Mountain Bike as Tourer?

In article ,
Booker C. Bense
. stanford.edu wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
frank-in-toronto wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:46:39 -0800, "bfd" wrote:

snipper
Hey, if your old mt bike works do it! The key is to ride. Just get a good
set of slick tires, something like 26 x 1.25. Avocet makes a good one that
rolls real nice, but it cost about $20 each.
you mean the cross II K? i'll look around.

_ That's a good tire if you plan to do much dirt road
riding, Avocet also makes a treadless slick in that size
as well, which would be better for mostly paved road riding.

_ Booker C. Bense

My perfectly mundane, rather cheap choice for a slick tire was the Tioga
City Slicker. It's not a pure slick tire, having cute little rain
grooves, but it's cheap and reliable. I think I paid about C$10 ea at
MEC for my set. They're on a mountain bike which, alas, hasn't seen a
lot of action lately.

-RjC.
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

Your prices are on the high side. A LBS has a leftover new 2003 Giant OCR2
for $600 (no pedals) or $650, with pedals. Pretty thing, but aluminum fork -
ugh.

You can get a Fuji touring for $700 at a LBS or a same-thing Windsor Tourist
for $590, delivered. Both are real God-fearing touring bikes with a long
wheelbase, plenty of braze-ons for fenders, and steel frames.

You can spend a k-buck with ease, but you can also spend $600 and end up
with a nice, sturdy steed.

- GRL

"frank-in-toronto" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:21:57 GMT, David
wrote:

snip some alternative info

David.
thanks for presenting the other side. I checked out
some road bikes at the LBS and I'm not spending that
kind of money just to ride around. Looks like 12 or
13 hundred dollars for entry level giant/specialized.
not including fenders, lights, racks.

yikes!

i'm gonna fix up my old mounain bike with some smooth
tires, make my own rear rack and get some riding
gloves. that'll be fine.
...thehick

I've been riding a Mongoose comfort bike fitted with fenders and Ritchey Tom
Slick tires for years now on our local rail trail. Bike has an aluminum
frame, chrome-moly forks and cost me $225 at a Dick's sporting goods store.
I average about 17 mph with it in a dead calm and do 16 miles a day, riding
after work, spring/summer/fall. I pass lots of people on road bikes (and get
passed by a few people on road bikes and one skinny/strong guy on a hybrid).

Point is, you can get a lot of road riding enjoyment out of a very
inexpensive comfort or mountain bike, although I would stay away from
mountain bikes with shocks - a nuisance on paved surfaces.

- GRL
"frank-in-toronto" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:21:57 GMT, David
wrote:

snip some alternative info

David.
thanks for presenting the other side. I checked out
some road bikes at the LBS and I'm not spending that
kind of money just to ride around. Looks like 12 or
13 hundred dollars for entry level giant/specialized.
not including fenders, lights, racks.

yikes!

i'm gonna fix up my old mounain bike with some smooth
tires, make my own rear rack and get some riding
gloves. that'll be fine.
...thehick

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 23:38:47 -0500, "GRL"
wrote:

Your prices are on the high side.
looks to me like you are US. I am canadian.
and also, i'm planning to go sorta slick and
just use what i have. i can't justify spending that
kind of cash just to ride around for fun.
....thehick

GRL wrote:
I've been riding a Mongoose comfort bike fitted with fenders and Ritchey Tom
Slick tires for years now on our local rail trail. Bike has an aluminum
frame, chrome-moly forks and cost me $225 at a Dick's sporting goods store.
I average about 17 mph with it in a dead calm and do 16 miles a day, riding
after work, spring/summer/fall. I pass lots of people on road bikes (and get
passed by a few people on road bikes and one skinny/strong guy on a hybrid).

Point is, you can get a lot of road riding enjoyment out of a very
inexpensive comfort or mountain bike, although I would stay away from
mountain bikes with shocks - a nuisance on paved surfaces.

- GRL
"frank-in-toronto" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:21:57 GMT, David
wrote:

snip some alternative info

David.

thanks for presenting the other side. I checked out
some road bikes at the LBS and I'm not spending that
kind of money just to ride around. Looks like 12 or
13 hundred dollars for entry level giant/specialized.
not including fenders, lights, racks.

yikes!

i'm gonna fix up my old mounain bike with some smooth
tires, make my own rear rack and get some riding
gloves. that'll be fine.
...thehick



As long as it is a bicycle (of any kind) and works it is good to be
riding. A cheap mountain bike serves the purpose of exercise as well as
the kilobuck class bikes, so why argue over it? The MTB gives me the
option of going places a road bike really couldn't go, like a side trail
off from a paved road ride, or something to explore rather than a
serious training ride. Training for what, exactly, at 56???? I am out to
have some fun and not exactly concerned with me exact speed, mileage or
much of anything else. If I can ride a $5.00 garage sale special for a
month before it falls apart I am still ahead of the game.
Bill Baka

Training for what, exactly, at 56????

