View Full Version : Road Vs Mountain Bike
What sort of % speed improvement ( if any ) is a road/racer type bike going to give over a Mountain-Bike, for commuting / moderate excercise riding on roads.
- given the same rider ( of average general fitness, not an experienced & conditioned cyclist ) & average road conditions ( i.e. not 'perfect' well surfaced road ),
- and a journey of 10miles..
Would the novice benefit more from MTB comfort over that distance, or would a 'hybrid' be the best choice ??
Thanks
"ebola" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message news:3f22c82d_1@news.chariot.net.au...
> What sort of % speed improvement ( if any ) is a road/racer type bike going to give over a
> Mountain-Bike, for commuting / moderate excercise riding on roads.
>
I average 18 mph on my mountain bike and 21mph on my road bike on a 25 mile commute. The mountain
bike is on 2.1" knobblies and is undergeared for the road and this is the main difference.
Regards Simon
I would get an MTB with slick tyres for commuting. In fact that's what I always commute on.
"Simon Galgut" <igi@chrimson.com> wrote in message
news:bfukcr$inikf$1@ID-177598.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "ebola" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message news:3f22c82d_1@news.chariot.net.au...
> > What sort of % speed improvement ( if any ) is a road/racer type bike going to give over a
> > Mountain-Bike, for commuting / moderate excercise riding on roads.
> >
>
> I average 18 mph on my mountain bike and 21mph on my road bike on a 25
mile
> commute. The mountain bike is on 2.1" knobblies and is undergeared for the road and this is the
> main difference.
>
> Regards Simon
>
Yah buy look at the difference in the effort you put in. A mountain bike uses alot more energy at 20
mph then a road bike at the same speed, because of aerodynamics and weight. Also using a mountain
bike on the road wears the tires...
Cheers,
Simon Galgut wrote:
>I average 18 mph on my mountain bike and 21mph on my road bike on a 25 mile commute. The mountain
>bike is on 2.1" knobblies and is undergeared for the road and this is the main difference.
I have my rigid frame MTB set up for long distance touring. Slick tyres pumped to 90psi, mud guards
fore and aft. It will take up to seven bags. With the bags removed it's ideal for my daily commute.
--
remove remove to reply
On 27 Jul 2003 03:57:57 +0950, ebola <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>- given the same rider ( of average general fitness, not an experienced & conditioned cyclist ) &
> average road conditions ( i.e. not 'perfect' well surfaced road ),
>- and a journey of 10miles..
>Would the novice benefit more from MTB comfort over that distance, or would a 'hybrid' be the best
>choice ??
How about an audax bike or light tourer? Perfect compromise if you ask me. Which by implication
you did ;-)
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) [currently
offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]
ebola wrote:
> What sort of % speed improvement ( if any ) is a road/racer type bike going to give over a
> Mountain-Bike, for commuting / moderate excercise riding on roads.
>
> - given the same rider ( of average general fitness, not an experienced & conditioned cyclist ) &
> average road conditions (
> i.e. not 'perfect' well surfaced road ),
> - and a journey of 10miles..
For the same perceived effort, my road bike average speeds for the same average 10mi rides under
17mph are 1 to 3mph higher than my speeds on a bog-standard rigid MTB with slick tyres. This is
considerable difference when it comes to averages. If the actual time saved is not significant then
the amount of energy required to cover the same distance definitely
is. Hill climbing is faster still (be it either seated with low gears or standing). I also find it
hard to keep up when I swap bikes with a mountain biker who is normally slower than me.
It is a different kind of experience. It comes down to what style of bike(s) you prefer (and you
won't know until you try) and what is practical enough. It's good to ride different bikes anyway.
I find the change is as good as a rest and each type makes you appreciate the qualities of the
others more.
> Would the novice benefit more from MTB comfort over that distance, or would a 'hybrid' be the best
> choice ??
A road race bike can easily be comfortable for those sort of distances - even for a novice as long
as the bars aren't too low and stretched out, and saddle and tyres aren't too outrageous. Other
factors to consider are ability to fit mudguards (some road bikes can take them, most can't
properly) and carry luggage (all bikes can take a certain amount but hybrid/tourer/MTB will be
required if you need to carry heavy loads).
~PB
Or something along the lines of the Ridgeback Swith series
http://www.ridgeback.co.uk/bike/bike.asp?seriesid=8&index=2 city mountain bikes, change the tyres
for knobblies and go off road.
Paul
Thanks for the replies.
I'm currently doing my trip on a MTB. I'd never really considered the road bikes before & since trying the bar-end type grips became curious.
Sounds like owning 2 contrasting bikes for variety may be the way to go then. Easy to justify the expenditure for daily use.
On 27 Jul 2003 20:15:33 +0950, ebola <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>Sounds like owning 2 contrasting bikes for variety may be the way to go then. Easy to justify the
>expenditure for daily use.
