I think i'm getting bored of MTB.

Majski

Just put a bit of WD40 on them and they won't squeak any more

mintedox

That's mean

lostboysaint

You're in Worthing? So you've got the South Downs on your doorstep. Surrey Hills is an hour away (by car or train), QECP is 40 minutes away, Rogate is 45 minutes away, Kingley Vale is 20-25 minutes away and you're bored?

All of those are reasonably accessible (riding times) from stations if you can't find someone driving there. QECP from Petersfield, Rogate from Liss, Kingley Vale from Chichester.

Mccraque

You live in Worthing and you're bored? Get on Strava for one...

Then - if you're bored of caning your mates -

Stanmer - which you mentioned although personally I am not a huge fan...but is on my doorstep so it gets a hammering.

QECP - as mentioned above

Bedgebury - alright...that's an hours drive or train ride

North downs - Only a short car journey or train from you. Several days of new riding up there alone.

Natural riding from Worthing all the way across the downs...the climbs, descents, from Bramber, Fulking, Devils Dyke, Wolstonbury, Ditchling (try the Beacon downhill bridlepath path and see how you get on). So that covers everything 20 miles east of you.

Bored of mountainbiking.....whatever next.

cooldad

Majski wrote:

Just put a bit of WD40 on them and they won't squeak any more

Also unless you meant to post in crudcatcher, a bit dumb to say. People come here for advice, and believe it or not, this piece of advice has been taken seriously at least once before to my knowledge.

cooldad

Regarding driving/train times - I have a bit of sympathy here. Hard to get places if you're 15. No car and not a lot of money. I find trains extortionate, must be worse if you don't work yet.

cooldad

And I ride with quite a few people who live in London and don't drive - often trains are cancelled on Sundays for maintenence and replaced with buses. PITA.
Tough being young.
Although tougher being old.

Ransaka

MTB noob wrote:

I live in Worthing, West Sussex which is why i originally thought that going to Fort William would be a stupid idea because of the cost.

There's a bunch of young 'uns (16-25 I'd say) that have built some trails and dirt jumps in the corner of Patcham Place in Brighton, they'll wake your need for adrenaline up I'd imagine (the jumps at any rate).

DCR00

mrmonkfinger wrote:

find some new stuff to ride

like some girls (or boys if that's your thing)

MTB noob

Is it illegal to ride on the road without a back brake because i don't need it - the front brake picks the rear wheel up so it becomes useless. Also it removes 250g from my bike and ill be getting lighter handlebars which will be a further 450g off.

70\ʹspenguin

I dont believe there is any requirement to have brakes. Fixies dont have em.

YeehaaMcgee

70\'sPenguin wrote:

I dont believe there is any requirement to have brakes. Fixies dont have em.

Fixies can do without, you slow it down with your legs. Besides, nobody cares about fixie riders. The more of them that get run over, the better.

I think a bike is supposed to have one brake, by law. But I can't remember which one. Maybe either?

supersonic

You must have two functioning brakes - the rear can be a fixie.

If you don't need the back brake on an MTB you ain't riding it right.

ilovedirt

cooldad wrote:

And I ride with quite a few people who live in London and don't drive - often trains are cancelled on Sundays for maintenence and replaced with buses. PITA.
Tough being young.
Although tougher being old.

I always struggled finding things to ride back home in nottingham. Didn't know anyone that rode, the terrain was pretty flat, and I don't drive. It's a different story now I'm at university in Bangor. Good trails are ridable from my doorstep, and there's plenty of them. Not to mention the mountain biking club, which has meant I now know people to ride with, where the trails are, and some of them drive as well. Being young is tough for riding. Not much money to spend on it, and hard to get to anywhere good if you're not in a particularly hilly place. As such, I've been riding bikes for ages, but really only gotten properly into it and up to a decent level of riding within the last couple of years.

70\ʹspenguin

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

70\'sPenguin wrote:

I dont believe there is any requirement to have brakes. Fixies dont have em.

Fixies can do without, you slow it down with your legs.

Fair point. I just read you are required to have two, but the fixie kinda counts as a rear.

ilovedirt

supersonic wrote:

If you don't need the back brake on an MTB you ain't riding it right.

Lol, out in morzine at the moment, and my back brake hose split the other day, and I decided to do a run of chavannes with only the front brake while the bike shops were closed for lunch. It was fucking scary, I'll tell you that for free! Front wheel drifts and mega brake fade were the order of the day.

