All-Around Bike: CycloCross vs MTB 29-er?

Want to build up a bike with the maximum range of usefulness, but
with the tradeoffs biased towards paved surface riding.

"Paved surface" and not "road" bc I don't ride on roads. Maybe
a few miles here and there on shoulders or local streets, but 90%
of my paved miles are on non-motor-vehicular paths.

First thought was a cyclocross frame.

But now I'm wondering about a 29-er MTB frame instead.

Either frame would start off with a rigid fork.

Might go for a SUS fork later on. Might not...

Anybody want to chime in on the tradeoffs?


I'm thinking:
-------------------------------------------------------------
- Either frame would accept a 700c wheelset

- Cyclocross frame limited to smaller tires. Cosmetically better
when road wheels used, but not able to support tires above a
certain size.

- MTB frame has wider Q-factor... and I've got wide hips.

- MTB frame would definitely accept a sus fork. Dunno
about the 'cross frame

- 'Cross frames probably more widely available with touring
type braze-on like fender and rack mounts. (??)
-------------------------------------------------------------


Comments?
--
PeteCresswell

On Aug 25, 2:42*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Want to build up a bike with the maximum range of usefulness, but
with the tradeoffs biased towards paved surface riding.

"Paved surface" and not "road" bc I don't ride on roads. * Maybe
a few miles here and there on shoulders or local streets, but 90%
of my paved miles are on non-motor-vehicular paths.

First thought was a cyclocross frame.

But now I'm wondering about a 29-er MTB frame instead.

Why not a touring bike, like the oft mentioned Surly LHT? It'll take a
45mm tire w/o fenders. You can run something like that pretty soft and
get your suspension. How about a Schwalbe Marathon XR 700x40 tire?
Expedition quality stuff.

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Want to build up a bike with the maximum range of usefulness, but
with the tradeoffs biased towards paved surface riding.

"Paved surface" and not "road" bc I don't ride on roads. Maybe
a few miles here and there on shoulders or local streets, but 90%
of my paved miles are on non-motor-vehicular paths.

First thought was a cyclocross frame.

But now I'm wondering about a 29-er MTB frame instead.

Either frame would start off with a rigid fork.

Might go for a SUS fork later on. Might not...

Anybody want to chime in on the tradeoffs?


I'm thinking:
-------------------------------------------------------------
- Either frame would accept a 700c wheelset

- Cyclocross frame limited to smaller tires. Cosmetically better
when road wheels used, but not able to support tires above a
certain size.

- MTB frame has wider Q-factor... and I've got wide hips.

- MTB frame would definitely accept a sus fork. Dunno
about the 'cross frame

- 'Cross frames probably more widely available with touring
type braze-on like fender and rack mounts. (??)
-------------------------------------------------------------


Comments?


Get a normal 26" ATB frame, ATB stuff and touring gearing and a rigid
fork. Widest choice in frame's, tires, forks, brakes and all the other
stuff you bolt on to the frame and it brings you everywhere. Just change
the tires.

http://img116.imageshack.us/my.php?i...mgp0554rn7.jpg

Why 700c wheels? Cross frames are a dumb choice IMO.

Lou

On Aug 25, 3:26*pm, landotter wrote:
On Aug 25, 2:42*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Want to build up a bike with the maximum range of usefulness, but
with the tradeoffs biased towards paved surface riding.

"Paved surface" and not "road" bc I don't ride on roads. * Maybe
a few miles here and there on shoulders or local streets, but 90%
of my paved miles are on non-motor-vehicular paths.

First thought was a cyclocross frame.

But now I'm wondering about a 29-er MTB frame instead.

Why not a touring bike, like the oft mentioned Surly LHT? It'll take a
45mm tire w/o fenders. You can run something like that pretty soft and
get your suspension. How about a Schwalbe Marathon XR 700x40 tire?
Expedition quality stuff.

As an example:
Looking at kona's specs, the dif'rence between a
56cm jake the snake and a 56cm sutra is . . .
+5mm wheelbase to the sutra
-1cm bb height for the sutra
jake the snake is missing rack and fender mounts.
On the upside, jake is not a compact geometry.
The sutra looks to be about 15usd more expensive,
and goofily enough, has disk brakes.

For utility, the CX bicycle missing rack and fender mounts
is quite the downside. Then again, it is probably easier
to carry up the stairs.

As far as 29ers go, all the fast riders I know don't care
and haven't bothered to "move up", and all the fat, slow
riders are still fat and slow on their 29ers, and out a
bit of cash for it.

Per Lou Holtman:
Why 700c wheels?

Because I wanted the option to see if really-skinny tires (like
23 or 25mm) would help me keep up with the roadies - compared to
the 1.25" tires I'm riding now.

No other reason.
--
PeteCresswell

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Lou Holtman:
Why 700c wheels?

Because I wanted the option to see if really-skinny tires (like
23 or 25mm) would help me keep up with the roadies - compared to
the 1.25" tires I'm riding now.

