Ok so today on this board I saw the term "adventure bike" .
I am not even sure what that means and for some reason I need one.
Can you guys help define this bike for me?
What makes and adventure bike?
>>929390
A bike built for adventures
After selling people cross bikes, the industry decided to give them larger tire clearance and accessory attachment points and call them adventure bikes.
>I am not even sure what that means and for some reason I need one
Yeah, it's a pretty successful marketing term.
Essentially any bike built to cover decent distances over mixed terrain. Often kind of like a touring bike leaning considerably towards offroading or even a mtb.
>>929403
what's the deal with that fork
>>929412
Truss forks are a thing, although maybe you also mean how the bars are attached which confuses me too.
>>929403
> furious fred
Lmao, schwalbe dun goofd
>>929420
Pretty sure they made the joke purposefully
>>929422
I dont get it
>>929431
Google "cycling fred"
id recommend the access raptor
>>929390
It's something that /n/ rages at mindlessly, we're not really sure what it is either but we're sure we can't afford one and anyone who does have one is a fred. What is a fred, you ask? Anyone who has nicer, newer, or better things than we have. The opposite of a hipster retrogrouch which is someone who has anything that was invented before 2014.
>>929420
Furious cycling is now subject to $425 fine in Australia. I suspect these tires qualify, possibly also simply pedaling while not seated.
>>929434
This is definitely the best bicycle in the world, possibly the universe.
will painting my frame with bed liner paint make it an adventure bike?
i think that they're calling it the "enduro allroad bike" now, which is a road bike with 26" wheels and 2.3" wide slicks
>>929404
>After selling people cross bikes, the industry decided to give them larger tire clearance and accessory attachment points and call them adventure bikes.
This is true but I think adventure bikes are great.
They are essentially touring bikes that are not sluggish.
I love long multi-day rides, but I'd like to use the same bike as a daily rider.
A typical touring bike is designed to carry a load. Without the weight of panniers, the handling is not impressive. Couple that with a steel frame and fork, and super-flat protective tires, and you've got a sluggish, annoying ride
Adventure bikes are in the middle. The best, in my mind, are the aluminum frame/carbon fork bikes, with slightly aggressive geometry, WITH room for fat tires, fenders, and racks
There was no idea solution for this need before the adventure bike craze. Cross bikes have chainstays that are too short for rear panniers (heel strike), and not enough clearance for fenders.
Adventure bikes have a place. For now I'm a poor person riding a nashbar AL touring frame with a carbon CX fork, but one day I'll buy one.
I'm glad there was a CX trend, because it made some great rims/tires/bars available (The Salsa Cowbell is amazing IMHO)
>>929481
Real talk. They're 'fast' utility bikes and are ten times better than the flat-bar hybrid/road bikes.
>>929483
The bike industry is exploiting consumer lust pushing new standards and trends every season. 650b, disc (yeah I said it), 1x, etc.
Adventure bikes are another trend, a mutation of touring/CX/gravel/All Road/rando. But adventure bikes are better
The idea of the adventure bike is to have one bike that does everything pretty well. For the average daily rider who doesn't race, it gives you the option of a light tour, light off-road, and excellent road riding. All with the right balance of butt comfort AND speed.
In a way, it's an anti-consumption trend, within a bigger trend of consumption.
The Prolly hipster adventure bikes are annoying, but the ideology itself is solid. I am against Surly just because of the weight of their products, but I see their spirit in this trend.
>>929481
Basically, late 80s/early 90s fully rigid MTBs with 700c rims instead of 26" rims, and drop bars instead of flat bars.
>>929489
Yep. The hyper-specialization of the past few years is swinging back in the other direction.
An "adventure bike" should be able to do light touring, eat up smooth singletrack, and be a good commuter. If you don't do serious mountain biking or road racing, it's conceivable that one bike could be enough for all your needs.
But there are compromises. The frame will be too flexy and won't handle great for real loaded touring, it'll be heavier and have less snappy handling than a dedicated road bike, and the lower BB + big 50T from chainring (most with have a 50/34 compact double crankset) will reduce clearance over offroad obstacles.
If adventure bikes get big, I'd expect a move back to more specialized bikes after a few years as the people who buy them realize they want something that's better for the specific kind of riding they do the most.
>>929508
Honestly I think the jack-of-all-trades bike has to do with hipsters. Hipsters love authentic utility that hardcore people use as a fashion statement, without ever taking advantage of that utility. It started out with the supposedly super practical fixies. Then they moved to CX because they get to play at hardcore in the mud for an hour, then onto rando, because Jan Heine tells you you should use a rando bike for everything and have fenders so you can ride in the rain.
>>929481
That sounds a lot like the "sport touring" bikes of yesteryear.
