# Crosstrail 2012 or Rockhopper 2011



## PatG (27 Aug 2011)

I am new to the forum so apologies if this is the wrong section but I wasn't sure which one would be best.

So, here is the question....

I am a heavy guy (18-20stone) and I am looking for a bike to use for family bike rides and fitness work. I already have a half decent MTB but I find it hard work on the road to get any speed up and it seems hard work to maintain speed once achieved. Hence it doesn't make longer fitness rides much fun. I have assumed that this is because it is set up for off-road use.

So I started the search for a good bike that I can use for mainly road use but with the odd bit of trail riding with the family (they all have MTB's). I discounted road bikes as I think I will look a right plum at my size on one. That pushed me towards a hybrid and after loads of research I made the decision to get the Specialized Crosstrail 2012. But, just before I placed the order I spoke to a couple of shops who suggested a Specialized Rockhopper with road tires and now I am confused!

So, I am hoping someone on here can give me some advice as to the pro's and con's of a MTB with road tires compared to a hybrid.


----------



## Oldbloke (27 Aug 2011)

Try them both before you decide is the best advice I can give.

Personally I'd go for the Crosstrail, more versatile, plus I'd look less of a prat than on a MTB


----------



## PatG (27 Aug 2011)

Oldbloke said:


> Try them both before you decide is the best advice I can give.
> 
> Personally I'd go for the Crosstrail, more versatile, plus I'd look less of a prat than on a MTB




The prat factor is definately a concern....I don't want to look like I am having a mid-life crisis


----------



## Oldbloke (27 Aug 2011)

PatG said:


> The prat factor is definately a concern....I don't want to look like I am having a mid-life crisis




I rode an MTB until I was 55 and never really felt self conscious about it until I had a big "off" jumping some big steps in a steep downhill in the woods. Was more concerned about anyone seeing me than my injuries & bike damage 


Still miss riding the rough stuff but now feel a bit more dignified on a crosser


----------



## Norm (27 Aug 2011)

Both the Crosstrail and the Rockhopper have front suspension, so I wouldn't have either for "mostly road" riding. The Rockhopper, particularly, is another MTB and you've already discounted those for longer rides, so that would be a waste.

I'd go with the Sirrus Sport and stick 32mm cyclo-cross tyres on it.

Or go with a Tricross and leave it standard.

Or get a proper road bike (you will not look a plum and, if you do, so what?) and use the MTB for the family rides.


----------



## PatG (27 Aug 2011)

Norm said:


> Both the Crosstrail and the Rockhopper have front suspension, so I wouldn't have either for "mostly road" riding. The Rockhopper, particularly, is another MTB and you've already discounted those for longer rides, so that would be a waste.
> 
> I'd go with the Sirrus Sport and stick 32mm cyclo-cross tyres on it.
> 
> ...




I did think about the Sirrus but the general advice seemed to be that the Crosstrail was a more durable and practicable bike. Plus putting aside the extra weight of the forks they do have lock-out so when on the smooth black stuff I can turn them into fixed forks as required.

I hadn't even seen the Tricross but I guess it is a cyclocross bike...I know precisely nothing about about those! Are they a cross between a road racer and a hybrid??


----------



## Norm (27 Aug 2011)

Tell me what a hybrid is and I'll tell you how the Tricross differs.

It's a road bike (drop bars) with greater beef (more strength in the design and build), more "relaxed" geometry (higher handlebars, for instance), cassette (the rear gears) from an MTB for lower ratios, tyres which work well off and on roads, canti brakes (to give good braking whilst still leaving room for mud) and a character which will have you following your nose, wherever it points whether on tarmac, gravel, grass or mud.

I'm the same weight as you and I guess I have similar requirements as I did about 15 miles today off-roading with the kids, followed by about 20 on the tarmac solo. In the past 2 years, I've done 1,200 miles on my MTB (a Giant Talon), 1,100 miles on my roadbike (Specialized Secteur) and 1,400 on my cx (the previously mentioned Tricross) and there are no issues whatsoever with my weight on any of these bikes. 

If I was to have just one bike, it would be the Tricross. If I was to have one to go with the MTB, though, it would be the road bike.

Please don't get another bike with front suspension! You've already got that in your MTB. Get something that is going to be different enough to notice the difference.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Aug 2011)

Norm has said all that needs to be said.


----------



## TheBoyBilly (27 Aug 2011)

+1 with Norm. Suspension will sap your energy more and will very likely add weight for no discernible benefit. Knobbly MTB tyres don't roll well on road either. As I read your post I had an idea Norm would mention the Sirrus and he is giving you good advice if you like flat bars. Others to consider are the Trek FX series which come at all manner of budgets but are all worthy. If you would consider a road bike but don't want it to focused there is always the Specialized Secteur. Watch out for bargains as the 2012 models are coming out meaning decent discounts on 2011 bikes (there are even 'new' 2010 bikes about if you look hard enough), often for just the difference of a colour scheme.

Bill


----------



## MacB (27 Aug 2011)

Just to add to the mix a bit, though I agree with the gist of Norms advice, there are frames with bigger clearances than Tricross/Sirrus. Not as widespread in the UK as in Europe and certainly way 'behind' the US. But a fully rigid 29er would fit the bill or you get get something like a Surly or a Salsa, or Singular do some nice bikes/frames. Something I have recently discovered, or realised, about a couple of bikes I've had/have. These are disc brake specific frames with clearance for up to a 700x44 tyre. There's nothing to stop you having a second wheelset in 26" size and you can fit a 2" tyre in the frame easily with that. The end result gives almost identical trail(as in fork trail) and BB height to running the bike with 700x23 tyres.

It might cost a few quid more but you can pick up a 26" disc wheelset pretty cheap second hand. Then, rather than faffing changing tyres for the type of riding, you can just swap the wheelset and cassette over. Keep the 26" wheels setup for offroad and the 700c for road.

By the way this would be feasible with the Crosstrail and you could also get some rigid forks for it if you felt the front suspension was holding you back. I got a Crosstrail Pro for my eldest and must say I've been impressed with the bike. It also has the rear disc brake caliper mounted on the chainstay which makes slinging a rack on easy.


----------



## Norm (28 Aug 2011)

Good suggestions from Mac there. The OP was looking at a pair of Spesh bikes, so I thought I'd go with the flow there, rather than broadening the search to include Surly etc. There are a gazillion good choices out there (Genesis Day 01 Flat Bar, as another idea, or the Cannondale Bad Boy, Bianchi Camaleonte, Forme Brute... etc)

Also, just to be clear, I'm not dissing either of the bikes in the original post, just that I don't think they'll be suitable. I'm also looking at a Crosstrail for Small #1.


----------



## PatG (28 Aug 2011)

Jeese choosing a bike is a complicated thing nowadays  

I have had a look at the cyclo-cross bikes and maybe I am being a bit dumb (quite possible as my knowledge is very limited) but a cyclo-cross bike just looks like a solid fork Hybrid with drop bars fitted or maybe it is that hybrids are just cyclo-cross bikes with flat bars fitted. In fact I noticed that the same bike/s in one store are listed under CX in one and Hybrid in another so I guess they are very similar?

I have also looked at some of the bikes that have been suggested and to be honest in terms of spec they don't seem as good value as the Spesh CT and there seems to be a premium on calling a bike a cyclo-cross bike. 

I understand the comment about having fixed forks (which having looked around seems a relatively cheap change if required) I cant see the difference between a hybrid and a CX...Same size wheels...geometry looks similar...only difference seems to be drop bars....Have I completely missed the point? 

PS. Forgot to say, I am now off the idea of converting the MTB for road use and focused on getting the right multi-purpose road/trail ride.


----------



## Norm (28 Aug 2011)

From the frequent references to hybrid as if it means something, I'm disappointed to think that you aren't actually looking too deeply at the bike, just the tags. 

Why are you looking at another bike with front suspension? You already have a "half decent MTB" and your first post said that it didn't work on the roads and rides you wanted to take. You will be, IMO, wasting your money.


----------



## PatG (28 Aug 2011)

Norm said:


> From the frequent references to hybrid as if it means something, I'm disappointed to think that you aren't actually looking too deeply at the bike, just the tags.
> 
> Why are you looking at another bike with front suspension? You already have a "half decent MTB" and your first post said that it didn't work on the roads and rides you wanted to take. You will be, IMO, wasting your money.



I must be really missing the point......having trawled through my local cycle shops only to receive inconsistent advice, I have come onto a specialist forum and asked for some advice from the knowledgeable members. I have taken that advice on-board which has lead me to discount the converted MTB route but has pushed me towards looking at the cyclo-cross bikes. Now having looked at the CX bikes and compared specs in terms of components and geometry I am struggling to see any major differences between what the cycle industry call a "Hybrid" and what they call a "Cyclo-Cross". These are industry terms not mine! I completely get that fixed forks are better for road work but as I said in my last post, it seems a cheap conversion to fixed forks if the lock-out function on the suspension forks isn't much good. So what have I failed to do that is so disappointing?


