|   Road bike a worthwhile investment? | VT_Hokie
Jul 16, 2003 7:26 AM | | I know many of you own both a road and mountain bike, and I was thinking about buying a road bike for training and fitness. I tried biking on the road yesterday with a local bike club, using a specialized rockhopper, xt components, and a lighter wheelset with road slicks. i could keep up on the first few climbs, but then after that, i got smoked bad, and couldn't catch up on the descents.
now the question is whether a good road bike will make a huge difference from a mountain bike on the road. i was starting to question my level of fitness, but then i thought it might have been the bike. i have yet to try out a road bike at the LBS, but i plan on doing it soon. |
| Yes, HUGE difference. | Nat
Jul 16, 2003 7:27 AM | | Jesus what a difference: 120psi skinny tires, big wheels, more aerodynamic position, taller gears, shorter cranks, 17 pounds. Oh, and lycra rather than Nema. |
| Its gotta be the bike | Road warrior
Jul 16, 2003 7:44 AM | | Road bikes are a lot faster (700cc wheels) and they have less tire (rolling) resistance on the pavement then a slick mt tire. Road riding is a great consistent workout that will greatly improve your mountain bike fitness and riding (faster RPM due to the fact that you usually have a shorter crank arm length on a road bike than on a MT)for sure! And typically they are litter bikes than Mt. bikes as well (not always)
Have fun trainning on the road |
| re: Road bike a worthwhile investment? | poster
Jul 16, 2003 7:52 AM | | Your own story tells us that a road bike makes a huge difference, afterall, you did say that you got smoked on the road by what i presume were other road bikes. So, yeah, I would say that I is a complete worthy investment. It's not your level of fitness, just that a road bike is complete specialised for its purposes, that being speed on pavement, though I am sure that in the end a road bike will only up your level of fitness. Read the thread from a couple of days back about the guy who just "found a new love," that new love was a road bike and he can average a ton more kilometres a week on it than on his mountain bike. Also, a good road bike will probably last you forever, so you can leave it to your kids and grandkids and great grandkids, or you can sell it on ebay, whatever floats your boat. |
| re: Road bike a worthwhile investment? | VaughnA
Jul 16, 2003 7:53 AM | | Yes, It makes a big difference. I bought my first road bike a couple of months ago it has helped a lot in my fitness for mountain biking. I actually enjoy road riding as well (shudder). I don't regret it for one moment. You have great places to ride around Blacksburg (I assume your there) And just think, you can do the mountains of misery next year!!
Vaughn |
| re: Road bike a worthwhile investment? | lemmy
Jul 16, 2003 8:03 AM | | I am struggling on the road decision right now too. My problem is that I lift weights 3 days/week and I generaly fill up 3-4 other days with jogging and mountain biking. I like to run at least 2 days/week, so I just don't see myself getting enough time to road bike. I can't make myself spend $1000 or more and only using the road bike once/week at most. |
| re: Road bike a worthwhile investment? | VT_Hokie
Jul 16, 2003 8:07 AM | | wow, thanks for the replies! yes, i was riding with a road biking club, and being the only mountain bike there made me kinda feel outta place...
now my next question, i know road bikes can get a lot pricier than mountain bikes for comparably quality, and i know this can be quite an investment ($1000+....) I talked with one of the riders in the club, and he said that it's worthwhile to spend the extra money to get a much better bike (i.e. carbon fiber frame, etc.) than struggle on a cheaper bike. i've looked at some online shop house brand bikes (like supergo), and i'm wondering whether those are just reliable as the bigger brand names. |
| cyclocross bike makes way more sense for dirt lovers | World B. Free
Jul 16, 2003 8:19 AM | | With slicks, you get 95% of the performance of a full-on road bike, plus the added advantage of dirt-worthiness
Personally, I love riding the road on my skinny knobbies. Aint worried about getting dropped by the weenieboys, and the fatter tires give you rim/flat protection and a smother ride. (though fast cornering is a little sketchier) The roads are pretty rough in Santa Cruz County |
| I agree | 5.10
Jul 16, 2003 9:18 AM | | I think if I had to do it over again, I would buy a cyclocross instead of a road bike. Unless you're really looking at racing, I think the cyclocross bike is the way to go. Don't give up much in speed/rolling resistance but gain a ton in versatility. |
| I don't think so... | Nat
Jul 16, 2003 9:25 AM | | I think buying a cx bike for the road is a compromise, unless you ride it on dirt (but that's what my mtb is for). While I love dirt, when I'm on the road I want a bike built for the road. You can trick out an suv and make it a fast street machine, but the Porsche would be sweeter. I'm not saying you (World B. Free) should change or anything, since your choice works for you. My opinion. |
| actually, riding a cross on dirt is more of a compromise... | World B. Free
Jul 16, 2003 9:40 AM | | due to the skinnier tires and drop bars.