>>929513
I think I might be a hipster.
>>929524
Hipster is as hipster does.
>>929454
425 dollar fine for the wrong tires?
>>929513
>bikes that are useful are a fashion statement
kill yourself
>>929925
He's making a joke about the wording of the bill and the name of the tyres, dude.
Although it's only in NSW, because they seem to hate cyclists with an unusual fervour there.
>>929417
With sheer horror.
For a TI bike dolled up with Di2, they could try a little harder.
Does this count as adventure? Not sure what type of bike it is really.
I just wanted a road bike, but one that can fit studded tires and full fenders for winter and still be fast enough when summer comes. Could have been a CX or touring bike just as well. However this was the cheapest that fit my criteria.
>>929925
Furious cycling is defined IIRC by furious riding of a horse which means riding it to a lather.
Ah the common law.
>>929403
that frame is a shame.
the parts are quite orgsamic
>>929483
true words , senpai
>>929513
you have a point there , but to be honest I got into bikes like that.
and I think many people have
from all the people that jump that light touring outdoor lifestyle there will be quite some guys sticking with it.
It's a absolute win for the scene
>>929932
isn't the point of these fork to allow flex.
that looks killer unflexy..
...and unsexy.
>>929955
jip.
youre hip now.
>>929417
>>929932
Honestly, they should gave incorporated mounts for a DH style direct mount stem. I mean even the bar diameter is the same, so any off the shelf DM stem would fit.
>>929403
>that fork
why?
>>929403
Does the fork mean the bars are as ridiculously far away from the saddle as they look?
This fa get here in Lansdale PA scammed me n my Pops for tryna sell a bike on walla pop
All these juckfobs are saying they'll send a check.
Lol now I lost over 1300 and I'm sure deep down we are total morons because everyone on there is doing it.
>>929439
the only correct answer
>>929955
I would have an adventure on it
>>929513
>super practical fixies
Huh?
What kind of pedals should an adventure bike have?
I am guessing barefoot friendly?
Isn't it just an endurance road bike?
>>930754
crashing while barefoot sounds fun.
>>930774
All just part of the adventure anon
>>930754
Trolling much?
But seriously, Shimano SPD. You want to be clipped in for efficient all-day distance riding, but shoes that you can walk around in and do some light hiking with.
>>930754
a pair of friendly slimes that you meet during your cycling adventure
It's what the mainstream now calls the bikes that Surly has been selling for the past 15 years.
>2016
>not having drivetrain redundancy
>>930929
Or studded flats which are great for all around stuff and you don't have to look like a nob wearing bike cleats.
>>930997
>584 mm is THE standard for mtb wheels now
It's more common than it was, and it may even outnumber 26" and 29" when it comes to new bikes, but there are still plenty of new options for both of those. So no, it's not essentially the sole standard like 26" used to be (and probably never will reach that level).
Regardless that wasn't the guy's point. 27.5"/650b has no practical advantage over 26", in fact when it first got big it had a major lack of part options and carried a higher cost. It's only purpose was/is to squeeze more money out of gullible consumers.
>The bullshit new standard is 'plus'-sized tyres
You mean the 27.5+ thing? That's not a standard, they're just larger tyres, which was the same with 26" although not quite as large (the smaller fat bike tyres now available may offer the same widths).
The only thing that may qualify it as being anything close to a standard is more frames and forks being rated for such a width.
>>931018
>It's only purpose was/is to squeeze more money out of gullible consumers.
My pet theory is that it's a way to backpedal on all the hysterical 29" propaganda.
When they found out building 29" mountainbikes at all sizes and for diciplines other than XC was nigh impossible, manufacturers needed to reastablish the 26" wheel size they'd been trash talking. Picking up a '27.5"' wheel size that is only four percent larger (including tyre) than the old standard, that also happend to be an existing if obscure standard that rim manufacturers were used to, was a god-send.
It's functionally identical to the 26" wheel size but carry none of the 29" marketing induced stigma.
>>931026
intredasting
>>931009
I like studded flats as much as the next guy, but I really like clips if I'm going to be in the saddle for a long time.
>don't have to look like a nob wearing bike cleats.
What are "recessed cleats", Trebek?
>>931018
>>931026
26" is officially dead: http://g-tedproductions.blogspot.com/2015/07/they-killed-it-in-2016.html
Agreed that 29" is shit for everything except XC with relatively skinny tires. It's worth noting that a 650b/27.5"/584mm rim with a fat tire is almost the same outer diameter as a 700c/29"/622mm rim with a XC tire. Basically, 27.5" a way to get more air volume without increasing the diameter of the wheel.
