Cyclocross - But are they really "Cyclocross" bikes?

I still haven't decided if this is a rant or just a calm observation.

Lately the cyclocross bike has become "en vogue". For road and even MTB racers, the CX bike is a must have for off-season training and racing, and has always been a high-performance machine. CX bikes were race bikes for race situations. Yet, with thier stronger than road bike, lighter than MTB characteristics, many people found CX bikes fun to ride in general, and there's nothing wrong with that. Some people race CX, some people train with CX, some people fumble around with CX, and some people create a quasi-CX in thier joyrides and commutes.

Now here's where the open discussion comes in: Lately we hear from a lot of people inquiring about CX bikes, but only or mostly for needs other than CX, namely touring, commuting, and general recreation. While there is nothing wrong with this, I am wondering if this new market segment is altering and compromising how large manufacturers design thier CX bikes. For example, while some bikes like the Bianchi Cross Concept and the Ridley CrossBow are pure race machines, lesser-priced CX bikes are now stocked with touring braze-ons, triple chainrings, lax geometry, weak components like Shimano Tiagra, and non-CX cable routing.

So the questions are as such: Do you feel that lesser CX bikes ($1500 and under) are in danger of progressively becoming the SUVs of the bike world? How do you feel about the designs of these bikes, the riders they target, and how it affects the popularity of CX, whether it be for the better or the worse?

if those "lesser" cx bikes are becoming the SUVs, so what? people that take cross seriously will know what to look for in their bike, and will buy accordingly. it's up to the manufacturers to design and give them something to buy.

the riders they target, much like the "racer" type, are looking for that kind of bike. there's no reason someone should ride a full on road-race bike on their commute to work, and i personally feel MTBs are too slow to commute on. why not get the best of both worlds?

and for what it's worth, if these "watered-down" cx bikes make cyclocross more popular, that's fine with me. added popularity brings along with it more attention from product managers at our favorite bike manufacturers who'll eventually start giving us more goodies to pick from.

of course, it also means there'll be more people at the starting line every weekend that'll probably beat the chamois off me, and that i'm not cool with. it's a sacrifice i'm willing to make, though.

The analogy with SUVs works in a way...a vehicle theoretically capable of serious off road driving, but actually used for mundane street driving. However, at least these quasi-cross bikes aren't gas-guzzling, sightline blocking, self-imploding behemoths.

With the bikes, I don't see a problem. The borrowing of a cyclocross design for non-cyclocross purposes doesn't interfere in any way with people who want to do cyclocross. If these lower end CX bikes gets more people riding more, because they have a sturdy, versatile bike, that's great, and the true cyclocross bikes are still there for people who want them.

One of the points I was trying to explore here is whether or not this could be affecting serious cyclocrossers with limited budgets, those who do not have the luxury to purchase something exotic like an Empella Bonfire frame and build it up, that progressively find themselves choosing frome bikes that could be lighter and more CX-specific.

Granted there are "SUV" style bikes, and Bianchi in particular has addressed this nicely with the Volpe, which has a cult-like following. Surly has also done the same. I remember when the Hybrid bike first evolved back in the early 90s as the industry started to explore a market segment that existed somewhere in limbo between road bikes and mountain bikes. Now I'm wondering if the industry will see a need to develop a more general-style bike based on cyclocross bikes to answer the needs of people who want a high-performance style bike for commuting, touring, light off-road riding while still being able to provide sub-$1500 fully-stocked race-specific CX bikes.

So the questions are as such: Do you feel that lesser CX bikes ($1500 and under) are in danger of progressively becoming the SUVs of the bike world? How do you feel about the designs of these bikes, the riders they target, and how it affects the popularity of CX, whether it be for the better or the worse?

Nah. Cyclocross bikes are the Subaru Impreza of the bike world...fast on pavement or dirt with just a tire change. Wal-Mart mountain bikes are the SUVs of the bike world....heavy, slow, poor handling, unsafe, and generally operated on the road despite their intended purpose.

I think inexpensive 'cross bikes are a great idea. No matter what you spend on a bike the drivetrain is still gonna run like crap when I gets all clogged up with that mud/ice/snow/grass mixture that those of us in the northeast all love so much.

The more the merrier. Whenever more people become interested in a particular bike that will equake more abundance in parts and innovation. Come on everyone join in on the trend and ride a cyclocross, because it happening now; it's faster on fire roads and more reliable on todays street surfaces.

