New posts

the biggest mistake in mountain biking....

July 6, 2015, 9:48 p.m.
Posts: 625
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

cool article with many different perspectives on that question. i found this part from one answer particularly to my liking.

"If you don't want to skin your knee, get lost, get hypothermia or bonk from time to time, you never want to risk wearing a cast for a few weeks, and you want your trails smoothly groomed, straight with good sight lines, well-marked and not too fast or pointed downhill, maybe you should take up jogging or spin class instead of mountain biking.

And yet these are exactly the sort of marginal consumers that bicycle manufacturers, trail builders, and bike parks are drooling for the chance to ''bring into the sport.'' I have no problem with more people riding bikes, and I don't even have a problem with growing the sport. But the idea of lowering the bar or dumbing down mountain biking to make it more appealing to marginal consumers who could just as soon be in Zumba class? It's insulting, it's offensive, and it's counter-productive."

I'm not a human in real life, I just play one on the internet. 

July 6, 2015, 10:14 p.m.
Posts: 625
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

shit, forgot to link the article.

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/1-question-the-biggest-mistake-thats-been-made-in-mountain-biking.html

I'm not a human in real life, I just play one on the internet. 

July 7, 2015, 3:18 p.m.
Posts: 8256
Joined: Nov. 21, 2002

spot on imo

WTB Frequency i23 rim, 650b NEW - $40

July 7, 2015, 4:28 p.m.
Posts: 49
Joined: May 11, 2014

but… money!

July 7, 2015, 5:20 p.m.
Posts: 131
Joined: May 13, 2014

spot on imo

Ditto. I wonder how fast armour would come back in style if a few scraped the skin off their knees and found out what psychogenic shock is. Hey, I would name the startup Roach, because, you know.

July 7, 2015, 5:30 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: May 31, 2008

Ditto. I wonder how fast armour would come back in style if a few scraped the skin off their knees and found out what psychogenic shock is. Hey, I would name the startup Roach, because, you know.

Local dentists must love the decline in full face helmet use lol :nerd: chaching

July 7, 2015, 7:18 p.m.
Posts: 583
Joined: Sept. 13, 2006

You really feel that this is the biggest mistake in mountain biking, making sure there is riding available at all levels?

I understand the concern that a lot of people have in regards to smoothing out tech trails and I would be concerned if every trail was going that way. I think we do need more entry level stuff, AS WELL as more advanced stuff. A variety of tech, flow, greens, blues, blacks and double blacks wins in my book, rather than "harden up or move along" approach which would dramatically reduce land managers willingness to work with MTB. This does limit the land access as well as options for parts, bikes and services available and the price point they would be available at.

The sport is just gaining traction with land managers/owners and they need to ensure there is riding available for everyone. Once we have some boxes ticked, there will be more advanced trails developed in a lot of these areas, this is all pretty new to be a legit sport in many areas.

I think the division of the disciplines has caused us to all work independently, rather than as a whole, has been our sports biggest mistake. It ties into things like XC racing going Olympics which affects coaching programs, funding for athletes and events getting discipline specific, rather than discipline inclusive and celebrating all of them at events and festivals and with funding and grants.

Great piece by PB though and thanks for bringing discussion over here, it is a good one.

DB@EB

Lessons, Rentals & Tours - since 2004

www.endlessbiking.com

Facebook Fan Page

Follow us on Twitter

July 7, 2015, 8:30 p.m.
Posts: 616
Joined: Jan. 4, 2006

Hmmm, here I was thinking it would have something to do with derailleur design.

July 7, 2015, 8:40 p.m.
Posts: 955
Joined: Oct. 23, 2006

I have mixed opinions about the way things are going. I found myself agreeing very easily with Charlie's comments. But on the other hand, it's nice for people who aren't into risking themselves to get out on the trails too.

I've lived in places where MTB was very marginalized due to the fact that there were so few participants that they had no leverage. Trails were closed and nothing was legal. Getting large amounts of people into the sport has changed that, and there is support for legal trails in many places where there previously not.

However, I find it frustrating and insulting when beginner trails get all the funding, and expert level trails are closed, or not approved to be built in the first place, even if there are volunteers wanting to build them. Without the expert riders of today who've been riding, building and spending many thousands of dollars over the last 20 or more years, there would not be a sport called MTB. It seems like a total lack of respect when many multiples of thousands of dollars are spent on trails that aren't even remotely fitting the description of what MTB is to many of the expert riders, while at the same time the trails that these riders want are not approved, shut down, or machined flat.

Using the 'sustainable' label really gets me wound up as well, especially since it's other MTB riders who've perpetuated this misnomer and other user groups and authorities have latched onto it and used it against us. There's nothing about MTBs that is sustainable. How many 10 year old MTBs are still in use today? How many are in landfill? How many tires, brake pads, grips, saddles, gallons of shock oil, cracked frames, shit forks etc etc are in landfill? Helmets, shoes, jerseys, shorts… How about gas for road trips, shuttles, getting to the local trails. How about flights to Whistler from Australia? Energy to run the lifts, and the digging machines?

The one single that about MTB that could possibly called sustainable is our trails. And if you really want to get into details, the ones that the forest can take back the fastest would by definition be the most sustainable. This does not include trails that are stripped down to mineral with every last sign of plant life extracted from it at a width of 1.5m.

To call a steep and rooty singletrack unsustainable shows a complete lack of understanding of what that even means. Calling it high maintenance would be accurate. Or call it highly technical, and not liked by less skilled riders after the rain has had its way would also be accurate.

Here's a hypothetical experiment to determine which type of trails are worse for the environment…
Build a Half Nelson trail and a 19th hole trail side by side. Let riders have at 'er for 2 years and then close the trail. Then build one more of each 2 meters to the outside. Keep doing this for 50 years. You'd have a 40m wide clear cut from 25 HN style trails that removed all vegetation that is partially starting to regrow small trees. On the other side you'd maybe see evidence of the last 10 years worth of 19th style trails, with only the last 2 being very visible and virtually all the large trees intact and many seriously large ones.

Sustainable doesn't mean low maintenance. It doesn't mean creating a massive scar on the terrain, killing all plant life and insects. It means something being able to recover as fast as it is consumed so it doesn't upset the balance.

Since that whole notion is simply a bullshit excuse, there's no reason to build machine built trails over steep, soon to be rutted singletrack other than 'preference'. Unless of course you really wanted to kill a bunch of trees and all the other stuff, in which case you'd use a machine.

So fuck all those people who think that their new definition of MTB deserves all the cash and efforts from the local clubs, or worse, deserves to be machined right over top of what is already in place, while they shut down our efforts to build more of what we want in the name of the sustainability. Especially if they just showed up with their fancy new eco-terrorizing carbon bits, that I spent many thousands of dollars contributing to R[HTML_REMOVED]D over the last 2 decades while they were out road biking.

Even if the trails that experts generally couldn't care less about get all the cash, the least the other camp can do is let us continue to build what we want for free (and leave our existing trails free from machine influence), especially since we are the more environmentally sustainable of the bunch. To coin a phrase I hear a bit lately; "if you don't like it, don't ride it."

July 7, 2015, 9:01 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: June 6, 2012

Even if the trails that experts generally couldn't care less about get all the cash, the least the other camp can do is let us continue to build what we want for free (and leave our existing trails free from machine influence), especially since we are the more environmentally sustainable of the bunch. To coin a phrase I hear a bit lately; "if you don't like it, don't ride it."

This is happening in North Van too but the masses want the gold trails (that are ironically falling apart in dust now) and the masses will get what they want. Meanwhile anyone who builds outside the NSMBA Watchmen junta are derisively referred to as "Rogues" building unsanctioned and the NSMBA has no problem punching climbing trails through what were useable old trails. But hey, those were just unsanctioned loamers so who cares right?

But oh yeah go to Townhalls or talk to the directors and all will be well - right right?

Lee Lau

July 7, 2015, 9:51 p.m.
Posts: 8
Joined: Aug. 20, 2010

Kram for Mayor!

July 7, 2015, 10:55 p.m.
Posts: 3
Joined: Sept. 27, 2005

You really feel that this is the biggest mistake in mountain biking, making sure there is riding available at all levels?

I understand the concern that a lot of people have in regards to smoothing out tech trails and I would be concerned if every trail was going that way. I think we do need more entry level stuff, AS WELL as more advanced stuff. A variety of tech, flow, greens, blues, blacks and double blacks wins in my book, rather than "harden up or move along" approach which would dramatically reduce land managers willingness to work with MTB. This does limit the land access as well as options for parts, bikes and services available and the price point they would be available at.

The sport is just gaining traction with land managers/owners and they need to ensure there is riding available for everyone. Once we have some boxes ticked, there will be more advanced trails developed in a lot of these areas, this is all pretty new to be a legit sport in many areas.

I think the division of the disciplines has caused us to all work independently, rather than as a whole, has been our sports biggest mistake. It ties into things like XC racing going Olympics which affects coaching programs, funding for athletes and events getting discipline specific, rather than discipline inclusive and celebrating all of them at events and festivals and with funding and grants.

Great piece by PB though and thanks for bringing discussion over here, it is a good one.

DB@EB

says the guy who's poised to make $$$ cha-ching off the masses of ZUmba MTBers…..just sayin'.

I'm ignoring Smedley.

July 7, 2015, 11 p.m.
Posts: 1215
Joined: Dec. 3, 2003

Not enough standards.

July 7, 2015, 11:11 p.m.
Posts: 583
Joined: Sept. 13, 2006

says the guy who's poised to make $$$ cha-ching off the masses of ZUmba MTBers…..just sayin'.

We would actually fair better if it were tech and more riders would need help. The smooth flowy stuff gets people out there on their own.

I've always felt that way.

Just sayin'….

DB@EB

Lessons, Rentals & Tours - since 2004

www.endlessbiking.com

Facebook Fan Page

Follow us on Twitter

July 8, 2015, 11:54 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: March 8, 2015

Don't we have enough land out here to have fast aggressive trails, smooth flowy trails, groomed XC beginner trails, jump lines etc etc? Where's the harm in it if they aren't "pacifying" existing trails?

Forum jump: