What exactly IS a "hybrid" ??

I ask 'cos I'm getting more confused as I look at more bikes (I asked what type of bike I should buy
for recreational and occasional off road trails - not rock hopping ;-) and hybrid was mentioned. The
local bike shop suggest a Hardrock but I think that's overkill with the knobbly tyres and they
poo-pooed a Velocity when I pointed at it.)

Manufacturers don't make it any easier. For example, are Ridgeback's Cyclone, Velocity, and Comet
hybrids? The catalogue doesn't help with classifications like MTB, Hybrid, Road, etc, it's got 6(!?)
categories: Genesis; Switch; Rapide; Adventure; and Mountain.

Specialised has ATB/MTB; Road; & Comfort.

Dawes has Trekking; City; Discovery; & Comfort.

There's nothing exclusive in any of these classifications that I can see so I'm rather confused.
For example, I can understand a hybrid can have front suspension, but it can also have none. I
can understand a FULL MTB has dual suspension (as a starting point) but where from there does a
hybrid arise?

I'm confused!!

[Thanks to all who repied to my other post about buying a bike, BTW]

 

"Tenex" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I ask 'cos I'm getting more confused as I look at more bikes (I asked what type of bike I should
> buy for recreational and occasional off road
trails -
> not rock hopping ;-) and hybrid was mentioned. The local bike shop
suggest
> a Hardrock but I think that's overkill with the knobbly tyres and they poo-pooed a Velocity when I
> pointed at it.)
>
>
> Manufacturers don't make it any easier. For example, are Ridgeback's Cyclone, Velocity, and Comet
> hybrids? The catalogue doesn't help with classifications like MTB, Hybrid, Road, etc, it's got
> 6(!?) categories: Genesis; Switch; Rapide; Adventure; and Mountain.
>
> Specialised has ATB/MTB; Road; & Comfort.
>
> Dawes has Trekking; City; Discovery; & Comfort.
>
> There's nothing exclusive in any of these classifications that I can see
so
> I'm rather confused. For example, I can understand a hybrid can have
front
> suspension, but it can also have none. I can understand a FULL MTB has
dual
> suspension (as a starting point) but where from there does a hybrid arise?
>
> I'm confused!!
>
>
> [Thanks to all who repied to my other post about buying a bike, BTW]
>
>

Basically a flat bar road bike that adopts some of the elements of a mountain bike. Really dedicated
to communiting/touring with occasional light off-road use.

 

In message <[email protected]>, Smudger <[email protected]> writes
>
>"Tenex" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> I ask 'cos I'm getting more confused as I look at more bikes (I asked what type of bike I should
>> buy for recreational and occasional off road
>trails -
>> not rock hopping ;-) and hybrid was mentioned. The local bike shop
>suggest
>> a Hardrock but I think that's overkill with the knobbly tyres and they poo-pooed a Velocity when
>> I pointed at it.)
>>
>>
>> Manufacturers don't make it any easier. For example, are Ridgeback's Cyclone, Velocity, and Comet
>> hybrids? The catalogue doesn't help with classifications like MTB, Hybrid, Road, etc, it's got
>> 6(!?) categories: Genesis; Switch; Rapide; Adventure; and Mountain.
>>
>> Specialised has ATB/MTB; Road; & Comfort.
>>
>> Dawes has Trekking; City; Discovery; & Comfort.
>>
>> There's nothing exclusive in any of these classifications that I can see
>so
>> I'm rather confused. For example, I can understand a hybrid can have
>front
>> suspension, but it can also have none. I can understand a FULL MTB has
>dual
>> suspension (as a starting point) but where from there does a hybrid arise?
>>
>> I'm confused!!
>>
>>
>> [Thanks to all who repied to my other post about buying a bike, BTW]
>>
>>
>
>Basically a flat bar road bike that adopts some of the elements of a mountain bike. Really
>dedicated to communiting/touring with occasional light off-road use.
>
>
With the emphasis on _light_. Only recently you could buy a good MTB without suspension (front or
rear) and I'm sure that this made an excellent utility bike for many people. It certainly did for me
for several years.

I think your choice really depends on the mix of road and off-road riding you do. If your
off-road riding is very occasional and always on pretty well-groomed tracks then perhaps a
hybrid, with or without suspension, will suit. On the other hand if you're riding along a lot of
rutted forest tracks an MTB with front suspension may be your thing. There are plenty of people
riding these around town too. As mentioned, the lack of fixed fork MTBs means there's little in
between these options.

