# What am I missing Mtn bike vs Trek FX



## wi_bigfoot (Jul 19, 2009)

Need some help from the riders here. I have a 2009 Trek 6000 that I have switched the tires over to the Kenda Komforts so it no longer has the true mountain bike tires on it. Still though it's a mountain bike frame and wider tires. 

I have found I do a lot of riding in the 70 mile range. Last year I did a 100 mile ride. This year I have two 150 mile rides planned. (150 miles ridden in 1 day) and then a 200 mile ride of 100 miles each day back to back. 

All I hear from people is I need a road bike. I should add all of my riding is either the rails to trails or local roads. The push from everyone that I need a road bike is starting to wear me down and wondering if I really do. 

I'm not a fan of the style of the traditional road bikes. I don't like the handle bars and to me they remind me of the my 10 speed many years back. That lead me to find the Trek FX line. It has the straight handle bars that I like but is more of a road bike. The FX 7.7 that I'm looking at also comes with a $1500 price tag.

So what am I missing? I hear oh they are so much easier to pedal, you will go faster etc but no one has anything to back it up. It's the dead of winter here so it's not like I can take one for an all day cruise to see if there really is a differnce. 

Here are my concerns. 

1) I have broken both wrists and they do act up from time to time. On my rigid front fork mountain bike I couldn't ride more then 15-20 miles before my wrists would be hurting me. The Trek 6000 that I have has the front shock and also I put ergo grips on there and I have no problems with my wrists even after 100 mile ride. 

With going to the FX the tire pressure is higher so I am told the ride will be more rough. No front fork so will I be back to my wrists hurting again? I can swap the ergo grips over which should help some. 

I have heard that the FX has a carbon fork which acts like a shock for vibration but others say it's more for road vibration when riding not when hitting a small pothole or going over a bridge etc. 

2) Durability is huge. On my 100 mile ride I broke 7 spokes on the back wheel. Some people say the wheel was to blame while the local LBS said I over loaded the bike. I weighed 215 at the time and had 30 pounds on the rear rack. Per Trek manual bike is rated to 300 lbs.

Trek replaced the rear rim but suggested I put on the Big Earl wheels which weigh more but are more heavy duty. 

Now my weight is down to 180 pounds and the rack will still be 30 so I'm at 210. Here are some quotes from the review section here on the FX 7.7

". The 24-spoke wheels, while fast and light, do not seem very strong. My front wheel went out of true after hitting a pothole and I had to spend some time truing it back up. By contrast, my 36-spoke touring wheels on my Cannondale have never gone out of true despite taking far more abuse."

"May want to avoid bike paths/trails that are too rough. This bike is more responsive/delicate than the hybids."

These two quotes concern me due to what I have experienced on my Trek 6000.


For those that ride both mountain bikes and road bikes is there a huge difference? How are the rides? One thing that opened my eye was I read a post by someone who came over from mtn bike to road bike and said for the same effort the speed increased by 6 mph. Right now I ride 12-13 avg. 

I was thinking yesterday my 150 mile ride in one day will be 12 hrs of pedaling. Not counting breaks etc. If I gain 6 mph I'm at 18 mph and that same ride is now at 8.3 hrs so I shave 4 hours off which is huge. 

I would also add some of the rails to trails I have ridden were wet and soggy where I was glad I had the mountain bike for that short section due to the wider tires. 

Am I over thinking this and just keep what I have? Sorry for the long post but wanted to give you as much detail as possible.

Edit. I should add if age matters I'm 39 so soon will be hitting the big 40 mark. Not that this matters but I'm no young pup any more.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

A road bike will be somewhat faster and lighter going up the hills. You can equip a road bike with flat bars, but the traditional bars let you move your hands on long rides for more comfort. There is no trouble getting road wheels to hold your weight. (Indeed, there was something very wrong with your wheel if you broke 7 spokes). I weigh nearly as much as you and can run a heavy 16 spoke front, 20 spoke rear without trouble.

