MTB vs 'Cross?

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.

To quote the highest authority, S. Brown [1], "D.H. - Down Hill,
specifically, down hill racing. This activity that goes against the
spirit of cycling more than any other branch of the sport, since it is
the only branch of cycling which is not powered by the riders' muscles.
This sport should, perhaps, be considered a branch of motorcycling, not
cycling."

[1] At <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_da-o.html>.

--
Tom Sherman

It's called "coasting" a real waste of time. cyclists pedal.

Quoted message said:

It's called "coasting" a real waste of time. cyclists pedal.

Is that why they have a rep for being chain smokers?

Per Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman:

Quoted message said:

To quote the highest authority, S. Brown [1], "D.H. - Down Hill,
specifically, down hill racing. This activity that goes against the
spirit of cycling more than any other branch of the sport, since it is
the only branch of cycling which is not powered by the riders' muscles.
This sport should, perhaps, be considered a branch of motorcycling, not
cycling."

[1] At <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_da-o.html>.

I always thought that... but figured I was the only one.
--
PeteCresswell

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

....
To quote the highest authority, S. Brown [1], "D.H. - Down Hill,
specifically, down hill racing. This activity that goes against the
spirit of cycling more than any other branch of the sport, since it is
the only branch of cycling which is not powered by the riders' muscles.
This sport should, perhaps, be considered a branch of motorcycling, not
cycling."

[1] At <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_da-o.html>.

--
Tom Sherman

Wouldn't whether or not it's powered by the rider's muscles depend on how
the cyclist got to the top of the hill? I agree that taking a ski lift or
some other mechanized means up the hill wouldn't involve muscles, but any
hill you RIDE up earns you the right to coast down. 8)

Chuck Davis

Ryan Cousineau said:

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.

I'm running a 42t single ring with double guards and it seems to work for me for
everything. I've got a 13-26 in the back and that's really enough range for
racing 'cross, road riding (yeah, I'm slow) and playing on the single track. If
I were riding with groups on the road, I'd need a bigger ring and I do live in
flat Tampa, so your mileage will vary.

Quoted message said:

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.

I love it because it's pretty much how we raced bikes when we were kids: "to the
end of the road, left through the foundations they dug for the new houses, down
the trail behind Tim's house and back on the road near the orchard."

Quoted message said:

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.

Yep, pretty cool just riding _A_ bike.

Quoted message said:

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).

Hehe. Since I got my Redline, my old road bike goes back to being the road bike
and it's safe from the mud.

Ron

RonSonic said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

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.

I'm running a 42t single ring with double guards and it seems to work for me for
everything. I've got a 13-26 in the back and that's really enough range for
racing 'cross, road riding (yeah, I'm slow) and playing on the single track. If
I were riding with groups on the road, I'd need a bigger ring and I do live in
flat Tampa, so your mileage will vary.

Quoted message said:

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.

I love it because it's pretty much how we raced bikes when we were kids: "to the
end of the road, left through the foundations they dug for the new houses, down
the trail behind Tim's house and back on the road near the orchard."

Quoted message said:

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.

Yep, pretty cool just riding _A_ bike.

Quoted message said:

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).

Hehe. Since I got my Redline, my old road bike goes back to being the road bike
and it's safe from the mud.

Ron

that's exactly why I like that weird bike I had made. It's a cross bike
with 26 inch wheels. I can go pretty much anywhere. Just change the
tyres to suit the condition. I have a bit more top end than some with a
48x12 as well, so road riding is still pretty good.

anyway here it is in case anyone cares

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1344/bike13dt.jpg

Per Brian S:

Quoted message said:

that's exactly why I like that weird bike I had made. It's a cross bike
with 26 inch wheels. I can go pretty much anywhere. Just change the
tyres to suit the condition. I have a bit more top end than some with a
48x12 as well, so road riding is still pretty good.

anyway here it is in case anyone cares

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1344/bike13dt.jpg

That's kind of what I had in mind except that I'd use disc brakes to get
wheel-interchangeability with my FS and hardtail.

Did the maker design it from the ground up tb a 26 or did he just lower the
brake mounts?
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per Brian S:

Quoted message said:

that's exactly why I like that weird bike I had made. It's a cross bike
with 26 inch wheels. I can go pretty much anywhere. Just change the
tyres to suit the condition. I have a bit more top end than some with a
48x12 as well, so road riding is still pretty good.

anyway here it is in case anyone cares

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1344/bike13dt.jpg

That's kind of what I had in mind except that I'd use disc brakes to get
wheel-interchangeability with my FS and hardtail.

Did the maker design it from the ground up tb a 26 or did he just lower the
brake mounts?

this is what it was org

http://www.marinbikes.com/bicycles_2006/html/bikes/bike_specs/specs_novato_9.html

I just prefer drop bars, so changed the front end. Didn't go with disc
to keep it being a sleeper. Same reason why I went with barcons. That
and they're simpler design that's more suited to communting/strange
riding imho.

Now if it was only a little lighter...

