If we are roadies, what are mountain bikers?

veronese68

I just ride a bike. Sometimes on the road, sometimes I put cross tyres on and do a bit of both, sometimes I just go for a bit of a bimble through the park or by the river, sometimes I'll take the MTB somewhere.

davesnothere

SecretSam wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

And even the downhillers (the chairlift crowd) I know are hard as nails - smashing various bits off themselves.

Including the chain. I read about some downhiller who won a race with no chain. That's not cycling, that's riding a big scooter down a hill.

Granted there's no pedalling but his bike handling skills are fantastic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B3G2U4O7Kk

meanredspider

Veronese68 wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

And even the downhillers (the chairlift crowd) I know are hard as nails - smashing various bits off themselves.

Including the chain. I read about some downhiller who won a race with no chain. That's not cycling, that's riding a big scooter down a hill.

Or an ankle, another guy finished a race with his foot flailing having broken his ankle on one of the last jumps. Couldn't pedal the final approach but still finished second. There's a hell of a lot of skill in getting down those hills at the speed they do, and more than a little insanity.

Yup - I smile when people talk about the cajones of people descending fast on roads (and, there's no doubt there is plenty of skill and bottle involved) but these downhillers take it to a whole new level - balls the size of planets (and that includes the girls) - and the screw isn't loose: it fell out a long long time ago.

Rb5_turbo

Most roadies would not keep up with an equivalent MTB rider fitness wise but the MTB rider would be close to the roadie on road.

MTB'ing is harder mile for mile and there is a fair degree of riding skill, the issue I have is for a 2-hour MTB ride worth prob 2.5-3 hours of on road effort you need 3 hours + to get to the trail/ride/get home and then clean your bike.

I prefer off road for winter riding due to its quality/maintained effort but riding on the road is way easier just open the garage and go unless you are one of the lucky few with a trail outside your back door!

PS - Cafe's don't seem to mind a bunch of roadies but when I have been off-road I to usually sit outside due being covered in mud

Irrespective of your wheel size and knobbles/lack of them just keep riding folks!

arthur_scrimshaw

Two pages and everyone's being nice. Is this some alternative reality or alternative facts?

fat daddy

I think its because a large majority do both ..... and CX and commute .... not even the hardened of nut cases wants to get into an argument with themselves

burnthesheep

Rb5_turbo wrote:

MTB'ing is harder mile for mile and there is a fair degree of riding skill, the issue I have is for a 2-hour MTB ride worth prob 2.5-3 hours of on road effort

You're not supposed to be smelling roses, pedal harder!

I will definitely cede that MTB takes a minute to minute focus of the eyes and brain around obstacles that a hobby road rider does not need. MTB also takes some different arm/upper body strength versus road.

I'm still a newbie to road, but I see people on $4k race bikes all the time around town riding around on the hoods or drops with perfectly straight arms and their back at probably a 45 degree angle to level. Can't do 50 pushups huh? How about 25 pullups? That's why many hobby road riders look like chumps compared to their professional counterparts.

The point is that the MTB rider MUST use the upper body and legs as part of the suspension of the bike. Road rider MIGHT use their upper body for aero. But many hobbyists do not.

itboffin

yes yes but do Rapha make MTB kit?

eh?

meanredspider

itboffin wrote:

yes yes but do Rapha make MTB kit?

eh?

Even Assos have started....

That said, before I moved to Amsterdam, I'd hardly seen any Rapha kit - it's just not what Highland riders wore - the expensive stuff was only Assos. Rapha was for the city slickers...

Stevo_666

I do both. One's for fitness and getting to work: the other one's for fun 8)

Call me what you want

itboffin

dirty, you and them dirty dirty boy!

veronese68

That just makes you sound like a puritan that's jealous others are having more fun ITB. ;-)
You can drink more beer if you ride a mountain bike and give up your Rapha habit.

itboffin

Cant do mtb anymore after the last knee operation, not the body, the wife

Banned from off road, which is probably the best thing

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

Being slightly controversial on a Road forum - what I love about MTBers is their willingness to adopt new technology.

