Motobecane Fantom Cross Trail Bike Review

Despite the hype, a bicycle is just a bundle of components. If the bundle is well-chosen, the bike will be great. If not, no need to despair. Every component can be replaced and in time almost all of them will be.

My newest bike is the 2017 Motobecane Fantom Cross Trail, which costs $599. At that price I did not expect the lightest cross bike, nor did I expect top-of-the-line components. What I was hoping for was a lovely bike capable of handling good gravel roads as well as having decent speed on smooth pavement. Here is a review of the various components on the bike and then my overall assessment.

The Frame: Reviewers often seem to see the frame as the defining component of a bicycle. In the past I’ve resisted that notion, but I have to admit that I am pleased with the Fantom Cross Trail frame. I like the traditional look and geometry. Many competing bikes have a sloping top tube so that only three frame sizes can fit a large variety of riders. The Cross Trail comes in six different frame sizes, and perhaps that leads to slightly better performance. I’m 6’2” tall and the 61 cm frame was easy for me to set up to match my crucial measurements on my road bikes (a Motobecane Le Champion SL and a Nashbar CR4). But there are significant differences in frame geometry. The Fantom Cross is not trying to save weight so it can have a more relaxed head tube angle with a longer wheelbase and a bit more metal in the double diamond. This means that the bike descends more stably and can be ridden “no-hands” more easily. It feels stable and secure in situations where my race bikes feel twitchy and high-strung. I like it! It’s a nice plus that the frame can be fitted with fenders and racks for touring.

The Fork: I’m sure the carbon fork also has some impact on how the bike handles. But I’m not able to differentiate one fork from another. This one looks sturdy (appropriate for a trail bike) and not as aero as the one on my Motobecane race bike.

The Crankset and Cassette: The bike is specced with a triple (50-39-30) combined with an 8-speed (11-32) cassette. One’s first thought is that this is low-end compared to more expensive bikes that come with a double (often 46-36) and an 11-speed cassette (11-32). I think the “low-end” specifications are better. The Cross Trail has three chainrings and eight cassette cogsets -- a total of eleven metal disks. A pro-level cross bike typically has two chainrings coupled with eleven cogsets -- thirteen metal disks. So the pro bike has more complexity and potentially more weight. Yet it has a smaller range of gearing. My Fantom ranges from 50-11 for flat pavement to 30-32 for steep gravel climbs. The pro bike can only attain 46-11 and 36-32; thus, it has neither the top-end speed nor the low-end power. And, frankly, I want my cross bike to be speedy on pavement and still allow seated climbs on steep gravel. I love to climb out of the saddle on my race bikes, but if I try that on gravel, my rear wheel will slip and spin-out. I need to stay seated to keep enough weight on the rear wheel.

Derailleurs and Shifters: The Phantom Cross has a mix of Shimano Claris and Sora components. These are “entry-level” components, but they work as well as the Ultegra components on my race bikes. A more expensive groupset would cut at least a pound from the bike’s total weight, but this is an all-terrain machine and definitely not a race bike. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the visual gear indicators on top of the hoods -- a useful little touch.

Wheelset: The tubeless-ready WTB i19 wheelset is one of the better components on the bike. The wheels are reputed to be strong, light, and durable.

Tires: Continental Cyclocross Race Wire, 700x35C 84TPI x 3-Ply. These are great tires for my purposes. Despite the relatively narrow width, they seem secure on good gravel. Despite the off-road tread pattern, they roll smoothly on pavement. With my weight (about 150) I can keep the tire pressure low (35-40 lbs). That increases the contact patch and softens the ride on gravel, but it is still firm enough to avoid pinch flats. The forks will hold 40 mm tires easily and perhaps those are a better option for loose gravel or mountain bike trails.

Brakes: This is the first bike I’ve ever had with disk brakes (Tektro Lyra mechanicals). I found them very difficult to set up and get into adjustment. But they work well and now seem to retain adjustment adequately. I guess I’d prefer the simplicity of rim brakes since I’ll never be riding in the wet and muddy conditions where disk brakes are greatly superior. The top-bar brake levers are a nice feature, I prefer a fairly aero position on the hoods and a stretched-out position in the drops, so it's nice to be able to occasionally sit up and still have access to the brakes. These top levers also have convenient brake adjustment knobs.

Seatpost and Saddle: Clearly, these are not lightweight components, but the saddle is comfortable.

Handlebar tape: The bike comes with a fairly thin layer of handlebar tape. I added a cushioning layer (made of old inner tubes) as my very first component upgrade. Cushiony tape is one of the most important comfort features on any bike and is easy to upgrade.

