# rigid gravel vs rigid mtb



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

Beside different geo and on some models wider tires what advantage does a rigid mtb have over a rigid gravel bike? 

If I have a rigid gavel bike that can take 29x50mm(1.9") tires, would a rigid from the factory(but suspension corrected) mtb be redundant? In my case looking at 27.5+ bikes, which for 2020 some models I looked into have changed geo to be more oriented towards 29x2.6 tires. 

Would I just be better off adding a suspension fork to my bike like the Lauf or that 40mm Canondale lefty fork I've seen on youtube? Or go for a gravel fork that has clearance for wider tires 29er tires, while possibly being lighter?


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

where your riding the bike will dictate, what is best for you. if you ride 10 miles of pavement to get to easy trails, then get a gravel bike.

if the trails are rough build a hard tail, I personally find no need for a rigid mtb


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

A rigid mtb will be a bit more sure-footed when the terrain starts getting rougher than what you see on typical gravel roads. It might be worthwhile if you need extra flotation over a bunch of really loose and unconsolidated gravel or if you're bikepacking on singletrack, but when the gravel is firm and especially on pavement, the gravel bike will definitely be faster and lighter. It will also be more comfortable over long distances, owing to the multiple hand positions on the drop bars.

Depends what I'm doing, but as far as I'm concerned, a rigid mtb is a more limited-use bike. A gravel bike, especially if you can switch between a suspension fork and a rigid one depending on where you're riding, would be a good choice.

I'd want to stay away from that Lefty fork unless you were all-in on the lefty design and its requirement for a special front hub. If not, stay with something more traditional. The Lauf is an option if you just want to take the edge off, but aren't looking for true suspension. If you're looking for true suspension, then there are some traditional telescoping gravel suspension forks from Fox and MRP you can look at that don't require you to build a new front wheel.


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

Outhouse said:


> where your riding the bike will dictate, what is best for you. if you ride 10 miles of pavement to get to easy trails, then get a gravel bike.
> 
> if the trails are rough build a hard tail, I personally find no need for a rigid mtb


Riding 10 miles to get to intermediate trail with hard rock, sand & climbs that can be 8%+ on desert sandstone rocks out here in the desert south west.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

snacksattack said:


> Riding 10 miles to get to intermediate trail with hard rock, sand & climbs that can be 8%+ on desert sandstone rocks out here in the desert south west.


That's still kinda vague, but I'm apt to say to use the bike that is the most fun on the part of your ride you'll spend the most time on.

But, me, I don't want to waste time riding 10 miles to get to some trails, then ride the trails, and then ride 10 miles home.

If I rode a mtb, that's going to wind up adding a bunch of time to the part of the ride I like the least (the road part). If I rode a gravel bike to go faster on the pavement, it's going to limit the enjoyment I get out of riding the trails.


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

Harold said:


> A rigid mtb will be a bit more sure-footed when the terrain starts getting rougher than what you see on typical gravel roads. It might be worthwhile if you need extra flotation over a bunch of really loose and unconsolidated gravel or if you're bikepacking on singletrack, but when the gravel is firm and especially on pavement, the gravel bike will definitely be faster and lighter. It will also be more comfortable over long distances, owing to the multiple hand positions on the drop bars.
> 
> Depends what I'm doing, but as far as I'm concerned, a rigid mtb is a more limited-use bike. A gravel bike, especially if you can switch between a suspension fork and a rigid one depending on where you're riding, would be a good choice.
> 
> I'd want to stay away from that Lefty fork unless you were all-in on the lefty design and its requirement for a special front hub. If not, stay with something more traditional. The Lauf is an option if you just want to take the edge off, but aren't looking for true suspension. If you're looking for true suspension, then there are some traditional telescoping gravel suspension forks from Fox and MRP you can look at that don't require you to build a new front wheel.


I don't think my gravel bike can work with the MRP or Fox 32 as it's not really suspension corrected, but was told it can with the Lauf & possibly lefty gravel fork. But, if that requires new hubs then no.

How would you say a large tire gravel bike(27.5x2.6+ or 29x2.4) compare to a rigid mtb? Like that Crust Evasion or Surly Ogre.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

snacksattack said:


> I don't think my gravel bike can work with the MRP or Fox 32 as it's not really suspension corrected, but was told it can with the Lauf & possibly lefty gravel fork. But, if that requires new hubs then no.
> 
> How would you say a large tire gravel bike(27.5x2.6+ or 29x2.4) compare to a rigid mtb? Like that Crust Evasion or Surly Ogre.


"Suspension corrected" is a rather old term that referred to bikes that could accept an 80mm or 100mm travel fork.

The MRP Baxter, for example, has a 424mm unsagged axle-crown dimension (415 sagged). A 100mm 29er fork (like the MRP Loop SL at 509mm unsagged and 489mm sagged) is significantly longer. Yes, the Lauf Grit is still shorter (415mm unsagged, 409mm sagged), but the difference between the Lauf and the MRP is 9mm unsagged, and even less at sag at 6mm (the Baxter has more travel). That's not even worth quibbling over, to be honest.

It doesn't really matter WHAT the rigid mtb is. Some things you can deal with through tire selection. Other things, not so much. For example, modern mtb drivetrains are going to lose a lot of top end gearing compared to a gravel bike. That alone is going to cause you to lose out on speed on your 10mi of road to get to the trails.


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

10 miles on pavement, ride the trails and then 10 back ?

I get tired riding more than about 15 or so on a flat bar. I can do it, but a drop bar bike is more comfortable if only as I can switch hand positions. 

But the choice of bike really comes down to can a gravel bike, even with 2” tires, handle the more technical terrain ?. Flat bars are a better choice for that stuff, suspension fork or not.


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

Harold said:


> "Suspension corrected" is a rather old term that referred to bikes that could accept an 80mm or 100mm travel fork.
> 
> The MRP Baxter, for example, has a 424mm unsagged axle-crown dimension (415 sagged). A 100mm 29er fork (like the MRP Loop SL at 509mm unsagged and 489mm sagged) is significantly longer. Yes, the Lauf Grit is still shorter (415mm unsagged, 409mm sagged), but the difference between the Lauf and the MRP is 9mm unsagged, and even less at sag at 6mm (the Baxter has more travel). That's not even worth quibbling over, to be honest.
> 
> It doesn't really matter WHAT the rigid mtb is. Some things you can deal with through tire selection. Other things, not so much. For example, modern mtb drivetrains are going to lose a lot of top end gearing compared to a gravel bike. That alone is going to cause you to lose out on speed on your 10mi of road to get to the trails.


That's good to know. the axle to crown length on my bike is 400mm. So a Lauf could work(seen a few for cheap on CL). Not sure if the Baxter would work, but that also kind of pricey for what it is.

I ride once a week so its the only day I get exercise outdoors, ie not at the gym. So I like the 10 mile(well really 9.1 miles but rounded up to sound a bit longer than it really is) ride to the trail. I am usually the only one on a gravel bike there as most people are mtb, including a lady who I see time to time on a 90s mtb. I have mullet setup for my gearing as I have mtb in the back(11-40) and road in the front(50/36) & it acceptable for me. I am sure if my ankles were a bit stronger or I lost 10lbs it be a bit more easier to climb.

I ride in Orange County/San Diego are normally & in the California/Arizona border areas when I have 3 day weekend. If that gives an idea?


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

Build a hard tail, its what I use when im riding a lot of pavement to and from trails. We have such extremes here, but still have 4 miles of pavement mixed with technical areas, but average 2000' of climbing in a 12.5 mile loop. Love the full suspension but I value the lighter hardtail on climbs, and you will get more stability out of a bike with front suspension you cannot on a rigid, unless your a pro. Me I don't want to go down in sketchy stuff because I didn't do enough suspension.


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

I am thinking about that. Do I go plus tire hardtail like Timberjack or Unit or put a suspension fork on my gravel bike. 

I take the geo advantage goes to the rigid mtb, but is that just for descents or does that apply to climbs too?


