Why Do You Ride Mountain A Bike On Streets?

Van Bagnol · May 30, 2004

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (James Lynx) wrote:

> I'm curious about something. I have been reading this
> forum on Mountain Bikes and notice that a lot of you
> either have two mountain bikes, one for mountain biking,
> and one with street/road tires for riding on the street,
> or you have one bike and you have two sets of tires/rims,
> one with knobs for the mountain biking and one with
> street tires.
[snip]
> So why do you ride a mountain bike on the road instead of
> riding a road bike or even a cruiser?

1. One can ride a mountain bike on the road. One cannot ride
a road bike off-road.

2. A low-end entry-level road bike costs roughly the same
($1000) as an upper-mid-level mountain bike. You can buy
two entry-level MTBs for the price of a single entry-
level road bike.

3. A mountain bike has a softer ride, a more comfortable
riding position, and better visibility than a road bike.

4. You can ride off and on curbs, down stairs, and over
potholes with
less chance of damage to a mountain bike than to a
road bike.

5. A road bike is lighter, allowing faster climbing given
the same gearing. However, a mountain bike has lower
gearing and a wider gearing range than a road bike,
allowing a rider to climb hills easier, albeit slower,
while still being able to reach acceptable speeds on
the flats.

Van
--
Van Bagnol / v b a g n o l at earthlink dot net / c r l at
bagnol dot com ...enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving
/ Mountain Biking ...feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob
ng paniginip" ...thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ...
Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

The Nelson Para · May 31, 2004

Mike Vandeman wrote:
| On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:14:48 -0400, "The Nelson Paradigm"
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| .BB wrote: .| On 29 May 2004 22:45:48 -0700, James Lynx
| wrote: .| .|| So why do you ride a mountain bike on the
| road instead of riding a .|| road bike or even a cruiser?
| .| .| A lot of us bought a low- or mid-range bike first,
| then upgraded a .| couple of year later. That other bike
| makes a good road-beater. .| .| Also, a lot of us don't
| hold a lot of confidence in the durability of .| those skinny-
| wheeled road bikes, particularly in suburban/urban .|
| situations where there may be curbs to cross, as well as
| potholes, .| grates, etc. . .The mountain bike's main
| popularity was its practicality. It took over from .the
| Road Bike (then known as the "10-speed") because it was
| more comfortable .and easier to use.
|
| You've got to be kidding. MTBs have greater rolling
| resistance and not a comfortable riding position.

Uh, no. You only get higher rolling resistance if you have
aggressive knobbies. Many of those early mountain bikes had
center ridge tires and therefore low RR. Comparing the
riding position of an early MTB to a 70s/80s 10-speed (road
bike) there is no contest. Now, maybe you're more
comfortable on them, but I'm sure not.

Then maybe you're riding a 3-speed "english" that's not much
different from a cruiser. Oh yeah, I forgot, the first MTBs
were made out of cruisers.

---
__o _`\(,_ Cycling is life, (_)/ (_) all the rest,
just details. The Nelson Paradigm =^o.o^=
http://intergalax.com http://intbike.com
_______
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.692 / Virus
Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004

The Nelson Para · May 31, 2004

Mike Vandeman · May 31, 2004

On Mon, 31 May 2004 04:06:46 GMT, Van Bagnol <[email protected]> wrote:

.In article
<[email protected]>,
. [email protected] (James Lynx) wrote: . .> I'm
curious about something. I have been reading this forum on
.> Mountain Bikes and notice that a lot of you either have
two mountain .> bikes, one for mountain biking, and one
with street/road tires for .> riding on the street, or you
have one bike and you have two sets of .> tires/rims, one
with knobs for the mountain biking and one with street .>
tires. .[snip] .> So why do you ride a mountain bike on
the road instead of riding a .> road bike or even a
cruiser? . .1. One can ride a mountain bike on the road.
One cannot ride a road
. bike off-road.

Not a good reason. You should stay on pavement anyway.

.2. A low-end entry-level road bike costs roughly the
same ($1000)
. as an upper-mid-level mountain bike. You can buy two
entry-level
. MTBs for the price of a single entry-level road bike.

