I have the Crosstrail Expert and love it. It's a little heavy compared to the other bikes you're looking at. It's actually closer to a MTB than a street bike.

I'm not digging the Treks because of the alloy forks. They ride rough and bother my carpel tunnel,YMMV. Also,the Soho's single front ring will limit your gearing and make it harder to pull the weight of a trailer.

The Bad Boys are nice. The Ultra gives you a street bike and MTB in one by just swapping the wheels,but it's out of your price range. The regular Bad Boys are pretty much pure street bikes.

I'd add two bikes to your list;the Kona Dew Deluxe and REI's Novara Safari. The Dew would do everything you ask and leave you with money left over,the Safari would also fit your needs and comes with a rear rack,can take a front rack,and has a cool trekking handlbar.

A cross bike would work as long as you have the gearing to pull a trailer. The only one I can think of off the top of my head in your price range is the Bianchi Volpe.

That Marinoni rocks.

Wider tires have more rolling resistance,but give a more comfortable ride and do better off road. If you're going to ride on the street and do some trails,you'll do best with tires in the 32-38mm range for 700cc wheels,and 1.5-2.0" range for 26" wheels.

Good point about the disc's. From what I can tell it shouldn't be a problem.

Okay so the SOHO is expensive, but what's a good alternative? I know you mention you can do better, exactly what would be better? This is where I need help. There is just too many...

I notice the Cannondale avoided your wrath. Does this mean it's a good choice? It seems to be able to take a wider tire, so I could always fit wider wheels. It is actually pretty high on my list. I think it has pannier mounts too.

I'm open to any suggestion for touring bikes.

The Bad Boy is about the same as the Treks. Although the Treks have a slight advantage in that it uses a 26" wheel (stronger). Both brands are really just rigid mountain bikes. They would work well for commuting (I do commute on a mountain bike about half the time ) and would be okay for packed dirt trails. You could even ride them off-road but, from experience, I can tell you that that isn't the best way to get your mountain bike kicks The Cannondale has slightly better stuff on it and better gearing, especially if you want to climb any kind of hills pulling a trailer.

In the Trek line, the 7.5 FX or the 7.6 would be a better value than the Soho. I don't see why the Soho is so expensive compared to the other bikes. Look at flat bar Felts and the other Cannondale Bad Boys or the Road Warriors.

The Crosstrail would be okay as a dual purpose bike as long as you can lock out the fork. Off-road it isn't going to shine like a dedicated mountain bike would but to would be more trail worthy than either the Trek or Cannondale bikes. The fork is going to add some weight but the better components will make it weigh less than either the Bad Boy or Su200.

If it were me and I wanted something that would work for all kinds of riding (maybe not fast road riding ) with a slight skew towards off-road riding, I'd go for a Rockhopper Pro or a regular Stumpjumper. They are light, rugged, capable of doing lot's of stuff and have the added ability to do hard off-road grinny rides...you know the kind where you come back bloody, bruised, battered and happy as a clam at high tide

Actually, I'm having a hard time finding weights for bikes. Any place I can check?

Well I don't really want to do any off roading and I prefer to keep my blood under my skin!
I'm not looking for any off roading ability at all. Maybe just enough to handle the dirt paths and gravel I come across. Would the Rockhopper or Stumpjumper be able to do what I want with no modifications?

How much does your CrossTrail weight and can you look the suspension? How's the rolling resistance and gearing?

You probably won't find published weights for those bikes. Cannondale has a policy of not publishing any bike weights and most other companies aren't going to publish the weight of low dollar bikes. If you do this bike stuff long enough you can get a pretty good feel for what a bike weighs by the components. For the Cannondale and Trek, the weight is going to be in the 30 lb range...probably a little over. The more you spend on a bike, generally, the less it weighs. The Rockhopper and Stumpy I suggested are going to be in the 25 to 27 lb range.


Come on, let the 10 year old trapped inside out to play You make more blood all the time. Scars are way cooler than tattoos.

In all honesty, the Rockhopper or the Stumpy would do well for what you want with only a tire change. They might be overkill but most people buy entry level bikes and then end up buying another bike in a very short time because they outgrow the entry level quickly. Or else they give up on bicycling all together because they get tired of hauling the boat anchor around all the time. If you want to keep bicycling, do something that makes it enjoyable rather than a chore. I accomplish that by having multiple bikes for different things and I change my routine all the time. Road bikes are great for fast thrilling rides but if I had to ride one all the time, I would have given up long ago. Touring bikes are great for going on adventures but I'm not sure I'd want to adventure all the time...once every couple of years makes the event very special.