----------



## paramount3 (Jul 13, 2014)

If you are riding mixed pavement and trails:
1. Your bike has to be capable of handling the trails. Make your bike choice based on this.
2. It's OK to ride a mountain bike on the road. It's slow, but in reality it's mostly a function of tires and tire pressures. If you are riding a gravel bike with tires and pressures suitable for the trails that you are riding to, it will be almost as slow on the road as the MTB.
3. Addendum: plus size tires suck on the road

Conclusion: Get a hardtail 29er with about 2.1" tires, and with a suspension fork that locks out completely. Ride to the trail on the road with the fork locked out, then have fun on the trails, then ride home. Save the gravel bike for actual road or gravel rides. Forget about plus size tires and suspension forks for the gravel bike.


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

Thank you for your reply. I'm thinking plus size bike with suspension fork, either TJ or Unit, unless I find a good deal on a PM1 or PM and aftermarket suspension fork. But personally I think I would prefer 29x2.4 over a 27.5+ tire bike. Which 29x2.2(?) ht(or rigid bike then add an after market fork, say save a little extra to go for a fox fork over suntour I am seeing on some of these budget bikes) would you suggest along the lines of what I am looking for? 

Side note I have a frame pump for my bike so I have at the right pressure for the ride there, lower the pressure for the trail then pump the rear tire to proper pressure for the ride home. Works fine for me.


----------



## austink26 (Jun 24, 2019)

Based on your description of your rides and knowing what a gravel bike is capable of, I really think the right choice was stated above. A fast/light 29er hardtail with 2.1 inch xc rubber. My xc race bike was still way more capable on the trails than my gravel bike running 48mm tires. It also was fine riding on the road to get to the trails. I used to ride about 6 miles to the trails, do a 7 mile loop and the 6 miles back home on my cannondale fsi multiple times a week. 

If I was doing so much road riding to get to the trails, plus tires would be the absolute last thing on the list for changes. I am not sure I understand why you seemingly rule out a xc hardtail with a good 100mm fork that can be locked out. It is more capable on the trails and really is just marginally slower on the road than a gravel bike with big tires. Throwing something like a lauf or the lefty oliver on isn’t going to make the gravel bike more capable. Just keep you ever so more comfortable. The lauf has zero rebound dampening so it is just going to pogo stick on chattery stuff. 

A plus sized mtb will ride like an absolute pig on the road while still feeling really sluggish on the trails. Going with that or making your gravel bike more of a monster cross bike are both solutions that seem far from ideal. I grew up riding around orange county and now live in san diego. There are trails here that are doable on gravel bikes, but they really are just service roads. Anything with fun single track is probably too rocky or steep to be fun on a gravel bike, regardless of 45 mm of travel. 

Tire choice is key too for a hardtail to be able to ride ok on the road and trails. I always ran racing ralphs. 2.1/1.9 combo was really good for the pedaling into the trails. 

Edit: for bike recommendations I would look at the cannondale fsi, the new specialized epic hardtail, santa cruz highball, or any xc hardtail race bike. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I agree with the others that a plus sized anything is the absolute dead last thing you should be considering here.

It's worth pointing out that your gravel bike has massive gearing range. You're going to want to compare gearing between that (and the gears you ACTUALLY use) and any hardtail you choose. You simply will not be able to get a 50/11 gear on a mountain bike, so if you rely on those big gears on your gravel bike for the pavement parts of this ride, you're going to need to set your expectations appropriately for a mtb.

A mtb will be slower. Heavier, knobbier tires. Heavier overall. Less aero body position. Less top end gearing. But more low end gearing, better control in technical terrain, more confident descending at speed.

Also keep in mind that this is a mountain bike website, so folks' opinions will be generally biased towards the mountain bike side of things.

As for bike geometry, it depends what you're riding, really, and specifically which bike you choose. Any mtb should have geometry suited for more confident descending over a gravel bike, but some gravel bikes are starting to overlap with some mtbs on that. As for climbing geometry, I haven't actually found climbing geometry to be that much of a limiting factor on my Guerrilla Gravity Pedalhead, which is a much slacker bike (and mine is built at the upper end of the mfr's fork recommendation, so it's even slacker than the mfr stated geo) than any of the xc hardtails people are recommending here. But that said, the positions are VERY different. My gravel bike (2014ish Salsa Vaya) has a geometry that makes STANDING climbing for longer distances more comfortable. That makes pushing a bigger gear more feasible, so I climb faster. My Pedalhead is more comfortable with SEATED climbing and spinning a higher cadence in a lower gear. The more "trail" oriented the bikes you look at, the more they'll lean towards my Pedalhead. The more "race" oriented the mountain bikes you look at, the closer they'll be geometry-wise to your existing gravel bike.

When I take my gravel bike out, I generally look for stuff with at most, a couple miles of easy trail. That bike gets pavement use and well-packed gravel (open to motorized traffic as well as gated gravel forest roads). I might take that bike out this afternoon on a gravel route that includes a few miles of the Blue Ridge Parkway (pavement) that's currently closed to cars for winter. I try to limit as much of my pavement riding to traffic-free or traffic-lite routes like greenways, gravel, and the Blue Ridge Parkway in wintertime as I can. Got a bunch of rain yesterday, so would be good to give the trails a break. But too nice and sunny to stay cooped up all day.

My mtb comes out when the amount of singletrack in the ride gets to be a higher proportion. I still do lots of gravel on it (such is the nature of the rides in my area. lots of long gravel climbs followed by technical singletrack descents), but I really dislike road riding, so I think the longest stretch of pavement I ride on it is a mile or two long. It'll also come out if there's a lot of fresh, loose gravel, but that's not common. It's got 29x2.6" tires, and the extra flotation in that kind of situation is helpful.


----------



## paramount3 (Jul 13, 2014)

Regarding gearing, here's a radical solution: You can run a 2x drivetrain on a hardtail! Another point: in my opinion, adding a dropper post dramatically increases the descending capability of a bike. I have a hardtail with this setup that I often ride on an 8 mile commute which consists of about 1.5 miles of dirt, including one good singletrack descent and one very steep dirt climb. The bike is a steel 2009 Raleigh XXIX+g, 2x10 drivetrain 39-26 rings x 11-36 cassette, 80 mm travel fork. I added a 100mm PNW dropper post (the only good option for 27.2 seatpost diameter). It currently has 29 x 2.2 tires running tubes, usually at about 30 psi. Though it has a steep 71 degree head angle, it feels fine on my descents because of the dropper. Pedaling on the road is fine.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

paramount3 said:


> Regarding gearing, here's a radical solution: You can run a 2x drivetrain on a hardtail! Another point: in my opinion, adding a dropper post dramatically increases the descending capability of a bike. I have a hardtail with this setup that I often ride on an 8 mile commute which consists of about 1.5 miles of dirt, including one good singletrack descent and one very steep dirt climb. The bike is a steel 2009 Raleigh XXIX+g, 2x10 drivetrain 39-26 rings x 11-36 cassette, 80 mm travel fork. I added a 100mm PNW dropper post (the only good option for 27.2 seatpost diameter). It currently has 29 x 2.2 tires running tubes, usually at about 30 psi. Though it has a steep 71 degree head angle, it feels fine on my descents because of the dropper. Pedaling on the road is fine.


Yes, you can run 2x on a mtb. But you still won't be able to replicate the top end gear you can potentially use on a gravel bike.

Yes, a dropper post increases descending capability of a bike. It may or may not be an option.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Lots of people ride plus size wheels on the tour divide race, if you like that ride then go for it. 10 miles each way on pavement is no big deal.

Hardtail mtb's are super versatile so any decent xc-ish would also work great. 

Gravel bike with a little narrower tires is nice if the roads/trails you're traveling to are mostly smooth.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Harold said:


> Yes, you can run 2x on a mtb. But you still won't be able to replicate the top end gear you can potentially use on a gravel bike.


