Talk:Mountain biking

message: What's the difference between mountain biking and off-road cycling, if any? Perhaps the article should be merged with mountain biking. If there will be no objection in a week, I'll do so. --Eleassar777 09:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your move, but I do think there are differences (the page likely will get split up again somewhere in the future). Also, I think a merge from mountain biking to offroad cycling would be better (it's more general). Phlebas 21:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: cyclo-cross is offroad cycling too. Phlebas 16:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are differences in off-road cycling and mountain biking. Many riders take their bikes off-road (think of that shortcut to work) but wouldn't be called mountain bikers. In the recent edits I made some allusions to the self-reliant and group cultures that make this sport mountain biking, instead of just "riding your bike off-road." I would like to expand this area and am looking for some more resource material to aid in explaining it better. One thing I am aware of is that because I live in an area where there is easy access to trails and epic rides I may have a view somewhat different than those living in more urban areas. How much of mountain biking is a state of mind? When I'm riding on a paved trail I'm still mountain biking -- at least in my mind. Mark Tatum 23:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Offroad and mountain cycling

message: "Mountain biking" as a marketing concept might originate in America in the late 1970s, but I can't agree that this was the first example of offroad cycling.  By definition this has to be false - cycling predates modern roads.  I have also heard plenty of anecdotal evidence of recreational off-road cycling before this date, and not just (as the article says) on "defined cyclocross circles".  However, I don't have any direct sources to cite - just thought I'd bring this up for discussion. Ormondroyd 23:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A really good resource is the mountain bike hall of fame page. They argue that while there are many documented (and likely many more undocumented) instances of off-road riding, the events that led to the maturity of our sport began in Marin County. Before that we just had people riding in an unconnected way and basically reinventing the sport each time. Perhaps it was the marketing by the Marin County pioneers that allowed other riders to learn and build on what they had started, resulting in the defined and robust sport we have today. Mark Tatum 23:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one major documented instance of what could be considered organized mountain biking that has occurred for at least the last century or so. The Swiss Military has used a bicycle patrol for both on and off-road work since prior to WWII. In fact, most of the models that guys like Gary Fisher and Joe Breeze were riding were pretty close in design to some of the Swiss, German and British bikes used during that period and later for patrol and utility activities. Charlie Kelly  mentions this somewhere in his pages on the Repack races and the early days of mountian biking. --Caspiankilkelly 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly other off-road pioneers should be recognized. I have seen pictures of other armies in addition to those mentioned who tried at some point to incorporate bicyles as a means of transportation. Is there evidence these experiments directly influenced the sport of mountain biking as we know it today? You probably mountain bike today because of the pioneers on Mt Tam who practiced the sport (as many others did before them), built bikes so others could ride them, and marketed the idea of mountain biking to generate demand for their product. It was a combination of their enthusiasm for the sport, their knowledge of bike racing, bike construction and marketing that propelled the idea to a larger audience. They had a combination of talents among them that led directly to the popularization of the sport. I'm not sure that all off-road cycling qualifies as mountain biking. Is mountain biking the best place to mention these other pioneers or should they be in a sub-section of bicycling in general? Mark Tatum 22:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The start of mountain biking? 

message: The advocacy section is getting long and can be made a lot longer.  I was going to move it to its own page.  Any pro or cons on that idea?  When I do it I was going to add in a list of many more US advocacy groups, as I have a pretty extensive series of bookmarks on them from a previous project.  Ray Crew — Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 12 October 2005
: Wikipedia is not a web directory. So I don't think a list of links for many local groups is good idea. Listing some international / national groups is nice, but I don't see the need to go below that, unless individual local groups are in someway unique / notable - and if they are notable, then create an article about them. You could add a link to list / directory of groups, if you know of a useful one. --Vclaw 12:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's too much focus on U.S. advocacy, as well. I'm going to start chopping links off, as per the mention below of too many external links, as well as the mention made above by vclaw. State-level associations are nice, but there is no reason to add any more than that, since most of these groups DO have a web presence, and can easily be reached via google, yahoo, the local phone book, or any other useful directory service. Really, this section should be cut down to national level advocacy groups for the countries that have them, and notable groups for everything else. I'll start chopping links off sometime soon.--Caspiankilkelly 16:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, can I get at least a bit of a consensus on what should be removed before I go ahead? I'm thinking that anything below state-level advocacy doesn't need to be in this article, and those sections can be replaced with national and state/provincial level advocacy groups in countries other than the United States. --Caspiankilkelly 16:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the advocacy section is too long and has too many links. It should have its own page with just a brief description here. 24.55.121.107 05:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocacy Section 

