Well at the risk of being flamed some more, we have different ideas of back country. There is off road and then there is back country. Until the cycle group got on this newsgroup it was primarily devoted to discussion of wildeness trips, tents, stoves, other gear, avoiding bears, etc. The only mechanical or motorized discussions involed the use of motors on boats in some northern lakes. Now I have not seen a bike in the mid sierra for many years. I have seen some in the Tahoe area but most backcountry as discussed here is off limits to cycles.
I am not anti cycling, I ride 75-120 mi. a week when not hiking. I am just saying that this newsgroup was more concerned with wilderness travel and hiking, some canoing but no mechanized travel until Vandeman cross posted here. Cross posting is rude anyway. Now a third of this group has vandeman and all the flaming that goes on clogging it up. So, maybe you can explain to me just what you call backcountry. Do you mean ‘off-trail’? If so, that’s just not true. Mostly, the terrain is not ‘bikable’ off-trail. If ‘off-road’ means off bigger trails with a solid underground (gravel, asphalt), I don’t understand the point: Why don’t you accuse those building these roads?
They did the real damage. because that is just the nature of the sport, just as ALL bulldozer racers damage the land and its inhabitants. There is no such thing as “responsible mountain biking” (except relatively speaking), just as there is no such thing as “responsible bulldozer racing” or “responsible atomic warfare”. The pure human existance is irresponsible, isn’t it? Recall, that your house was build on ground which once has been perfect backcountry. You could also live in a large skyscraper or even better underground structure, this would consume less valuable terrain. Seriously, where would you draw the line dividing ‘good’ and ‘evil’? Have you thought about the neither good nor evil, which makes up the biggest part? Obviously, I am exaggerating in order to make the point perfectly clear. Yes:
You are good, mountain bikers are evil, by principle. (should I better say ‘postulate’?) It also makes sense to generalize, when the description fits the vast majority of the group. I assume that not all mountain bikers are liars, but I haven’t met any yet, either in person or on the Internet. Either, you are very very lonely, or, you are talking absolutely big shit rubbish. So I am still asking “why do mountain bikers feel it necessary to lie, to make their case?” If I were doing statistics, this would be both scientific and justifiable, like the generalization “Americans speak english”. Why do some self-announced ‘experts for nature’ feel that they are the better humans, more intelligent, more ethical, more responsible? I know a Professor of Biology who ripped out a very rare flower on an excursion he was making with students. When the students protested he just answered: ‘I am the expert, I need it for my scientific studies – shut up you ignorant students.’ Now, who is more intelligent, more ethical, more responsible? This subject does seem to have the same universal lack of science and excess of emotion as I have experienced over the last few years in the New Forest. In the New Forest cyclists had unlimited access up until cars were banned in the 70′s which then automatically banned cycles.
If you are looking for a frame style that is quite active when seated, and works like a hardtail when standing (meaning that you can hammer away at climbs without all the bobbing) then this is a way to go. The basic idea with URT’s is to have a frame that can have a plush ride when you are seated and a stiff ride when you are standing or pedalling. This basically equates to something that sprints and climbs well. But, hey, maybe you don’t care to accelerate up a hill…
We have just lauched a new website for buying mountain bikes and other gear in large buying groups – the idea being that a large group can create buying leverage and attain volume-discounts that would be unattainable by any one individual. This is a unique site unlike any other on the web. Signing up for a buying group is free and you are under no obligation to buy anything whatsoever. We get quotes for the buying group from vendors (based on buying interest) and then you get to assess the best offer available anywhere.
When my wife decided she wanted a new bicycle, we both marketed her heavily as to why our preferences were right for her. But what she did was to ride a number of bikes from the LBSs. She ended up selecting a Trek 730, because the geometry, position and ride felt best to her. Maybe she will “outgrow” the hybrid someday and adopt either a road or MTB, or maybe she will continue to like the 730 as much as she does now. But even though they aren’t for me (or my son), I’m convinced that hybrids do fill a legitimate need and are not just a marketing gimmick.
As a former Century rider and owner of a 1972 Italvega I will jump into this group and offer a suggestion toward MOuntain Bikers. I currently do quite a bit of horseback riding in Lake, Mendocino and Sonoma counties. Quite often, as is the case in Annadel State Park in Santa Rosa, horses and Mountain bikes share the same roads and trails. I ask all of you Mountain Bike riders, when approaching a horse or group of horses, PLEASE attempt to slow down (without spinning the freewheel) This can be done by braking then pedaling slowly. Some horses will just freak out at the sound of a freewheel, and can bolt with the rider.
This is a great point. NEWSFLSH MIKE V – even as human beings with our advanced tools (mountain bikes) we still fit within what is “natural”. Refining oil down to gasoline and burning it is “natural” in the sense that we as humans have .evolved to master this ability. If we take the planet down with us, it all fits within what is “natural”. Then you have just destroyed whatever usefulness the word “natural” had. Actually, it is a very useful word, because what makes something unnatural is its newness. For example, a chain saw is unnatural because trees haven’t had enough experience with it to develop defenses. Maybe after millions of years, self-spiking trees would evolve.