'Cross Bikes: Why Not Front Shocks?

Rules?

Carrying Weight?

Or do some have them?
--
PeteCresswell

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

Rules?

Carrying Weight?

Or do some have them?
--
PeteCresswell

No, none do. Limited utility, small market. When you say 'cross bikes',
well there are 'cross bikes and there are 'cross bikes. True cross
bikes have long triagles, no bottle cages, easy to shoulder, light to
run with. Most 'cross' bikes you see in shops are not really 'cross'
bikes but more of an 'adventure' bike with rack eyelets and such. For
these, I think a front shock would not be a bad idea but still a small
market.

It's been done very occasionally, usually on courses with seriously
rooty descents. The one I'm thinking of was some years ago in the
British series, and the guy in question (who did win) commented that
the weight penalty was instantly noticeable every time he shouldered
the bike. In an event which involves so much hefting of bike over
obstacles, weight really is crucial.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Marvin said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

Rules?

Carrying Weight?

Or do some have them?
--
PeteCresswell

No, none do. Limited utility, small market. When you say 'cross bikes',
well there are 'cross bikes and there are 'cross bikes. True cross
bikes have long triagles, no bottle cages, easy to shoulder, light to
run with. Most 'cross' bikes you see in shops are not really 'cross'
bikes but more of an 'adventure' bike with rack eyelets and such. For
these, I think a front shock would not be a bad idea but still a small
market.

It's been done very occasionally, usually on courses with seriously
rooty descents. The one I'm thinking of was some years ago in the
British series, and the guy in question (who did win) commented that
the weight penalty was instantly noticeable every time he shouldered
the bike. In an event which involves so much hefting of bike over
obstacles, weight really is crucial.

Also, really rough courses are pretty rare. If you watch a few cross
races, they typically feature some sort of running obstacle (cycling.tv
showed a race featuring a staircase ascent which the riders ran up at an
unearthly speed), but the dirty parts of the race tend towards sand or
mud or packed dirt.

The principle seems to be that the course should favour a road bike with
dirt-optimized tires (35-38mm knobbies).

An XC mountain bike course, on the other hand, should have technical
ascents and descents which favour a bike designed for rougher service.

The other essential difference is that XC races, at least in theory, are
self-supported: you carry the tools, no outside support during the race
except for feeds*. 'Cross races allow outside support, and on some very
muddy races, the pros will even have two bikes, and as the bike becomes
mud-encrusted, they will pit and swap, leaving their mechanic to clean
up the bike for the next swap.

The difference between cross and XC MTB gets shaded a bit at the
margins: the UCI recently banned disc brakes on cross bikes (!) because,
um, I guess it wasn't 'crossy to have disc brakes. Meanwhile, there
seems to be some relaxing of the outside support rules for XC.

Just to make things extra confusing, experiments with front and rear
suspension are regularly done at the Paris-Roubaix, which is nominally a
road race, though one with numerous very rough cobbled sections. George
Hincapie, runner-up in this year's P-R, rode a Trek OCLV road bike with
a prototype elastomer rear suspension.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/apr05/roubaix05/tech/?id=discovery
-t-mobile/L1000212

http://tinyurl.com/8mh23

Share & Enjoy,

*Unless you're Roland Green

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

I have some Rock Shox Ruby forks laying around if you want to give it a
try. They aren't that heavy (about 2 lbs I think) but they only have a
little over an inch of travel. Steerer is 1 inch, about 240mm,
threadless.

-Ron Ruff

Cuz people who ride cyclocross like the pain. That's why races are
held in the cold and mud. Who needs shocks?? Seriously
A carbon fork is all that's needed for the light off roading cross
bikes are great for. Why bother with the weight and limited travel?

Quoted message said:

Why bother with the weight and limited travel?

Beats me... I don't even have shocks on my mountain bike.

-Ron

Ron Ruff said:

I have some Rock Shox Ruby forks laying around if you want to give it a
try. They aren't that heavy (about 2 lbs I think) but they only have a
little over an inch of travel. Steerer is 1 inch, about 240mm,
threadless.

-Ron Ruff

A few people have been using Pantour hubs in Cyclocross, that only adds about 1/4 lb to the bike.

meb said:

Ron Ruff Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have some Rock Shox Ruby forks laying around if you want to give it a
try. They aren't that heavy (about 2 lbs I think) but they only have a
little over an inch of travel. Steerer is 1 inch, about 240mm,
threadless.

Quoted message said:

A few people have been using Pantour hubs in Cyclocross, that only adds
about 1/4 lb to the bike.

I've heard rumors about the lack of reliability of the Pantour hub.
http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=6111

Along the same vein, it has always seemed like this would be a good
place for the rebirth of the old suspension stem concept. I think you
could make one of those pretty light, and it would take the edge off the
bumps.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

quote='dvt'meb said:

Ron Ruff Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have some Rock Shox Ruby forks laying around if you want to give it a
try. They aren't that heavy (about 2 lbs I think) but they only have a
little over an inch of travel. Steerer is 1 inch, about 240mm,
threadless.

Quoted message said:

A few people have been using Pantour hubs in Cyclocross, that only adds
about 1/4 lb to the bike.

I've heard rumors about the lack of reliability of the Pantour hub.
http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=6111

Along the same vein, it has always seemed like this would be a good
place for the rebirth of the old suspension stem concept. I think you
could make one of those pretty light, and it would take the edge off the
bumps.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu[/QUOTE]

The major problems have been the rear hubs rather than the front, although there have been a small minority of wear problems with front elastomers and Pantour seems to forget to grease the bearings on new wheels as well.

In a competition setting changing elastomers should be an acceptable maintenance element for 1/2 or 1 inch travel for only a 4 oz. burden over other hubs.

quote='dvt'meb said:

Ron Ruff Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have some Rock Shox Ruby forks laying around if you want to give it a
try. They aren't that heavy (about 2 lbs I think) but they only have a
little over an inch of travel. Steerer is 1 inch, about 240mm,
threadless.

Quoted message said:

A few people have been using Pantour hubs in Cyclocross, that only adds
about 1/4 lb to the bike.

I've heard rumors about the lack of reliability of the Pantour hub.
http://www.bentrideronline.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=6111

Along the same vein, it has always seemed like this would be a good
place for the rebirth of the old suspension stem concept. I think you
could make one of those pretty light, and it would take the edge off the
bumps.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu[/QUOTE]

The suspension stems would seem to a great alternative to Pantours or suspension forks, although slightly heavier than the Pantours, and not springing as much weight. Greater longevity with the suspension stems,
might make a better choice for a commuting cyclocross bike or one used only occaisionally for competition.