Any comments/competition for Marin's urban bikes? Mtb/<1.75 " tires

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Lobo Tommy, Sep 24, 2004.

  1. Lobo Tommy

    Lobo Tommy Guest

    Interested in any comments any one has about Marin's urban bikes or
    any bikes (competition) they may have? The only other bike I've seen
    like these is the Kona Smoke.
     
    Tags:


  2. SuperSlinky

    SuperSlinky Guest

    Lobo Tommy said...

    > Interested in any comments any one has about Marin's urban bikes or
    > any bikes (competition) they may have? The only other bike I've seen
    > like these is the Kona Smoke.


    A mountain bike with some sort of pavement friendly tire can do anything
    an urban bike or hybrid can, only better.
     
  3. Dan Daniel

    Dan Daniel Guest

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:48:04 GMT, SuperSlinky <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Lobo Tommy said...
    >
    >> Interested in any comments any one has about Marin's urban bikes or
    >> any bikes (competition) they may have? The only other bike I've seen
    >> like these is the Kona Smoke.

    >
    >A mountain bike with some sort of pavement friendly tire can do anything
    >an urban bike or hybrid can, only better.


    Except that most MTBs sold these days have front shocks. Others may
    think front shocks are great on the road, but I find them silly.
     
  4. Dan Daniel

    Dan Daniel Guest

    On 24 Sep 2004 10:59:07 -0700, [email protected] (Lobo Tommy) wrote:

    >Interested in any comments any one has about Marin's urban bikes or
    >any bikes (competition) they may have? The only other bike I've seen
    >like these is the Kona Smoke.


    Bikes like the Kona Dr. Dew, etc. Specialized Sirrus. Cannondale Bad
    Boy, Road Warrior. Jamis Street Series. Seems like many companies have
    similar ideas floating around.

    I have a Marin Muirwoods. Nice frame, nice ride. If it fits what you
    want, no reason not to buy it. At the same time, if I had found a 1990
    Stumpjumper frame and fork, I could have built up a similar rig
    myself.
     
  5. SuperSlinky

    SuperSlinky Guest

    Dan Daniel said...

    > Except that most MTBs sold these days have front shocks. Others may
    > think front shocks are great on the road, but I find them silly.


    Couldn't disagree more. Not only are front shocks useful on pavement,
    but rear ones are as well. Some roads are as rough as rooty and rocky
    single track. Some single track is as smooth as fresh asphalt. On many
    roads, my MTB is faster and safer than my road bike, mainly because it
    can take a hell of a lot more punishment without something very bad
    happening. I'll keep saying it whether anybody chooses to believe me or
    not. MTBs are some of the best road bikes ever made. I average 3-4mph
    faster on my road racing bike compared to my 29lb FS MTB on long road
    rides. Now that I have a real road bike, I'm having difficulty finding
    routes that aren't made up bone rattling and bike trashing crappy roads.
    These same roads I have floated over countless times on the FS MTB.
    Nothing beats FS for urban riding. The question there isn't why have
    suspension, but why on earth wouldn't you want it.
     
  6. Dan Daniel

    Dan Daniel Guest

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:08:19 GMT, SuperSlinky <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Dan Daniel said...
    >
    >> Except that most MTBs sold these days have front shocks. Others may
    >> think front shocks are great on the road, but I find them silly.

    >
    >Couldn't disagree more. Not only are front shocks useful on pavement,
    >but rear ones are as well. Some roads are as rough as rooty and rocky
    >single track. Some single track is as smooth as fresh asphalt. On many
    >roads, my MTB is faster and safer than my road bike, mainly because it
    >can take a hell of a lot more punishment without something very bad
    >happening. I'll keep saying it whether anybody chooses to believe me or
    >not. MTBs are some of the best road bikes ever made. I average 3-4mph
    >faster on my road racing bike compared to my 29lb FS MTB on long road
    >rides. Now that I have a real road bike, I'm having difficulty finding
    >routes that aren't made up bone rattling and bike trashing crappy roads.
    >These same roads I have floated over countless times on the FS MTB.
    >Nothing beats FS for urban riding. The question there isn't why have
    >suspension, but why on earth wouldn't you want it.


