# He's getting away lads.....



## bonk man (16 Jun 2009)

[/IMG]


cross bike slaughters mountain bikes on the Rough Ride


----------



## barq (16 Jun 2009)

Rough!?


----------



## Renard (16 Jun 2009)

Good point!


----------



## Mr Pig (16 Jun 2009)

barq said:


> Rough!?



Well, a lawn is pretty dicey for these daisy roadies! ;0) The other guys probably just want to watch him fall off in a minute.


----------



## Speicher (16 Jun 2009)

Looking closely at that photo I have noticed that although he got to the top first, they are going to beat him on the down hill. His arms and upper body will be very achey at the end. 

Are there any other clues in that photo that I have missed.


----------



## RedBike (17 Jun 2009)

That can't be the top of a hill, the MTBs are still in sight!

Whats this Rough Ride?


----------



## bonk man (17 Jun 2009)

It was a bit of a battering experience I must admit, but I was 100th [ or so ] out of 300 [ or there abouts ] in the 75km event. 

I highly recommend 30 mph descents down boulder strewn tracks on 32mm tyres whilst being pursued by a posse of full sus fatso boys in full cry Hahhahahahahahaha and then leaving them behind on the next big climb 

My mate did this ride a year or so ago and was in the top 10..... used a cross bike.

The ideal bike? lightweight, narrow tyres, 700c wheels?? 

Silly bike.... full sus, heavy frame, 2.5 inch wide tyres, 26 inch rims???? 

But; oh lord! my shoulders and back are still aching [ from laughing at the wallowing mountain bikes and red faced riders struggling against gravity  ].




I can hear cans of worms being opened...


----------



## 02GF74 (18 Jun 2009)

weight is probbly not as significant as fitness or ;psses due to suspension and wide tyres.

I used to do the ORTP, did it on rigid mountain bike and later with front suspension and used to drop all of the other riders on the climbs - I was much younger and fitter - the full suspension mtb boys would ofcourse catch and overtake me on the downhill but they weren't that fit in my opinion.


----------



## User482 (18 Jun 2009)

If that photo is typical of the course, then there is absolutely no need to use an MTB.


----------



## GilesM (18 Jun 2009)

User482 said:


> If that photo is typical of the course, then there is absolutely *no need to use an MTB*.



Or a cross bike, I'd quite happily ride that on good road bike.


----------



## bonk man (18 Jun 2009)

User482 said:


> If that photo is typical of the course, then there is absolutely no need to use an MTB.



Not typical...  I am still feeling battered ... rocky descents and lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggg climbs up varying terrain. 

Lots of the tracks were do-able on a road bike I would say but quite a lot would be too rough. I was thinking about the possibility of doing the ride on a road bike as I was riding round, I remember mates doing the Hell of the North Cotswolds on racers..... 

02GF74.. my fitness is road based [ club rides and time trials ] so I would beat lots of casual riders over a longer distance and more importantly maybe be more aware of eating and drinking properly on long tough rides like this. I also made use of any streams we crossed by chucking water over myself , it was cookingly hot on Sunday.


----------



## User482 (18 Jun 2009)

bonk man said:


> Not typical...  I am still feeling battered ... rocky descents and lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggg climbs up varying terrain.
> 
> Lots of the tracks were do-able on a road bike I would say but quite a lot would be too rough. I was thinking about the possibility of doing the ride on a road bike as I was riding round, I remember mates doing the Hell of the North Cotswolds on racers.....
> 
> 02GF74.. my fitness is road based [ club rides and time trials ] so I would beat lots of casual riders over a longer distance and more importantly maybe be more aware of eating and drinking properly on long tough rides like this. I also made use of any streams we crossed by chucking water over myself , it was cookingly hot on Sunday.




Road fitness certainly helps for MTBing. I've been doing short, intensive road rides as preparation for MTB races and I've really noticed the difference it's made to my climbing ability.

There's no intrinsic reason why a full suss MTB will be slower than a hardtail uphill - the frames weigh at most 2lb more, which isn't really significant. On technical climbs, full suss is actually a benefit, as it gives you better traction over the bumps.


----------



## bonk man (18 Jun 2009)

I wonder what sort of money gets you a full sus bike that is as good as a hardtail going up hill?

I had the choice between a sus [ cross country type ] and a hardtail frame [ both Magura ] in the shop the other day... like you say 2lbs heavier in frame weight and £200 more in price.

The added weight and the boingy behaviour [ assuming you don't always lock it out, and in a race it would not always be practical to fiddle with lock outs ] must have an impact on climbing especially after a few miles of hard riding. 
I think that if you have good upper body strength and suppleness then a completely rigid bike would be the ideal bike..... lightweight and direct. I might rebuild my old M1000 with the rigid forks and race it next season.... 

But.... having not ridden a decent full sus I shall reserve judgement and the above is just my observation of design and use.


----------



## User482 (19 Jun 2009)

bonk man said:


> I wonder what sort of money gets you a full sus bike that is as good as a hardtail going up hill?
> 
> I had the choice between a sus [ cross country type ] and a hardtail frame [ both Magura ] in the shop the other day... like you say 2lbs heavier in frame weight and £200 more in price.
> 
> ...



As I said before, full suss can be better than a hardtail for climbing. If the trail is loose/ technical, the suspension will give you better traction. If your suspension is set up properly, it shouldn't bounce unnecessarily. On the downside, climbing out of the saddle doesn't work very well, and there is a little extra weight. Plus extra cost & maintenance.


----------



## bonk man (19 Jun 2009)

User482 said:


> As I said before, full suss can be better than a hardtail for climbing. If the trail is loose/ technical, the suspension will give you better traction. If your suspension is set up properly, it shouldn't bounce unnecessarily. On the downside, climbing out of the saddle doesn't work very well, and there is a little extra weight. Plus extra cost & maintenance.



Thats me told.... so how much do I have to fork out [ pun intended ] for a full sus XC bike that weighs the same as my current [ not much carbon fibre or ti attached to it ] hardtail bike; 25lbs ?


----------



## RedBike (19 Jun 2009)

bonk man said:


> Thats me told.... so how much do I have to fork out [ pun intended ] for a full sus XC bike that weighs the same as my current [ not much carbon fibre or ti attached to it ] hardtail bike; 25lbs ?



A lot!
A Scott spark 20 at a wopping £3k ?

A small weight penalty isn't always a disadvantage. For example most people are happy to fit a suspension fork instead of rigid carbon fork even though there's a weight penalty involved. 

Most people are happy to run large volume aggressively tread tyres even though there's a weight and rolling penalty involved. 

It's logical to take this argument one stage further in that the performance increase due to full suspension (in the right conditions) is worth the extra weight.

If weight really mattered that much we'd all have single speed cyclo-x bikes.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (19 Jun 2009)

Mrs TB's Santa Cruz Superlight weights 24lbs in race trim. 

She uses it in preference to a hardtail as the going doesn't have to get very technical before she's much quicker on it uphill and down.

I don't know how much it would cost to replace because it came as a frame and has been built up and refined over the years. But the Tune hubs alone weren't cheap. But it's in a completely different league to her everyday Superlight which is built up with XT, etc.


----------



## User482 (22 Jun 2009)

bonk man said:


> Thats me told.... so how much do I have to fork out [ pun intended ] for a full sus XC bike that weighs the same as my current [ not much carbon fibre or ti attached to it ] hardtail bike; 25lbs ?



http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/anthem-x-2-09-32590

Giant Anthem X2

25.8 lb and £1600. I doubt you'd find better value. If you want something less racy, then the Trance range (also by Giant) weigh about 1lb more at each price point.


----------