A good cross bike is much more in the spirit of a high end road bike than hardtail, in my opinion. A cross is simply a strong road frame with slightly relaxed geometry and cantilever studs |
| I don't think so... | VT_Hokie
Jul 16, 2003 9:41 AM | | i think i'm definitely gonna agree with nat on this one. i've looked at some cyclocross bikes, and they just don't fit what i think i want to use the road bike for. i am flexible enough adapt a new riding style on the road, and cyclocross to me seems like a hybrid bike, doesn't really do anything well... if i wanted to ride offroad, i'd hop on my mountain bike. |
| Good call... | Nat
Jul 16, 2003 9:54 AM | | The road experience is so different than mtb, but equally enjoyable if you're in the right mindframe. Whooooooooooosh! |
| how good are your roads? | endoh
Jul 16, 2003 11:10 AM | | on glass smooth asphalt, the slick 700x23c tires at 110psi are wonderful. on coarse grade asphalt, tar-and-chip, back country roads (where i ride 99% of my road miles) they are painful. ever rollerblade or skateboard on a bad road? on a cyclocross bike (NOT a hybrid cruiser) you can fit much larger tires (i run 700x35c @ 65 psi) to take the sting off the rough road while your buddies shake every bolt on their pure road rigs loose. |
| rough roads | george_da_trog
Jul 16, 2003 9:18 PM | | Did I just read a mountain biker complain that the roads are too rough for him? Too bumpy? Are these the same rough roads that are ridden by the "weenies" someone else mentioned. |
| 'cross bikes are good at... | Halloween
Jul 16, 2003 11:32 AM | | mixed road/fire road type rides. I call them adventure rides... 80 - 100 miles w/ 50%+ dirt & the rest on pavement. Even w/ 32c tires and a 48 tooth big ring, I can hang with most any roadie around then when I see a sweet dirt path heading off the pavement I can take it if I feel like it.
Fun stuff :) |
| Oh yeah. They're good at 'cross racing too! | Halloween
Jul 16, 2003 11:34 AM | | Peg your heart rate at 200 bpm for an hour! I still haven't decided if it's good or bad for me yet. |
| It all depends (Pros of CX over road) | Steve-O
Jul 16, 2003 12:42 PM | | There are some valid reasons to chose a cross bike over a road bike for road riding...
- Beefier frame will hold up to abuse longer Especially if your a clyde.
- Relaxed cross geometry and upright riding position should be easier for a road newbie to adapt to vs. a standard road bike.
- Ever try to mount fenders or a rack to most of the road frames these days? (doesn't work so well on a Trek 5900)
- Got bad roads? A cross bike will let you mount larger tires.
- Affordability... Since a CX bike is the second or third bike for most people a lot of manufacturers offer a quality, affordable complete bike at a good price (ie - Jamis-Nova, Fort Frames, Surly-CrossCheck, KHS-CX100, etc.)
- Winter riding become feasible with stronger canti brakes, clearance for snow and mud, and the ability to mount knobbies.
With 700x23c tires on my cross bike I get 90% (maybe 95%) of the performance of my road bike. I can live with that compromise;-) |
| In accord | iceaxe
Jul 17, 2003 10:04 AM | | While I'm definitely not dogging cross bikes (my next bike will be a disc equipped crosser). I think, if you want to ride road, get a road bike, if you want to ride trails, get an MTB. If you can't make up your mind, or if you want to ride road and trails all in one outing, get a crosser. Perhaps crossers could be likened to an SUV like the Porsche Cayanne or BMW X5. |
| cross bikes rock! | mt_biker
Jul 16, 2003 11:52 AM | | I just ditched my aluminum road frame for a steel cx bike and LOVE IT!
Roadbike: unforgiving Al frame, 100+psi, 23 tires= harsh
cx bike: steel frame, 80psi, 35 tires= fun
Around here there are more gravel roads than paved. The paved ones are usually chip seal with potholes, etc.