What it appears you don't need is a full suspension MTB.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

On Fri, 16 May 2003 15:52:11 GMT, "Tenex" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm confused!!
>

Tenex

I have been called a mutant - and worse - at times. Does that count?

IMO, a hybrid is an MTB lookalike but with slimmer wheels and tyres, and is generally more suited
for road riding.

All in all, a hybrid is a road / gentle path bike.

James

--
It's a CD-ROM drive, not a cup holder.

 

On Fri, 16 May 2003 15:52:11 GMT, "Tenex" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The local bike shop suggest a Hardrock but I think that's overkill with the knobbly tyres

Hybrids are what most people ride, most of the time. If it's not right for you, you'd probably
already know (and don't need to read my witterings).

There are two sorts of hybrid; skinny things, beefed up or beefy things, slimmed down. Either will
work. The first might be something like a Dawes Galaxy, the later a Hardrock. The minor difference
is the set of things that are supplied in the box (commuters will find a rear rack handy on either -
but only the Galaxy has one as standard) - but you can change this by shopping later. The major
fixed difference is the wheel diameter. If you ride a hybrid commuter and a roadie at weekends, then
700 wheels might give you some common parts sharing. If you're a weekend MTB warrior, then 26"
wheels all round might help.

Bikes are sold incomplete. Pedals are often omitted, because of "personal choice". This makes sense,
but then why include tyres ? Tyres make even more difference to how your bike feels, and they're
more easily swapped. Typical delivery tyres are also often a bit heavy (Kenda !) and equally
unsuitable for any conditions. If you take the knobblies off the Hardrock, it'll run much more
easily on commuters with a solid central ridge (consensus seems to favour Specialized Crossroads) or
semi-slicks if you still want to off-road without swapping back. You really don't need to keep
whatever is supplied on there.

Front suspension is nice - but it's one more thing to clean, more money to spend, something else to
go wrong and possibly an encouragement to bike-rack banditry. In particular, nasty suspension is
_very_ nasty. Personally I still like my dead simple steel-framed rigid fork slick-tyred MTB as a
commuter (the money went on better (LX-grade) whirling bits, which have lasted for years of heavy
use without major replacement). It's getting hard to find a decent MTB with a solid fork though.

 

"James Hodson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 16 May 2003 15:52:11 GMT, "Tenex" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I'm confused!!
> >
>
> Tenex
>
> I have been called a mutant - and worse - at times. Does that count?
>
> IMO, a hybrid is an MTB lookalike but with slimmer wheels and tyres, and is generally more suited
> for road riding.

It seemed to be a bit of a marketing term too. We had "racers" and "mountain bikes". If you then
introduce bikes that are supposedly for the road, with 700c tyres, straight bars, perhaps mudguards,
you might well say "so what? thats just like my grandad's bike". "but no sir, its a hybrid". Theres
a hybrid in the garage (not mine). 700c wheels, mudguards and rack, all it needs is a basket (which
it might get), and it's a Miss Marple special.

A point to this rambling? Theres lots of bikes out that are similar and you've got to try to work
out what fits and what fits the bill. I personally quite like the MTB with slicks option for the
wider slicks, and so it can have its knobblies back when I get a "real tourer". The 700c size does
allow you to have a massive choice of skinnier tyres.

"Comfort" is an interesting category, its almost like a mountain bike thats evolving back into
grandad's bike, with a nicer upright position than you might get from a MTB.

 

Tenex wrote:
> I'm confused!!

Well I've just read this on a website see if you'd agree, seems reasonable to me if only the
manufacturers wouldn't invent a myriad of categories....

Q. What are hybrid bikes?
R. Hybrid bikes feature an upright riding position similar to mountain bikes, making them more
comfortable and suitable for riding around town, touring and carrying racks, panniers, etc. The
big difference is in the wheels. The wheel's rim diameter is "700" c (close to 27") which is the
same diameter used on road-racing bikes. The tires used on a hybrid are wider than those used on
road bikes, but narrower than mountain bike tires. The advantage of this type of wheel/tire
combination is that when riding on paved roads there is less rolling resistance making the bike
easier to pedal, or more efficient. For a rider wishing to ride longer distances it is a more
enjoyable and faster ride. The tires are wide enough and have ample tread to allow for riding off
pavement on dirt roads and on smooth hard-pack trails. They would not be suitable in soft
conditions such as sand or mud.

