Road Vs Mountain Bike

[ebola]

What sort of % speed improvement ( if any ) is a road/racer type bike
going to give over a Mountain-Bike, for commuting / moderate excercise
riding on roads.

- given the same rider ( of average general fitness, not an experienced
& conditioned cyclist ) & average road conditions ( i.e. not 'perfect'
well surfaced road ),
- and a journey of 10miles..

Would the novice benefit more from MTB comfort over that distance, or
would a 'hybrid' be the best choice ??

Thanks



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Nigel Heels]

"Simon Galgut" > wrote in message
...
> "ebola" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What sort of % speed improvement ( if any ) is a road/racer type bike
> > going to give over a Mountain-Bike, for commuting / moderate excercise
> > riding on roads.
> >
>
> I average 18 mph on my mountain bike and 21mph on my road bike on a 25
mile
> commute. The mountain bike is on 2.1" knobblies and is undergeared for the
> road and this is the main difference.
>
> Regards
> Simon
>


Yah buy look at the difference in the effort you put in. A mountain bike
uses alot more energy at 20 mph then a road bike at the same speed, because
of aerodynamics and weight. Also using a mountain bike on the road wears the
tires...

Cheers,
>

[Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee]

I would get an MTB with slick tyres for commuting. In fact that's what I
always commute on.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 27 Jul 2003 03:57:57 +0950, ebola >
wrote:

>- given the same rider ( of average general fitness, not an experienced
> & conditioned cyclist ) & average road conditions ( i.e. not 'perfect'
> well surfaced road ),
>- and a journey of 10miles..

>Would the novice benefit more from MTB comfort over that distance, or
>would a 'hybrid' be the best choice ??

How about an audax bike or light tourer? Perfect compromise if you
ask me. Which by implication you did ;-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
[currently offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]

[Pete Biggs]

ebola wrote:
> What sort of % speed improvement ( if any ) is a road/racer type bike
> going to give over a Mountain-Bike, for commuting / moderate excercise
> riding on roads.
>
> - given the same rider ( of average general fitness, not an
> experienced & conditioned cyclist ) & average road conditions (
> i.e. not 'perfect' well surfaced road ),
> - and a journey of 10miles..

For the same perceived effort, my road bike average speeds for the same
average 10mi rides under 17mph are 1 to 3mph higher than my speeds on a
bog-standard rigid MTB with slick tyres. This is considerable difference
when it comes to averages. If the actual time saved is not significant
then the amount of energy required to cover the same distance definitely
is. Hill climbing is faster still (be it either seated with low gears or
standing).
I also find it hard to keep up when I swap bikes with a mountain biker
who is normally slower than me.

It is a different kind of experience. It comes down to what style of
bike(s) you prefer (and you won't know until you try) and what is
practical enough. It's good to ride different bikes anyway. I find the
change is as good as a rest and each type makes you appreciate the
qualities of the others more.

> Would the novice benefit more from MTB comfort over that distance, or
> would a 'hybrid' be the best choice ??

A road race bike can easily be comfortable for those sort of distances -
even for a novice as long as the bars aren't too low and stretched out,
and saddle and tyres aren't too outrageous. Other factors to consider are
ability to fit mudguards (some road bikes can take them, most can't
properly) and carry luggage (all bikes can take a certain amount but
hybrid/tourer/MTB will be required if you need to carry heavy loads).

~PB

[ebola]

Thanks for the replies.

I'm currently doing my trip on a MTB. I'd never really considered the
road bikes before & since trying the bar-end type grips became curious.

Sounds like owning 2 contrasting bikes for variety may be the way to go
then. Easy to justify the expenditure for daily use.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 27 Jul 2003 20:15:33 +0950, ebola >
wrote:

>I'm currently doing my trip on a MTB. I'd never really considered the
>road bikes before & since trying the bar-end type grips became curious.

Road bikes are nice, but no mudguards. A drop-bar tourer / audax bike
gives mudguard clearance, clearance for tyres with tread in winter if
you want, you can mount a dynamo hub (can on an MTB, too, but
offroading would likely knacker it pretty quickly), and you get the
option to get your head down if it's windy. Second best option after
a recumbent for commuting, in my view.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
[currently offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:12:10 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
> wrote:

>> A drop-bar tourer / audax bike [...] Second best option after
>> a recumbent for commuting, in my view.

>That is the /sensible/ answer purely for commuting, I agree, but a road
>racer will still be more efficient and fun on-road.