One of the points I was trying to explore here is whether or not this could be affecting serious cyclocrossers with limited budgets, those who do not have the luxury to purchase something exotic like an Empella Bonfire frame and build it up, that progressively find themselves choosing frome bikes that could be lighter and more CX-specific.


I don't think that'll be a problem, at least not for awhile yet. There are still lower priced frames that are still very race specific, even if they are polluted by threaded fender mount and bottle cage holes. The Redline Conquest is a good example. It's as good a race bike as you could expect at that price, and I'll argue that if you ride one and get beat, it wasn't the bike. The "amenities" don't add more than an ounce or two and don't hurt function at all.

Yeah, I've got no use for a triple on a "cross" bike and mine's a single ring, but it won't hurt anything that such bikes exist. Apparently, humans are weaker than they were ten, twenty, fifty years ago and need more and smaller gears to ride a bike.

Ron

Nah. Cyclocross bikes are the Subaru Impreza of the bike world...fast on pavement or dirt with just a tire change. Wal-Mart mountain bikes are the SUVs of the bike world....heavy, slow, poor handling, unsafe, and generally operated on the road despite their intended purpose.

I think inexpensive 'cross bikes are a great idea. No matter what you spend on a bike the drivetrain is still gonna run like crap when I gets all clogged up with that mud/ice/snow/grass mixture that those of us in the northeast all love so much.

Ahh, another car -geek! SUV comparison is bad - The SUVs of the bike world are Mt Bikes.... I know lots of them that never see any dirt. CX bikes though - are the equivalent of rally cars: cheap ones are like Subaru Foresters, mid level are WRX.... etc. You get the point. Have you been to a big-box store recently and seen the awful "Mt bikes" they sell??

I thought city kids riding DH rides on the streeet could equate to the SUV...lol.
I was looking at the Steel Lemond Cross myself, was thinking I could switch out the rings and chain for more road intensive purposes (charity rides 100k+) AND be able to take to the trails when I wanted with just a tire or a wheel switch. I loved the dual braking, and the 'v' brakes made me feel much safer than road brakes when riding in the rain. What's the geometry like compared to full on roadie? I'm 40 this year and the back isn't what it used to be, so I'm looking for a slighty more laid back geometry than full race, but occasionally these legs wanna go fast.

I think the cross segment hasn't been explored enough. Remember being kids and riding road bikes through the forest and the parks? Hell we used to jump them too. The more the merrier I say, come one come all. Those 40lbs monster MTB's are evil, my poor kid.

one can buy a pretty race-worthy machine for $1500 or less. the fuji, jts, felt, redline, and even the poprad (even though i'm not a fan) are all less than $1500. if you pick up one up used, throw on a tubular wheelset and some light brakes/pedals/etc. you could have are pretty darn light (sub 20 lbs) race bike. the nice thing about that price-point is that you can have 2 (one race bike and one for the pit) for less than the price of one tricked-out IF/moots/seven/ridley/empella/stevens/colnago/serotta/alan. if you go to races you'd see tons of these "cheaper" bikes. even the pros ride 'em (trebon, wickes -- jts, mccormack -- felt, gully -- redline ti, turner -- poprad).

if you are racing cx and you are at the point where your $1500 bike has become the sole limiting factor in your performance, then, i suppose, you could complain. but to be in that (rare) situation you'd have to be in top physical form, have your cx-specific skills totally dialed, and your training/diet/rest absolutely perfect -- and be either winning or finishing top-10 every race. there are so many other factors in cross besides the bike...do one race and you will see what i mean. there's lots of ppl going really fast on cheap bikes.

One of the points I was trying to explore here is whether or not this could be affecting serious cyclocrossers with limited budgets, those who do not have the luxury to purchase something exotic like an Empella Bonfire frame and build it up, that progressively find themselves choosing frome bikes that could be lighter and more CX-specific.

Granted there are "SUV" style bikes, and Bianchi in particular has addressed this nicely with the Volpe, which has a cult-like following. Surly has also done the same. I remember when the Hybrid bike first evolved back in the early 90s as the industry started to explore a market segment that existed somewhere in limbo between road bikes and mountain bikes. Now I'm wondering if the industry will see a need to develop a more general-style bike based on cyclocross bikes to answer the needs of people who want a high-performance style bike for commuting, touring, light off-road riding while still being able to provide sub-$1500 fully-stocked race-specific CX bikes.

