Is the technology of our bikes responsible for an increase of injuries?

Why don't you just put my name in there too?

you're not new, you're old

i wonder if the mtb schools like endless advocate newer riders learning on smaller bikes before going to a big bike?

Absolutely!

loved that quote i heard / read recently (can't remember where..maybe on nsmb forum)

"2 types of mountain biker….those who have crashed, and those waiting to crash"

I call bs. What mountain biker has never crashed. I crash pretty much everytime I get on my bike.

I call bs. What mountain biker has never crashed. I crash pretty much everytime I get on my bike

i think what the guy who made this comment I quoted meant is that as mountain bikers we have just had a crash today or yesterday, or are waiting for the next crash!

in other words…its gonna happen today or in the near future

was thinking about this last night….

…..something the technology has done is "insulate" the rider better from "trail feedback"

if you look at the original mountain bikes with full rigid frame and forks, and thin, narrow tires, you got a huge amount of "trail feedback" from the roughness of the trail, which provided you with lots of information about what was going on under your wheels, and tended to make you ride more cautiously, or slow down to stay in control

if you ride that same trail on a modern bike with full suspension and bigger, softer compound tires, there is alot less "feedback" as the bike "insulates" you

you get less information about what is going on under your wheels, which means you tend to ride faster as you are not getting the same warning signals about the terrain

you go faster, the faster you go, the more serious the crashes tend to be

Maybe it's growing popularity of the sport? The more and more kids [HTML_REMOVED] youths are getting into MTB, sometimes mainly because it's an "extreme sport". And they want to be extreme, hardcore etc.

Think about old times (say, pre-freeride era), when MTB moslty meant going biking in the woods and mountains. You had to suffer going up and had to suffer going down on rooty, rocky - and usually hiking - trail. You had lungs and legs burning from exauhsting uphills, sore hands from going down on rigid bike. That was not appealing to those adrenaline-looking hardcore-kids from the 'hood.

Things has changed in freeride era. MTB has become more popular sport. More popular = more people riding = less skills, more technology.

Maybe that's why we think technology somehow became responsible for more injuries?

correlation does not equal causation

i.e. The higher the number of ice cream bars sales, the higher the number of drownings. Therefore, ice cream bars are drowning people.

Or, when it's really hot, more people buy ice cream bars, more people go to the beach. If 1 out of 1500 people drown swimming (stat is made up), then if you increase the number of people swimming, you increase the number of drownings.

Assume that 1 out of 1000 mtb riders riding downhill, freeride trails gets a bad injury. Now increase the number of mtb riders who ride downhill or freeride trails dramatically. Also increase the difficulty of the trails and the number of easily accessible trails. Now promote the heck out of it to ensure more and more people "freeride".
What do you expect to see as a result of more riders taking up the sport? If you expected 1 for every 1000, well now there's 10,000. Expect 10.
I think that the bike tech vs rider ability argument does have some influence, but it cannot account for the numbers.

It's more the homogenization of the trails than the technology, although they are inter-related, as are the speed and popularity factors.

The sport HAS gotten more popular, and that is a result of hte technoology making it more approachable. But with the increase in popularity, you get more people on trails that were'nt made for that level of riding. So then you pave the trails, and make em wider, and what they hell, toss in a couple of jumps.

Now you can go WAY faster, and you really don't have to spend much time learning the skills to get there.

I see way more gross injuries on easy trails like Builders Only or A-Line, but almost nothing but scrapes on stuff like CBC and Boogieman. Yet people fall way more on the Shore than anywhere else. It's simple. You fall off 30 times at 5km/h you walk away. You fall ONCE at 35km/h and you get carted away.

just like all the ads you read about driving safety, SPEED KILLS (or in the case leads to injuries).

It's more the homogenization of the trails than the technology, although they are inter-related, as are the speed and popularity factors.

The sport HAS gotten more popular, and that is a result of hte technoology making it more approachable. But with the increase in popularity, you get more people on trails that were'nt made for that level of riding. So then you pave the trails, and make em wider, and what they hell, toss in a couple of jumps.

Now you can go WAY faster, and you really don't have to spend much time learning the skills to get there.

I see way more gross injuries on easy trails like Builders Only or A-Line, but almost nothing but scrapes on stuff like CBC and Boogieman. Yet people fall way more on the Shore than anywhere else. It's simple. You fall off 30 times at 5km/h you walk away. You fall ONCE at 35km/h and you get carted away.

Smoke knows. He speaks the truth, again.

+1

DB@EB

…..something the technology has done is "insulate" the rider better from "trail feedback"

consider the rider as a control computer.
trail feed back is the input. computer (rider) processes the info, and the reaction (ride) is the output.

in control theory, if you have lots of rapidly fluctuating inputs, you have more work to do to process the data and give the output. processing takes time. in the rider analogy, a good experienced rider is a fast processor with a good program, an inexperienced rider would be a slow processor, not-so-good control program.

so more trail feedback (input) with a good rider (fast controller), and you can ride some stuff (output).
less trail feedback, poor rider, you can ride some stuff.
more trail feedback, poor rider, you eat dirt.
less trail feeback, good rider, you can go really really fast. or do slopestyle. etc.

at the end of the day though, the processor will always handle the amount of data is is designed to handle. you will always ride to what ever limit you choose. a rider who tends to push limits and bail lots will always bail lots, equipment regardless. conservative riders won't, big bike or not. the magnitude of the bail is a function of speed, environment and crash-skillz.

note: beginners might not know their limits, but a few rides/crashes in, they will in a hurry and determine their comfort level.

It's simple. You fall off 30 times at 5km/h you walk away. You fall ONCE at 35km/h and you get carted away.

Yep. My walking cast will confirm that!

at the end of the day though, the processor will always handle the amount of data is is designed to handle.

However, the brain is not like a CPU.

Go ride a sportbike at 160km/h on the coquihala for 20 minutes or so. It feels pretty fast, the air punching you in the face, the chinstrap of your helmet lashing you in the neck. No go ride at 250km/h for awhile until you get tired.

Slow down to 160km/h again and guess what, it feels like you're doing schoolzone speeds. Your brain will adapt very quickly to the conditions. Reaction times and also the ability to asses a situation will increase and decrease depending on what the brain is subjected to. Push yourself to become a safer rider. Those who don't get injured while improving skill are the ones who can balance the fine line between pushing yourself to improve while not overstepping your boundaries.

IMO driving a car or motorbike is not really like riding a bike on a really technical trail at speed, so the two don't make a good comparison.

on a technical trail you may need to interpret trail features like roots, rocks, and drops that are spaced less than a foot apart. on a road like the coke the features (corners, other cars) are spaced a little further apart.

driving a car or motorbike at the limit, is usually the edge of tire traction and how far/hard you want to push your to the edge or your tires' grip.

whereas, on the shore you're normally limited by how fast you can process the trail and work the bike through the terrain. this means both brain processing (seeing the lines) and muscle memory are used. yes tire traction can matter, but not so much on a trail like CBC or Neds for the average rider (their tire grip is not what keeps them from riding faster)