In article <[email hidden]>, Brian S

Quoted message said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per Brian S:

Quoted message said:

that's exactly why I like that weird bike I had made. It's a cross bike
with 26 inch wheels. I can go pretty much anywhere. Just change the
tyres to suit the condition. I have a bit more top end than some with a
48x12 as well, so road riding is still pretty good.

anyway here it is in case anyone cares

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1344/bike13dt.jpg

That's kind of what I had in mind except that I'd use disc brakes to get
wheel-interchangeability with my FS and hardtail.

Did the maker design it from the ground up tb a 26 or did he just lower the
brake mounts?

this is what it was org

http://www.marinbikes.com/bicycles_2006/html/bikes/bike_specs/specs_novato_9.h
tml

I just prefer drop bars, so changed the front end. Didn't go with disc
to keep it being a sleeper. Same reason why I went with barcons. That
and they're simpler design that's more suited to communting/strange
riding imho.

Now if it was only a little lighter...

I've a MTB similarly configured (drop bars with barcons). A real
challenge was getting the bars high enough - they're still a bit low
for my taste. I see you've still room left north of your stem, no so
with my setup; and the downtube shifter cable routing is an anomaly in
current MTB frames, but I prefer it over the top tube alternative.

How do you like the Dia-Compe levers? No complaints about the action,
but I dislike the narrow hood profile - reminds me of old Shimano Aero
levers. Too bad Dia-Compe doesn't offer an ergonomic alternative.

Luke

Brian S said:

Quoted message said:

It's called "coasting" a real waste of time. cyclists pedal.

Is that why they have a rep for being chain smokers?

I just don't get the mentality where you HAVE to climb a hill before you
ride down it. I guess I understand the feeling of acomplishment from
getting to the top. I've ridden up many mountains in my life (and still do)
and it's pretty cool. But you have to admit the real fun is riding back
down after. Getting dozens of runs downhill a day is a blast.

I have a friend who will not ride a shuttle or lift to the top of a mountain
while mountain biking but is an avid alpine skiier who rides lifts all day
rather than putting "skins" on his skis and skiing back to the top. I
dunno, don't make sense to me.

Mike

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman:

Quoted message said:

To quote the highest authority, S. Brown [1], "D.H. - Down Hill,
specifically, down hill racing. This activity that goes against the
spirit of cycling more than any other branch of the sport, since it
is the only branch of cycling which is not powered by the riders'
muscles. This sport should, perhaps, be considered a branch of
motorcycling, not cycling."

[1] At <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_da-o.html>.

I always thought that... but figured I was the only one.

To be honest I feel like that about downhill skiing.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

Michael Dart said:

Brian S said:

Quoted message said:

It's called "coasting" a real waste of time. cyclists pedal.

Is that why they have a rep for being chain smokers?

I just don't get the mentality where you HAVE to climb a hill before you
ride down it. I guess I understand the feeling of acomplishment from
getting to the top. I've ridden up many mountains in my life (and still do)
and it's pretty cool. But you have to admit the real fun is riding back
down after. Getting dozens of runs downhill a day is a blast.

I have a friend who will not ride a shuttle or lift to the top of a mountain
while mountain biking but is an avid alpine skiier who rides lifts all day
rather than putting "skins" on his skis and skiing back to the top. I
dunno, don't make sense to me.

Mike

Well I prefer going uphill, even though I am a gravity boy. Same thing
with skiing. Cross country is a lot more interesting for me. You get to
go somewhere, explore, rather than being dependent on just going down.
Sure it's fun and all, but I want the variety.

Luke said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Brian S

Quoted message said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per Brian S:
> that's exactly why I like that weird bike I had made. It's a cross bike
> with 26 inch wheels. I can go pretty much anywhere. Just change the
> tyres to suit the condition. I have a bit more top end than some with a
> 48x12 as well, so road riding is still pretty good.
>
> anyway here it is in case anyone cares
>
> http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1344/bike13dt.jpg
That's kind of what I had in mind except that I'd use disc brakes to get
wheel-interchangeability with my FS and hardtail.

Did the maker design it from the ground up tb a 26 or did he just lower the
brake mounts?

this is what it was org

http://www.marinbikes.com/bicycles_2006/html/bikes/bike_specs/specs_novato_9.h
tml

I just prefer drop bars, so changed the front end. Didn't go with disc
to keep it being a sleeper. Same reason why I went with barcons. That
and they're simpler design that's more suited to communting/strange
riding imho.

Now if it was only a little lighter...

I've a MTB similarly configured (drop bars with barcons). A real
challenge was getting the bars high enough - they're still a bit low
for my taste. I see you've still room left north of your stem, no so
with my setup; and the downtube shifter cable routing is an anomaly in
current MTB frames, but I prefer it over the top tube alternative.

How do you like the Dia-Compe levers? No complaints about the action,
but I dislike the narrow hood profile - reminds me of old Shimano Aero
levers. Too bad Dia-Compe doesn't offer an ergonomic alternative.

Luke

Actually, I have the bars a little high compared to my usual road setup.
I will get the fork cut sometime soon. Yes the cable routing is a
little odd, but it is being marketed as a city bike, so the need for top
cable routing wasn't necessary I suppose.

