cs1

They both have 700C wheels is one really any better than the other? Other than a suspension fork why would you get a 29'r MTB over a Cyclo Cross bike? The Cross bike actually seems more versatile to me. Any opinions?

Tim

taylor p

because its a mountain bike.

Thread closed

Law Rance

you can't fit real 29er tires in most if not all cross frames (some like the crosscheck come close)

MTB Geometry is much different as well. slacker HT angle, and longer top tube.

paul emick

I'd personally feel less than confident on a cross bike during steeper climbs and descents. YMMV.

BFG

Climbs i would prefer a cross bike with knobbly tread, but id prefer the MTB on descents.
100/80mm 29er hardtail would do me good.

cyccommute 

It's all about positioning. As others have stated the geometries are different. Additionally, the bars on a cross bike...if you are using traditional drop bars...put you further out over the front wheel. The head angle is probably steeper too. Drop into something steep and you'll feel like your nose is going to scrape the ground. I've done a little off-road riding on drop bars and bikes with steep front geometries and it's not for the faint of heart The front end is very sketchy on downhills.

Also, as with most hybrids, something that does everything will probably do everything adequately but nothing well. In other words, a cross bike is an okay road bike and an okay mild off-road bike. It does better as a kind of road bike then as a kind of mountain bike. If you want to do either activity well, it'd be better to get one bike for each.

Xanti Andia

I'd stay away from 29er on account of finding tires, specially outside the US. Not that many sold. You will find road tires but if you want wider tyres with more agresive tread for mountain cycling you could some day have a problem. In Argentina Trek brought some and then discontinued them for this reason, so God help the few that did buy them. If the 29er fad does not hold 10 years down the road who knows. If you never leave the US or perhaps in Europe you will probably do OK, but in Asia and South America forget it.

Rutnick

are you talking about taking a X bike on a MTB trail?

If you are, I have the perfect story. Guy shows up last year racing sport at a MTB race. The course can be technical, some brutal climbs and some good descents. The course is rocky, rooty and you can get air on the course if you really want.

The course was close to 30 miles and was a point to point race.

How did the guy place? DEAD LAST. He was at least 1 hour or more behind the 1st place finisher.

Rico, do you remember that guy?

With all that said, I have heard of people racing X bikes at MTB races on fast flowing trails and doing well. This wasn't one of those times. Definately a case of knowing the trail and your equipment.

I've got a X bike and I can't think of many MTB trails that I would even want to try and ride it on. Maybe the Mosquito trail and Blanket Creek in GA.

Rutnick

No UPS or Fed Ex there? You don't have to have a brick and mortar store to get tires.

Oleanshoebox

I was reading the other day about how 29ers have been around for something like 20 years-on the fringes I guess-and it doesn't seem likely that they are on their way out. The reason that mountain bikes were made with 26 inch wheels in the first place was entirely arbitrary and not based on any kind of scientific designs. I agree that smaller wheels make sense for some applications, but 9ers are here to stay. Thats my bet, anyway.

iqaro

I also would prefer a 700*38, but here in Colombia there are not supplies for that tires, so I deal for MTB (559mm) rims, that allow me more choices in tires: from 26*1" up to 26*2", if I stand for 26er (622mm) rims, I will stand for delays and S&H cost and taxes that 3-fold and maybe 4-fold the cost of a tire. Same for forks and frames....

Regards...

cs1

The 650B guys are saying the same thing. That size has been around since before WWII.

Tim

iqaro

Agreed. On the other hand, you can have a very decent MTB for the fraction of a cross bike. I commute and do some road on a MTB with 26*1.95 allterrainasaurus rear and 26*1.90" slick front, and do some trail with 26*2.14" Motoraptor rear and 26*1.95" Allterrainausus front, this bike cost me ~US$1000.... A cyclocross with likewise features maybe is in the ~US$2000. My bike do very well in trail and commuting in bombed streets (i must hop a lot of curbes)... Actually I'm saving for building up a roadie to do more mileage on pavement....

born2bahick

Ive seen some very reasonable cross bikes, An 07, Surly cross check, $899.00
https://www.oldspokeshome.com/bicycles.php

teamcompi

I have a KM by Surly....is it a 29er or a cross....please define.

