Rigid MTB with road handlebar as a gravel bike?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33
  1. #1
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,373

    Rigid MTB with road handlebar as a gravel bike?

    What would happen if you take a rigid mtb and put road handlebar on it? Would it make for a good gravel bike? This question has been answered:

    https://www.evil-bikes.com/a/bikes/chamois-hagar

    so, have we come full circle with the marriage of road and mtb now?
    I personally think this bike is somehow a little ugly and looks very awkward, sort of like a football quarterback wearing high heels and lipstick for the prom?

  2. #2
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    28,877
    They've been things for years. "Monstercross" builds were things in the DIY space since 26" MTBs were things. That being said now they have some retail presence....some are less garish than others. One of my riding mates has a Salsa Fargo Ti setup for dropbars with 3" 650B tires. Thing it the perfect tank for pea-gravel roads and trails we have up here.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3,627
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    sort of like a football quarterback wearing high heels and lipstick for the prom?
    .... what is your point ? QB's can't be happy?

    ..... what part of the bike is the high heels?
    BANNED

  4. #4
    KWL
    KWL is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: KWL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,762
    "They've been things for years." See Charlie Cunningham's bikes.
    Ken
    P.J. O'Rourke: The Internet - whose idea was it to put all the idiots on earth in touch with each other?

  5. #5
    Banned Sock Puppet
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,709
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    What would happen if you take a rigid mtb and put road handlebar on it? Would it make for a good gravel bike? This question has been answered:

    https://www.evil-bikes.com/a/bikes/chamois-hagar

    so, have we come full circle with the marriage of road and mtb now?
    I personally think this bike is somehow a little ugly and looks very awkward, sort of like a football quarterback wearing high heels and lipstick for the prom?
    Looks like a gravel bike to me. I don't see anything mountain about it. Most mountain bikes now have wider tires than that.
    "If someone needs 200 rolls of toilet paper for a 14-day quarantine, they probably should have made a doctor's appointment way before the COVID-19 outbreak." -- Unknown

    "With
    bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important."
    -- DCGriz, RBR.




  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,373
    Quote Originally Posted by duriel View Post
    .... what is your point ? QB's can't be happy?

    ..... what part of the bike is the high heels?
    66.5 degree head angle. That's slacker than many XC mtb bike, which is around 72 degree. What's the point of using such a slack head angle on a bike like this? In addition, they put a 50mm stem on it. What?? My XC mtb bike in size small has an 80mm stem. And the dropper post. Yeah it's a nice add-on, but is that even necessary? I don't even use a dropper post on my xc mtb and I'm able to roll over most things under 2 feet high.

    if I put a road bar and skinny tires on my xc bike, i'll get a faster and more capable bike than this!

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    Looks like a gravel bike to me. I don't see anything mountain about it. Most mountain bikes now have wider tires than that.
    the all mountain mtb's are trending to 2.3+ tires, it's all just a trend, make the bikes slow af! On xc machines, guys are still using 2.2 which is around 53mm, and this bike has 50mm tires, so they're definitely comparable to xc mtb's

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,373
    back in 2008-2009, Niner RDO rigid fork created a new class of rigid mtb's, guys were converting their hardtail to full rigids. But today you put road bars on these virtually same bikes and now you have "gravel" class. My point here is that this gravel class thing is nothing new, guys have been running 'gravel' bikes with flat bars a decade ago

    https://bikepacking.com/gear/niner-c...b-fork-review/

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    They've been things for years. "Monstercross" builds were things in the DIY space since 26" MTBs were things. That being said now they have some retail presence....some are less garish than others. One of my riding mates has a Salsa Fargo Ti setup for dropbars with 3" 650B tires. Thing it the perfect tank for pea-gravel roads and trails we have up here.
    right. A decade ago if you were to take an xc mtb and put road bar on it, people would be laughing at you. Today, it's called gravel and it's cool lol

  10. #10
    Banned Sock Puppet
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,709
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    the all mountain mtb's are trending to 2.3+ tires, it's all just a trend, make the bikes slow af! On xc machines, guys are still using 2.2 which is around 53mm, and this bike has 50mm tires, so they're definitely comparable to xc mtb's
    So how much slower do you think a 2.4 tire will make the bike vs. a 2.2 tire? Tire compound, tread and sidewall stiffness will make far more difference than 0.2 inches of width.