    Try 32mm tires on a road bike :)
     
  7. Mike Kruger

    Mike Kruger Guest

    "SuperSlinky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > .... I average 3-4mph
    > faster on my road racing bike compared to my 29lb FS MTB on long road
    > rides.


    > Nothing beats FS for urban riding. The question there isn't why have
    > suspension, but why on earth wouldn't you want it.


    Didn't you answer your own question?
     
  8. bri719

    bri719 Guest

    Dan Daniel wrote:

    >Except that most MTBs sold these days have front shocks. Others may
    >think front shocks are great on the road, but I find them silly.
    >


    one word: lockout :)

    they sure don't hurt when negotiating potholes...they're not always as
    kind to your rim though.

    bri
     
  9. bri719

    bri719 Guest

    Dan Daniel wrote:

    >On 24 Sep 2004 10:59:07 -0700, [email protected] (Lobo Tommy) wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Interested in any comments any one has about Marin's urban bikes or
    >>any bikes (competition) they may have? The only other bike I've seen
    >>like these is the Kona Smoke.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Bikes like the Kona Dr. Dew, etc. Specialized Sirrus. Cannondale Bad
    >Boy, Road Warrior. Jamis Street Series. Seems like many companies have
    >similar ideas floating around.
    >


    another model which may be similar to what you guys are talking about...

    http://www.electrabike.com/04/bikes/townie/townie_home.html

    they actually have a few different variations I guess. I've noticed one
    of the main differences is a lot of these bikes go off a 24" wheel which
    makes them lower to the ground for stability and maybe a little easier
    to pedal at low speeds with SS and the front ring set slightly ahead. I
    even sat on a chopper style bike yesterday with an 8 speed cassette,
    grip shift, and single chainring. again, had the smaller tires. single
    rear brake, it was interesting but wasn't really gonna buy it -- just
    HAD to see how it felt.

    I think I'd rather just buy a beach cruiser myself instead of an "urban"
    cycle if I was going that way (something slow just to cruise around on).

    bri

    >
    >
     
  10. maxo

    maxo Guest

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:59:07 -0700, Lobo Tommy wrote:

    > Interested in any comments any one has about Marin's urban bikes or any
    > bikes (competition) they may have? The only other bike I've seen like
    > these is the Kona Smoke.


    I rode a Marin San Anselmo with the 7sp nexus for 5 years and LOVED it. It
    really was a perfect bike: fenders, rack, fast 700c wheels.

    The wheels were built with cheap Alex Rims, but built well with fat DT
    spokes, I trued them once in something like 20K miles.

    The geometry was perfect too, it was a fendered urban transport device,
    but with more aggressive angles than your average comfort bike.

    The only drawback is that the aluminum frame was way overbuilt--great when
    hauling back 50 lbs of Indian groceries, but a very harsh ride, so think
    about getting a fancier saddle than the stock one. I got t-boned by a car
    once--the bike was thrown half a block (I survived without a scratch).
    Some Chinese exchange students came to the rescue and bent the fenders
    back into place--funniest and most polite thing you ever did see--but the
    bike itself was perfect!
     
  11. maxo

    maxo Guest

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:48:22 -0700, Dan Daniel wrote:

    > why on
    >>earth wouldn't you want it.

    >
    > Try 32mm tires on a road bike :)


    Exactly, a properly made rigid frame with a decent tire is going to be a
    lot more fun to ride in the city. My road bike with 25mm tires is much
    more supple and comfy than most new fat tired "comfort" bikes.

    Suspensions on urban bikes overcomplicates them and adds ten pounds of
    unnecessary weight. Great for the woods, but I think city bikes should
    stick to the KISS principle.