Personally I've found that even 1x mtb drivetrains aren't very limiting on mixed surface rides and I'm no dilly-dallier. Depends whether or not you're racing though I guess.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

I usually ride to and from the trails, and connect trail systems with road sections of several miles in length. My bikes of choice are XC hardtails with 100mm forks. I usually run a reasonably fast rolling 29x2.2 on the rear and a beefy 29x2.4 up front. My bike with the 2x is the one I grab the most often because it has higher gearing for the road sections. I've considered a 29+ bike off and on the past couple of years, but for me the advantage of plus size tires on trails does not outweigh the disadvantage of riding them to and from the trails.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

J.B. Weld said:


> Personally I've found that even 1x mtb drivetrains aren't very limiting on mixed surface rides and I'm no dilly-dallier. Depends whether or not you're racing though I guess.


Whether it works for you is a different question entirely. Me, I don't use the 50/11 on my Salsa (or really anything close to it), even on the road. One of these days, I'll be changing it to something with the "adventure" or "super compact" gearing, probably in the 46/30 or 48/32 territory. Absolute Black, I think, is the only company making rings that'll fit my Shimano crank with that asym bolt pattern, but they're pricey. Not sure I really want oval rings (have used absolute black oval in the past on my fatbike, meh), but it's my only option for that crank.

I'll probably need to change the gearing on my wife's bike first, though. She's got a more traditional CX gearing, and I suspect she'll want more low end than she has. She hasn't expressed any interest in going out for gravel rides with me until this year, so today will be a bit of a test. I'll need to change the cables on her bike soon, anyway.

It all depends on the kind of rider you are and where you ride. That's why I said to look at the gearing available on current bike(s) and map out what you actually use.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Harold said:


> Whether it works for you is a different question entirely.


Definitely, I was just pointing out that you don't necessarily need road gears just because you're riding a mtb on the pavement. Bigger tires change the gear ratios and with heavier tread you can't push the same ratios anyway. Just something for the op to ponder.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

J.B. Weld said:


> Definitely, I was just pointing out that you don't necessarily need road gears just because you're riding a mtb on the pavement. Bigger tires change the gear ratios and with heavier tread you can't push the same ratios anyway. Just something for the op to ponder.


Sure. But we've had enough people come onto this forum whining because they can't go xx speed on their mtb and they "spin out" their mtb gears on the road and so on and so forth so I was preempting some of the whining.


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

Harold said:


> But we've had enough people come onto this forum whining because they can't go xx speed on their mtbtb gears .


Whats funny is its not hard to hit 42mph with a 32t and a 10 t cog, which is married to a goat trail climbing 50T cog cassette.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

Outhouse said:


> Whats funny is its not hard to hit 42mph with a 32t and a 10 t cog, which is married to a goat trail climbing 50T cog cassette.


On a 29x2.25" tire and 32x10 gearing, you will go 42.8 mph at a cadence of 155.

If 155 isn't 'hard' then you are literally not human.

That's the only explanation other than you being absurdly high right now to make such an insane claim.

If you think you do this, and it's easy, you're simply not measuring your speed correctly.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## austink26 (Jun 24, 2019)

tfinator said:


> On a 29x2.25" tire and 32x10 gearing, you will go 42.8 mph at a cadence of 155.
> 
> If 155 isn't 'hard' then you are literally not human.


I definitely haven't ever hit 42 pushing 32/10 on a mtb, but I was able to routinely hit over 200rpm on my road bike. I am sure I can do it on a mtb, I just don't have a cadence sensor on any of them.

But 42 on flat is damn near impossible. Even 42 on a steep downhill is hard on a mtb with any kinds of knobs on the tires.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

200 rpm? 200 pedal strokes yeah, but RPM? 

go get in a bike right now and pedal over three full revolutions per second. I'll wait here with some spare knees for you.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

tfinator said:


> On a 29x2.25" tire and 32x10 gearing, you will go 42.8 mph at a cadence of 155.


LOL its on strava, and its no big deal. Just my 27.5lb FS with 2.3 crosskings that measure 2.5.

You don't have hills where you ride? You walk down these?


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

I am mostly fine with my gearing as I have 11-40t in the back and 50/36. For the mtb I am thinking 40/26 as I've seen that on Srams site before in the mtb section. I don't care to go 40mph or even 30mph on the flat, but 25mph on a flat would be nice just to keep up with friends. 

I think I am gonna go Kona Unit X. Locally someone has a really tasty deal on one with 100mm Xfusion(not familiar with the brand) 27.5+ shock. Price is only $150 more than a new frameset & same price as what a few folks are selling rigid 2019 models. My hatch can fit my gravel bike with the front tire off when I ride to gravel trails farther away. I think sliding my seat forward can fit a unit with the tire off. Unless, people say think it's better to go a 29er bike that can hold 2.3 tires?


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

Outhouse said:


> LOL its on strava, and its no big deal. Just my 27.5lb FS with 2.3 crosskings that measure 2.5.
> 
> You don't have hills where you ride? You walk down these?


If you're going downhill then gears don't matter, why are you discussing them?

Also, no, I certainly do not hit 42 mph on my FS, because I ride trails 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

austink26 said:


> Even 42 on a steep downhill is hard on a mtb with any kinds of knobs on the tires.


42 Downhill and paved and 170mm cranks. Not the fastest ive been on my mtb. Just finished a 12.5 mile 2000'limb a little earlier, and wanted to add miles to my day so I went out for a quick 5 miles around the block.

Our goal this year is 600 on strava. [using a garmin 520 plus]


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

snacksattack said:


> I am mostly fine with my gearing as I have 11-40t in the back and 50/36. For the mtb I am thinking 40/26 as I've seen that on Srams site before in the mtb section. I don't care to go 40mph or even 30mph on the flat, but 25mph on a flat would be nice just to keep up with friends.
> 
> I think I am gonna go Kona Unit X. Locally someone has a really tasty deal on one with 100mm Xfusion(not familiar with the brand) 27.5+ shock. Price is only $150 more than a new frameset & same price as what a few folks are selling rigid 2019 models. My hatch can fit my gravel bike with the front tire off when I ride to gravel trails farther away. I think sliding my seat forward can fit a unit with the tire off. Unless, people say think it's better to go a 29er bike that can hold 2.3 tires?


It depends on the specific fork, but I'm a fan of x fusion. I've had a couple and they worked well with minimal maintenance. The McQueen I have now I get along with very well, but I'm not a suspension snob so take it with a grain of salt.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

tfinator said:


> Also, no, I certainly do not hit 42 mph on my FS, because I ride trails


I live a mile away from trails, and I literally ride from my house to some pretty damn good trails. Some of which have steep paved connecting roads we are forced to ride up.

why bring 42mph up downhill, because its the range of the cassete on our 1 X bikes, and I didn't know people ride these on the flats, we don't have no stinking flats here jack. I never been on flat ground. Its why they call us the endurance capitol of the world. flat ground ha ha ha
my strava stats looks like a W on every ride


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

tfinator said:


> If you're going downhill then gears don't matter, why are you discussing them?


They certainly do matter. What you go down here, You have to be able to climb back up.

No one here climbs hills here with a 32t and a 40t rear cog, you will walk a long way


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

tfinator said:


> It depends on the specific fork, but I'm a fan of x fusion. I've had a couple and they worked well with minimal maintenance. The McQueen I have now I get along with very well, but I'm not a suspension snob so take it with a grain of salt.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


I think it's the McQueen model. But, good to know thank you.


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

snacksattack said:


> Unless, people say think it's better to go a 29er bike that can hold 2.3 tires?


running 29 2.3 on both HT a my FS. I really enjoy this combination for all around usage.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

Outhouse said:


> They certainly do matter. What you go down here, You have to be able to climb back up.
> 
> No one here climbs hills here with a 32t and a 40t rear cog, you will walk a long way


No, you're going down hill. Reaching speed that exceed your gear range. You could be in a single speed and hit the same speed. Nobody cares how fast you go downhill for the sake of a gearing conversation.

You cannot hit 42 mph, under pedal power alone. On a 32x10 gear ratio without using a huge wheel or massive tire and being one of the strongest cyclists in existence. Full stop.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

snacksattack said:


> I think it's the McQueen model. But, good to know thank you.


If it is a McQueen then mine has been fantastic. Good luck!

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

tfinator said:


> . You could be in a single speed and hit the same speed. Nobody cares how fast you go downhill for the sake of a gearing conversation.


That's simply not true if your interested in gaining speed to climb short steep hills to conserve energy. Some 1/4 mile hills I can climb in 10t if I get a run at it.

we also have a bitchen 2 mile downhill section with a series of 8-10 jumps that is bitchen to peddle down the trail/dirt road.

I guess what im trying to imply to you, is we have it all, and a gear range from 40 downhill to also be able to climb up goat trails is bitchen. Find 20 mtb's here and 18 will have the same set up 10-50 32t front. Its not just a geographic thing

Granted you could do it in an 11s almost as well but whats a single cog between friends?


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

I kind of get going 42mph downhill on the street or even fine gravel; but, who's really wants to go bombing down heavy gravel or mtb trail 42mph? Like how often would you be going downhill on the streets with a mtb? Not every often I assume.


----------



## austink26 (Jun 24, 2019)

tfinator said:


> 200 rpm? 200 pedal strokes yeah, but RPM?
> 
> go get in a bike right now and pedal over three full revolutions per second. I'll wait here with some spare knees for you.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk












I haven't ridden my road bike in a long time but It really isn't that difficult. Not all of us have old knees.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

austink26 said:


> I haven't ridden my road bike in a long time but It really isn't that difficult. Not all of us have old knees.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Best case scenario is that you got two strokes at that speed, I think this is better proof that that device was mis calibrated our had an error. On a road bike pedaling 205 rpm in the highest gear gets you 76 mph...

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## austink26 (Jun 24, 2019)

tfinator said:


> Best case scenario is that you got two strokes at that speed, I think this is better proof that that device was mis calibrated our had an error. On a road bike pedaling 205 rpm in the highest gear gets you 76 mph...
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


I never said it was the highest gear. It was actually the lowest. And it was read on a quarq. It was definitely more than a couple pedal strokes. Most roadie can do it. Track riders frequently hit 200rpm. Just scanning previous rides I saw multiple with cadances topping 180-200. Idk why that seems so impossible to you.

I'm only speaking to your post of "if 155 isn't hard, you aren't human". If you intended that to include "at the hardest gear" you are correct. But just cadence alone is very doable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

austink26 said:


> I never said it was the highest gear. It was actually the lowest. And it was read on a quarq. It was definitely more than a couple pedal strokes. Most roadie can do it. Track riders frequently hit 200rpm. Just scanning previous rides I saw multiple with cadances topping 180-200. Idk why that seems so impossible to you.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't know either. I'll troll my strava too. There's really not a lot of info out there about how high an RPM people can hit, but I'm still not convinced anyone can do that for more than 2 or 3 strokes.

I know you didn't say it was in the highest, I was using it as a reference.

In a 34x23 it's still 21mph. I don't think I've ever gone over 10 mph in that gear.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tfinator said:


> Best case scenario is that you got two strokes at that speed, I think this is better proof that that device was mis calibrated our had an error. On a road bike pedaling 205 rpm in the highest gear gets you 76 mph...
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


I'd bet that what happened was a quick rocking of the crank arm past the sensor. Magnetic sensors are susceptible to this. That will definitely cause weird readings like this. What you want to look at is not the maximum or minimum (with the issues of data spikes and dropouts), but rather look at the chart over time and find the highest cadence you were able to sustain for any length of time. Not just a single data point (which is probably an outlier to be tossed).

I don't run a cadence sensor on a mtb, but I found that it's certainly possible with a 28x11 tall gear to pedal close to 25mph on flat paved greenway paths, but that was not something that was comfortable for me to sustain for very long (tall knobs + fatbike made for a good bit of resistance). I generally don't pedal riding downhill unless it's a really gentle grade. And on trails, I definitely don't exceed 25mph. I mostly don't exceed 20mph except in short stretches, either.

Sure, on pavement I've exceeded 40mph before. Coasting. That's not relevant to anything.

Outhouse is becoming the next eb-esque Dunning-Kruger case. I laugh at the estimation that 80% of mountain bikes all run a 32t ring and 10-50 cassette. There's 4 mtbs in my garage and NONE of them use that gearing. Hell, none of them have a chainring bigger than 30t, either.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Gearing wars, we got them.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

To get back on topic, it probably depends on the OP. I have done an entirely gravel and paved bikepacking trip on my 150mm travel hardtail with Minions up front and Rekons out back and a 28 f and 11/42 rear and it didn't bother me at all. Also done quite a few gravel rides like that and ride on the road a couple miles to get to trails like that. It doesn't bother me but it might bother some people.


----------



## austink26 (Jun 24, 2019)

Harold said:


> I'd bet that what happened was a quick rocking of the crank arm past the sensor. Magnetic sensors are susceptible to this. That will definitely cause weird readings like this. What you want to look at is not the maximum or minimum (with the issues of data spikes and dropouts), but rather look at the chart over time and find the highest cadence you were able to sustain for any length of time. Not just a single data point (which is probably an outlier to be tossed).
> 
> .


In this case I was literally proving to my friends it was possible. I spun up multiple times and watched the cadence number on the garmin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## root (Jan 24, 2006)

The choice of bike i guess comes down to what type of riding and style is the emphasis. A Rigid “29er” mtb And a “gravel” bike are not going to be all that different nowadays. The mtb will be designed to take wider tires and come with flat bars. But you can put narrow slicks and drop bars and it will be pretty close to a gravel. If it can take front derailleur than virtually none. Gravel/cx generally limited on tire size, but if i go down to 650b (27.5) my “monstercross” setup i can fit a 2.1” wide tire. My cx gearing is 46/36 and 11-34. For road its good, i only run out of gearing on downhill stretches, and honestly i wouldnt want to go much faster. Good god i cant imagine hitting the same speed on gravel! Its somewhere close to 40mph.
On trail i do often want for lower gear.
So i just switched to GRX with the 48/31 front rings. Lower gearing, and higher gearing too? We’ll see how much i like that, im beyond the days of thinking i can turn a 52 well so the 48 may be too much too.
I used to road and commute on my rigid 26” mtb and with slicks wouldnt be too much worse than the cx. But having switched to my CX it is more efficient, and when the wind kicks up like it has this past weeks (they said gusts up to 50mph in specific spots) it makes a big diff getting down into the drops.


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

Maybe I should just go drop bar mtb(w/ a 2x 40/28 setup) route, sell my gravel bike. Have one tire mixed riding, road and gravel & then XC tire. Cause my bike can do 29x2.0 no problem. But, the reason for looking at a mtb is to get even wider tires for gravel & the easier mtb trails. Why I ask what difference would there be between a rigid mtb & a gravel bike. As long as I can do 25mph, which I think 40/11 could give me I should be fine?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

snacksattack said:


> Why I ask what difference would there be between a rigid mtb & a gravel bike.


A gravel bike's frame geometry is optimized for drop bars. Some mtb's may handle well with them and some may not so if I were interested in drop bars I'd go for a gravel or adventure bike with clearance for wide tires.

As far as gearing, not necessarily for the op but just in general people need to remember that due to size differences a 52/11 with 23mm tires (which manufactures finally figured out most people can't push, hence compact chainsets) is equivalent to about a 47/11 wit 2.4 tires. That's before factoring in the extra tread, weight, and aerodynamics so in reality a 52/11 on a lightweight road bike is probably equal to pushing a 42/11, maybe less on a rigid mtb or adventure bike with big fat tires. You need a lot of watts to outrun that gearing.

Something else about gearing, just because you can only go (x) mph with  gearing doesn't mean that you'll increase speed with bigger gears. In more situations than not most won't.

Apologies for the further derail. Sorry.


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

In a related question to gearing & speed, would a gravel/adventure bike geo be designed to go faster than a mtb, or is that more a function of design and tubing?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

snacksattack said:


> In a related question to gearing & speed, would a gravel/adventure bike geo be designed to go faster than a mtb, or is that more a function of design and tubing?


faster when?

On a loose, sketchy, long descent, the mtb will be notably faster because the geometry will be more stable under those conditions. Encountered this on my gravel ride with my wife the other day. She disliked the handling of her gravel bike on the gravel descent so much that she told me she'd have preferred riding her mtb for the route we did. She prefers her gravel bike for more mellow terrain.