I think the more CX bikes the manufacturers come out with, the merrier! Case in point, the new Specialized Tricross Comp: i bought it for $1500, the part spec is nothing to sneer at (well, maybe the tires), I can use it for commuting, fun rides, touring, and if I really want to destroy myself, a real CX race. It was definitely built to race, but it's relaxed enough to ride all day, and if I swap out tires (the feature that sold me), I can do some singletracking without driving to the trailhead!
:)

how's the gearing on the road with road tires?

how's the gearing on the road with road tires?

My Tricross has 34/48 up front. I've only gotten a couple of rides in, but with the CX tires on, gearing seems fine. Of course, it's early in the season, I'm out of shape, wearing too much clothing.

If I switch to road tires later this spring, and in better shape, I would HOPE that the gearing will be a bit low. I'm using compact double for the first time (from a triple), and I like to spin at higher revs, so YMMV :D

There is a gap in the market for general purpose, medium touring bikes which these CX-tourer are trying to fill.
Touring bikes seem to have become heavier duty expedition bikes, too sluggish for everyday fun riding. The classic english tourer was good enough unladen to use for commuting and club rides yet strong enough to ride off-road or pack for a 3 week tour.
CX is quite a different beast, without any compromise towards loadcarrying or daily practicality.
Vivre la difference.

Speaking as a confirmed member of the Clydesdale class, I've been looking for a cross-style bike to use as a high-speed commuter for quite a while now. I like go-fast geometry and bike weights, but want the option to add features like MTB-sized hubs, 28mm wide tires (or wider), and fenders. I'd also like to explore disc brakes to improve all-weather (and all traffic) stopping power, though this is not a cross-specific feature (actually it's against the rules of most cross). But at a price point where you take whatever the manufacturers give you, these Cx-lite bikes are a pretty good deal.

Having mounts for racks and fenders also allows me to use one heavy-duty road frame for rail-trail touring as well.

check the Lemond cross with the straight carbon fork and disks.....niiiice

http://www.lemondbikes.com/2006_bikes/poprad_disc.shtml

I'm considering a cross simply to commute and tour on. Leave the grand steed in the stable for those a55 hauling group rides and events.

hmmm the more I read the more it sounds like the CX can be a jack-of-all-trades

I use my CX bike to take my butt to work Monday-Friday, to the break to play on some sick waves on Saturday AND to STOMP yuppies on thier 4,000 plus rigs on Sunday races. It's all in a weeks work.

Do you mess with your rings at all for the road ragin'?

how's the gearing on the road with road tires?

What I did was buy 2 sets of wheels for my cross bike. One has a MTB cog set at the back, 12-28 and 35c knobbies, the other is 12-21 with 25c slick. With a compact double crank I can ride any of the local mountain trails with the off road wheels, then swap wheels and do club rides with the roadies.

I love my CX bike, it is just way too much fun. Riding it in the dirt is a blast-I hardly ever ride my MTB any more. On the road with slick tires it IS a road bike, just less fashionable. With good road tires, I don't feel like I am giving up any performance to a dedicated road bike.

hey darkmorther fancy meetin' you here.... ;)
you don't feel small in the crank ring ever?

I think inexpensive 'cross bikes are a great idea. No matter what you spend on a bike the drivetrain is still gonna run like crap when I gets all clogged up with that mud/ice/snow/grass mixture that those of us in the northeast all love so much.

Well said!
Kinda looking forward to some of that "mud/ice/snow/grass mixture" once again!

Actually, I would be THRILLED if more "cyclocross" bikes were set up for real world use rather than racing. But I'm one of THEM - my cyclocross bike is not for racing, it's for exploring fire roads, doing road rides, and touring. What's wrong with that? I applaud Bianchi for making the Volpe and the Axis much more versatile by having a triple chainring and rack eyelets. Think about it - road bikes have now become wimpy and useless except for a very narrow range of activities. You can't even put reasonably fat tires on them anymore. Touring bikes are usually too heavy and sluggish and aren't much fun when they aren't fully loaded. But cyclocross bikes can do almost anything. It might be unintended, but it's true.

... CX bikes were race bikes for race situations...

