Talk:Mountain bike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mountain bike article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Cycling Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling. WikiProject Cycling is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Possible Reference

There's a cite needed tag after the sentence; "As a consequence, XC bikes are often less durable than other types of mountain bikes when used outside of their intended purpose." Any owners guide tells you that. Usually they classify bikes in 5 groups or so (not including child bikes), each with an intended purpose. Would that suffice since they manufacture the machines? I'm looking at a manual that says just that. Or maybe it could be reworded and placed in a different area of the article. That way it would not necessarily seem as if it's taking a stab at XC as a sport/bike since in that sentence you can replace XC with tandem, cruiser, triathalon, cyclocross or any other bike type. Durable is also a relative term here, one rider might be think durable is a season another might think several years… it becomes an opinion.

  • "Riding a bicycle in a manner beyond, or more severe than, its intended purpose can cause the bicycle or part of the bicycle to fail." (then it explains different conditions of riding and the bike that fits)

Gary Fisher Bike Manual (2008) Part#272382 (Pages 1-2 Bicycle Type And Use Calssification)

ArchaicLion (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] History section

The disc brake discussion seems very very random. The history section is entirely comprised of the history of the sport/bike itself, and then there is this random blurb about an obscure technical aspect of modern mountain bikes, the fact that most now have disc brakes. By that tokin you should then be going on to explain about front suspension, rear suspension, gas shocks, air shocks, the adjustment free headset etc etc etc. Long sotry short it should be in a seperate section, or even have its own article.


"The French Velo Cross Club Parisien (VCCP) comprised about twenty young bicyclists from the outskirts of Paris who between 1951 and 1956 developed a sport that was remarkably akin to present-day mountain biking." -This needs expanded. From what I have heard, these guys used to cycle around bomb craters from the Second World War. Bombing sounds like a very quick way of building a skate park! I remember seeing a photo of the event, but that was about 12 years ago so I wouldn't know where to find it again.

[edit] freeride definition

I don't beleive i'm wrong in saying that that the description of free-ride bikes is very off. Freeride bikes are often the toughest, most expensive (with the exceptions of competition grade downhill, full suspension cross country bikes, and titanium or custom fashioned bikes) bikes and are most certainly *NOT* adept at being rode uphill. They often are made up of the most durable (and therefore heavy) componentry and often weigh over fifty lbs. Nobody that i am aware chooses a free-ride bike if their terrain is typically uphill, does not involve stunts and isn't heavily downhill oriented.

[edit] Impact and Relation to Road and Utility Biking

Mountain Biking has had a huge impact on Road and Utility Biking. In areas where rough roads, rails, and other obstructions may be encountered Mountain Bikes may be more practical than traditional Road Bikes. Because of this flexibility Mountain Bikes are tremendously popular for Road Biking and many never get anywhere near a mountain biking trail. -- M0llusk 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too wordy

The "Modern Bikes" section is far too wordy, cites no sources, and seems to lack a NPOV on certain subjects. I really think it ought to be broken up, or at least cleaned up a bit.

It may also be relevant to show pictures of various mountain bike designs; to a person without any prior knowledge, the section on frame styles would be hard to visualize.Thegsrguy 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Dan

yes plz pics would be very helpfull to understandBarry White 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] frame matierals avalble?

It would be nice to talk about the pros and cons what the frame was made out of e.g. Titanium, Steel, aluminimum, carbon,ect....Barry White 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly be worthwhile to talk about the pros and cons of aluminium and ti in bike manufacturing, but we should keep the discussion to the application of said bike. As somebody once said, alluminum is build to bend, ti is build to last...and last..and last...and then snap and break in your face... -85.178.57.39 06:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Future Technology

The "Future Technology" is so DH specific and spam-riddled it almost warrants removal entirely. I'll eventually try and make it a little more all encompassing and encyclopedic, but help is much appreciated. Goodnightmush 22:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to just removing the section altogether for now as it's obviously just blatant spam? Goodnightmush 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It is pretty rough, but the stuff is interesting. I'd try to keep it and fix the tone. -AndrewDressel 23:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless you or someone else has a really serious objection, Andrew, I'm planning on taking out that section and copying it to the talk page. Then, in the near future hopefully, I'll rewrite the section with a more broad POV and spamfree unless someone wants to do it sooner. That section is blatant violation of WP:SPAM and brings down the rest of the article sitting there. Goodnightmush 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And if you wanna give me a hand, starting in a couple weeks I think we should give this article a total rewrite from the top down. Getting it to total NPOV and maybe expand it a little. Goodnightmush 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam clean-up

I recently removed the spam tag after removing a paragraph that look more like advertising and less like an encyclopedic entry (statements of "soon to be released", etc.) and was also loaded with links. It would be nice to have the paragraph re-written with a more encyclopedic tone and with wiki links instead of external. --I already forgot 22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That helps clear up the spam but there are still many issues with that paragraph, specifically violations of WP:Undue Weight. That section is very narrowly focused on only advances in Downhill technology, and on one technology within that. Goodnightmush 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gearbox

The first gearbox downhill bike was made and raced by Alex Morgan of bcd. It is was a carbon fiber frame with two chains. The first chain goes from the cranks to a 7 speed shimano nexus hub. From there the ratio is changed. Then the second chain to drive the rear wheel. The design that Alex Morgan came up with on this bike is still used today.

Nicolai gearbox freeride bike
Nicolai gearbox freeride bike

Frame mounted gearboxes (generally hub gears adapted to fit) are starting to make an appearance in ultra high end mountain bikes. With the gearing system protected from the elements and from impacts and the weight of the bike held low and central these offer significant advantages over conventional gear systems, particularly for extreme use. These internally geared bicycles are often also referred to as three-speed bicycles.