I know people commute on road bikes. I have considered it myself.
But a quality audax bike is not much slower (I keep up pretty well
with the roadies on our Wednesday rides, and I'm riding a 1985 steel
bike with racks, mudguards, dynamo etc.) and much more practical since
you can carry panniers.

A Campagnolo-equipped custom Roberts with carbon forks would likely be
the perfect medium-distance commuting and leisure bike if only it
weren't for the existence of recumbents ;-)

Of course it's all turning the drudgery of commuting into healthy and
enjoyable exercise. Any bike will do that, and the faster it is the
better :-D

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
[currently offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]

[ebola]

> That is the /sensible/ answer purely for commuting, I agree, ? but a
> road racer will still be more efficient and fun on-road.

... yes this is definitely being treated as daily recreation / excercise
/ hobby that doubles as getting me into work.

Fun is definitely a factor, as is the 'aesthetic & technical appeal' of
the bike itself ... as such I've not yet considered those dedicated
commuter type bikes with the all the sensible features.

So far I've been ok without mudguards, even in rain: I'd been counting
on a change of clothing for sweat anyway.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:38:07 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
> wrote:

>> I know people commute on road bikes. I have considered it myself.
>> But a quality audax bike is not much slower
>Still not in the same league - when it comes to feel and handling at
>least. The OP wants to do more than just commuting with it.

OP says"commuting / moderate excercise riding on road" - that
describes what I use my light tourer for. I wouldn't suggest it so
strongly if I didn't think it was a good fit for the stated task.

>> I keep up pretty well

>Yeahbut you are one hell of a fast and powerful rider - judging by the
>average times you post! We need the likes of you riding for Britain by
>the way! :-)

LOL! Not even close. The boys in France were averaging 50% more over
3350km than I can manage over 65km.

That's the thing: I just commute and do the occasional Wednesday and
Sunday ride (OK, I ride hard, but not ludicrously so). I am not even
at the edges of competitive levels of fitness, though I know people
who have lightweight road bikes who I can drop on the road because
I've removed excess weight from the most important component - the
rider ;-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
[currently offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]

[johnlilley]

Eg: Old fat git (45+ 200lb) 12 miles to work. Nine hills, some 20% +
route through the middle of Watford.

1) 30 year old Claude Butler, 27"x1.25" alloy wheels 10 speed: 45
Minutes. Passed 4 puffing mountain bikers along the way

2) Sister-in-law's, new mountain bike, 18 gears fat knobbly tyres +
front suspension : 70 minutes. Felt like I was going backwards.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[chris French]

In message >, "Just zis Guy,
you know?" > writes
>On 28 Jul 2003 04:31:51 +0950, ebola >
>wrote:
>
>>So far I've been ok without mudguards, even in rain: I'd been counting
>>on a change of clothing for sweat anyway.
>
>I have to say that I wouldn't even consider commuting through the
>winter without mudguards. I am a complete wuss, obviously ;-)
>
Me neither.

One thing is that they keep you a lot cleaner. As a lot of crud gets
thrown up onto the back of your coat etc. or up onto your shoes, legs,
body from the front.

Secondly, once the rain has stopped (or even before it has got bad
enough) - you keep on getting wet for some time afterwards

Thirdly, the bike gets a lot dirty - it may not matter form the point of
appearance, but it certainly make a difference from the POV of the
maintenance required.

On the topic of the sort of bike/diffence between MTB, road bike etc.
for commuting. I'm with Guy here on the suggestion of an Audax, light
tourer type thing, in fact I was commuting 21 mile round trip last year
on my Dalesman framed tourer :-)

Sure a road bike is another alternative, if someone wants that sort of
thing, but for the stated aims, I think this fits better, and is
certainly more versatile.

I would certainly expect a tourer to be quicker than a 'roadified' MTB I
have an old MTB frame that is now used as a town/utility/towing the
trailer bike. Originally built up for urban transport in London - ok it
isn't light - hub gears, and brakes and various other useful bits of
this and that, but is fitted with slicks. Used on the above or other
similar journeys it is noticeably slower.

>Guy
>===
>** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
>http://www.chapmancentral.com
>[currently offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]

Warning - this sig might be out of date :-)
--
Chris French, Leeds

[Pete Biggs]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> OP says"commuting / moderate excercise riding on road" - that
> describes what I use my light tourer for. I wouldn't suggest it so
> strongly if I didn't think it was a good fit for the stated task.

I agree a light tourer would be a good fit for the stated task. I'm
reading between the lines and reckon it could be worth going one step
further. It's just one more option.