Its got huge tires, rigid fork, with a fast tire change its a hybrid, with a bit of time and a fixed hub its a fixie....


When I have the big rubber on it, it rides like a fine MTN bike, rolling over the stuff I want to roll over, yet seems to be really responsive, I know it doesn't have all the travel of a good suspension fork, but its great for me. Right now its dressed with studded tires and its my commuter.

I agree that a do all bike likely does nothing well but if you get a chance ride a monkey, and see if it fulfills your needs.

Rincewind8

+shipping to Columbia (iqaro seems to be located there) +import taxes/duty = much more expensive

born2bahick

I wasn't suggesting he buy one. Just showing cost comparison. There are surely places in his area to find similar deals. K2 and Ironhorse, have inexspensive offerings as well. He mentioned $1000.00 US, I've found a lot of well equipped cross bikes in that price range.

elemental

I think it's worth clarifying that a 'cross bike is a cyclocross bike, not a "cross" between a mountain bike and a road bike. It is nit a compromise, but has very specific purpose, cyclocross. Therefore, a good reason to buy a 'cross bike over a 29er mountain bike is to ride 'cross, and a good reason to choose the mountain bike is for mountain biking. Saying one is "better" than the other is like declaring apples superior to oranges.

As far as versatility, you could argue that a 'cross bike is more versatile as it is a much better performer on paved roads (particularly when fitted with road tires), but if you aren't interested in that, it doesn't matter.

I own a 'cross bike and have access to a mountain bike, and from my experience, riding the 'cross bike on the singletrack out here is doable, but would certainly not be my first choice. It is, however, excellent for the sort of smooth doubletrack, dirt road, and fireroad riding it was built for. It also serves as my commuter as it is one thousand times more roadworthy. Get the bike that's designed for what you want to do.

cyccommute 

I agree with everything you say. To clarify, when I used the term 'hybrid', I meant it in the generic sense...as in a something that is meant for a dual use. Seldom do such beasties do much better than just marginally in the two worlds they are designed for. I agree that a 'cross bike is meant for a specific off-road activity but is much more road worthy then a mountain bike would be...and a lot less off-road worthy then a mountain bike.

cs1

That's the problem. We, cycling public, believe that we need a different bike for every type of riding we do. We need a MTB bike for trail riding. We need a road bike for the road and trainer for when we don't race. The list goes on and on. When you're done you wind up with half a dozen bikes that get very little use but cost a fortune.

Tim

elemental

Oh how I pine for the days of my penny farthing:



I used it for some mad tight freeriding and downhill and raced in the Tour de France!



I don't see how suggesting that the you purchase the bicycle designed for the style of riding you do most perpetuates this idea. Asking which is "better" is liking comparing a sports car to a pickup truck (well, they're closer than that, but you get the idea).

If you are asking which is more versatile, then there's a discussion. You haven't even mentioned what kind of riding this is intended for.

Oleanshoebox

+1

I agree that there are many people that own more bikes than they could possibly use, but what is wrong with that? If it makes them happy, more power to them. There are much worse things they could be spending money on.

You can ride any bike on the road or the trail or wherever, but if you want it to be safe and perform well, you need to select a bike that is appropriate for your intended use. There is simply no way around it.

born2bahick

On the other hand, I tried making a hybrid a "do it all " bike and it sucked. It didn't do anything well and wasn't enjoyable for riding anywhere, except commuting. I soon became a "specific application" type cyclist

Jeffbeerman2

29er will roll better on a loose surface because of the fatter tires. Get a cross check and a Pugs

toeoverlapaphobia will totally mess you up when riding a cross bike with tires larger than 35mm. It takes me 15 minutes on my mountain bike to be confident while steering sharply at low speed because of all the miles spent on my cross bike commuting

toptubegonadaphobia will totally mess you up when trying to gather the courage to do something rad on a cross bike (yes, I used the word rad, totally)

Jeffbeerman2

Where were you 6 years ago?

Seriously, it is difficult to transportation, road-ride recreatinally, and MTB with less than three bikes (and perhaps a trailer). I have that and still want a folder