YeehaaMcgee

supersonic wrote:

You must have two functioning brakes - the rear can be a fixie.

If you don't need the back brake on an MTB you ain't riding it right.

I beg to differ. I've got a Juicy 3 on the back of one bike, and an ancient Hope C2 on the back of the other (so basically, no rear brakes ).
I get on fine. I think the C2's actually still on the original brake pads.

MTB noob

The front brake does all of my work and i always find that if i pull the rear brake, then my wheel takes about a quarter of a second to free up and is hard to put the power on immediately.

If i just leave my back brake, then i preserve the tyre and also i have time to think of the corner ahead. I always have myself behind the seat and the rear wheel tapping the ground when i brake - it effective because i can stop 20-0mph in 9ft.

supersonic

It is not effective as you can't brake in the corner (sometimes necessary) or control the rear end effectively. You'll be slower, and risk sliding the front end out more.

I'd get the back brake sort it and then use it to your advantage.

cooldad

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

supersonic wrote:

You must have two functioning brakes - the rear can be a fixie.

If you don't need the back brake on an MTB you ain't riding it right.

I beg to differ. I've got a Juicy 3 on the back of one bike, and an ancient Hope C2 on the back of the other (so basically, no rear brakes ).
I get on fine. I think the C2's actually still on the original brake pads.

But according to many people here you rarely come out from under your bridge and actually ride.

cooldad

MTB noob wrote:

The front brake does all of my work and i always find that if i pull the rear brake, then my wheel takes about a quarter of a second to free up and is hard to put the power on immediately.

If i just leave my back brake, then i preserve the tyre and also i have time to think of the corner ahead. I always have myself behind the seat and the rear wheel tapping the ground when i brake - it effective because i can stop 20-0mph in 9ft.

I may have the solution to your problem with boredom. Learn to ride properly. Brakes are not switches. A bit of finesse is a wonderful thing.

ilovedirt

supersonic wrote:

It is not effective as you can't brake in the corner (sometimes necessary) or control the rear end effectively. You'll be slower, and risk sliding the front end out more.

I'd get the back brake sort it and then use it to your advantage.

This. I tried riding without a rear brake the other day, as I mentioned a few posts back, and it's incredible how little control I had over the back end of the bike with no rear brake. It actually scared me. You have little control around corners (front wheel slides are not fun), and what if you need to slam on in an emergency? It's dangerous.

YeehaaMcgee

If you need to slam on the brakes in an emergency, then the back brake really isn't what you should be using.
Back brake can be handy in corners, even more so if you're a little hamfisted with the front brake. And it makes a good rudder for stupidly steep and/or rough sections to keep the bike in line.
But not for emergency stops.

cooldad

I once did an impromptu emergency stop by sticking my big toe into the spokes. Which work like a bacon slicer. Messy.
But it did teach me not to ride in flip flops.

waby1234

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

If you need to slam on the brakes in an emergency, then the back brake really isn't what you should be using.

I disagree - in an emergency frankly you give it everything you've got. That means both brakes.

mintedox

The back locks up and the front stops you in an emergency. Experience tells me that.

Matt-r8

Rear brake is particularly useful for scrubbing off speed half way round a big berm. Doing this lots of times causes small undulations in the ground which lead to massive craters which fill with water when it's raining making the trail even more fun and interesting. Everyone's a winner

Giraffoto

The rear brake does a fair amount of the steering for me on long winding descents, so I'd go for the advice to get it sorted out rather than removed. And there's the pesky law of course . . .

To the OP, who's getting bored. Go farther afield and take a tent with you. The Summer holidays are almost here, so you should be able to find a few days to go off and find somewhere new. The train journey becomes more justifiable when you're packing a few days between "there" and "back". You could even take the train there and make your own way back

Another possibility in your neighbourhood is the London to Brighton off-road ride, in September IIRC.

bails87

waby1234 wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

If you need to slam on the brakes in an emergency, then the back brake really isn't what you should be using.

I disagree - in an emergency frankly you give it everything you've got. That means both brakes.

When you're braking as hard as possible with the front brake the back wheel will be off the ground, so the back brake does nothing.

But the OP should have a back brake.

Mccraque

Interesting that we've gotten onto removing brakes as a way to liven up dull MTB.