MTB vs 'Cross?

A modern cross bike doesn't make a very good touring bike. In the past
a touring bike was used as a cross bike so it was the other way around.

The only difference of any note between the old unsuspended mountain
bikes and a cross bike is the tire width.

Mountain bikes were meant to be ridden over EVERYTHING and so they have
big wide balloons that will drag you through sticky mud without your
having to put a foot down. But since cross bikes were meant as a kind
of racing bike, it's faster to throw the bike over your shoulder and
run. This way you're not only faster through the muddy section, but you
don't get 30 lbs of mud caked on the bike jamming the wheels, the
brakes and screwing up the derailleurs and shifting.

It's my belief that suspension has really screwed up mountain biking.
It has made it so easy that there's too little skill required. In order
to increase the challenge of riding, whacked out MTBers now go down
suicide hills and take wild chances at super speeds where a slip
doesn't end in gravel rash as it once did but broken bones, shattered
equipment and possible death.

Real riders know this and that's why MTB sales are dropping among the
cognoscenti and cyclocross bike sales are booming.

Tom said:

It's my belief that suspension has really screwed up mountain biking.
It has made it so easy that there's too little skill required.

If only this were true...

(PeteCresswell) said:

What are the diffs between an MTB and a mountain cross bike?

- SUS vs rigid fork

- 26" vs 700c wheels

- Flat vs Drop bars

Anything else?

I've heard a couple of people say that they use a 'cross bike as a touring/road
bike.

I've been thinking along those lines, but with a MTB frame as the basis instead
of a 'cross frame.

The biggest difference I see in the frame if the BB height. Touring
frames typically have a low BB, which makes it easier to dab at stops,
but not so good for rock clearance.

(PeteCresswell) said:

What are the diffs between an MTB and a mountain cross bike?

- SUS vs rigid fork

- 26" vs 700c wheels

- Flat vs Drop bars

Anything else?

I've heard a couple of people say that they use a 'cross bike as a touring/road
bike.

I've been thinking along those lines, but with a MTB frame as the basis instead
of a 'cross frame.

Well, I finally switched my "road bike" from an old Bontrager OR mtn
bike frame with drop bars to a Soma Double Cross. The problem with
using a mtn bike frame for the road is that the top tubes for a given
size are much longer on the mtn bike frame. The Bontrager was a short
top tube mtn bike since it was from long before Fisher's Genesis
geometry (loooooooooooooooong top tubes, short stems) started
influencing mtn bike geometries. My Bontrager and Soma have similar
length seat tubes but the top tube on the Soma is almost 25mm shorter.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

(PeteCresswell) said:

What are the diffs between an MTB and a mountain cross bike?

- SUS vs rigid fork

no sus = lighter, better for sprinting (unless you have lockout)

Quoted message said:

- 26" vs 700c wheels

700 can roll through thing better IMO

Quoted message said:

- Flat vs Drop bars

drop bars matter if you're a road snop =D

Quoted message said:

Anything else?

I've heard a couple of people say that they use a 'cross bike as a touring/road
bike.

heard of that as well. from what I learned it's becomes a case "it does
it all, but does it badly". I'd pick one or the other, unless you don't
care about performance.

Quoted message said:

I've been thinking along those lines, but with a MTB frame as the basis instead
of a 'cross frame.

I had a fully rigid city/mountain bike modified to be essentially a
cross/commuter bike. Put on drop bars with barcons instead of the flat
bars etc. I like it a lot. Only did one cross race with it last year
though (in the snow with studded tyres).

I like having the tyre choice with 26ers. I can put on huge tyres and
plow through snow, ruts, rocks and fly downhill. Drop on some semi
slicks and bounce on and off the road into fire trails and such. Or just
slap on some slicks and cruise down the road. It's hard to find good
semi slicks that are under 1.7s unfortunately.

The only downside I find with it, is that 26ers don't roll through some
things as well as a larger tyre (hence some peoples interest in 29s I
guess) and it has a semi sloping top tube. Aside from that, I think it's
fab. My LBS thought I was a bit nutty when I told them what I wanted to
do with it, but they came around and thought it was pretty cool.

