rode riding?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: rode riding?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    218

    rode riding?

    Thinking about a bike like this.
    http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/bike_path/fx/75fx/

    First of all, I hate riding on the road, but I can understand training benefits to it. I was thinking about getting some smooth tires for my old (15 years old) trek that way I can put it on a trainer, or ride on the roads. and have a general purpose bike. Then I saw this bike, and I just think the bike looks cool. I know that is pretty stupid reason, but I would really consider getting this bike. How durable are the tires on a bike like this? Trek considers it a bike path bike, but does that mean paved bike paths only, or can it do smooth gravel too? My wife used to ride road bikes, and see always talks about how gravel will tear the tires, I have no knowledge with them and find that hard to believe. There is no way I could ride a bike if I could take off and go through a grave parking lot, or screw around a little on.

  2. #2
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Why not a cyclocross bike ?

  3. #3
    pants on head retarded
    Reputation: yurtinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    256
    I'm interested in cross bikes as well... I'm considering one to use as a commuter (bike path to work isn't perfect and there's a short dirt stretch) and potentially dropping slicks on to try out triathalons this summer on something a bit quicker than my mountain rig.

    The bike linked looks like slick tires and a solid fork on what otherwise looks to be a mountain bike, somebody will correct me if I'm wrong. So, dropping slicks on your old bike would serve a similar purpose. A cyclocross bike on the other hand is more of a burly road bike with knobby tires.

    A problem with skinny tires offroad is they won't stay on top of gravel, you will sink in and increase wear on the soft sides of the tire and your rims.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dremer03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Quote Originally Posted by rockyrunner99
    Thinking about a bike like this.
    http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/bike_path/fx/75fx/

    First of all, I hate riding on the road, but I can understand training benefits to it. I was thinking about getting some smooth tires for my old (15 years old) trek that way I can put it on a trainer, or ride on the roads. and have a general purpose bike. Then I saw this bike, and I just think the bike looks cool. I know that is pretty stupid reason, but I would really consider getting this bike. How durable are the tires on a bike like this? Trek considers it a bike path bike, but does that mean paved bike paths only, or can it do smooth gravel too? My wife used to ride road bikes, and see always talks about how gravel will tear the tires, I have no knowledge with them and find that hard to believe. There is no way I could ride a bike if I could take off and go through a grave parking lot, or screw around a little on.
    That bike would be fine for bike path and road, my be a bit squirrelly on gravel or loose surface with the 700cx32c tires. It is basically a road bike with a flat mountain bike handlebar. So you have the smoothness and the speed of a road bike with the comfort of a mountain bike.
    Big Foot Blue KHS XC704r

  5. #5
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Not road bike geometry , top tube is very short , makes for a very upright position . Its basically a canal/bike path bike . I think you would be better off w/ a mtb with commuter tires or a CX bike .

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,559
    thats a roadbike without drop bars. might as well get a real road bike, they're more comfortable.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,559
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS
    Not road bike geometry , top tube is very short , .
    huh? the medium has a 56.8cm top tube! the small is even 54.8cm. thats a really surprisingly long top tube.

    its much slacker than a typical roadbike, but its pretty long. its really going to ride like a touring road bike.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dremer03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot
    huh? the medium has a 56.8cm top tube! the small is even 54.8cm. thats a really surprisingly long top tube.

    its much slacker than a typical roadbike, but its pretty long. its really going to ride like a touring road bike.
    Has the same basic 54cm top tube length as a Ximo Road frame. The only real difference is the headtube angle is have 3 degrees different than a road bike. Sette Ximo has a 73 degree HA and the Trek has a 70.5 HA in the same size frame.
    Big Foot Blue KHS XC704r

  9. #9
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    W/ flat bars the top tube has to get longer or you get upright position , slack angles just makes it worse . Check the geo again the TT is shorter than the seat tube , this is nothing more than a comfort bike .

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,559
    are we looking at the same bike? the medium has a 568mm top tube, and a 508mm seat tube... so the top tube is 600mm longer than the seat tube.

    their seat tube measurement isnt measuring like most bikes are measured. if you click over to their road section, they measure center to top of the seat tube. on the FX they're measuring top of the bb to bottom of the intersection or something.

    my giant OCR1 compact (which means abnormally short seat tubes) is 550mm tt, 500mm st.. so that bike is even longer than my road bike.