The road bike has already evolved over 100 years. The MTB more like 20 and that from not much more than a road bike with knobbly tyres. Things evolve rapidly when they are new and settle down over time when the optimum solution has been reached. This is what happens with pretty much everything. That road bikers have adopted less new technology is simply because most of it isn't necessary. The only really significant road bike development in the last 30 years has been compact gearing (if you live in hilly areas) - the rest of it has all been fluff. In contrast, the changes in MTB technology have been genuinely useful - from your list, the suspension is an obvious off road benefit, disc brakes are far more obviously useful to MTBs than road bikes, 1x gearing actually isn't an MTB innovation at all (I had it on my five speed racer in the 70s!) and lefty forks are a dead end. All of these have road application but in none of these cases are the benefits as clear as when applied to MTBs. Most road bike introduced technology has conditional benefit - disc brakes good if it is wet or you are heavy, electronic shifting for dirty conditions or if you can't index yourself - and those at the price of cost and/or complexity.

veronese68

itboffin wrote:

Cant do mtb anymore after the last knee operation, not the body, the wife

Banned from off road, which is probably the best thing

Can't underestimate the benefits of a quiet life.

benws1

Mounties?

meanredspider

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Being slightly controversial on a Road forum - what I love about MTBers is their willingness to adopt new technology.

The road bike has already evolved over 100 years. The MTB more like 20 and that from not much more than a road bike with knobbly tyres. Things evolve rapidly when they are new and settle down over time when the optimum solution has been reached. This is what happens with pretty much everything. That road bikers have adopted less new technology is simply because most of it isn't necessary. The only really significant road bike development in the last 30 years has been compact gearing (if you live in hilly areas) - the rest of it has all been fluff. In contrast, the changes in MTB technology have been genuinely useful - from your list, the suspension is an obvious off road benefit, disc brakes are far more obviously useful to MTBs than road bikes, 1x gearing actually isn't an MTB innovation at all (I had it on my five speed racer in the 70s!) and lefty forks are a dead end. All of these have road application but in none of these cases are the benefits as clear as when applied to MTBs. Most road bike introduced technology has conditional benefit - disc brakes good if it is wet or you are heavy, electronic shifting for dirty conditions or if you can't index yourself - and those at the price of cost and/or complexity.

I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that the innovation is pretty much moving in one direction: from MTB to Road. Take 1x gearing - yup, we all had 5-speed racers in the 70s - but what we didn't have is a smallish chainring and an 11-speed wide-range cassette. Tubeless tyres are another innovation moving across. We'll agree to diasagree on disc brakes and we'll just watch what happens. Even suspension has made it onto (pro) road bikes for rough/cobbled roads. All of this stuff has been available to the road bike community because none of it required great leaps of technology. Yet the MTB community is much more willing to experiment probably because they're younger and they don't believe (rightly so) that their elders had all the answers. The one bit of technology we can offer back is electronic shifting and (as ably demonstrated by your point) many of us haven't even bothered to understand it. Complacent? Arrogant even?

mamba80

i can remember lugged frames and the evolution of steel to slx and 753, the move to alloy bonded frames, carbon and finally full carbon, carbon and alloy factory wheels, moving to hi end clinchers from tubs, index shifting to wifi, 5speed to 11sp transmissions, newer cheaper power meters.
Yet the road bike is essentially a simple design, the roads dont change much, i did a crit race 2 years ago and a guy on a 80s steel 7sp down tube shift road bike finished in the top 10, you d not get far on your rigid 80s steel mtb in a XC today no matter how strong you are.

the evolution of the mtb is based very much on the terrain the riders tackle, long travel suspension and disc brakes have become essential.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

i can remember lugged frames and the evolution of steel to slx and 753, the move to alloy bonded frames, carbon and finally full carbon, carbon and alloy factory wheels, moving to hi end clinchers from tubs, index shifting to wifi, 5speed to 11sp transmissions, newer cheaper power meters.
Yet the road bike is essentially a simple design, the roads dont change much, i did a crit race 2 years ago and a guy on a 80s steel 7sp down tube shift road bike finished in the top 10, you d not get far on your rigid 80s steel mtb in a XC today no matter how strong you are.

the evolution of the mtb is based very much on the terrain the riders tackle, long travel suspension and disc brakes have become essential.

