Talk:Mountain bike

Introduction and Main Description

The main mountain bike description here is okay, but definitely not as good as the description of a mountain bike found in the mountain biking page, which goes into some good detail about what makes a mountain bike a mountain bike. I'd recommend duplicating that reference here. Coppercable (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 fact that disk brakes were instated is an enormous part of MTB history and started a revolution in the way we ride. It is absolutely appropriate as the transition from V brakes to disks is enormous.

"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.

This section also referenced BMX bikes being used as the first MTBs in Marin. The citation was a children's book from 1991. Seems like this section could use a bit of reworking as it's vague and not very informative. However, good that it links to the other MTB (sport) page with a better history section. Seaneee 06:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

^{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)

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. Goodnightmush^Talk 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)

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? Goodnightmush^Talk 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. Goodnightmush^Talk 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder about the examples used when talking certain styles of bikes. Large manufacturers, such as Specialized, Giant and Trek, make sense to include as examples, but where is that line drawn? Specifically, why the example of Paragon in there and not Santa Cruz, DiamondBack, or several others? I'd suggest taking that out and sticking with the largest three makers if the article includes specific bike examples. Coppercable (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

I'd recommend removing "full-susser" in the second paragraph. This is a slang/jargon term rather than an "official" designation of a full-suspension mountain bike. Or at least provide a citation that shows it should be included! Coppercable (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

Chainguide

I was just wikifying a couple of mountain bike related articles (Four-cross and Dual slalom) that i'd stumbled across via clicking on the random article button. Anyway one of the words that came up i've never heard before is 'chainguide'. I can take a guess at what it is does and i'm sure it's not big enough to justify it's own article but could do with a bit more description somewhere. I'll leave it to mountain bike experts to decide whether this would be appropriate on this page or some other cycling related page. Wherever it's put i reckon will be a useful encyclopedic addition. extraordinary (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Broken Reference Links

I was just browsing the page when I wanted to check the refrences and found the following problems
Refrence 4: returns a page not found error
Refrence 5: Appears to link to a page that does not yet exsist

Just passing through and thought someone may want to know --Goldman60 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems as though this has been fixed just making sure no one gets confused, disregard my previous post --Goldman60 (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was my reference to muddychain.com deleted when it directly quoted the content on my website??? It is a reference to muddychain.com. It referenced the dual suspension section of the article. I should get credit for my work.

I didn't do the addition, but I can understand why. By contributing content to wikipedia you have irrevocably agreed to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL. So as long as it really was your text to contribute, wikipedia can do what it likes -no need to cite. More importantly, wikipedia has strict citation rules, and it does not consider web pages to be valid information sources, because they aren't strictly reviewed enough. It likes papers and books. If you had written a paper on suspension and paraphrased a bit of it, yes, a citation would go in. Otherwise its just another form of link spamming. Which wikipedia can deal with by blacklisting the entire domain so that all attempts to link to it get rejected. Is that what you want? SteveLoughran (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I took a sharp knife to the external links section. As per WP:EL policy, there shouldn't be a need for so many links, most of which seem intended to direct traffic to the various sites rather than benefit wikipedia directly. I left the fairly large sites in, including the magazines and community sites, though I'm not sure if all of them are really aligned with wikipedia policy. Thoughs? SteveLoughran (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete so many links??? Some of them were really, really good. MTBR is an excellent resource as well as muddychain.com. Their content is pertinent to the article and the links should be reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.113.5 (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your willingness to put links to muddychain throughout wikipedia has been noticed; every single bit of link spam has been pulled. Please do your research into wikipedia's linking policy by following this link WP:EL . It's not about whether a link is good, it is abou whether it is appropriate. I'm not convinced that a lot of the remaining links should stay in, but I left them. I purged out the fairly minimal vocabulary sites and the linkspam. Same goes for citations, incidentally. SteveLoughran (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've repeated the clear up this section. Could editors please read Wikipedia guidelines on external links. Wikipedia is not a links directory. Just because a website is good and about Mountain Biking is not a reason to link it from here. Links should be relevant to the article and contain content that could not otherwise be included on the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