Summary: I’m pleased and very pleasantly surprised. I expected the bike to weigh more than my road bikes and it does. It comes in at 24.5 lbs -- a good 7 lbs more than my road bikes. If I were interested in gravel races, I could quickly cut 3 lbs in weight by replacing the pedals, the seatpost, and the saddle while also switching to tubeless tires. But I’m actually climbing quite well on it as is. The times I’ve registered on my Strava segments are among the fastest 25% for the year. I’m confident that on the flats it can hold its own with a road bike. And when the road slopes down, I have so much more confidence in the bike that I’m almost certainly going faster. So, the Fantom Cross Trail lets me ride right from my door, nearly doubles the miles of surface I can ride in my area, and scarcely impacts my top speeds. What’s not to like? Oh, and it didn't cost much either!

Update -- 6/5/2018: I've now put over 900 miles on the bike and it continues to be a pleasure to ride. I've actually made the bike 3 pounds heavier by changing to heavier "multi-use mountain pedals" (flat one side, clipless the other). I'm also carrying a spare tube and an assortment of tools. So when I'm out for a ride, it should feel like a porky 27.5-pound behemoth. But in all honesty it isn't much different in feel than riding my 17.5-pound race bike. Strava gives me lots of precise data for comparison, and here is the gist of it: during a 1.2-mile climb (4% average), my most recent time on the Fantom was 7:34, while my fastest time-trial on the race bike in the past two years came in at 7:04. Similarly, for a 3-mile segment (with 2% ave grade), the respective times were 15:03 and 13:44. Those differences are significant, indicating that the lighter bike is 7 or 8% faster -- but that's comparing an ordinary ride on the Fantom with a hard time-trial pace on the racing bike. The numbers for a more typical ride on the light bike suggest it could be as little as 1 - 3% faster. That's not much of a sacrifice in speed for a bike that is more secure going downhill and a pleasure to ride on good gravel.

Update -- 6/8/2018: I decided to test the Fantom Cross by doing a time-trial on pavement. My normal TT route is 31.2 miles, but this morning was a bit too warm and humid to make that an option (75 degrees with 85% relative humidity). I cut the TT in half and averaged 16.13 mph over 15.6 miles. That's a pace that would give me a shot at achieving a 16 mph average for the full time trial, and I have always consider that to be a decent achievement. This reinforces my general opinion that, while the Fantom Cross is a little slower than my race bikes, it is still a fast, fun ride!

Update -- 10/31/2018:  It comes as a bit of a surprise to me, but the Fantom Cross Trial has become my main training bike of the past year.  I currently use 35 mm tubeless city/trail tires on the bike to reduce noise on pavement, but that means I must negotiate some patches of loose gravel with care. Still, it is a solid, fast bike to ride on the road. It's a blast going downhill, fast on the flats, and only a bit of an additional struggle on the climbs. I find that training on the heavier bike does give me a little extra strength when I switch to my race bike for faster rides with friends.

Update -- 8/5/2019: I now have over 3600 miles on the bike. The only repair to date has been to the front wheel bearings. Instead of the newer sealed bearings, this bike has steel ball bearings that need occasional grease and adjustment -- a very minor maintenance issue. . . . The disk brakes make it possible to use 26" wheels but I don't think I could get anything more than a 1.75" tire to fit. That's not much more than the 40 mm (1.6") tires I'm now using.

Update -- 5/11/2020: I've put over 4700 miles on the bike and have now made my first major changes.  As you can tell from my review, I was not been a big fan of the Tektro mechanical disk brakes. I find them difficult to adjust, but my last ride on the bike convinced me to replace them entirely. My route took me down a long gravel road and through about 6" of water on my way to Bennett's River. Disk brakes are supposed to shed water well, but my braking was much impaired for the entire 15-mile ride back home. Perhaps there was some contaminant in the creek water, but my brakes could scarcely slow the bike at all . . . and couldn't bring it to a stop even on gradual downhills. That was the final straw. I came home and immediately ordered a set of Tektro Long Arm Caliper Brakes. I use caliper brakes on my road bikes and like them. More to the point, I trust them! They are not great in the rain, but they do work! The new brakes came today. It was a fairly easy job to remove the disk brakes and install the caliper brakes -- though I did need to drill out the holes for the fenders in order to fit the brake bolts. But that worked and so do the new brakes! Big improvement.

Just as disk brakes are an over-hyped new gimmick, so too are tubeless tires. I devoted time and energy into installing a tubeless set-up for my tires. Again, the whole procedure is a finicky pain-in-the-ass. The stars have to align perfectly in the heavens for a tire to seat perfectly and seal completely. Sometimes the rubbery goo bubbles from the rims or spoke holes for weeks. It can even leak sealant through the sidewalls! Sometimes the danged thing never seals. When it does, fine; it's just as good as a tire with an inner tube. For about six months you might be able to trust the tire to self-seal small leaks, but you still have to carry a spare inner tube in case it does not. And if you ever have to use that inner tube, it is the devil's own torment to try to remove the valve that has probably been "glued" in place by the tubeless goo. You'll scrape your fingertips raw and still have to call your wife for a ride home! . . . I've gone back to ordinary inner tubes, but I did temporarily remove the valve cores and add a couple of ounces of tubeless sealant. This gives me flat protection and easy installation -- albeit with a slight weight penalty.