or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Mountain Bikes › Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension  

post #1 of 106
Thread Starter 
I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike equipment shock absorbers and
suspension with damage to terrain? Is the damage to terrain commensurate with the level of shock
absorbing technology on the vehicle? Terri Alvillar
post #2 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

Terri says:

>I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike equipment shock absorbers and
>suspension with damage to terrain?

I think you'll find that the more shock absorption, the less damage. You might want to try a
road-building website for info on that, as I'm sure the study has been done for cars at some point.
Either way, you're just going to find that the more gonzo riders have more cush, and therefore do
less damage on the same line. Kinda ironic, no?

Steve
post #3 of 106
Thread Starter 

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

Rosieres@aol.com (Terri Alvillar) wrote in message
news:<9adaa55f.0304032130.3785a2f8@posting.google.com>...
> I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike equipment shock absorbers and
> suspension with damage to terrain? Is the damage to terrain commensurate with the level of shock
> absorbing technology on the vehicle? Terri Alvillar

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Terri Alvillar
post #4 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

Terri Alvillar <Rosieres@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9adaa55f.0304040623.4543b229@posting.google.com...
> Rosieres@aol.com (Terri Alvillar) wrote in message
news:<9adaa55f.0304032130.3785a2f8@posting.google.com>...
> > I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike equipment shock absorbers and
> > suspension with damage to terrain? Is the damage to terrain commensurate with the level of shock
> > absorbing technology on the vehicle? Terri Alvillar
>
>
> Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Terri Alvillar

Please, if you wish to take this further, do study up on suspension design, action, and especially
'shock absorbers' - they do just what it says, that is, 'absorb shock', not absorb it then dish it
straight back out into the ground.

Shaun aRe - get down with the physics of it, yo.
post #5 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

"Simon" <news@tau-designs.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:47fja.3568$VZ4.1093264@newsfep2...erver.ntli.net...
>
> "Stephen Baker" <saildesign@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20030404072457.26136.00000612@mb-fd.aol.com...
> | Terri says:
> |
> | >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike equipment shock absorbers and
> | >suspension with damage to terrain?
> |
> | I think you'll find that the more shock absorption, the less damage.
You
> | might want to try a road-building website for info on that, as I'm sure
> the
> | study has been done for cars at some point. Either way, you're just going to find that the more
> | gonzo riders have
more
> | cush, and therefore do less damage on the same line. Kinda ironic, no?
> |
> | Steve
>
> Up to a point I am sure that is correct.
>
> However, if you look at north shore and all the trends to build these
masses
> of wooden structures via cutting down local trees etc... They are built mainly by people with full
> suspension bikes. Is this not trail damamage?
>
> I am not against this just wanted to point it out.
>
> Simon
>
>
During our local IMBA trail maintenance school, we where told that the bridges and platforms were
necessary to avoid removing trees, and creating trails that could wash out due to the dampness of
the soil/air. I would think the wooden structures are an asset and not a detriment to the
surroundings. It's pretty dense and wooded in the area and the structures weave in an out of the
natural obstacles.

Lance

Lance
post #6 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

"Simon" <news@tau-designs.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:47fja.3568$VZ4.1093264@newsfep2...erver.ntli.net...
>
> "Stephen Baker" <saildesign@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20030404072457.26136.00000612@mb-fd.aol.com...
> | Terri says:
> |
> | >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike equipment shock absorbers and
> | >suspension with damage to terrain?
> |
> | I think you'll find that the more shock absorption, the less damage.
You
> | might want to try a road-building website for info on that, as I'm sure
> the
> | study has been done for cars at some point. Either way, you're just going to find that the more
> | gonzo riders have
more
> | cush, and therefore do less damage on the same line. Kinda ironic, no?
> |
> | Steve
>
> Up to a point I am sure that is correct.
>
> However, if you look at north shore and all the trends to build these
masses
> of wooden structures via cutting down local trees etc... They are built mainly by people with full
> suspension bikes. Is this not trail damamage?
>
> I am not against this just wanted to point it out.
>
> Simon
>
>

My understanding of the North Shore it is in a rainforest and the wooden structures carry riders
over the muddy forest floor. There is a ready supply of fallen cedar trees that split well into
slats for bridges and resist rotting in the wet weather. Ok, so they got a little carried away with
them but for the most part they actually prevent erosion.