message: The number of external links in this article is getting ridiculous.  I don't think all of the external links have as much relevance as is implied by WP:EL.  I'm tempted to take a hatchet to the entire section, but I should probably operate with a scalpel instead.  (Or maybe a set of metric Allen wrenches.)  --Elkman - (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is growing again. I'm removing several that are not symmetrically related to the article (per WP:EL. This is a general article about a broad topic, and the links should be to sites with content that is similarly broad. Links to clubs or organizations for specific parks, states, etc. don't belong on this article - although they might be appropriate elsewhere. Nposs 14:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Who deserves the most credit for the invention of mountain biking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.66.93 (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is taken completely from my 20 years of experience in the sport, without reference, but Gary Fisher and his crew in Marin Co. are generally credited with, at least, the modernization and popularization of the sport.  He built the first bikes and settled on the 26" tire/wheel combo that was used for so long, until recently when we have began to use 650b (~27.5") and 29er (29 inch) wheels.  Of course, Gary has again spearheaded these efforts.--Erickeahey (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  creation 

message: At least in the US, mountain bikes sold account for ~40% of all bikes sold, not the 80 claimed in the article.  I'm not sure of the best way to include this information, given that I don't have similar information for any of the other countries listed, and my claim of 40% there would be no better than the un-cited 80% in the article.  I got my information from the <a href="http://nbda.com/page.cfm?PageID=34">NBDA</a>, though there is more recent info than that page for sale on the same site.  My 40% number comes from that more recent info, through an NBDA Super Seminar I attended (and for which I have the powerpoint slides; else I wouldn't have remembered the number). Palmir 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain market share 

message: I'm puzzled as to why there's a specific section for bike trails in Canada, but no reference to trails in other countries.  I'm inclined to add a section for well known trails world-wide (Kokopelli, for example).  FeralDruid 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trails 

message: I added the globalize tag, because some sections are US-centric (e.g. Advocacy) and there are phrases such as "parts of the country" used, which refer to the US but this is not made explicit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.242.7.48 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalize tag

message: I will soon rewrite, restructure, and add material to this article in the hope it will please everyone, myself included.  I have here posted some criticism of the current version, and my plans for the revision.
Precision
We are having a difficult time pinpointing what we wish to say about "mountain biking".  We try to over-generalize.  "Mountain biking" is a vague title; it really applies to six or seven different sports (cross-country, the hybrid "trail riding", freeriding, downhill, 4x-slalom, dirt jumping, and trials), all of which have different priorities, strategies, and skills.  Truly, I say these seven separate sports share nothing but a bike ridden off-road, for no bike could ever satisfy the demands of two disciplines at once, nor could a rider ever excell in more than one category (save the occasional Tomac).  All disciplines are all unalike. Therefore, let us not assume we can generalize about forms of mountain biking, except for the most basic and obvious elements common in all.   Check out how skiing does it.
Biases 
* XC: The whole article, especially the intro, has an XC bias.  This makes sense, as XC riders tend to be more literate.
* Racing:  The article needs to differentiate between the racing and amateur sides of mountain biking more clearly. 
* U.S.A:  as mentioned below, the article describes only North American riding.
More sections I would like to include
* Mountain Biking around the World:  Descriptions of the mountain biking scene around the world:  Whistler, Fruita, Moab, Canada, California, South America. Europe, Scandinavia, Asia, Australia, etc.
* Racing:  a brief description of each of the seven or so types of mountain bike racing (link to list of professional mountain bikers)
* Non-racing:  a paragraph, similar to the current intro, detailing the average mountain bike experience.
* Mountain Bike Media:  Magazines and Videos
Proposed new structure:
# Limited, General Definition and Brief History
# Types of Mountain Biking, with picture, brief history and long description of each.
# Early history - mid 1990's
# mid 1990's - present
# Racing
# Non-racing
# Mountain Biking around the World
# Advocacy
I will soon begin to rewrite this article in said fashion, and I will omit no material already present.  
Your thoughts?  Am I missing anything really important?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daichi (talk • contribs).
:This sounds like an ambitious project, but it makes sense.  The current article is rather disjointed from people making various additions and putting their own little tweaks into different sections without looking at the article as a whole.  As far as the various disciplines are concerned, I don't think they're truly separate sports, since the techniques and skills cross over between those disciplines, but clearly they have different goals.  My other major criticism of the article, as it currently stands, is that it's largely unsourced and largely uncited.  An encyclopedia article should have reliable sources.  If you (and the rest of us) address these concerns, we can come up with a much better article.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 11:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds excellent to me. I've been wanting to do exactly what you say to this article, Mountain bike, and Mountain bike racing for months, but I just can't seem to dedicate the time. That said I some how find hours to do RC patrol, ah well. I'll do my best to help you on this one. Good luck. GoodnightmushTalk 13:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it needs to be more clear in the first section that mountain biking is about biking (mostly) along trails and tracks. Kslotte (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Biases and an Imminent Major Overhaul

