Horst on suspension: Old School or New?

[Shaun Rimmer]

"floody" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Corvus Corvax wrote:
> > floody <[email protected]> wrote [... Dewbie rant in response to a four-month old
> > post elided...] Now, see? This is the problem with cyclingforums.com. It opens things
up
> > to people who aren't smart enough to post to Usenet otherwise. And CC
>
>
>
> Oh, sorry did I post on YOUR forum...

It's actually my news group. Except for w/e's and holidays when it's anyone's guess........

> I bow to lord Corvus Corvax...

WTF you wanna do a thing like that for?!?!?!? You are strange.......

> I saw the thread, actually I was seaching for something completely different, and I just thought,
> hmm thats interesting, I'll say something. So Shoot Me!

OK. Say, can I borrow your gun a minute?

> Don't make mistaken judgements about my intelligence either.

Why not? It's fun!

> I don't know you, you don't know me.

Yeah, some of the world has good luck sometimes.

> I'm not going to (publicly) call YOU a moron.....

Why not? CC is a moron, CC is a moron, CC is a moron! <looks up> Nope, sky's still there.

',;~}~

riders/roadies' sorta attitudes?

Shaun aRe - up, down, around - WGAF? Heheheheh........

 

[Dave W]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:37:15 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"floody" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Corvus Corvax wrote:
>> > floody <[email protected]> wrote [... Dewbie rant in response to a four-month
>> > old post elided...] Now, see? This is the problem with cyclingforums.com. It opens things
>up
>> > to people who aren't smart enough to post to Usenet otherwise. And CC
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, sorry did I post on YOUR forum...
>
>It's actually my news group. Except for w/e's and holidays when it's anyone's guess........
>

That's only because he's a poor bastage, can't afford his own internet connection. So he has to wait
until he can use daddy's at work.

 

[Bomba]

floody wrote:

> Exactly, just reverse it, thats what I'm trying to say! If xc rides are your thing then good go
> for it! from the pic in your other post, you look more like a trail rider type than one of the
> anti social XC hammerheads that I happen to dislike....

Ah, you're in the wrong place then. None of us actually enjoy riding, we just ride to be
anti-social and fit.

 

[Rob]

"bomba" wrote in message
> floody wrote:
>
> > Exactly, just reverse it, thats what I'm trying to say! If xc rides are your thing then good go
> > for it! from the pic in your other post, you look more like a trail rider type than one of the
> > anti social XC hammerheads that I happen to dislike....
>
> Ah, you're in the wrong place then. None of us actually enjoy riding, we just ride to be
> anti-social and fit.
>

Fit? I just thought we rode to be anti-social.

 

[floody]

I'm glad I gave a few people an ego boost by posting my opinion.

I'll leave this thread alone now... You guys can go bust a lung on some remote climb.....

I should have seen the description in the link from cyclingforums.com that said it was the Anti-freeride, Anti-DH forum... I thought I'd add my opinion on Horst Leitner's ideas about the progression (or in the case of most who have posted here, lack thereof) in our sport. Categorically, here is my position:

-Blow ins from the road and fitness junkies are BAD for the sport.

-Green Geeks are BAD for the sport.

-Freeride is OCCASIONALLY bad for the sport, but mostly is pushing it forward. Remember that It is one of the few segments left that is more about the ride itself, given there is little or no competitive outlet.

-Downhill is where the whole damn thing came from, remember that.

-Weight weeny fragile bikes are a thing of the past, or should be. I think the future of Mountain bikes will probably lie in a hybrid somewhere between the freeride beasts and the trail bikes. Sad fact for the weight weenies. I think however, there will always be light hardtails, its just too good a design to die out. BUt they will less and less be the top echelon of cross-terrain technology.

-People who just ride to ride are the CORE of the sport.

cheers,
floody


Oh , and BTW,
I apologise for my seeming lack of knowledge on this antiquated "Use-net" thing. I guess I was too busy ripping it up on the trails/bmx/mx bike etc while you people were getting your l33t h4x0r monitor tans

 