Also, road bikes had already been through that evolutionary process back in the 19th century. Having only been around for 40 years, MTBs have some catching up to do.

meanredspider

mamba80 wrote:

you d not get far on your rigid 80s steel mtb

Even that you could argue "road" cycling has adopted as a CX/gravel/adventure bike

meanredspider

mamba80 wrote:

the roads dont change much,

Mountains somewhat less

Perhaps so deep-grained is the conservatism in road cyclists that they didn't even think of riding off-road until, in a drug-induced haze in 70s CA, somebody thought they'd be crazy enough to try it

veronese68

mamba80 wrote:

Yet the road bike is essentially a simple design

Is that not part of the appeal? When I look at a modern carbon fibre bike that's all fancy shapes and electronics it will usually leave me cold. But a nicely made steel frame is a thing of beauty to me. But then I work with classic cars so I'm hardly normal.

meanredspider

Veronese68 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Yet the road bike is essentially a simple design

Is that not part of the appeal? When I look at a modern carbon fibre bike that's all fancy shapes and electronics it will usually leave me cold. But a nicely made steel frame is a thing of beauty to me. But then I work with classic cars so I'm hardly normal.

I've got to agree. This though is what I find difficult to get to grips with: people riding what is essentially old technology built using the latest methods and materials yet drawing some arbitrary line about some other technology. I have huge respect for people riding classic bikes. But, like someone wanting a brand new car with carbs and points just because that's what old cars had and "it worked fine", I don't get wanting a flash modern bike with 80s tech on it.

mamba80

meanredspider wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

the roads dont change much,

Mountains somewhat less

Perhaps so deep-grained is the conservatism in road cyclists that they didn't even think of riding off-road until, in a drug-induced haze in 70s CA, somebody thought they'd be crazy enough to try it

ah thats true but the route down the mountain has certainly changed hasnt it?
where as the road to top is still the same, even adding a bit of tarmac has nt changed it much.

the road bike started out made of wood! look at its evolution? amazing adoption of change i'd say!

mtb ing in the 70s in CA was about getting down as fast as poss in a sort of flat track style, they didnt do jumps drop off's roots or rocks, it was fire roads.

now...... look at a Gee Atherton vid.....

what i am saying is that the road cycle doesnt need to evolve much more, its very much at its peak isnt it? chain design is limitig any move to more gears but that ll come.
the mtb is always being challenged by the terrain, steeper faster rockier bigger jumps, all requiring newer kit....

yep agree on the gravel adventure bike thing.

agree with V68, a Nervex lugged frame from the 60's is a thing of great beauty and seeing one of those certainly inspired me as a youngster.

meanredspider

mamba80 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

the roads dont change much,

Mountains somewhat less

Perhaps so deep-grained is the conservatism in road cyclists that they didn't even think of riding off-road until, in a drug-induced haze in 70s CA, somebody thought they'd be crazy enough to try it

ah thats true but the route down the mountain has certainly changed hasnt it?
where as the road to top is still the same, even adding a bit of tarmac has nt changed it much.

the road bike started out made of wood! look at its evolution? amazing adoption of change i'd say!

mtb ing in the 70s in CA was about getting down as fast as poss in a sort of flat track style, they didnt do jumps drop off's roots or rocks, it was fire roads.

now...... look at a Gee Atherton vid.....

what i am saying is that the road cycle doesnt need to evolve much more, its very much at its peak isnt it? chain design is limitig any move to more gears but that ll come.
the mtb is always being challenged by the terrain, steeper faster rockier bigger jumps, all requiring newer kit....

yep agree on the gravel adventure bike thing.

agree with V68, a Nervex lugged frame from the 60's is a thing of great beauty and seeing one of those certainly inspired me as a youngster.