    I'm also a fan of 700c wheels instead of 26 inchers--supposedly the
    rolling resistance is less, but I just think they feel better. 26 inch
    wheels are nice in the regard that any store that carries bike stuff, be
    it Target or Walmart or whatever gross mass-retailer, will stock tubes. :D
     
  12. SuperSlinky

    SuperSlinky Guest

    maxo said...

    > Exactly, a properly made rigid frame with a decent tire is going to be a
    > lot more fun to ride in the city. My road bike with 25mm tires is much
    > more supple and comfy than most new fat tired "comfort" bikes.


    What a load of horse dump. But in any case, I don't care for comfort
    bikes at all, which was my original point.

    > Suspensions on urban bikes overcomplicates them and adds ten pounds of
    > unnecessary weight. Great for the woods, but I think city bikes should
    > stick to the KISS principle.


    With a bike shop never more than a few miles away, why should city bikes
    be simpler than mountain bikes? Logic, my friend, sometimes comes in
    quite handy. The vast majority of people carry more than ten pounds of
    unnecessary weight around their midsection, but at any rate, urban and
    comfort bikes are seldom lightweight. Even if they were light, they are
    quite unsuitable for any type of racing, so a few pounds more or less is
    about as close to the perfect definition of irrelevant as we can get.

    > I'm also a fan of 700c wheels instead of 26 inchers--supposedly the
    > rolling resistance is less, but I just think they feel better. 26 inch
    > wheels are nice in the regard that any store that carries bike stuff, be
    > it Target or Walmart or whatever gross mass-retailer, will stock tubes. :D


    Well, fandom does not a rational position make. Skinny 700c wheels have
    zero practical advantages over 26" wheels for urban use. Rolling
    resistance may in fact be less for 26" wheels, all things being equal,
    but it is without a doubt the least of my worries while sitting at a
    stoplight. The advantages of having a bike that can go anywhere and do
    anything are just too numerous to list and should be obvious to anyone
    who really thinks about it for a minute.
     
  13. SuperSlinky wrote:
    > maxo said...
    >
    > > Exactly, a properly made rigid frame with a decent tire is going to

    be a
    > > lot more fun to ride in the city. My road bike with 25mm tires is

    much
    > > more supple and comfy than most new fat tired "comfort" bikes.

    >
    > What a load of horse dump. But in any case, I don't care for comfort
    > bikes at all, which was my original point.


    I'm with maxo. His point is certainly not "horse dump". I don't care
    what you choose to ride, but to say that you _need_ a full suspension
    to negotiate most urban obstacles is ridiculous. Even flights of stairs
    really only require a hardtail if the rider knows what she's doing.

    > With a bike shop never more than a few miles away, why should city

    bikes
    > be simpler than mountain bikes?


    Um, because the closer the bike is to zero maintenance, the better? I
    have no problem frequently tuning the 9-speed drivetrain on my MTB, but
    it would drive me fucking bananas if I had to constantly do the same on
    my commuter.

    > urban and comfort bikes are seldom lightweight.


    Really? First of all, I'm not sure why you insist on equating "urban"
    and "comfort". Second, a good minimalist urban rig can be pretty damn
    light.

    > Well, fandom does not a rational position make. Skinny 700c wheels

    have
    > zero practical advantages over 26" wheels for urban use.


    Heh heh. Try putting 25c slicks on your full suspension.

    Then again, don't. You'd look really damn silly.

    > The advantages of having a bike that can go anywhere and do
    > anything are just too numerous to list and should be obvious to

    anyone
    > who really thinks about it for a minute.


    I ride through potholes, over curbs, on gravel, grass, and mud. On a
    700c fixed gear. I don't ride singletrack with it, but I recently did
    60 miles on a gravel trail, no problem. Anybody with a small modicum of
    riding skill doesn't need a full suspension to ride through a pothole.
    CC
     
  14. maxo

    maxo Guest

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:31:08 +0000, SuperSlinky wrote:

    > Skinny 700c wheels have
    > zero practical advantages over 26" wheels for urban use


    Larger diameter wheels skim over irregularities in the road better and
    offer a more stable ride because of the increased gyroscopic action. There
    are plenty more advantages (and disadvantages).

    I'm going to come out and say it: using a full suspension MTB as a city
    bike is idiotic (unless you use it in the woods as well and it does double
    duty of course).

    >Logic, my friend, sometimes comes in quite handy.


    Yes it does, so use it you arrogant bouncy boy. ;)

    can't mount a traditional rack
    cant mount real fenders
    mushy handling
    more prone to theft because of the "bling" factor
    more things to go wrong and break
    you can ride alongside potholes and not over them
    you can purchase 3-4 nice rigid bikes for the price of a decent FS bike
    and on and on and on...

    Ten pounds makes a huge difference with an urban ride that needs to be
    lifted on to bus racks and so on.
     
  15. Dan Daniel

    Dan Daniel Guest

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:31:08 GMT, SuperSlinky <[email protected]>
    wrote:


    >
    >Well, fandom does not a rational position make. Skinny 700c wheels have
    >zero practical advantages over 26" wheels for urban use. Rolling
    >resistance may in fact be less for 26" wheels, all things being equal,
    >but it is without a doubt the least of my worries while sitting at a
    >stoplight. The advantages of having a bike that can go anywhere and do
    >anything are just too numerous to list and should be obvious to anyone
    >who really thinks about it for a minute.


    Bike messengers make their living on having a bike that can go
    anywhere and do anything in an urban environment. I don't know if I've
    ever seen one on a full suspension bike. Or front suspension. Or even
    a rigid MTB more than a few times. You'd think that if there any
    advantages to what you like to ride, they'd be using them.

    You're certainly not the only one here talking like this, I know. I
    pay much more attention to people who present their position without
    resorting to insults. It's tiring to pick out the real points from the
    other detritus.
     
  16. "Lobo Tommy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Interested in any comments any one has about Marin's urban bikes or
    > any bikes (competition) they may have? The only other bike I've seen
    > like these is the Kona Smoke.


    The Novarra Buzz (http://tinyurl.com/7y6dh) fits in this category. There's
    one parked in the bike rack at work just about every day, so there's someone
    out there using it for daily urban commuting.


    --
    Warm Regards,

    Claire Petersky
    please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
    Home of the meditative cyclist:
    http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
    Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
    See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
     
  17. Dan Daniel

    Dan Daniel Guest

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:01:19 GMT, bri719
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Dan Daniel wrote:
    >
    >>Except that most MTBs sold these days have front shocks. Others may
    >>think front shocks are great on the road, but I find them silly.
    >>

    >
    >one word: lockout :)
    >


    When you get to the low end bikes, $500- 800 maybe, is lockout a
    feature? I'm not paying attention to what's available these days.

    >they sure don't hurt when negotiating potholes...they're not always as
    >kind to your rim though.
    >
    >bri


    Well, front suspension is one way to deal with potholes. I've found
    that wider tires and riding to avoid potholes and ride lightly works
    well for me. I've lost one rim in the last two decades to a road
    hazard- running head on into a brick on the shoulder on a commute.
    This was a plain brain-dead moment on my part. Maybe a shock would
    have kept the rim from bending (it was ridable, just crimped and
    bent). And I've also had one pinch flat in all that time.

    There are so many bikes out there with shocks and so few people
    actually getting around town with any sort of bike, far be it for me
    to discourage anyone from riding. If a shock makes someone willing to
    hit the streets, then I'm all for them.... for their bike, that is :)
     
  18. SuperSlinky

    SuperSlinky Guest

    Corvus Corvax said...

    > I'm with maxo. His point is certainly not "horse dump". I don't care
    > what you choose to ride, but to say that you _need_ a full suspension
    > to negotiate most urban obstacles is ridiculous. Even flights of stairs
    > really only require a hardtail if the rider knows what she's doing.