BS. My 3-speed was $25, and works just as well or better
than an mountain bike on pavement.

.3. A mountain bike has a softer ride, a more
comfortable riding
. position, and better visibility than a road bike.

Not better than my 3-speed. Straight handlebars are stupid,
and force you to put weight on your arms, which humans
haven't evolved for.

.4. You can ride off and on curbs, down stairs, and over
potholes with
. less chance of damage to a mountain bike than to a
road bike.

Not a good reason. There's no reason to do that anyway.

.5. A road bike is lighter, allowing faster climbing
given the same
. gearing. However, a mountain bike has lower gearing
and a wider
. gearing range than a road bike, allowing a rider to
climb hills
. easier, albeit slower, while still being able to reach
acceptable
. speeds on the flats.

A road bike doesn't need those extra speeds. In fact, I only
use one speed.

.Van

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman · May 31, 2004

On Mon, 31 May 2004 03:38:42 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On
Sun, 30 May 2004 17:05:52 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
.> .> . .> .hehehe..you just love showing how wrong you can
be, don't you. .> .Q. What on a mountain bike inherently
might cause "high rolling .resistance"? .> .A. Nothing. Its
a bicycle. Same basic components as any other bike. .> .>
The tires, dumdum. . .Addressed below. . .> It is also
overbuilt and inefficient for street riding. . .How so,
Mikey? Please feel free to provide detail.

They are built to withstand the beating that you get on
trails, but not on the street (unless you like riding off
curbs etc., which is stupid).

.Perhaps you're thinking of the specialized engineless
motorcycles known as .'DH' bikes. The vast majority of
mountain bikes are not like that. As you .well know.

BS. They are designed to take a beating, which road bikes
are not subject to.

.> .The only difference, it seems, might be choice of tires.
There is nothing .> .restricting a MTB to knobbies. 26"
slicks are widely available and cheap. .If .> .you ask when
you buy it, the shop will often swap the knobbies for
.slicks, .> .for free. .> . .> .And in fact, wider tires (of
the same construction and pressure), often .> .offer *less*
rolling resistance than skinnier tires. .>
.http://www.discoveryride.com/human/rolling.html .> .> BS. .
.Come now, Mikey. You dispute scientific studies comparing
different street .tires? Done with no thought of mountain
biking? .Do you have any different data? I'd like to see it.
.("It's obvious" is not data)

It's obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains that
smooth, hard tires roll with less resistance than bumpy,
knobby tires. I shouldn't have to prove it for you. One
ride would do it.

.How come there are no fat tire racing bikes? Aerodynamics
and weight. trump .the rolling resistance difference. Oh,
and construction. . .> .What do YOU ride, Mikey? Still
riding that 3-speed cruiser? Care to .compare .> .the
aerodynamics between a sit-up-and-beg cruiser with a MTB? .>
.> Who cares? I like to enjoy biking, not torture myself and
others. . .It DOES make a difference, Mikey. Denigrate the
efficiency of one style of .bike, when you yourself ride
something worse?

I don't ride for "efficiency", since I'm not a machine.

.Knowing what you ride helps provide a frame of reference
for your opinions.

BS. It has nothing to do with the FACT that mountain bikes
have greater rolling resistance. .Pete .

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Pete · May 31, 2004

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> They are built to withstand the beating that you get on
> trails, but not on
the
> street (unless you like riding off curbs etc., which is
> stupid).

You seem to be spectacularly uninformed about biking in
general, not just mountain bikes. How, in your opinion, is a
mountain bike, mounted with slicks, inefficient, as compared
to <something else>?

>
> .Perhaps you're thinking of the specialized engineless
> motorcycles known
as
> .'DH' bikes. The vast majority of mountain bikes are not
> like that. As you .well know.
>
> BS. They are designed to take a beating, which road bikes
> are not subject
to.

Potholes and cobblestones are not much different than tree
roots and rocks.

> .Come now, Mikey. You dispute scientific studies comparing
> different
street
> .tires? Done with no thought of mountain biking? .Do you
> have any different data? I'd like to see it. .("It's
> obvious" is not data)
>
> It's obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains that
> smooth, hard tires
roll with
> less resistance than bumpy, knobby tires. I shouldn't have
> to prove it for
you.
> One ride would do it.

