Am 20 Jan 2025 18:39:14 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:
MTB frame’s are quite a bit more designed this century some of which coming
from the rise of full suspension, but also designing the bike for its
intended use.
I don't really care, because we didn't take part in the flight from the
roads to “infrastructure” or forest and gravel paths, which was propagated from all sides of the spectrum, over the past decades.
In this respect, we have also stuck with the classic frame shapes,
diamond frames, Mixte or Anglais, without suspension. I don't need the slightly lowered top tube at the back, but sometimes I find it quite practical.
Carbon frames are a different story. I have more experience with metal,
so I stuck with aluminum and then titanium for the frames.
MTB frame’s are quite a bit more designed this century some of which coming >from the rise of full suspension, but also designing the bike for its >intended use.
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 20 Jan 2025 18:39:14 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:That was never a use case for MTB’s particularly or rather bit or a lot >overkill for its use.
MTB frame’s are quite a bit more designed this century some of which coming
from the rise of full suspension, but also designing the bike for its
intended use.
I don't really care, because we didn't take part in the flight from the
roads to “infrastructure” or forest and gravel paths, which was
propagated from all sides of the spectrum, over the past decades.
One of the reasons Gravel bikes took off such bikes are fun on such stuff
and roads rather than being a slog/magic carpet ride.
MTB shine even XC bikes when it gets much more technical, than just forrest >trails, be that tyres which have grown to 2.4/2.6 from 2.1 suspension and >geometry of the bike which alters the bike and the rider position and >performance, XC bikes have for example had to become more technical as the >races courses became much more technical older MTB endurance races and even >world cub races.
Hence some of the older Americans ones having folks experiment with >“Monster Cross” bikes ie putting a drop bar on the MTB.
See Dylan Johnson and his experiments with some of the older American MTB >races which if started today would absolutely be a Gravel race!
<https://www.mtbr.com/threads/dylan-johnson’s-drop-bar-mountain-bike.1226941/>
In this respect, we have also stuck with the classic frame shapes,
diamond frames, Mixte or Anglais, without suspension. I don't need the
slightly lowered top tube at the back, but sometimes I find it quite
practical.
Carbon frames are a different story. I have more experience with metal,
so I stuck with aluminum and then titanium for the frames.
Am 21 Jan 2025 10:56:06 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 20 Jan 2025 18:39:14 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:That was never a use case for MTB’s particularly or rather bit or a lot
MTB frame’s are quite a bit more designed this century some of which coming
from the rise of full suspension, but also designing the bike for its
intended use.
I don't really care, because we didn't take part in the flight from the
roads to “infrastructure” or forest and gravel paths, which was
propagated from all sides of the spectrum, over the past decades.
overkill for its use.
This was perhaps a use case for cycle paths. They often hardly differ
from off-road.
One of the reasons Gravel bikes took off such bikes are fun on such stuff
and roads rather than being a slog/magic carpet ride.
??
MTB shine even XC bikes when it gets much more technical, than just forrest >> trails, be that tyres which have grown to 2.4/2.6 from 2.1 suspension and
geometry of the bike which alters the bike and the rider position and
performance, XC bikes have for example had to become more technical as the >> races courses became much more technical older MTB endurance races and even >> world cub races.
IMO, MTB have brought some valuable innovations, so did gravel bike
frames, even for road use. But both don't shine for road use, even when combined with occasional and light offroad use.
Hence some of the older Americans ones having folks experiment with
“Monster Cross” bikes ie putting a drop bar on the MTB.
That's why I combined a gravel bike frame with a Mullet groupset when building our bikes in early 2023 - road components at the front and a
single MTB rear derailleur.
In terms of outfit and intended use, it is still essentially a road/race
bike that has been adapted for general road use. The differences are: Mounting points everywhere, for use with mudguards through to pannier
racks, large clearance for wide tires (>6 cm), a longer wheelbase.
Conversion to an off-road touring bike would be comparatively easy.
Simply fit luggage racks, mudguards and tires with treads. Just an
option for me, I still prefer it like this:
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20240628/DSC06363t.jpg>
See Dylan Johnson and his experiments with some of the older American MTB
races which if started today would absolutely be a Gravel race!
<https://www.mtbr.com/threads/dylan-johnson’s-drop-bar-mountain-bike.1226941/>
That's almost a road bike frame, combined with a suspension fork.
People nowadays buy something like this, for a MTB: <https://www.mtb-mag.com/en/pivot-presents-the-new-firebird-29/>
There's no question that there are now a number of interesting
transitions. Especially if you build them yourself. :-)
In this respect, we have also stuck with the classic frame shapes,
diamond frames, Mixte or Anglais, without suspension. I don't need the
slightly lowered top tube at the back, but sometimes I find it quite
practical.
Carbon frames are a different story. I have more experience with metal, >>> so I stuck with aluminum and then titanium for the frames.
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 21 Jan 2025 10:56:06 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 20 Jan 2025 18:39:14 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>: >>>>That was never a use case for MTB’s particularly or rather bit or a lot >>> overkill for its use.
MTB frame’s are quite a bit more designed this century some of which coming
from the rise of full suspension, but also designing the bike for its >>>>> intended use.
I don't really care, because we didn't take part in the flight from the >>>> roads to “infrastructure” or forest and gravel paths, which was
propagated from all sides of the spectrum, over the past decades.
This was perhaps a use case for cycle paths. They often hardly differ
from off-road.
I’ve not encountered any cyclepaths that requires a MTB,
some park paths
and so on, might not be the best on 23mm tyres say, though if dry doable if >perhaps not wildly enjoyable.
my main commute uses number of parks and a old cycleway which is a bit
rough 32mm tyres are plenty in terms of comfort, I avoid the parks when >it’s wet as the roadie will take 32mm tyres but not mudguards plus the aim >was to be slightly quicker, which generally means not linking the three
Parks which is a bit of arc and being foremost parks/nature reserves than >bike infrastructure are bit mucky in winter, unlike the old Cycleway which
is if anything less grimy than the roads.
One of the reasons Gravel bikes took off such bikes are fun on such stuff >>> and roads rather than being a slog/magic carpet ride.
??
Fire roads and similar are dull on a MTB it’s able to just flatten that >sort of terrain, Gravel or hybrids are much more interesting and generally
a fair bit lighter etc.
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 20 Jan 2025 18:39:14 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:That was never a use case for MTB’s particularly or rather bit or a lot overkill for its use.
MTB frame’s are quite a bit more designed this century some of which coming
from the rise of full suspension, but also designing the bike for its
intended use.
I don't really care, because we didn't take part in the flight from the
roads to “infrastructure” or forest and gravel paths, which was
propagated from all sides of the spectrum, over the past decades.
One of the reasons Gravel bikes took off such bikes are fun on such stuff
and roads rather than being a slog/magic carpet ride.
MTB shine even XC bikes when it gets much more technical, than just forrest trails, be that tyres which have grown to 2.4/2.6 from 2.1 suspension and geometry of the bike which alters the bike and the rider position and performance, XC bikes have for example had to become more technical as the races courses became much more technical older MTB endurance races and even world cub races.
Hence some of the older Americans ones having folks experiment with “Monster Cross” bikes ie putting a drop bar on the MTB.
See Dylan Johnson and his experiments with some of the older American MTB races which if started today would absolutely be a Gravel race!
<https://www.mtbr.com/threads/dylan-johnson’s-drop-bar-mountain-bike.1226941/>
In this respect, we have also stuck with the classic frame shapes,Roger Merriman
diamond frames, Mixte or Anglais, without suspension. I don't need the
slightly lowered top tube at the back, but sometimes I find it quite
practical.
Carbon frames are a different story. I have more experience with metal,
so I stuck with aluminum and then titanium for the frames.
Am 21 Jan 2025 20:40:36 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 21 Jan 2025 10:56:06 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 20 Jan 2025 18:39:14 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>: >>>>>That was never a use case for MTB’s particularly or rather bit or a lot >>>> overkill for its use.
MTB frame’s are quite a bit more designed this century some of which coming
from the rise of full suspension, but also designing the bike for its >>>>>> intended use.
I don't really care, because we didn't take part in the flight from the >>>>> roads to “infrastructure” or forest and gravel paths, which was
propagated from all sides of the spectrum, over the past decades.
This was perhaps a use case for cycle paths. They often hardly differ
from off-road.
I’ve not encountered any cyclepaths that requires a MTB,
I have, and a lot of it. Mud, potholes filled with water, broken
concrete slabs, half-finished construction sites, milled-out blacktop, makeshift pits filled with sand and gravel after the laying of supply
lines ...