... Lately we hear from a lot of people inquiring about CX bikes, but only or mostly for needs other than CX ... While there is nothing wrong with this, I am wondering if this new market segment is altering and compromising how large manufacturers design thier CX bikes...

i don't race my MTB or any of my road bikes. all of them are essentially just for fun.

i think what you are seeing is akin to the growth of the MTB market. first, there was the balloon-tyre clunker. that spawned the first "true" mountain bikes - and racing. from racing and exploding consumer interest came DH bikes, trials bikes, free ride bikes, full-rigid, full-suspension, hardtail, XC bikes, dirt jump bikes, urban bikes, 24" wheel, 26" wheel, 29" wheel, you name it. some are single speed, some are single chainring, and some have way too many gears. i don't think that the new market compromised designs at all. they changed, yes. but mostly for the better and more choice.

i don't think the entry-level CX race bike is going to go away as long as there is demand for it. there are just going to be a lot more options that aren't traditional race bikes.

hey darkmorther fancy meetin' you here.... ;)
you don't feel small in the crank ring ever?

It's not the size of the ring, it's how you use it.....:)

Seriously, I've got a 50T big and 34T small. On the road, I almost never use the small ring, but I have never run out of gear on a down hill either-and I've had the bike up to 65-70 km/hr or so. 50-12 is a tall gear, and the terrain is flat around here.

50 that's one of the larger rings I've heard so far. I could do 50. I feel like i'd run out at 48-

I built my bike up piecewise.....I'm not sure what the CX bikes are spec'd with. Anyway, even 48 would be OK I think. You can always get a cassette with an 11 T cog. That will give you the equal of a 52/12 which is pretty standard for the top gear of a road bike. Remember, a change of one tooth on the small cog makes a way bigger difference than one tooth on the big cog.

Sometimes, I think the big rings people run are a status thing....Like, "oh you're only pushing a 52T....well I've got a 53."

I look at it like this, on a typical road ride around toronto, I'm going to want somewhere just over a 3 to 1 gear ratio on the flat ground. That's means 52/17 or or 48/16. Both do the same thing.

I'm likin this cross idea for my charity road rider.

I'm likin this cross idea for my charity road rider.

Seriously, you won't regret it. Cross bikes are awesome. It is priceless to see the look on the faces of the full suspension MTB crowd when you pass them on the trail.

^^^+2^^^^
lol

I'm likin this cross idea for my charity road rider.

Unless your "racing" in your charity ride, you won't regret having a CX...

Seriously, you won't regret it. Cross bikes are awesome. It is priceless to see the look on the faces of the full suspension MTB crowd when you pass them on the trail.

Can't wait to do that this spring! :D

I bought a Crosscheck because it was my understanding that this is what bikes used to be like--sturdy, more relaxed geometry (compared to hard-core race bikes), clearance for wider tires, etc. I think people like them as an alternative to the fact that some of the bigger companies seem to design their road bikes down from the high, high-end racers rather than toward what most people actually would use or need. I've spoken to a number of folks who bought fancy road specific bikes but don't ride them because the saddle is way higher than the bars, the gearing is too high, and their is no room for fenders or fatter tires that would be good for commuting.

I hope that more manufacturer's get the message that a lot of us want good, versatile bikes--call them Cyclocross, light touring, all-rounders, whatever. I would have bought an Atlantis if I could have afforded it. I think worries that high-end 'cross bikes will not be made might be akin to worrying that buying a Subaru WRX will keep people from serious rally racing. Interesting topic.

I wouldn't mind getting a little race on now and again but if I can go 48-50 on the big ring, and a tighter block in the back like DM was suggesting, I think it should be just fine.

Can't say enough good things about Cross bikes. My Redline Conquest is such a fun bike for all around use.

I have a Jake the Snake.
I commute 50k a day on it, year round, pacific northwest rainforest, over crap roads.
I do group rides on the weekend, no problem keeping up with folks.
On sunday I did an impromptu, solo century just for kicks, cx commuter with rack and panniers was fine doing it.
Friends head out to do some single track not too technical, i toss on knobbies and become the entertainemnt :)

A set piece bike would do each of those better, but wouldnt do as good in all of them. Currently my budget doesnt have room for 4 bikes.