  11. #11
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Were looking @ the same bike , different size though , I'm looking @ the XL . So in the case of the med. it prob. is more road bike . Sorry about any confusion , just used to looking at them in my size . In the XL this bike is very short .

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,559
    the XL (635mm st) is 603mm tt, and an XL (640mm)1.1 road bike is 610mm tt.

    i never payed attention to how the lengths go in such large sizes, you're right though, the top tubes are shorter than the seat tubes, but they're like that on normal road bikes as well.. so compared to a normal road bike of similar size, the top tube is only 7mm shorter, and seat tube 5mm lower. pretty comparable!

  13. #13
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    The top tube on my road bike is 1.5 cm's longer than the seat tube (horizontal) . I understand that some of the newer "compact" road stuff is getting shorter , but I find this one to be very short in the XL size . Just seems to be very upright .

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: s0ckeyeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,185
    Ride ridden.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drmayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    251
    I own the exact bike you're looking at (in 22") along with a road (trek 1.5) and a FS mtb. The FX is a nice general purpose road and gravel trail bike. Don't worry too much about the tires, they are the kevlar "hard case" tire which is more durable. You can fit 700x35 cross tires on it if you'd like. Tires are cheap. I don't use it for long (20+ mi) road rides, but commute with it and ride it around with the wife. Its definitely faster on the road than a mtb with smooth tires, mostly due to the gearing. Also a better riding position for the road.

    Go for it, you won't regret it.


  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,106
    Quote Originally Posted by rockyrunner99
    Trek considers it a bike path bike, but does that mean paved bike paths only, or can it do smooth gravel too? My wife used to ride road bikes, and see always talks about how gravel will tear the tires, I have no knowledge with them and find that hard to believe. There is no way I could ride a bike if I could take off and go through a grave parking lot, or screw around a little on.

    I agree with those that suggested a cross bike. A cross bike with an extra set of road tires seems like it covers more bases then most other choices.

  17. #17
    too cold to ride
    Reputation: BigSharks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,130
    If you have a grand to spend, by all means spend. I'd throw a set of slicks on the mtb, otherwise.
    Now go home and get your ******* shinebox.

  18. #18
    I Have Cookies
    Reputation: ae111black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by BigSharks
    If you have a grand to spend, by all means spend. I'd throw a set of slicks on the mtb, otherwise.
    +1! that's usually the best option IMHO!! Or better yet another set of wheel's with the "slicks" on em!! Because changing tires is a PITA!!!!
    The most important thing is what God thinks about it. He will have the final say. Joshua Stinebrink

    ____
    Kimo

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    218
    Yeah that is probably what I will end up doing cause I am cheap, and if I were to get a new bike, I should upgrade my mt bike first. I have been thinking about that bike though, and jst wondered about the tires on gravel. Our house is about 1/8 mile down a gravel drive, and my wife has to push her sissy rode bike to the pavement. I would not have a bike like that.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,738
    You can always spend $40 on new slick tires for the MTB and then if that fails move on to a whole new bike

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbGreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    788
    "rode" riding... haha nice.

    And yeh, I'd totally buy a road bike if I had the $$ to spend
    Feel free to check out my personal website, Greg Heil.com

  22. #22
    Dirty South Underdog
    Reputation: Andrea138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,727
    Road bikes do fine on gravel as long as you do as well. I'm riding in a road race this weekend that includes ~15 miles of sandy gravel roads.
    Brickhouse Blog (most known unknown)

    Just Riding Along- best internet radio show on Mountain Bike Radio

  23. #23
    i also unicycle
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,043
    for almost a grand, i'd look into an entry level cross bike. also the reason these flat bar bikes have long/same top tubes as "real" road bikes is that drop bars go forward a little from the stem to the hoods, flat bars don't. so seat to bar is much shorter, resulting in a more upright position.
    mtbr says you should know: i work in a bike shop.
    bikes & beers (on my blog) http://idontrideenough.blogspot.com/

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,559
    id really stick with the mtb for dirt and the road bike for road. it just makes more sense. get a real road bike, you'll enjoy it. a road bike on the road is many times better than a mtb with slicks, or a cross bike, or a hybrid or anything.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.