# Monster Cross?



## arshak (Jun 13, 2005)

Sigh! Here we go again. The American marketing machine in full bore BS mode again. Monster cross by any other name or description sounds like a regular cross bike to me. How is riding dirt roads and fire trails any different to what you can do with your cross rig anyway. I am looking for help in putting a spike in the heart of this beast before it takes off. See sales pitch for a "Monster Cross" bike in the latest edition of Mountain Flyer magazine.:mad2: .


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

The "mountain cross" designation seems more a common phrase amongst mountain bikers than actual real cross riders/racers.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*it is partially historic*

guys wanting to relive the days of drop bar MTBing a la Jacqui Phelan. But most are afraid of how skinny a cx tire is because they have no experience.
So they build phat tire cxers mostly out of 'not knowing they don't need it'

guys will talk about rigid, drop bar 29ers and you tell them, "I've been riding them for decades they are called cross bikes"


----------



## d2p (Jul 29, 2006)

just the latest evolutionary offshoot with a marketer's branding name. there is little to argue for intelligent design in bicycles.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

that term has been around for quite a while, actually... and they are slightly different animals


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

arshak said:


> Sigh! Here we go again. The American marketing machine in full bore BS mode again. Monster cross by any other name or description sounds like a regular cross bike to me. How is riding dirt roads and fire trails any different to what you can do with your cross rig anyway. I am looking for help in putting a spike in the heart of this beast before it takes off. See sales pitch for a "Monster Cross" bike in the latest edition of Mountain Flyer magazine.:mad2: .



Well, I started the huge MonsterCross thread over on MTBR. I don't think it is the American marketing machine at full bore at all, since that term was around for a long time before any manufacturer was making a production monster cross bike that was termed as such. In fact, I'm still not aware of any. 

As a term, I believe it was originally coined by Willits, and these small boutique builders aren't really of the "marketing machine" type in most cases. Quite the opposite, they as small builders oppose the "lighter, stiffer is always better" marketing mantra of the major manufacturers. The bikes are clearly distinguished from cross bikes by having clearance for much larger tires (the 29er market has dramatically helped with availability of said tires), and are clearly distinguished from mountain bikes by rigid forks, drop bars, and the lack of disc brakes. Obviously the definition is open to an individual's interpretation (as can be seen in the variety of bikes posted in the above thread), but there is a common definition. I see the monster cross bike as probably the most versatile style of bike available. For most of the population who might own one or maybe two bikes, having one that can go on a weekend road ride, hit the local single track, and even get the groceries with some simple wheelset changes is a very big advantage. 

Don't hate.


----------



## dankilling (Aug 27, 2002)

Monstercross is great for those of us who only have nasty-rocky singletrack locally but still want to train on trails instead of roads. Give me a cross bike that can take fat (bigger than UCI 35mm) rubber to train on and call me happy. My MC bike definitely is no racer, and my racer is definitely no MC bike. You can't use an 8mm hex wrench in a 5mm bolt or vice-versa, right? Similar tools that fit different needs, IMO.


----------



## arshak (Jun 13, 2005)

It is not a question of "Hate". I smell the beginning of a new hipster trend and don't want cross bikes marginalized by hipster trends. I have pretty good clearance in between the rear chain and seat stays as I had my cross bike built with seattle/portland mud in mind. I can easily get a a 40mm tire in there without a problem but I dont go around calling it a monster whatever. jus' sayin'!


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

arshak said:


> It is not a question of "Hate". I smell the beginning of a new hipster trend and don't want cross bikes marginalized by hipster trends. I have pretty good clearance in between the rear chain and seat stays as I had my cross bike built with seattle/portland mud in mind. I can easily get a a 40mm tire in there without a problem but I dont go around calling it a monster whatever. jus' sayin'!


Well, with only 40c of clearance, you can't really fit the bigger rubber in there anyway. I wouldn't call your bike monster cross either. These bikes are commonly fitting 45's and beyond, up to real 29er rubber. 

I think it is more a question of hate than you might want to admit. Why would cross bikes be marginalized by bikes that are very similar save for some better offroad capability? What is a hipster trend about wanting to be able to handle more terrain with a single bike? If you want a pure cross bike, or are a cross luddite (pbb anyone?), you've got plenty of options out there. You always will have. Heck a lot of the guys on that thread are going to custom just to get what they want, because stock options are very limited right now. You seem to imply that what you fear is something similar to the current fixie trend. Who cares really? Are you under the impression that pure track bikes have been marginalized by it? 