----------



## Oldbloke (28 Aug 2011)

PatG said:


> I must be really missing the point......having trawled through my local cycle shops only to receive inconsistent advice, I have come onto a specialist forum and asked for some advice from the knowledgeable members. I have taken that advice on-board which has lead me to discount the converted MTB route but has pushed me towards looking at the cyclo-cross bikes. Now having looked at the CX bikes and compared specs in terms of components and geometry I am struggling to see any major differences between what the cycle industry call a "Hybrid" and what they call a "Cyclo-Cross". These are industry terms not mine! I completely get that fixed forks are better for road work but as I said in my last post, it seems a cheap conversion to fixed forks if the lock-out function on the suspension forks isn't much good. So what have I failed to do that is so disappointing?



Generally cyclo-cross bikes will be tougher & more suitable for offroading with better capacity for fatter tyres than the so called "hybrid" but no doubt there will be others expand or contradict this.

I find my crosser perfect for forest tracks, canal paths etc & can change to road tyres easily to use as my winter road bike.

Only way to be sure is go & test ride a few.


----------



## PatG (28 Aug 2011)

Oldbloke said:


> Generally cyclo-cross bikes will be tougher & more suitable for offroading with better capacity for fatter tyres than the so called "hybrid" but no doubt there will be others expand or contradict this.
> 
> I find my crosser perfect for forest tracks, canal paths etc & can change to road tyres easily to use as my winter road bike.
> 
> Only way to be sure is go & test ride a few.



Cool....Thanks for that!

TBH, I do like the look of the Cyclo-Cross bikes but boy they do seem to have a premium on them just because they are put into the CX category.


----------



## Norm (28 Aug 2011)

If it is a cheap conversion (it isn't, usually), then why not do it to your current bike. The reason it's not a cheap conversion is that suspension and rigid forks are different lengths and it usually is not just about a straight swap. 

And, again, why are you looking at another bike with front suspenders anyway when your original post said "_I already have a half decent MTB but I find it hard work on the road to get any speed up and it seems hard work to maintain speed once achieved. Hence it doesn't make longer fitness rides much fun_"

I have no investment or commitment to whatever bike you get, or whatever you call it. It could be that the industry refers to it as a space shuttle, that's not my concern and the sun will still rise in the east tomorrow morning. I'm only wondering why you are looking at something with front suspension (a very heavy and pricey component) when you already have one like that (which you have said isn't suitable) and when front suspension is not even a necessity off road, let alone on the tarmac and when all the advice above is against it.




PatG said:


> So, I am hoping someone on here can give me some advice as to the pro's and con's of a MTB with road tires compared to a hybrid.


 The cons of an MTB
- heavier
- more expensive
- complex components which will require maintenance
- not required for on or off road riding
- you've already got one

Pros
-


----------



## MacB (28 Aug 2011)

You're doing the right thing in looking in detail and especially including the full specs, but it can be frustrating as so much seems contradictory and confusing. Some of the basics that might help narrow things down, these are generalisations(you can still find opinions that differ  ) but are my take from my research:-

Frame material - aluminium gives a harsher ride but if you're getting suspension this is negated, steel is loved by many, Ti and carbon are great but pricier and carbon isn't as prevalent in all round style bikes

Tyres - the size of tyre, MTB 26" or road 700c is a key choice in a frame and also, for 700c, the max tyre you'd want to run. Many road frames will limit you to 700x25/28 as a maximum. CX bikes have become popular/trendy and it's a lot to do with people wanting a roadish type ride but not a full on touring rig up, that takes bigger tyres. As I've already mentioned, if the bike has disc brakes then 26" wheels can be run as well as 700c, if it's a 700c frame. 

Brakes - if you want bigger tyres then you're limited to very deep drop dual pivots, cantis, v-brakes, cable disc or hydraulic discs. The first two are short pull so require short pull levers and will work with most road levers and STI type shifters. V-brakes are long pull(you can get mini v's but I'm not going there today) cable discs can be had in short or long pull, most notably the Avid BB7 road or MTB versions. Hydraulics speak for themselves but they don't fit on drop handlebars.

