Comments on: Monstercross Defined

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 07 May 2012 07:53:56 +0000

‘For me’ I think that a quality of the monstercross bike is quirky builds, one-off components or unusual combinations of components. Thus the builder is creating their personal version of a do-all bike that suits THEIR intended uses/budget/likes/personality – based on 700c or 29″ with drop bar and all terrain tyres.

I don’t have a monstercross bike (yet) but I love them. I own a 2012 dual suspension hi-end-superduper 29er. But commute on a crappy 20year old 26″ rigid MTB that I found on a junk heap and fitted with slicks. When $$ and time allow I will build up a “monstercross” for the commute (1×9 geared).

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 02:54:46 +0000

I think a monster cross bike is just fine with a suspension fork. Without a good sus fork you are basically just talking about a normal cross bike with a little more rubber and some disks. Once you put a good sus fork on the bike you have way the capability to hit trails that are not possible on a normal cross bike.

By: Klong

Klong — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:50:39 +0000

I think I could live with those ‘rules,’ Glenn.

I’m a big fan of the Monstercross spirit if solely for the imaginative builds and custom details. If there are two exactly alike, I haven’t seen them on the web. That’s what so great. They are all built with intention, and become a unique manifestation of the rider’s vision (if you’ll allow me to be a bit romantic about it).

I don’t see MonsterX bikes as ‘the beginners bike’ really, and I think that’s why I’m opposed to unnecessary categorisation. I’m not trying to be exclusionist, I just think that strict definitions will somewhat limit the imaginative freedom that MX builds allow. Most are built by people whose tastes in bikes have matured enough to know how and where they’d like to ride and what it’s going to take to accomplish their goals, it’s usually not someone’s first build.

Not only that, but how annoying is it to see someone’s imaginative build posted online only to have someone cite line and page, ‘That’s not a Monstercross because…’

Rant over.

Nonetheless, I liked the writeup, GT. Sufficiently vague.

BTW, I’m riding a converted ’80′s Peugeot with WTB Interwolf 38c’s and WTB Mountain Drops. Loads of fun.

By: glenn olsen

glenn olsen — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:13:42 +0000

I just built up a Salsa La Cruz this fall, I’m running tubeles tires and 22/32/42-34 gearing. for the past two years I’ve been linking on and off road trails here on the C.T. shorline and have found a monster cross bike to be a great winter training tool and super fun to ride. When the trails are too cruddy to ride on a mtb and the roads are too slick to ride a road bike out comes the monster cross… I had a Fargo on my hit list but i opted for the la cruz instead. Both bikes are disc specific and ready for panniers and than a traditional cross bike which helps on uncharted trails.
As far as my idea of a monster cross bike.
1. monster cross is about riding not racing.
2. It’s about the journey not the destination.
3. It has to have some sort of drop bar. for on and off road.
4. big wheels help but any geared or ss bike with drop bars fits the bill.
I also have a bianchi diss ss with 700c wheels that i converted over to a monster and its a blast to ride…

By: jimmythefly

jimmythefly — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:31:34 +0000

I’m with you on most of these.
1. Agreed, though I wouldn’t dissallow 650b or any wheel with more of a pavement heritage.
2. Agreed -and furthermore I think it should be non-suspension corrected. Otherwise it’s just a funky-bar’d rigid 29er.
3. Agreed. I think moustache bars fit in here too, especially the ones that are 23.8mm.
4. Agreed. This seems to be where some cyclocross frames top-out, so in my mind if it fits a fatter tire than that it’s monster-crossable.

PS monster cross is what led me to 29ers! I built an old touring frame with 29×1.75 tires for an event, and had so much fun with it I ditched my full-sus 26er for a 29er hardtail.