Monster cross is simply about people using frames, some stock, some custom, with road style geometry and a lot of clearance to tackle their local trails. Nothing to get excited over, except if your really looking forward to getting one soon. :thumbsup:


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

After tacoing a wheel on local singletrack, I "got" the idea of monster cross.

35mm tires can only handle so much, especially if yer a bigger guy.


----------



## arshak (Jun 13, 2005)

Maybe marginalized is the wrong word to use. I have seen too many good track bikes, (Cinelli, De Rosa, Colnago, Moser) converted into fixie bikes with purple seats and wheels for my taste in NYC. If that makes me a Luddite, so be it.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

arshak said:


> Maybe marginalized is the wrong word to use. I have seen too many good track bikes, (Cinelli, De Rosa, Colnago, Moser) converted into fixie bikes with purple seats and wheels for my taste in NYC. If that makes me a Luddite, so be it.


Well, monster cross conversions usually just involve trying to get the biggest tire you can in the frame you have. No real harm there in my eyes, as if it is a "good cross bike" (whatever that means) it can easily be switched back to its roots with narrower (and less capable  ) tires. I don't know how purple seats and wheels are a big deal either, as they too are easily replaced with something tasteful, period correct, or both. People doing permanent modification to classic frames might be a big deal (it's still their frame isn't it?), but I don't see that happening a lot for two reasons: 

1) permanent modifications aren't really necessary, the right frame with extra clearance is
2) rare or important frames are rarely used, most of the time it's older frames with little provenance such as the old Trek multi-track sitting in the garage, or a new frame like a Cross Check


----------



## jdownie (Apr 22, 2008)

arshak said:


> Maybe marginalized is the wrong word to use. I have seen too many good track bikes, (Cinelli, De Rosa, Colnago, Moser) converted into fixie bikes with purple seats and wheels for my taste in NYC. If that makes me a Luddite, so be it.


Umm, do you really think you can stop this trend by citing your dislike of "hipster" builds? Is this really the most pressing issue for you?


----------



## senor_mikey (May 11, 2009)

*call it what ever you want*

It does strike a little bit of Marketing pizzazz... but so what? If it sells more bikes and gets more choices out there for the rest of us bike nuts... all the better. My Soma Double Cross is my favorite bike I can ride it anywhere, pave, fire roads, even single-track. I love getting looks from guys on 5 inch travel bikes as I see them on trails.

I am building a custom too, so I can get the right fit, disc only bike with ( hopefully) some room for 1.9's.

For those of us who prefer drop bars... and riding trails... it's the perfect bike


----------



## m_s (Nov 20, 2007)

The point is a versatile bike that isn't oriented for racing. Like how you have XC race mountain bikes, but lots of other styles of trail bike as well.

I monster my cross bike out (which I race, BTW in a different mode) with a Fire Cross 45mm on the front and something in the 40mm range in back. This is for longer off road rides to change it up from my moutain bike. This setup is faster in this situation than 35mm race tires, but slower in a CX race situation. So what's the problem?


----------



## cs1 (Sep 16, 2003)

arshak said:


> Sigh! Here we go again. The American marketing machine in full bore BS mode again..:mad2: .


We wouldn't be American if we weren't now would we. Who knows maybe MC bikes will start to catch on like 650B. 2 years ago I would have said that 650B would never catch on at all. Was I wrong.

650B really fills no niche but the marketeers have really pushed us into thinking it's the best thing. Maybe we'll see MC bikes in 650B.


----------



## d2p (Jul 29, 2006)

"monstercross" just sounds so incredibly dorky. of course i have always underestimated the dork market.


----------



## cs1 (Sep 16, 2003)

d2p said:


> "monstercross" just sounds so incredibly dorky. of course i have always underestimated the dork market.


Never underestimate the Dork Side Luke.


----------



## unclefuzzy_ss (Nov 23, 2002)

Hipster craze? hardly! These things are made for dirt, not trixx. Besides, if it gets more people out on bikes, what's it really matter?