S.What are the characteristics of a mountain bike?
T. Mountain bikes or ATBs (all-terrain bikes) feature a frame and fork that are more rugged than
those found on general recreational trail bikes. Their frames are often built of aluminum so they
are lightweight and stiff, making them efficient to ride. The fork has a suspension or
shock-absorbing feature to reduce hand/arm fatigue. The wheels are built with stronger rims than
on recreational bikes and the component selection (cranks, derailleurs, etc.) are more durable.
This bike will take on most any terrain.

U. What are the characteristics of a recreational trail bike?
V. Recreational trail bikes offer a little more comfort yet still have most of the attributes of a
mountain bike: a wide gear range, strong brakes, tires that are suitable for riding either on
pavement or off, and an upright riding position. Wheels are commonly 26" for adult bikes and 24"
for kids' bikes. Frames are built of chrome-moly steel and/or hi-tensile steel. These are good
bikes for casual riding around town, trail riding on smoother trails.

 

On Fri, 16 May 2003 22:50:48 GMT, Tenex <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tenex wrote:
> > I'm confused!!
>
> Well I've just read this on a website see if you'd agree, seems reasonable to me if only the
> manufacturers wouldn't invent a myriad of categories....
>
> Q. What are hybrid bikes?
> A. Hybrid bikes feature an upright riding position similar to mountain bikes, making them more
> comfortable and suitable for riding around town, touring and carrying racks, panniers, etc.
> The big difference is in the wheels. The wheel's rim diameter is "700" c (close to 27") which
> is the same diameter used on road-racing bikes. The tires used on a hybrid are wider than
> those used on road bikes, but narrower than mountain bike tires. The advantage of this type of
> wheel/tire combination is that when riding on paved roads there is less rolling resistance
> making the bike easier to pedal, or more efficient. For a rider wishing to ride longer
> distances it is a more enjoyable and faster ride. The tires are wide enough and have ample
> tread to allow for riding off pavement on dirt roads and on smooth hard-pack trails. They
> would not be suitable in soft conditions such as sand or mud.

Reasonable, except that for those "wishing to ride longer distances" it would be even more enjoyable
and faster if they got a tourer, which is probably a longer wheel-base, has tyres that are more
tailored towards road use and has drop handlebars. Such a bike can (I do) also be ridden on "dirt
roads and on smooth hard-pack trails" but might not be as easy to handle as a hybrid. (With care it
can be ridden over almost anything that a mountain bike can, but it can be a handful down a steep
rocky descent, and I take it a lot slower on teh tourer than on the mountain bike).

> Q.What are the characteristics of a mountain bike?
> A. Mountain bikes or ATBs (all-terrain bikes) feature a frame and fork that are more rugged than
> those found on general recreational trail bikes. Their frames are often built of aluminum so
> they are lightweight and stiff, making them efficient to ride. The fork has a suspension or
> shock-absorbing feature to reduce hand/arm fatigue. The wheels are built with stronger rims
> than on recreational bikes and the component selection (cranks, derailleurs, etc.) are more
> durable. This bike will take on most any terrain.

Reasonable, except taht mountain bike does not require suspension, and see my note about "most any
terrain" above. Then again, a pneumatic tyre on teh front would count as a "shock-absorbing
feature", I suppose, in which case teh definition is fine. If you want to quibble, "making them
efficient to ride" is nonsense - yes a light stiff frame is efficient to ride, but it's irrelevent
unless you've optimised everything else - having teh wrong tyres for teh task in hand, for example,
will more than cancel out any benefit from stiffness of teh frame.

> Q. What are the characteristics of a recreational trail bike?
> A. Recreational trail bikes offer a little more comfort yet still have most of the attributes of
> a mountain bike: a wide gear range, strong brakes, tires that are suitable for riding either
> on pavement or off, and an upright riding position. Wheels are commonly 26" for adult bikes
> and 24" for kids' bikes. Frames are built of chrome-moly steel and/or hi-tensile steel. These
> are good bikes for casual riding around town, trail riding on smoother trails.

This is tosh. I've not come across the term, but the definition sounds like it's one made up to
justify the existence of things intended to look like mountain bikes but not actually being suitable
for the use.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

On Sat, 17 May 2003 09:21:59 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Q. What are the characteristics of a recreational trail bike? [...] Frames are built of
>> chrome-moly steel and/or hi-tensile steel.

>This is tosh.

No, it's marketing.

There's a valid reason for these gas-pipe-specials to exist. I'm happy that there are cheap bikes
for people to start riding when they might not wish to spend out for something better from the
first. You have to call them _something_, and "recreational trail" isn't an unreasonable way to
phrase "too lumpy for a civilised road bike, but not strong enough to ride down anything that's not
flat". Most cheap bikes end up doing most of their mileage inside the garage anyway.