    Gravel bikes generally have room for 700c x 40 tires which will also give you room for around 650b x 50 tires. Looks like almost a mountain bike tire to me.
    "If someone needs 200 rolls of toilet paper for a 14-day quarantine, they probably should have made a doctor's appointment way before the COVID-19 outbreak." -- Unknown

    "With
    bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important."
    -- DCGriz, RBR.




  11. #11
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    28,877
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    right. A decade ago if you were to take an xc mtb and put road bar on it, people would be laughing at you. Today, it's called gravel and it's cool lol
    Naw, only Arrogant Roadie Pricks as known on RBR.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  12. #12
    Banned Sock Puppet
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Naw, only Arrogant Roadie Pricks as known on RBR.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Marc again.


    "If someone needs 200 rolls of toilet paper for a 14-day quarantine, they probably should have made a doctor's appointment way before the COVID-19 outbreak." -- Unknown

    "With
    bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important."
    -- DCGriz, RBR.




  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    So how much slower do you think a 2.4 tire will make the bike vs. a 2.2 tire? Tire compound, tread and sidewall stiffness will make far more difference than 0.2 inches of width.

    Gravel bikes generally have room for 700c x 40 tires which will also give you room for around 650b x 50 tires. Looks like almost a mountain bike tire to me.
    first let's talk about tire size. The difference between 2.2 and 2.4 is huge if you're looking to go fast on most terrains short of a full blown downhill course. Simply put, the 2.2 will roll hellafaster in almost every conceivable condition that is not a mud-cake.

    now let's talk about weight. Difference between 2.2 and 2.4 is also huge, oh yeah you can feel this with each pedal stroke. A 2.2 xc tire vs a 2.4 all-mountain tire, you're looking at 600g vs 800g for each tire, that's over a pound of rolling weight for 2 tires.

    then here's the tread pattern. Most 2.4+ tires tend to have all-mountain tread with big lots of big knobs, while the 2.2 is geared toward xc and have smaller and widely-spaced knobs. It's part of the reason why 2.2 roll faster.

    I don't know of any 2.4 tire that has "xc" tread pattern, they just don't exist. People buy 2.4 for their burliness, so 2.4 are usually heavy tires.

    my personal experience is that anything bigger than 2.3 rolls like a pig and doesn't really offer much more traction on most trails that is dry.

  14. #14
    Banned Sock Puppet
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,709
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    first let's talk about tire size. The difference between 2.2 and 2.4 is huge if you're looking to go fast on most terrains short of a full blown downhill course. Simply put, the 2.2 will roll hellafaster in almost every conceivable condition that is not a mud-cake.

    now let's talk about weight. Difference between 2.2 and 2.4 is also huge, oh yeah you can feel this with each pedal stroke. A 2.2 xc tire vs a 2.4 all-mountain tire, you're looking at 600g vs 800g for each tire, that's over a pound of rolling weight for 2 tires.

    then here's the tread pattern. Most 2.4+ tires tend to have all-mountain tread with big lots of big knobs, while the 2.2 is geared toward xc and have smaller and widely-spaced knobs. It's part of the reason why 2.2 roll faster.

    I don't know of any 2.4 tire that has "xc" tread pattern, they just don't exist. People buy 2.4 for their burliness, so 2.4 are usually heavy tires.

    my personal experience is that anything bigger than 2.3 rolls like a pig and doesn't really offer much more traction on most trails that is dry.
    Sounds like apples to oranges comparison. It appears the 2.4 tires you have experienced have a "burlier" design than the 2.2 tires. So you are effectively proving my point that "burliness" as you put it has much more impact on speed than width. Naturally, tires designed for all-mountain will need to be thicker in order to prevent punctures while xc tires are designed for speed at the cost of puncture resistance and longevity.