But I stand a personal stake in the 'marketing' of these. I'm selling possibly the only stock bike that is aimed directly at this market. The Singular Peregrine. Forgive me for the 'ad'.


----------



## sanrensho (Jan 2, 2003)

d2p said:


> "monstercross" just sounds so incredibly dorky.


So true. I would prefer just to ride a cross bike on trails (42c front, 35c rear) than be part of any "monster cross" movement. Really fed up with the unnecessary need to create a name for every type of riding we do.

Anyone who calls me a "monster crosser" will get a pump in the spokes.


----------



## jdownie (Apr 22, 2008)

Seems like a lot of tears over very little.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

jdownie said:


> Seems like a lot of tears over very little.


I completely agree. Why so serious sanrensho?


----------



## sanrensho (Jan 2, 2003)

Who's serious? I just think it's funny.

Actually, I will probably burst out laughing first, if I hear the words "monster cross" spill out of someone's mouth. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the concept, but because there is somehow a need to give a name to the concept. I already see this on the mtb side--all these ridiculous sub-categories like "light freeride," "aggressive XC," "AM/FR" ad nauseum. Let's just ride our bikes.

Plus you have to admit, "monster cross" sounds pretty bad. I ride my cross bike on trails. That's enough.

Counting down to two hours until I swing my leg over the cross bike. To go riding on trails.


----------



## sanrensho (Jan 2, 2003)

Actually, I guess I'm not part of the fraternity anyway with a 42/35 tire combo.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

sanrensho said:


> Who's serious? I just think it's funny.
> 
> Actually, I will probably burst out laughing first, if I hear the words "monster cross" spill out of someone's mouth. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the concept, but because there is somehow a need to give a name to the concept. I already see this on the mtb side--all these ridiculous sub-categories like "light freeride," "aggressive XC," "AM/FR" ad nauseum. Let's just ride our bikes.
> 
> ...



Well, I guess the pump to the spokes comment was meant to be a joke. Humans give names to concepts all the time. It's how we effectively communicate about different things. I don't think it's that strange that someone once said "monster cross" to distinguish a new concept, and others used that term instead of the oh-so-succinct "cross bike that I ride on the trails." 

Someone once coined a term for a new style of bike called a cross bike, and you don't seem to mind using that apparently. You could just call it a bike. Why you gotta make it a "ridiculous sub-category" and all?


----------



## sanrensho (Jan 2, 2003)

SleeveleSS said:


> and others used that term instead of the oh-so-succinct "cross bike that I ride on the trails."


Or maybe people have always ridden their cross bikes to various degrees on trails, with or without wide rubber, before someone came along and decided to call it "monster cross."

In other words, it isn't and never was a big deal for cross riders. It's just part of riding a cross bike.


----------



## arshak (Jun 13, 2005)

+1:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## senor_mikey (May 11, 2009)

*all for fun anyway*

I really don't think any of us really would walk into a shop and ask to see a "Monstercross" bike but it is simply an easy way to distinguish a variation on a cross bike. But it really takes some change to the design to accommodate fatter tires. 
The guys who are building my custom are using Mountain bike chain stays to get the tire clearance in the rear. 
I'm really curious to understand how Singular manages to fit 2.0 Hutchinson's in the back and still run a double chainring up front:idea: I would have bought the Peregrine except I prefer a sloping seat tube and the color is beautiful but not me ( a nice soft green and I would be riding one of those)


----------



## sanrensho (Jan 2, 2003)

I am definitely all for cross bike options including disc mounts and wider chainstays to accommodate fatter tires. I love riding my bike (Kona Jake) on trails and would leap at the opportunity to switch out to a 42c rear tire to match the front.


----------



## cs1 (Sep 16, 2003)

*Half Monster Cross*



sanrensho said:


> Actually, I guess I'm not part of the fraternity anyway with a 42/35 tire combo.


WOW, thanks for the great idea.


----------



## unclefuzzy_ss (Nov 23, 2002)

I'll let you know when I get them!