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

What are the diffs between an MTB and a mountain cross bike?

- SUS vs rigid fork

- 26" vs 700c wheels

- Flat vs Drop bars

Anything else?

I've heard a couple of people say that they use a 'cross bike as a
touring/road
bike.

I've been thinking along those lines, but with a MTB frame as the basis
instead
of a 'cross frame.

Well, I finally switched my "road bike" from an old Bontrager OR mtn bike
frame with drop bars to a Soma Double Cross. The problem with using a mtn
bike frame for the road is that the top tubes for a given size are much
longer on the mtn bike frame. The Bontrager was a short top tube mtn bike
since it was from long before Fisher's Genesis geometry
(loooooooooooooooong top tubes, short stems) started influencing mtn bike
geometries. My Bontrager and Soma have similar length seat tubes but the
top tube on the Soma is almost 25mm shorter.

How does it work out for you?

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Tom said:

A modern cross bike doesn't make a very good touring bike. In the past
a touring bike was used as a cross bike so it was the other way around.

FWIW, it's quite possible to build a competent 'cross bike that will
also serve very well for LIGHT touring and commuting (ask me how I
know...). ;-) I agree that it would be difficult to optimize both
off-road performance AND the ability to carry 80 pounds of gear over
mountain passes... but if you can accept a
"higher-than-normal-road-bike" bottom bracket for light touring and
commuting, the design criteria for both aren't far enough apart that
it's impossible to build a bike that does both quite well.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Tom said:

A modern cross bike doesn't make a very good touring bike. In the past
a touring bike was used as a cross bike so it was the other way around.

The only difference of any note between the old unsuspended mountain
bikes and a cross bike is the tire width.

Mountain bikes were meant to be ridden over EVERYTHING and so they have
big wide balloons that will drag you through sticky mud without your
having to put a foot down. But since cross bikes were meant as a kind
of racing bike, it's faster to throw the bike over your shoulder and
run. This way you're not only faster through the muddy section, but you
don't get 30 lbs of mud caked on the bike jamming the wheels, the
brakes and screwing up the derailleurs and shifting.

It's my belief that suspension has really screwed up mountain biking.
It has made it so easy that there's too little skill required. In order
to increase the challenge of riding, whacked out MTBers now go down
suicide hills and take wild chances at super speeds where a slip
doesn't end in gravel rash as it once did but broken bones, shattered
equipment and possible death.

Real riders know this and that's why MTB sales are dropping among the
cognoscenti and cyclocross bike sales are booming.

(PeteCresswell) said:

What are the diffs between an MTB and a mountain cross bike?

I have never heard of a "a mountain cross bike."

If you just mean a 'cross bike as in short for cyclocross bike, I've got one and
think everyone else should too. Properly, these are race bikes, but the courses
are so varied that building them as a specific race bike means they're still
extremely versatile. They work well on the road, but are a good bit taller than
a real loaded tourer. This shouldn't be a problem unless you are loading it up.

If you mean "cross bike" as in the recently invented category that describes a
flat bar bike sort of like a mountain bike but oriented more for casual riding
on smooth trails, I don't know much about them. I do have an old real mountain
bike a rigid 80s HooKooEKoo I use for just banging around. It fits the same
profile as these "cross" bikes but is really better in just about every possible
way.

Quoted message said:

- SUS vs rigid fork

- 26" vs 700c wheels

- Flat vs Drop bars

Anything else?

I've heard a couple of people say that they use a 'cross bike as a touring/road
bike.
I've been thinking along those lines, but with a MTB frame as the basis instead
of a 'cross frame.

Get an old school rigid mtb and build it to suit. Cheap too. Modern MTB frames
are built around the suspension fork that you won't need unless you're bombing
over roots and rocks.

Ron

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:SnqJf.64918$bF.45769@dukeread07...

Quoted message said:

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well, I finally switched my "road bike" from an old Bontrager OR mtn

bike

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

frame with drop bars to a Soma Double Cross. The problem with using a

mtn

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bike frame for the road is that the top tubes for a given size are much
longer on the mtn bike frame. The Bontrager was a short top tube mtn

bike

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

since it was from long before Fisher's Genesis geometry
(loooooooooooooooong top tubes, short stems) started influencing mtn

bike

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

geometries. My Bontrager and Soma have similar length seat tubes but

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

top tube on the Soma is almost 25mm shorter.

