in message <[email hidden]>, Saint
('giant2334@no_spam.com') said:I have never had a mountain bike at all so am totally
unfamiliar with their geometry and ride. However I think
that, aesthetically, some of them look really cool. I am
(almost) sure I read somewhere that if you fit one with a
decent pair of less knobbly tyres, that they perform well
on the road.
I would have thought they weigh a bloody ton,
regardless of what tyres are on them, particularly
those with full sus?
I regularly do short road distances on my mountain bikes
between off-road sections. I would not choose one for an all
road journey because my road bike is better at that, but if
you're going over a mix of surfaces a good mountain bike
copes better with road than a road bike - however good -
copes with rough off-road.
However...
I have a road bike - an unpretentious but not [censored] Raleigh,
about twelve years old. It weighs 28lbs[1]. I have a rigid
(no suspension) mountain bike, a Scott Sawtooth, about
fifteen years old. It weighs 31lbs. I have a full suspension
Klein Mantra with V brakes, about four years old. It weighs
30lbs. I have a full suspension Cannondale Jekyll with disk
brakes, less than one year old. It weighs 27lbs[2]. My
partner has a full suspension Santa Cruz Juliana with disk
brakes, less than one year old. It weighs 26lbs.
Now, granted, any one of those full suspension bikes is
worth at new prices at least four of the road bike. And if
you spent the sort of money on a road bike that the full
suspension bikes are worth you'd get a bike weighing 18lbs
or less. But it is just not true that a full suspension bike
needs to weigh 'a bloody ton'.
So why not ride one on the road?
First issue is tyres. Not only do big knobblies make a lot
of noise and wear much faster than smooth road tyres, they
also have a much larger contact patch. Given that I weigh
about 200lbs and I run my road bike tyres at 110psi my road
contact patch (allowing for the weight of the bike and
clothing) must be a smidgen over 2 square inches, or one
square inch per tyre. By contrast I run my knobblies around
60psi - less in muddy conditions - so the contact patch is
nearly double. That, obviously, increases drag, but it also
contributes to the second issue...
The second issue is handling. A good road bike has very
sharp handling. It responds instantly to very small steering
or position inputs. By contrast, a mountain bike has not to
be thrown off line by roots and rocks in the track. Its
angles are slacker, its trail greater, and its overall
directional stability much higher. The larger contact patch
further degrades the responsiveness.
The third issue is rigidity. No-one wants a really rigid
bike - except perhaps on the track - but on a smooth road
the more rigid a frame is the more of your energy is
transmitted at the contact patch. Even with the suspension
locked out a full suspension is less rigid than a rigid
frame. However, this argument can be overplayed. Even
slight unevennesses in the surface - as on poorly
maintained tarmac - throw a bike around to the extent that
some suspension actually improves the consistency of grip
at the contact patch, and consequently your ability to get
power down onto the road.
The final issue is gearing. Mountain bikes are geared very
low to cope with absurd gradients and difficult surfaces.
The top gear on a typical mountain bike will be about 30%
lower than the top gear a road bike. This means that your
feet have to spin more times for every flat tarmac mile
travelled, which is fine if you're a really good spinner but
most of us aren't.
[1] Sorry about the imperial weights. The only thing I've
got to weigh them on is the bathroom scale.
[2] Edinburgh Bicycle Co-op quote 'about 29lbs' for this
year's model. I weighed mine using the same
Quoted message said:PS: Hope there are not too many positive replies to this
thread - I might want one next!! ;-)
--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗
X-no-archive: No, I'm not *that* naive.