Reading deficiency, Mikey? You know very well I specified
"different street tires" in the wide vs narrow comment. Sure
knobbies, on the street, are less efficient than slicks. And
you also know full well that there are many, many slick,
high pressure tires available in mountain bike sizes.

I have a bike sitting right here in my living room with a
set mounted. Pumped up to ~90psi. Quite a comfortable, fast
ride. I just came back from dodging cicadas on a ride to
the store.

> I don't ride for "efficiency", since I'm not a machine.

Just a simple question, Mikey. What type of bike(s) do you
ride? I'm genuinely interested.

Pete

James Lynx · May 31, 2004

Westie, thanks for the reply. You didn't miss that. I did
answer my own question but I know why I ride a mountain bike
on the streets but what you missed was I was curious about
the rest of you since biking is such a personal thing.

Thanks,

James

"Westie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> James Lynx wrote:
> > I'm curious about something. I have been reading this
> > forum on Mountain Bikes and notice that a lot of you
> > either have two mountain bikes, one for mountain biking,
> > and one with street/road tires for riding on the street,
> > or you have one bike and you have two sets of
> > tires/rims, one with knobs for the mountain biking and
> > one with street tires.
> >
> > Curious why you choose to ride a mountain bike on the
> > streets instead of a road bike. I am getting back into
> > riding bikes after a 20 year break from it. I'm 36 and
> > used to ride a BMX Team Mongoose which I still have but
> > am too big for it now. I never liked your traditional 10
> > speed bike, or as they call them now street bikes. I was
> > even considering fixing up my Mongoose and riding it
> > again on the streets but realized that I'm too big for
> > that bike. I could do it but it wouldn't be a pretty
> > site. So the next logical step would be to get another
> > bike. Okay which one? I don't care for road bikes. They
> > are cool for some people but for me not my cup of tea so
> > to speak. Okay so what do I get a cruiser or a mountain
> > bike? The cruiser I tried was very nice. Very
> > comfortable bike but I think I wanted something more
> > durable and also the option to jump off curbs and
> > occassionally ride on dirt. So I go for a mountain bike.
> > Not a high end mountain bike BUT a pretty good Fuji
> > Discovery II. I think it's a good bike. So far so good.
> > I still kinda want to get a cruiser bike but for now the
> > mountain suits my needs. I changed the tires to
> > street/road tires because the tires with knobs create
> > too much resistance in my riding and it gets hard to
> > ride especially in hilly areas where I
> > live. Maybe one day I'll get a cruiser and ride that on
> > the street, put mountain bike tires back on the
> > Fuji and go off roading.
> >
> > So why do you ride a mountain bike on the road instead
> > of riding a road bike or even a cruiser?
>
> Did I miss something or didn't you answer your own
> question? If you don't like road bikes, don't want a
> cruiser, feel too old to be riding a BMX and do want
> something a little more robust to jump off kerbs, a
> mountainbike is a logical choice.

Mike Vandeman · May 31, 2004

On 31 May 2004 20:59:13 GMT, [email protected] (Stephen Baker) wrote:

.MV blurts: . .>Straight handlebars are stupid, and force
you to put .>weight on your arms, which humans haven't
evolved for. . ."Stupid"? Interesting concept, since they
obviously have no brains... . .As for "evolved for", we did
not evolve to sit our butts on a skinny-**** .little saddle,
either, but that hasn't stopped you from doing it, has it?

Yes, it has. I have never used one.