Handlebars - road bars have a larger diameter than flat bars so MTB controls/levers don't slide on. If you buy a bike and then want to change from flat to drops, or vice versa, it generally works out expensive. There are alternate handlebars that offer multiple hand positions but they are generally considered deeply uncool, hence I'm a big fan  Most people tend to say, flat bars fine but no good for longer rides due to lack of hand positions, so go for drop bars, but there are options in between.

Geometry - the effective top tube on a road/CX frame will normally be shorter than a MTB/29er/flat bar frame, though some flat bar road bikes have the shorter geometry. This is to account for the fact that drop bars increase the reach to the main hand areas, this amount varies depnding on the bars but 60mm would be short and 80-90mm more normal. For example a road frame for me would have an effective TT of about 570mm whereas a 29er frame is about 620mm.

Componentry - you can't just mix and match gearing, front and rear mechs, shifters etc, you need to check what works with what. Shimano 9 speed and less mixes pretty well across road and MTB but the newer stuff is getting trickier.

Frame fittings - do you want to be able to fit mudguards and a rack, or even a front rack - these things help narrow down bike/frame choices as well

Suspension - nothing wrong with it but at the cheap end of the spectrum it really just takes away energy and wouldn't be up to the rigours of full on MTBing, it just adds weight for little gain. But there are plenty that are happy to sacrifice a bit of efficiency to make a commute comfier over rough roads, depends on length of commute etc. Most people on here would probably recommend going fully rigid on a road/trail use bike. For example the new 29er I've built is fully rigid as I don't expect to be doing the sort of riding that needs suspension, if I was then I'd be looking at £400+ for forks alone.

The problem is that so much of this depends on the individual and the type of riding they will do, which is fine but is generally an unknown quantity for a newish rider. A lot of bike shops recommend based on what they need to shift or on their experience rather than what you say. So they might look at you and think 'pootle with the kids, odd 10 miler, any old bike will do'. My gut reaction would be to go for versatility now and, as you develop an understanding of your preferences, spec a more suitable bike later. If you get a decent versatile bike now then the chances are that would be a keeper as a commuter/all-rounder and a future bike as a longer weekend type ride. 

I could go on but you get the gist and hopefully understand why 'what bike?' is such a hard question to answer. Remember most bikes that the bike shops sell get very little use so, in that respect, their any bike will do attitude is correct. Though it could be argued that selling a really wrong sort of bike actually puts people off riding.


----------



## Oldbloke (28 Aug 2011)

PatG said:


> Cool....Thanks for that!
> 
> TBH, I do like the look of the Cyclo-Cross bikes but boy they do seem to have a premium on them just because they are put into the CX category.




There will probably be some good deals coming up soon; I bought my Crux after trying a Sirrus and it's well worth the extra cost.


----------



## PatG (29 Aug 2011)

Thanks for all the advice......Some really helpful stuff! 

I have been hard on the trail of re-examining all previously discounted bikes but now armed with more information. 

Interestingly enough the Specialized CrossTrail still comes out as a contender but now I have the Giant Seek (1 if I can get a deal if not a 2) in the mix as well. I am off to try both but has anyone got any comments on the Giant Seek....I have never had a Giant cycle before so I am a little nervous about them.


----------



## Norm (29 Aug 2011)

You may take comfort from Giant being the biggest bike maker in the world.  I've 3 Giants (all of my flat-barred bikes), some would have been old enough to pass their driving test 4 years ago, and they make good machines, IMO.

I reckon that the Seek will be just what you are looking for. MTB-ish geometry, no suspension and, I think, disc brakes. Nice choice - I'm jealous.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Aug 2011)

Had a wander around the new Giant Brighton Superstore (in Shoreham - go figure) today.

What a splendid range they do; from shoppers for girlies like the lovely Helen, electic assist gizmo's, mtbs of all flavours, through to drool inducing composite framed fast road spendybikes.

Me like.


----------



## Scotty (31 Aug 2011)

Pat,
I cant comment on the rockhopper but I have had my Crosstrail Pro for about two years and have done about 3,000 miles on it. Im a big fella at about 16 stone and it suits me.
I like the flexibility of it being my daily commute , country ride and tourer. I have loaded it for weekend camp/touring and in May/June I did my JOGLE on it. 1031miles no problems.
I ride a lot on bike tracks for which the suspension makes it more comfortable and lock it out on the road.
With a Brooks saddle, Time pedals ,Sigma computer, Specialised Armadillo puncture proof tyres ( not one puncture to date ) its the buisness and I would thoroughly recommend them.


----------