----------



## arshak (Jun 13, 2005)

Huh! If I had any "pressing issues" to keep me busy, I would not be on this forum in the first place.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

I see a difference between a 29er (with mtb geometry) with drop bars and 2" (or oftentimes wider) tires and a cross bikes designed for racing with relatively skinnier tires. The name "monster" just makes it sound silly,


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

Pablo said:


> I see a difference between a 29er (with mtb geometry) with drop bars and 2" (or oftentimes wider) tires and a cross bikes designed for racing with relatively skinnier tires. The name "monster" just makes it sound silly,


Obviously, you can call it whatever the f#$* you want. If you think it sounds silly, don't use it. I don't see how that matters though. There are plenty of people who are using the term, and plenty more who understand what the term means. The term has served it's purpose, to distinguish a different style of bike. Love it or hate it, who cares?


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

SleeveleSS said:


> Obviously, you can call it whatever the f#$* you want. If you think it sounds silly, don't use it. I don't see how that matters though. There are plenty of people who are using the term, and plenty more who understand what the term means. The term has served it's purpose, to distinguish a different style of bike. Love it or hate it, who cares?


That's a strong reaction to the adjective "silly," unless, of course, you were attempting to provide an example of silliness.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

Pablo said:


> That's a strong reaction to the adjective "silly," unless, of course, you were attempting to provide an example of silliness.


I know the interwebs do not convey much tone, but in my head it was very matter of fact, not really a strong reaction. I'm just saying that if you think "monster cross" is silly, fine. Call it something else, and see if the rest of the cycling community starts using your term. I doubt your going to have much success, but more power to you. What do you suggest?


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

SleeveleSS said:


> I know the interwebs do not convey much tone, but in my head it was very matter of fact, not really a strong reaction. I'm just saying that if you think "monster cross" is silly, fine. Call it something else, and see if the rest of the cycling community starts using your term. I doubt your going to have much success, but more power to you. What do you suggest?


Lots of this in life, and cycling, are silly and it'd be futile to try to correct the terminology. For example, cyclocross is a silly term. What's being "crossed" but the course that is traversed? Mountain biking is a silly term, especially where the mecca of the sport is in the desert on the Colorado River plateau and not the muntains proper. Cross county mountain biking is a silly term unless you know of a longer trail than I know of. Lots of silliness, NBD.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

Pablo said:


> Lots of this in life, and cycling, are silly and it'd be futile to try to correct the terminology. For example, cyclocross is a silly term. What's being "crossed" but the course that is traversed? Mountain biking is a silly term, especially where the mecca of the sport is in the desert on the Colorado River plateau and not the muntains proper. Cross county mountain biking is a silly term unless you know of a longer trail than I know of. Lots of silliness, NBD.


I agree. To me, there is a hierarchy to these terms. You have two main categories, road and mountain, then subcategories of each, from touring and cyclocross on the road side, to xc and downhill on the mountain side. Yet suddenly, when we start using the term monstercross, to distinguish what is undoubtedly a distinct type of bike, people are all up in arms. I just don't understand the logic behind that. I'm not upset about it, just baffled as to why this is the case.


----------



## jmoote (Nov 29, 2007)

I think that much of the concern likely arises out of cyclocrossers not wanting their sport tainted by something that is not cyclocross but still uses the 'cross suffix implying a connection. As far as I'm concerned, rightly so, since cyclocross has its origins near the beginning of last century, whereas "monster cross" has evolved out of (what is clearly) mountain bike technology - relatively young and much more disconnected to road racing.

That said, call it what you want as long as cyclocross racing and the associated equipment stays unchanged.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

jmoote said:


> That said, call it what you want as long as cyclocross racing and the associated equipment stays unchanged.


I think you don't have much to worry about with that. Obviously cross is a niche of its own, and monster cross a much smaller niche within a niche. What I see as a proper monster cross bike (obviously such a definition is debatable) is* very* similar to a cyclocross race bike. Really the only difference would be in tire size, so a cross suffix seems pretty natural. As can be seen in the MTBR thread, there are those who basically take a 29er and put drop bars on it and call it monster cross (their prerogative). They don't really have much similarity to a cross bike, with different geometry, brakes, etc. Really the only thing these guys have in common with a cross bike is drop bars. 

On the other hand, there are bikes on that thread that would be proper cross bikes with only a change in tires. They have cross geo, drop bars, canti brakes, etc. The only thing that separates them from a cross racing bike is tire width. I think that the 29 movement definitely helped in the development of these bikes, but to lump all of them into the category of mountain bikes is a bit misleading.


----------



## jmoote (Nov 29, 2007)

Well take what I said knowing I am a mountain biker who owns a 29er as well, but I stand by the idea that I want to keep my CX and mtb as separate as possible.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

jmoote said:


> Well take what I said knowing I am a mountain biker who owns a 29er as well, but I stand by the idea that I want to keep my CX and mtb as separate as possible.


This is a genuine "Why?" What is it about a the concept that you don't like? What disadvantages do you see it having?


----------



## jroden (Jun 15, 2004)

It seems like a good idea to discuss how to use a cross bike in a typical mtb race without the disadvantage of small delicate tires. I was kind of curious myself as I'd like to not own a MTB, but don't think my frame will accept the big 29-er type tires.

I don't care what people call it and I don't care if cross gets popular, part of the problems we have with the sport relate to obscurity. Look at how much of the equipment is poorly designed just because they don't sell enough to care?


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*Can't we all just get along?*

I'll admit that I have only skimmed this thread and the "monster cross" thread over on MTBR board; way too much to read every word. Here is my $0.02:

1. The sport of cycling needs more participants. Anything (as long as it is legal and not overtly antisocial) that gets more people out on bikes is eventually good for all forms of cycling. 

2. The cycling community in general needs to be more inclusive and accepting of the diversity that is developing in the sport. Dividing ourselves into narrowly defined groups serves no one's long term interest. Diversity within the sport is the best way to get more people into it.

3. IMHO what really bugs old school roadies (and their cross-obsessed subset) about the mountain bike community is the lack of "credit" they give road cycling for the origins of mountain biking. Personally, I feel that this gripe has some justification. There were literally generations of roadies who loved cycling and kept it alive in the US during the "wilderness years" between the heyday of six-day racing and the sport's current resurgence. Hey mountain bikers, get over yourselves. You did not "invent" anything.

4. IMHO what bugs the mountain bike community about roadies is the stuffy cloistered attitude of old school roadies and the chip many of the have (and I will include myself among the "chip carriers") on their shoulder about "carrying the torch" for all of cycling during the aforementioned "wilderness years." Personally, I feel that this point is well taken. Hey roadies, pull the sticks out of your *sses. The improved flexibility will make you more aero.

5. There is more in common between the two main branches of cycling than differences. We all like to turn cranks, sweat and suffer. Whether we do it dirt or asphalt on this type of equipment or that type of equipment is not that big a deal.

To end this rant on a positive note, I don't care what you call them, some of those "monster cross" rigs are just straight up cool. Just my $0.02.

Now, can we all just go ride our bikes and sing Kumbaya?


----------



## arshak (Jun 13, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> I agree. To me, there is a hierarchy to these terms. You have two main categories, road and mountain, then subcategories of each, from touring and cyclocross on the road side, to xc and downhill on the mountain side. Yet suddenly, when we start using the term monstercross, to distinguish what is undoubtedly a distinct type of bike, people are all up in arms. I just don't understand the logic behind that. I'm not upset about it, just baffled as to why this is the case.


If I can jump in with my 2 bits, I started this thread when I read this article in Mountain Flyer mag about Monster Cross and how it is the greatest thing since sliced bread but nowhere in that article does it mention that it is essentially a rigid mtn bike with drop handle bars as ridden by mtn bike pioneers like Jaquie Phelan and others in that era (early 80's -mid 80's). Calling it Monster may make it sound macho, more palatable to "dudes" and "new". Heck for that matter, with the drag created by those fat tires, where is the need for drop bars? Just go ahead with a flat bar and trigger shifters and call it "Old School Mtn biking or "Roots" mountain biking. Btw, does any body have the link to a web site or blog that this guy was writing on about riding single tracks on a road bike with 23mm tires? I read that article 3-4 months ago and forgot where I read that article. Thanks.


----------



## senor_mikey (May 11, 2009)

*Rough Riders*

They call them selves "Rough Riders" here is the link http://www.xo-1.org/

I live in Socal and thats where they ride.. I've been tempted to show up for one of their rides just for fun... most of the rides are done on "all rounders" with 28-35mm tires.