For many years, my only bike was a tourer - one that was described as a
"fast tourer" (even though it was heavy by today's audax bike standards).
I'd never owned or even /properly/ ridden a decent lightweight racer, so I
didn't really know what I was missing and would have found it difficult to
afford a better bike. I rode the bike as hard as I could on local rides,
and went as far as I could manage on circular day trips.

I eventually bought a road race bike, quite recently actually: 1999. I
was expecting it to be different of course, but it far, far exceeded my
expectations when it came to speed and handling, but best of all, the ease
at which I could cover the longer distances (in reasonable comfort). 40
miles felt like 25 on the tourer. No exaggeration. 25 miles knackered me
on the old bike. This change happened after I had passed my physical
peak, and I regret not getting my act together in my youth and getting a
road bike them. I could have been a contender! :-)

THAT is why I encourage anyone who even vaguely fancies the idea to go for
it - providing they understand the practical downsides (having a second
more practical bike really does help) and can afford to loose money
through depreciation if it doesn't work out. You can't turn back the
clock. I know people of all ages enjoy road bikes, but it's better to
start sooner rather than later, in my opinion. The sensible bike can wait
a bit longer.

.. . . . . . . . . .

>> Yeahbut you are one hell of a fast and powerful rider - judging by
>> the average times you post! We need the likes of you riding for
>> Britain by the way! :-)
>
> LOL! Not even close. The boys in France were averaging 50% more over
> 3350km than I can manage over 65km.
>
> That's the thing: I just commute and do the occasional Wednesday and
> Sunday ride (OK, I ride hard, but not ludicrously so). I am not even
> at the edges of competitive levels of fitness

The supermen who ride the Tour are mind boggling - I just can't begin to
comprehend how they manage 25 to 30mph averages for those distances.
Whole different world. But if you can average 20mph on a tourer then you
must be good enough for amateur road racing, I would have thought. That's
over the edge, innit?

~PB

[W K]

"Pete Biggs" > wrote in message
...

> I eventually bought a road race bike, quite recently actually: 1999. I
> was expecting it to be different of course, but it far, far exceeded my
> expectations when it came to speed and handling, but best of all, the ease
> at which I could cover the longer distances (in reasonable comfort). 40
> miles felt like 25 on the tourer.

That sounds a lot like the "feel" makes a huge difference to you.
I don't know what you're up to but there isn't that much difference -
otherwise there would be no such thing as an audax bike.

Also, can you be sure that you weren't pushing yourself too hard on the
tourer?
I found it interesting that you can cruise along with a low heart rate at a
fairly decent speed. On my MTB I might be a couple of mph slower for the
same effect, but should I attempt to go that little bit quicker I'd be
buggered in no time at all.

[Caher]

Wow - if i cold average that on my MTB (with slicks) i would n't bother
with a road bike! Moe training methinks. Caher



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Caher]

Caher wrote:
> Wow - if i cold average that on my MTB (with slicks) i would n't bother
> with a road bike! Moe training methinks. Caher

....and use the spell checker too!







--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Pete Biggs]

W K wrote:

> 40 miles felt like 25 on the tourer.
>
> That sounds a lot like the "feel" makes a huge difference to you.
> I don't know what you're up to but there isn't that much difference -
> otherwise there would be no such thing as an audax bike.

The difference mentioned is the general level of fatigue I feel towards
the end of rides and the total distances I can cover before feeling bad.
I haven't got the equipment to measure it scientifically but this is what
I've found time and time again. I'm not claiming the speeds are that
different (40:25).

> Also, can you be sure that you weren't pushing yourself too hard on
> the tourer?

That is a possibility. Maybe I'm not riding the tourer like it's supposed
to be ridden. On my longer rides, on any bike, I generally just push a
little more than "easy" all the time with occasional bursts of high
intensity cycling. My average speeds were* slower on the tourer yet the
effort I put in feels the same. Cycling any slower (for any distance)
feels unatural and boring to me.

* I've still got it. Recently completely upgraded with better components
so the difference is not quite so great but still is considerable.

~PB

[Tim Woodall]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:56:21 +0100,
David Marsh > wrote:
>
> I prefer to think that I get an _overall_ higher average speed with
> semi-knobblies on my mountain bike, as that way, with somewhat less
> easily-damaged tires I don't have to trash my average speed (over an
> extended period) with too many damned stops to repair punctures. It's
> all the having to take time out to repair punctures that _really_ kills your
> average speed ;-/
>
How often to people get punctures normally? I've had one puncture while
out on the road in the last two years, one puncture while a bike was
hung up in the shed (new rim tape needed me thinks) and one tyre that
went soft over the course of a Sunday ride but has subsequently remained
fine (I assume the valve was sticking slightly after pumping it up in the
morning before the ride). In total I would guess I have done 7000 miles,
5000 since the last puncture in the last two years- I NEVER ride on green
kleptonite in the wet any more!

I've done about 3500 miles on a road bike 1x700Cx20 michellin and 1x700Cx20
vittoria (The rear vittoria needed replacing after the puncture - the inner
tube was escaping through the cut in the tyre) and about 1500 miles on
a windcheetah 26x1.25 Avocet Fasgrip on the rear, unknown on the front
since the last puncture.


Tim.



--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

[Dave Larrington]

Tim Woodall wrote:

> How often do people get punctures normally?

Shhhhh! If the P+nct+r+ Fairy hears this...

[Casts nervous glance over shoulder]

All too frequently. Slow one in the front tyre on Friday (glass). Very
fast one in rear tyre on Monday (cut in sidewall from unknown assailant).
Both tyres Schwalbe Stelvios; riding into central London.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Simon Holt]

"Dave Larrington" > wrote in message
...
> Tim Woodall wrote:
>
> > How often do people get punctures normally?
>
> Shhhhh! If the P+nct+r+ Fairy hears this...
>
> [Casts nervous glance over shoulder]
>
> All too frequently. Slow one in the front tyre on Friday (glass). Very
> fast one in rear tyre on Monday (cut in sidewall from unknown assailant).
> Both tyres Schwalbe Stelvios; riding into central London.
>
I've just started cycling again after 30+ years. Not had a puncture yet so
I'd appreciate the group's advice - is it better to carry a spare tube than
a repair kit?

Simon

[Pete Biggs]

Simon Holt wrote:
> I've just started cycling again after 30+ years. Not had a puncture
> yet so I'd appreciate the group's advice - is it better to carry a
> spare tube than a repair kit?

Both, seriously. Repair kit takes up very little room. It can be quicker
and easier to replace the tube, but what happens if that one then
punctures or is defective?

~PB

[Velvet]

Pete Biggs wrote:

> Simon Holt wrote:
>
>>I've just started cycling again after 30+ years. Not had a puncture
>>yet so I'd appreciate the group's advice - is it better to carry a
>>spare tube than a repair kit?
>
>
> Both, seriously. Repair kit takes up very little room. It can be quicker
> and easier to replace the tube, but what happens if that one then
> punctures or is defective?
>
> ~PB
>
>
I've a little saddlebag which holds a multitude of allen keys, inner
tube, puncture repair kit, tyre levers, multitool, keys, phone. That
way, I'm never without either option.

Velvet

[Jim Price]

Richard Bates wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:00:47 +0100, "Simon Holt"
> > in
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I've just started cycling again after 30+ years. Not had a puncture yet so
>>I'd appreciate the group's advice - is it better to carry a spare tube than
>>a repair kit?
>
>
> I adhere to Murphy's law which says one day you'll need both!

I know a man who's needed both twice in the last two years. His name
isn't Murphy, though.

--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

[chris French]

In message >, Pete Biggs
> writes
>>> I've just started cycling again after 30+ years. Not had a puncture
>>> yet so I'd appreciate the group's advice - is it better to carry a
>>> spare tube than a repair kit?
>>
>> Both, seriously. Repair kit takes up very little room. It can be
>> quicker and easier to replace the tube, but what happens if that one
>> then punctures or is defective?
>
>Another reason to carry a spare tube instead of relying solely on repair
>kit: Tube may get damaged beyond repair (big split or valve debonding,
>etc). It does happen.

I if I'm going far from home I often have two spare tubes after the time
when on tour I first had a split in one tube, and then on the spare
tube I used to replace it the valve snapped off. when pumping up.......

Of course I have never had to use both tubes, but you know how it is
once this sort of thing has happened to you once.

It happened in Ireland, on the edge of Carrick-on-suir, home town of
Sean Kelly (this was in the late '80's when he was still riding pro)

Sunday morning, there I am by the road side trying to fix this puncture,
various people going past on the way to church. When they come back I'm
still there of course having buggered up my tube and wondering what to
do next, they did suggest trying to get the chap who owns the LBS to
open up for me, but they realised he would be out on a ride anyway,
eventually I bought a tube off a passing US cyclist for pound :-)

I had been stuck outside this ladies house, once I was fixed she sent
out her daughter to ask if I would like to wash and clean up, so I
obliged myself, I was then plied with much tea, soda bread and cake :-)
before I went on my way.

