MTB'ing growing in popularity



Tom Sherman wrote:
> Maggie wrote:
>
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> >>Maggie wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>...
> >>>I think comfort bikes are growing more and more popular as this

> >
> > baby
> >
> >>>boom generation gets out there to ride. Just my humble opinion.

> >
> > As a
> >
> >>>Boomer looking for a comfortable ride. ;-)
> >>
> >>There is always the option of going over to the dark side.
> >>
> >>Get Bent!
> >>
> >>--
> >>Tom Sherman - Earth

> >
> >
> >
> > :) Right back at ya Mr. Earth.

>
> If you would rather perch way up in the air on a tiny saddle, rather
> than recline in comfort on a true seat while cycling, that is your

choice.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Earth


There is no way I am perching on a tiny saddle way up in the air. I
recline in comfort on a very comfortable seat. I went out looking for
the perfect "comfortable seat" when I bought the bike.
I think that WAS my choice.
I am the baby boomer looking for comfort, I'm not trying to imitate
Lance Armstrong. I just want to ride a comfort bike around town, to
work, on some fun rides and maybe a few tours. Hey, what was the
original question?
Maggie (dazed and confused)
 
Maggie wrote:

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>Maggie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maggie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>...
>>>>>I think comfort bikes are growing more and more popular as this
>>>
>>>baby
>>>
>>>
>>>>>boom generation gets out there to ride. Just my humble opinion.
>>>
>>>As a
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Boomer looking for a comfortable ride. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>There is always the option of going over to the dark side.
>>>>
>>>>Get Bent!
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Tom Sherman - Earth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>:) Right back at ya Mr. Earth.

>>
>>If you would rather perch way up in the air on a tiny saddle, rather
>>than recline in comfort on a true seat while cycling, that is your

>
> choice.
>
>>--
>>Tom Sherman - Earth

>
>
> There is no way I am perching on a tiny saddle way up in the air. I
> recline in comfort on a very comfortable seat. I went out looking for
> the perfect "comfortable seat" when I bought the bike.
> I think that WAS my choice.
> I am the baby boomer looking for comfort, I'm not trying to imitate
> Lance Armstrong. I just want to ride a comfort bike around town, to
> work, on some fun rides and maybe a few tours. Hey, what was the
> original question?
> Maggie (dazed and confused)


Maggie,

Are you aware that "dark side" is the British slang term for a recumbent
bicycle and thus saying "get bent" is not an insult in this context?

This is my fast AND comfortable bicycle:
<http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth
 
I think the rise in popularity of MTBs goes hand in hand with the
popularity of SUVs. Most are purchased by people who will never drive
off-road, and most of those MTBs will never be ridden off road either.
I wonder how many MTBs are sold to SUV people as accessories for their
expensive SUVs? I mean, geez, the SUVs in the ads always show people
hauling camping gear, kayaks, MTBs, and etc. to beautiful places in
the middle of nowhere... The SUV is purchased as an image enhancement
(who can afford a porsche or ferrari?) so you need to complete the
image of looking like you can go anywhere by looking like you can ride
an MTB.
 
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Maggie wrote:
>
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> >>Maggie wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Maggie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>...
> >>>>>I think comfort bikes are growing more and more popular as this
> >>>
> >>>baby
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>boom generation gets out there to ride. Just my humble opinion.
> >>>
> >>>As a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Boomer looking for a comfortable ride. ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>There is always the option of going over to the dark side.
> >>>>
> >>>>Get Bent!
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Tom Sherman - Earth
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>:) Right back at ya Mr. Earth.
> >>
> >>If you would rather perch way up in the air on a tiny saddle,

rather
> >>than recline in comfort on a true seat while cycling, that is your

> >
> > choice.
> >
> >>--
> >>Tom Sherman - Earth

> >
> >
> > There is no way I am perching on a tiny saddle way up in the air.

I
> > recline in comfort on a very comfortable seat. I went out looking

for
> > the perfect "comfortable seat" when I bought the bike.
> > I think that WAS my choice.
> > I am the baby boomer looking for comfort, I'm not trying to imitate
> > Lance Armstrong. I just want to ride a comfort bike around town,

to
> > work, on some fun rides and maybe a few tours. Hey, what was the
> > original question?
> > Maggie (dazed and confused)

>
> Maggie,
>
> Are you aware that "dark side" is the British slang term for a

recumbent
> bicycle and thus saying "get bent" is not an insult in this context?
>
> This is my fast AND comfortable bicycle:
> <http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Earth



OOOOOOOOOPS....I am not up on British Slang......I'm from Joisey. I
knew Liverpool slang in the sixties..when I was "GROOVEY".....but now
The dark side to me comes from Star Wars. ;-) And Get Bent
means....GET BENT! :-0
Maggie with due respect and apologetic.
 
