Off road history.

Trips, adventures, bikes, equipment, etc.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2438
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Off road history.

Postby Bmblbzzz » 22 Apr 2019, 11:16am

Going back to the point a few posts up that a touring bike is the best all-round compromise for a ride involving both road and off-road sections: Might well be so, but surely it depends on where you draw your own compromises? If you don't want to have to carry or push your bike, you'll be happier with a mountain bike. If you're happy to carry/push a lot of the off-road and value speed and ease for the tarmac, you might prefer a sporty road bike. Other compromises at other points and in other directions are yours to be made.

reohn2
Posts: 33863
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Off road history.

Postby reohn2 » 22 Apr 2019, 11:56am

Mike_Ayling wrote:OK, fat tyres are not necessarily wimpy.

Fat tyres are very practical even on tarmac,I ride 37mm slicks on the road and they're supercomfy as well as being PDQ.

However the fact that today's trails are far more demanding than those of 30 years ago is because the new technology has enabled them to be so, brakes alone permit much faster speeds

I ride some of the same tracks and trails as I did 30 years ago,some have changed some are practically the same.Better brakes are always welcome,discs more so,especially in wet and mucky conditions.
It's been mainly tyres that have improved in that time and frames with lots of big tyre clearances.my rigid all steel MTB rolls over practically anything on 29er x 2.4inch supple and grippy tyres at very looowww pressures(15f 25r)and weighs 12.5kg

Yes the new technology does require different skills for today's riders to "hone" while having to replace their bikes and components at very short intervals.

Mike

Whilst I agree about skill set improvements needed especially on a rigid bike with big tyres,I don't blame anyone for having suspension which cerrainly makes for faster riding offroad.
I'm not so sure about bikes needing changing at very short intervals though,components do have a shorter life off road,but are better made now than they were then.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2438
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Off road history.

Postby Bmblbzzz » 22 Apr 2019, 3:20pm

reohn2 wrote:
Mike_Ayling wrote:OK, fat tyres are not necessarily wimpy.

Fat tyres are very practical even on tarmac,I ride 37mm slicks on the road and they're supercomfy as well as being PDQ.

However the fact that today's trails are far more demanding than those of 30 years ago is because the new technology has enabled them to be so, brakes alone permit much faster speeds

I ride some of the same tracks and trails as I did 30 years ago,some have changed some are practically the same.Better brakes are always welcome,discs more so,especially in wet and mucky conditions.

Are you talking about tracks as in paths and bridleways that go somewhere or trails created specially for riding on, whether in trail centres or just out in the woods? I got the impression Mike Ayling was talking about the latter (which I'm not personally interested in, though I'm sure they're great fun for many) but maybe you're now riding tracks and bridleways you wouldn't/couldn't have earlier?

reohn2
Posts: 33863
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Off road history.

Postby reohn2 » 22 Apr 2019, 5:09pm

Tracks and paths,I don't go to trail trail centres.
Apologies to Mike if we're at cross porpoises
Last edited by reohn2 on 28 Apr 2019, 10:34am, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

slowster
Posts: 593
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Off road history.

Postby slowster » 22 Apr 2019, 10:08pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:Going back to the point a few posts up that a touring bike is the best all-round compromise for a ride involving both road and off-road sections: Might well be so, but surely it depends on where you draw your own compromises? If you don't want to have to carry or push your bike, you'll be happier with a mountain bike. If you're happy to carry/push a lot of the off-road and value speed and ease for the tarmac, you might prefer a sporty road bike. Other compromises at other points and in other directions are yours to be made.

My post was not quite such a sweeping generalisation. I was describing a particular ride, for which I maintained that a traditional touring bike was the best compromise. It was also a long ride of approximately 100 miles, of which the rough stuff probably accounted for 10%-15%.

I agree that individuals' preferences will determine what they personally consider the best compromise, but that is a less significant consideration when it is a club ride (or a group of friends), in which case it is likely to be best if everyone is on a similar(ish) type of bike.