How does it work out for you?

It's awesome, best road bike fit I've ever had. I think that's also because
of the wealth of positive rise threadless stems out there now, I have the
tops of the bars level with the seat which I've never had on any of my
previous road bikes. Plus I love my Salsa Bell Laps, I ride in the drops
most of the time now so I don't think I'm going to add 'cross brake levers
to the tops.

And with 29ers gaining popularity I can run tires that are almost as wide as
the ~50mm tires I ran on the Bontrager. I can throw anything from 28mm road
tires to 50mm front/42mm rear tires on this frame.

Greg

Per RonSonic:

Quoted message said:

I have never heard of a "a mountain cross bike."

If you just mean a 'cross bike as in short for cyclocross bike,

Mea Culpa. I'm kind of wrecked today. The damn cat was agitated all last
nite. Must've been that monster front moving through. If I could have grabbed
and thrown it outside without losing too much blood it would probably still be
out there...
--
PeteCresswell

The gearing is usually different. My MTB has a 20x34 lowest gear and a
triple crank but my cyclocross bike has only a 34x30 with my dirt
wheels mounted. A few 'cross bikes are being made with triple cranksets
but most are geared more like a road bike.

My 'cross bike clears a 42mm tire in the back with just 5mm on either
side of the frame. So frame clearance is also a big difference.

(PeteCresswell) said:

What are the diffs between an MTB and a mountain cross bike?

- SUS vs rigid fork

- 26" vs 700c wheels

- Flat vs Drop bars

Anything else?....

Does Mikey V. also hate cyclocross?

--
Tom Sherman

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

The gearing is usually different. My MTB has a 20x34 lowest gear and a
triple crank but my cyclocross bike has only a 34x30 with my dirt
wheels mounted. A few 'cross bikes are being made with triple cranksets
but most are geared more like a road bike.

That's because you run with a 'cross bike when the going gets steep
enough.

There are nominal cyclocross bikes out there with triples, but the pure
racing bikes (Euro stuff like the Empella, distinguished by light
weight, big expense, and not having any eyelets) generally run doubles,
and a lot of them end up with single front rings (and chainguards on
boths sides) when actually raced.

Quoted message said:

My 'cross bike clears a 42mm tire in the back with just 5mm on either
side of the frame. So frame clearance is also a big difference.

The thing about cyclocross bicycles is that they have big clearances and
cantis, making them suitable for fat tires, fenders, or both. They also
tend to be lighter (and have racier geometry) than full-on touring
bicycles.

The beauty of a good cyclocross bike is that it can be light enough to
credibly road-race, it works in cyclocross too, but the clearances (and
eyelets, in the case of most of the more sensible frames) mean it can
work as a fender-equipped bike, too.

This versatility is really built into the nature of cyclocross event
routes, which tend to be composed of every surface from ashphalt to deep
mud, and lots of off-road surfaces in between.

If I had to pare down to only one frame for some reason, it would be an
easy choice to pick a 'cross machine, and I could happily use such a
bike with minimal compromise for all my current rides: road racing,
commuting, rides with fenders, cyclocross, and anything else that might
come up.

FWIW, my current "cyclocross" bike is a rather dreadful 1970s Motobecane
touring frame, to which I have added a canti-equipped fork and mostly
modern running gear. I use it for commuting and winter training. Come
Fall, the fenders come off, the knobbies go on, and it's racing season.
If I had to, I could race this bike in the summer too, but I have a
roadworthy frame already (which, oddly enough, I raced cyclocross on
last year).

--
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

Tom said:

It's my belief that suspension has really screwed up mountain biking.
It has made it so easy that there's too little skill required. In
order to increase the challenge of riding, whacked out MTBers now go
down suicide hills and take wild chances at super speeds where a slip
doesn't end in gravel rash as it once did but broken bones, shattered
equipment and possible death.