Mountain bikes make for a different kind of thrill because they are much more kinetic than any of the other bike rides. You are constantly in motion and have to pay attention to what is going on far more then other kinds of rides. Mountain bikes are also great for a different kind of adventure then touring. It's more intense and of shorter duration. Also, don't get hung up on the extreme side of mountain biking. I enjoy mountain bike rides that take me to new places and new sights then ones where I fear for my life and health. Drops, jumps, falling off cliffs...no thanks! Riding an old rail bed through the Colorado mountains and enjoying the scenery and the history? Far better. Leave the BMX stuff to people with far less calcium and far more rubber in their bones

Simple solution.


KONA SMOKE.

But it. It will serve you well.

My wife just got a Kona Smoke. great commuter bike. it can also serve on family rides and light trails. She got a big Hello Kitty horn so that I won't steal it. She was wrong, I got a few funny looks though.

Most companies don't publish bike weights,I really don't see why. I bought a digital fishing scale to weigh mine for S&G's. My Crosstrail weighed a little over 28lbs(don't have the list in front of me). If memory serves my Bad Boy Ultra was like 26lbs;the regular Bad Boys without suspension should be around 24-25lbs. The Treks should be right around what the Bad Boys weigh.

The Crosstrail's suspension can be locked on the fly by reaching down and turning a knob. It rolls well with the stock tires,but you do need it give it a little omph when starting out. The 29" tires are just really big 700cc,so you could always swap on skinnier tires to make it roll easier. Gearing is nice and wide;48/36/26 front with an 11-32 9sp rear. This means it has a fairly low 26/32 granny gear and a fairly high 48/11 top gear.

The Trek Soho would be unsuitable for hauling a trailer anywhere with hills because it only has one ring up front(a 42,IIRC) so it basically has only medium gearing. FYI,low gearing means front rings in the 20's to low 30's with rear cogs in the 20's and 30's;high gearing would be front rings in the mid-40's and 50's with a 14 or smaller rear cog. (for more info on gearing,check Sheldon's site,which includes a calculator for figuring out gearing: https://sheldonbrown.com/gearing/index.html )

The Crosstrail is a MTB;it's a 29er. The stock tires are fairly smooth,but it can take knobbies. It's heavier than my BBU,which has a Headshok suspension fork. The rigid Bad Boys and Treks should weigh about what my Coda and Point Reyes weigh,which would put them in the low to mid 20lbs range. BTW,after weighing my bikes and doing a previous test ride on a Stumpjumper,I would guess the Stumpjumper around 30lbs or so.

I use a 1992 Trek930 MTB. I find that it's about the best bike for the things mentioned by the OP. No problem on packed trails with the 1.25" slicks or the 1.5" Armadillos. No need for disc brakes, just use Kool Stops. The "group" is off a Trek 830 that was built in 1988. It's all Deore, and about as rugged as you could ever need.

For all the OP's requirements plus back country excursions, I take the 520.
https://i9.tinypic.com/5xzuzjr.jpg
https://i17.tinypic.com/62r2beb.jpg
https://i14.tinypic.com/6azlxrq.jpg

Specialized is sell the Crosstrail as more of a upscale hybrid than a 29er. They don't list it as a mountain bike but rather in their "Multistreet" line along with their other hybrids. I agree that it looks more like a MTB and is probably much more capable than their other hybrids.

I think you have the weights backwards. There's no way that Trek SU's are going to weigh in at the mid20 lb range. Too much Alivio on them. I doubt that they could go below 30 lb. The Cannondale is a little lighter but it still going to flirt with 30lb pretty seriously. There's also no way that the lowest level Stumpy is going to be that around 30 lb...it's just got too high a level of componentry for that. I don't know very many people who would pay $1400 for a 30lb hard tail.

Well these links indicate that the Stumpjumper and Rockhopper are 30lbs.

https://www.galbraithmt.com/bikes/specialized_fsr120.htm
https://www.galbraithmt.com/bikes/spe...rockhopper.htm

Not talking about the Stumpjumper FSR. Different creature all together. I'm talking about the Stumpjumper hardtail. Much lighter bike and about $1000 cheaper For what you want to do, an FSR would be overkill...and kind of a pain to ride. I have both the Stumpy FSR and a Stumpy hardtail. I use the hardtail for just the kinds of rides you said you want to do...although it is capable of very rugged off-road use. I've just gotten to the point where my old joints like a bit more cushion

I also have a touring bike and a cross bike. The hard tail mountain bike is an almost do anything bike but a little slow (I keep knobbies on it all the time). The touring bike is also a great bike for an almost do anything bike. It's a better at hauling loads than any of my other bikes and more comfortable than the cross bike. It will do dirt roads...even loaded...but I wouldn't take it on anything that had roots or rocks since the mountain bikes are more fun for that and easier on my joints.