But that wasn't the point. It doesn't matter if you've encountered such
bike paths or if a concrete path _requires_ an MTB. People buy an MTB
because some of the bike paths they have to use, or think they might
have such conditions.
some park paths
and so on, might not be the best on 23mm tyres say, though if dry doable if >> perhaps not wildly enjoyable.
my main commute uses number of parks and a old cycleway which is a bit
rough 32mm tyres are plenty in terms of comfort, I avoid the parks when
it’s wet as the roadie will take 32mm tyres but not mudguards plus the aim >> was to be slightly quicker, which generally means not linking the three
Parks which is a bit of arc and being foremost parks/nature reserves than
bike infrastructure are bit mucky in winter, unlike the old Cycleway which >> is if anything less grimy than the roads.
I think that proves my point. I avoid "bike infrastructure" where I
can, because it is inferiour, you just put up with them. Other people believe that switching to an MTB solves the matter.
It does not. A MTB is just the better bike for bad infrastucture.
One of the reasons Gravel bikes took off such bikes are fun on such stuff >>>> and roads rather than being a slog/magic carpet ride.
??
Fire roads and similar are dull on a MTB it’s able to just flatten that
sort of terrain, Gravel or hybrids are much more interesting and generally >> a fair bit lighter etc.
IMO gravel bikes have replaced randonneurs and merged with them. It's
more about renaming and rebranding than about real differences.
The fun part is, like randonneurs, gravel bikes work quite well with
slicks, no gravel tires necessary. So like with MTB that never see a mountain, the name is quite misleading.
Am 21 Jan 2025 20:40:36 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 21 Jan 2025 10:56:06 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 20 Jan 2025 18:39:14 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>: >>>>>That was never a use case for MTB�s particularly or rather bit or a lot >>>> overkill for its use.
MTB frame�s are quite a bit more designed this century some of which coming
from the rise of full suspension, but also designing the bike for its >>>>>> intended use.
I don't really care, because we didn't take part in the flight from the >>>>> roads to �infrastructure� or forest and gravel paths, which was
propagated from all sides of the spectrum, over the past decades.
This was perhaps a use case for cycle paths. They often hardly differ
from off-road.
I�ve not encountered any cyclepaths that requires a MTB,
I have, and a lot of it. Mud, potholes filled with water, broken
concrete slabs, half-finished construction sites, milled-out blacktop, >makeshift pits filled with sand and gravel after the laying of supply
lines ...
But that wasn't the point. It doesn't matter if you've encountered such
bike paths or if a concrete path _requires_ an MTB. People buy an MTB
because some of the bike paths they have to use, or think they might
have such conditions.
some park paths
and so on, might not be the best on 23mm tyres say, though if dry doable if >>perhaps not wildly enjoyable.
my main commute uses number of parks and a old cycleway which is a bit >>rough 32mm tyres are plenty in terms of comfort, I avoid the parks when >>it�s wet as the roadie will take 32mm tyres but not mudguards plus the aim >>was to be slightly quicker, which generally means not linking the three >>Parks which is a bit of arc and being foremost parks/nature reserves than >>bike infrastructure are bit mucky in winter, unlike the old Cycleway which >>is if anything less grimy than the roads.
I think that proves my point. I avoid "bike infrastructure" where I
can, because it is inferiour, you just put up with them. Other people >believe that switching to an MTB solves the matter.
It does not. A MTB is just the better bike for bad infrastucture.
One of the reasons Gravel bikes took off such bikes are fun on such stuff >>>> and roads rather than being a slog/magic carpet ride.
??
Fire roads and similar are dull on a MTB it�s able to just flatten that >>sort of terrain, Gravel or hybrids are much more interesting and generally >>a fair bit lighter etc.
IMO gravel bikes have replaced randonneurs and merged with them. It's
more about renaming and rebranding than about real differences.
The fun part is, like randonneurs, gravel bikes work quite well with
slicks, no gravel tires necessary. So like with MTB that never see a >mountain, the name is quite misleading.
Am 21 Jan 2025 20:40:36 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 21 Jan 2025 10:56:06 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 20 Jan 2025 18:39:14 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>: >>>>>That was never a use case for MTB’s particularly or rather bit or a lot >>>> overkill for its use.
MTB frame’s are quite a bit more designed this century some of which coming
from the rise of full suspension, but also designing the bike for its >>>>>> intended use.
I don't really care, because we didn't take part in the flight from the >>>>> roads to “infrastructure” or forest and gravel paths, which was
propagated from all sides of the spectrum, over the past decades.