message: Seems to have been some unsupported opinions entered in this section and then someone removed the opinions along with some content that may have been appropriate. Having looked at the content that was deleted, I've put together a short draft of what I think would be appropriate for that section. It includes an edited version of some of the deleted content with an added link to the source noted, but does not include what appears to be unsupported opinions. If it looks appropriate, just replace that section with the content below.
"Studies reported in the IMBA (International Mountain Bike Association) Trail Solutions manual claim that a mountain bike's impact is comparable to that of a hiker and substantially less than that of an equestrian.  However, the studies that find mountain biking has little environmental impact have been criticized as underestimating the real impact of mountain biking on the environment. In 2003, Jason Lathrop wrote a critical literature review on the ecological impacts of mountain biking, suggesting a 'lack of scientific literature comparing the effects of mountain biking and other recreational uses on natural systems'." --Wrongdave 04:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence "A critical literature review by Jason Lathrop on the ecological impacts of mountain biking notes that few studies take mountain biking into account" in this section is confusing. It sounds like it means few studies on the ecological impacts of mountain biking take mountain biking into account, which can't be correct. Presumably it actually means that few studies of the ecological impact of trail use in general look at mountain biking? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: CL: Which part of the statement is confusing?  According to the Lathrop survey, there have not been many studies on the impact of mountain biking on trail systems.  It sounds pretty straightforward, and furthermore the interpretation provided above sounds like a restatement of the same idea.  Mountain biking is a relatively new use of trails, compared to hiking, horseback riding, etc.  The fact that research bears this out should not be surprising.Spurlocka (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Spurlocka, I missed your reply. What was confusing is that the wording could be taken to mean that few studies of mountain biking take mountain biking into account, rather than that few studies take mountain biking into account. I'll reword it. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I've added a bit of context. I thought it seemed odd that the section started by discussing studies that suggest that mountain biking has a minimal impact, without explaining the concern that presumably prompted those studies. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental impacts of mountain biking.

message: There seems to be quite a large overlap between the 'Equipment' section and the 'Protective gear' subsection. Anyone have any thoughts on the best way to approach a rewrite of these? Obscurasky (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody's responded to this, so I've had a go at incorporating the 'Protective gear' into the 'Equipment' section - which is where it belongs. If anyone wants to build on this, for example, by writing a short intro to the 'accessories' section, I think that could be a useful addition. Obscurasky (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap between sections 

message: The article lists the International Mountain Biking Association as the sport's highest governing body. Isn't the IMBA just an advocacy group? I would consider the UCI the sport's governing body (regardless of whatever ridiculous decisions they make about the sport). Anyone else want to weigh in on this before I change it? 86.45.57.125 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I get a little confused about what should be in this article and what should be in Mountain bike racing, but wouldn't the UCI only be the highest governing body for mountain bike racing? I note this article doesn't refer to the IMBA as a governing body in the prose - perhaps it's just the wrong use of the infobox in this one and so it should be removed? SeveroTC 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: After 8 years there are no additional opinions here? I'm not sure if mountain biking as an activity has a "governing body," like mountain bike racing has. It has advocacy groups of varying quality (I'm looking at you, IMBA), but just like running, anyone can go out and mountain bike without regard to any official oversight. In fact, I'd recommend removing that line off the infobox, as well as the line about "championships." Isn't this article be about the activity, and Mountain bike racing be about the sport? If there aren't strong disagreements, I may change that sooner than later. Coppercable (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely there is no 'governing body' for recreational mountain biking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscurasky (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governing body 

message: Should this  activity be mentioned in this or another article?Jim.henderson (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it has received coverage through a reliable source.  Ebikeguy (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pump track 

