oldmanbuilder profile

Posted by: D-man

So you know for a fact all ebikers are noobs and haven't put shovels in the ground? That's Just like hikers saying all bikers tear up the sacred forests. 

With attitudes like yours new people will not come forward to help because they risk being ridiculed for riding an ebike. 

Trail associations need to welcome ebikes and their riders to help inform them on etiquette etc.

experienced people riding e-bikes  will be a drop in the bucket when the flood of new riders comes.  we're talking hundreds to thousands of new riders.  how are a few old-school people going to influence that? 

trail associations do not need to welcome e-bikes.  still waiting for the e-bikers to start their own associations.  oh wait, they just want to ride on the backs of the people who got us this far, without actually putting any work in.

my attitude is based upon years in the sport, and years of digging on the trails.  i don't really care how it's perceived.

Posted by: Spandies
 Additionally, there seems to also be the argument that these ebikes will somehow open up the floodgates to inexperienced riders getting in over their heads. Think about this for a second - do you really think that the demographic who can afford a $6k+ e-assist mtb would really want to try to mangle themselves on the beloved shore trails we love?

thanks for confirming.  the shore as we know it will just get progressively dumbed down.  the NSMBA will either choose to follow the herd or will be told to support the herd by the land managers.

in current context of no new trails, dumbing down just means losing more of the classics and getting them turned into pablum.

how dare those self-righteous trail orgs be against e-bikes!  give your head a shake and turn this around.  if e-bikers want to be represented it's time for them to form new organizations.  oh wait, right, they just want to ride on the backs of others.  the industry is great at making ads and paying riders to promote e-bikes, but actually putting any effort into advocacy?  not so much.  it's a joke.

unfortunately however, we're fucked.  in the long-run e-bikes mean more people, more parking issues, more conflict, and 100% without a doubt, more trails becoming side walks.  the trend in flow trails is only getting started and what do you think a massive influx of people will do?  anyone who likes riding techy trails should really think about the long-run impacts of the flood of riders that e-bikes will inevitably bring.  if the people who want serious tech trails on the north shore is say 25-50% today, just wait until it's <10%.  who do you think trails orgs are going to cater to?  and no knock on them, they have to follow the numbers and the where the funding is.

Posted by: Henry-Chinaski

Posted by: cerealkilla_

We need a sober and evidence-based discussion of these issues, with direct participation from those that want ebikes on the trails....not just more internet speculation, squabbling, and marketing excuses....and no more of this silence from the profiteers. Until that happens, it is reasonable to expect continued reluctance to embrace ebikes within the riding community. I think we've reached a point where the majority of riders really don't care or judge what other people ride. It's more that what we have achieved as a sport in terms of trails and trails access is extremely precious, and we should be extremely cautious (and responsible) about how we integrate new technology into the mix. And no, ebikes are not like disc brakes and suspension in the 90s, not like DH bikes, not like paddle boards in the breaks, and not like snowboards on the hills. They involve the addition of energy via a motor that increases power and speed. This is a unique direction change in technology, and it deserves a thoughtful analysis.

This is super concise.  Does anyone not agree with this?  Not having this conversation while marketing the hell out of e-bikes and waiting to see if they are a fad, is a bewildering approach.

yup, great post by ceralkilla.

too bad the people pushing these things aren't going to take these points into consideration.

it's obvious this is coming and the sport will change hugely.

if anyone thinks the changes will all be for the good they are probably delusional. this is directed at the e-bike proponents who don't want to even acknowledge there could be downsides.

in 10-20 years when the sport has increased in size 5-10x and the trails are flooded with people, we'll look back on the pre- e-bike days fondly. how would fromme and seymour do with even a doubling in ridership? parking is already at capacity.

at some point the bike tech, and continued erosion of trail technicality, is going to make this sport so mainstream that we'll long for the old days when the trails were hard, the bikes were shitty, and you actually had to propel yourself uphill.

ultimately as a trail builder, i will move to greener pastures or give up entirely and move on to other sports, if the flood of entitled and ignorant e-bike riders is as bad as i fear it could be. interest in working on trails for e-bike newbs is around zero.

having spent 4 months on a 170/160 mm 29er (yes, the Firebird 29), all over BC and WA state, I can agree that this is a ton of travel on a 29er. do i need that much travel on every ride? definitely not. some days on smoother/mellow trails i do wish for a smaller bike at times.

do i really appreciate the travel when riding Cypress old school gnar, or other off-the-grid gnar zones? absolutely.

do i go faster on this bike than i ever have before, including faster than on my last DH bike? absolutely.

these new long travel 29ers are the bees knees for pedalling up and smashing gnarly descents at speeds that would have been unheard of 10 years ago.

as a single bike i'm not sure they make a ton of sense unless you either really prioritize descending or just ride a lot of gnar.

so this is a long winded way of saying i'm sure that a 130-140 mm 29er is a better option for a lot of people who either don't ride gnar or don't have a lot of those trails nearby!

Posted by: JBV

Pivot had a huge demo here on the weekend, i rode the Firebird 29 (xl) for an hour. it was a very nice bike and stiff as hell. for tight and twisty mid speed trails, (most trails here) it wouldn't be my jam. my Patrol is a better trail bike. i wonder if i just prefer 29ers in a shorter travel package. FB felt very much like a monster truck for big mtn racing. 

the FB29 definitely likes a steady diet of gnar, if you were riding pretty smooth trails it's a lot of bike.  the upside is the penalty for riding the bike is pretty small and you have the travel if/when you need it.  the chainstays are short and you can flip the chip to go steeper HA if you want.  i don't find any issues getting it round tight corners, no more so than other 29ers, at least.

So this is a mini-bullshit review of the Firebird 29. Demoed one in Whistler on Dark Crystal. Purchased one from Obsession the next day. Have spent time on enough other 29ers to make some comparisons and really don't think too many bikes can match the pedaling ability, geometry, stiffness and playfullness of this bike. Standing pedaling it's as good of better than other bikes I've ever ridden, and certainly doesn't feel like a 160 mm bike.  Clearly it is very capable on the downs as a 170/160 mm 29er.

The build kits do seem a bit odd at first glance but it does seem a lot of thought has been put into them, and they work well.

This thing seriously kills it. Anyone looking for a long-travel 29er would do well to consider it.