| BMC "Monster Cross" Frame/Fork |
So, when I heard he was going to design his own line of frames for his shop, I took notice and found he was doing an interesting steel cross bike themed rig- a model he dubbed the "Monster Cross". Several details emerged that caught my eye and made me think this bike would be a great gravel grinder.
Things like a bit longer chain stays, a taller head tube, and bigger tire clearances, which would be great for setting up the frame and fork for longer rides on gravel roads.
Of course, the sloping crown fork, cantilever brakes, two water bottle bosses, and cool details like the front derailluer cable adjuster were very attractive features as well.
One thing Mr. Varley did on this design I didn't really care for in the end was the "in between" drop out spacing. Made popular by Surly Bikes, a 132.5mm spaced rear drop out is supposed to allow for either a 135mm OLD hub or a 130mm OLD hub to be fitted into the frame. To my mind, it is a feature that is frustrating, since neither wheel axle standard fits in cleanly, and without futzing. Yes- it does work for either OLD standard, but it is a kludge and I would have preferred a 130mm OLD spaced rear since that standard is fast becoming the de-facto rim brake standard hub width. (Since mountain bikes are nearly all gone over to disc hubs these days, or so it seems.)
| The Final Build Version |
Subsequently, I decided then to add gears to the bike for hilly terrain that I hoped to tackle on this bike. I went with a mix of mountain bike and road bike componentry which has worked flawlessly for me and installed with no issues.
Frame clearances for a triple crank might be tough, so I decided on a compact double, using a non-series Shimano 50/34T crank with the Hollow Tech, two piece design that utilizes out board bearings. The front mech is a 90's era STX mountain bike unit that shifts the chain famously from the Ultegra STI levers. In the back, I fitted a 11-34T cassette and a long cage Ultegra rear derailleur which has no problems shifting the SRAM chain up and down the full range of gears in either front chain ring.
| Plenty of rear tire clearance |
Other bits include the awesome Salsa Cycles Cowbell 2, Ritchey Classic stem and seat post, and Bontrager saddle and bar tape. I have run the bike most often with an Epic Designs Tangle Bag under the top tube for on-bike storage of tools, tubes, water, and rain gear. Sometimes I also include a Banjo Brothers Top Tube Bag which sits up next to the stem on the top tube for phone/camera storage. (Not shown here)
Performance Notes: All right then! So much for the build. How's it ride? Well, pretty much as you'd expect a nice steel bike to ride. It does have good stiffness at the bottom bracket, and I'd know if it didn't with those big tires on there! The fork does a good job of muting most gravel chatter, but don't think it is on the same page as a compliant carbon fork. Laterally it seems okay in turns as well. No problems with front brake chatter that I've come across either. (Using old 90's era STX cantilevers, by the way.)
On high speed gravel descents, the Monster Cross is fairly stable. I attribute some of this to the slightly longer chain stays/wheel base. Cyclo-cross bikes typically have a bit slacker head tube angles than road bikes, and the Monster Cross is no different here. This also plays into the bike's well mannered descending prowess. Important stuff when you are bombing 35-40mph down loose gravel roads.
Climbing in or out of the saddle is good. Not as "direct feeling" as carbon bikes, but still stiff. The BMC is well balanced, even with the chain stay length for my size, and I never wanted for traction. Smaller sized riders may experience something different in that regard, but the horizontal drop out adjusters will allow you to set up a shorter "effective chain stay length" at the sacrifice of some tire clearance.
I think the frame and fork, if anything, are on the slightly stiffer side of steel's riding characteristics, and not to a detrimental effect on over-all ride quality. Of course, I've mated the frame/fork to big, high volume tires, and at the pressures that this affords me to be able to run, the stiffness of the frame becomes a positive on long, cobbly, rough rides. Skinnier tires would force me to have to run higher pressures, and the ride quality would then suffer. So, the designed in big tire clearances on this frame are quite a welcomed thing at the tail end of a century's worth of gravel grinding.
Over-all, I give the ride quality high marks for gravel road racing or riding. The bike is reasonably light, (I could go quite a bit lighter with higher end component choices), comfortable, and handles gravel roads very well. Big tire clearances are there, which is a huge plus. The slightly longer rear end lends stability as well. Cosmetically, the bike is holding up nicely, as I only have found a couple of nicks and scratches in the finish so far after hundreds of miles of gravel riding.
Conclusions: This is a low production, steel construction, cyclo-cross frame with some unique features similar to some other companies rigs. I know a lot of folks asked why I didn't just get a Surly Cross Check. That's a fair question. Surly Cross Checks, at first glance, would seem to be a dead ringer for the Monster Cross from BMC.
The thing is, the devil is in the details, and that is why I think the BMC Monster Cross stands out from the crowd. A Cross Check, while a fine and very capable bike, has a shorter head tube, slightly shorter chain stays, and slightly less rear tire clearance than the Monster Cross does. These may not matter to you, but for me it did. (I actually purchased the BMC frame and fork, and was not paid or coerced to do this review.) I used less head set spacers, got a slightly more stable rig, and better rear tire clearances. In fact, I rode recently with a fellow using the same tires on a Cross Check. he remarked that he had to shave the outer knobs to fit them to his Surly. So, there is a good example of one of those finer details I spoke of.
