers have used the same blueprint for the frame geometries either. The initial concern of having to evaluate a dozen almost identical bikes has been dispelled. Nevertheless, the range of scores, especially from the mechanics labs, is not so wide that one model should be praised to the skies or another labelled unrideable.
The overall scores are all in the region of two decimal points. Understandably, no candidate has achieved absolute dream values, otherwise models costing eight or ten thousand euros would be completely pointless. Pleasingly, there are no downward outliers. Especially at an experimental stage, where "Gravel" is still in its infancy, this could well have been the case. In the safety-relevant parameters such as stiffness and brakes, the weakest grade is even a two, and all partial ratings below "sufficient" relate to the respective weight. To save the honour of those who are concerned: The grading scales also leave room for professional quality, so it is always worth looking at the actual values and the comparison with each other in addition to the certificate. See also the table with the individual grades below.
Laboratory vs. practical test
It was not without reason that we put all the models through their paces on a representative test track after the ordeal in the laboratory vice. Here, measured values were confirmed or contradictions were revealed. And where technical data was close together, differences could still be experienced with sensitive hands and an experienced popometer. The hard figures could thus be somewhat equalised, particularly with regard to the optimum range of use. This should make the purchase decision easier. Although gravel bikes are generally omnipotent bikes, there are specialisations within the category. Roughly speaking, four basic types crystallised with one or two hybrid forms:
The types among the gravel bikes
- Suitable for travelling: Increased seating comfort, good straight-line stability, good damping and attachment points for luggage and bottles are the main features; weight, speed and gear range are of secondary importance.
- The all-terrain model: Rather small gears, voluminous and more pronounced profiled tyres, enough weight on the front wheel, a snappy brake and a not too stretched posture are important, while seating comfort, top speed and stoic steering behaviour tend to be dispensed with.
- The sports equipment: Frame geometry plus handlebars for plenty of upper body support, balanced front-rear balance, finely graduated gearing, low weight of bike and wheels as well as light, less profiled tyres make you fast, with little focus on long-distance suitability and practical use.
- The Commuter: A more upright position suitable for civilian clothing, uncomplicated handling, attachment points for everyday objects and a very robust frameset, paintwork and components as well as cable ducts for lights are more important to commuters than overall weight, aerodynamics or extra-large gears.
It is impossible to combine all of these qualities, and in some cases they even contradict each other technically. The intersection of characteristics in the test models is about as colourful as the demands of potential buyers. And they can all roll along decently on gravel. No bike gave the impression of spongy steering or loss of power due to twisting at the bottom bracket. Braking in dry conditions was also impeccable throughout. There were differences in the gears, but more in the model generation and the number and gradation of gears than in the quality. And all the wheels were fitted with modern, powerful thru-axles, which, when bolted to the frame, are better able to absorb the high forces of the hydraulic disc brakes.
Differences in detail
Speaking of which: nine of the fifteen manufacturers use their own in-house wheels, once a pure cost-cutting measure with a significant loss of quality. So if the obvious differences don't separate the wheat from the chaff, it has to be the details. Even these have a noticeable effect in direct comparison. This applies in particular to the basis of every bike: the frameset. It's not just the material and shape of the tubes that have a major influence; even a few millimetres and degrees in the geometry can change the character completely.
A brief outline should help you to categorise our test results correctly later on,
The complete logic behind it would fill a book: The material and shape of the frame and fork elements are mainly responsible for stiffness (good for pedalling without loss of power and safe, dynamic steering) and flexibility (increases comfort by absorbing vibrations and small bumps). Handlebars, seatpost and stem can even be included here.
It is already clear how a conflict of objectives arises here: making bikes stiff and flexible at the same time. Incidentally, it is a myth that carbon parts are automatically brutally stiff,
steel is very flexible and aluminium is somewhere in between. Yes, you can currently achieve the highest stiffness for the same weight with carbon, but the respective processing, thickness and tube shape are at least as important Many results in the test letters are better understood with the basic rule "The thinner a component and the longer it runs without support, the more flexible it becomes".
Gear comparison of gravel bikes
The bars indicate for each bike how slowly you are travelling in the lowest gear at 60 rpm and how much km/h you are travelling in the highest gear at 90 rpm. Note: Wide spreads of the cassette as on the Merida (see picture) produce large, less economical gear jumps.
Frame geometry of the gravel bikes
Often, only the frame height is mentioned in the shop - the most vague dimension of a bike, after all, the height of the saddle can be widely adjusted. Other key data such as the angle of the bottom bracket to the saddle, the angle of the fork pivot to the ground or the length of the top tube are determined by the designer and are fixed. These parameters define whether you sit further behind the bottom bracket with your weight on your buttocks or further forwards with more weight on your pelvis and therefore more biomechanically efficient pedalling. Three degrees of tilt on the seat tube make the difference between a long-distance bike and a race model.
Similarly with the forward tilt of the upper body, a few centimetres longer frame and/or short head tube and a relaxed, semi-upright position for cruising becomes a highly sporty riding position with a better centre of gravity and aerodynamics. Bikes can be compared quite well using the established STR value, the quotient of the height and length of the frame (see individual ratings below). Our STR+ measurement in the test letters is even more practical, here the handlebars and stem are included, higher values around 1.25 stand for a more upright position, at the lowest value of 1.111 you sit in a racing position.