BMX

Which is the main difference with BMX bicycles? (apart of racing). --Nopetro (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some diffences:

	BMX	MTB
wheel size	20" - 24"	26" - 29"
suspension	none	full
gearing	single-speed	1 - 27+
average participant	child	adult
venue	purpose-built dirt track circut	trail through woods

These are just one person's general impressions and obviously are not hard and fast rules. Adults do participate in BMX and children do mountain bike. BMX has a large freestyle (park,street,vert) component. Single-speed and unsuspended mountain bikes are becoming popular. There may be no 'woods' anywhere near a mountain bike trail. Etc., etc. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Disc brakes

This section violates the NPOV guidelines:

"While inexpensive department store-style mountain bikes often come with V-brakes, most higher-end mountain bikes produced since the mid-2000s use disc brakes."

Besides it is factually wrong, since the higher-end MTB have come with disc brakes since the late-1990s, almost ten years earlier than stated in the article now. And mechanical V-brakes as well as hydraulic rim brakes (Magura) are still a viable alternative for MTBs of all price ranges. On the other hand, you can find very cheap bikes, for 300,-- or less, equipped with disc brakes. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

MTB vs. ATB

At least in Germany ATB and MTB do not usually mean the same.

MTB is a sports bicycle that is designed to be very robust for serious off road riding - the kind of bicycle that is described in the article.

ATB usually refers to a bike that looks somewhat like a MTB, but has features such as fenders, dynamo powered light (usually a hub generator), bell, luggage carrier and reflectors making it more suitable for every day cycling and legal on public roads in Germany. ATB do not usually have quick release on the wheels and saddle to prevent theft of these parts. (Quick release is a standard feature for MTBs). ATBs tend to be heavier, lower quality and cheaper than "true" MTBs. While these bikes are more suitable for bad roads etc. than something like a city bike suitability for harder off road riding is questionable.

Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.52.132.123 (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that asserts so? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

ATB was mainly used in Europe in the 90's to refer to mountain biking. Component companies like Campagnolo called their mountain groupsets ATB- http://mombat.org/MOMBAT/BikeHistoryPages/Campagnolo.html

Additionally, the 1989 Scapin Team (Italy), was officially named Scapin ATB (see above link). Seaneee 06:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaneee (talk • contribs)

I've never seen ATB used for mountain bike, so removed it. But if it is still in current usage, it can be added back (with a reference).—LithiumFlash (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about what you have seen, but what you can source. Try using Google once in a while to see what the sources say. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The reference you added for ATB says the term is passé. The lead paragraph should be concise, so I removed the information from the lead, and placed it in "History". Please also be careful of WP:PERSONAL.—LithiumFlash (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Technical"

The article uses the term "technical" but doesn't define it. 24.159.201.116 (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Skyver

Mention of Skyver downhill scooter in first paragraph lacks context, relevance.

I've removed this reference and removed "Most mountain bikes use 26" wheels" from the introductory paragraph. Not only is this irrelevant to the introduction of the mountain bike, but it's also increasingly false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.132.6 (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Photos of stunt bicyclist on a mountain bike

Cool photos for possible inclusion in article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• 
  In a show.
• 
  Wheelie.
• 
  Gravity has a say.
• 
  Hopping on a van.
• 
  Wheelie dangerous.
• 
  Mountain bike maneuver.

List of mountain bike designs

I think this article needs to reduce the number of mountain bike designs listed. The last five categories (4x, DS, IX, North Shore and Circle Dirt) are races, rather than bike styles. Even in their descriptions they call out the type of bike used in those specific situations (or say, "any kind of bikes are used"). To keep this article focused on the bike and not the races, I'd cut the end of this section after "Single-speed" mountain bikes. Coppercable (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Should the section on tandem bikes be moved up under designs? Coppercable (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"Mostly used for"

