# Downhill Techniques for a Beginner on a Rigid MTB (as in zero suspension)



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

I know the obvious is to start with FS or at a minimum a hardtail, but that's not going to happen for a couple months. 

I've got a vintage rigid Terry Jacaranda and I've been riding for two months now. I started out doing 90 miles/week, but I'm now doing 60/wk at the advice of my MTB group leader, which really increased my recovery rate and improved my performance.

I understand the basics of downhill, what I'd like to know are any specific techniques for a rigid bike. The greatest challenge I face is the loss of strength in my wrists, as my arms (aka my only front suspension) become exhausted from taking hits. Another challenge is to maintain a slow enough speed to keep a clean line, but to still keep pedaling to maintain traction. The only solution I can find to this is to brake gently and continuously while I am pedaling, I'm just wondering if there is a better way.

Thanks!


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

When I ride my rigid I find I spend alot a time off the saddle so that my legs and arms take impact and pull up the front wheel alot and hop over stuff that I'd otherwise plow through. With a rigid, IMO, sticky grips and fat tires are key.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Yes, I just recently learned that being out of the saddle makes a huge difference in how hard I take the hits. I've also learned to keep my arms and legs more fluid, which really helps. 

I haven't learned to hop yet, I'm still in that powering thru phase, (hence part of the reason for my nickname, my rig is the other.) I do have fat tires with great tread, but I'm not familiar with the sticky grips, I'll have to check that out. Also, I just read on another thread about adjusting my brake levers so that I can use two fingers while still keeping a good grip.

Thanks for the advice.


----------



## wickerman1 (Dec 24, 2003)

If you're riding rigid going downhill, it's going to make you one hell of a good rider when you upgrade your bike. Best advice, make sure your saddle isnt too high so youhave ease of sliding off and on,and also pick the best line down(smoothest). It won't be as rough on the hands that way .
As far as your brake levers go, if you have canti brakes, two finger braking won't happen. And also as you had mentioned, on the downs, keeping your knees bent and arms bent abit, makes the ride more pleasant. When your arms are bent and youare crouched down abit you are in the "ready" position. When youget to a drop, say a one foot drop, being your arms are bent, when you get to the drop push the front of the bike into the drop, this way your arms act like suspension. This is the proper technique taught here in BC by MTB instructors, specifically Fr/DH instructors. Having your arms fully extended on a steep down or drop, youdo not have full control of the bike that way.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

wickerman1 said:


> push the front of the bike into the drop, this way your arms act like suspension. This is the proper technique taught here in BC by MTB instructors, specifically Fr/DH instructors. Having your arms fully extended on a steep down or drop, youdo not have full control of the bike that way.


I have definately been doing this wrong and that explains why I feel so little control on my drops. I'm doing repeats on a segment of downhill tomorrow and will try to get this technique down. Thanks for your help.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Sticky grips isn't a brand but a description. My favs right now are "ODI Rouge" but there's many other good grips that are a little thicker, dual compound, to help absorb impact. 
Practice bunny hops on flat ground so you don't have anything else to concentrate on. Once you pull up the front wheel and it's off the ground, jump up while twisting your wrists and move them foward, and angle your feet like your on tip toes and pull up on the pedals to lift the rear. It's like riding a bike Ha Ha. Once you get....


----------



## wickerman1 (Dec 24, 2003)

Tank Girl said:


> I have definately been doing this wrong and that explains why I feel so little control on my drops. I'm doing repeats on a segment of downhill tomorrow and will try to get this technique down. Thanks for your help.


Great and you're welcome... let me know how it works out for you.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

yup...and to add when your arms are bent point your elbows out, it helps stabilize.

and keep you pedals at 3 and 9....pedal strikes suck...

this is basically known as the 'attack' position....









OP - enjoy riding rigid....you'll get faster and waaay more fluid :thumbsup:



wickerman1 said:


> If you're riding rigid going downhill, it's going to make you one hell of a good rider when you upgrade your bike. Best advice, make sure your saddle isnt too high so youhave ease of sliding off and on,and also pick the best line down(smoothest). It won't be as rough on the hands that way .
> As far as your brake levers go, if you have canti brakes, two finger braking won't happen. And also as you had mentioned, on the downs, keeping your knees bent and arms bent abit, makes the ride more pleasant. When your arms are bent and youare crouched down abit you are in the "ready" position. When youget to a drop, say a one foot drop, being your arms are bent, when you get to the drop push the front of the bike into the drop, this way your arms act like suspension. This is the proper technique taught here in BC by MTB instructors, specifically Fr/DH instructors. Having your arms fully extended on a steep down or drop, youdo not have full control of the bike that way.


----------



## wickerman1 (Dec 24, 2003)

CHUM said:


> OP - enjoy riding rigid....you'll get faster and waaay more fluid :thumbsup:


oh yeah... if she rides a rigid for a season then moves to a fs, no one will be able to keep up LOL.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

theMeat said:


> Practice bunny hops on flat ground so you don't have anything else to concentrate on. Once you pull up the front wheel and it's off the ground, jump up while twisting your wrists and move them foward, and angle your feet like your on tip toes and pull up on the pedals to lift the rear. It's like riding a bike Ha Ha. Once you get....


I will be so stoked once I can pull this off! Also, I'm definately going to check out the sticky grips. Thanks again!


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

CHUM said:


> yup...and to add when your arms are bent point your elbows out, it helps stabilize.
> 
> and keep you pedals at 3 and 9....pedal strikes suck...
> 
> ...


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

wickerman1 said:


> oh yeah... if she rides a rigid for a season then moves to a fs, no one will be able to keep up LOL.


Actually even though I'm so new to this, there are times (albeit very few) when people have trouble keeping up with me...even going up hill. How does learning to ride on a rigid make a difference in your speed?


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Tank Girl said:


> Actually even though I'm so new to this, there are times (albeit very few) when people have trouble keeping up with me...even going up hill. How does learning to ride on a rigid make a difference in your speed?