On a paved, secure descent, probably the gravel bike due to better aerodynamics.

But on climbs, on the flats, or with headwinds the gravel bike will most likely be faster because of the gearing, the reduced wheel/tire weight, and the reduced overall bike weight, and better aerodynamics. For the same power output, those factors will result in a higher speed. I did a century ride in the midwest in some big "corn tunnel" headwinds for several miles and getting into the drops for that kind of thing makes a massive difference.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

J.B. Weld said:


> Something else about gearing, just because you can only go (x) mph with  gearing doesn't mean that you'll increase speed with bigger gears. In more situations than not most won't.


No, it's a good point. It takes a LOT more than double the power to double your speed. IIRC, the power required increases geometrically (assuming all else is equal) as your speed increases.

https://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/aerodynamics1.html

You'll notice that heavily aerodynamic bikes are actually heavier because of the extra material required to make those aero shapes. So they don't necessarily accelerate so fast. But they're more efficient once they're up to speed. That's why time trial bikes are the way they are. But when you throw grades into the mix, acceleration (and gravity) become larger factors, which is why the bikes used in the climbing stages of the major tours are NOT heavily aerodynamic (they may have some subtle aero shaping, but generally not at the expense of weight).

It gets a lot more complicated when you start throwing in additional variables (differences between a flat bar mtb and a drop bar gravel bike), but in that case, there will be some times that aerodynamics is more important, but other times where other factors (weight, bicycle geometry, traction, gearing, terrain, rider fitness) are more important. Gearing and rider fitness are going to be closely tied, of course. Taller gearing won't matter one lick if the rider isn't fit/strong enough to take advantage of it.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

snacksattack said:


> In a related question to gearing & speed, would a gravel/adventure bike geo be designed to go faster than a mtb, or is that more a function of design and tubing?


It depends on the model and/or configuration, aside from the handlebars a gravel bike can be pretty much the same thing as a rigid mtb. Or very different. Some gravel bikes are just about on par with a nice road racing bike but there are obvious trade-offs with that.

Which is faster? As mentioned it depends on the terrain but all else equal narrower drop bars will be faster due to improved aerodynamics. Aerodynamics and rolling resistance are the biggest factors affecting speed on flat-ish ground.

Adventure bikes are a bit different imo, kind of a gravel bike with room for mtb tires and capable of carrying gear. Most have drop bars for more hand/body positions to make long rides more comfortable as well as the aero advantage.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

If you want a mountain bike that's not a total drag to ride on "roads" (paved or unpaved), get a rigid mtb.

If you want a road bike that is trail-capable, get a gravel bike.

Not sure if that helps. Personal experience: I have a CX bike with 35-40 mm tires and a drop handlebar. It has steep angles and it is a blast to ride on hardpacked singletrack and unpaved roads. Handling gets sketchy fast on technical trails.

I also sometimes put a rigid fork on my hardtail. Because of the tire size, geometry, and flat handlebar, it's a drag on roads but capable on trails. Neither of these bikes do everything very well, but I chose to ride one or the other based on trail conditions and my mood.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

mack_turtle said:


> If you want a mountain bike that's not a total drag to ride on "roads" (paved or unpaved), get a rigid mtb.


That's a matter of opinion, here's mine. I don't find a hardtail to be a drag at all compared to a rigid mtb, if you have a lockout the only real penalty is a little extra weight which amounts to an insignificant speed difference (to me) on the road/gravel but is very nice on the trail.

Either could be a good choice depending on preferences, I just don't think speed differential between them is much, if any of a factor.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Harold said:


> faster when?
> 
> On a loose, sketchy, long descent, the mtb will be notably faster because the geometry will be more stable under those conditions. Encountered this on my gravel ride with my wife the other day. She disliked the handling of her gravel bike on the gravel descent so much that she told me she'd have preferred riding her mtb for the route we did. She prefers her gravel bike for more mellow terrain.
> 
> ...


That's interesting, I would think an MTB would have the advantage of climbing due to gearing. I wonder where a drop bar mtb or montercross bikes, like the Salsa Fargo or a Bombrack Beyond+ would compare to gravel bike & mtb.



mack_turtle said:


> If you want a mountain bike that's not a total drag to ride on "roads" (paved or unpaved), get a rigid mtb.
> 
> If you want a road bike that is trail-capable, get a gravel bike.
> 
> ...


That's how I am starting to feel & why I looking to start a mtb build, not sure rigid or ht, but have the frame in mind.


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

Harold said:


> faster when?
> 
> On a loose, sketchy, long descent, the mtb will be notably faster because the geometry will be more stable under those conditions. Encountered this on my gravel ride with my wife the other day. She disliked the handling of her gravel bike on the gravel descent so much that she told me she'd have preferred riding her mtb for the route we did. She prefers her gravel bike for more mellow terrain.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I was thinking faster on flat gravel road. Would a gravel bike be faster up a hill seeing as it is less tuned for climbing & more for mixed riding?


----------



## paramount3 (Jul 13, 2014)

@snacksattack: I suspect you are going to need more than one bike. It is possible to have one bike and "do it all" (well, in reality "most" not "all"), but you make a lot of compromises that way. What you hear from several posters in this thread is that we pull out different bikes for different rides. After the initial posts about gravel vs MTB, then I start seeing things like wanting to go 25 mph on roads to keep up with your buddies. To me that sounds like 17 lb carbon fiber road bike with 25mm tires at high pressure. You just aren't going to do that on a do-it-all bike. A two-bike solution might be as follows:
1) A light gravel bike that can be set up with 28 mm road tires for honest-to-god road rides with your buddies, or 40mm tires for true gravel rides or mixed rides that have only light trails
2) A hardtail 29er, e.g. that Kona Unit X with X-Fusion fork that you described, running 29" wheels, rather than 27+. With this bike you can do honest-to-god mountain bike rides (though probably not 4' drops and jump lines, or massive rock gardens, etc), but you can also do mixed rides that involve some pavement to get to decently challenging singletrack.

While it is possible to do all of the above on one bike, you pretty much have to be Peter Sagan or Matheu van der Poel to do it.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Agreed. I only own two bikes, and I know a lot of people who have at least one bike for every day of the week. Both of my bikes are relatively heavy, not expensive, but carefully built to suit my needs. One mountain bike for trails, and a drop-bar bike for everything else. A determined rider can literally ride anywhere on any bike, but using the wrong tool for the job is often not fun, or even dangerous.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

The problem is that if you do mixed surface riding you're always going to have the wrong tool at some point. Pick your poison.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Funoutside said:


> That's interesting, I would think an MTB would have the advantage of climbing due to gearing. I wonder where a drop bar mtb or montercross bikes, like the Salsa Fargo or a Bombrack Beyond+ would compare to gravel bike & mtb.


I think it would depend on the climb but anything that was very steep or technical I'd expect the gravel bike to be better.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Funoutside said:


> That's interesting, I would think an MTB would have the advantage of climbing due to gearing. I wonder where a drop bar mtb or montercross bikes, like the Salsa Fargo or a Bombrack Beyond+ would compare to gravel bike & mtb.


You have some confounding factors thrown in. A MTB has a definite advantage in TECHNICAL climbing, however, on pavement or gravel, not so much because the bike is much heavier and particularly the wheels/tires are much heavier. That rotating mass will drag you down hard. A Salsa Fargo won't be much different in that regard. In climbing, you're going much slower and the aerodynamics of drop bars isn't a factor. Low gearing compensates for the extra weight of the bike, and gives you a bit of an advantage when it gets steeeeeeep and technical and traction is at a premium.



snacksattack said:


> Thank you. I was thinking faster on flat gravel road. Would a gravel bike be faster up a hill seeing as it is less tuned for climbing & more for mixed riding?


Depends on the hill. As I said above, a mountain bike becomes more advantageous the more technical and the steeper the climb.

Where I live, ALL of the gravel climb PRs on Strava are held by people on gravel or cyclocross bikes, not by people on mtbs. I definitely see more people riding them on mtbs, but they're not climbing them as fast.


