Road bikes: Comfortable?

[Norm]

I think it was Hotmetal who said to me, a few weeks ago, that riding an MTB is 5 minutes of hard climbing work followed by a gossip at the top, then a short time descending followed by another stop to natter.

Riding a road bike solid for 60 minutes is nothing, it's pretty unusual to ride off-road for that sort of time without stopping.

Get fit to ride an MTB, don't ride an MTB to get fit.

 

[Fab Foodie]

...you could try a recumbent.

Weirdo

 

[GrasB]

People talk about drops offering many different choices of hand positions, but if they were truly comfortable you wouldn't need to keep shifting your hands around in the first place.

Not really, no... on an upright your hands take an awful lot of stick in terms of vibration. So while I could ride for hours with one hand position having multiple hand positions allows the muscles in my hands to recuperate some what.

You see it's the same thing as preventing rsi by stretching your hands etc. when using a computer. While most people can use a computer for hours without feeling the need to take the breaks if they do actually take them they find that they feel more relaxed.

The other thing with drops is that it allows you to change your body profile immediately depending on the conditions presented. Want to get a bit of speed on or going into a strong headwind, you go to the drops a more aggressive position & one that you may not want to hold for a long time but it's easier to be on the drops then when going up hill you may want to be on the tops to allow you to make better use of your weight. With flat bars you're stuck with one compromised position.

 

[Davidc]

I have both, although the mtb (Ridgeback MX) is modified with slicks and rack for town use. (It's used for shopping and general transport). The road bike is a tourer (Dawes Horizon).

The (front only) suspension on the mtb actually makes it less comfortable than the tourer. It does however make it more suitable for going up and down kerbs and the like, and travelling along the canal towpath, without wrecking the wheels.

On the occasions I've used the mtb for more than about 10 miles I've ended up with sore wrists and backside. The tourer I can ride all day, 50+ miles, and hardly notice apart from my leg muscles. A part of that is the difference in the saddles. If I put the tourer's saddle on the mtb if I'm using the canal to go to Bridgwater I don't get such a sore b*m.

I wouldn't want to part with either of them. The straight handlebars and tense, hard geometry of the mtb is great for buzzing around locally, whereas the tourer's gentler geometry, drops, and general feel are right for a relaxed longer ride. The tourer is also more efficient, which can be used either for greater maximum and average speed (by 15 to 20%) or to increase range/ decrease effort.

I don't find the inflation pressure of the tyres makes much difference to ride comfort. A bit to resistance, and soft tyres are good in slippery conditions.

 

[Davidc]

Depends on the MTB.

A slicked up XC race stick MTB with a lock out fork will leave a galaxy for dust to be honest.

On a rough off-road course, yes.

On roads then maybe over a mile, possibly a bit further, but I doubt any MTB would keep up with a good tourer over 50 let alone 120 miles. Up against a lightweight audax style road bike any MTB would be crucified from the off over any distance.

All that assumes equivalent riders of course!

 

[Chrisc]

Thanks for the replies.

Another question, with those thin tyres pumped to over 100psi and the lumps and bumps in our roads... Doesnt it give you botty a bit of abuse?

Not really. I'm used to a Dutch bike with suspension forks, sprung seatpost, brooks flyer special sprung saddle, and squashy tyres and I can do a few hours in comfort on my bianchi roadbike with 23m tyres at 130PSI in perfect comfort.

 

[Zoiders]

On a rough off-road course, yes.

On roads then maybe over a mile, possibly a bit further, but I doubt any MTB would keep up with a good tourer over 50 let alone 120 miles. Up against a lightweight audax style road bike any MTB would be crucified from the off over any distance.

All that assumes equivalent riders of course!

The galaxy isn't a lightweight audux bike, it's a tourer and a bit of a pig in the weight department.

You can change the controls and the bars on an XC bike, the real racy ones you could even go rigid and easily have a bike a good 5 lbs lighter or more than a Galaxy, many a person commutes on a slicked up "road bike killer" MTB.

This idea that XC bike means heavy and slow is false.

 

[ASC1951]

... many a person commutes on a slicked up "road bike killer" MTB.

This idea that XC bike means heavy and slow is false.

It's not just the weight, it's the upright riding position, which is much less aerodynamic. Good for commuting but you'll struggle to keep up with a roadie on a light bike over 20+ miles.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

It's not just the weight, it's the upright riding position, which is much less aerodynamic. Good for commuting but you'll struggle to keep up with a roadie on a light bike over 20+ miles.

i agree.

my scott has a very racy stretched out position. i don't think for one minute that anyone could ride my bike slicked out and keep up with most road bikes. my scott is still lighter than most audax bikes. i used it once, slicked out, to go on a colinj hilly 50 mile ride (ended up 100km for me by the time i got home). it was surprisingly faster downhill than most of the roadies bikes. but it was a complete back killing pig by the end. totally unsuitable to be in the saddle for hours.

i did the mtl on it and it took me 10 hours to complete. the bike was a dream and caused me no pain at all, it was my fitness that slowed me down.
like others have said an mtb in mtb slicked out mode is nowhere near as fast as a dedicated road machine.

that said tho, cannondale tourers are based on mtb alloy frames.

 

[GrasB]

Depending on your route weight may not make much difference & it's more about body position. In the respect the 30% heaver MTB I used to commute on didn't actually impact my speed that much, the average speed difference was mainly due to the slower acceleration up 2 inclines. Even up the main drag of my commute, for which I had a 'run up' the speed difference was minimal. My MTB however had bull horn bars so I was in a much more road bike like position.

 

[hotmetal]

First you have to define what you mean by comfort. Pedalling? Buzz/bumps? Or seating position?

My road bike is carbon so it soaks up a lot of the 'buzz' that 700x23c tyres with 110psi transmit, but you don't get any 'buzz' with a slicked up MTB on road. The road bike is also quite racy so it does stretch my back quite a bit, especially on the drops. However, I would be far from 'comfortable' on either of my MTBs over a long distance, and overall would easily prefer the road bike for distance work, mainly because of the extra effort involved with the MTB, but also because of the 'bum-heavy' position the MTB puts you in. It starts off more comfortable, but even with slicks the extra weight and rolling resistance make it harder going. Over longer distances, the upright position is actually harder on bum and lower back than the road bike, although you do learn to avoid potholes and rough patches, and I also find my hands hurt after 50+ miles on the road bike - therefore I'm constantly moving from tops to hoods and even the corners.

Ultimately it comes down to having the right type (and size) bike for what you're doing.

 

[Zoiders]

It's not just the weight, it's the upright riding position, which is much less aerodynamic. Good for commuting but you'll struggle to keep up with a roadie on a light bike over 20+ miles.

Again it depends on the MTB and how you build it up. You can even add drops if the reach allows it.

A racey XC frame especialy the early 90's ones are stretched out like a road bike, with a long stem and flat bars with bar ends they are more than "aero" enough, in fact a lot of new sportive bikes are more upright than some older race orientated XC bikes.

More modern mid range MTBs are aimed at the recreational rider who may use it for off road all day tides and enduro racing perhaps, they are more upright and relaxed but a top of the range race MTB is going to be very stretched out, it's not something you would buy for road use today but an older XC race bike with a similar set up is perfectly usable and with the correct chainset and tyres you will have no problem keeping up.

Comparing a rigid MTB with a new soot bike is not the point, as I said, there all sorts of MTB to be had and some of the more retro ones make very good commuters/tourers or even audax bikes, a lot of the skinny steel ones even have all the braze on's as well.

It's not the old "road" versus "MTB" argument, I am simply pointing out that if you limit yourself to what is merely labelled as being sutiable for just the one job then you may miss out on a perfectly good, versatile and cheap way of getting out on the road.

 

[Backache]

Hi,

When I decided to get a bike I chose a mountain bike because...

1-I like the ruft-tuffty image
2-Front suspension helps smooth things out
3-Big soft tyre, to absorb road imperfections

Recenty, I have been reading road bike reviews that say they are "Comfortable and flexible"

Does this relate to the actual on road experience (bearing in mind the state of our roads), or the seating position?

Looking at teh original question I wonder if we are answering a different question.

For me my own road bike is much less comfortable over a rutted road surface than my MTB.
It is the most appropriate bike for roads and will be a fair bit quicker but whenever I am b going over a poor road surface I still get a bloody sight more jarring than I do on my MTB.
Now my road bike is not the most expensive but I honesly don't know anyone who would actually claim that riding their bike over a poor road surface is more comfortable than riding a mountain bike over the same surface.
Yes, if you are covering many miles in the long run you will be less tired and possibly less sore but whilst hitting the poor surfaces they still jar more.

 

[HJ]

Hi,

When I decided to get a bike I chose a mountain bike because...

1-I like the ruft-tuffty image
2-Front suspension helps smooth things out
3-Big soft tyre, to absorb road imperfections

Recenty, I have been reading road bike reviews that say they are "Comfortable and flexible"

Does this relate to the actual on road experience (bearing in mind the state of our roads), or the seating position?

Road bike are meant for boy racers (or club riders as they prefer to call them selves), they are not supposed to be comfortable, they are about going fast, that is why to have to stick your arse in the air to ride them. But that is OK it is where boy racers keep their brains...

Touring bike are more intended to more comfortable, as they are designed for covering distance.

 

[jimboalee]

Road bike are mean for boy racers (or club riders as they prefer to call them selves), they are not supposed to be comfortable, they are about going fast, that is why to have to stick your arse in the air to ride them. But that is OK it is where boy racers keep their brains...

Touring bike are more intended to more comfortable, as they are designed for covering distance.

Ah, so that's where I went wrong.

Trying to ride 240km one day and then 230km the next, followed by another five days of 220+km rides from Land's End to JOG on a Spesh SWorks is just 'boy racer brain in arse' mentality.

I should have ridden my old ten speed tourer and only covered 50km each day for a month.

The fact that the SWorks is the most 'near-perfect' fitted and most comfortable bike I own is neither here nor there.