The position and orientation of the rider also characterise the weight distribution on the front and rear wheels. This has a very sensitive effect on the riding characteristics, especially off-road, and is therefore of particular interest for gravel bikes. The wheelbase remains a defining characteristic; the distance between the axles mainly has an effect on manoeuvrability. Rear wheels running close to the bottom bracket and steeper forks make a bike more agile, while long wheelbases and caster improve smooth directional stability. With the thick tyres of a gravel bike and very short wheelbases, you sometimes have to be careful when turning so that your shoe doesn't get caught on the front wheel.
Gearsticks and brakes: Diverse gear ratios
As mentioned at the beginning, all the gears and brakes tested do their job. The differences here lie more in the operating concept and particularly in the number, gradation and spread of gears, i.e. the difference between the smallest and largest gear. As a rule, gears are still shifted classically using a lever and Bowden cable. Only Canyon Grizl manages to install a wireless shifting system from SRAM for the budget.
Whether you prefer Shimano or SRAM is a question of faith. Beginners get on better with two shifters per hand instead of one, especially in stressful situations. In the gravel sector, single-speed cranks with just one chainring are becoming more and more popular, a trend that we can't quite understand, as it limits the range of applications, but has few counter-indications.
Is there "the best" shifting concept for gravel bikes?
If you are completely new to a bike, you may actually internalise the shifting logic behind it more quickly. With Bergamont, Koga, Giant and Corratec four candidates use 2x cranks from Shimano and were all praised for them. There don't seem to be any space problems between the small chainring and wide tyres, at least up to 48 mm tyre widths, see Koga. Sram does not even offer a special gravel crank with a double blade, so you could theoretically use the road range if there is enough space on the frame. A look at the diagram with the gear ratios shows the room for interpretation that the product managers have created for themselves when it comes to gravel.
With the single-speed models in particular, it often happened that the gears simply ran out either with a tailwind on the flat or on steep ramps. And on those with a wide gear spread, you often missed the right gear ratio on the flat because the jumps from one to the other were too big. Twelve instead of eleven sprockets make a big difference here.
The SRAM drivetrains were, apart from the Rondo and the Canyon Grizl all equipped with the new 12-speed Apex, Shimano bikes with only one chainring are only equipped with the Merida and the Rose equipped with the extra sprocket, Giant even shines with two times twelve wonderfully finely graduated gears. The ten-speed gearstick on the Bergamont doesn't come off too badly because of the double crankset. A tip for categorising a cassette on a singlespeed bike: If you subtract the number of teeth of the smallest sprocket from that of the largest and divide this by the number of cogs in the cassette, you should get a value between 3.5 and 2.5.
Sram vs. Shimano - USA vs. Japan
With SRAM, the actual brake lever is fixed, while the shift lever behind it is used to shift up and down by pressing inwards, depending on the lever travel. With Shimano, you engage the larger sprocket with the brake lever and the smaller one with the separate small shift lever behind it. The Japanese concept is more intuitive and less prone to error in hectic moments.
Complete and coherent
Wheels and tyres also give the gravel bike character. Some candidates are fitted with traditional 32-spoke wheels, others with system wheelsets (LRS) with 24 spokes. In the test, no model stood out with deficits in stiffness under hard braking or when pedalling, but rather with too much mass, which has a much greater effect on the wheels than on the rest of the bike.
In terms of tyres, it is very difficult to choose the best. Depending on the terrain, rider weight and ability, "narrow" knobbly tyres may be more suitable, or sometimes voluminous tyres with a lug pattern. For all-rounders, knobbly tyres in the 45 mm width range have proven themselves, the more flexible, the better the grip. With the exception of the Marin all rims could be converted to tubeless. We have put together a picture of the little gadgets that surprised the manufacturers.
The results at a glance
Red are the sub-scores from 5.0, orange are the values that are slightly out of line in negative terms, green are positive outliers. This allows you to exclude bikes straight away depending on your personal weighting.
*LL = for life, CR = Crash Replacement
Correctly interpret graphics & tables
The more, the better? In the case of the five-axle graphic above, this is true. In each test letter, the decisive sub-scores are shown graphically, with the good scores on the outside; the more areas coloured blue, the better the overall impression of the bike. If there are clear distortions of the pentagon shape, the bike has isolated weaknesses or "island talents". In the table above, on the other hand, high measured values are sometimes poor. In the comfort measurements, low values are better; less force was needed to deform the wheel in the sense of damping. In terms of stiffness, much is better again; more force had to be simulated to cause the frameset to torsion. The grades are classic school grades.
How to read the bar chart
The three bars provide a practical overview. The wider they are coloured, the more universal the model is. In addition to the equipment list and the test results, more subjective riding impressions were taken into account here.
- Field of application: Practical are bikes with a lot of riding comfort, good fixed points for luggage, cable ducts, good directional stability and puncture-proof profiled tyres - sporty are those with a lot of upper body support, gear ratios for speed, manoeuvrable steering and low weight.
- Substrate: Off-road here stands for unpaved trails and rough tracks, onroad for paved or even tarmac roads. Gravel and dirt tracks are pretty much in the middle.
- Seating position: Only road racers make it as far as "stretched", gravel bikes range from moderately sporty to almost upright.