    And you are incorrect that there aren't any 2.4 tires designed for xc and trail riding.

    I maintain that if you took the exact same tire design in a 2.2 vs. a 2.4 width, you would notice little to no difference in speed. The only thing you would notice is that the 2.4 tire would be less rough rolling over objects.
    "If someone needs 200 rolls of toilet paper for a 14-day quarantine, they probably should have made a doctor's appointment way before the COVID-19 outbreak." -- Unknown

    "With
    bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important."
    -- DCGriz, RBR.




  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    first let's talk about tire size. The difference between 2.2 and 2.4 is huge if you're looking to go fast on most terrains short of a full blown downhill course. Simply put, the 2.2 will roll hellafaster in almost every conceivable condition that is not a mud-cake.

    now let's talk about weight. Difference between 2.2 and 2.4 is also huge, oh yeah you can feel this with each pedal stroke. A 2.2 xc tire vs a 2.4 all-mountain tire, you're looking at 600g vs 800g for each tire, that's over a pound of rolling weight for 2 tires.

    then here's the tread pattern. Most 2.4+ tires tend to have all-mountain tread with big lots of big knobs, while the 2.2 is geared toward xc and have smaller and widely-spaced knobs. It's part of the reason why 2.2 roll faster.

    I don't know of any 2.4 tire that has "xc" tread pattern, they just don't exist. People buy 2.4 for their burliness, so 2.4 are usually heavy tires.

    my personal experience is that anything bigger than 2.3 rolls like a pig and doesn't really offer much more traction on most trails that is dry.
    I hate to do this, but, you are wrong or underinformed on every point of this post.It's like you skipped the last 3 years of mountain bike tires. Bontrager XR2 come in 2.35, 2.6 and 3.0. That is an XC tire. Tire weight is NOT determined by tire width. For example, the Bontrager XR2 3.0 is lighter than the XR4 2.6. It has everything to do with the casing of the tire and the tread.

    There are so many different tires out there. You have just taken the limited experience you have with a small handful of tires and blanketed all tires with that opinion and the information you provided is incorrect.

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,373
    while I may not be up to date or aware of all the mtb tire designs out here and what the latest tire trend is (eg, plus sizes), this I will concede.

    But ok, let's as this question. Do you guys agree that the Trek "Caliber" is a racing xc machine? and that Trek knows what tires would be optimal for the Caliber? Do you at least agree with me on this?

    So here's the spec from Trek's website:

    https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...=yellow_orange

    Trek chooses to use the XR2 in 2.2 size for both their Procaliber 29er and 27.5er. Now why didn't Trek design their Caliber to take 3.0 tires if 3.0 tires are all that fast AND comfy at the same time? Don't you guys think that perhaps Trek tested bigger tires and found them to be piggish slow?

    Bottomline, for xc'ish riding, 2.2 tires strike a good balance between speed and traction, and it's why Trek equip the Procaliber with a 2.2. C'mon now folks, if you're leisurely randoneurring then sure use plus size tires. But if you're looking to go fast on a typical weekend mtb ride or race, then you go with 2.2 tires.

    And yes, I've seen the newer crops of mtb bike sporting 2.4-2.8 tires, and pretty much all of the riders suffer like fat pig about to get slaughtered on climbs. And on the downhill, I can keep up with all of riding big full suspension with 2.6.

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    while I may not be up to date or aware of all the mtb tire designs out here and what the latest tire trend is (eg, plus sizes), this I will concede.

    But ok, let's as this question. Do you guys agree that the Trek "Caliber" is a racing xc machine? and that Trek knows what tires would be optimal for the Caliber? Do you at least agree with me on this?

    So here's the spec from Trek's website:

    https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...=yellow_orange

    Trek chooses to use the XR2 in 2.2 size for both their Procaliber 29er and 27.5er. Now why didn't Trek design their Caliber to take 3.0 tires if 3.0 tires are all that fast AND comfy at the same time? Don't you guys think that perhaps Trek tested bigger tires and found them to be piggish slow?

    Bottomline, for xc'ish riding, 2.2 tires strike a good balance between speed and traction, and it's why Trek equip the Procaliber with a 2.2. C'mon now folks, if you're leisurely randoneurring then sure use plus size tires. But if you're looking to go fast on a typical weekend mtb ride or race, then you go with 2.2 tires.

    And yes, I've seen the newer crops of mtb bike sporting 2.4-2.8 tires, and pretty much all of the riders suffer like fat pig about to get slaughtered on climbs. And on the downhill, I can keep up with all of riding big full suspension with 2.6.
    They suffer on climbs because they are riding 160mm travel 32lb bikes, not the tires themselves. You are probably a better rider that them, so can keep up on the downhills.
    Trek makes a bike called the Roscoe. It is the exact same frame as the X-Caliber, but runs 27.5x2.8 tires. All the local NICA kids love that bike. I ride a Stache with XR2 3.0 tires and roll along plenty fast.
    I think saying that if one is going to race, one must ride 2.2 is shortsighted and is not advice to give.

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,373
    Quote Originally Posted by 202cycle View Post
    They suffer on climbs because they are riding 160mm travel 32lb bikes, not the tires themselves. You are probably a better rider that them, so can keep up on the downhills.
    Trek makes a bike called the Roscoe. It is the exact same frame as the X-Caliber, but runs 27.5x2.8 tires. All the local NICA kids love that bike. I ride a Stache with XR2 3.0 tires and roll along plenty fast.
    I think saying that if one is going to race, one must ride 2.2 is shortsighted and is not advice to give.
    The Roscoe:
    https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/roscoe/

    Trek literally markets this bike as a fun-loving bike, and rightfully so. Fun loving means you don't care about going up fast, but want a bulldozer to roll downhill where you don't have to think much about picking a line. But looking at the pictures about the Roscoe, I can say with absolute certainty that I can blow right through the same terrains without even flinching using xc hardtail with 2.2 tires.

    when I say "racing", I mean you want to beat the crap outta your other buddies racing up 10 miles to the summit!

    Would you agree with me that when Yolanda Neff races XC World cup, winning is very important to her livelihood and Trek's image? What is her equipment setup and tires like?

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/bike-c...rocaliber.html

    Remember, this is not so much ME saying to use 2.2 because of it's my "short sighted" opinion. Not at all. This is Trek doing it.

    And it's just not Trek either. Check out Giant's XTC specs:

    https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/xt...d-sl-29-1-2020

    yep, they use 2.25 tires.
    In fact, I have the Giant XTC and switched out the Maxxis 2.25 (Maxxis doesn't make 2.2) to a set of lighter Onza 2.2 tires and hell yeah climbing is faster without even losing a beat on the downhill

    it uses 2.25 tires

  19. #19
    Banned Sock Puppet
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,709
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    while I may not be up to date or aware of all the mtb tire designs out here and what the latest tire trend is (eg, plus sizes), this I will concede.

    But ok, let's as this question. Do you guys agree that the Trek "Caliber" is a racing xc machine? and that Trek knows what tires would be optimal for the Caliber? Do you at least agree with me on this?

    So here's the spec from Trek's website:

    https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...=yellow_orange

    Trek chooses to use the XR2 in 2.2 size for both their Procaliber 29er and 27.5er. Now why didn't Trek design their Caliber to take 3.0 tires if 3.0 tires are all that fast AND comfy at the same time? Don't you guys think that perhaps Trek tested bigger tires and found them to be piggish slow?

    Bottomline, for xc'ish riding, 2.2 tires strike a good balance between speed and traction, and it's why Trek equip the Procaliber with a 2.2. C'mon now folks, if you're leisurely randoneurring then sure use plus size tires. But if you're looking to go fast on a typical weekend mtb ride or race, then you go with 2.2 tires.

    And yes, I've seen the newer crops of mtb bike sporting 2.4-2.8 tires, and pretty much all of the riders suffer like fat pig about to get slaughtered on climbs. And on the downhill, I can keep up with all of riding big full suspension with 2.6.
    You seem to have a very linear way of thinking as I recall from a similar discussion with you regarding rim widths not too long ago. So regarding your question why doesn't Trek outfit their Caliper to take 3.0 tires? Well of course a 3.0 tire will feel slower than a 2.0 tire, don't be silly! Not to mention if you made the bike with that much clearance, the frame would have to weigh more as well. But any noticeable difference between 2.2 and 2.4 is placebo.

    And bike manufacturers chose tires for their bikes for various reasons. First and foremost, they go with the cheapest deal they can to keep the price point down. Second, they want to be able to claim a total weight.

    Now I can go the other way and say if you think you can feel 0.2 inches difference, why don't you get 2.0 tires?
    "If someone needs 200 rolls of toilet paper for a 14-day quarantine, they probably should have made a doctor's appointment way before the COVID-19 outbreak." -- Unknown

    "With
    bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important."
    -- DCGriz, RBR.




  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    The Roscoe:
    https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/roscoe/

    Trek literally markets this bike as a fun-loving bike, and rightfully so. Fun loving means you don't care about going up fast, but want a bulldozer to roll downhill where you don't have to think much about picking a line. But looking at the pictures about the Roscoe, I can say with absolute certainty that I can blow right through the same terrains without even flinching using xc hardtail with 2.2 tires.

    when I say "racing", I mean you want to beat the crap outta your other buddies racing up 10 miles to the summit!

    Would you agree with me that when Yolanda Neff races XC World cup, winning is very important to her livelihood and Trek's image? What is her equipment setup and tires like?

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/bike-c...rocaliber.html

    Remember, this is not so much ME saying to use 2.2 because of it's my "short sighted" opinion. Not at all. This is Trek doing it.

    And it's just not Trek either. Check out Giant's XTC specs:

    https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/xt...d-sl-29-1-2020

    yep, they use 2.25 tires.
    In fact, I have the Giant XTC and switched out the Maxxis 2.25 (Maxxis doesn't make 2.2) to a set of lighter Onza 2.2 tires and hell yeah climbing is faster without even losing a beat on the downhill

    it uses 2.25 tires
    Look, you just seam too hung up on tire width. It is one small part of the tire equation. There are just way to many variables involved with mountain bike tires to say 2.2 is faster than 2.4. The difference you feel between the 2.25 Maxxis and the 2.2 Onza probably has more to do with weight and casing than the .05 width difference.

    I would also think that a pro mountain bike racer may use a variety of different tread and width tires depending on the course and conditions. I doubt every pro rider is on 2.2 tires.

  21. #21
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,688
    Ok, ACL, I’ll meet you on top of Monarch Crest next August, we will do Greene’s and Fooses.
    I will bring a book, because I guarantee that I will smoke you down on your 2.2’s.

    Sound good?

    And how do I have such confidence?
    Because 98% of the fast dudes riding those trails are on 2.4-2.8”s, and it is not likely that you are in the 2%.
    But it would be super fun to be proven wrong!

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,373
    Quote Originally Posted by 202cycle View Post
    Look, you just seam too hung up on tire width. It is one small part of the tire equation. There are just way to many variables involved with mountain bike tires to say 2.2 is faster than 2.4. The difference you feel between the 2.25 Maxxis and the 2.2 Onza probably has more to do with weight and casing than the .05 width difference.

    I would also think that a pro mountain bike racer may use a variety of different tread and width tires depending on the course and conditions. I doubt every pro rider is on 2.2 tires.
    Can you name me a major brand that's who's who in xc racing that's using anything above 2.3? And who are even using 2.4+ tires on their xc rig? I'm awaiting to be enlighten!

