Talk:Mountain biking

Proposed rewrite

I'm thinking this page should be expanded to cover both the racing AND recreational sides of the sport. Many other sports on wiki have a main page about the sport in general, and different pages for competition vs. recreational. I'd say that's the way to go, but considering the current lack of information, its probably best to keep it on one page for now and split when it gets too unwieldy. The other option would be creating a 'freeride mountain biking' page, as aside from freeriding, recreational mountain biking is not very difficult to explain. I'll try to work on this page in the near future to expand the recreational side. --Vanchuck 20:13, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Offroad and mountain cycling

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)

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)

cyclo-cross is offroad cycling too. Phlebas 16:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

The start of mountain biking?

"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)

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)

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 [1] mentions this somewhere in his pages on the Repack races and the early days of mountian biking. --Caspiankilkelly 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Racing focus

The article is very much focused on racing at the moment. I'd like to go away and work on some expansion on the recreational aspect. I would imagine that the majority of "serious" recreational miles undertaken by mountain bikers are ridden well away from organised races. Ormondroyd 23:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there's a lot of focus on racing in this article. The history of mountain biking section seems to be race-centric, as well as the list of the types of mountain bike races. Maybe these sections should be moved to a new article named "Mountain bike racing" (to keep it within the Bicycle racing series).

Also, the section about the North Shore of British Columbia probably belongs in its own article, since it's a bit tangential from the original point of mountain biking. Maybe someone could start a list of famous mountain biking trails (though I certainly haven't been to all of them).

I don't mean to suggest this article should be gutted -- it could probably use some additional information about recreational mountain biking, trail building, popularity in other nations, and so on. --Elkman 16:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The recreational side of the sport is far more popular than the racing side. As we add more info about the recreational part it should become more balanced. I like the idea of writing about famous mountain biking trails (or communities). The North Shore article falls into this category and should really be a sub-section of Mountain Biking Destinations or whatever we call it. Mark Tatum 23:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more information on Mountain biking in other nations. This is all USA based. -Icecradle 20:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Advocacy Section

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)

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)

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)

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)

External links

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)

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)

creation

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)

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)

Types of mountain biking

Some of the "types of mountain biking" currently listed aren't normally performed on a mountain bike. These include dirt-jumping, BMX (aren't these really the same?) and probably cyclo-cross. I also maintain that freeride and downhill is the same thing. All Mountain is the same as cross country. Defining a type of mountain biking by the weight of a bike or suspension travel is backwards. If you hitch a ride to the top of a mountain and ride your single-speed bike down a trail, that is downhill (or freeride) on a single-speed bike, not single-speed mountain biking. The type of ride is one thing. The type of bike is another. You can ride cross-country on a downhill bike. You can ride downhill on a bike with no suspension. Some of these should be moved to mountain bike or removed altogether. Mark Tatum 06:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The dirt jumping section is below standard for wikipedia. Dirt jumping is not the same as BMX. The type of bike and the style and nature of activity are slightly different. There are some pretty strong similarities, but there are some big differences. I second the removal of cyclocross and BMX. Each of these should probably have it's own article.

As well, this segment needs attention:

"The BC Marathon series is located in coastal British Columbia and consists of races such as The Rat Race, The Test of Metal, Gearjammer and the Cheakamus Challenge. These races vary from 40 to 70 km in distance and attract up to nearly a thousand competitors each."

It may be a good idea to remove the POV references to Enduro races, since British Columbia is not the only place that has this style of race, which is what it would appear from the article. Alternately, shorten the list of races in BC, and include the other UCI and national races of note around the world (Meridia, The Raid Trans-Gaspisien, 24 hours of Adreneline, etc...). I'm not trying to play down the contribution that the West Coast has made to this sport, but a well rounded article should note that enduro and XC races and rides happen everywhere. -- Caspiankilkelly 15:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have greatly simplified the types of mountain biking to the three traditional forms of the sport: cross country, downhill and trials. All of the other types formerly listed were either sub-types of these or a racing-specific event (cyclo-cross, BMX) which have pages of their own in more appropriate places. Please remember that this page is the definition for recreational mountain biking. There is a separate page for mountain bike racing. Perhaps one addition to these we could make would be "Urban" mountain biking but that might be a sub of "cross country." Mark Tatum 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best if this part was split into four paragraphs roughly describing the type and a mention of the spin-offs, one for downhill and the varients (such as freeriding, 4X etc), XC and varients (enduro's, etc), trials riding and dirt jumping. I'm sure that a brief paragraph would be just fine coupled to a link to the appropriate wikipedia article specific to that genre, wouldn't it? --ThomasBisset 23:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, come to think about it, does this heading even need to be here? Mountain bike racing already has some very good descriptions... --ThomasBisset 21:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The list of types at the top of this section calls out Trail mountain biking, but this is never described. Further on the Trials type of riding is described, even though this is not identified as a type. I think this is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.236.91 (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is confusing, because Trial and Urban are not Mountain Biking disciplines (I removed both). Trial even has its own right in the UCI regulations as an independent sport. Denes.hetenyi (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've undone your edit to the page as I found it to be very confusing. When you talk about types of mountain biking being 'recognized by Union Cycliste Internationale', I think you're actually talking about racing(?) not the genre itself. Also, Trail (trail riding) is, obviously a form of mountain biking, and widely practiced. It should remain in the article. Obscurasky (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Mountain market share

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)

Trails

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)

Globalize tag

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).

