4

Please help me to figurout difference between Mountain Biks & Hybrid Bike

2 Answers 2

9

Both are wide categories, with some overlap. Besides the common attributes to all bikes, what they have in common in a flat handlebar (as opposition to drop handlebars as seen in "road" bikes).

Generally speaking, in the current state of the market, hydrids are more on the road/smooth surfaces side of the spectrum and MTB are meant to handle technical offroad tracks.

I'll start with the extremes:

  • The most "roadish" hybrids use road transmissions and wheels/tires (these are also called fitness bikes), which means narrow slick tires (28mm). The are rather meant to go fast on tarmac. These don't have front suspensions, and the rider has a very "aggressive" position (=the trunk more horizontal), which is better for aerodynamics but worst for visibility. Also, very often, hybrids are meant to be utility bikes and have attachments for accessories such as racks and fenders. Some can also feature internally geared hubs instead of derailleurs (more suited for an utility use: less maintenance, and ability to change gears when stopped/at traffic lights).
  • MTBs have almost always a front suspension, sometimes a rear suspension. They have knobby wide tires (>50mm) and transmission meant to climb steep hills. Very often, with stock tires, they don't perform well on tarmac, due to important friction. They are meant to be ridden in terrain that are rough: steep hills (up and down), rocks, roots, mud,... There are different categories: the extremes being cross country — for fast and smoother tracks, to downhill meant to go down down on mountain on the most extreme tracks, the middle ground is called "trail" or "all mountain")

And where it gets confusing: there are hybrids with front suspension and wider tires with small knobs (40mm), and can be mistaken with MTBs without rear suspension (typically entry level ones or Cross country). These hybrids will remain better on roads/smooth offroad and less capable offroad (=they will be able to handle non-technical offroad segments, but will quickly reach their limit). Even if they look like some MTBs, they still have thinner tires (40mm vs 57mm), and transmissions that are meant to ride faster.

So in summary:

  • hybrids can be designed to be used "optimally" on roads or non-technical offroad trails, and can be more suited to be utility bikes. They have more diversity in the transmissions: from road racing transmission to MTB transmission, and internally geared hub)
  • MTBs are always offroad, with different categories depending on the riding style. Note that they can be on roads, but suboptimally.

Just to give some examples of bikes of the different categories I mentioned. I take Canyon as reference, but it is not an endorsement.

  • Road-focused hybrid: Roadlite (fitness focused), Commuter (utility focused, with rack fenders and internally geared hub)
  • Offroad-focused hybrid: Pathlite
  • Hard tails MTB: Gran Canyon (entry-level), Exceed (Competition)
11
  • Curiously, by these definitions the original repack ATB is therefore a road bike :)
    – Criggie
    Jun 21 at 19:24
  • @Criggie what is the original repack ATB? Note that I wrote 'in the current state of the market'. Loads of current hybrids would have been called MTBs 20y ago for example.
    – Renaud
    Jun 22 at 4:48
  • 1
    this could be a separate question "what was the original MTB?" but to start, mmbhof.org/mtn-bike-hall-of-fame/history/repack-history is the race, and they were riding bikes like encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/… with big motorbike brake levers. One of the local bike shops was commissioned to make a Mountain Bike and came up with the Breezer, something like i0.wp.com/localnewsmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/… definitely a rigid.
    – Criggie
    Jun 22 at 4:56
  • 2
    I wouldn't call the Grand Canynon and Exceed Rigid MTBs. They are Hardtails. And not all MTBs have front suspension. This is what i would call rigid MTB. They still exist. Bombtrack Beyond, Nordest Sardinha, all Stooge bikes and many more.
    – airace3
    Jun 22 at 7:20
  • @airace3 point take, corrected. Just one detail, I tried to be make think simple to understand, I'm aware that manufacturers like to create niches, or play with the boundaries of the niches to diferenciate their products.
    – Renaud
    Jun 22 at 8:09
0

If you go to mountain bike trails (not crushed gravel hiking trails, but actual mountain bike trails), over time:

  • a mountain bike would survive
  • a hybrid bike would not

This is a coarse-grained answer, lots of disclaimers, but it highlights an important aspect of your question. If you have intention of riding on mountain bike trails, a mountain bike is probably a better choice. If, however, your goal is more around "versatility", and (importantly) the only trails you're interested in are crushed gravel trails, then a hybrid could work out fine.

8
  • Welcome to the site - great first answer with good points. May I suggest swapping "real trails" to "hard trails" or similar? This is to avoid any accidental gatekeeping.
    – Criggie
    Jun 22 at 3:11
  • 1
    Thanks for the suggestion. I just changed it to "mountain bike trails".
    – user65533
    Jun 22 at 3:53
  • 1
    I don’t think MTBs are necessarily more robust. Sure, some classes of MTB (e.g. downhill) probably are. But if we consider heavy duty travel bikes to be hybrids as well … on those you are more likely to break your wrists and legs than the bike when riding demanding mountain bike trails.
    – Michael
    Jun 22 at 7:42
  • Thanks for explaining the downvote. To clarify, to someone asking "mountain bike vs. hybrid", you would introduce classes of mountain bikes (why stop with "downhill"? what about trail bikes? enduro? XC? trials bikes, too?), and you would further introduce additional categories like "travel bike" (what does "heavy duty" mean? what other duties are there? what about other categories beyond travel bikes?) .. I struggle to reconcile how jumping into the weeds with new terms, new concepts, etc., is helpful to OP's question. Isn't it more helpful to meet them where they are?
    – user65533
    Jun 22 at 16:38
  • 1
    What are you solving for? For me, I'm attempting to provide useful, basic info to someone (OP) asking a basic, beginner type of question. OP's question has been posed plenty of times, and I've given this same answer plenty of times, and each time they give positive feedback for a basic, general answer. If they want to continue the discussion or dig into details, great let's do it. In contrast, when someone "answers" a beginner by going straight into the weeds, the asker often ends up: a) not getting an answer to their question, and b) they're more confused than before.
    – user65533
    Jun 22 at 18:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.