What I'm considering is 2 sets of wheels, one set with knobblies and one with semi-slicks, and
quick-release spindles front and back. Not as good as one bike for commuting and one for the
weekend, but should take up much less space, and be easier than changing the tyres every time I want
to do something different.
Pete Barrett
On 27 Jul 2003 20:15:33 +0950, ebola <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>I'm currently doing my trip on a MTB. I'd never really considered the road bikes before & since
>trying the bar-end type grips became curious.
Road bikes are nice, but no mudguards. A drop-bar tourer / audax bike gives mudguard clearance,
clearance for tyres with tread in winter if you want, you can mount a dynamo hub (can on an MTB,
too, but offroading would likely knacker it pretty quickly), and you get the option to get your head
down if it's windy. Second best option after a recumbent for commuting, in my view.
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) [currently
offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Road bikes are nice, but no mudguards. A drop-bar tourer / audax bike gives mudguard clearance,
> clearance for tyres with tread in winter if you want, you can mount a dynamo hub (can on an MTB,
> too, but offroading would likely knacker it pretty quickly), and you get the option to get your
> head down if it's windy. Second best option after a recumbent for commuting, in my view.
That is the /sensible/ answer purely for commuting, I agree, but a road racer will still be more
efficient and fun on-road. It could be used for good-weather commuting + fitness & recreational
rides, and the MTB for everything else. Can get a sensible bike any old time. I regret not getting a
proper road bike much earlier than I did.
I think it's worth repeating the following again because it's so important:
1. Make sure it fits well.
2. If ahead type, try and specify a long fork steerer tube so the handlebar stem can be raised if
desired. (It can be later cut down or spacers used above stem if this turns out to be
unnecessary). And/or be prepared to swap stem for one with more rise if bars are too low, and
different extension if reach is wrong.
3. Spec wider tyres if the stock ones actually measure less than 23mm - or consider 25mm anyway for
rougher roads.
4. Consider a triple chainset if riding on hilly roads or if used to low gears already.
5. Take your time getting used to it and setting it up. Don't expect instant magic on the first
ride. It will be great once you learn how to get the best out of it.
~PB
> That is the /sensible/ answer purely for commuting, I agree, ?
> but a road racer will still be more
> efficient and fun on-road.
... yes this is definitely being treated as daily recreation / excercise / hobby that doubles as getting me into work.
Fun is definitely a factor, as is the 'aesthetic & technical appeal' of the bike itself ... as such I've not yet considered those dedicated commuter type bikes with the all the sensible features.
So far I've been ok without mudguards, even in rain: I'd been counting on a change of clothing for sweat anyway.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:12:10 +0100, "Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:
>> A drop-bar tourer / audax bike [...] Second best option after a recumbent for commuting, in
>> my view.
>That is the /sensible/ answer purely for commuting, I agree, but a road racer will still be more
>efficient and fun on-road.
I know people commute on road bikes. I have considered it myself. But a quality audax bike is not
much slower (I keep up pretty well with the roadies on our Wednesday rides, and I'm riding a 1985
steel bike with racks, mudguards, dynamo etc.) and much more practical since you can carry panniers.
A Campagnolo-equipped custom Roberts with carbon forks would likely be the perfect medium-distance
commuting and leisure bike if only it weren't for the existence of recumbents ;-)
Of course it's all turning the drudgery of commuting into healthy and enjoyable exercise. Any bike
will do that, and the faster it is the better :-D
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) [currently
offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I know people commute on road bikes. I have considered it myself. But a quality audax bike is not
> much slower
Still not in the same league - when it comes to feel and handling at least. The OP wants to do more
than just commuting with it.
> (I keep up pretty well with the roadies on our Wednesday rides, and I'm riding a 1985 steel bike
> with racks, mudguards, dynamo etc.)
Yeahbut you are one hell of a fast and powerful rider - judging by the average times you post! We
need the likes of you riding for Britain by the way! :-)
~PB
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:38:07 +0100, "Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:
>> I know people commute on road bikes. I have considered it myself. But a quality audax bike is not
>> much slower
>Still not in the same league - when it comes to feel and handling at least. The OP wants to do more
>than just commuting with it.
OP says"commuting / moderate excercise riding on road" - that describes what I use my light tourer
for. I wouldn't suggest it so strongly if I didn't think it was a good fit for the stated task.
>> I keep up pretty well
>Yeahbut you are one hell of a fast and powerful rider - judging by the average times you post! We
>need the likes of you riding for Britain by the way! :-)
LOL! Not even close. The boys in France were averaging 50% more over 3350km than I can manage
over 65km.