This was perhaps a use case for cycle paths. They often hardly differ
from off-road.
I’ve not encountered any cyclepaths that requires a MTB,
I have, and a lot of it. Mud, potholes filled with water, broken
concrete slabs, half-finished construction sites, milled-out blacktop, makeshift pits filled with sand and gravel after the laying of supply
lines ...
But that wasn't the point. It doesn't matter if you've encountered such
bike paths or if a concrete path _requires_ an MTB. People buy an MTB
because some of the bike paths they have to use, or think they might
have such conditions.
some park paths
and so on, might not be the best on 23mm tyres say, though if dry doable if >> perhaps not wildly enjoyable.
my main commute uses number of parks and a old cycleway which is a bit
rough 32mm tyres are plenty in terms of comfort, I avoid the parks when
it’s wet as the roadie will take 32mm tyres but not mudguards plus the aim >> was to be slightly quicker, which generally means not linking the three
Parks which is a bit of arc and being foremost parks/nature reserves than
bike infrastructure are bit mucky in winter, unlike the old Cycleway which >> is if anything less grimy than the roads.
I think that proves my point. I avoid "bike infrastructure" where I
can, because it is inferiour, you just put up with them. Other people believe that switching to an MTB solves the matter.
It does not. A MTB is just the better bike for bad infrastucture.
One of the reasons Gravel bikes took off such bikes are fun on such stuff >>>> and roads rather than being a slog/magic carpet ride.
??
Fire roads and similar are dull on a MTB it’s able to just flatten that
sort of terrain, Gravel or hybrids are much more interesting and generally >> a fair bit lighter etc.
IMO gravel bikes have replaced randonneurs and merged with them. It's
more about renaming and rebranding than about real differences.
The fun part is, like randonneurs, gravel bikes work quite well with
slicks, no gravel tires necessary. So like with MTB that never see a mountain, the name is quite misleading.
On 1/21/2025 5:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 20 Jan 2025 18:39:14 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <[email protected]>:That was never a use case for MTB’s particularly or rather bit or a lot
MTB frame’s are quite a bit more designed this century some of which coming
from the rise of full suspension, but also designing the bike for its
intended use.
I don't really care, because we didn't take part in the flight from the
roads to “infrastructure” or forest and gravel paths, which was
propagated from all sides of the spectrum, over the past decades.
overkill for its use.
One of the reasons Gravel bikes took off such bikes are fun on such stuff
and roads rather than being a slog/magic carpet ride.
MTB shine even XC bikes when it gets much more technical, than just forrest >> trails, be that tyres which have grown to 2.4/2.6 from 2.1 suspension and
geometry of the bike which alters the bike and the rider position and
performance, XC bikes have for example had to become more technical as the >> races courses became much more technical older MTB endurance races and even >> world cub races.
Hence some of the older Americans ones having folks experiment with
“Monster Cross” bikes ie putting a drop bar on the MTB.
See Dylan Johnson and his experiments with some of the older American MTB
races which if started today would absolutely be a Gravel race!
<https://www.mtbr.com/threads/dylan-johnson’s-drop-bar-mountain-bike.1226941/>
I built up my old Giant XTC MTB hardtail into a gravel bike last winter.
It was an experiment to see a) if I thought it was worthwhile for more investment and b) to get out as cheaply as possible using parts I
already had.
https://www.strava.com/activities/11234247975
The biggest issue is that the top tube on MTBs back then was generally longer. The bike as shown has the shortest stem I had at the time, which
also unfortunately has a 12 degree rise. I've since replaced it with a
shorty 20mm 0 rise.(I like the lower 'racing' position). It rides significantly better with the short stem.
It of course designed for 26" wheels, so I picked up some long-reach
calipers that could accommodate one of my CX 700C wheelsets.
With the discount Micro-shift drivetrain, new stem, and long-reach
brakes, I got it to a point where it's a nice-riding bike for ~ $300.
It's relatively light, and the XTC design is very light, and quick.
Unfortunately, I haven't had much opportunity to ride it much since I 'finished' it.
In this respect, we have also stuck with the classic frame shapes,Roger Merriman
diamond frames, Mixte or Anglais, without suspension. I don't need the
slightly lowered top tube at the back, but sometimes I find it quite
practical.
Carbon frames are a different story. I have more experience with metal, >>> so I stuck with aluminum and then titanium for the frames.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:58:20 |
| Calls: | 12,117 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,660 |