Mike
post #7 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

"Dave Jackson" <dave@NOSPAMcpointgr.com> wrote in message
news:dave-7B3F30.08220504042003@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <47fja.3568$VZ4.1093264@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, "Simon"
> <news@tau-designs.nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Baker" <saildesign@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> > news:20030404072457.26136.00000612@mb-fd.aol.com...
> > | Terri says:
> > |
> > | >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike equipment shock absorbers
> > | >and suspension with damage to terrain?
> > |
> > | I think you'll find that the more shock absorption, the less damage.
You
> > | might want to try a road-building website for info on that, as I'm
sure
> > the
> > | study has been done for cars at some point. Either way, you're just going to find that the
> > | more gonzo riders have
more
> > | cush, and therefore do less damage on the same line. Kinda ironic,
no?
> > |
> > | Steve
> >
> > Up to a point I am sure that is correct.
> >
> > However, if you look at north shore and all the trends to build these
masses
> > of wooden structures via cutting down local trees etc... They are built mainly by people with
> > full suspension bikes. Is this not trail damamage?
> >
> > I am not against this just wanted to point it out.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
>
>
> Please post your data regarding what type of bikes the bridge builders are riding. I would like to
> read it.
>
>
> Dave in Minnesota

"Bike" magazine. ;^)

Mike
post #8 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

On 3 Apr 2003 21:30:56 -0800, Rosieres@aol.com (Terri Alvillar) wrote:

.I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .equipment shock absorbers and
suspension with damage to terrain? Is .the damage to terrain commensurate with the level of shock
absorbing .technology on the vehicle?

Yes. By Newton's laws of physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In other words,
the force applied to the ground (or anything else in their path, such as a plant, animal, or person)
is identical to the force applied to the bike. The reason that mountain bikes are built much
stronger than normal bikes is that they encounter much greater FORCES. Therefore, they apply much
greater forces to the ground & everything else in their path. QED

.Terri Alvillar

===
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
post #9 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

On 04 Apr 2003 12:24:57 GMT, saildesign@aol.comnospam (Stephen Baker) wrote:

.Terri says: . .>I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .>equipment shock
absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? . .I think you'll find that the more shock
absorption, the less damage.

BS. Their added weight guarantees that they will cause more damage, due to their increased momentum.
They are also able go go much FASTER, which also increases their momentum and hence the force they
apply. QED

You .might want to try a road-building website for info on that, as I'm sure the .study has been
done for cars at some point. .Either way, you're just going to find that the more gonzo riders
have more .cush, and therefore do less damage on the same line. Kinda ironic, no?

No, it's obviously FALSE.

.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
post #10 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:42:31 +0100, "Simon" <news@tau-designs.nospam.co.uk> wrote:

. ."Stephen Baker" <saildesign@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
.news:20030404072457.26136.00000612@mb-fd.aol.com... .| Terri says: .| .| >I wonder if any studies
have been done to correlate mountain bike .| >equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage
to terrain? .| .| I think you'll find that the more shock absorption, the less damage. You .| might
want to try a road-building website for info on that, as I'm sure .the .| study has been done for
cars at some point. .| Either way, you're just going to find that the more gonzo riders have more .|
cush, and therefore do less damage on the same line. Kinda ironic, no? .| .| Steve . .Up to a point
I am sure that is correct. . .However, if you look at north shore and all the trends to build these
masses .of wooden structures via cutting down local trees etc... They are built .mainly by people
with full suspension bikes. Is this not trail damamage? . .I am not against this just wanted to
point it out.

So your email about teaching people to protect the environment was all a LIE, eh? You guys are
transparent!

.Simon .

===
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
post #11 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 14:26:33 GMT, "L Hays" <lhays@yourclotheskc.rr.com> wrote:

. ."Simon" <news@tau-designs.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
.news:47fja.3568$VZ4.1093264@newsfep2...erver.ntli.net... .> .> "Stephen Baker"
<saildesign@aol.comnospam> wrote in message .> news:20030404072457.26136.00000612@mb-fd.aol.com...
.> | Terri says: .> | .> | >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .> |
>equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? .> | .> | I think you'll find that
the more shock absorption, the less damage. .You .> | might want to try a road-building website for
info on that, as I'm sure .> the .> | study has been done for cars at some point. .> | Either way,
you're just going to find that the more gonzo riders have .more .> | cush, and therefore do less
damage on the same line. Kinda ironic, no? .> | .> | Steve .> .> Up to a point I am sure that is
correct. .> .> However, if you look at north shore and all the trends to build these .masses .> of
wooden structures via cutting down local trees etc... They are built .> mainly by people with full
suspension bikes. Is this not trail damamage? .> .> I am not against this just wanted to point it
out. .> .> Simon .> .> .During our local IMBA trail maintenance school, we where told that the
.bridges and platforms were necessary to avoid removing trees, and creating .trails that could wash
out due to the dampness of the soil/air. I would .think the wooden structures are an asset and not a
detriment to the .surroundings. It's pretty dense and wooded in the area and the structures .weave
in an out of the natural obstacles.