I actually like the design of the older non sti/ergo levers. I tend to
hook my pinky in behind around the drops when my hands ride in the
hoods. I can't do that with sti shifters. I don't know why, but it feels
more secure. Esp when I'm going off road. I had a funny double take when
I saw that the LBS put them on. I hadn't seen Diacomp anything for 10
years or so, but from what I've read, they are the best solution when
using those brakes.

The stock cables and housing are junk. They worked fine until about two
months ago. The action is pretty stiff now. That'll be the first thing I
do to the bike in the next month or so, aside from cleaning it. Other
than that, I find it's a great do/go anywhere bike. I can't wind it up
past 60km/h in a sprint but, it's fine in the high 40's and with that
gearing, I can climb walls.

Brian S said:

RonSonic wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hehe. Since I got my Redline, my old road bike goes back to being the road bike
and it's safe from the mud.

Ron

that's exactly why I like that weird bike I had made. It's a cross bike
with 26 inch wheels. I can go pretty much anywhere. Just change the
tyres to suit the condition. I have a bit more top end than some with a
48x12 as well, so road riding is still pretty good.

anyway here it is in case anyone cares

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1344/bike13dt.jpg

Neat bike. I was threatening to do something like that to my 80s HKEK, but a wtb
ad in RBM got such a deal on the Redline frame and since I do race that got the
nod.

I really like tough versatile bikes that you don't have to worry about.

Ron

Quoting Michael Dart <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

getting to the top. I've ridden up many mountains in my life (and still do)
and it's pretty cool. But you have to admit the real fun is riding back
down after. Getting dozens of runs downhill a day is a blast.

It may well be but it's not cycling, a human-powered activity.

Quoted message said:

I have a friend who will not ride a shuttle or lift to the top of a mountain
while mountain biking but is an avid alpine skiier who rides lifts all day
rather than putting "skins" on his skis and skiing back to the top. I
dunno, don't make sense to me.

I prefer downhill skiing too. That's fine. What I don't do is call it the
same thing as cross-country skiing.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Gloucesterday, February.

Brian S? said:

Well I prefer going uphill, even though I am a gravity boy. Same thing
with skiing. Cross country is a lot more interesting for me. You get to
go somewhere, explore, rather than being dependent on just going down.
Sure it's fun and all, but I want the variety.

Cross-country skiing CAN be a practical activity akin to normal
cycling.

Downhill skiing is NOT a practical activity (at least not with typical
modern equipment), nor is downhill riding on a bike not suited for
other uses.

Cross-country skiing can be a very low environmental impact activity
(often requires no motorized transport to reach the activity area),
requires minimal infrastructure, and typically has less impact than
hiking and off-road cycling, since the snow cover protects the trails.

Downhill skiing by comparison is an infrastructure heavy (lifts,
cleared ski runs, lodges) activity that typically uses considerable
amounts of non-renewable fossil fuels to reach the ski area. Due to the
much greater travel times and expense, downhill skiing is an activity
for the bourgeoisie, while cross-country skiing is accessible to the
most of the proletariat.

--
Tom Sherman

Quoted message said:

Downhill skiing by comparison is an infrastructure heavy (lifts,
cleared ski runs, lodges) activity that typically uses considerable
amounts of non-renewable fossil fuels to reach the ski area. Due to the
much greater travel times and expense, downhill skiing is an activity
for the bourgeoisie, while cross-country skiing is accessible to the
most of the proletariat.

Karl Marx was a champion alpine skiier.

Brian S said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per Brian S:

Quoted message said:

that's exactly why I like that weird bike I had made. It's a cross
bike with 26 inch wheels. I can go pretty much anywhere. Just change
the tyres to suit the condition. I have a bit more top end than some
with a 48x12 as well, so road riding is still pretty good.

anyway here it is in case anyone cares

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1344/bike13dt.jpg

That's kind of what I had in mind except that I'd use disc brakes to get
wheel-interchangeability with my FS and hardtail.

Did the maker design it from the ground up tb a 26 or did he just
lower the
brake mounts?

this is what it was org

http://www.marinbikes.com/bicycles_2006/html/bikes/bike_specs/specs_novato_9.html

I just prefer drop bars, so changed the front end. Didn't go with disc
to keep it being a sleeper. Same reason why I went with barcons. That
and they're simpler design that's more suited to communting/strange
riding imho.

See my previous posts regarding 26" vs 700c. And for an update today on
the way back from Laughlin, NV I stopped off in the Mojave National
Preserve and took my Soma out for a long 50/50 on- and off-road spin. I
even did it with 70psi in the 32mm 'cross tires and felt more
comfortable than I do with my usual 50psi in 26" tires. I guess there
is something to say about the larger diameter wheels, especially while
rolling over washboard and natural desert pavement
(http://geology.about.com/library/bl/images/bldesertpave.htm).

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

Per G.T.:

Quoted message said:

and felt more
comfortable than I do with my usual 50psi in 26" tires.

How fat are those 26-ers?

My rides got a *lot* more comfortable after I dropped my pressures from the max
rated to a few pounds over the min. In my case it was from about 55 to 40.
Might not work so well on relatively-skinny tires, but mine are 55/55's and they
even roll better at the lower pressure.
--
PeteCresswell