--
Chris French, Leeds

[Simon Holt]

Thanks for all your various inputs. This newsgroup seems to have a very
active and knowledgeable population compared to some!

I'll certainly get myself a tube or two this weekend to add to the repair
kit.

I've seen some quick-fix products (sealing foam; gas cylinders) but I'm
wary - am I right to be?

[Tony W]

"Simon Holt" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for all your various inputs. This newsgroup seems to have a very
> active and knowledgeable population compared to some!
>
> I'll certainly get myself a tube or two this weekend to add to the repair
> kit.
>
> I've seen some quick-fix products (sealing foam; gas cylinders) but I'm
> wary - am I right to be?

It depends what you want.

My approach tends to be :-

1. A trip into town -- nothing except a lock -- risk the walk home.
Advantage, unencumbered with stuff. (Used to carry a mini pump in case the
local scallies let the tyres down but now recon they either wreck the thing
completely or leave it alone).

2. Almost anything else -- tube, repair kit, levers & pump.

3. Winter & dark -- gas as well as a pump -- hell, it just saves time
freezing your goolies off.

Some swear by slime -- I swear at slime after poor experiences.

Once my tyres start to get regular punctures I replace them -- even if they
look OK. Kevlar seems to help but less than the marketing hype would have
you believe.



T

[Dave Larrington]

Simon Holt wrote:

> I've just started cycling again after 30+ years. Not had a puncture
> yet so I'd appreciate the group's advice - is it better to carry a
> spare tube than a repair kit?

Both. When the P+nct+r+ Fairy visits, I'll change the tube, but should she
come a second time (rare, but not unknown), roadside patching is the only
option.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Pete Biggs]

Simon Holt wrote:

> I've seen some quick-fix products (sealing foam; gas cylinders) but
> I'm wary - am I right to be?

The sealing foam that is squirted in after a puncture (eg. Weldtite) is
not worth using, in my experience. It's extremely messy and only works
half the time if lucky.

Pre-sealant (eg. Slime or WrenchForce tubes) does work to some extent - it
automatically seals most small punctures. But it adds weight, cost and
complication so I would only recommend it if it's most important to do
everything you can to avoid punctures (on commuting bike, or if not able
to fix punctures yourself, etc).

Separate anti-puncture belts that can be placed inside the tyre: these
will increase rolling resistance despite what the manufacturers claim.

CO2 inflators: I've not tried them but apparently they work well and are
a very fast way to get tyre up-pumped. But you could run out of cylinders
(eg. with a troublesome puncture repair or tyre or repeat punctures) so
would need a pump as well to be safe ...which defeats the object, unless
time is of the essence.

More rubber is the second best answer so there's simply more tread
material for foreign objects to penetrate before reaching tube. Tyres
with kevlar belts may help slightly but I wouldn't avoid a tyre just
because it didn't have the feature.

Best answer is to avoid riding over broken glass - which usually settles
at the edges of road and on cycle paths! Trouble is, rain washes it out
again (and also lubricates it so it cuts tyres easier). Yep, puncture
fairy visited me last night! First one for a long time.

~PB

[Simon Holt]

Thanks for the input. I'm running on slicks so I guess that's a high-risk.
But I'm not commuting - just doing circular runs from home or work at the
moment to build stamina. So I'm never more than 4 miles from base - an
acceptable walking distance. On balance, it seems better to benefit from low
weight and low rolling resistance and take the chance.

Simon

[andy_welch]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> CO2 inflators: I've not tried them but apparently they work well and are
> a very fast way to get tyre up-pumped. But you could run out of
> cylinders (eg. with a troublesome puncture repair or tyre or repeat
> punctures) so would need a pump as well to be safe ...which defeats the
> object, unless time is of the essence.
> ~PB



I've gor a little Barbieri C02 inflater which can also be used a regular
pump (£15 from Mikedyason). It's tiny so it fits in my seat pack. OK if
I do get more than one puncture it will take a while to inflate the tyre
but at least I wont be totally stuck. And of course you could just carry
more CO2 cylinders.

Cheers,

Andy



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Pete Biggs]

ebola wrote:
> After trying sitting on a road bike the practicality vs straight
> grips+bar ends for commuting hit me: Controls available at lower speed
> posture + bar ends for high speed seems much better.

Road bike controls can be practical at lower speeds once used to them, but
I'm glad you found a bike that you really like. The FCR-1 does look like
good one!

~PB