The extra versitility is awesome. When I'm out 'road' riding, I can take of on gravel roads, fireroads, and even some smooth singletrack. The bike is just as fast as my roadie was. |
| depends... | skeeter
Jul 16, 2003 12:58 PM | | i've ridden past dudes on bianchis, softrides, whatever, on an old ass schwinn tempo (late 80's, 6 speed cassette, 7 speed gripshift shifters) that i pieced together. and i've had dudes on the high end bikes blow by me, also.
for starters, i just wouldn't drop a lot of cash on a high end road bike. most entry level new bikes are pretty light and equipped well enough to last a while. now if your goal is to get into racing road, well then, after you train for a while on the entry, then i'd score a nicer bike. after riding in local triathlons and duathlons for two years, i stepped up and scored a trek 2200.
plus, it has always, at least to me, been kindof fun to try to beat the dudes on the high end stuff with my low end stuff. |
| cyclocross vote... | endoh
Jul 16, 2003 9:21 AM | | the fit of the cyclocross frame is more similar to the fit of an mtb. also the beefier frame, bigger tires, and brakes are a bonus if you want to do smooth trails or rough roads. i can't get to the trails as often as i'd like but can always ride the roads. cannondale, trek and khs all offer cyclocross bikes. it's not a "custom" build or rare breed any more. |
| re: Road bike | george_da_trog
Jul 16, 2003 9:56 AM | | Road bikes are a worth investment and you will go faster, but you may still get dropped. Road riding and dirt riding are different. Dirt riding tends to be more accelerating and decelerating with many turns and changes in speed. Road riding tends to be more constant higher speeds for longer times plus. Road biking also involves skills like drafting and taking pulls, and riding in a pack.
You can at least double the miles from dirt to road. A 20 mile dirt ride is roughly equivalent to 50-60 miles of road, depending on the amount of climbing in each.
For some reason, (I haven't figured it out yet), I cand do better on a road bike than on dirt on the climbs. Guys who drop my climbing dirt get left behind on the road climbs.
Road bikes are a blast. |
| Try a recumbent | Aidan
Jul 16, 2003 9:57 AM | | Also consider a good recumbent such as a Rans V-Rex (www.ransbikes.com). Way more fun than a road bike and you will have no problem keeping up with road bikes once you get the hang of it. |
| How do you hop up a curb in a recumbent? | Nat
Jul 16, 2003 10:01 AM | | I've always wondered. |
| How do you hop up a curb in a recumbent? | Aidan
Jul 16, 2003 10:06 AM | | Not such a good idea, you can't lift the front wheel. But then again not such a good idea on a road bike either, stick with the mtb. for that. A recumbent is best for eating up miles on the open road. |
| While 'bents are fun | meloh1
Jul 16, 2003 10:38 AM | | They use different muscles than regular road or MTB's use so endurance acheived on a bent will not necessarilly translate to a MTB. Also, if you take two riders of the same fitness level, put one on a bent and one on a regular road bike, put them on a course with some hills and flats, it's likely that the bent rider will come in behind. Kinda depends on the amount and severity of the hills. They can smoke a diamond frame on the flats and downhills but they really suck on the climbs. Plus, because you can't change position, you're always using the same muscles on the climbs. |
| re:While 'bents are fun | Aidan
Jul 16, 2003 1:07 PM | | >They use different muscles than regular road or MTB's use so endurance acheived on a bent will not necessarilly translate to a MTB.
True you use different muscles but this could be a good thing to get more variety in your workout.
>Also, if you take two riders of the same fitness level, put one on a bent and one on a regular road bike, put them on a course with some hills and flats, it's likely that the bent rider will come in behind. Kinda depends on the amount and severity of the hills. They can smoke a diamond frame on the flats and downhills but they really suck on the climbs. Plus, because you can't change position, you're always using the same muscles on the climbs.
Somewhat true but may be a bit of a generalization. I think it also depends on the bike. Some recumbents, e.g. Rans V-Rex, are quite good for hill climbing. The rider definately needs re-training for hill climbing on a bent. Overall I feel that I am just as fast going up hills on the bent as I used to be on my Bianchi road bike. And downhill is much faster and way more fun.
Recently on a long hill climb in a metric century as I was passing some roadies on regular diamond frames, one of them shouted at me "Hey, that's not fair, aren't you supposed to be slower on a recumbent?" |
| Absolutely! | iceaxe
Jul 16, 2003 10:51 AM | | I was thinking of getting a crosser when I got my road bike, and for a while, I regreted buying the road bike. However, after riding several crossers, they just don't perform on pavement to the level of a good, carbon forked road bike (even with skinny tires). But definitely, my next bike purchase will be a disk equipped crosser. BTW, road riding does wonders for mtb riding. Enjoy!
-Amadeo |
| Absolutely! | endoh
Jul 16, 2003 11:13 AM | | what does the carbon fork do for you? i thought they were just lighter. my c-dale cross bike has the 1" travel headshok. helps on the miserable roads that Pa DOT builds. |
| About carbon | iceaxe
Jul 17, 2003 9:55 AM | | Carbon deadens high frequency vibes--doesn't always make a bike lighter. Aluminum bikes with carbon seat stays are typically heavier than full aluminum. Anyway, I do notice a difference between the standard and carbon forks. I really wanted a crosser with a headshock but didn't have the $$$, I got a sweet deal on a c'dale r800 ~18 lbs. Very happy.
-Amadeo |
| re: Road bike a worthwhile investment? | VT_Hokie
Jul 16, 2003 11:40 AM | | so i think i have determined that a road bike is more suitable for me, as far as training on the road goes. now i think it's more economical to get a decent house brand frame and build around that, but i'm not sure whether it'd be as reliable or perform quite as well say something from trek or giant
also, with component groups, i'm riding with primarily xt components on my mtb, and i'm wondering how the road components compare with the mtb ones. i don't plan on racing anytime soon, and would like to know which group is the best value performance-wise
thanks! |
| re: Road bike a worthwhile investment? | lemmy
Jul 16, 2003 12:50 PM | | Probably 105 (third from top) or Ultegra (2nd from top). I wouldn't even think about Dura-Ace. If I talk myself in to getting one, I will probably go with a used Ultegra bike. If I buy new, it will probbably be 105 stuff. My wife is mostly a roadie and she got a nice Klein Quantum Pro (Ultegra) for $1700 shipped last year. She loves it and it is only about 17 lbs. |
| Agree with lemmy about the 105 group | Nat
Jul 16, 2003 2:00 PM | | The 105, Ultegra, and Dura Ace look functionally identical from the photos I've seen. I think a few grams and the finish are different. I'd get at least 105, but I personally went with Ultegra for my bike. |
| I was wrong, my wife has a Quantum Race, not a Quantum Pro (nm) | lemmy
Jul 16, 2003 5:02 PM | | |
| Yes, BIG difference, and another BIG vote for cyclocross | GlowBoy
Jul 16, 2003 5:38 PM | | Road bikes are easily a couple mph faster than mountain bikes, even with slicks. Bigger wheels that roll faster, higher-pressure skinny tires, a narrower and more aggressive riding position, drop bars that are way more comfortable than flats after 6 hours on the bike, and generally several pounds less weight: it all adds up. Although a 44x11 mountain bike gear can still get you going pretty fast, road bikes are geared yet higher and their use of larger rings and cogs to achieve the same gear is more efficient.
I have to differ with Nat and VT: a cyclocross bike is in NO WAY like a hybrid! Most mainstream 'cross bikes have nearly identical geometry to their "sport/touring" road bikes, the only really substantial frame difference being more clearance for bigger tires and fenders. Even common wisdom about 'crossers having longer wheelbase and higher BBs than road bikes are generally untrue when you're comparing with $1000 road bikes.
Parts-wise, the basic differences between 'cross and road racing bikes are (1) 'cross bikes generally have cantilever brakes for tire clearance, (2) some 'crossers have MTB cassettes and deraillers for wider gear range, (3) usually 'cross bikes have a 48t big ring instead of a 52 or 53t, and (4) the tires.
Tires can be changed out for a few bucks if you're inclined. I've logged a couple thousand road miles on my 'crosser running regular road-issue 120psi 700x23 tires, and with the tire change it's just as fast as a comparably priced "road" bike. That said, I run 700x32s in the winter for better traction, and although the larger heavier tires accelerate a bit more slowly, once up to speed I don't detect any noticeable difference in rolling resistance.
Plus as someone already mentioned, 'cross bikes are awesome for adventure biking. It's not a mountain bike and will beat you up on rough terrain, but a 'crosser can still DO technical singletrack. And for mixed pavement/dirt duty there is nothing better, 'cept possibly a lightweight 29"er.
- Dan |
| I called it a compromise, not a hybrid. | Nat
Jul 16, 2003 7:16 PM | | I know the difference. |
| mt bike: 15 mph avg road bike: 20 mph avg | nasalaunch1
Jul 16, 2003 6:52 PM | | Hi, great discussion. I bought a $130 used, old road bike that had been well maintained and it's been fantastic especially for commuting. Before i commuted on a mt bike and got 15 mph avg, then upped it to 20 mph avg w/the road bike ceteris peribus (all else constant i think). plus, you'll laugh when you ride a road bike after riding a mt bike for such a long time because it's such a different, cooler, and smoother ride. long live all forms of biking! go Lance! |
| re: Road bike a worthwhile investment? - Definitely | Dontgothere
Jul 21, 2003 8:50 AM | | One great thing about a road bike, vs. mtb - you can saddle up in your driveway, ride for however long, and unclip again in your driveway - no time spent taking off the front wheel, putting your bike on the rack, driving, taking your bike off the rack, then riding, then putting your bike back on the rack . . . . You get it - it is time efficient, if time is tight (I work and have two little ones at home, so it is for me). Also, if you're looking to ride with a road riding club group, a true road bike is going to work incrementally better (faster/lighter) than a 'cross bike. Finally, there's nothing quite like 55 mph on a big descent to release adrenaline. - have fun - Kelly |
| |