As to 'suv' style cx bikes now in mainstream like mine, being used by people like me, its all good. It allows manufacturers to experiment into the realm more, since the 'niche' market for it becomes larger. And in the end, cx gets more face time, and hopefully more money in the sponsorships for the riders.

I think the surging popularity of cyclocross bikes is partially due to the fact that nobody wants to buy a touring bike.
Everybody wants a lance armstrong pro model and discover that the geometry is sort of uncomfortable, they can't turn the gears, and they can't fit a fender on it.
A good touring bike is not necessarily super heavy- its just that low end road bikes are often marketed as touring bikes. Does a triple ring and slightly longer chainstays really add that much weight?
If you want to make one bike do everything, a cyclocross bike is not a bad idea, but then again a touring bike is not a bad idea either. Individually they are very different. I have both, and 95% of my miles go on the touring/commuter bike.

My 2 cents. People seem to come to cross bikes for different reasons. After the Lance Armstrong inspired road bike boom, many people bought skinny tire bikes with low handlebars and are now paying the price. They turn to cross bikes for versatility that allows you to still maintain a "stud" image. The other option for versatility is a "comfort" bike that carries with it a "dud" image, and few people of any age want that.

I don't discount, however, the feelings that a legit cross racer would have over the intrusion into his/her sport. In some ways it does seem disrespectful, but don't blame the buyers of these bikes. What choice do they have for a good bike that suits their needs and doesn't look like something their grandmother should ride?

My goal is to build up a cross bike to use both for the upcoming cross season and for commuting to work. I really like the idea of having a bike with better features for commuting (sturdier frame, better brakes, etc) that will also give me better performance than the entry level mountain bike that I used last cross season. I suppose that a top of the line bike could give me a little bit of an edge, but the fact that pretty much all of my competition is 30lbs lighter than me serves to negate any advantage that equipment would give me! That said, a cross bike for me will be a do anything type of machine that bridges the gap between the full on mountain bike and my Cannondale racer. If that means that my cross bike isn't a "real" cyclocross race bike than so be it. It works for me and keeps me from using gas!

I am one of those guy that bought a cx bike and will probably never compete.

I wanted a road bike but solid enough to be used as a commute bike on the less than perfect roads of Montreal. The specialized tricross was perfect for me. Not too expensive, can be fast with road tires and can survive Quebec's roads with the tires that came with it.

I am one of those guy that bought a cx bike and will probably never compete.

I wanted a road bike but solid enough to be used as a commute bike on the less than perfect roads of Montreal. The specialized tricross was perfect for me. Not too expensive, can be fast with road tires and can survive Quebec's roads with the tires that came with it.

YES! Another happy Tricross owner!
:)

I am one of those guy that bought a cx bike and will probably never compete.

I wanted a road bike but solid enough to be used as a commute bike on the less than perfect roads of Montreal. The specialized tricross was perfect for me. Not too expensive, can be fast with road tires and can survive Quebec's roads with the tires that came with it.

Me, too.

After almost buying (but not really wanting) a 700c "fitness bike" with flat bars, I tried a Kona Jake (mostly for the drop bars), which was over my $500 budget, but I got it anyway (yesterday). Until now, I commuted 20 mile r/t on an old steel MTB with slicks, so I feel like lightning on this bike, but can still hop a curb if I want to without worrying. I'll never race it, just like I'll never race my MTB, so higher-end components aren't worth the extra $$$ for me. The non-purist add-ons were a selling point for me (fender and rack eyelets, bottle cage bosses, etc.).

This is what I remember liking about my road bike as a teen: comfortable, sturdy, and versatile. I can't say I feel that way about road bikes I see today. I'll run 28 kevlar belted slicks and fenders 99% of the time, but will probably try the knobbies sometime just because I can.

I'll admit, I always thought CX was kind of a funny sport. I never understood the running business, looks like you're pretending to steal the bike.

I love the CX bike, though!

I think I also fall in the category of a rider with a 'fake' cyclocross bike who has no intention of racing. I picked up a Bianchi Volpe earlier this year as a commuting bike. I liked the Volpe for a number of reasons:

1. The gearing. With at 28-38-48 in front and an 11-32 in back, I can manage pretty much any hill I come to, even though I am still getting into shape. I would much rather be able to spin up a hill at 100 rpm and 7 mph than have to fight my way up at a lower cadence or kill myself at a higher speed.

