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…
What the heck Raleigh are you talking about??? My girlfriend bout an M-400 that had all STX-RC and LX V-brakes for 600 bucks that kicked the ass in terms of eq set up for any thing else in it’s range. Raleigh is not a department store bike and I have no clue where you got that idea. Yeah Huffy and Murray suck but don’t try to stick Raleigh in there when you have no clue what you are talking about. And I ride a Fisher so no I am not partial to Raleigh I just have no clue where you are coming from.
Tread is not required for clean wet pavement on a bicycle. According to Jobst Brandt’s calculations you’d have to go much faster than we ride to hydroplane one. However tread helps when riding over wet leaves. And a slick I have with siping grooves handles those better than my completely slick tires – but the completely slick tires are faster. > I think the Continental Town & Country will be good for the mountain bikes but I have no idea what would serve best for the BMX bike.
I’m looking to purchase a mountain bike and would like to know the best deals for under $400 US. Any feedback from owners of bikes in this price range would be of great help. I would also like to know if their are any good web sites devoted to mountain bike reviews. Like Mike said, read mtbr.com with a grain of salt. If everyone says a product is great except one clown who said he was doing drops from the roof of his house and the product broke and after repeatedly trying to get a new part for free, and not getting one, he’d never buy the part again, don’t listen to the guy.
Hybrids are nothing but a poor compromise. They are not as fast or agile as a road bike and not as strong as a mountain bike. Hybrids are nothing but a marketing gimmick. Cyclists should decide what type of riding they will do the most and buy that kind of bike. For fast road riding and road racing, a road bike. For city riding and off-road riding, a mountain bike. A good pair of slick, skinny tires will make any mountain bike a better and stronger machine than a hybrid. It’s a simple decision, really. The marketing machine of the bicycle industry makes it more complicated than it should be.