If you're looking for something vaguely decent, "hi-ten" stickers are a definite warning sign
to avoid it.

 

Hybrid can mean different things to different manufacturers. Possibly the best description would be
a bike that borrows elements from both road bikes and mountain bikes.

Although the traditional definition of hybrid would be a strong road bike with a bit more mud
clearance and semi-slicks (such as the Dawes Discovery range) some 'hybrids' are basically mountain
bikes with concession to road riding. My Dawes Chilliwack (2002) is basically a mountain bike fitted
with semi-slick tyres and 48/38/28 chainrings to give more road orientated gearing. It's perfectly
capable of light to moderate off-road and decent enough around town.

Often bikes described as hybrid can be very different to each other, for example compare the Trek
Navigator range with, say, Marin's Urban Mountain Bike range. Neither of these are actually called
'hybrid' by the manufacturers both are often described and sold as hybrids by retailers.

Personally I think the best way buy a bike is not to limit yourself to a specific type of bike but
rather decide on the type of riding you want to do and buy the bike best suited.

 

On Sat, 17 May 2003 12:28:29 +0100, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2003 09:21:59 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Q. What are the characteristics of a recreational trail bike? [...] Frames are built of
> >> chrome-moly steel and/or hi-tensile steel.
>
> >This is tosh.
>
> No, it's marketing.
>
> There's a valid reason for these gas-pipe-specials to exist.

Indeed, but to make out that it's a functional niche that they've then tailored a bike to suit is
tosh. There was no intention to produce a bike for 'recreational trail use', there was an intention
to produce a very cheap bike that looks a bit like a mountain bike, with emphasis on the very cheap.
'Recreational trail use' is what it ends up being (marginally) fit for.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 17 May 2003 12:28:29 +0100, Andy Dingley <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 May 2003 09:21:59 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Q. What are the characteristics of a recreational trail bike? [...] Frames are built of
> > >> chrome-moly steel and/or hi-tensile steel.
> >
> > >This is tosh.
> >
> > No, it's marketing.
> >
> > There's a valid reason for these gas-pipe-specials to exist.
>
> Indeed, but to make out that it's a functional niche that they've then tailored a bike to suit
> is tosh.

A bit harsh. There do seem some sensible reasoning behind it:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_cn-z.html#comfort

And as Specialized, Trek and Giant are having a go at doing them - and not gas-pipe bikes - there
must be a reason.

> 'Recreational trail use' is what it ends up being (marginally) fit for.

Maybe, but its a way of selling reasonable bikes that are basically an old fashioned roadster with
26 inch wheels.

 

On Fri, 16 May 2003 15:52:11 GMT, "Tenex" <[email protected]> wrote:

What is a hybrid? A mountain bike with road tyres, mudguards and a marketing budget.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

hi from what I understand a hybrid is a cross between a mountain and a road bike, it's built for comfort, has a large selection of gears and able to carry heavy weights, I think that about covers it in a nutshell. also the wheels are a 700 X 28-32 C. I have owned one for about 10 years its a great bike. done over 40.000 km and four major rides. hope this helps all the best jjimbosau

 

Thanks for the comments. I think I've narrowed it down somewhat.

Looking at the Ridgeback I realised that the stem wasn't as adjustable as either Trek or Specialized
so I've excluded it. Also no FS on most of the range.

Managed to briefly ride a Trek 7100 FX pair today. The first was without suspension and the second
with. Conscious that people here have advised against extra features and spending money on the
essentials I thought the FS a non-starter. Anyway I rode the first around the block and it was OK
(impressed by the brakes) then went the same route with the FS model. Neither was actually set up
for me but the pot holes I encountered on the first ride were so much less intrusive through the FS
that I took a diversion down a long cobbled Mews. Suffice to say I'm sold on the FS . . .
. you guys may think that a mistake? Someone pointed to a Navigator but I didn't get a chance to try
it. Should I?

I'm going to ride a Dawes Discovery 301 and I'm wondering whether I should try a Hardrock on the off
chance, what do you think? The Hardrock seems more MTB than the others so I'm inclined to omit it.

[ NB for anyone thinking of buying currently: Trek is offering a FREE Vapour helmet & Celestial
light set & Ali Baba lock with the purchase of any Trek bike of £250+. Don't know if they're any
good but seems a reasonable offer as they'd have to be bought anyway? ]

Can't see much 2002 stock around and the bike market seems much like the telescope market - all sold
at RRP and NO competition. Or am I mistaken?