.Stupid! . .Steve

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman · May 31, 2004

On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:40:19 -0400, "The Nelson Paradigm"
<[email protected]> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote: .| On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:14:48 -0400,
"The Nelson Paradigm" .| <[email protected]> wrote:
.| .| .BB wrote: .| .| On 29 May 2004 22:45:48 -0700, James
Lynx wrote: .| .| .| .|| So why do you ride a mountain bike
on the road instead of riding a .| .|| road bike or even a
cruiser? .| .| .| .| A lot of us bought a low- or mid-range
bike first, then upgraded a .| .| couple of year later. That
other bike makes a good road-beater. .| .| .| .| Also, a lot
of us don't hold a lot of confidence in the durability .| of
.| those skinny-wheeled road bikes, particularly in
suburban/urban .| .| situations where there may be curbs to
cross, as well as potholes, .| .| grates, etc. .| . .| .The
mountain bike's main popularity was its practicality. It
took .| over from .the Road Bike (then known as the "10-
speed") because it .| was more comfortable .and easier to
use. .| .| You've got to be kidding. MTBs have greater
rolling resistance and .| not a comfortable riding position.
. .Uh, no. You only get higher rolling resistance if you
have aggressive .knobbies. Many of those early mountain
bikes had center ridge tires and .therefore low RR.
Comparing the riding position of an early MTB to a .70s/80s
10-speed (road bike) there is no contest. Now, maybe you're
more .comfortable on them, but I'm sure not. . .Then maybe
you're riding a 3-speed "english" that's not much different
from .a cruiser. Oh yeah, I forgot, the first MTBs were made
out of cruisers.

But not the current ones. The straight handlebars must be
for image, because they CERTAINLY aren't for comfort! Whom
do you think you are kidding?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman · May 31, 2004

Mike Vandeman · May 31, 2004

On Mon, 31 May 2004 19:58:56 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote .> .> They
are built to withstand the beating that you get on trails,
but not on .the .> street (unless you like riding off curbs
etc., which is stupid). . .You seem to be spectacularly
uninformed about biking in general, not just .mountain
bikes. .How, in your opinion, is a mountain bike, mounted
with slicks, inefficient, .as compared to <something else>?

Heavier & more gears. Why do you think that track bikes have
no breaks & only one gear?

.> .Perhaps you're thinking of the specialized engineless
motorcycles known .as .> .'DH' bikes. The vast majority of
mountain bikes are not like that. As you .> .well know. .>
.> BS. They are designed to take a beating, which road bikes
are not subject .to. . .Potholes and cobblestones are not
much different than tree roots and rocks.

And if you can't avoid them, you can't ride. Or you need to
lean on your city government.

.> .Come now, Mikey. You dispute scientific studies
comparing different .street .> .tires? Done with no thought
of mountain biking? .> .Do you have any different data? I'd
like to see it. .> .("It's obvious" is not data) .> .> It's
obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains that smooth, hard
tires .roll with .> less resistance than bumpy, knobby
tires. I shouldn't have to prove it for .you. .> One ride
would do it. . .Reading deficiency, Mikey? You know very
well I specified "different street .tires" in the wide vs
narrow comment. .Sure knobbies, on the street, are less
efficient than slicks.

And that's what most people have on their mountain bikes.

And you also .know full well that there are many, many
slick, high pressure tires .available in mountain bike
sizes.

Not as slick, nor as high pressure as road tires.

.I have a bike sitting right here in my living room with a
set mounted. .Pumped up to ~90psi. Quite a comfortable, fast
ride. I just came back from .dodging cicadas on a ride to
the store. . .> I don't ride for "efficiency", since I'm not
a machine. . .Just a simple question, Mikey. What type of
bike(s) do you ride? I'm .genuinely interested.

3-speed (only high works). $25 and works as well as any
bike, for what I need.

.Pete .

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Dan · May 31, 2004

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> .As for "evolved for", we did not evolve to sit our butts
> on a skinny-**** .little saddle, either, but that hasn't
> stopped you from doing it, has it?
>
> Yes, it has. I have never used one.

You don't use a seat?

Strangely that seems to fit the image I have of you.

Pete · Jun 1, 2004

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Heavier & more gears. Why do you think that track bikes
> have no breaks &
only
> one gear?

So mountain bikes are heavy and inefficient compared to
minimalist racing bikes. Thy sky is blue, and water is
wet. Now...how about talking about bikes that people
actually ride?

> .> BS. They are designed to take a beating, which road
> bikes are not
subject
> .to. . .Potholes and cobblestones are not much different
> than tree roots and
rocks.
>
> And if you can't avoid them, you can't ride. Or you need
> to lean on your
city
> government.

Many of us live in areas where potholes and other road
defects are a fact of life. Places with 4 actual seasons.

But, as usual, you miss the point.

> . .Reading deficiency, Mikey? You know very well I
> specified "different
street
> .tires" in the wide vs narrow comment. .Sure knobbies, on
> the street, are less efficient than slicks.
>
> And that's what most people have on their mountain bikes.

That's their problem. Not one I have.

> And you also .know full well that there are many,
> many slick, high pressure tires .available in
> mountain bike sizes.
>
> Not as slick, nor as high pressure as road tires.

They *are* road tires, dumdum. They just happen to fit
common mountain bike rims.

> .> I don't ride for "efficiency", since I'm not a machine.
> . .Just a simple question, Mikey. What type of bike(s) do
> you ride? I'm .genuinely interested.
>
> 3-speed (only high works). $25 and works as well as any
> bike, for what I
need.

You're still riding that clunker? Care to contemplate the
efficiency of your broken 3 speed internal?

Pete

Mike Vandeman · Jun 1, 2004

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:53:41 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote .> .> Heavier
& more gears. Why do you think that track bikes have no
breaks & .only .> one gear? . .So mountain bikes are heavy
and inefficient compared to minimalist racing .bikes. Thy
sky is blue, and water is wet. .Now...how about talking
about bikes that people actually ride?

The same applies, for the same reason. Boy, you guys
are dense.

.> .> BS. They are designed to take a beating, which road
bikes are not .subject .> .to. .> . .> .Potholes and
cobblestones are not much different than tree roots and
.rocks. .> .> And if you can't avoid them, you can't ride.
Or you need to lean on your .city .> government. . .Many of
us live in areas where potholes and other road defects are a
fact of .life. Places with 4 actual seasons.

So what? A mountain bike is still overbuilt for street
riding.

.But, as usual, you miss the point. . .> . .> .Reading
deficiency, Mikey? You know very well I specified "different
.street .> .tires" in the wide vs narrow comment. .> .Sure
knobbies, on the street, are less efficient than slicks. .>
.> And that's what most people have on their mountain bikes.
. .That's their problem. Not one I have. . .> And you also
.> .know full well that there are many, many slick, high
pressure tires .> .available in mountain bike sizes. .> .>
Not as slick, nor as high pressure as road tires. . .They
*are* road tires, dumdum. They just happen to fit common
mountain bike .rims.

Implying that they are WIDER than normal road tires, and
hence have more rolling resistance. DUH!

.> .> I don't ride for "efficiency", since I'm not a
machine. .> . .> .Just a simple question, Mikey. What type
of bike(s) do you ride? I'm .> .genuinely interested. .> .>
3-speed (only high works). $25 and works as well as any
bike, for what I .need. . .You're still riding that clunker?
Care to contemplate the efficiency of your .broken 3 speed
internal?

Try saying that in English.

.Pete .

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman · Jun 1, 2004

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:21:50 +1200, "Dan" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> .As
for "evolved for", we did not evolve to sit our butts on a
skinny-**** .> .little saddle, either, but that hasn't
stopped you from doing it, has it? .> .> Yes, it has. I have
never used one. . .You don't use a seat? . .Strangely that
seems to fit the image I have of you.

Read your own post. DUH!
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Pete · Jun 1, 2004

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote
> . .So mountain bikes are heavy and inefficient compared to
> minimalist racing .bikes. Thy sky is blue, and water is
> wet. .Now...how about talking about bikes that people
> actually ride?
>
> The same applies, for the same reason. Boy, you guys
> are dense.

Gears. Most bikes sold today have multiple gears.
Road/City/Hybrid/Comfort/MTB. Irrelevant. Brakes. Most bikes
sold today have two brakes. Irrelevant. Frames. Stip a low
end road bike, and a low end MTB down to the bare frame, and
I'd be surprised if you found more than a pound or so
difference. Hardly 'overbuilt'

> .They *are* road tires, dumdum. They just happen to fit
> common mountain
bike
> .rims.
>
> Implying that they are WIDER than normal road tires, and
> hence have more
rolling
> resistance. DUH!

