Originally Posted by
njkayaker
No one is suggesting that they "have to be ridden in pristine conditions" (a strawman argument).
That seems to be
exactly what
you were suggesting. If you weren't, then great. We both agree that road frames with decent wheels and wider tires are more than capable of handling riding on roads, roads with potholes in Boston, and sidewalks without any sort of silly worrying about the "durability" of a road frame.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Road bikes are designed to sufficiently strong to ride on the road (obviously). That doesn't mean road frames are necessarily stronger than other frame types.
And I certainly never said road frames were tougher than other frames. I simply said they were more than sturdy enough to handle roads, potholes, and sidewalks.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Cyclocross bike frames are not built much differently than standard road frames but cyclocross riders typically use much wider tires than road riders use. It would be interesting to see statistics on the frequency of frame damage in cyclocross races.
I have no doubt riding a cyclocross frame through a road race might warrant some durability concerns.
But when applied directly to the OP's question about riding in Boston, that itself is a red herring - he is not racing cyclocross, he/she is concerned about potholes and sidewalks, which a road frame is built more than strong enough to handle.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Non-suspension mountain bikes (from a few years ago) had much beefier frames than road frames (and wider/stronger wheels too). Such a frame would likely fair better for crashing into/over things, by design, than a road bike frame would, since such crashes are typical for mountain biking and not for road biking.
As tjspiel pointed out, crashes are actually very typical for road racing. In fact, those are often worse because the rate of speed is noteably higher than mountain biking.
However, to your point, road frames often don't survive the big crashes. Mountain bikes are indeed built stronger, because everyday forces on them include going off jumps 3 to 10 feet tall and slamming into the ground, which it needs to be able to withstand.
If you're planning on slamming your bike into a tree several times a year, a mountain bike would be a more durable choice, thought frankly it still might not survive either. However, if you're planning on biking on roads, encountering some potholes, and maybe biking on the sidewalk, asking which frame would be needed is like asking if you should use a 2x4 or a 4x4 to hold up a spoon - they're both going to be just fine.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
You indicated that "JeremyZ" (quoted below) was incorrect. But he isn't.
I don't agree. He said "It's pretty easy to trash a road bike frame. They aren't designed to take the hits that other bicycles (like mountain bikes) are. "
It is actually very, very difficult to trash a road frame (without crashing) by riding it on the road, even with terrible terrible potholes (you far more easily kill the wheels though). As a matter of fact, the resale value of used road bikes is much higher than used mountain bikes. If road frames were fragile creatures as was implied, that wouldn't be the case.
If you somehow ignore the entire rest of the conversation, then you might say that yes - it is technically easier to trash a road frame than it is a moutain bike frame, if you slam frames against a tree, or hit them with a sledgehammer, etc.
But in the context of road riding, it is not all all "pretty easy to trash a road frame" with any sort of road riding, including potholes.
*sigh* Not that any of this matters, as with a $200 budget neither a road or a mountain bike is going to be built very well at all.