That's the thing: I just commute and do the occasional Wednesday and Sunday ride (OK, I ride hard,
but not ludicrously so). I am not even at the edges of competitive levels of fitness, though I know
people who have lightweight road bikes who I can drop on the road because I've removed excess weight
from the most important component - the rider ;-)
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) [currently
offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]
Eg: Old fat git (45+ 200lb) 12 miles to work. Nine hills, some 20% + route through the middle of Watford.
1) 30 year old Claude Butler, 27"x1.25" alloy wheels 10 speed: 45 Minutes. Passed 4 puffing mountain bikers along the way
2) Sister-in-law's, new mountain bike, 18 gears fat knobbly tyres + front suspension : 70 minutes. Felt like I was going backwards.
On 28 Jul 2003 04:31:51 +0950, ebola <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>So far I've been ok without mudguards, even in rain: I'd been counting on a change of clothing for
>sweat anyway.
I have to say that I wouldn't even consider commuting through the winter without mudguards. I am a
complete wuss, obviously ;-)
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) [currently
offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]
In message <hsb8ivkefu6gb3o9lbh5k1h4k3fa95ccm6@4ax.com>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<guy.chapman@spamcop.net> writes
>On 28 Jul 2003 04:31:51 +0950, ebola <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
>>So far I've been ok without mudguards, even in rain: I'd been counting on a change of clothing for
>>sweat anyway.
>
>I have to say that I wouldn't even consider commuting through the winter without mudguards. I am a
>complete wuss, obviously ;-)
>
Me neither.
One thing is that they keep you a lot cleaner. As a lot of crud gets thrown up onto the back of your
coat etc. or up onto your shoes, legs, body from the front.
Secondly, once the rain has stopped (or even before it has got bad enough) - you keep on getting wet
for some time afterwards
Thirdly, the bike gets a lot dirty - it may not matter form the point of appearance, but it
certainly make a difference from the POV of the maintenance required.
On the topic of the sort of bike/diffence between MTB, road bike etc. for commuting. I'm with Guy
here on the suggestion of an Audax, light tourer type thing, in fact I was commuting 21 mile round
trip last year on my Dalesman framed tourer :-)
Sure a road bike is another alternative, if someone wants that sort of thing, but for the stated
aims, I think this fits better, and is certainly more versatile.
I would certainly expect a tourer to be quicker than a 'roadified' MTB I have an old MTB frame that
is now used as a town/utility/towing the trailer bike. Originally built up for urban transport in
London - ok it isn't light - hub gears, and brakes and various other useful bits of this and that,
but is fitted with slicks. Used on the above or other similar journeys it is noticeably slower.
>Guy
>===
>** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) [currently
>offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]
Warning - this sig might be out of date :-)
--
Chris French, Leeds
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> OP says"commuting / moderate excercise riding on road" - that describes what I use my light tourer
> for. I wouldn't suggest it so strongly if I didn't think it was a good fit for the stated task.
I agree a light tourer would be a good fit for the stated task. I'm reading between the lines and
reckon it could be worth going one step further. It's just one more option.
For many years, my only bike was a tourer - one that was described as a "fast tourer" (even though
it was heavy by today's audax bike standards). I'd never owned or even /properly/ ridden a decent
lightweight racer, so I didn't really know what I was missing and would have found it difficult to
afford a better bike. I rode the bike as hard as I could on local rides, and went as far as I could
manage on circular day trips.
I eventually bought a road race bike, quite recently actually: 1999. I was expecting it to be
different of course, but it far, far exceeded my expectations when it came to speed and handling,
but best of all, the ease at which I could cover the longer distances (in reasonable comfort). 40
miles felt like 25 on the tourer. No exaggeration. 25 miles knackered me on the old bike. This
change happened after I had passed my physical peak, and I regret not getting my act together in my
youth and getting a road bike them. I could have been a contender! :-)
THAT is why I encourage anyone who even vaguely fancies the idea to go for it - providing they
understand the practical downsides (having a second more practical bike really does help) and can
afford to loose money through depreciation if it doesn't work out. You can't turn back the clock. I
know people of all ages enjoy road bikes, but it's better to start sooner rather than later, in my
opinion. The sensible bike can wait a bit longer.
. . . . . . . . . .
>> Yeahbut you are one hell of a fast and powerful rider - judging by the average times you post! We
>> need the likes of you riding for Britain by the way! :-)
>
> LOL! Not even close. The boys in France were averaging 50% more over 3350km than I can manage
> over 65km.
>
> That's the thing: I just commute and do the occasional Wednesday and Sunday ride (OK, I ride hard,
> but not ludicrously so). I am not even at the edges of competitive levels of fitness
The supermen who ride the Tour are mind boggling - I just can't begin to comprehend how they manage
25 to 30mph averages for those distances. Whole different world. But if you can average 20mph on a
tourer then you must be good enough for amateur road racing, I would have thought. That's over the
edge, innit?
~PB
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