Please show some data illustrating that point. I've posted
data to the opposite. Your turn.

> . .You're still riding that clunker? Care to contemplate
> the efficiency of
your
> .broken 3 speed internal?

>
> Try saying that in English.

Run out of things to say?

Pete

angotja · Jun 1, 2004

MTBs offer more versatility and durability. If I were to ride a road bike on my daily commute, I would certainly wreck at least once a week, and probably crack a rim/rib or two. Be smart ride different bikes. Buy the one that fits your needs.

Mike Vandeman · Jun 1, 2004

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:18:38 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote .> . .> .So
mountain bikes are heavy and inefficient compared to
minimalist racing .> .bikes. Thy sky is blue, and water is
wet. .> .Now...how about talking about bikes that people
actually ride? .> .> The same applies, for the same reason.
Boy, you guys are dense. . .Gears. Most bikes sold today
have multiple gears.

10, not 15 or 21.

.Road/City/Hybrid/Comfort/MTB. Irrelevant. .Brakes. Most
bikes sold today have two brakes. Irrelevant. .Frames. Stip
a low end road bike, and a low end MTB down to the bare
frame, .and I'd be surprised if you found more than a pound
or so difference. Hardly .'overbuilt'

If that were true, we wouldn't need mountain bikes. There
must be some difference, or people would be mountain biking
on 10-speeds.

.> .They *are* road tires, dumdum. They just happen to fit
common mountain .bike .> .rims. .> .> Implying that they are
WIDER than normal road tires, and hence have more .rolling
.> resistance. DUH! . .Please show some data illustrating
that point. I've posted data to the .opposite. Your turn.

Something so obvious doesn't need "data". It is simple
physics.

.> .You're still riding that clunker? Care to contemplate
the efficiency of .your .> .broken 3 speed internal?

.>
.> Try saying that in English. . .Run out of things to say?

Can't answer that one, huh?

.Pete .

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Pete · Jun 1, 2004

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:18:38 GMT, "Pete"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . .Gears. Most bikes sold today have multiple gears.
>
> 10, not 15 or 21.

C'mon, Mikey...when was the last time you saw a *new* "10
speed" for sale? In any event...the number of gears is
irrelevant. More gears = less spread between each one. Top
and bottom are still pretty much the same. (Except for the
so-called MegaRange rear cluster with an extra big low gear,
found on many 'city bikes', as well as some mountain bikes)

>
> .Road/City/Hybrid/Comfort/MTB. Irrelevant. .Brakes.
> Most bikes sold today have two brakes. Irrelevant.
> .Frames. Stip a low end road bike, and a low end MTB
> down to the bare
frame,
> .and I'd be surprised if you found more than a pound or so
> difference.
Hardly
> .'overbuilt'
>
> If that were true, we wouldn't need mountain bikes. There
> must be some difference, or people would be mountain
> biking on 10-speeds.

The difference is marketing. What is on display for people
to see and buy? Things shaped like mountain bikes. Never
mind that the vast majority never leave the pavement. Or at
most go across the grass in the front yard.

> .> .They *are* road tires, dumdum. They just happen to fit
> common mountain .bike .> .rims. .> .> Implying that they
> are WIDER than normal road tires, and hence have
more
> .rolling .> resistance. DUH! . .Please show some data
> illustrating that point. I've posted data to the
> .opposite. Your turn.
>
> Something so obvious doesn't need "data". It is simple
> physics.

Yes, it IS simple physics. Simple physics to show that the
contact patch will, at a given pressure and weight, be the
same size, no matter how wide the tire. Simple physics to
show that a rounder and shorter contact patch, of the same
area, causes less sidewall deformation, ergo less internal
friction, ergo less rolling resistance.

Not obvious, but simple.

100 pounds per square inch means exactly that. A 100 lb load
results in a 1 square inch contact patch. Now....is that
patch long and skinny, or wide and short?

There is specific test data, from multiple sources, that
show that wider tires (of the same construction and
pressure) may well have less rolling resistance than
narrower ones. I've posted links showing these tests.

OTOH, as a counter, you can only say "It's obvious". No
theory, no supporting data, no documented tests. Nothing.
Just your usual frothing at the mouth. And as usual,
completely wrong in your assumptions.

Thanks for playing, Mikey. This has been fun.

Pete I apologize to all those still reading this for my
semi-annual "poking the monkey with a stick" exercise.
I'll stop now.

Mike Vandeman · Jun 2, 2004

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:49:47 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On
Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:18:38 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
.> .> . .> .Gears. Most bikes sold today have multiple
gears. .> .> 10, not 15 or 21. . .C'mon, Mikey...when was
the last time you saw a *new* "10 speed" for sale? .In any
event...the number of gears is irrelevant.

Only if they are weightless. Idiot.

More gears = less spread .between each one. Top and bottom
are still pretty much the same. (Except for .the so-called
MegaRange rear cluster with an extra big low gear, found on
.many 'city bikes', as well as some mountain bikes) . .> .>
.Road/City/Hybrid/Comfort/MTB. Irrelevant. .> .Brakes. Most
bikes sold today have two brakes. Irrelevant. .> .Frames.
Stip a low end road bike, and a low end MTB down to the
bare .frame, .> .and I'd be surprised if you found more
than a pound or so difference. .Hardly .> .'overbuilt' .>
.> If that were true, we wouldn't need mountain bikes.
There must be some .> difference, or people would be
mountain biking on 10-speeds. . .The difference is
marketing.

Now you are just plain LYING. Mountain bikes are nothing
like 10-speeds nor 3-speeds.

What is on display for people to see and buy? .Things
shaped like mountain bikes. Never mind that the vast
majority never .leave the pavement. Or at most go across
the grass in the front yard. . .> .> .They *are* road
tires, dumdum. They just happen to fit common mountain .>
.bike .> .> .rims. .> .> .> .> Implying that they are WIDER
than normal road tires, and hence have .more .> .rolling .>
.> resistance. DUH! .> . .> .Please show some data
illustrating that point. I've posted data to the .>
.opposite. Your turn. .> .> Something so obvious doesn't
need "data". It is simple physics. . .Yes, it IS simple
physics. .Simple physics to show that the contact patch
will, at a given pressure and .weight, be the same size, no
matter how wide the tire.

Nonsense. You are telling me that a 2" tire and a 1"
tire both have the same width of road contact? You are
just LYING.

.Simple physics to show that a rounder and shorter contact
patch, of the same .area, causes less sidewall deformation,
ergo less internal friction, ergo .less rolling resistance.
. .Not obvious, but simple. . .100 pounds per square inch
means exactly that. A 100 lb load results in a 1 .square
inch contact patch. Now....is that patch long and skinny, or
wide and .short?

The area isn't the same. That's obvious.

.There is specific test data, from multiple sources, that
show that wider .tires (of the same construction and
pressure) may well have less rolling .resistance than
narrower ones. I've posted links showing these tests.

Nonsense. Narrow, high-pressure, smooth tires will always
have less rolling resistance than wide, low-pressure,
bumpy tires.

.OTOH, as a counter, you can only say "It's obvious". No
theory, no .supporting data, no documented tests. Nothing.
Just your usual frothing at .the mouth. And as usual,
completely wrong in your assumptions. . .Thanks for playing,
Mikey. This has been fun. . . .Pete .I apologize to all
those still reading this for my semi-annual "poking the
.monkey with a stick" exercise. I'll stop now. .

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits
to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the
previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Why Do You Ride Mountain A Bike On Streets?

Van Bagnol

Guest

The Nelson Para

Guest

The Nelson Para

Guest

Mike Vandeman

Guest

Mike Vandeman

Guest

Pete

Guest

James Lynx

Guest

Mike Vandeman

Guest

Mike Vandeman

Guest

Mike Vandeman

Guest

Mike Vandeman

Guest

Dan

Guest

Pete

Guest

Mike Vandeman

Guest

Mike Vandeman

Guest

Pete

Guest

angotja

New Member

Mike Vandeman

Guest

Pete

Guest

Mike Vandeman

Guest

Similar threads

We value your privacy