Ignoring my own advice never to read the comments section on Cyclingnews; whilst sinking into a recent piece about the USA team not supporting its gravel athletes this year, I was yet again surprised by the sentiment many have towards the UCI Gravel Worlds Championships, calling it 'bike path world champs' and a 'disgrace to USA gravel'. This last comment triggered me briefly, because as for how I see gravel, courses can be whatever they like, there is no definition of what makes it a true gravel course vs one that isn't.
If you haven't seen the course, you can see the UCI Gravel World Championships route here - it's about a 50/50 split between rough surface and road. The race kicks off in Halle, loops around the south side of Brussels, and finishes in Leuven. It's actually one of the only gravel races on the calendar that has a distinctly different and far-apart start and finish, making it different in its own right, but possibly logistically harder for those riders without a support team.
Along that course, we go from gravel to road, through parks, bike paths, forests and cities. So what makes a race a gravel race?
Latest Videos From
Let's look at Unbound: Sure it's 90% gravel but it's essentially a boring road race on unfinished roads - 20 kilometres straight without a single turn. But that's all Kansas has to offer. Belgian Waffle Ride California is less than 40% gravel but is seen as hardcore, technical, and crazy. People rave about how fun this race is, but never complain about the 60% road, because they know that's what the area has to offer.
For the first Gravel Worlds - I covered this point in my blog back then - they did an excellent job even finding a gravel course in that area. Again, theme building here (It's based on what they have). Sure, a lot was bike path, but it was an epic race. Not because it had a gnarly section, nor because it was pure gravel, but because of who was racing and what we were racing for - our sport's first recognition on the big stage.
So now three years into gravel being a "sport", there are those who are firing shots yet again at the UCI for the course that we've seen, but before getting on the anti-UCI bandwagon, let's consider a few things.
Belgium is inarguably the hub of cycling, no other nation loves cycling like Belgium, and the vibe at the Flanders Road World Championships in 2021 was wild. Gravel needs that buzz, that's the whole reason to race/ride/live for in gravel. So Belgium hits the sweet spot right there.
We're set on Belgium then, but one downside for gravel riding is that Belgium is either highways, farm roads, farm land, suburbs and/or industrial areas. The forests near major cities are small and rarely connect without crossing highways, so planning a 187km race is pretty hard to do. So a 50/50 split of road/off-road is pretty good. Paul Voss, German national gravel champion has said that despite the road sections, the gravel really requires good bike skills, it's hard, and is a 'real gravel course'. He also expresses the caveat that it's great, given that the area has challenges to be an endless gravel course, but is a real race nonetheless.
Would he use a road bike? No. Would he use an MTB? No. So it's a gravel race. But why are we so set on defining what a gravel race should or need to be? For example, for Sea Otter in Girona, it would have perhaps been better to use a light MTB. Steamboat could be won on a road bike with tough tyres, and BWR California is less than 50% dirt, but one of the iconic races in Gravel. So why do we have higher standards for World Championships?
I think the bigger issue/ consideration is the fact that the course needs to fit so many people.
Elite men have 300-plus starters. That is wild. Unbound, Traka have 200-4000 starters, but at most, 100 elite riders at the front. 300 riders all realistically fighting for the win? This is insane. Then launched directly after, the age groups. I had a terrible start at Worlds last year and was caught by waves of age-group riders. If the course was more 'single track' or smaller roads, the conditions of the course wouldn't allow huge numbers. The bottlenecks would end people's chances, and the fights for entering sectors would cause huge crashes.
The course it seems has been designed to be fun, challenging, but open enough to have space to ride through the group without being stuck in the back of a long, long line. But it begs the most pressing question; has enough been done to ensure gravel riders get to start near the front of the race?
The bigger issue I see coming, through anecdotal evidence and casual conversations, is sadly, the true Gravel pros, the riders who race elite gravel races as their main race calendar, and who are financially sponsored as Gravel Specialists are losing interest in the UCI gravel world championships.
It isn't because of the course though, or a lack of federation support, it's because of a lack of voice we have to be on a level playing field. The start box arrangement is based on a combination of points: from UCI gravel races, 50% road race points, 50% MTB disciplines, 50% CX points and any points from the previous year's world championships. It's literally impossible for a dedicated gravel rider to match even 50% of the UCI points from a road season.
At the UCI Gravel World Series Sea Otter race in Girona a few weeks ago, we had a seriously impressive start list. Great. I love a competitive, fast race. But at the start, the race organisers decided to do a call-up box, to start in front of the Elite riders. It seemed like a completely arbitrary decision of names, all the WorldTour riders, but also Alejandro Valverde and Petr Vakoc, both ex-WorldTour, but no longer competing on the road. Notably omitted from the advanced start box were the USA and German national gravel champions.
Personally, I'm not in fantasy land here. In my peak form in my road career, it would have been a fluke or stroke of luck to win against Wout van Aert, Mathieu van der Poel, and the likes. Stretching into my "golden years" that fluke chance has diminished to a vanishing point. But that doesn't mean I don't want to have fair representation and a fair shot, and I think my fellow gravel pros feel the same.
We've got some work to do with the UCI, not a fight, but just more discussions to make sure those of us in our ranks who truly can compete are given a fair chance to do so. And trust me - these gravel specialists can take on any surface, bike path, road, or Belgian roundabout.