----------



## arshak (Jun 13, 2005)

Gracias, Senor. Gonna bookmark this pronto


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

arshak said:


> If I can jump in with my 2 bits, I started this thread when I read this article in Mountain Flyer mag about Monster Cross and how it is the greatest thing since sliced bread but nowhere in that article does it mention that it is essentially a rigid mtn bike with drop handle bars as ridden by mtn bike pioneers like Jaquie Phelan and others in that era (early 80's -mid 80's). Calling it Monster may make it sound macho, more palatable to "dudes" and "new". Heck for that matter, with the drag created by those fat tires, where is the need for drop bars? Just go ahead with a flat bar and trigger shifters and call it "Old School Mtn biking or "Roots" mountain biking. Btw, does any body have the link to a web site or blog that this guy was writing on about riding single tracks on a road bike with 23mm tires? I read that article 3-4 months ago and forgot where I read that article. Thanks.


It seems like several of the posters here are of the opinion that these bikes are just drop bar mountain bikes, including yourself. If you will look at the MTBR thread photos, you will definitely see such bikes. You will also see, however, what are essentially cross bikes with larger clearance. These are not "essentially a rigid mtn bike with drop handle bars." They don't even have v-brakes, let alone the more common discs on modern mountain bikes. They don't have the strongly sloping longer top tubes. 

Monster cross as a term is used because its origins are in cross, and to call them "essentially a rigid mtn bike with drop handle bars" is completely inaccurate for many bikes in that thread. Also, I don't know what bars have to do with tires. It's very similar to the supposed disconnect between riser bars and bar ends. The two have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## d2p (Jul 29, 2006)

I bet you listen to neopostindustrialelectrofunkcore. : )


----------



## cs1 (Sep 16, 2003)

SleeveleSS said:


> It seems like several of the posters here are of the opinion that these bikes are just drop bar mountain bikes, including yourself. If you will look at the MTBR thread photos, you will definitely see such bikes. You will also see, however, what are essentially cross bikes with larger clearance. These are not "essentially a rigid mtn bike with drop handle bars." They don't even have v-brakes, let alone the more common discs on modern mountain bikes. They don't have the strongly sloping longer top tubes.
> 
> Monster cross as a term is used because its origins are in cross, and to call them "essentially a rigid mtn bike with drop handle bars" is completely inaccurate for many bikes in that thread. Also, I don't know what bars have to do with tires. It's very similar to the supposed disconnect between riser bars and bar ends. The two have nothing to do with each other.


Well said.


----------



## pigpen (Sep 28, 2005)

I dig the way they look.
My local trails are rocky and root covered.
I beat the crap out of myself riding my cross bikes on them.
Not really into MTB any more but think a MC bike might be fun.


----------



## cs1 (Sep 16, 2003)

pigpen said:


> I dig the way they look.
> My local trails are rocky and root covered.
> I beat the crap out of myself riding my cross bikes on them.
> Not really into MTB any more but think a MC bike might be fun.


Those big fat tires just look better than the skinny tire on tubulars the pros use.


----------



## mgersib (Feb 7, 2011)

SleeveleSS said:


> It seems like several of the posters here are of the opinion that these bikes are just drop bar mountain bikes, including yourself. If you will look at the MTBR thread photos, you will definitely see such bikes. You will also see, however, what are essentially cross bikes with larger clearance. These are not "essentially a rigid mtn bike with drop handle bars." They don't even have v-brakes, let alone the more common discs on modern mountain bikes. They don't have the strongly sloping longer top tubes.
> 
> Monster cross as a term is used because its origins are in cross, and to call them "essentially a rigid mtn bike with drop handle bars" is completely inaccurate for many bikes in that thread. Also, I don't know what bars have to do with tires. It's very similar to the supposed disconnect between riser bars and bar ends. The two have nothing to do with each other.


Here is my latest example of the breed -- a Salsa Vaya with 46c Bontrager tubeless tires. I actually did race this bike as the back-up to my Salsa Ti La Cruz cyclocross bike during the 2010 'cross season (as evidenced by the race photos -- obviously not from UCI races).


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

mgersib said:


> Here is my latest example of the breed -- a Salsa Vaya with 46c Bontrager tubeless tires. I actually did race this bike as the back-up to my Salsa Ti La Cruz cyclocross bike during the 2010 'cross season (as evidenced by the race photos -- obviously not from UCI races).