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

J.B. Weld said:


> The problem is that if you do mixed surface riding you're always going to have the wrong tool at some point. Pick your poison.


That's the key right there, a HT mtb can be used everywhere everyday including long pavement sections like we are forced to ride here. A gravel bike could not be ridden on many of our trails this time of year because of how steep and muddy things get, they could never have the traction to make it. Not even sure a FS with race tread could make our steep sections which are plenty.


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

Harold said:


> I'd bet that what happened was a quick rocking of the crank arm past the sensor. Magnetic sensors are susceptible to this..


 Stop your rhetoric, you not as sharp as you think you are. I used a garmin 520 plus it is a gps unit, and it was more then just a few peddle strokes down a very moderate hill not all that steep. But anyone can do this at any time, it was not hard and I am not fast and never claimed to be. I had no idea your feelings would get hurt.

My point about the 10t cog is that is can be used on road to gain speed for the next hill you may need to climb. I can stay in the 10t and climb the same 1/8 mile hill I did 42 down. Which save energy when you need to pace yourself. Yes an 11t will work, just not as well. I have tried both.

You guys made a mnt out of a molehill, so Harold, don't start bad mouthing me because you cannot control your emotions


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

The choice is situational and subjective. For me, some of the places I want to ride are a total drag (yes, that's subjective) on my mtb, so I ride the CX bike. There are also places I would never enjoy riding on skinny tires (also subjective), so I chose different destinations and routes on my hardtail. I don't see why anyone can be dogmatic about one or the other.

Like 99% of the discussions here, it's a personal choice, and the reasons mean different things in different regions. Not everyone cares which option is the fastest either. (Not everything is a race FFS!) If that matters to you, chose the fastest option. Some people want a comfortable bike, which is not often the fastest. Others want a simple bike that makes the terrain more of a challenge, which is also unlikely to be objectively fast.


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

Harold said:


> I laugh at the estimation that 80% of mountain bikes all run a 32t ring and 10-50 cassette. .


In the last 46 miles I have ridden I have climbed 6100' of elevation in the last 8 days, its also the endurance capitol of the world, and there is a lot of world class skill here, everyone has a new 5-8k bike that passes me. I have seen an eagle GX cassette on at least 80% of the bikes here, and I have no reason to fabricate stats since I love shimano as well. So a 50T is really required for our trails and every ride a yeti passes me or a santa cruz or a trek fuel ect ect. Like me a lot of these guys want every edge they can get going down hill as well. Many people here ride the streets to trails, and the trails are all steep canyon trails since I live in the foothills below Tahoe.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Outhouse said:


> Stop your rhetoric, you not as sharp as you think you are. I used a garmin 520 plus it is a gps unit, and it was more then just a few peddle strokes down a very moderate hill not all that steep. But anyone can do this at any time, it was not hard and I am not fast and never claimed to be.


To be fair a 150+ cadence isn't something that anyone can do at any time. I can't.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Harold said:


> You have some confounding factors thrown in. A MTB has a definite advantage in TECHNICAL climbing, however, on pavement or gravel, not so much because the bike is much heavier and particularly the wheels/tires are much heavier. That rotating mass will drag you down hard. A Salsa Fargo won't be much different in that regard. In climbing, you're going much slower and the aerodynamics of drop bars isn't a factor. Low gearing compensates for the extra weight of the bike, and gives you a bit of an advantage when it gets steeeeeeep and technical and traction is at a premium.


The only reason I asked is cause I've seen people build out Fargo's to be around 26lbs & my gravel bike(Wolverine) is around the same weight, but with narrower 29x2.0 tires vs 29x2.6. So the only difference being tire size & geo. Good to know though about aero advantage.

I tried to do sustained ~125 watts on a exercise bike the other night & could only manage it for a minute before my legs were like slow down & went back to 90 watts. So, 150 for even a minute or two on a flat smooth gravel or pavement road would probably be out of my current skill level; especially on my steel gravel bike.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Outhouse said:


> In the last 46 miles I have ridden I have climbed 6100' of elevation in the last 8 days, its also the endurance capitol of the world, and there is a lot of world class skill here, everyone has a new 5-8k bike that passes me. I have seen an eagle GX cassette on at least 80% of the bikes here, and I have no reason to fabricate stats since I love shimano as well. So a 50T is really required for our trails and every ride a yeti passes me or a santa cruz or a trek fuel ect ect. Like me a lot of these guys want every edge they can get going down hill as well. Many people here ride the streets to trails, and the trails are all steep canyon trails since I live in the foothills below Tahoe.


You didn't read the whole post... He was saying most bikes he sees are running less 32t on the chainring with a 50t.


----------



## austink26 (Jun 24, 2019)

I really don't understand why people think just because they have difficulty spinning a high cadence, that there must be errors when people state they can. Any amateur road racer worth his salt can spin over 150rpm.

I didn't realize strava had cadence analysis but since they do here is more proof 200rpm is possible and not a sensor error. There is even power and speed data there too given it was recorded on a quarq power meter. All of those metrics shown vs time.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

93EXCivic said:


> He was saying most bikes he sees are running less 32t on the chainring with a 50t.


understood, just telling you what ive noticed in the last 4 months on the trails


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

I very well could be wrong, it is just what I have noticed, and I look at these details closely, since I just hand build a HT and a FS from scratch 23lb HT and a 27.5 lb FS. could be the season or any number of reasons, but I don't like someone mouthing off insinuating im lying. This is just a hobby I love. Im a better mechanic than I am a rider. Been that with motorcycles and cars too.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Which HT did you build that's that 23lbs?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

austink26 said:


> Any amateur road racer worth his salt can spin over 150rpm.


Most here aren't amateur road racers and most of those can't hold 150rpm for any meaningful length of time. I'm an amateur road racers and 110 is about the best I can hold, 125 for short periods. This really shouldn't be an argument.


----------



## austink26 (Jun 24, 2019)

J.B. Weld said:


> Most here aren't amateur road racers and most of those can't hold 150rpm for any meaningful length of time. I'm an amateur road racers and 110 is about the best I can hold, 125 for short periods. This really shouldn't be an argument.


I also said worth his salt...... jk

You are right, everyone is different and I made a sweeping generalization. I am only trying to show that it is entirely possible to spin at a high cadence. To which other posters said it was impossible to do such and likely an error in the data. Just because they are incapable doesn't mean it is impossible.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

Funoutside said:


> Which HT did you build that's that 23lbs?


CF Chinese frame, BXT 046, carbon rims powerway hubs, XD hub body, older 100mm front reba dual air, shimano 7100 sifter and derailleur with eagle GX chain and cassette, foam grips, raceface next CF bars, cf stem, and 175 sram crankset. 2.3 cosskings


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

J.B. Weld said:


> . This really shouldn't be an argument.


Agreed, I meant nothing when I posted it, it was just to show you go from 40 to steep goat trails with a good modern 1 X set up on a mtb.

Im the slowest person on the trails, and I personally think I could do a bit better, me and my best friend were screwing round with stava and he posted a 1 mph faster then me on a ride a few days before, so I just wanted to post faster then 32mph and 42 is what what popped up when I got home. I thought it was cool since I used to be semi crippled lol at 26 I broke my hip and still have stainless steel holding my leg together. im 56 now. Took over 22 years before I could cross country run again.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

austink26 said:


> I also said worth his salt...... jk


Track racers yes, but even Mark Cavendish never touches 150 on the road and he's pretty good. 200 is for track hamsters and freak shows


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

Thank you for all the replies. I probably going to get a mtb and start with a frame. Heard fun things about 27.5+. Now to decide rigid or suspension. Cause a rigid 27.5+ mtb would be cool.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

snacksattack said:


> Thank you for all the replies. I probably going to get a mtb and start with a frame. Heard fun things about 27.5+. Now to decide rigid or suspension. Cause a rigid 27.5+ mtb would be cool.


Why not both? Get a rigid and a suspension fork that both fit the same wheel and put a crown race that fits your headset on both forks. It is quick and easy to swap them for different needs. I have one bike that I swap between rigid and suspension depending on season, ride, carrying capacity, etc.


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

I already have a gravel bike, which is how this question came up. Was looking for more tire & got thinking go rigid mtb, but what I am reading here is maybe a simple ht setup would make a great supplement to a gravel bike.


----------



## cairnmtb (Dec 18, 2017)

paramount3 said:


> If you are riding mixed pavement and trails:
> 1. Your bike has to be capable of handling the trails. Make your bike choice based on this.
> 2. It's OK to ride a mountain bike on the road. It's slow, but in reality it's mostly a function of tires and tire pressures. If you are riding a gravel bike with tires and pressures suitable for the trails that you are riding to, it will be almost as slow on the road as the MTB.
> 3. Addendum: plus size tires suck on the road
> ...


Fwiw, this gets my vote given the OP's application.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Where does the line for rigid gravel bike end and the line for rigid mtb start?


----------



## Muirenn (Jun 17, 2013)

My fully rigid Karate MOnkey eats gravel. I barely use my cyclocross, anymore. It's just a lot more comfortable. The slacker head tube angle probably helps a lot in smoothing the ride, TBH, not just the wider tires and nice steel frameset. Plus, it's suspension corrected and takes either 27.5+ or 29er wheels. I just switched from 29 to 27.5. Much more lively.


----------



## RacerLex (Jan 20, 2010)

I have both a rigid steel MTB from a decade ago that I converted into a “gravel” bike, and a modern carbon gravel bike. The geometry differences are subtle, and if I’m being honest with myself, I really didn’t need a modern gravel bike. I just had N+1 fever that I couldn’t get over. Both the MTB and the gravel bike are setup very similarly: Same dropbars, same seatposts, same tire size, 1x11 gearing. Here are the main differences:

1. The MTB has a slacker fork by about 1.5* i think, so it’s a little slower steering. To counter that I have a 20mm shorter stem on the MTB. Of course the MTB inspires more confidence when off pavement.

2. The MTB can clear 29x2.3” tires while the gravel bike can only clear 700x40. This is a very big advantage for the MTB. Gravel bike mfg today are marketing the benefits of 650bx2.3 tires. Having 29x2.3 tires is better in everyway compared to 650b. But I’m using 700x40 tires on both right now.

3. The gravel bike can accommodate 2x front chainrings with 50T. I don’t think the MTB can go larger than a 36T 1x chainring. Not that much of difference for my needs as I’m using 1x on both.

4. The gravel bike works with road cranks so you can get a low q-factor like 145mm. The MTB is using a 168mm q-factor crankset but I think I can go as low as 156mm on my MTB frame. I never noticed q-factor until I started riding a bike with a narrow one. I now prefer the narrow q-factor and notice it more on longer rides.

5. The gravel bike is carbon, the MTB steel. I have blinged out wheelsets and training wheelsets that I swap. Depending on the bulld, there is a 4-5lbs difference between the two. This is very noticeable when I’m picking the bike up off the car rack but that’s about it. Any difference in speed is related to gearing and tires. There is zero measurable or reproducible difference because one bike is 18lbs and the other 23lbs. 

So prioritize what’s important to you and enjoy the ride!


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Muirenn said:


> My fully rigid Karate MOnkey eats gravel. I barely use my cyclocross, anymore. It's just a lot more comfortable. The slacker head tube angle probably helps a lot in smoothing the ride, TBH, not just the wider tires and nice steel frameset. Plus, it's suspension corrected and takes either 27.5+ or 29er wheels. I just switched from 29 to 27.5. Much more lively.


What size tires? Are you running it flat bar or drop bar?


----------



## Muirenn (Jun 17, 2013)

Funoutside said:


> What size tires? Are you running it flat bar or drop bar?


3" Ikons on the 27.5. Day had 2.4" Ardents on the 29er wheels. Salsa bend bars, so a flat bar.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Nice! My new rigid mtb comes with a similar tire setup(but in 2.8).


----------



## Muirenn (Jun 17, 2013)

Come to think of it, the Ikons are 2.8”. I rounded up.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Excited to compare my rigid gravel bike to my new rigid mountain mtb. Realized I really like my rigid gravel bike for bad roads & dirt shredding. To the op what bar would you be running on your rigid mtb? Flat, drop, jones, or something else?


----------



## 839138 (Jun 7, 2018)

Muirenn said:


> My fully rigid Karate MOnkey eats gravel. I barely use my cyclocross, anymore. It's just a lot more comfortable. The slacker head tube angle probably helps a lot in smoothing the ride, TBH, not just the wider tires and nice steel frameset. Plus, it's suspension corrected and takes either 27.5+ or 29er wheels. I just switched from 29 to 27.5. Much more lively.


This is the route I've taken lately...my 'gravel' bike I kinda converted back into road/commute/bike path mode, and my Krampus is back to rigid with a dropper post (and semi swept back bars - thinking of also putting the Jones bar on again). A few gravel routes I've ridden with both bikes, I was actually faster on the Krampus, according to Strava. These are my two bikes, though, so rigid definitely limits super rough local singletrack...


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

What's the gearing on your gravel bike & krampus? How are you liking the Jones bar?


----------



## 839138 (Jun 7, 2018)

Funoutside said:


> What's the gearing on your gravel bike & krampus? How are you liking the Jones bar?


Gravel bike is 10spd 50-34 front with an 11-36 cassette.
Krampus is just a stock NX 11spd 30 x 11-42.

Both setups worked fine for most terrain I rode in Oregon. Works well here now in southern Arizona, although on a few 'gravel' rides I wanted that 42t cassette on my gravel bike.

Haven't tried the Jones bar yet on the Krampus, but I loved it on a previous 27.5+ rigid build. I've been kinda toning down the mountain biking again, and think the jones bar could be good on the Krampus now. My only critique is I wouldn't mind the Jones bar being just a little wider.


----------



## SpeedyStein (Aug 2, 2014)

Wow, I just read most of this thread, now my head hurts, lol. Too many variables to say which bike is faster, gravel or MTB. Depends. That's my answer. It depends. 

Depends on the road, the trail, the surface, the climbing and descending, the weather, the season. It depends on frame material, carbon, alu, steel, bamboo. It depends on how "vertically compliant" and "horizontally stiff" it is. It depends on bike size and degree of fit to the rider, if it is an aggressive for or comfort fit. It depends on the tire sizes involved, tread patterns, weights of the bikes. It depends on gearing, 1x, 2x, 3x. It depends on dropper post or fixed post. It depends on tubeless or tubes, and how much pressure. It depends on bike geometry, bike setup, drops or flats, how wide are the bars, how long is the stem. It depends on saddle height, saddle to bar drop, reach and stack. It depends on head tube angles and seat tube angles, bb drop. It depends on hydraulic disc brakes or rim brakes or cable disc brakes. It depends on rotor size and construction, and pad compound, and if OEM or aftermarket. It depends on compact gearing, cyclocross gearing, touring gearing, MTB gearing, ebike gearing. It depends on zero setback post vs 20mm setback vs 35mm setback. It depends on camelbak, frame bags, or standard bottles. It depends on riding in the drops vs riding on the hoods. It depends if aero extensions, or bar ends, or crazy alt bars, or mustache bars, or Jones bars. It depends on how many spacers above the headset, how much rise and sweep the bars have. It depends on fork travel, 100, 120, 150, 170, or rigid. It depends on tire clearance overall, how much mud does it take to pack the frame, how much mud before a derailleur/pedal/bottom bracket/hub/chain fails. It depends on the specific trail hazards, whether cactus, goatheads, shale, assholes, dogs. It depends on flats or clipless, and how much float, and cleats setup. It depends on running shoes or actual cycling shoes, and if they are buckles or laces, and how stiff the soles are. It depends on the cycling kit, tights or baggy shorts, lycra, arm/knee warmers, jackets, glasses, helmet with or without a visor, glasses under or over straps. It depends on sock length, ankle socks or crew socks or tube socks. It depends on chamois or not, road jersey or MTB pullover, gloves with fingers or gloves without fingers, gloves with or without padding. It depends on if any this gear is name brand or Amazon knock offs. It depends if local bike shop bottles or camelbak bottles or some other random bottles. It depends on if oatmeal or omelet for breakfast. It depends on tuna or meatball sandwich for lunch, and of it gave you heartburn. It depends on if you slept well last night or got drunk/laid/arrested/called in to work. It depends on if you are in a race or riding on your own. It depends if you ride this road/trail everyday or if it's the first time. It depends if you are too hot, too cold, dehydrated, gotta piss, gotta poop, hungry, just ate a huge meal. It depends if you are healthy or sick. It just depends. Still my answer. It depends. 

Go ride a bike, see how it goes. Come to the SF Bay Area, ride one of mine. Demo a bike from your local shop, try to rent/borrow one from a local MTBR member or Pinkbike member, or ask a buddy to try their bike. 

That said, Strava says I'm faster on the gravel bike than I am on my FS MTB on *most of* the same trails, consistent over time considering above factors. But, at the end of a ride on my MTB, my taint/hands/back/neck is still happy, while the gravel bike typically beats the **** out of me in every way. 2 hours is 2 hours, but it's a happy 2 hours vs a bumpy 2 hours. Just my perspective, in contrast/agreement with some of the above comments.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

loren90 said:


> Gravel bike is 10spd 50-34 front with an 11-36 cassette.
> Krampus is just a stock NX 11spd 30 x 11-42.
> 
> Both setups worked fine for most terrain I rode in Oregon. Works well here now in southern Arizona, although on a few 'gravel' rides I wanted that 42t cassette on my gravel bike.
> ...


Thank you. My gravel bike pretty much has the same gearing so I feel you on the 42t or a sub-compact double(46/30). My rigid has the same 11spd NX setup. Oddly, my gravel bike has a 10spd GX in the back paired with a Rival compact double.


----------



## Muirenn (Jun 17, 2013)

Whoa. Just ride.



SpeedyStein said:


> Wow, I just read most of this thread, now my head hurts, lol. Too many variables to say which bike is faster, gravel or MTB. Depends. That's my answer. It depends.
> 
> Depends on the road, the trail, the surface, the climbing and descending, the weather, the season. It depends on frame material, carbon, alu, steel, bamboo. It depends on how "vertically compliant" and "horizontally stiff" it is. It depends on bike size and degree of fit to the rider, if it is an aggressive for or comfort fit. It depends on the tire sizes involved, tread patterns, weights of the bikes. It depends on gearing, 1x, 2x, 3x. It depends on dropper post or fixed post. It depends on tubeless or tubes, and how much pressure. It depends on bike geometry, bike setup, drops or flats, how wide are the bars, how long is the stem. It depends on saddle height, saddle to bar drop, reach and stack. It depends on head tube angles and seat tube angles, bb drop. It depends on hydraulic disc brakes or rim brakes or cable disc brakes. It depends on rotor size and construction, and pad compound, and if OEM or aftermarket. It depends on compact gearing, cyclocross gearing, touring gearing, MTB gearing, ebike gearing. It depends on zero setback post vs 20mm setback vs 35mm setback. It depends on camelbak, frame bags, or standard bottles. It depends on riding in the drops vs riding on the hoods. It depends if aero extensions, or bar ends, or crazy alt bars, or mustache bars, or Jones bars. It depends on how many spacers above the headset, how much rise and sweep the bars have. It depends on fork travel, 100, 120, 150, 170, or rigid. It depends on tire clearance overall, how much mud does it take to pack the frame, how much mud before a derailleur/pedal/bottom bracket/hub/chain fails. It depends on the specific trail hazards, whether cactus, goatheads, shale, assholes, dogs. It depends on flats or clipless, and how much float, and cleats setup. It depends on running shoes or actual cycling shoes, and if they are buckles or laces, and how stiff the soles are. It depends on the cycling kit, tights or baggy shorts, lycra, arm/knee warmers, jackets, glasses, helmet with or without a visor, glasses under or over straps. It depends on sock length, ankle socks or crew socks or tube socks. It depends on chamois or not, road jersey or MTB pullover, gloves with fingers or gloves without fingers, gloves with or without padding. It depends on if any this gear is name brand or Amazon knock offs. It depends if local bike shop bottles or camelbak bottles or some other random bottles. It depends on if oatmeal or omelet for breakfast. It depends on tuna or meatball sandwich for lunch, and of it gave you heartburn. It depends on if you slept well last night or got drunk/laid/arrested/called in to work. It depends on if you are in a race or riding on your own. It depends if you ride this road/trail everyday or if it's the first time. It depends if you are too hot, too cold, dehydrated, gotta piss, gotta poop, hungry, just ate a huge meal. It depends if you are healthy or sick. It just depends. Still my answer. It depends.
> 
> ...


----------



## SpeedyStein (Aug 2, 2014)

Muirenn said:


> Whoa. Just ride.


See, someone should have said this around post 3. That's my whole point - OP needs to go ride and figure out what works for their ride/terrain.


----------



## 839138 (Jun 7, 2018)

Funoutside said:


> Thank you. My gravel bike pretty much has the same gearing so I feel you on the 42t or a sub-compact double(46/30). My rigid has the same 11spd NX setup. Oddly, my gravel bike has a 10spd GX in the back paired with a Rival compact double.


Yeah I might look into a subcompact crankset next. I feel like a 30-36 would be fine for most gravel, while still keeping a 46-11 for flats and on the road.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Sub-compact is getting a bit harder to find as everyone is moving 1x, at least in the Sram world. Sram's older stuff comes in a sub-compact, but it's made for mtb bb, which some gravel bikes can take.


----------



## snacksattack (Jan 8, 2020)

Thank you all. I ordered a suspension-corrected rigid fat bike mtb the RSD Sergeant, that way I can ride in the sand, but also have a big difference between my gravel bike and mtb. Now to find a good deal on a used lauf fat bike fork.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Harold said:


> Yes, you can run 2x on a mtb. But you still won't be able to replicate the top end gear you can potentially use on a gravel bike.
> 
> Yes, a dropper post increases descending capability of a bike. It may or may not be an option.


I have a 38/9 gearing on my e13 equipped Hardtail. I'd say that's enough, wouldn't you?

Its more topend than a 50/12 and more low end than 30/36 climbing setup.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Funoutside said:


> Where does the line for rigid gravel bike end and the line for rigid mtb start?


Flat bars and MTB tires. Im doing a the BWR race and they are drawing the line for divisions at a 2.0 tire.

This is pretty straight forward.

I'll be tossing on a rigid fork and 2.1 Thunderburts. The bike will be about 19 pounds with a 38t and 9-46 cassette.

I'll probably hit 50+ MPH on a few of the California Downhills


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

My gravel bike has 29x2.0 mtb tires on it & drop bars. I guess that makes it neither gravel or mtb? And 50mph sounds impressive. The fastest I've tried was 38mph on my gravel bike.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Funoutside said:


> My gravel bike has 29x2.0 mtb tires on it & drop bars. I guess that makes it neither gravel or mtb? And 50mph sounds impressive. The fastest I've tried was 38mph on my gravel bike.


Pedal over the top and then get super tucked!

Your gravel bike wouldnt be able to race in am MTB division.  And there are are no real tire limits on gravel bikes in anything I have seen, so you are solidly gravel. Unless of course you have a suspension fork, and then you are just confused all of us with your nonsense.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

No, I don't have the funds for a Niner MCR or Fargo with the 80mm sus option. My new bike oddly enough is a Bombtrak Beyond+, which essentially a 27.5+ rigid mtb. Was going to change it to a drop bar setup, but didn't realize it had hydro brakes so I am keeping it flat bar. To the OP I see both having different uses that can be similar. I've take my Beyond+ from my house to one of the local gravel trails & on the road I prefer my gravel bike. The plus mtb tires are on the sluggish side of things vs my gravel bike. Curious to try the Schwalbe G-One 27.5x2.8 to see how that changes things, but this is going to be more for trails. On the trail, I find the extra confidence more fun thanks to the 69-degree headtube angle vs my gravel bike. Gravel bike just rides nicer on the road & when climbing. Both are steel & the Beyond+ only weighs about 2lbs more than Wolverine, which I kind of can feel mostly coming from the tires.


----------

