Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Frames (was: Re: cleaning the commute bike)
Date: 21 Jan 2025 20:40:36 GMT
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <lvaf24F424rU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <lv4gq1F591bU1@mid.individual.net>
 <7duroj50rdm8bb3ill914legr6tus4ahce@4ax.com>
 <cfdsojdoq86vt5l2h79mkvvq4go4hph5d5@4ax.com>
 <obfsoj97isbnb8hb9o389h3o1nua3br8nu@4ax.com>
 <6dgsojd8km01ucp8tnlf03ullo27ej20k3@4ax.com>
 <hhqsoj5sl8b24rcpfersk298qaff10pab6@4ax.com>
 <vmluf6$38pj2$2@dont-email.me>
 <lv7jiiFkg7rU1@mid.individual.net>
 <4lsuojpdf56r7mbtr61a9a061l223351j5@4ax.com>
 <lv9cq6Ft7fuU1@mid.individual.net>
 <hm5vojljolt770adqia39fkbrrg96r86c7@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 5AOT1/6Tq/b5gtnD7VwX8wUR/6okgv+FxosYIKYDg8cyp+EDzW
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6CzLZIzKjyZjbperE41ZPk87SsI= sha1:NubKkuSvK2Wu3mLLzgI3IJW46kM= sha256:90p17hKWvp04GZScCs8UoAuxrstTTaQmdBoAu+pqYGM=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Bytes: 6533

Wolfgang Strobl <news51@mystrobl.de> wrote:
> Am 21 Jan 2025 10:56:06 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>:
> 
>> Wolfgang Strobl <news51@mystrobl.de> wrote:
>>> Am 20 Jan 2025 18:39:14 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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.  
>>> 
>> That was never a use case for MTB’s particularly or rather bit or a lot
>> overkill for its use.
> 
> 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.

My MTB on roads feels sluggish, after all it has a upright position and
heavy and slow rolling tyres, which are remarkably planted once off road
and on wet roots and what not, and doesn’t feel slow once it’s in the
woods/mountains but fire roads are definitely Gravel bike terrain.
> 
> 
>> 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.  
> 
The Gravel bike is good enough really, its position and tyres do give away
some speed but it’s not that much, it’s more than marginal gains but a
Gravel bike is still a road bike and can absolutely keep up on a club run
and so on, not perhaps a fast chain gang, but most stuff will be fine.
>> 
>> 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.   

XC bikes and indeed riders are quite close to road than the more burly
types of MTBing which does favour a bit more strength, 
> 
> People nowadays buy something like this, for a MTB:
> <https://www.mtb-mag.com/en/pivot-presents-the-new-firebird-29/>

Seems a fairly conservatively designed Enduro bike looking at the Geometry
etc.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
At the price point I tend to go for metal seems the normal choice, plus I’d
be slightly concerned about frame damage.

Roger Merriman