The real new bullshit is thru-axles and "boost" wheel spacing. Don't get me started eleventy-zillion speed cassettes with chainwheel-sized cogs and 1x cranksets (resulting in giant jumps between gears), all because SRAM can't figure out how to make a good front derailleur.
>>931190
>thru axles are bad
>>929439
I love the movie. But I would take absolute joy in pushing that bike out of an aircraft and watching it hit the ground
>>931018
>and it may even outnumber 26" and 29" when it comes to new bikes
It has done that for the last two or three years.
>there are still plenty of new options for both of those
622 mm will continue occupy it's own niche in MTB and dominate XC, but 559 mm is dead. Nothing (non-consumable) new is being made for that size.
>27.5"/650b has no practical advantage over 26"
That's wrong though. If 622 mm has an advantage over 559 mm, some intermediate size will have some of that advantage. The advantage was doubtlessly overblown by the marketing surrounding 584 mm, but it's definitely not true to say there was none at all.
>in fact when it first got big it had a major lack of part options and carried a higher cost
That's going to be true of any prospective new standard.
>You mean the 27.5+ thing? That's not a standard
Various bike manufacturers (Scott, Trek, Spesh) are putting the feelers out with an obvious view to making the go-to wheel/tyre size for casuals.
>>931190
>The real new bullshit is thru-axles
>new
>bullshit
Through-axles have been mainstream since the 2009 MY and are superior to QR
>MTB-appropriate sized gaps are a bad thing
>Front derailers are desireable
Please refrain from giving your opinions on market segments you know nothing about.
>>931304
>If 622 mm has an advantage over 559 mm, some intermediate size will have some of that advantage.
Lets put 2.4" tyres on those wheels:
622=742
584=704
559=679
As we can see, it's only a 10% jump in size to go 26"→29", and 27.5" is not at all a 'middle road' but an only marginally larger standard.
The anon you replied to claimed there was no practical advantage. Your counter argument is that if <~10% jump in radius> carries any benefit, then <~3% jump in radius> must too. This does not follow.
More damningly, this does not establish any such benefit is as practical; ie realizable under real world conditions.
>>929390
I dunno if pic related or what but if you are planning on turning that beautiful and highly collectable cannondale frame into an "adventure time bike" I am going to teleport behind you and slap your penis so hard that there will be blood, starring Daniel Day-Lewis.
>>931304
>Nothing (non-consumable) new is being made for that size.
A quick look at the 2016 rims on CRC shows Stans, Spank, and WTB all making 26" still, there are probably other brands too if I keep looking. Rockshox and X-Fusion's 2016 forks also come in 26" (couldn't see anything for this year from any other manufacturers), but of course you can still run 26" on the 27.5" forks and the same is true for frames.
> If 622 mm has an advantage over 559 mm, some intermediate size will have some of that advantage.
It has a technical and even scientifically measurable advantage, but it has no practical (key word here, which you seemed to ignore) advantage. 29's advantage is already rather small, 27.5's advantage is so small that even the very best riders wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
>That's going to be true of any prospective new standard.
Sure, and if it was actually better in some way then it'd pay off. However when it has no advantage there's no reason why it should have caught on other than gullible idiots buying it.
>putting the feelers out with an obvious view to making the go-to wheel/tyre size for casuals.
And? That doesn't make it a standard, it's literally just big tyres. At least fat bikes at least have wider hubs, frames, and forks that make it impossible to interchange the parts with non-fatbike parts and thus making it a standard. There's nothing stopping you from putting a "27.5+" tyre on a normal width rim and jamming it in a regular old frame and fork with enough clearance.
>>931331
This guy gets it and explained it better than I probably could.
>>931348
you don't think it's worth more as an adventure?
>>929390
Is this a good deal on a used adventure bike?
https://santafe.craigslist.org/bik/5480855956.html
>>931216
I dated a girl from texas that looked and laughed just like pee wee.
She still managed to be totally hot.
I'm convinced this "Adventure bike" thing is just a meme created by several dedicated /n/ shitposters.
>tfw you ride your adventure bike every day but you never have any adventures
._.
>>932601
riding the bike IS the adventure
>>932942
riding your mom IS the advenrure
>>934345
I rode your mom in the 90's. She was rigid and slick.
>>934347
DELETE THIS
Are there any adventure bikes that are collectible ?
>>934682
>Are there any bikes that are collectible ?
this, tbqf
>>934347
Outstanding
>>929434
This meme isnt going to happen.
Stop trying!
Anyome who bought this dun goofed!
>>929465
yes
>>929439
Damn, look at that bidon. How many miles per gallon of water ?
>>935032
What is wrong with them?
>>935133
They aren't collectible
>>935178
I keked
not sure why
>>929434