[Penny S]

floody scrawled in bright red lipstick:
> Penny S wrote:
> > floody scrawled in bright pink lipstick: laugh all you want... I'm not fast downhill, never
> > will be and I
> laugh > at myself for it.
> > . You don't have to have fun my way of riding, but I sure do. Just be careful how you say your
> > way is better. It isn't. it's
> just > another way.
>
>
>
> Exactly, just reverse it, thats what I'm trying to say! If xc rides are your thing then good go
> for it! from the pic in your other post, you look more like a trail rider type than one of the
> anti social XC hammerheads that I happen to dislike....
>
> I DO have a problem with people who ride for reasons outside the ride itself thats all, and who
> get antsy when their training ride, or their "look at the trees" ride* gets interrupted by another
> trail user. I ride because I like riding my bike. Same thing goes whether I've been doing
> DH/XC/FR/dual slalom/dirtjumping/BMX racing/BMX park/all day trail riding.
>
> Wheres that picture from, looks like some sick chutes to bomb in the background
>
> cheers, floody
>
> *distinct from going trailriding AND enjoying the environment, by the term "look at trees" ride, I
> mean when the enjoyment of riding the bike is secondary to the purpose of looking at stuff.
>
>

sounds like you need to move out of your overcrowded major metropolitan area with uptight people and
trail user conflicts. OTOH, just stay there.

The trees around here are pretty cool, one cant' help but stop and gawk with amazement when riding
through old growth Cedar.

1¢

 

[Penny S]

floody scrawled in bright red lipstick:
> Penny S wrote:
> > floody scrawled in bright pink lipstick: laugh all you want... I'm not fast downhill, never
> > will be and I
> laugh > at myself for it.
> > . You don't have to have fun my way of riding, but I sure do. Just be careful how you say your
> > way is better. It isn't. it's
> just > another way.
>
>
>
> Exactly, just reverse it, thats what I'm trying to say! If xc rides are your thing then good go
> for it! from the pic in your other post, you look more like a trail rider type than one of the
> anti social XC hammerheads that I happen to dislike....
>
> I DO have a problem with people who ride for reasons outside the ride itself thats all, and who
> get antsy when their training ride, or their "look at the trees" ride* gets interrupted by another
> trail user. I ride because I like riding my bike. Same thing goes whether I've been doing
> DH/XC/FR/dual slalom/dirtjumping/BMX racing/BMX park/all day trail riding.
>
> Wheres that picture from, looks like some sick chutes to bomb in the background
>
> cheers, floody
>
> *distinct from going trailriding AND enjoying the environment, by the term "look at trees" ride, I
> mean when the enjoyment of riding the bike is secondary to the purpose of looking at stuff.
>
>

sounds like you need to move out of your overcrowded major metropolitan area with uptight people and
trail user conflicts. OTOH, just stay there.

1¢

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

"Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "bomba" wrote in message
> > floody wrote:
> >
> > > Exactly, just reverse it, thats what I'm trying to say! If xc rides
are
> > > your thing then good go for it! from the pic in your other post, you look more like a trail
> > > rider type than one of the anti social XC hammerheads that I happen to dislike....
> >
> > Ah, you're in the wrong place then. None of us actually enjoy riding, we just ride to be
> > anti-social and fit.
> >
>
> Fit? I just thought we rode to be anti-social.

I just come here to be anti-social. I get fit by lifting beer. What's a bike?

Shaun aRe

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

"Dave W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:37:15 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"floody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Corvus Corvax wrote:
> >> > floody <[email protected]> wrote [... Dewbie rant in response to a four-month
> >> > old post elided...] Now, see? This is the problem with cyclingforums.com. It opens
things
> >up
> >> > to people who aren't smart enough to post to Usenet otherwise. And CC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh, sorry did I post on YOUR forum...
> >
> >It's actually my news group. Except for w/e's and holidays when it's anyone's guess........
> >
>
> That's only because he's a poor bastage, can't afford his own internet connection. So he has to
> wait until he can use daddy's at work.

Nah, it's because I get this for free, and the money I save I can spend on beer, outdoor clothing,
and pocket sized books about the dangers of vine weevil infestations.

Shaun aRe

 

[Corvus Corvax]

"Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> It's actually my news group.

I noticed you had it up on Ebay. Getting any takers?

CC

 

[Craig Brossman]

floody wrote:

> I think though, my positon is that people who aren't in it for the ride, shouldn't be in it. Get a
> nature poster and a set of rollers, if fitness
>

Please explain why your reason for being out there is better than someone who does it for fitness?
Please explain why someone who does not greet you they way you greet them shouldn't be out there.
You probably see where I'm going with this. I agree with you, I prefer friendly, courteous riders
when I'm on the trail, and fortunately that is the majority of riders in my area, but just because I
don't "get it", does not change their right to be there.

No reason to make this XC vs. DH, as long as we all take care of our trails and treat each other
with respect. I think it is that simple.