The German company of Rohloff also manufactures and supplies a range of internal gearboxes (called the 'SpeedHub') to several bicycle manufacturers and initially also supplied Nicolai. It has since been standardized into the " G-Boxx" This system uses a separate hub above the crankshaft and needs a second set of chains. This gives revolutionary smooth shifting when compared to any external derailleur currently made. The system is also maintenance free and incredibly tough. The main disadvantages are weight and price. Contrary to popular belief the Rohloff 14 speed hub has a gearing range equal to that of a standard 9x3 (27 speed) derailleur drivetrain. Additionally the gears are evenly spaced, unlike a standard derailleur systems where the jump between gears can be inconsistent depending upon the front sprocket. The increased weight of the rear wheel can raise some complaints; the new frame-mounted designs eliminate this problem by moving the weight into the centre of the bicycle. Note that this does not imply that hub gears are excessively heavy: they typically weigh only about one pound more than traditional derailleur setups.

Several companies are working on derailleur based frame mounted transmissions, but the benefits of these are subject to much dispute. Mountain Bike Action magazine reported in October 2004 that Hayes would manufacture and sell a transmission based on the PeteSpeed design. This appears to be targeted at downhill and freeride bikes, where it has the advantage that there is no rear derailleur that can be damaged by contact with rocks and other obstacles. However, the weight compared with a traditional triple chainring and rear derailleur setup would seem to make it less suitable for cross-country riding.

Soon to be available is a rear hub, called a NuVinci CVP, with a self contained CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission) within the rear hub of the bicycle. The external appearance is that of a single-speed bicycle, with one chain ring, one sprocket and a chain tensioner. Their primary disadvantage is weight, but their placement on the bicycle ensures that they will not be damaged by trail obstacles while riding. If this drivetrain design is improved upon in the future, it opens up the possibilities of bikes with motocross style concentric chain rings and suspension pivot points, thereby improving the durability of the bike while eliminating pedal bob.

That was the future technology section, just an essay about gearbox technology and spam. It could be its own article possibly if its not already but it clearly does not belong here. A new future technology section would require a total rewrite. I'm moving it here so anyone who wants to write the article it can have access. Goodnightmush 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruggedness

"In contrast, road bicycles are not rugged enough for such terrain."

This is a pretty bold and unsupported claim for the lead section. Is it really true, or are the differences mostly designed to accommodate terrain: wide tires for soft ground, low stand-over height for dabbing on uneven ground, straight bars for more leverage, lower gearing for steeper climbs, etc.? I'd believe that downhill bikes are tougher, but I'd also believe that cross country bikes are as light as possible and not really any more rugged than high quality road bikes. Is a Trek 820 more rugged than a Trek 1500? Anybody have a reference that isn't just a manufacturers marketing hype? -AndrewDressel 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
While the sentence is not untrue, it is a bit misleading, road bikes can be ridden off-road but it needs a different riding style. Yeah I agree the difference is mainly to do with design, but then it is true that in general MTBs are more rugged than road bikes, not suprising since they are more heavily built and weigh more. LDHan 15:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It sounds to me like more of an attitude than an encyclopedia should have. Imagine how it would sound if it said "Thus mountain bikes are usually heavier than road bikes and slower on the road." which is arguably just as valid, if not more so. -AndrewDressel
Both are correct statements. The first has issues with, OR i guess you'd say, but the second doesn't convey the point. We need to, in an encyclopedic fashion, convey the idea that mountain bikes are, well more rugged. More detail would be simplest. However, if you compare an xc bike and a road bike of the same caliber, say price range, I don't think you could sensibly argue they are on the same level of durability. While xc bikes break all the time cause they're meant to be light, a road bike or even a cx one on a difficult trail breaks down faster. GoodnightmushTalk 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not completely agree with the statement that hydraulic disc brakes are harder to maintain. If you compare with cables that get dirty, stuck or broken,then the hydraulic alternative is a blessing. It just requires some new maintenance techniques, but this is also not too hard to learn. Steven 81.241.248.202 10:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturers List

I propose the list dozens of manufacturers be moved to its own article or scrapped altogether. It has become unruly and filled with manufacturers of questionable notability without articles. Its own page is really the only place for such a dynamic list. Any thoughts? GoodnightmushTalk 16:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Such a list inevitably gets longer and longer with more and more obscure names, and only attracts spammers. LDHan 17:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the list. I added List of bicycle manufacturers to the see also section, I don't know if a fork for mountain bike manufacturers is appropriate. GoodnightmushTalk 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspension

The last sentence in the Suspension section improperly cites its source, and is rather colloquial:

"The classic hardtail design is still favored by 65% of mt bikers (source mbuk) because it doesn't lose pedaling efficiency and its a hell of a lot cheaper and less prone to damage/service!"

I propose rewriting this to clean up the wording and the source. Bshea 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shocks Terminology

Bob is the up and down motion caused by the rear tires when you start pedaling hard. This tends to limit the amount of power the rider can create increasing the difficulty of climbs.
Travel is the maximum amount of movement that a suspension system is capable of. 3 to 5 inches of travel is average on most full suspension bikes. Downhill racers and freeriders use up to 9 inches of travel.

I question this addition to the article for a couple of reasons.

  1. I suspect that 'Bob' is due more to suspension than to rear tires, especially if it is a subheading in a section on 'Shocks Terminology'.
  2. This all probably is better suited to the existing bicycle suspension article, especially since not all mountain bikes have full or even front suspension.

-AndrewDressel (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)