    I never said it was needed, just nice to have. You can ride an 1880
    widowmaker bike if you so desire, but that doesn't make it the most
    sensible choice.

    > Um, because the closer the bike is to zero maintenance, the better? I
    > have no problem frequently tuning the 9-speed drivetrain on my MTB, but
    > it would drive me fucking bananas if I had to constantly do the same on
    > my commuter.


    You are entitled to your point of view, but my 9-speed drivetrain gives
    me very little trouble, especially after such light duty as commuting.
    In over a year and a half, the only thing I have done to my XT/XTR drive
    train is clean it and use the barrel adjusters once in a while.

    > Really? First of all, I'm not sure why you insist on equating "urban"
    > and "comfort". Second, a good minimalist urban rig can be pretty damn
    > light.


    I don't equate them 100%, but some manufacturers do. But then, there
    really isn't much of a definition for either term. Maybe you missed my
    statements where I gave my opinion of the value of weight savings. But
    if you insist, show me some weights for bikes marketed as 'urban'.

    > Heh heh. Try putting 25c slicks on your full suspension.
    >
    > Then again, don't. You'd look really damn silly.


    Why would I want to do that? Quite a number of tires are suitable for on
    or off-road use. I use Michelin Jet S now as a do everything tire, but
    slicks are available for anybody who wants them.

    > I ride through potholes, over curbs, on gravel, grass, and mud. On a
    > 700c fixed gear. I don't ride singletrack with it, but I recently did
    > 60 miles on a gravel trail, no problem. Anybody with a small modicum of
    > riding skill doesn't need a full suspension to ride through a pothole.
    > CC


    Well, if you like the extra challenge of handicapping yourself, then
    that is your choice. My opinions are based on making things easier, not
    harder. If you are trying to convince anyone your bike would survive
    potholes and curbs better than a FS MTB, then I'll take that bet. But
    there are lots of road challenges for which the fixie won't cut it, for
    example going off the pavement onto a soft shoulder, riding through an
    overgrown ditch or dropping off that 3' wall between the Wendy's and
    Fazoli's parking lots.
     
  19. bri719

    bri719 Guest

    Dan Daniel wrote:

    >When you get to the low end bikes, $500- 800 maybe, is lockout a
    >feature? I'm not paying attention to what's available these days.
    >


    not necessarily on your average $500 bike...but one for $800 these days,
    yeah. almost all decent front forks come with a lockout mechanism if
    you want to go rigid.

    >Well, front suspension is one way to deal with potholes. I've found
    >that wider tires and riding to avoid potholes and ride lightly works
    >well for me.
    >


    right on. not to get too involved in this discussion, I just like to
    point out that a hardtail MTB is almost perfectly suited for any kind of
    getting around.

    bri
     
  20. SuperSlinky wrote:
    > Dan Daniel said...
    >
    >
    >>Except that most MTBs sold these days have front shocks. Others may
    >>think front shocks are great on the road, but I find them silly.

    >
    >
    > Couldn't disagree more. Not only are front shocks useful on pavement,
    > but rear ones are as well. Some roads are as rough as rooty and rocky
    > single track. Some single track is as smooth as fresh asphalt. On many
    > roads, my MTB is faster and safer than my road bike, mainly because it
    > can take a hell of a lot more punishment without something very bad
    > happening. I'll keep saying it whether anybody chooses to believe me or
    > not. MTBs are some of the best road bikes ever made. I average 3-4mph
    > faster on my road racing bike compared to my 29lb FS MTB on long road
    > rides. Now that I have a real road bike, I'm having difficulty finding
    > routes that aren't made up bone rattling and bike trashing crappy roads.
    > These same roads I have floated over countless times on the FS MTB.
    > Nothing beats FS for urban riding. The question there isn't why have
    > suspension, but why on earth wouldn't you want it.

    Well, if you ride year round in a place where the silly suspension can
    freeze, you may prefer to avoid suspension. Depends on the design and such.

    Jeff
     
Loading...
Loading...