It is just a fact that the vast majority of mountain bikes sold in the last 20 years were never used off of paved roads. Maybe it's different in other regions, but around here when you take your kid to the store to buy a bike to ride to school, you'll find a rack full of mountain bikes of various grades of "extremeness", or even what amount to road bokes built on mountain bike chassis but with aggressive road tires. The only way you'll find anything other than a mountain bike (or a BMX-style bike) is to specifically look for it. THe people who ride bikes to work, 85% of them are on mountain bikes, although a good number of them have swapped for road tires. Mountain bikes are basically your standard "bicycle" in most of the US, and for the most part they sell because people like their image. A large percentage of bikes sold as "mountain bikes", even with very garish full-suspension systems and other gimmicks to look fancy, wouldn't last more than a day or two of actual off-road biking. They aren't built for that, they are built to look cool, to copy real mountain bikes and tell the world "see what an active, sporty person I am, riding around on my mountain bike?" Most people, especially young people, wouldn't be caught dead riding around on something like a road bike; those "are for old people" (although a hipster-style replica fat-tire, single speed cruiser might be acceptable if it seems non-mainstream enough). It is very much like SUVs and 4x4 pickups. You could make the argument that SUVs are "designed to go off road" (ignoring the modern trend to build "SUVs" on AWD car chassis, and selling them on pure image alone), but no-one is going to try and claim that "SUVs and pickups are mostly driven off road". 95% of 4x4 vehicles in the US are never taken off of paved roads. Even those that are occasionally used off pavement spend most of their time in highway driving. Only specially-modified "mud trucks" and "sand rails" are trailered around and only used off road. Similarly, only very dedicated bicyclists (with sufficient money) will buy a mountain bike just for riding off road, and only use it for that. Most bicyclists who engage in off road riding with their mountain bikes also ride them on road as well. But most mountain bikes never see any more arduous service than tooling around a suburb, riding over curbs, or maybe tooling down gravel paths in parks. Maybe there are places where they do things differently and most people ride road bikes around, and only break out their custom-built $5,000 mountain bikes when the weekend comes and its time to hit the trails, but I have trouble believing that. In most of the US a so-called "mountain bike" is just "a bike". It'll be interesting to see where this silly fat-tire-bike trend goes; already around here we have people everywhere riding around on these balloon-tired bikes, all ready and prepared if they need to ride gently on a forest path, or ride in the snow without sinking...yet of course I have so far seen only one being used off road, and one guy trying to ride one in the snow, once. The rest just bought them because they were new and looked cool, and they come with a built-in image. Just like mountain bikes did originally, before they were just "bikes".

64.222.158.24 (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Nomination withdrawn. Interstellarity (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Interstellarity (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Mountain bike → Mountain bicycle – The title is more encyclopedic and matches the main article title Bicycle. Interstellarity (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME, evidenced by overwhelming numbers in this Ngrams comparison. -- Netoholic @ 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Usually, I would agree with the logic of the proposer, but in this case "mountain bike" is so overwhelmingly the common name that I cannot support this move. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. For what it's worth, "more encyclopedic" is not a valid reason to move a page. Calidum 18:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose 'bike' is more common than 'bicycle' in context of the subject here. ~ Amkgp ✉ 18:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Technical evolution

Hello – I’ve added a table showing the phases in mountain bike design. Anyone could have done it better than me, but it contains the sort of information I’d expect to find in the history section of a mountain bike article. To avoid weighing it down I’ve omitted references; much of the content comes from bikepedia, and some from online catalogues (Marin have an archive which goes back over several years). Colin.champion (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Page needs a re-write

One thing that stick out is basically wrong or it is worded incorrectly: "This is because when the wheel strikes an obstacle its tendency is to bounce up. Due to some forward energy being lost in the upward movement some speed is lost. Dual suspension bikes solve this problem by absorbing this upward force and transmit it into the shocks of the front and rear wheels, drastically decreasing the translation of forward momentum into useless upward movement."

The reason full suspension mountainbikes are 'faster' is due to (1) the less physical effort of keeping it control (2) the sag setting of the rear suspension rebound keeping the back wheel in contact with the ground (more than a hardtail) which translates to better control, and (3) having a bike that feels 'planted' enables a rider to feel more confident in their ability which encourages higher speed and more risk taking.

The "...decreasing the translation of forward momentum into useless upward movement." is non-sensical.

I haven't read the rest... 118.210.128.78 (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)