Hey I resemble that remark!

http://www.pbase.com/mrdart/image/48475250

Since there's no skill required you can come ride with me anytime. ;^)

Quoted message said:

Real riders know this and that's why MTB sales are dropping among the
cognoscenti and cyclocross bike sales are booming.

Fine with me. You "dirt roadies" can get off my trails and stop
straightening out turns and removing obstacles. If you want straight and
fast go back out on the road.

Mike

Michael Dart said:

Tom said:

It's my belief that suspension has really screwed up mountain
biking. It has made it so easy that there's too little skill
required. In order to increase the challenge of riding, whacked out
MTBers now go down suicide hills and take wild chances at super
speeds where a slip doesn't end in gravel rash as it once did but
broken bones, shattered equipment and possible death.

Hey I resemble that remark!

http://www.pbase.com/mrdart/image/48475250

Good grief. To each their own, but why not just buy a motorcycle and
be done with it? All that bike is missing is an engine.

Personally I'd rather have a bike that's fun to ride *uphill* and is
good for something other than going down the fall line. Tastes vary,
I guess. Enjoy your riding.

Tim McNamara said:

Michael Dart said:

Tom said:

It's my belief that suspension has really screwed up mountain
biking. It has made it so easy that there's too little skill
required. In order to increase the challenge of riding, whacked out
MTBers now go down suicide hills and take wild chances at super
speeds where a slip doesn't end in gravel rash as it once did but
broken bones, shattered equipment and possible death.

Hey I resemble that remark!

http://www.pbase.com/mrdart/image/48475250

Good grief. To each their own, but why not just buy a motorcycle and
be done with it? All that bike is missing is an engine.

Personally I'd rather have a bike that's fun to ride *uphill* and is
good for something other than going down the fall line. Tastes vary,
I guess. Enjoy your riding.

Hehehe..I'll admit it's a bit excessive. But it's a ton of fun. I do have
bikes for climbing and enjoy earning my turns as much as anyone.
Downhilling is just a different aspect of cycling. Though I'll differ with
anyone who says it's easy just because of suspension. All the suspension
does is enable me to maintain control at speed.

Mike

(PeteCresswell) said:

What are the diffs between an MTB and a mountain cross bike?

- SUS vs rigid fork

- 26" vs 700c wheels

- Flat vs Drop bars

Anything else?

I've heard a couple of people say that they use a 'cross bike as a
touring/road bike.

I've been thinking along those lines, but with a MTB frame as the
basis instead of a 'cross frame.

Of my friends who've entered cross races on a MTB say they had a ton of fun
but got smoked in the open due to not having enough gear inches to keep up
riding a 26" wheel and MTB gearing. The chainstays are spread to allow a
fat tire but won't allow a road size chainring. Suspension adds no
advantage as 'cross courses are smoother with obstacles that require you to
carry your bike across them. Suspension would be a liabilty by absorbing
energy from pedaling forces.

It can be done, and you'll have fun, but you won't be competitive with the
true cross bikes.

Mike

In article <[email hidden]>, Mark Hickey

Quoted message said:

Tom said:

A modern cross bike doesn't make a very good touring bike. In the past
a touring bike was used as a cross bike so it was the other way around.

FWIW, it's quite possible to build a competent 'cross bike that will
also serve very well for LIGHT touring and commuting (ask me how I
know...). ;-) I agree that it would be difficult to optimize both
off-road performance AND the ability to carry 80 pounds of gear over
mountain passes... but if you can accept a
"higher-than-normal-road-bike" bottom bracket for light touring and
commuting, the design criteria for both aren't far enough apart that
it's impossible to build a bike that does both quite well.

Corroborating your observations, my experience is that both types of
bikes can competently serve as light tourers. But short chainstays on
both designs can make the positioning of rear panniers awkward; and the
range of tire sizes the CX'er (with full fenders) accommodates can also
limit its capabilities.

There are little details also. The majority of MTBs and CXers don't
ship with forks equipped with low-rider mounting bosses so fitting a
front rack and panniers requires improvisation. And on some (sloping
top-tube) MTBs the seat-tube water bottle cage position precludes the
use of taller water bottles.

For a cross-country, fully loaded, self-supporting tour neither choice
is best.

Luke