i_r_beej

Because almost every contemporary "mountain bike" is overkill to the "X-Treem".

A couple of years ago Grant Peterson, of Rivendell, wrote an article in the Rivendell Reader about "underbikes vs. overbikes". (At least I think it was Grant that wrote it...)

Anyway, the gist of the article was that most bikes today (and indeed for the past 15 or so years) are "overbikes" that is they are overbuilt and over-featured for their eventual, real use. Take a trip to your LBS and see how many bikes are totally over done and over spec'd. Take, for instance, Dual suspension MTBs. How does all that tech really help Joe Q. Public? All that suspension and shock absorption certainly does add a degree of comfort but at what cost? Weight, complexity, and a certain insulation from development of bike handling skills.

Let me take a moment to acknowledge those riders that are routinely featured on the pages of "Bike" magazine getting big air. I'm not disparaging that type of bike nor those riders that use them. My point is that, due to marketing, many bike buyers buy a bike that is "too much" for the type of riding they ultimately do.

How about super-duper feathery-light carbon-composite road bikes? How many guys do you see on a bike that is really just a full-on ProTour level race bike made available to the general public? But the rider is just a citizen racer?

I'm starting to stray here. My point is that you don't just go and get a mountain bike because a mountain bike is the wrong bike for the job. The point that in a race, "suitcasing" a 30-lb MTB over barriers is an onerous task on lap one and sheer punishment by lap four.

From a racing perspective, I've raced my MTB and 'cross bikes on the same courses in short-track MTB races during the summer and cyclocross races during the winter and in both cases the 'cross bike was the better (for me) bike. It was light and responsive wheras the MTB was heavy, sluggish, and the front suspension (I have a "hardtail") seemed to suck my pedaling energy during hard efforts.

On the other hand, I have also raced the 'cross bike in 20+ mile XC MTB races and have been thoroughly hashed by the high gearing, less voluminous tires, and lack of suspension.

Still-- riding the cyclocross bike on the same trails that I ride my MTB on is great fun. This is where the "underbike" concept come in. A bike that doesn't have quite enough "spec" to handle everything. It'll take you where you want to go, but along the way you may find that the "underbike" meets it's match in the terrain. See, when I hit the trails on the CX bike, I wind up walking more than I would if I'd gone out on the MTB (actually, come to think of it-- I've never walked when I've had the MTB!) but I must pay more attention to the terrain when on the 'cross bike. I can't just bomb right over any obstacle, trusting my suspension and 2.2" knobbies to handle the consequences. I've been forced back in time -- the mid-1980's -- to when mountain bikes didn't have any suspension. Back then you had to "read" the trail. Speed meant picking the right line and avoiding the bumps rather than soaking them up with 100mm of sponge. Furthermore, when you just didn't have enough mechanical advantage, you had to get off and shoulder the bike to get over, around or down the particularly tricky section. We used to say "If you ain't hikin', you ain't mountain bikin'."

Ah well. I've gone on for long enough I think. You may even think me some old, fat has-been.

Bottom line-- get a cyclocross bike and ride it off road. It'll be the most fun you've ever had, next to participating in an actual cyclocross race.

Cyclocross is a state of mind.