I like it. :thumbsup:


----------



## mgersib (Feb 7, 2011)

thechriswebb said:


> I like it. :thumbsup:


Thanks! :thumbsup: For perspective, here is a shot of my new drop bar mountain bike... This is what a _real_ drop bar mountain bike looks like -- _this 'aint no monster crosser!!_


----------



## m_s (Nov 20, 2007)

I've got serious bike envy dude.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

cs1 said:


> Well said.



Haha. Old thread for sure. Every time one of these reappear I see the title and my interest is piqued because I still love the monstercross concept. I click on the thread only to see I have already opined. I think I've commented on every monstercross thread on the interwebz (and started the greatest monstercross thread of all time).


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

I think that's still called a cross bike. And you don't need 40c tires to do that. In fact, if you use it on the road, those "monster tires" would be a hinderance rather than a help.


----------



## mudge (May 15, 2010)

All this dissin' on monstercross reminds me of much of the same sort of dissin' on fixies, it seems to come down to those folks who usually haven't tried it. Personally, I'm amused by fixie hipsters, but love to ride fixed gears myself. I've raced 'cross (not very well, mind you) and I've got a 'monstercross' rig that I'll use for gravel grinder events and maybe a few 'cross races. If I really want to get serious about 'cross, I'll race a true race rig. 

IMO, it's all about getting your grin on, and if someone wants to do that on a monstercross, fixie, FS29er, HT26", bmx, CF road racer, touring bike, whatever... let 'er rip.

Mudge

___________

Follow Me! on twitter @Ruck_Up.


----------



## Klong (Dec 6, 2007)

If you look at  the original thread over on the SS board on MTBR you'd see it was very grass roots. Some peeps fit fatter tires to their cross bikes or old road bikes to make them more versatile and they made up a silly name to go with it. Pretty harmless. Plus, at it's heart, it's a bunch of riders who love to ride cross bikes everywhere.

If your main beef is that marketeers are always ready to jump on trends and repackage them for consumption, well, your issue isn't with monstercross but with a whole culture. In other words, get over it. 

Haters gonna hate, marketers gonna market, riders gonna ride.


----------



## cs1 (Sep 16, 2003)

Klong said:


> Haters gonna hate, marketers gonna market, riders gonna ride.


Well said indeed.


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

So its a mountain bike? I dont see how thats any different than a rigid 29er.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*nothing new*

same as it ever was, circa 1986


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

TomH said:


> So its a mountain bike? I dont see how thats any different than a rigid 29er.


Completely different geometry for (a big) one. Don't see many rim braked 29ers either, let alone canti braked. Also, most 29ers aren't sporting drop bars. You obviously consider a 29er in its own category, since you refer to them as "29er" and not just as "mountain bike." It has only one thing different from traditional (26 inch) mountain bikes, namely wheel size. But a bike that has several things different from a traditional mountain bike (geo, wheel size, bar type to name a few) should just be called a "mountain bike." 

Not trying to knock on you personally, as these threads always seem to turn into people bashing other people for trying to put these bikes in their own category. I've said it before, people categorize and give names to all sorts of things throughout society. It is how we effectively communicate about nuanced concepts. If you don't want to call it monster cross you don't have to, but you are wrong to say it is no different than a rigid 29er. It is, and there is a reason the "monster cross" name has stuck. It is because it has a specific meaning to a lot of people, and they more effectively communicate by using it.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

Kram said:


> I think that's still called a cross bike. And you don't need 40c tires to do that. In fact, if you use it on the road, those "monster tires" would be a hinderance rather than a help.


You are right that using those tires on the road would be a _hindrance _, but I don't think most, if any, people are using these bikes exclusively as road bikes. Just look at all the mud in the pictures, you'd think this is MTBR.  

Much more often they are using these bikes as true do-it-all bikes. A road bike would be great on the road and impossible on trails. A monster cross bike would be fine, while admittedly not perfect, for both. If my ride includes both, I really only have one choice between the two. That's the difference. It gets me as close to a road bike as I can (no suspension, similar geo) so the road portion of the ride isn't torture, while still being able to handle some fun singletrack. In my mind it is the best compromise out there, but of course it is still a compromise.


----------