So what's your opinion on the Dawes Discovery 301 vs. Trek 7100 FX FS?

 

"Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Often bikes described as hybrid can be very different to each other, for example compare the Trek
> Navigator range with, say, Marin's Urban Mountain Bike range. Neither of these are actually called
> 'hybrid' by the manufacturers both are often described and sold as hybrids by retailers.

When I was sold a Navigator it was described as a "Hybrid Comfort" bike.

I asked for something that was suitable for on and light off-road use. My specification was
recreational (i.e. trying to get fitter) rather than commuting or racing.

F A

 

I dislike the term Hybrid, it just means it’s a mixture, not very helpful if it doesn’t tell you what it’s a mixture of!
The Trek 7100 looks a decent bike for the price, a work mate commutes on one and it’s done him well. As long as you realise its limitations and that you’re not going to be getting the best of components in this price range.
I don’t personally like FS, it adds weight, is something else that needs maintenance and it absorbs energy. But hey, it’s not me that’s going to be riding it! If it suits you, have it.
You’re lucky to have found a bike shop that lets you have a decent test ride, try out as many as possible before deciding.
I used to work in a bike shop and know that the profit in this price range is not that great, the extras they’re offering seem like a good deal, but try and get some free servicing as well. If you end up cycling a lot you’ll want something better before long, but if you end up only cycling occasionally it’s not too big an investment to be sat in the garage!

 

Tenex wrote:

> Suffice to say I'm sold on the FS . . .
> . you guys may think that a mistake?

"it depends". if you're riding over cobbles a great deal then it's well worth considering (as is a
suspension seatpost). However, if cobbles are only an occasional thing and you're going up hills
more often then the FS will suck effort out of your pedalling and put it into pogoing the bike. Not
actually good, and the extra weight won't help either. FS does improve a bike if it's going over
rough ground more often than not. But if it isn't then you could be buying something which is bad
for most of your actual riding just to make an occasional instance better. Try going up a steep
hill on a smoother road on both rigid and FS bikes and see if you're still sold... For the odd
short cobbled street just keep a very light touch on the bars (hands around them but not actually
gripping). Quite easy, and removes the great majority of the discomfort. If you haven't got a sus
seatpost then stand a little on the pedals with your knees bent, just enough to rise an inch off
the seat. Legs do the sus work, no cost, no heavy components that need extra maintenance and pogo
the bike when you're climbing. For the odd 100m now and again that's simply a far more cost
effective approach.

As for potholes, going round them on a rigid bike will cause less trauma than through them on a
suspended bike. Not always possible, but with a little practice you can hop over them anyway.

Avoiding sus at this level you have a lighter, more efficient machine that requires less
maintenance. There's quite a few cobbled streets in Dundee, but I wouldn't choose a FS bike over a
rigid at that price level as a main bike just because of them unless I was riding over lots of them
on a daily basis.

> I'm going to ride a Dawes Discovery 301 and I'm wondering whether I should try a Hardrock on the
> off chance, what do you think? The Hardrock seems more MTB than the others so I'm inclined to
> omit it.

The Hardrock *is* an MTB IIRC.

Back to your original question, "what is a hybrid?". Before MTBs existed people would get about
quite happily on what were just called "bikes", though they weren't racers or tourers or small wheel
shoppers. Hybrids today are basically the same thing but with triple chainwheels and derailleur
gears instead of a 3 speed Sturmey hub, and usually no

you'd probably be better off with the old style, unless you like doing extra maintenance and
cleaning of both yourself and the bike.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

Bigman wrote:
> I dislike the term Hybrid, it just means it's a mixture, not very helpful if it doesn't tell you
> what it's a mixture of! The Trek 7100 looks a decent bike for the price, a work mate commutes on
> one and it's done him well. As long as you realise its limitations and that you're not going to be
> getting the best of components in this price range. I don't personally like FS, it adds weight, is
> something else that needs maintenance and it absorbs energy.

That's a good point, it hadn't occurred to me.

But hey, it's not me
> that's going to be riding it! If it suits you, have it. You're lucky to have found a bike shop
> that lets you have a decent test ride, try out as many as possible before deciding. I used to work
> in a bike shop and know that the profit in this price range is not that great, the extras they're
> offering seem like a good deal,

It's not an offer from the shop it's Trek themselves.

but try and get
> some free servicing as well. If you end up cycling a lot you'll want something better before long,

What do you have in mind? It'll never be a commuter FWIW.

Cheers