But to be HONEST, there is more damage with those built than wothiut them.

.Lance . .Lance .

===
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
post #12 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:38:41 -0500, "Michael Dart" <mrdart@erols.com> wrote:

. ."Simon" <news@tau-designs.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
.news:47fja.3568$VZ4.1093264@newsfep2...erver.ntli.net... .> .> "Stephen Baker"
<saildesign@aol.comnospam> wrote in message .> news:20030404072457.26136.00000612@mb-fd.aol.com...
.> | Terri says: .> | .> | >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .> |
>equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? .> | .> | I think you'll find that
the more shock absorption, the less damage. .You .> | might want to try a road-building website for
info on that, as I'm sure .> the .> | study has been done for cars at some point. .> | Either way,
you're just going to find that the more gonzo riders have .more .> | cush, and therefore do less
damage on the same line. Kinda ironic, no? .> | .> | Steve .> .> Up to a point I am sure that is
correct. .> .> However, if you look at north shore and all the trends to build these .masses .> of
wooden structures via cutting down local trees etc... They are built .> mainly by people with full
suspension bikes. Is this not trail damamage? .> .> I am not against this just wanted to point it
out. .> .> Simon .> .> . .My understanding of the North Shore it is in a rainforest and the wooden
.structures carry riders over the muddy forest floor. There is a ready .supply of fallen cedar trees
that split well into slats for bridges and .resist rotting in the wet weather. Ok, so they got a
little carried away .with them but for the most part they actually prevent erosion.

BS. NOT MOUNTAINM BIKING is the way to prevent erosion. DUH!

.Mike .

===
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
post #13 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

You are more full of **** than a Christmas Turkey.
post #14 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:kfdr8vkpv93uneut8prvdd4o91s3dg014q@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:38:41 -0500, "Michael Dart" <mrdart@erols.com>
wrote:
>
> . ."Simon" <news@tau-designs.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> .news:47fja.3568$VZ4.1093264@newsfep2...erver.ntli.net... .> .> "Stephen Baker"
> <saildesign@aol.comnospam> wrote in message .> news:20030404072457.26136.00000612@mb-fd.aol.com...
> .> | Terri says: .> | .> | >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .> |
> >equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? .> | .> | I think you'll find
> that the more shock absorption, the less damage. .You .> | might want to try a road-building
> website for info on that, as I'm
sure
> .> the .> | study has been done for cars at some point. .> | Either way, you're just going to find
> that the more gonzo riders have .more .> | cush, and therefore do less damage on the same line.
> Kinda ironic,
no?
> .> | .> | Steve .> .> Up to a point I am sure that is correct. .> .> However, if you look at north
> shore and all the trends to build these .masses .> of wooden structures via cutting down local
> trees etc... They are built .> mainly by people with full suspension bikes. Is this not trail
damamage?
> .> .> I am not against this just wanted to point it out. .> .> Simon .> .> . .My understanding of
> the North Shore it is in a rainforest and the wooden .structures carry riders over the muddy
> forest floor. There is a ready .supply of fallen cedar trees that split well into slats for
> bridges and .resist rotting in the wet weather. Ok, so they got a little carried away .with them
> but for the most part they actually prevent erosion.
>
> BS. NOT MOUNTAINM BIKING is the way to prevent erosion. DUH!
>

Pffffffftttttt!!!!
post #15 of 106

Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension

"Dave Jackson" <dave@NOSPAMcpointgr.com> wrote in message
news:dave-664C89.09443304042003@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <b6k6ba0vke@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Michael Dart" <mrdart@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bike" magazine. ;^)
> >
> > Mike
>
> Post it.
>
> Dave

It was a joke but... if you pick up a copy of Bike (any copy) they are full of pics of BIG riders on
BIG bikes going off BIG wooden stunts in the North Shore. It gives the 'impression' that these kind
of riders cut down every tree in sight to build ramps, ladders, teter-totters and such. I personally
don't believe this is so as it is just the nature of riding in a rain forest.

Mike ;^P````````
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mountain Bikes
This thread is locked  
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Mountain Bikes › Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension