
Originally Posted by
RichardAThackeray
I found out to my cost in 2007, before I bought another cross-bike, that it can be hard on a MTB
Then, even though I'd bought a cross-bike, I compounded the error in 2008, by using the Trek again, thinking of the discs for the descent off Baildon Moor & the drop down to the finish
But, anyway, here's my 'take' on it, having run, & ridden it
Pro's;
1. Very big clearances, so less clogging, compared to a cross-bike, especially as I use 1.8" front & 1.5" rear tyres on mine, which also cause less drag, having less resistance (Specialized Houffalise??)
2. The front suspension was useful on the long rough descent from the top of Baildon Moor, then through the boulder strewn trail on Shipley Glen, & that concrete (railway) sleeper track
3. The disc-brakes actually offered retardation in the most horrible mixtures of cow-shit and mud, without chewing the pads to pieces, on the first/last 2 fields, & the drop back down to the finish
4. The low gearing made some parts rideable, that I know I'd have to run(stagger up[?), or at the least struggle to ride on the Cross bike see point 4 'Cons'
Con's;
1. The smaller frame in comparison to the Cyclo-Cross bike made the sections that required it to be carried very awkward (MTB = 17" frame/sloping Top-Tube. Cross-bike = 53cm Centre-Centre)
2. The weight was a large factor over the Cross bike (roughly 7 - 8Ib heavier?)
3. Gearing was too widely spread on the faster, rideable, sections
4. I could possibly ride certain sections that were 'questionable' (on grounds of gradient), as it was lighter than the Trek.