2. The style of bike (not mountain, almost road). My previous bike was a ~15 year old Schwinn road bike. I much prefer drops to flat bars, and I enjoy the responsive handling of road-style geometry. It is also nice around town to be able to have the bars up higher, as this can be more comfortable and provide better visibility.

3. The braze-ons. I have a rear-rack on the bike right now, along with fenders (I live in eastern Ohio). I can also add a front rack if I so choose. Considering that all of the above braze-ons add very little weight, I think they are more than worthwhile. Also, anyone using a bike for commuting or instead of a car will do well to have a rack and some type of panniers. It is so much easier to go to the store or library and not have a backpack.

As a result of the bike and my additions, the bike is rather heavy. It is probably very poorly suited for cyclocross racing. I don't care. I am not ashamed of having 'wimpy' gears so that I can more easily get up steep and/or long hills. I very much like having fenders, as I will take dry over 'trendy' any day of the week. I also like the rack, as it allows me to use the bike for a random trip to the store or library and just toss things in the panniers.

In conclusion, I think the availability of this style of bike is very much a good thing. While they are not well suited for cyclocross races, they are very well suited for general riding. They also allow people who want lower gears and wider tires to ride a bike with drops instead of having to choose between a bike with 23mm tires and a 39-27 low gear and a mountain bike.

Please forgive my intrusion into the cyclocross forum, but I thought I would chime in to describe the type of person these bikes are made for.

God bless!
Wayne J.

Let's review what cyclocross is:

1) Cyclocross originated from the winter training rides of off-season pro racers.
2) Since European winters are somewhat moderate by Winsconsin standards but pretty harsh by California standards they used to ride through local parks etc. so that they never got too far from home in case of weather or bicycle failures.
3) The real thrust of cyclocross RIDING is multiterrain.

Road bikes are meant for the road.
Mountain bikes are meant to be ridden almost entirely offroad.
Cyclocross bikes are anything that is multiterrain. My CX bikes are almost as fast as my road bikes on the road. Something my fully suspended Santa Cruz could NEVER be accused of.

Let's review what cyclocross is:

1) Cyclocross originated from the winter training rides of off-season pro racers.
2) Since European winters are somewhat moderate by Winsconsin standards but pretty harsh by California standards they used to ride through local parks etc. so that they never got too far from home in case of weather or bicycle failures.
3) The real thrust of cyclocross RIDING is multiterrain.

Road bikes are meant for the road.
Mountain bikes are meant to be ridden almost entirely offroad.
Cyclocross bikes are anything that is multiterrain. My CX bikes are almost as fast as my road bikes on the road. Something of which my fully suspended Santa Cruz could NEVER be accused.

Let's review what cyclocross is:

1) Cyclocross originated from the winter training rides of off-season pro racers.
2) Since European winters are somewhat moderate by Winsconsin standards but pretty harsh by California standards they used to ride through local parks etc. so that they never got too far from home in case of weather or bicycle failures.


Another reason given for the origins of cyclocross is that the riders, in the days before high-tech breathable riding fabrics, would ride through the muddy fields so that they could get a good power work-out without riding at high speeds that would result in freezing from wind chill on thier sweaty woolen and cotton cycling clothes.

Cool history. Interesting how the bike evolved.

My neighbor is from Sweden, and has travelled extensively. He says the only place he's seen roads in worse condition than Milwaukee is in Russia. I guess that explains my attraction to a "multi-terrain" bike.

To the point of the OP, I don't think the "watered down" CX bikes should impact the sport any more than everybody and their brother riding mountain bikes does XCountry or Downhill. So long as there are real competitors, there will be true competition grade bikes that don't compromise features for the sake of sales to guys like me.

"fake" CX bike = a useful bike fitting the needs of the vast majority of commuters and recreational cyclists, sexed up with knobby tires so people will buy it.

it's a good thing.

When I was about 12 or 13 I got a hand-me-down road bike from my aunt that her boyfriend left behind after he went away......

It was an F.E.M. Wallenstein (I think?) and was kind of a rusty red color. I used to go on road rides with my dad (Thanks, dad!) and had a blast.

At some point we got some knobby tires put on it and I took that bugger through the yard. Some of the most fun riding I had was just riding that bike in circles around the house. Just doing laps as fast as I could.

That bike took me a lot more places than my Sears (dept. store) bmx bike.