No other reason.
--
PeteCresswell

I have a CycleCross frame built into a road bike with 700c x 25 tires, it
works very well. The CycleCross frame has a longer wheel base than a road
bike which makes for a smoother ride. I run about 90 lbs of air
pressure. It is a very good bike. It's a Redline Conquest frame with
disk brakes, mountain bike hubs built on 700c rims. Shimino Road bike
shifters, and Avid mechanical road calipers.

It's one of my favorite bikes.

On Aug 25, 5:21*pm, wrote:
On Aug 25, 3:26*pm, landotter wrote:



On Aug 25, 2:42*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Want to build up a bike with the maximum range of usefulness, but
with the tradeoffs biased towards paved surface riding.

"Paved surface" and not "road" bc I don't ride on roads. * Maybe
a few miles here and there on shoulders or local streets, but 90%
of my paved miles are on non-motor-vehicular paths.

First thought was a cyclocross frame.

But now I'm wondering about a 29-er MTB frame instead.

Why not a touring bike, like the oft mentioned Surly LHT? It'll take a
45mm tire w/o fenders. You can run something like that pretty soft and
get your suspension. How about a Schwalbe Marathon XR 700x40 tire?
Expedition quality stuff.

As an example:
Looking at kona's specs, the dif'rence between a
56cm jake the snake and a 56cm sutra is . . .
+5mm wheelbase to the sutra
-1cm bb height for the sutra
jake the snake is missing rack and fender mounts.
On the upside, jake is not a compact geometry.
The sutra looks to be about 15usd more expensive,
and goofily enough, has disk brakes.

The Sutra is the hands down dumbest looking touring bike on the mass
market, IMHO. Two of my friends have the basic Jake with street tires
and P-bike black fenders as city bikes. It's a very stylish ride.
However--my little basic Dew with a strong rim and better handlebar
upgrade is a better rockem sockem do all bike. The cantis on the Jake
are fussy, and the 32H rims are a little prissy. Plus the Dew has
double fork eyelets and lowrider braze-ons--not bad for a $400 hybrid--
albeit one that needs help. None of the Kona tour/city offerings are
very smart as they come out of the box though --especially all those
goofy Dew models that run near a grand, come with awful gumwall tires,
and heavy disk brakes that make mounting anything practical a bloody
chore.

/rant

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Want to build up a bike with the maximum range of usefulness, but
with the tradeoffs biased towards paved surface riding.

"Paved surface" and not "road" bc I don't ride on roads. Maybe
a few miles here and there on shoulders or local streets, but 90%
of my paved miles are on non-motor-vehicular paths.

First thought was a cyclocross frame.

But now I'm wondering about a 29-er MTB frame instead.

Either frame would start off with a rigid fork.

Might go for a SUS fork later on. Might not...

Anybody want to chime in on the tradeoffs?


I'm thinking:
-------------------------------------------------------------
- Either frame would accept a 700c wheelset

- Cyclocross frame limited to smaller tires. Cosmetically better
when road wheels used, but not able to support tires above a
certain size.

- MTB frame has wider Q-factor... and I've got wide hips.

- MTB frame would definitely accept a sus fork. Dunno
about the 'cross frame

- 'Cross frames probably more widely available with touring
type braze-on like fender and rack mounts. (??)
-------------------------------------------------------------


Comments?

The MTB frame will be designed for a suspension fork, while the
cyclocross frame will be designed for a rigid fork. If you mount a
normal rigid cyclocross fork on a 29-er frame, the bottom bracket will
be very low, limiting cornering clearance while pedaling, and the
handling will be twitchy due to reduced trail. However, there are rigid
forks meant to directly replace 29-er suspension forks, with extra
crown-to-dropout length.

If you mount a 29-er MTB suspension fork on the cross frame, you will
have the opposite problems, an overly high bottom bracket, stable but
sluggish handling, and the seat a little more behind the bottom bracket
than normal.

Dave Lehnen

On Aug 25, 6:49*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Lou Holtman:

Why 700c wheels?

Because I wanted the option to see if really-skinny tires (like
23 or 25mm) would help me keep up with the roadies - compared to
the 1.25" tires I'm riding now.

I don't find I'm any palpably slower if I'm riding up to a 32mm tire
compared to a 23mm road tire--as long as it's a smooth light skinwall
such as a non-belted Pasela. The difference might certainly be felt
slightly if you had a little sprint race, as the 32 would weigh 100g
more--but for basic road riding--not so much, especially for a big
guy.

"DI" wrote:

I have a CycleCross frame built into a road bike with 700c x 25 tires, it
works very well. The CycleCross frame has a longer wheel base than a road
bike which makes for a smoother ride. I run about 90 lbs of air
pressure. It is a very good bike. It's a Redline Conquest frame with
disk brakes, mountain bike hubs built on 700c rims. Shimino Road bike
shifters, and Avid mechanical road calipers.

It's one of my favorite bikes.


Curious what kind of h-bars you have on it?

Traditional drop bars?