In my wife's case, the Pinole team time trial and perhaps the district TT
championship (we'll see....)

Even if we weren't racing this year, my wife loves speed and would rather be
able to do more rather than less.

YMMV, of course,


Chris Neary


Chris & Tracey
1999 Co-Motion Speedster

Bill Baka writes:

As long as it is a bicycle (of any kind) and works it is good to be
riding. A cheap mountain bike serves the purpose of exercise as
well as the kilobuck class bikes, so why argue over it? The MTB
gives me the option of going places a road bike really couldn't go,
like a side trail off from a paved road ride, or something to
explore rather than a serious training ride. Training for what,
exactly, at 56???? I am out to have some fun and not exactly
concerned with me exact speed, mileage or much of anything else. If
I can ride a $5.00 garage sale special for a month before it falls
apart I am still ahead of the game.

That has some other side effects. Besides probably not being up to
the task mechanically, the riding position of an MTB is more rearward
to avoid endo's on trail riding, that is the distance from handlebar
to seat is greater, which makes long distance pedaling a less
comfortable and effective. The other is that most MTB's are equipped
almost exclusively with knobby tires. These roll miserably on
pavement, a surface on which most bicycle tours take place if not on
hard-pack dirt roads.

I encounter European tourists traveling along the Pacific coast HWY1
with MTB's on ultra knobby tires making slow progress even with the
tailwind that blows from the north in summer. I coast down some of
the grades sitting upright and pass them with a significant speed
margin, one that tells me their rolling resistance is significantly
higher than my road slicks. Of course we know that from RR tests.

If you insist on using an MTB, at least get some slicks and try to fix
the position by using a short bar stem or even a short one turned
backward. Of course, I see the same thing in the Alps because young
(non-bikie) athletic people who can do these things without a lot of
training believe MTB's are made for riding in mountains. They are
not.

Jobst Brandt

Bill Baka writes:

As long as it is a bicycle (of any kind) and works it is good to be
riding. A cheap mountain bike serves the purpose of exercise as
well as the kilobuck class bikes, so why argue over it? The MTB
gives me the option of going places a road bike really couldn't go,
like a side trail off from a paved road ride, or something to
explore rather than a serious training ride. Training for what,
exactly, at 56???? I am out to have some fun and not exactly
concerned with me exact speed, mileage or much of anything else. If
I can ride a $5.00 garage sale special for a month before it falls
apart I am still ahead of the game.

That has some other effects. Besides a $5.00 bicycle probably not
being up to the task mechanically, the riding position of a MTB is
more stretched to avoid endo's on trail riding, that is the distance
from handlebar to seat is greater, which makes long distance pedaling
less comfortable and effective. Another is that most MTB's are
equipped almost exclusively with knobby tires that roll miserably,
especially on hard surfaces, those on which most bicycle touring take
place.

I encounter European tourists traveling along the California Pacific
coast on HWY1 with MTB's on ultra knobby tires. They make slow
progress even with the tailwind that regularly blows from the north in
summer. I coast down some of the grades sitting upright and pass them
with a significant speed margin, one that tells me their rolling
resistance is significantly greater than my road slicks. Of course we
know that from RR tests.

If you insist on using an MTB, at least get some slicks and try to fix
the position by using a short bar stem or even a short one turned
backward. Of course, I see the same thing in the Alps because young
(non-bikie) athletic people who can do these things without a lot of
training believe MTB's are made for riding in mountains. They are
not.

Jobst Brandt

wrote:

Bill Baka writes:

As long as it is a bicycle (of any kind) and works it is good to be
riding. A cheap mountain bike serves the purpose of exercise as
well as the kilobuck class bikes, so why argue over it? The MTB
gives me the option of going places a road bike really couldn't go,
like a side trail off from a paved road ride, or something to
explore rather than a serious training ride. Training for what,
exactly, at 56???? I am out to have some fun and not exactly
concerned with me exact speed, mileage or much of anything else. If
I can ride a $5.00 garage sale special for a month before it falls
apart I am still ahead of the game.

That has some other effects. Besides a $5.00 bicycle probably not
being up to the task mechanically, the riding position of a MTB is
more stretched to avoid endo's on trail riding, that is the distance
from handlebar to seat is greater, which makes long distance pedaling
less comfortable and effective. Another is that most MTB's are
equipped almost exclusively with knobby tires that roll miserably,
especially on hard surfaces, those on which most bicycle touring take
place.

I encounter European tourists traveling along the California Pacific
coast on HWY1 with MTB's on ultra knobby tires. They make slow
progress even with the tailwind that regularly blows from the north in
summer. I coast down some of the grades sitting upright and pass them
with a significant speed margin, one that tells me their rolling
resistance is significantly greater than my road slicks. Of course we
know that from RR tests.

If you insist on using an MTB, at least get some slicks and try to fix
the position by using a short bar stem or even a short one turned
backward. Of course, I see the same thing in the Alps because young
(non-bikie) athletic people who can do these things without a lot of
training believe MTB's are made for riding in mountains. They are
not.

Points well taken, but you're not necessarily correct about riding position.
Most experienced riders I know have their road and mountain bikes set up so the
relationship between handlebar and seat is almost identical. A drop bar gives
more hand positions and a more aerodynamic option, but the general riding
position is the same. If a tourist's position looks too upright to you, perhaps
it's on purpose. Most mountain bikes come set up for a "racing" position as I
just described. Mountain bikes are perfectly suited for loaded touring, if set
up properly. By that I mean comfortable for the person riding them, so they can
spend long days in the saddle.

Through my own experience on club rides, I've found that with fast slicks, a
mountain bike is at no disadvantage up to about 18 MPH. This covers most loaded
touring situations.

About tires -- most mountain bike slicks are still considerably slower than good
road bike tires, but some are just as fast. Continental has said the 1.75"
Avenue is their lowest RR model, including all the skinny road tires they sell..
Having used Avenues I concur. They seem as fast as anything else. I have yet
to find another fat slick that's comparable, but there must be some. It would
be interesting to test the current crop of tires.

Also, the next time you see a tourist plodding along, remember not everyone
cares about speed or mechanical efficiency. Who's to say they're having any
less fun than you are. The best sailors in the world circumnavigate at 4 knots!

Matt O.

wrote:
Bill Baka writes:


As long as it is a bicycle (of any kind) and works it is good to be
riding. A cheap mountain bike serves the purpose of exercise as
well as the kilobuck class bikes, so why argue over it? The MTB
gives me the option of going places a road bike really couldn't go,
like a side trail off from a paved road ride, or something to
explore rather than a serious training ride. Training for what,
exactly, at 56???? I am out to have some fun and not exactly
concerned with me exact speed, mileage or much of anything else. If
I can ride a $5.00 garage sale special for a month before it falls
apart I am still ahead of the game.


That has some other side effects. Besides probably not being up to
the task mechanically, the riding position of an MTB is more rearward
to avoid endo's on trail riding, that is the distance from handlebar
to seat is greater, which makes long distance pedaling a less
comfortable and effective. The other is that most MTB's are equipped
almost exclusively with knobby tires. These roll miserably on
pavement, a surface on which most bicycle tours take place if not on
hard-pack dirt roads.

I have four different bikes, including an old Motobecane and a Schwinn
Super Sport, and each does feel different, but none are really
uncomfortable. Even with knobbies I have done about 90 miles of mixed
pavement and gravel. On one MTB I changed to 1.75" street tires and it
is now better for the road yet still able to take me to those
interesting diversions.

I encounter European tourists traveling along the Pacific coast HWY1
with MTB's on ultra knobby tires making slow progress even with the
tailwind that blows from the north in summer. I coast down some of
the grades sitting upright and pass them with a significant speed
margin, one that tells me their rolling resistance is significantly
higher than my road slicks. Of course we know that from RR tests.

No argument here as I have been passed by a guy with 700 tires while
riding on knobbies, both coasting down a long hill.

If you insist on using an MTB, at least get some slicks and try to fix
the position by using a short bar stem or even a short one turned
backward. Of course, I see the same thing in the Alps because young
(non-bikie) athletic people who can do these things without a lot of
training believe MTB's are made for riding in mountains. They are
not.

True about MTBs and mountains. They are made to go off road and not at a
very high speed. A road bike can handle a mountain just as well as a
MTB as long as it is on pavement. I did take a road bike off pavement a
few times and found the ride somewhere between interesting and butt
pounding. Those 120 PSI tires don't have much give to them.

Jobst Brandt


Much of my enjoyment comes from being outdoors and the bike becomes so
transparent after a while that I can forget which one I am riding. It is
possible to zone out while pedaling a long flat, and that is probably
better than worrying about other matters. By zone out, I do not mean
lack of attention to safety, but a certain bliss that a long steady ride
can bring.
Bill Baka