Obviously if the majority of that particular ride had been rough stuff, then a touring bike might no longer be the best compromise, but the whole point of my post was that some are emphasising the superiority of modern MTBs and similar bikes for off-road riding over the bikes that were ridden off-road 30 years ago and more, but that superiority is much less clear cut if getting to and from the off-road section involves, say, 40 or more miles of riding on the road. You could choose an MTB that was better suited to the road section, e.g. rigid frame with mudguards and maybe semi-slick and/or narrower tyres and possibly drops, but increasingly it will resemble a touring bike.

Ironically, my point is the inverse of that made by Wayfarer 100 years ago when describing his ride Over The Top:
And is this cycling? Per se, possibly not altogether. Some of the way over the mountains was ridden, but for the most part it was a walking expedition, as has been made clear. It should be emphasized, however, that only through the medium of cycling was the outing in any way possible. Prefaced by a 60-mile ride and followed by one of nearly 50 miles. I claimed that, broadly, this is cycling. At least, it is cycling as I understand it, for my conception of the pastime includes much besides main roads and secondary roads and much beyond the propelling of a bicycle. And, though I am almost a "one-pastime man", I fling wide the boundaries of that pastime and include whatever is incidental thereto. Some of the best of cycling would be missed if one always had to be in the saddle or on a hard road.

I imagine that if Wayfarer were writing his article today, he would now be exhorting MTBers not to limit their rides by sticking only to off-road tracks (or worse, driving to and from such tracks), but to include the roads and lanes, both as a pleasurable form of cycling in its own right and also as a means of getting further afield to explore new and unfamiliar off-road tracks.
Last edited by slowster on 22 Apr 2019, 11:36pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2438
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Off road history.

Postby Bmblbzzz » 22 Apr 2019, 11:22pm

I haven't read much Wayfarer so I'd probably best not guess what his future self would have said, but I can say that his "flinging wide the boundaries" appeals to me.

User avatar
Gattonero
Posts: 3508
Joined: 31 Jan 2016, 1:35pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Off road history.

Postby Gattonero » 28 Apr 2019, 10:15am

The brake pads on my first Mtb's in the late 80's would last two seasons, for a reason: they won't stop anywhere near as good as modern brake compounds. More friction=more wear.
Btw, frames would crack more often in that day, and suspension forks will require more servicing despite their performance that is terrible by today's standards!
It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best,
since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them.
Thus you remember them as they actually are...

Mike_Ayling
Posts: 114
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 3:02am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Off road history.

Postby Mike_Ayling » 4 May 2019, 12:09am

reohn2 wrote:
Mike_Ayling wrote:OK, fat tyres are not necessarily wimpy.

Fat tyres are very practical even on tarmac,I ride 37mm slicks on the road and they're supercomfy as well as being PDQ.

[quote]

I have 36 X 622 Schwalbe Marathon Supremes on my Thorn Mercury but do not regard these as particularly "fat"
Fat to me is over 2 inches /50mm.
The old 27 X 1 1/4 works out to about 31mm.

Mike

reohn2
Posts: 33863
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Off road history.

Postby reohn2 » 4 May 2019, 8:01am

Mike_Ayling wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
Mike_Ayling wrote:OK, fat tyres are not necessarily wimpy.

Fat tyres are very practical even on tarmac,I ride 37mm slicks on the road and they're supercomfy as well as being PDQ.


I have 36 X 622 Schwalbe Marathon Supremes on my Thorn Mercury but do not regard these as particularly "fat"
Fat to me is over 2 inches /50mm.
The old 27 X 1 1/4 works out to about 31mm.

Mike

I alternate between Supremes 700x 50's(47mm actual) and 50mm(also 47 actual) Conti Racekings on my Vagabond and use700x2.4inch on my Longitude for seriously gnarly rocky rough stuff.
I don't find the Supremes are as comfy or as fast as the 37mm(actual size) Vittoria Hypers on my Vaya though
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.