Biases and an Imminent Major Overhaul

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:

1. Limited, General Definition and Brief History
2. Types of Mountain Biking, with picture, brief history and long description of each.
3. Early history - mid 1990's
4. mid 1990's - present
5. Racing
6. Non-racing
7. Mountain Biking around the World
8. 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) 01:44, 19 May 2007.

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)

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. Goodnightmush^Talk 13:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

This new structure didn't happen, it appears, but I think this article still could use a restructuring update. Some of the equipment detail should be moved to (or at least shared with) Mountain Bike, and the focus of the article returned to the activity itself and the types, rather than starting with gear. At the very least, a re-ordering of the sections would help this focus. I may be able to tackle this in the next month or so and build off the outline proposed by Daichi, as well as highlight areas that could use better sources and support. Of course, suggestions and additional recommendations here would be valuable in the meantime! Coppercable (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Environmental impacts of mountain biking.

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)

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)

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)

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)

New question: I have reworked the citations regarding trail impact. Is there now sufficient referential support to remove the neutrality disclaimer?Spurlocka (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

References

Overlap between sections

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)

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)

Governing body

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)

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? Severo^TC 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

Surely there is no 'governing body' for recreational mountain biking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscurasky (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No External References Allowed?

I added a trail reference external link which I thought provided a unique resource for locating trails. I also thought it met the criteria for unobtrusive advertising. I'm wondering if I am missing some part of the policy. Niluop (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that AndrewDressel committed this link removal and categorized the addition as spam. In what manner do you interpret an external link as spam? The link was intended as a useful reference for locating trails. How would you supply this information if not in the form I supplied? I'm assuming you do not wish to deprive anyone of this information. Niluop (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. The link you added is to a page full of advertisements, and "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." No one I know is depriving anyone of this information, because it can be found with a trivial search on most any search engine. If you disagree with my edit, you are welcome to raise the issue on the article's talk page. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Rules #1 and #5 are relevant to our discussion.

Rule #5 forbids objectionable advertising or marketing. The site has a couple of unobtrusive ads. It is rare to find a site without any ads. The purpose of the site appears to be as a reference, as opposed to marketing a product/service. It is unclear where you are drawing this subjective line.

I think the site passes rule #1, as it provides a unique resource relating to the topic. It aids in locating trails. I have not found a site that provides as accurate information as this.

It is true that the site would display in a trivial google search, but how many useless and undesirable sites also appear in that search? It could take one valuable time to gauge the utility of a website before determining that it is worthy and non-invasive.

Please let me know if I am missing your point (or a different rule?). I would be interested to know if you think zero external links should exist, or only links without any advertising which we would be hard-pressed to find on any topic. I'll go ahead and post this to the talk board. Niluop (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The site you posted is a commercial site. It does not meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. It is not an external link that is definitive to the article. It is not encyclopedic in nature. For these reasons, it is not an appropriate addition to the article. See Wikipedia:External links for more information. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear what you mean by commercial. I do not see any products offered on the site. It doesn't need to be definitive to the article, nor does it need to be encyclopedic (that is why it is in the external links section). I've reviewed Wikipedia:External links and can not find anything you reference in support of the link being invalid. You provide the same Wikipedia link that we have been discussing further reading, which I have done, but do not point out anything specific in the link that applies to your general points. Niluop (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The first thing I see when I open the page is a banner ad urging me to buy a car. That is commercial. This is a site set up to make money. It does not meet WP:RS. The information in the link is not referenced in the article. This case is clear cut. Your link is inappropriate. Please drop the subject. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

PS, your refusal to accept the inappropriateness of your link may be the result of innocent ignorance, but your position in this matter could be interpreted as WikiLawyering. I am specifically referring to the following language in WP:Lawer, "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles."Ebikeguy (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point about the advertising being regarded as objectionable now that you have clarified. I do not regard my interest in knowing which rule applies to be considered niggling. I do find your manner to be elitist and over-bearing, but do appreciate your point of view. Niluop (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And now you are violating WP:PERSONAL by attacking me personally rather than discussing the issues at hand. Please stop. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Pump track

Should this [2] activity be mentioned in this or another article?Jim.henderson (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Only if it has received coverage through a reliable source. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Spam

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)

"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. 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. "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)

References

Sources, NPOV and voice

I was going to comment on Michael Frind'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)

Perhaps you might consider contributing some edits? Obscurasky (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 April 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gbaudyte.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Accurately Portraying the Risks

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)

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)

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)

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)

What has mountains to do with mountain bikes?

Not enough info as to what mountains have to do with mountain bikes, the article focuses too much about off road riding rather than mountains. After reading I still don't get why they are called mountain bikes nor why they are often sold in flat places. 218.214.190.174 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. As a mountaineer myself, I really appreciate your question. But as a mountain bike user I, like many, don't actually go up to the top of mountains on one - although some hardy types actually do. I have stood on the ice-capped summit of Mont Blanc, though this is the closest me and my climbing partner got to its summit by mountain bike.

In the same way that the article on Blue sky thinking (=Thinking outside the box) doesn't explain why the sky is blue, or how cardboard boxes are constructed and used, I don't think the relationship you refer to really needs going in to in great depth, as it's pretty obvious to most people. It's simply a term to differentiate a bike designed for rough terrain, as opposed to smoother road surfaces. However, if you have suggestions for edits you would like to add, providing you can offer sources to support them, you are free to make the necessary improvements yourself, or to make an WP:EDITREQUEST that someone else can consider doing for you. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing Fall 2022 E1

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JQJQrush (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jcwhrda, Tjw111.

— Assignment last updated by 09876565H (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Expanding on bike details

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)

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)