--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado (remove ".nospam" to reply)

 

[Penny S]

Craig Brossman scrawled in bright red lipstick:
> floody wrote:
>
>> I think though, my positon is that people who aren't in it for the ride, shouldn't be in it. Get
>> a nature poster and a set of rollers, if fitness
>>
>
> Please explain why your reason for being out there is better than someone who does it for fitness?
> Please explain why someone who does not greet you they way you greet them shouldn't be out there.
> You probably see where I'm going with this. I agree with you, I prefer friendly, courteous riders
> when I'm on the trail, and fortunately that is the majority of riders in my area, but just because
> I don't "get it", does not change their right to be there.
>
> No reason to make this XC vs. DH, as long as we all take care of our trails and treat each other
> with respect. I think it is that simple.

I think it's about a preconceived notion of amb as the " anti" forum.... I think the only thing we
are "anti" is general stupidity. We love our resident DH-er's and free riders. Well, sort of. ;-)

Penny

 

[Jd]

floody <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Well, you may laugh at me at the top, I guess I'll just laugh at you when I kick your **** all the
> way down!

No, most of us will laugh at you no matter where you may be.

> Most of the DH/freeride/traily types will greet you, wave, talk, even stop.

Poppycock. Most of the trails I choose to ride are not shuttleable. Dewbies are not seen on most
of my rides.

> I hate the fact that XC people think they rule the cycling world..its ridiculous. I give about as
> much of a **** for your 3000ft climbing prowess as you do for my descending skills, or urban
> skills or whatever.

I'd love to see you (on a rigid bike) feebly try to keep up with someone like Anthony Sloan (on a
rigid bike as well) on a descent. Your long travel compensates for more than the obvious. Get some
skills, drink another dew and come back in a few years.

JD

 

[Jd]

"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> As far as production bikes, I've seen two up close and personal which qualify about as well as can
> be expected: Trek Fuel, full XTR, v-brakes; Titus Racer-X, same componants.

That's like comparing a crack ***** that's dressed nicely to a hottie with the same outfit.

JD

 

[Dave W]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:06:35 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Dave W" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:37:15 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"floody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> Corvus Corvax wrote:
>> >> > floody <[email protected]> wrote [... Dewbie rant in response to a four-month
>> >> > old post elided...] Now, see? This is the problem with cyclingforums.com. It opens
>things
>> >up
>> >> > to people who aren't smart enough to post to Usenet otherwise. And CC
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Oh, sorry did I post on YOUR forum...
>> >
>> >It's actually my news group. Except for w/e's and holidays when it's anyone's guess........
>> >
>>
>> That's only because he's a poor bastage, can't afford his own internet connection. So he has to
>> wait until he can use daddy's at work.
>
>Nah, it's because I get this for free, and the money I save I can spend on beer, outdoor clothing,
>and pocket sized books about the dangers of vine weevil infestations.
>
>
>Shaun aRe
>

Oh, o.k, then that's allright...

 

[Andrew Thorne]

<snip>

>Categorically, here is my position:
>
>-Blow ins from the road and fitness junkies are BAD for the sport.
>

You mean guys like Tom Ritchey, Joe Breeze, or Steve Potts? Yeah, those roadie

>-Green Geeks are BAD for the sport.
>

You mean like Charlie Cunningham? Or maybe you mean the guys who run Chris King? Yeah, I wouldn't
want to associate with anybody like that.

>-Freeride is OCCASIONALLY bad for the sport, but mostly is pushing it forward. Remember that It is
>one of the few segments left that is more about the ride itself, given there is little or no
>competitive outlet.
>

How does the presence or absence of a competitive outlet have anything to do with it? And how can
you say that riding off-trail isn't bad for the sport?

>-Downhill is where the whole damn thing came from, remember that.
>

Umm, no. Lots of people were playing around with offroad bikes at about the same time. The Repack
guys just kept claiming to have invented the sport more often and more loudly than anyone else. And
dopes like you bought it.

>-Weight weeny fragile bikes are a thing of the past, or should be. I think the future of Mountain
>bikes will probably lie in a hybrid somewhere between the freeride beasts and the trail bikes. Sad
>fact for the weight weenies. I think however, there will always be light hardtails, its just too
>good a design to die out. BUt they will less and less be the top echelon of cross-terrain
>technology.
>

You're an idiot. Freeride bikes are popular right now because they're popular right now. They'll be
scarce as soon as something else becomes the bike de jour.

>-People who just ride to ride are the CORE of the sport.
>

No. People who ride are. Their reasons for riding are their own. And are no more or less valid
than yours.

-Andrew

 

[Spider]

floody <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm glad I gave a few people an ego boost by posting my opinion.

Oh, now don't go all sensitive on us - don't post your opinions if you have trouble with folks
disagreeing.

> I'll leave this thread alone now... You guys can go bust a lung on some remote climb.....

How about I do both? Climb hard, then go back down hill? See some scenery, have a few nice moments
listening to the wind in the trees, smelling the forest? Can I do that, too?

> I should have seen the description in the link from cyclingforums.com that said it was the
> Anti-freeride, Anti-DH forum...

You're not very bright, then.

If you can stick to the trail, DH/FR is fine by me. When you go off-trail, or ******** other users
and get the trails closed, then you're on my ****-list.

> I thought I'd add my opinion on Horst Leitner's ideas about the progression (or in the case of
> most who have posted here, lack thereof) in our sport. Categorically, here is my position:

What value does your opinion have, other than the fact that you hold it?

> -Blow ins from the road and fitness junkies are BAD for the sport.

Yeah, all that money to keep R&D going is bad. Tell us another story.

> -Green Geeks are BAD for the sport.

You mean the ones who want to keep every freakin' hill from being paved over and having McMansions
grown up instead? The ones who want to keep motorized vehicles off of singletrack? Yeah, those folks
ARE really bad!

> -Freeride is OCCASIONALLY bad for the sport, but mostly is pushing it forward. Remember that It is
> one of the few segments left that is more about the ride itself, given there is little or no
> competitive outlet.

LOL. Occasionally bad? These bad-ass dewbies and the "let's ride out of bounds" suck for the sport.
Keep it to the trails, and don't ******** other users.

> -Downhill is where the whole damn thing came from, remember that.

LOL. Pull your head out of your ass. 10 years ago, big-ass suspension bikes were about as niche a
product as $8000 Colnago road bikes. And folks like me were riding on trails long before that.
Fully-rigid steel bikes are where this sport came from, you moron.

> -Weight weeny fragile bikes are a thing of the past, or should be.

What a stupid comment.

> I think the future of Mountain bikes will probably lie in a hybrid somewhere between the freeride
> beasts and the trail bikes.

Like the "all mountain" class of bikes that most XC folks actually ride?

> Sad fact for the weight weenies. I think however, there will always be light hardtails, its just
> too good a design to die out.

Gotta have them for the SS idiots amongst us.

> BUt they will less and less be the top echelon of cross-terrain technology.

There will always be low-dollar entry-level MTBs. ANd they won't be FS freeride bikes. XC will be
the entry point for most folks into the sport.

Get over it.

Spider

> -People who just ride to ride are the CORE of the sport.
>
> cheers, floody
>
>
> Oh , and BTW, I apologise for my seeming lack of knowledge on this antiquated "Use-net" thing. I
> guess I was too busy ripping it up on the trails/bmx/mx bike etc while you people were getting
> your l33t h4x0r monitor tans

 

[Dave W]

On 26 Sep 2003 18:12:22 GMT, [email protected] (Andrew Thorne) wrote:

>>-Freeride is OCCASIONALLY bad for the sport, but mostly is pushing it forward. Remember that It is
>>one of the few segments left that is more about the ride itself, given there is little or no
>>competitive outlet.
>>
>
>How does the presence or absence of a competitive outlet have anything to do with it? And how can
>you say that riding off-trail isn't bad for the sport?

are we reading the same post here? Damn if I can see the part about riding off trail. Could you
point that out for me in the above quote?

 

[Jon Bond]

"John Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:deMcb.17126$vj2.14528@fed1read06...
> > There are a multitude of bikes to choose from to meet every need or desire, from singlespeeds,
> > to (soon to be extinct?) hardtails, to short travel x-c dualies, to medium travel, to big travel
> > pseudo motorcycles.
>
> Agreed, except where are the light bikes these days? I think that's what Horst Leitner was trying
> to get at... that lightweight full suspension
bikes
> are extinct. They just don't make light bikes anymore because people
abuse
> them... this means broken frames galore, and subsequently angry customers, expensive warranty
> budget, and poor company image. I think it's possible
to
> get a light full suspension bike, but not from a mass producer... you have to go custom.
>
> Personally, I'd love to ride a 22 pound full suspension bike. I'm 150 pounds, so I could get away
> with a frame that's not slathered with gussets and overbuilt for the fattest common denominator.
>
> -John Morgan
> --
> "I tried lube, careful prying, careful digging and even not so careful digging. Little chunks of
> rubber." --Sad Bob

http://www.light-bikes.com/gallery/fs.htm

Jon Bond

 

[Dave W]

On 26 Sep 2003 19:13:10 GMT, [email protected] (Stephen Baker) wrote:

>Dave W says:
>
>>are we reading the same post here? Damn if I can see the part about riding off trail. Could you
>>point that out for me in the above quote?
>
>Which part of "FreeRide" did you not comprehend?

I understand the term Freeride perfectly, but I didn't think that it meant riding off trail...is
that what YOU think it means?