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    You seem to have a very linear way of thinking as I recall from a similar discussion with you regarding rim widths not too long ago. So regarding your question why doesn't Trek outfit their Caliper to take 3.0 tires? Well of course a 3.0 tire will feel slower than a 2.0 tire, don't be silly! Not to mention if you made the bike with that much clearance, the frame would have to weigh more as well. But any noticeable difference between 2.2 and 2.4 is placebo.

    And bike manufacturers chose tires for their bikes for various reasons. First and foremost, they go with the cheapest deal they can to keep the price point down. Second, they want to be able to claim a total weight.

    Now I can go the other way and say if you think you can feel 0.2 inches difference, why don't you get 2.0 tires?
    Are you sure 3.0 is slower than 2.0? First of all, I didn't say 2.0. Secondly, you'd disagreeng with 202Cycle. And thirdly, I'm just merely writing what the likes of Trek and Giant have done, you know, people who actually make bikes and have a vested interest in seeing their brand win races. I have given examples of what a top XC racer ride, but yet you choose to discuss about tangential issues such as price point and how manufacturers would equip their bike with the cheapest deal they can get. Let me ask you this, do you even know what kind of deal manufacturers are getting to make that statement? No you don't, you're injecting tangential assumptions and debating as if they're facts and decision drivers. Cmom bro give me a break!

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,373

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Ok, ACL, I’ll meet you on top of Monarch Crest next August, we will do Greene’s and Fooses.
    I will bring a book, because I guarantee that I will smoke you down on your 2.2’s.

    Sound good?

    And how do I have such confidence?
    Because 98% of the fast dudes riding those trails are on 2.4-2.8”s, and it is not likely that you are in the 2%.
    But it would be super fun to be proven wrong!
    Wow Wonder Woman you jumpin in this discussion waving your penis now?

    I don't know Monarch Crest. Is this it right here?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB0A8a2HOAY

    well, after watching it, my manhood is shaken by the insane hucks and G outs on this trails.

    PS: I love how you casually throw in that seeminly bogus stats that 98% of the fastest dudes are on 2.4-2.8., that means 2% of the fastest riders are not on 2.4-2.8 tires right? So they're on something lesser then? And then you proceed to say you doubt that I'm in the 2%, which mean I would be in the 98%tile then, which makes no sense since I don't ride 2.4-2.8. You need to work on your logical argument, amigo!
    Last edited by aclinjury; 12-23-2019 at 03:43 PM.

  25. #25
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    Wow Wonder Woman you jumpin in this discussion waving your penis now?

    I don't know Monarch Crest. Is this it right here?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB0A8a2HOAY

    well, after watching it, my manhood is shaken by the insane hucks and G outs on this trails.

    PS: I love how you casually throw in that seeminly bogus stats that 98% of the fastest dudes are on 2.4-2.8., that means 2% of the fastest riders are not on 2.4-2.8 tires right? So they're on something lesser then? And then you proceed to say you doubt that I'm in the 2%, which mean I would be in the 98%tile then, which makes no sense since I don't ride 2.4-2.8. You need to work on your logical argument, amigo!
    As I said, it would be super fun to be proven wrong...but I'm not wrong. Generally, xc weenies are slow as mollasses on Greene's and Foose's. Often because of tire problems or fear of tire problems. And crashes. we see the same thing on Teton Pass.
    Last edited by rideit; 12-23-2019 at 08:28 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Gravel Bike wheel q: Stan's ArchEX on gravel bike
    By stuarttx in forum Gravel Bikes
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-23-2017, 06:53 PM
  2. Tires for rigid mtb/cx use.
    By kbiker3111 in forum Cyclocross
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-28-2011, 10:01 AM
  3. Better commuter...rigid mtb or road bike
    By shades9323 in forum Commuting, Touring and Ride Reports
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-19-2007, 07:51 AM
  4. Converting rigid steelie MTB to Road Bike...
    By MacTech in forum Components, Wrenching
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-06-2005, 06:42 AM
  5. Converting rigid steelie MTB to Road Bike...
    By MacTech in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-05-2005, 08:45 AM

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 ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.