That said, if it ain't broke, why fix it? You like the bike you have. You think the shock helps. You obviously have it set up like you like it. Ignore 'everyone' until you decide it's time. If you're curious, go take some test rides when the weather warms up, but don't buy something you don't want because everybody else is doing it.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

The only way I'd say you "need" a road bike for these rides is if you'll have to keep up with other people who do have road bikes.
Assuming equal fitness (bad assumption I know) you either won't be able to or will be totally shot when they're still in good shape from taking it easy.

quote: "I hear oh they are so much easier to pedal, you will go faster etc but no one has anything to back it up."

That kind of like asking for proof that a porshe gets better gas milage at high speeds than a hummer. Some things are too obvious to bother documenting proof of.


----------



## wi_bigfoot (Jul 19, 2009)

Hank Stamper said:


> The only way I'd say you "need" a road bike for these rides is if you'll have to keep up with other people who do have road bikes.
> Assuming equal fitness (bad assumption I know) you either won't be able to or will be totally shot when they're still in good shape from taking it easy.
> 
> quote: "I hear oh they are so much easier to pedal, you will go faster etc but no one has anything to back it up."
> ...



All of my rides are solo so no worries there. 

Your porsche to hummer example works if that is what we are talking about and it's apples to apples. So from what you are saying the moutain bike is a hummer and the prosche is the road bike. 

I should add it's not that I will be making the jump but when you have people telling you the same thing over and over it gets your mind working on if there really is that big of a difference.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

wi_bigfoot said:


> All of my rides are solo so no worries there.
> 
> Your porsche to hummer example works if that is what we are talking about and it's apples to apples. So from what you are saying the moutain bike is a hummer and the prosche is the road bike.
> 
> I should add it's not that I will be making the jump but when you have people telling you the same thing over and over it gets your mind working on if there really is that big of a difference.


I think that while it's pretty safe to assume you'll up your average speed on a hybrid, that will be more than tempered with the fact that, given your wrist issues, you may not be riding pain free. It's true what people offered about CF forks in that they'll quell vibrations and some road shock, but not on the same level as your current setup.

I think California L33 summed it up best. If it ain't broke, why fix it, don't fret about what others think and lastly, if you're at all curious, when the weather allows take one out (I suggest a fairly long road test) and judge for yourself.


----------



## wi_bigfoot (Jul 19, 2009)

Thanks guys for the feedback. Will do a test ride here in a few months once all the snow is gone.


----------



## drmayer (Mar 24, 2009)

I have all three - a FS mtb, a 7.5FX, and a Trek 1.5. They all serve a different purpose. I don't enjoy riding my MTB on the road, save for a quick ride to a trail or around the neighborhood. Even when i had a hardtail, the geometry wasn't right and it wasn't comfortable and i felt slow.

The FX and 1.5 could overlap, but for long road rides i much prefer the 1.5. The bars do make a difference with being able to change hand positions (even if using ergon grips, which i have on the fx), and the body position is more aero so i'm not blocking the wind like a sail.

The FX is great for commuting, rides around town, rails-to-trails rides, and general farting around. I have a set of cross tires for it that i'll use on the granite surface trails. When riding this on the road, I do notice the added drag from sitting more upright. 

If you're comfortable riding 50+ miles on your mtb today, i would think an FX would be right up your alley.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

wi_bigfoot said:


> All of my rides are solo so no worries there.


In that case, you are (as you suspect) overthinking this. As said by Hank, people may be trying to tell you is that in a group of equally fit riders on road bikes travelling at maximum speed, you would be at a decided disadvantage riding a bike with fat tires and that does not allow you to get aerodynamic. In other words, you will get dropped—which, for road riders, is a fate worse than death.


----------



## silves1171 (Aug 24, 2009)

I have a 2009 Trek 6000 and I put slick tires to ride on the road as well. Even though, using the slick tires compared to the full mountain bike tires are a lot faster on the road, it is still not as good as a road bike.

I went through a similar situation last year. I bought my mountain bike, and was using it as a multi-purpose bike. I wise riding single-track, commuting and riding on the road. Several cyclists recommended I get a road bike, and after several months I went ahead and bought one. Woah! What a difference! I still use my mountain bike for mountain bike trails, and used it in the snow, but I don't ride it on the road anymore. 

The acceleration, and just overall feel of the road bike is very addicting. I would definitely try a road bike if I were in your shoes. Maybe try getting a road bike that has a more comfortable riding position.

Good luck!


----------