Of course, I'm being a bit provocative. After all, we've gone from wood (carbon) to carbon (carbon) which is quite some leap 2 wheels to, err, 2 wheels. A seat and handlebars to.... In fact the greatest changes have come in brakes and transmission - ironically the thing that there's the most resistance to now

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Yet the road bike is essentially a simple design

Is that not part of the appeal? When I look at a modern carbon fibre bike that's all fancy shapes and electronics it will usually leave me cold. But a nicely made steel frame is a thing of beauty to me. But then I work with classic cars so I'm hardly normal.

I've got to agree. This though is what I find difficult to get to grips with: people riding what is essentially old technology built using the latest methods and materials yet drawing some arbitrary line about some other technology. I have huge respect for people riding classic bikes. But, like someone wanting a brand new car with carbs and points just because that's what old cars had and "it worked fine", I don't get wanting a flash modern bike with 80s tech on it.

But cars are essentially complex things - the technology is more convincing there but even here we see a trend to stagnation. Within the confines of the petrol engine, the default has long been the transverse 4. Years ago there were all sorts of alternative options. Bikes are simple. The technological changes we have seen in the last thirty years really don't make much difference. My 1980 Raleigh is mostly relatively hard work because of the gearing. Nothing else makes much difference.

As for flash modern bikes with 80s tech on them - who is riding those? Do they exist much? I think if you get annoyed with indexing issues there are two equally valid alternative solutions to current technology - electronic shifting and DT shifting. The ancient tech has most of the advantages of the modern tech and both have a variety of unshared pros and cons; the balance of which is the best solution depends on a number of personal factors. Yet the DT shifter isn't really even offered (and, to be fair, probably wouldn't be popular today anyway given peoples reluctance to do anything more complex than pushing a button!).

mamba80

Do you think there is really that much resistance to new road tech? my LBS sells heaps of disk and DI2 road bikes.... just not to me!!! but i do have a state of the art MTB...

i think the reluctance to electronic gears is that some people inc me, like to change cables, re index gears, be able to fix a a gear shift issue without a laptop.... toe in brake blocks and wonder if they ll ever stop going down that steep muddy wet lane...... i even glue on tyres!!!

i have to take issue with you on one thing though... you are never provocative lol!!!

bbrap

I don't think resistance to tech is the issue. There will always be people who want the latest doodah and lead the way in buying it. I think the issue is a lack of a standard implementation of new tech stuff which makes many people reluctant to jump in. Years ago we had pretty much binary options for things (Think VHS/betamax) which meant the options to back the wrong pony were much less. Now there are so many bits coming out at an ever increasing pace that people are less willing to buy into any particular option in case they end up with a white elephant. I fully understand the need to differentiate one product from another, I just feel that if manufacturers could slow down a bit and get some agreement on which standards to adopt it would help the buying public be more willing to shell out their hard earned.

meanredspider

Rolf F wrote:

But cars are essentially complex things - the technology is more convincing there but even here we see a trend to stagnation. Within the confines of the petrol engine, the default has long been the transverse 4. Years ago there were all sorts of alternative options. Bikes are simple. The technological changes we have seen in the last thirty years really don't make much difference. My 1980 Raleigh is mostly relatively hard work because of the gearing. Nothing else makes much difference.
.

Trend to stagnation? :shock: I test drove a BMW i8 last year. Yes it has 4 wheels 4 seats and a steering wheel but, apart from that, it has pretty much nothing in common with a typical road car today. Made of carbon, running on electric, with a super-powerful 3-cylinder turbo engine in reserve. You could argue that the i3 is even more different. That's before we get to the Tesla or self-driving cars. I'd say that innovation in the car industry is just beginning to warm up. Just wait until we have some decent batteries in 5-10 years time.

secretsam

What have I started? 4 pages and no-one has answered my question.

PS: I own a mountain bike, but would happily trade for a CX. MTB fun once in a while, but vile on the road. Suspect CX could do 90% of the off road stuff and still work on the road.

PPS: gravel bikes are not an evolution of MTBs. They are modern day touring bikes.