message: This is spam: "In 2007 the documentary film Klunkerz: A Film About Mountain Bikes was released. The film documents the subject of mountain bike history during this formative period in Northern California."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.246.128 (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Klunkerz" is a very California-centric documentary. Little, if any is mentioned about the early history of "mountain biking," specifically the contributions of Geoff Apps and the Rough Stuff Fellowship in Great Britain, starting around 1955, and the fact that the first bicycle, invented around 1817 by Karl von Drais, included a steerable front wheel to negotiate curving forest paths.  "Bicycling Science, 2nd Edition," Witt and Wilson, MIT Press, Aug 23, 1982  Von Drais' invention was intended to be a mechanical replacement for the horse. The 1815 eruption of supervolcano Tambora in Indonesia made 1816 the "year without summer," a "volcanic winter" due to dust spewed into the upper atmosphere, and world-wide crop failures led to a lack of food for horses.  http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/mount-tambora-and-year-without-summer  "Klunkerz" basically makes the case that the "mountain bike" was invented by marijuana-smoking hippies in California, which is only part of the story. However, the northern-California crowd was instrumental in commercializing an idea that had been kicking around since 1817. In America, the first commercial success of a product is usually credited as the "invention" of an idea. The Karl von Drais information ought to be included in the history section, perhaps. 65.129.77.11 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: I was going to comment on 's recent edits because I think they introduce material in Wikipedia's voice that should instead be attributed to a particular viewpoint or source, e.g.: "The recent popularity of mixed-terrain touring is in part a reaction against the increasing specialization (and increasingly heavy marketing) of the bicycle industry, and it reflects the inherent versatility of traditional bicycle designs (which were simply portrayed in the context of frugality, where cyclists were understood to have no desire to purchase a specific bicycle for every possible type of cycling)". I was also concerned about language such as "Extreme-sports equipment is easily interpreted by the user as conferring invincibility", again in Wikipedia's voice with no source. This is a bit essay-like, no? Anyway, having had a look at the rest of the article, I think it would be unfair to single Michael Frind out. The article is full of such problems. The protective gear section is full of material that is verging on health and safety advice and yet is unsourced. Other parts of the article are less problematic in terms of content (e.g. the history section), but are equally lacking in sources. It seems to me that there are three interrelated problems: lack of sources, opinions being presented as facts, and opinions being presented in Wikipedia's voice. Any ideas on how to deal with this? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you might consider contributing some edits? Obscurasky (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I made some last year and would happily help out to further improve the article. I do think we might need the input of an expert on the topic, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, NPOV and voice 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mountain biking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100721163500/http://www.rsf.org.uk/history.htm to http://www.rsf.org.uk/history.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This and other articles on Wikipedia seem to overstate risk in a way that seems almost intended to deter beginners and the more timid, or to underline just how fearless the typical mountain biker is. The section here starts "Injuries are a given factor when mountain biking, especially in the more extreme disciplines like downhill biking, free ride and dirt jumping". Frankly, this is bollocks. Yes, riders of extreme trails can expect to accrue injuries, but the vast majority of mountain bike riders on ordinary trails, including blue graded trails (in the UK) are more likely to gain fitness and health benefits than suffer even minor injuries. Obviously, a complete beginner heading out to a black trail on an unsuitable bike without prior experience is likely to come a cropper, but such trails are normally clearly marked with guidance on the skills required and the sort of equipment that should be used. Rather than even-handedly explaining risk, these articles seem to revel in the horrors of spinal and other life-changing injuries. No form of cycling or outdoor recreation is totally risk free, but at beginner levels mountain biking is no riskier than the great majority of such activities. These sections here and elsewhere need to be rewritten in a more balanced way that giver beginners or adults whose children are interested in cycling a proper perspective on risk and how it can be managed by sensible assessment of challenges against one's own skills. And yes, I've ridden trails at all levels, had broken bones and known people who have sustained severe injuries, but I've ridden many trails that are safe and suitable for young children while still being genuine 'mountain biking'. Wikipedia needs to be NPOV - it isn't on a mission to evangelize for the benefits of cycling but neither should it exaggerate the risks. Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any deliberate intent to over-egg or mislead here. Risk of injury is inherent to the sport, albeit less so on easier trails (although my local blue seems to throw up plenty of injuries). I wouldn't object if you want to make it clear that green trails (often called family trails), etc, present a significantly lower risk. It would also be beneficial to the article if you could find a citation to support the statement too. Obscurasky (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree! I'm glad you fixed that, and I further added a section explaining that you don't NEED to be in perfect shape and have a carbon full suspension 29" boost Enduro bike to just hit the local trails!  Almost ridiculous, like the first people who started mountain biking were riding super heavy rigid bikes! Brokemywristbyfallingoffmybike (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to say that there's a need to avoid WP:NOTHOWTO problems here. I've removed some material from the introduction, but the rest of the article needs reviewing and any advice removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurately Portraying the Risks 

message: — Assignment last updated by 09876565H (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing Fall 2022 E1

message: Hey, I think there should be a section added to discuss different bike geometries, suspension setups (hardtails, different kinds of rear suspension), etc. This may make the page more comprehensive, as these are important aspects of mountain bikes and effect their performance on different terrain, failure modes, etc.
(fyi I'm new to editing on wikipedia so sorry if this isn't where topics should be suggested) Nicisfurst (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, and welcome to editing. This page is about mountain biking (i.e. the practice of riding mountain bikes). It sounds like your edits would be better suited on the Mountain bike page. A word of advice though, Wikipedia is not a place for discussion. Edits will need to be factual and encyclopaedic - both in style and content. Go for it, and enjoy. Obscurasky (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding on bike details