None of the bikes you are looking at are real dogs. The Trek SU200 howls a bit but it would be serviceable. The Bad Boy is slightly better and the CrossTrail is better still. The CrossTrail Expert is going to be an okay bike, the CrossTrail Pro has better stuff hanging on it. But at $1200, the CrossTrail Pro is within the range of the Stumpjumper and with that bike you get a better frame, a much better (smoother) fork, and better components. All for an extra $200.

I do agree with dynarider that the Marinoni is worth a second look too, although I wouldn't go with the carbon fork if you want to carry stuff.

What you need to do now is take all this confusion and go ride some bikes. Pick the one that you like the best. We've filled your head with stuff and nonsense...you have to chose

Sorry if I sounded argumentative. I just posted those links because they had weights associated with them.

I'm open to any bike that will do what I want. How narrow a tire will the stumpjumper take? I don't really need the the nobbies at all. I don't think it has 700 wheels though. If I remember my physics right wouldn't this reduce the 'cruising' speed?

As for cash, well, I tend to buy what will work regardless of cost. I tend be be unhappy with compromised solutions. That Marinoni is beautiful isn't it? It's like my Ducati, I just love the look of it. It's also $1600ish! I bit more than I wanted to pay even for me.

You're just confused, not argumentative

The Mavic X317 rims are very narrow. You could easily get a 1.5" tire on it and probably much narrower. The wheels are 26", not 700C. I run knobbies because I'm always taking the bike off into the woods when the fancy strikes and I don't really like changing tires that much. Slicks would make me faster but be much less effective for off-road riding (not mild trails but root infested, rocky single track). And I'm not that much slower with them on

Like I said, the best thing to do now is to go throw your leg over everything you can and ride them until you find one you can't live without.

I do have one thing left to ask. What non-suspension fork material is the best for shock absorption, and how close is it to the feel of a suspension bike. I _know_ it isn't going to the same, but I've read in a few places that at least on the road some rigid forked bikes feel similar to suspension bikes.

If your rigid fork moves like a suspension fork,it's time to get a new one!

Seriously,carbon fiber probably soaks up bumps the best,followed by steel(AKA cro-mo),and finally aluminum(AKA alloy). The material isn't the only issue however,the forks design also comes into play;a straight blade fork will not deflect as easily as a curved one. I test rode a Trek Portland with a carbon fork and hated it. Way to harsh. The carbon fork legs were straight and they mated to a metal crown(aluminum I assume) which is prolly why. The carbon forks on my DBX,Conquest,and Coda are all excellent;they're also all curved and all carbon to the steerer tube.

For a street bike I like carbon and steel. I hate aluminum,but then I have mild carpel tunnel. Note that tire width,pressure,and sidewall stiffness will also be major factors in ride quality.

What is this metal crown of which thou speakth?

I looked the Jamis website to see the Coda's but I don't see any with curved forks.

I don't know who makes the other bikes you mentioned.

I got one of those horns with mine and it drives my dogs crazy. I took it off the bike though.

See pic. It's the part where the fork blades meet.

Mine's an '05 with Evo fork. Coda changed their specs.

Sig file.

The LBS didn't have any Stumpjumpers in stock,but they had a medium Bad Boy. My digital fish scale says it weighed 25 lb 9 oz. My large '07 BBU weighs 26 lb 12 oz,so with disc brakes and a rigid fork,I'd put the Bad Boy Disc in between the two.

Probably carbon, then steel. Carbon is more delicate then steel, however. Tires are going to play a more important role than either material in the ride quality...until you go to a boingy fork. But suspension forks have different ride qualities too that are rather dependent on the fork and much less dependent on the tires.

You learn something every day. With the low end components, I would have put the weight higher. Must have a pretty light frame. Did you get a price on it? None of the shops I frequent are Cannondale shops so I'm in the dark there.

Is there any truth to carbon forks failing? From what I know carbon will degrade over time and with exposure to UV.