So, for a gravel grinder rig, you really can not go wrong with the BMC Monster Cross frame and fork. It is a nice handling, reasonably lightweight, durable, and good looking steel bike that will handle any gravel you care to ride it on. It is fairly priced, and as an added bonus, you won't see a bunch of them at your next gravel race , or cyclo-cross event. It makes for a great commuter bike as well, by the way! Besides the "not right" rear drop out spacing, I think Mike Varley designed another winner of a bicycle here.
NOTE: I own this frame and fork and was not paid, nor bribed by Black Mountain Cycles, Mike Varley, or any other party to write this review. I strive to give my honest opinions through out. Guitar Ted

14 comments:
Great write up, Old Man. How much is the frame/fork, and does it come in other colors?
@MICHAEL: $595.00 which includes all the little frame bits like seat clamp, barrel adjusters, drop out screws, and water bottle boss bolts.
@GT: thanks for the info. How did you decide on the drivetrain setup? I ride a 2009 Fargo stock XT build, and would not think a 34T on the the low end like you ride would be low enough for the hills I encounter in S. Minnesota, much less the hills of S. Iowa. In fact, I was considering installing a 'standard' mountain triple (44/32/22) as sometimes my 26T isnt low enough when off-road.
@MICHAEL: Well, to be honest, I generally would not have used a 11-34T cassette in Iowa on this bike, (nor for southern Minnesota), but this bike was to be my Dirty Kanza 200 rig. (Unfortunately, plans fell through for me to attend the event). I subsequently left the gearing on it anyway.
The reasoning I used goes back to my loaded touring days, when we used that old saw that at the least, you should have one gear that is 1 to 1 ratio. (24 X 24, as an example)
So, with a 34T low gear, I have one combination that is 1 to 1, the 34 front X 34T rear. I think I used that combo twice last weekend during my 100 mile Guitar Ted Death Ride Invitational. I will say it was due to my condition more than that I needed it for the hills I used it on.
I can't imagine needing anything lower, by the way. Not for gravel roads, not with this bike, at any rate.
Mark, nice review. Do you know exactly what steel tubing is used in the frame? I do not see anything on BMC's site that gives any indication. As you know, the simple term "steel" can cover a wide range of alloys, from no-name 4130 all the way up to high end stuff from Reynolds or Columbus.
@Exhausted_Auk: Says here from the second paragraph on the frame page from Black Mountain Cycles site; "The frames are crafted from custom drawn and butted chrome-moly steel tubing."
So, I would assume 4130 alloy, since it is the most commonly used form for bicycle tubing, and has the most choices for butting schedules than anything else.
It's good, decent tubing, and as I say in the review, the result is a frame that rides a bit on the stiffer side.
Nice ride - I wonder how long till he decides to go with 135 spacing and includes disc tabs. Random question, but still on the topic of gravel bikes - do you see many carbon cx bikes being used as a gravel grinder?
@RacerX.29: Yeah, there are a few. I suspect that number will climb somewhat, but that also depends upon the design of the bike- whether truly bigger tires will fit, water bottle cages, or not, and some other finer details.
I suspect that due to the costs of these rigs, most folks won't subject them to the rigorous and detrimental effects of gravel. I could be wrong about that, but that is my opinion now on the matter.
Thanks G-T for the review. I have had a few folks get the frames who wanted to run existing 135 hubs. I personally use an old XTR M900 hub that was respaced years ago to 130mm for another cross bike. The steel is 4130 and is produced by Founderland in Taiwan. It's good stuff. Disc brakes? Maybe in the future. My personal taste is still rim brakes for a cross bike. And I use my cross bike as my mountain bike. Have only ridden a mountain bike a couple times in the past year or so.
Mike
As a fan of affordable steel bikes I've owned both a modern Masi Commuter and CX. All though they were great bikes to ride, with proper parts selection they seem to ride above their price point, I always wished that I could combine features of both bikes into one. The beefy tubeset, canti brake mounts and ample tire clearance of the CX. The dropouts that allow either SS or geared set ups, long chainstays, 132.5 mm rear spacing, I want to be able to use mountain bike hubs, of the Commuter.
Here it is in the BMC Monster Cross, designed by the same guy that designed the Masi bikes that turned me on to the ride quality of modern steel bikes in the first place, too cool. I'm the proud owner of #13.
Thanks for the review. My 26 inch oldschool rigid mtb/ frankenbike has recently snapped (top tube). I am trying to decide between a Monstercross type bike and a singular gryphon to replace it. I currently have a 26er MTB, and a soma doublecross with 32mm tires for the michigan roads, which are, at best, poor. There are plenty of gravel roads around here, but they are not well maintained and the soma feels generally a bit light weight with the current tires. Do you have any advice between the 2 choices above. I probably will do little or no singletrack/trail riding on the new bike. Another option is to get a second set of wheels for the soma.
@Andy/D: I would make my decision based upon how big a tire I thought I needed and still have mud clearances. If you need a 2.0-2.1"er, then get the Gryphon, (you can always run skinnier tires too), if you'll never need tires that big, stick with what you have got.
GT,
Sorry for addressing such an old post.
How was the fit? Did you find it true to size? Did you opt to size down to run dirt drops? looks like you got the 56cm? is that about what you run for road?
Thanks,
BR
@Brian Rand: I have 59cm frame and I do feel it fits true to size. It really works in a traditional road sizing scheme, so no need to "size down" for drops, as it is a drop bar specific design to begin with.
Post a Comment