Maggie wrote:
>
>
> There is no way I am perching on a tiny saddle way up in the air. I
> recline in comfort on a very comfortable seat. I went out looking for
> the perfect "comfortable seat" when I bought the bike.
> I think that WAS my choice.
> I am the baby boomer looking for comfort, I'm not trying to imitate
> Lance Armstrong. I just want to ride a comfort bike around town, to
> work, on some fun rides and maybe a few tours.


Usually, as your mileage goes up your idea of what's comfortable
changes.
 
kituyjkm wrote:

> I think the rise in popularity of MTBs goes hand in hand with the
> popularity of SUVs. Most are purchased by people who will never drive
> off-road, and most of those MTBs will never be ridden off road either.
> I wonder how many MTBs are sold to SUV people as accessories for their
> expensive SUVs? I mean, geez, the SUVs in the ads always show people
> hauling camping gear, kayaks, MTBs, and etc. to beautiful places in
> the middle of nowhere... The SUV is purchased as an image enhancement
> (who can afford a porsche or ferrari?) so you need to complete the
> image of looking like you can go anywhere by looking like you can ride
> an MTB.


I don't think so. I think a lot of people were attracted to mountain bikes
because they offered greater comfort and riding ease than skinny tired,
overgeared, drop bar road bikes -- at least for beginning cyclists. I know
plenty of people who bought mountain bikes in the late 80s and early 90s, for
this reason. They thought they were the best thing since sliced bread. This is
still the case.

Matt O.
 
Peter Cole wrote:
> Maggie wrote:
>>
>>
>> There is no way I am perching on a tiny saddle way up in the air. I
>> recline in comfort on a very comfortable seat. I went out looking for
>> the perfect "comfortable seat" when I bought the bike.
>> I think that WAS my choice.
>> I am the baby boomer looking for comfort, I'm not trying to imitate
>> Lance Armstrong. I just want to ride a comfort bike around town, to
>> work, on some fun rides and maybe a few tours.

>
> Usually, as your mileage goes up your idea of what's comfortable
> changes.


This is definately true.

Matt O.
 
Bill H. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I suppose if you only ride for fitness, road biking would be the way to
> go since it's, as you say, a more consistent workout. I'm a big fan of
> mountain biking, mainly because I enjoy the outdoors and sightseeing.


I'm a big fan of urban road cycling because I enjoy finding new places
and sightseeing. Of course, sometimes the sights might include the
college campus on a nice warm sunny day...

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
Murray's Rule:
Any country with "democratic" in the title isn't.
 
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:09:28 -0500, Matt O'Toole wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Maggie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no way I am perching on a tiny saddle way up in the air. I
>>> recline in comfort on a very comfortable seat. I went out looking for
>>> the perfect "comfortable seat" when I bought the bike.
>>> I think that WAS my choice.
>>> I am the baby boomer looking for comfort, I'm not trying to imitate
>>> Lance Armstrong. I just want to ride a comfort bike around town, to
>>> work, on some fun rides and maybe a few tours.

>>
>> Usually, as your mileage goes up your idea of what's comfortable
>> changes.

>
> This is definately true.


This is very true, I ride on a Brooks Saddle. I have them on both
bikes. On my first MTB I have the factory vinyl seat and then
purchased a nice soft padded seat cover. As my miles went up I dumped
the seat cover as it caused more problems. When I purchased the Road
bike I used the factory seat for a while (not bad). After a few years
of abuse I switched to a Brooks (I still have that seat). The break in
period was only 50 miles for both seats. When I got my Ti bike it had
a Selle San Marco saddle. I road that for only 2 miles, very painful!
I ordered a new Brooks and that's my current saddle.

The solution is this, find a saddle where your sit bones are supported
and no pressure is applied to the wrong places. For some folks the
Brooks are too wide or narrow. I've asked a few others about the
'cushy' saddles and most (but not all) seem to agree that as the
distance climbs 'cushy' puts the pressure where they don't want it.

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry [email protected]
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ (Text only)
http://hcs.sourceforge.net/ (HCS II)
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
 
Neil Cherry wrote:

> I ride on a Brooks Saddle. I have them on both
> bikes. On my first MTB I have the factory vinyl seat and then
> purchased a nice soft padded seat cover. As my miles went up I dumped
> the seat cover as it caused more problems. When I purchased the Road
> bike I used the factory seat for a while (not bad). After a few years
> of abuse I switched to a Brooks (I still have that seat). The break in
> period was only 50 miles for both seats.


Brooks saddles can be extremely comfortable, but they're probably better for
people who stay in the same position all the time. I like to move around a bit,
and the Brooks doesn't allow that as much. It tends to have one sweet spot.
Also, the care is too fussy. If not properly sealed they're too easily ruined
by water, etc. However, for some people a Brooks works when nothing else does.

Matt O.
 
Matt O'Toole wrote:

> I don't think so. I think a lot of people were attracted to mountain bikes
> because they offered greater comfort and riding ease than skinny tired,
> overgeared, drop bar road bikes -- at least for beginning cyclists. I know
> plenty of people who bought mountain bikes in the late 80s and early 90s, for
> this reason. They thought they were the best thing since sliced bread. This is
> still the case.


It would help if there were more reasonable drop bar road bikes, with
wide tire and fender clearances, 36-spoke wheels on reasonably sturdy
rims, with the handlebars set high enough, etc. Add to the above shops
willing to promote such bikes to new/prospective cyclists.

As Jobst Brandt likes to point out, a properly outfitted road bike does
just fine for moderate off-road use. Such a bike will also suffer far
fewer flats (and potential rim damage) than something with <25-mm wide
tires.

And yes, it is ridiculous for a rider with a 150W output to have the
same 53/39 and 11-23 gearing as a professional rider with a 350W+ output.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth
 
Maggie wrote:

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>Maggie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maggie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Maggie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>I think comfort bikes are growing more and more popular as this
>>>>>
>>>>>baby
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>boom generation gets out there to ride. Just my humble opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>As a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Boomer looking for a comfortable ride. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is always the option of going over to the dark side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Get Bent!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Tom Sherman - Earth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>:) Right back at ya Mr. Earth.
>>>>
>>>>If you would rather perch way up in the air on a tiny saddle,

>
> rather
>
>>>>than recline in comfort on a true seat while cycling, that is your
>>>
>>>choice.
>>>
>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Tom Sherman - Earth
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no way I am perching on a tiny saddle way up in the air.

>
> I
>
>>>recline in comfort on a very comfortable seat. I went out looking

>
> for
>
>>>the perfect "comfortable seat" when I bought the bike.
>>>I think that WAS my choice.
>>>I am the baby boomer looking for comfort, I'm not trying to imitate
>>>Lance Armstrong. I just want to ride a comfort bike around town,

>
> to
>
>>>work, on some fun rides and maybe a few tours. Hey, what was the
>>>original question?
>>>Maggie (dazed and confused)

>>
>>Maggie,
>>
>>Are you aware that "dark side" is the British slang term for a

>
> recumbent
>
>>bicycle and thus saying "get bent" is not an insult in this context?
>>
>>This is my fast AND comfortable bicycle:
>><http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg>.
>>
>>--
>>Tom Sherman - Earth

>
>
>
> OOOOOOOOOPS....I am not up on British Slang......I'm from Joisey. I
> knew Liverpool slang in the sixties..when I was "GROOVEY".....but now
> The dark side to me comes from Star Wars. ;-) And Get Bent
> means....GET BENT! :-0
> Maggie with due respect and apologetic.


Maggie,

No offense taken. Being a veteran of a few too many off-topic flame
wars, someone has to try really hard to offend me on Usenet.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth
 
Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> It would help if there were more reasonable drop bar road bikes, with


> wide tire and fender clearances, 36-spoke wheels on reasonably sturdy


> rims, with the handlebars set high enough, etc. Add to the above

shops
> willing to promote such bikes to new/prospective cyclists.


There are plenty of these bikes, they're called "touring bikes". They
are eminently practical bikes, available in the $600-1500 dollar range.
Why more aren't sold, especially to new or non-racing cyclists, I don't
know.
 
"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> > It would help if there were more reasonable drop bar road bikes, with

>
> > wide tire and fender clearances, 36-spoke wheels on reasonably sturdy

>
> > rims, with the handlebars set high enough, etc. Add to the above

> shops
> > willing to promote such bikes to new/prospective cyclists.

>
> There are plenty of these bikes, they're called "touring bikes". They
> are eminently practical bikes, available in the $600-1500 dollar range.
> Why more aren't sold, especially to new or non-racing cyclists, I don't
> know.
>

My opinion on to why more touring bikes aren't sold.
I think most people look at a bike with drop bars as a racing only bike.
Now I am certainly no expert, but I learn new stuff about bikes almost
everyday.
And it seems to me that if bike shop sales people were able to correctly
size a frameset to a customer,
and then explain the advantages of a road frame, more people would buy a
road bike.
But this is just my opinion.

Ken
 
The problem with touring bikes is that no one tours. People see those
dropped bars and immediately remember the pain they suffered on their
first multispeed bike. MTBs are certainly a step in the right
direction for most people's riding (around the block once or twice).
They won't ride off-road, but fat tires get fewer flats (until they
sit in a garage for 6 months).

My silly wife was recently complaining about how her "new" comfort
bike (that she has had for 6 months and ridden maybe 3 times) needs to
have the tires pumped up every time she rides it. "This bike sucks -
I never had to pump the tires on my bike in Japan". Sez I: Well,
that's because you were riding around with flat tires and the bike was
so shitty you didn't realize it, or someone else was taking care of
the bike for you, as I am now."

If you really want to tour- i.e. ride long distances, get a recumbent!
It used to be that recumbents were expensive compared to decent DF
bikes, but it seems the prices on decent recumbents have dropped. Now
if they ever get to the Walmart price range, they'll really take off.
 
kituyjkm wrote:

> ...
> If you really want to tour- i.e. ride long distances, get a recumbent!
> It used to be that recumbents were expensive compared to decent DF
> bikes, but it seems the prices on decent recumbents have dropped. Now
> if they ever get to the Walmart price range, they'll really take off.


Shhhhh..., you are not supposed to mention recumbents on rec.bicycles.*.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth
 
"kituyjkm" <fchg> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The problem with touring bikes is that no one tours. People see those
> dropped bars and immediately remember the pain they suffered on their
> first multispeed bike. MTBs are certainly a step in the right
> direction for most people's riding (around the block once or twice).
> They won't ride off-road, but fat tires get fewer flats (until they
> sit in a garage for 6 months).
>
> My silly wife was recently complaining about how her "new" comfort
> bike (that she has had for 6 months and ridden maybe 3 times) needs to
> have the tires pumped up every time she rides it. "This bike sucks -
> I never had to pump the tires on my bike in Japan". Sez I: Well,
> that's because you were riding around with flat tires and the bike was
> so shitty you didn't realize it, or someone else was taking care of
> the bike for you, as I am now."
>
> If you really want to tour- i.e. ride long distances, get a recumbent!
> It used to be that recumbents were expensive compared to decent DF
> bikes, but it seems the prices on decent recumbents have dropped. Now
> if they ever get to the Walmart price range, they'll really take off.

Well this is true about recumbents they are much more comfortable, I have a
swb bent that I built myself in my garage, and it rides great! However
because it sits much lower to the ground it is much less visible to people
driving motor vehicles. Being comfortable isn't going to do you any good if
you are dead!

Ken
 
Tom Sherman wrote:

> Maggie,
>
> No offense taken. Being a veteran of a few too many off-topic flame
> wars, someone has to try really hard to offend me on Usenet.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Earth



Thank you for accepting my apologies. Personally, I can't understand
how ANYONE can get offended by a newsgroup post. Maybe I have been
jaded because of the business I work in, but I really don't understand
how this can be taken so personally. I am in business flame wars every
day.

I am not a verteran of NG flame wars and I actually find them amusing.
(it takes very little to amuse me.)

If you think about life too much you have to find it rather amusing or
you'll go insane.

I sometimes think there is a higher power somewhere looking down at us
playing us like checkers. We get kinged, jumped, triple jumped,
sometimes we lose and sometimes we win. Sometimes we fall off the
board and occasionally the higher power takes the board and throws it
in the air, upsetting the game.

Maybe I think too much. I should ride more and think less. ;-)

All Good Things, (IT'S FRIDAY!!!)
Maggie.
 
Maggie wrote:

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>
>>Maggie,
>>
>>No offense taken. Being a veteran of a few too many off-topic flame
>>wars, someone has to try really hard to offend me on Usenet.
>>
>>--
>>Tom Sherman - Earth

>
>
>
> Thank you for accepting my apologies. Personally, I can't understand
> how ANYONE can get offended by a newsgroup post. Maybe I have been
> jaded because of the business I work in, but I really don't understand
> how this can be taken so personally. I am in business flame wars every
> day....


I have never witnessed a project manager or field superintendent get
angry. ;)

Go ahead - blame the soils engineer!

--
Tom Sherman - Earth