Just that if you learn on a rigid, your learning of skills, and ability to pick a line is forced upon you. Then when you get on a hard tail or better yet FS, it's much more forgiving and you can fly down the same trails with less work, or should I say skill. I spend most of my time on a hardtail. Just feels like home. Even thou I have to work harder, I feel it makes me a better rider.Then, when I ride my FS it's like WOW that was fun, or fast or...
Oh boy, :madman: I hope I didn't open a can O worms and wonder how many with their fancy FS's that never spent any saddle time on a rigid will now be compelled to disagree. Let's hope for the best.


----------



## jackspade (Jul 23, 2010)

With rigid you 'suspension' are your tire and your whole body.

I prefer supple tire for rough road.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

theMeat said:


> I hope I didn't open a can O worms and wonder how many with their fancy FS's that never spent any saddle time on a rigid will now be compelled to disagree. Let's hope for the best.


Actually, when I first started hitting the trails people thought I was nuts for riding a rigid bike. But now that they've seen me out there, I'm surprised at the amount of respect I get for riding one. I've met a lot of serious riders on first rate FS bikes who've told me just what you and Wickerman1 have said, that starting out with the rigid is going to make me a great rider...that's if I survive the learning curve of course! It's definately brutal when you're riding a rigid bike, there's not much forgiveness when you make a mistake.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

That attack position picture doesn't show how to do it on a slope. I think it's better explained by trying to imagine keeping your legs+hips perpendicular to sea level for that great neutral attack position for stability.

Get wide handlebars, bend your elbows outwards and low, place the outside heel of your palm on the ends of the bar, 1 finger on the lever, knees straight (not inward or straddling the frame) or slightly out. Staying loose with arms and knees very slightly bent, just try to flow with the bike as it goes up and down on it's own, and just focus on steering and footwork with "pumping" here and there. Elbows out and low with hands like this helps stabilize braking forces--noobies tend to counter brake forces with their arms fully extended and end up simply trying to hang on (they're not attacking, instead they're being passive I guess). The only time your arms should come close to being fully extended is when you're placing the front wheel down on the ground at a drop, which should become immediately bent again once the wheel lands. Your knees should move together, like when skiing. Basically, your body is the suspension; don't let your body be pounded up/back by bumps. Let the bike move under your arms and legs and "push" it back down--think about riding the back of the obstacle rather than the worrying about the initial impact and you should naturally unload/unweight the ends of the bike to get over stuff and maintain momentum. By push, I mean shift your weight forward and back, not do push-ups... think of the word flow and you'll figure out the feeling... maybe. Footwork is basically balancing using the pedals. When you corner, weigh the outside pedal, look and twist your hips to point the same way you would twist the handlebar (image).

For jumps/drops, preload your arms, by bending them, just before the edge and try to gently place the wheel down (don't simply let it drop and don't force it down hard) on the landing transition so there's somewhat less impact for your arms to absorb and let it roll and carry your rear wheel through. It's much more graceful than simply hucking jumps. If the drop is too high to do that without flipping over, just shift your weight back as if you were trying to do a manual/wheelie and try to land so that both your tires contact at the same time. It's much smoother and more graceful than landing rear wheel first; landing front wheel is ideal on double jumps; not sure when it's ideal to land rear wheel first. You don't need to lift the front wheel up high, you just want to keep it about level with the rear until the rear reached the edge. In most cases, on DH slopes, you're faster when your tires roll vs flying over stuff and pre-loading minimizes the air you get off of ramps at high speed. Switchbacks are one part of DH slopes where a little lift of the rear tire to swing it will take you through much faster.

Lowering your seatpost a bit for technical trails is extremely helpful for getting good body position, but I admit it sucks for pedaling efficiency. If you are doing mountains, you could leave it up on the way up and then lower it for the way down. For flat singletrack, you could probably just leave it 1-2 inches lower than normal, or get an adjustable seatpost.

When I ride, my performance seems to change oddly depending on where I am in the pack. When I'm following, I tend to fall back since I like to scan my own lines and give room for speeding up on sections I'm good at without needing to slow down, but it gets to a point that I just don't catch up. When I lead though, things just click and I rip the trail and gain a huge lead on the guy following without even trying. I also feel that I push my limits more when I'm by myself.

I forgot to mention that running good tires with a high volume casing that's relatively wide is a huge help. Run them at or under 35 psi if possible... as low as you can go without pinch flatting. Or run them ghetto tubeless (google it).

When you get your flow, when seen from the side or behind, it seems that your head points where it are planning to go and your body and bike flows around the trail with your head taking the smoothest straightest line down while your arms and legs bend, your body rotates on the heels and hips, and follows the terrain. Not sure how to explain it well, but I can at least say a rider that isn't very smooth have his head jerked and shaken around.


----------



## mrbb008 (May 20, 2010)

I started on a rigid two months ago... lasted 4 rides before I got a FS. Everyone thought I was crazy being at skeggs in a rigid but it was super fun. Now, I go down super fast and crash just as hard.  

Nice sticky grips is a must and add some gloves too. It makes a huge difference how glued your hands are to the bars. Also, slightly underinflate your front tire to give you some suspension but not too much so you don't get pinch flats.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I set my tire inflation pressures based on what I can get away with without pinch flatting - they're as low as I can go and not have to deal with that silliness.

Depending on your gear budget, fatter tires can make things more forgiving. Basically just get the widest you can fit on your bike.

Finally, I think that being able to manual helps a lot with descending on any bike, but I think it matters more on a rigid. You don't need to be able to sustain them for a long time - just long enough to go off drops on your rear wheel only, in control, so that you land rear wheel first. Doesn't have to be a big difference in hang time between the rear and front wheel, either. The idea is to spread that hit over a longer amount of time, and let you soak up more of it with your legs. If it's totally impossible to get the front end of your bike up, you might consider a shorter stem. But talk to your ride leader about it first - lofting the front end of a bike can feel a little bit like the tail wagging the dog, and figuring it out is sometimes tricky. So not being able to isn't necessarily something you can blame on the equipment.

I think it can be very instructive to ride a pump track if you have one nearby.

Luckily, skills development is free.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Thanks to everyone, your advice has been dead on and made a huge difference. I was able to pull off areas downhill yesterday that I would have walked through a couple days ago and I am so stoked! 

Btw, what's a pump track?


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Tank Girl said:


> ...
> Btw, what's a pump track?


no pedaling...and hella fun


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Chum, thanks! I have got to find one of those, it looks like a blast!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I would recommend Bikeskills.com's videos with Greg Minnaar, since I respect his skills, but he shows a style for beginners and not his own style in the videos. He basically says, be passive and react (like a noobie) rather than be aggressive and attack the trail. It's all in the stance and the mind. When you're on the offensive, you don't have much room to be scared. That kind of explains why I ride slower behind someone and tremendously faster when I'm leading.

Maybe you can relate to some of the tips here to some of his riding at least: 




Look at the first rider in that pump track video above and try to notice what I mean about a person's head taking the smoothest line following the terrain through something when the rider is extremely smooth. That's what I believe is the pinnacle of smooth riding. An exception being when you want more weight put forward and purposely throw if forward.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Wickerman1 - I am amazed how much better I am doing drops now, thanks to your advice. Totally thought of you with each one I nailed. 

The Meat - I spent a lot more time out of the saddle after reading your post and it made a big difference not only in decreasing my impacts, but in helping my speed too. Still haven't pulled off a bunnyhop yet, though I think I did one by accident yesterday.

AndrwSwitch, Chum and Varaxis - I've got a msg out to my MTB group to find a pump track nearby, thanks for telling me about these. It seems like a great way to build muscle memory.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Cool. Glad I could help. Haven't seen you ride but legs are by far stronger than arms, and can stand much more impact, so try to keep your weight back over rear wheel and that makes it easier to lift the front quickly, or move foward to plant it for more traction on turns. At least that works for me (most of the time). It's always fun to see someone develope in their own way, and sometimes it turns out to work better than what everone else is doin. Like the person who shows up on their beat-up old clunker, and everyone has a comment, and then he blows past doin some [email protected] no one ever saw before, and leaves them scrathing their heads. Been there.
Also being as your new to mtbing , try to ride new trails frequently so you don't fall into bad habits that work on a certain trail because that technique might not work as well for you somewhere else. 
You also might wanna try clipless since your new at this and will have a much shorter leaning curve than if you try to pick it up once your skills are ingrained. It'll also help you lift the rear over stuff.
You sound "tough" and I like your style.
Good Luck


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

theMeat said:


> try to ride new trails frequently so you don't fall into bad habits that work on a certain trail because that technique might not work as well for you somewhere else.
> You also might wanna try clipless since your new at this and will have a much shorter leaning curve than if you try to pick it up once your skills are ingrained. It'll also help you lift the rear over stuff.
> Good Luck


Trying new trails frequently is great advice. I've been doing the same training loops generally until just a couple weeks ago, so I will be more mindful about this.

As to the clipless, I've had them now for about a month, still occasionally fall over, but doing much better...getting elbow/arm guards really helped with that learning curve. As for liking my style, if you saw me ride you might change your mind. My style tends to involve a lot of crashing, bruised and bloodied body parts with ground in dirt, gravel and whatever assorted burrs and thistles I happened to land in...yIKES! (though honestly, that has been improving immensely lately.)


----------



## Poikaa (Jun 10, 2010)

Good question Tank Girl! lots of tips here for everyone and the lurker in me!!

poikaa


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Poikaa said:


> Good question Tank Girl! lots of tips here for everyone and the lurker in me!!
> 
> poikaa


Thanks, Poikaa, you've made a great point.

Now that I've read back over the thread, I think anyone learning downhill can glean a lot from this thread,.no matter what they are riding, FS, hardtail or rigid.

It seems the more archaic the bike, the more mastery you need of the fundamentals which really helps you kick butt when you upgrade to something modern (something I can only speculate about right now because in MTB terms, I'm still in the dark ages...but I'll keep you posted


----------



## 100% dundee (Dec 18, 2009)

by no means are you in the "dark ages". To me rigid just feels the most comfy and in control. With all the options out there it's easy to get sucked into the hype. Just go with what you got and you will not only become better, you'll become brighter- in the sense that you'll see the trail better and be smooth city:thumbsup: And of course less wrenching on some state of the art rig = more riding!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Tank Girl said:


> It seems the more archaic the bike, the more mastery you need of the fundamentals which really helps you kick butt when you upgrade to something modern


Yea, you pretty much have the idea. Rigid gives you much more feel of the trail. You learn good technique much faster, since you don't have the extra room for error that riding a dualie grants. Just keep riding and keep pushing your skills and techniques and you will be a much better rider. Just keep going faster and faster as your skills allow it.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Thanks for all your encouragement and advice. I'm stoked to say things are finally starting to click. I rode a clean line on autopilot a few times yesterday and really surprised myself when I realized what I was doing. Seems kinda trivial, but it's one of those little "firsts" that you really savor when you're a beginner. Also, yesterday was the first time I was able to hang with the group for an entire segment of a ride which was a definately sweet.

Wondering now how to take on something that is abruptly steep. Where you're going along at a good pace and then suddenly the trail drops on a steep slope with a curve just after. I haven't actually attempted this yet, but it's part of a trail I just started doing. The problem is when I look down the steep part, I think my momentum will be faster than I can read the line ahead, but at the same time, I don't want to brake hard all the way down. How do you handle a transition like this?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I think I'd have to see what you're talking about to give proper advice. What do the guys you ride with have to say?

In general, I think it's okay to brake hard as long as you don't lose control of where you're steering and not lose momentum which is needed to carry yourself over obstacles. When I was learning and fearful, I was braking so hard that my front wheel was easily deflecting left and right off stuff. Something just clicks for me when I see my front wheel deflect and I instinctively aim the front wheel down the clearest line and let go of the brakes totally for a short moment and use my footwork and body to lightly stabilize my bike while I focus on keeping my front where I want it to go. That helped me conquer some fear and increase what I previously thought was the upper limit of a comfortable speed.

For me, comfort braking is more about giving me time to analyze the terrain more than just cutting the speed down to a speed I'm accustomed to. It only takes me about 4-5 times of riding a section before I am completely comfortable with it and able to take it relatively fast. Once I ride fast in one section, that speed rush just carries on to more sections and I discover new limits.

It always helps to hike the hard parts and analyze it that way. I started riding trails earlier this year and I guess I learn fast since I hit the intermediate/expert trails after I hiked them first. I rode the easy trails first and I was scared of steeps, but after riding the much harder stuff, the easy trail is truly easy, though I still am heavy on the brakes due to not knowing the trails so well. Steeps still tense me up, but as I find harder ones and clear them, the others just seem easy. You just have to go for it I guess.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Depends on the traction available and how good your brakes are. If the traction's crappy or your brakes aren't very good, you may not get much of a choice about riding the brake going down.

There are some things you can do to maximize your braking, though. You get much more braking power from the front brake, especially when traction's not great. If you have to grab a whole lot of front brake all at once, getting behind the saddle helps keep you from flipping over the bars. It'll also give your rear wheel a little more bite, although it's still not going to contribute all that much braking power.

Stay back, look where you want to go, and feather the brake enough to keep your speed to a level that will let you slow down enough for the turn when you get there. Sometimes the best of us have to drag a little brake from time to time.

It's sometimes also helpful to watch other people do a tough line. There's one on a trail I like that I couldn't figure out how to do well, and then saw some other people doing a way that I'd initially dismissed, and making it look easy.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

It's much much better to roll than to skid. Don't ever lock up your wheels*.

Going behind the saddle is a noobie move for using the brakes, IMO. I outlined earlier that just staying low offers the same benefit of not going over the bars and allows your arms and legs to still be in a position to help absorb impact and keep the wheels on the ground. Elbows low and bent outwards, standing with body low, knees bent, 1 finger on brakes, and outside heel of palm on the back edge of the grips. Go ahead and practice stopping as fast as you with this method and I guarantee it works and keeps you in the attack position. With 1 finger on the brake, I doubt you get enough power to throw you over anyways, but enough to scrub speed on the trails. If you get behind the saddle, once you hit a bump and your bike gets deflected and you get a bit off balance, you're basically at the mercy of the trail and bike and can only pray that your bike leads you through safely as you hang on. The only time I'd get behind my saddle is if the saddle were low and the hill is so steep that my legs being perpendicular to sea level is basically being in that position. The physics of it is basically: you and your bike moves at 15 MPH. Your bike slows to 10 MPH, but your body is still trying to go 15 MPH. If you are low, your inertia is being transmitted to the bike and the brakes stop both you and the bike. If you were high, over you go since the bike comes to a stop and you and the back of the bike rotate on the front axle. If you were behind the saddle, you wouldn't go over, but that's just plain bad position since your arms are totally stretched out and your center of gravity is biased too much on the back (front becomes light and easy to deflect).

Make sure you set up your cockpit correctly too, so you have proper reach for the levers and shifters. I always have a few cm between my brake levers and the inside edge of my grips with brake lever pointed down quite a bit.

https://i53.tinypic.com/21lsfw9.jpg
https://i53.tinypic.com/2ihurns.jpg

Here's a recent video on it:

https://www.pinkbike.com/v/162257

* an exception is when you lock them up on purpose to practice drifting and countersteering for a fun way to corner on "loose over hardpack" terrain. Not a necessary skill, but helps for preparing for washouts (skidding sideways on turns from traction loss), which can make lots of people panic and crash.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

I really like Oury grips. They're soft, sticky, and provide some cushion which would help on a rigid. The only problem is if you have small hands they may not work for you.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> Going behind the saddle is a noobie move for using the brakes...


I don't necessarily agree with this, especially on a rigid. On a choppy surface, the back end often wants to come up, throwing you over the bars. If you move your weight back a bit more over the rear wheel, it will help keep the back end down and keep you from going over the bars. This isn't as big of an issue on a full suspension because the shock does most of the work for you.


----------



## gregnash (Jul 17, 2010)

Some awesome information in here and definitely got me thinking about how I ride. I do have a quick question since I saw it somewhat mentioned in here... Leg position while pedaling. How can it effect you?
Basis around the question is that I am using my brothers bike to ride while I am building up my own. His bike is a bit small for me (med/18" when I should be using a large/19") and I find that my quads are done after a few hundred yards of decent grade climbing. Last time I was riding I noticed that when I am seated my legs really dont extend all that much (i.e. I understood that you should have almost full extension (say 172degrees when I am looking more like 150). Because of this I have to stop constantly when I climb, which I originally accounted to me just not being in climbing shape. So if my legs cannot fully extend while pedaling am I really hindering myself?

Also, with everything you guys have said I am seriously thinking about going rigid to start off with my new build. The bike I am using now is full squish and feel that it lends to bad habits. I am a stickler for learning things the right way the first time instead of taking the easy way out. So is this a good idea? Then as I get better and understand what I am doing I can switch to a front suspension. The only difference is that I ride more singletrack/trail vs. xc/am, but I would like to build my bike so I can do all with minor adjustments.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Try putting the saddle higher. If it helps, awesome, if it doesn't, put it back down where it was, or just try a more conservative change.

The Fit Kit recommendation is a 15 degree bend, if I remember correctly. But that's just a starting point - you really have to season to taste.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Varaxis said:


> Something just clicks for me when I see my front wheel deflect and I instinctively aim the front wheel down the clearest line and let go of the brakes totally for a short moment and use my footwork and body to lightly stabilize my bike while I focus on keeping my front where I want it to go.


This is something I've just recently learned and recommend big time for beginners...when things are getting ugly and you feel you are heading for a crash, let go of the brake. It seems counterintuitive, but it has worked for me time and again. I think it's because the momentum keeps you rolling over the obstacles, but if you slow down you lose the momentum when you need it most and end up crashing.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

s0ckeyeus said:


> on a rigid. On a choppy surface, the back end often wants to come up, throwing you over the bars. If you move your weight back a bit more over the rear wheel, it will help keep the back end down and keep you from going over the bars. This isn't as big of an issue on a full suspension because the shock does most of the work for you.


I have definately experienced this on my rigid bike, being back over the saddle keeps me on the bike.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

You can learn with a full suspension bike. You don't have to build up a new build to get a feel for something. It's more about the attitude you bring. If you're just looking for a ride a set loop or explore more of the trail system at a comfortable/moderate pace, what do you expect to get out of it? A good fun time enjoying the sights while doing something fairly challenging or...?

If you really are interested in the skills building aspect (I assume so since you're looking for advice), then the best way is through doing--trial and error, identifying flaws, working on technique, repetition, etc. Like other sports, you have conditioning and drills and other methods of finding peak performance. MTB doesn't seem to have become "serious" just yet, but I do notice performance being pushed more and more. Ever practice wheelies, manuals, bunny hops, cornering, tail whips (for switch backs), drops, technical climbs, or whatever just to work on that skill? Ever not clear a section and then retrace your path way back and try to ride it again to try and clear it? A rigid bike just simply demands that you ride well else you're probably going to get beat up. It's more for a masochistic tough guy type of person. Or for the type of person that likes to show off that it's the rider and not the equipment that makes them good.

As for climbing, if you have conditioned your legs to spin (you don't put body weight on the pedal, you guide it through its circular motion, like clawing with your feet rather than pushing), the position closest to standing keeping just the slightest bend in your knee at the longest part of the stroke (right crank at 5 o'clock), is optimal for efficiency. Don't make it so high that your knees lock-out at that point. You just sacrifice DH performance, which this thread is about. I compromise and put my seat an inch lower since I don't like to contact the saddle when I don't want to. I hover over the seat and move a bit forward anyways, on the steepest and most technical of ascents.

There's also a well known theory that the front of your right knee should be exactly over of the pedal axle with the right crank at 3 o'clock for optimal fit, which is known as "knee over pedal spindle". I think that KOPS system deals with a more ergonomic position which helps minimize knee issues which may develop over time due to poor bike fit, but I'm not sure of the science behind that.

Like I said earlier, I'm not sure why people think they can just get into sport known to be dangerous like mountain biking and expect to learn just from riding. There are bike skills camps out there, like BetterRide.net, that run you through the basics and lead you into more advanced stuff and claim to instruct pros. There are pros like Greg Minnaar that run stuff like bikeskills, but I'm skeptical of his ability to instruct. There are also mountain bike parks sprouting up all over. These things popping up is a sign of MTB getting serious. That and some high schools in CO and TX are picking it up as a sport.

I was taught the same thing about butt behind the saddle to counter not going over the bars under hard braking. I guess from there, it just carries over to any situation which they have to hit the brakes hard. That's why I call it a noobie move now, since I find that it just puts you into a death grip situation, since you're hanging on and you stop working with the bike. It's going to be a really hard habit to break if you ever want to become more aggressive (faster and harder charging) and pick up the attack stance. I'm not saying never be in that position, since I still find it useful for any time my front wheel is about to head down something steep until my rear wheel is about to go over too, I'm just saying there's more of an advantage to flowing with your bike rather than letting the bike take the lead over when you're being bounced around. It's hard to control the bounce in that position (since you give up a lot of the suspension your arms and legs have) and if the bounce transmits to your 4 points of contact, your hands and feet, what if you slip? If you don't slip, what kind of grip are you using on the bars?

You say your rear bounces on a choppy surface, but I wonder how much. Too much pressure in your tires can cause that. Tires like different pressure for optimum performance, but I like experimenting under 35 psi. Bigger and higher volume tires and tough casing can get away with 20 psi. I only ever pinch flat if I'm not smooth; I usually only see pinch flats after a crash. You can control the bounce with better technique; you don't need to get back and hit the brakes. There's something called going dead sailor in the dirt jumping scene, which is basically doing nothing in the air and stiffening up from fear, which typically leads to ugly landings. Loosen up and flow and move with the bike. The rear can lift and move where it likes without much detrimental effect on where you're going--the front is what you should be controlling.

I guess the attack position is relatively advanced and requires a certain mindset. Maybe I shouldn't criticize the passive style of riding so much by comparing the two. People straddle their saddle, their top tube, their brake levers, their grips, etc. when they feel their bike is getting out of control. People just need to overcome their fear. I suppose an instructor helps with that and why these skills camps are popping up a lot more.

Here's something for the folks looking for an upgrade to help them:


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> I was taught the same thing about butt behind the saddle to counter not going over the bars under hard braking. I guess from there, it just carries over to any situation which they have to hit the brakes hard. That's why I call it a noobie move now, since I find that it just puts you into a death grip situation, since you're hanging on and you stop working with the bike. It's going to be a really hard habit to break if you ever want to become more aggressive (faster and harder charging) and pick up the attack stance. I'm not saying never be in that position, since I still find it useful for any time my front wheel is about to head down something steep until my rear wheel is about to go over too, I'm just saying there's more of an advantage to flowing with your bike rather than letting the bike take the lead over when you're being bounced around. It's hard to control the bounce in that position (since you give up a lot of the suspension your arms and legs have) and if the bounce transmits to your 4 points of contact, your hands and feet, what if you slip? If you don't slip, what kind of grip are you using on the bars?


Now I know you're Joe Bigshot on the trail after a year of trail riding, but dial the assumptions back just a tad and assume that I'm not talking about the 5% grade of your mom's cracked driveway. Like it or not there are situations where you have to brake going down a steep, choppy descent. In these circumstances, it's best to have your weight back. Ask Ned Overend.

Physics isn't just for newbies. Even roadies get their butts back when braking hard. Sometimes it's just good technique (check out the noob on the right). I'm not really sure you know what I'm talking about.

Even on smooth trail, getting your weight back can help you stop faster:









I apologize if I sound cranky. I am.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Tha graphic with The Four Steps to Great Braking is perfect. The guys were teaching me this tonight, in fact, and I was practicing it on my way home...a really solid, incredibly balanced and fast way to brake. 

As for having your butt behind the saddle...I threw myself over the handlebars tonight because I balked descending over a rock. Luckily one of the guys was with me and told me what I did wrong (my body was forward of the saddle and I braked right on top of the rock.) He showed me how to do it with my butt behind the saddle and when I did it that way, I cleared it without a problem. 

I'm finding that as I get stronger, I'm actually spending more time out of the saddle. For instance, there's a rocky climb that I can clear easily now, but only if I charge it and stay out of the saddle. And in general, if I stay off the saddle, especially going through a rock garden, I can go a lot faster and it's way less jarring.

I'm also walking a lot less thru areas I don't know how to clear yet. I've started keeping one foot clipped in, but leave the other out and pedal that way, then when things get rough I use the unclipped foot to brace myself. And instead of walking the bike when it's really rough, I half pedal/creep which is probably slower than walking, but I think it gives me a better idea of how to ride thru these spots, than if I just walked my bike through them. 

Climbing is definately easier for me than downhill. I don't know if that's how it is in general for beginners or if having the rigid just makes DH more difficult to pull off when you're just starting out. I am finding that all I've learned here and what the group has been showing me has made an incredible difference big time. One of the biggest helps was being told to use my legs as my primary suspension. I did a pretty technical descent tonight and my wrists were still strong at the end of the ride, which was a first. 

Thanks again to everyone for all your help.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I saw that picture before and seeing it again makes me laugh since it seems so exaggerated.

I'll just repeat what you quoted, since that picture doesn't change my opinion at all. Many people learned about getting back and low for this purpose, to stop really fast without going over the bars. The most likely place to hit the brakes hard is on a descent, so people use this technique there. While you say getting back is the best, I'm trying to say getting low while maintaining a position in which you have more use of your arms and legs is better. You simply need to be in a position to have your body's inertia transfer into you bike rather than over the bars. 

Look at his arms and legs. It's pretty hard to steer if you're riding the down the entire steep descent like that. If there's a drop of any sort with your arms extended like that, that's going to jerk you forward and if you held onto the front brake lever, the wheel may have locked up mid-air, and you may get bucked over anyways. Hit a large bump and your front may bounce and you will likely recovery safely and have it pointed clear again, but what happens if the rear hits the bump? His legs are already almost fully bent. That saddle is going to hit him in his gut. If you get some wind knocked out... **** happens. You should note that his saddle is low as well.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I found myself thinking about this thread when I was messing around on some mellower trails in my area on my 'cross bike. It's not quite the same thing, obviously, but mine is currently set up for a more mountain-bikey feel.

I was reminded just how much more a rigid bike has to move around than even my hardtail. I think that what a whole lot of technique comes down to, whether it's pedaling technique and KOPS (which I think is somewhat bogus, but whatever,) descending and braking technique, or climbing out of the saddle, is staying centered over the pedals, relative to whichever way the force is coming from them. Centered, my arms are free to be relaxed and let the front end of the bike do whatever it needs to. Cantilever brakes and road levers make that a bit harder.  I guess our legs are enough stronger to be both load-bearing and relaxed at the same time.

Anyway, I think that both getting further back to brake and the KOPS business are indirect ways of trying to keep the rider lined up well relative to the pedals, and the force the pedals are exerting on the riders feet. In the flats, pedaling, the pedal exerts a force that's directly in opposition to the force exerted by the rider. We do better exerting force in line with our centers, and the knee happens to land more-or-less in line with the pedal spindle if the rider's torso's center of mass is also pretty much over it. Most of the time, since we don't put all our weight into the forward pedal, riders tend to end up with their centers a little back of vertically above the pedal, with some weight on the saddle and some on the back pedal.

I think KOPS is somewhat bogus. Here's an article that I like, and that explains it better than I would.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/kops.html

FWIW, getting low means that less horizontal displacement is required for a rider to have a more rearward angle relative to the pedals and front wheel. I don't think that there's as much actual disagreement here as it might appear.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> I saw that picture before and seeing it again makes me laugh since it seems so exaggerated.


You should go out and experiment. Find a good hill to run. Get going to 20mph or so and hit the brakes hard. If you use the technique in that picture, whether or not it's exaggerated, you will slow down faster. I used this technique on my commuter braking on a hill this morning, as I do every week day morning. It helps.



Varaxis said:


> While you say getting back is the best, I'm trying to say getting low while maintaining a position in which you have more use of your arms and legs is better. *You simply need to be in a position to have your body's inertia transfer into you bike rather than over the bars.*


Which often times is slightly behind the saddle. It's not just either getting low or getting back. It's kind of hard to be high and back. I'm not sure how you can go down a steep section just being low and not going back. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have my head lower than my butt.



Varaxis said:


> Look at his arms and legs. It's pretty hard to steer if you're riding the down the entire steep descent like that.


You wouldn't ride the entire descent like that. It'd probably be more like the pic below. Notice his angle in relation to the hill and how his weight is centered more over the back wheel (the camera might be tilted just slightly to the left making the hill look steeper).











Varaxis said:


> If there's a drop of any sort with your arms extended like that, that's going to jerk you forward and if you held onto the front brake lever, the wheel may have locked up mid-air, and you may get bucked over anyways. Hit a large bump and your front may bounce and you will likely recovery safely and have it pointed clear again, but what happens if the rear hits the bump? His legs are already almost fully bent. That saddle is going to hit him in his gut. If you get some wind knocked out... **** happens. You should note that his saddle is low as well.


A "one size fits all" approach doesn't work. You can't ride in the same position the whole time. Good riders stay light and adapt their body position for the terrain. No one would ride a long descent like the braking picture I posted (from Lee Likes Bikes, BTW). That was meant to show technique when braking fast. Notice this guy's position:









and this guy's:










Part of riding well is knowing how to weight the bike. As far as braking is concerned, it's often best to stay off the brakes as much as possible on descents, only applying the brakes when necessary. When it is necessary keep your center of gravity low and toward the back wheel. DH riders lower their seats to make this movement easier, but it can be done with a higher saddle as well.

I'll finish my post with a couple quotes from Ned Overend:
"You need to bake on most steep downhills to control your speed, but this also is the riskiest time to touch those levers. Sometimes, braking in an attempt to prevent a crash can actually cause one. A classic example is when you panic a bit and hit your front brake hard without first *putting your weight back*. With such a high center of gravity, you pitch forward--maybe right over the handlebar. To preven this, *always descend steep grades with your body pushed way back*. Don't lock your elbows straight though. You still need some bend to absorb shock and maintain steering control." (_Mountain Bike Like a Champion_, pg 44-45)

"On a steep downhill, all of your braking power is at the front wheel and all of your weight moves forward. The rear wheel can get so light that it leaves the ground." (_Mountain Bike Like a Champion_, pg 104)


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

When I roll down something short and steep, I don't necessarily hang all the way back over the rear wheel. 

I'll definitely get my upper body low over the bike, which also tends to put me towards the rear of the bike. Often the steep spots here level out very abruptly, or even steepen for the last foot or two. So I want to be able to pull the front wheel up before I hit the level ground. For that, I need some freedom of movement which I wouldn't have hanging all the way back. Definitely no braking when doing that.

Riding rigid, I feel like I need my legs to handle the front suspension's job too. The hands just fine tune what exactly the front is doing. Otherwise I'd kill my wrists in no time.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 17, 2009)

perttime said:


> When I roll down something short and steep, I don't necessarily hang all the way back over the rear wheel.
> 
> I'll definitely get my upper body low over the bike, which also tends to put me towards the rear of the bike. Often the steep spots here level out very abruptly, or even steepen for the last foot or two. So I want to be able to pull the front wheel up before I hit the level ground. For that, I need some freedom of movement which I wouldn't have hanging all the way back. Definitely no braking when doing that.
> 
> Riding rigid, I feel like I need my legs to handle the front suspension's job too. The hands just fine tune what exactly the front is doing. Otherwise I'd kill my wrists in no time.


Yep, lots of soft gripping.


----------



## wickerman1 (Dec 24, 2003)

s0ckeyeus said:


> Now I know you're Joe Bigshot on the trail after a year of trail riding, but dial the assumptions back just a tad and assume that I'm not talking about the 5% grade of your mom's cracked driveway. Like it or not there are situations where you have to brake going down a steep, choppy descent. In these circumstances, it's best to have your weight back. Ask Ned Overend.
> 
> Physics isn't just for newbies. Even roadies get their butts back when braking hard. Sometimes it's just good technique (check out the noob on the right). I'm not really sure you know what I'm talking about.
> 
> ...


I do not agree 100% wit this type of training. When the rider is behind thje saddle and low, the center of gravity is over the rear wheel.. what does that do? no weight in the front, thus the front wheel will slide out. Seems we do things different here in BC.
Rider weight should be centered to the bike as much as possible, less chance of crashing, going over the bars doesn't mean you need to get completely behind the saddle, as long as you're off it, and back somewhat and your body lowered, arms bent NOT FULLY EXTENT AS IN THE PIC, you will not go over the bars. Worse thing is fully extended arms... no control at all over the bike with no weight on the front wheel = kiss your a$$ goodbye.
EDIT: The third pic is just bad... I wouldn't be that far behind on ANY steep descent, my god your destined to harm yourself badly like that .


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Sock, like what AndrwSwitch mentioned, we're saying almost the same thing, only that we're emphasizing different details and the interpretation that got across needed more elaboration to clear it up. I'm trying to *stick to the topic of DH tips* trying to explain what I learned that helped me get past my noobie days and now being able ride some of the gnarliest trails, while you're mainly attacking me trying to illustrate your point using a few photos that your opinion differs from mine that my general statement that getting behind the saddle is a noobie move. I've been trying to emphasize retaining use of your arms and legs and how the popular image of getting way back like can be interpreted poorly.

Most of your new post has bits of info of exactly what I've tried to explain, except you keep bolding the keep weight back parts. Re-read what I've said, I pointed out a few places where getting back is. Don't underestimate how easy it is to interpret those pictures as good technique for going DH from a noobie's point of view. I'll be assumptive again and say that I'm glad that you agree with me so much.

Pictures can capture movements people use for a split second and may be interpreted wrong by those without experience. Use videos of true high level mountain biking technique... it's 2010. I consider the the difference between the Lee Likes Bikes pic and the guy in red to be very noticeable--that's why I said it was so exaggerated that I laughed. In that last pic, if you read what I said (this'll be the 3rd time), extending the arms like that is useful for setting your front wheel down a drop until your rear starts to head over.

I criticized your 4-steps photo mainly since I saw Tank Girl getting excited all about and I was worried that she got the wrong interpretation out of it. That's all that's between us. You see one line and ignore the support and attack me for it. I tried to stick to the topic and clear up what you've been spitting out. If you or anyone read the rest of my wall of text, they'd understand better. What do you think a beginner would do if you simply told them to get your weight back behind the saddle on descents would do? You'd think they'd return to a more centered position mid-way?

Staying low, an alternative to getting far back behind the saddle:










Some recent DH action:

https://www.pinkbike.com/v/156663

PS: Please stop quoting/reposting that terribly exaggerated 4-step pic. I'd just like to see that go away.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 17, 2009)

wickerman1 said:


> I do not agree 100% wit this type of training. When the rider is behind thje saddle and low, the center of gravity is over the rear wheel.. what does that do? no weight in the front, thus the front wheel will slide out. Seems we do things different here in BC.
> Rider weight should be centered to the bike as much as possible, less chance of crashing, going over the bars doesn't mean you need to get completely behind the saddle, as long as you're off it, and back somewhat and your body lowered, arms bent NOT FULLY EXTENT AS IN THE PIC, you will not go over the bars. Worse thing is fully extended arms... no control at all over the bike with no weight on the front wheel = kiss your a$$ goodbye.
> EDIT: The third pic is just bad... I wouldn't be that far behind on ANY steep descent, my god your destined to harm yourself badly like that .


Weight back will increase rear wheel braking force ... and the braking force will drive the front wheel down and increase front wheel braking force. A neutral position leaves almost no rear wheal braking force.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

wickerman1 said:


> I do not agree 100% wit this type of training. When the rider is behind thje saddle and low, the center of gravity is over the rear wheel.. what does that do? no weight in the front, thus the front wheel will slide out. Seems we do things different here in BC.
> Rider weight should be centered to the bike as much as possible, less chance of crashing, going over the bars doesn't mean you need to get completely behind the saddle, as long as you're off it, and back somewhat and your body lowered, arms bent NOT FULLY EXTENT AS IN THE PIC, you will not go over the bars. Worse thing is fully extended arms... no control at all over the bike with no weight on the front wheel = kiss your a$$ goodbye.
> EDIT: The third pic is just bad... I wouldn't be that far behind on ANY steep descent, my god your destined to harm yourself badly like that .


I'm pretty sure they exaggerated for the picture. I wouldn't be mimicking pic #3 either.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

wickerman1 said:


> ...Rider weight should be centered to the bike as much as possible, less chance of crashing, going over the bars doesn't mean you need to get completely behind the saddle, as long as you're off it, and back somewhat and your body lowered, arms bent NOT FULLY EXTENT AS IN THE PIC, you will not go over the bars. Worse thing is fully extended arms... no control at all over the bike with no weight on the front wheel = kiss your a$$ goodbye.
> EDIT: The third pic is just bad... I wouldn't be that far behind on ANY steep descent, my god your destined to harm yourself badly like that .





Varaxis said:


> ...Please stop quoting/reposting that terribly exaggerated 4-step pic. I'd just like to see that go away.


you guys are funny :lol: - even though that pic was posted as an example of getting behind your saddle it is actually a technique for 'panic' braking down an incline...going from 24mph to 6mph in about 30 feet on dirt is pretty quick...

I agree with both of y'all, and many other comments in this thread....terrain dictates body position and is constantly changing....it is rare to get that far back (siting on your tire), but it is common on descents to shift your weight back and down a bit....

my .02


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Hmph, I'm so stuck up about that move apparently, that I'd rather throw myself off the bike than to get behind the saddle and have my ass buzz the tire. JK.

That's why I criticized it for being a "noobie move". It's like, when in doubt, get behind the saddle and hit the brakes, eh? The more technique you gain, the less you find it useful, and it gets to the point you only really use it for the extremely steep sections, dropping your front wheel down off an edge before you rear makes it over too.

Ok, I'll give it up. Hopefully this'll end this silly debate. I said before that it works to get you through some hairy stuff, but I just wanted to say there's light beyond that technique that is far smoother.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Varaxis said:


> Hmph, I'm so stuck up about that move apparently, that I'd rather throw myself off the bike than to get behind the saddle and have my ass buzz the tire. JK.


lulz!



Varaxis said:


> That's why I criticized it for being a "noobie move". It's like, when in doubt, get behind the saddle and hit the brakes, eh? The more technique you gain, the less you find it useful, and it gets to the point you only really use it for the extremely steep sections, *dropping your front wheel down off an edge before you rear makes it over too*.


bingo bango :thumbsup: - snapped this pic of my buddy in Moab...shows how to roll a ledge











Varaxis said:


> Ok, I'll give it up. I admit it works and takes you through some hairy stuff, but learn to rely on it less and you'll ride faster.


truth...


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> The more technique you gain, the less you find it useful, and it gets to the point you only really use it for the extremely steep sections, dropping your front wheel down off an edge before you rear makes it over too.
> 
> Ok, I'll give it up. Hopefully this'll end this silly debate. I said before that it works to get you through some hairy stuff, but I just wanted to say there's light beyond that technique that is far smoother.


I think we'll all agree on this and stop there. Sorry for being a jerk. Head colds make me cranky.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Wow.... a bunch of assumptions...*



Varaxis said:


> MTB doesn't seem to have become "serious" just yet, but I do notice performance being pushed more and more. Ever practice wheelies, manuals, bunny hops, cornering, tail whips (for switch backs), drops, technical climbs, or whatever just to work on that skill? Ever not clear a section and then retrace your path way back and try to ride it again to try and clear it? A rigid bike just simply demands that you ride well else you're probably going to get beat up. It's more for a masochistic tough guy type of person. Or for the type of person that likes to show off that it's the rider and not the equipment that makes them good.


Ummm.... this is how you learn to ride a bike well. I'm not sure where you're coming from. Performance in any sport, hobby or industry evolves (or is "being pushed more and more" if you like) over time. Riding a rigid bike may be perceived (by you) as some sort of macho trip. Some of us learned to ride and race (downhill, even) on rigid bikes. It has nothing to do with us being better riders and more to do with the fact that suspension wasn't applied to bikes yet. It's not the equipment, it's the rider.



Varaxis said:


> As for climbing, if you have conditioned your legs to spin (you don't put body weight on the pedal, you guide it through its circular motion, like clawing with your feet rather than pushing), the position closest to standing keeping just the slightest bend in your knee at the longest part of the stroke (right crank at 5 o'clock), is optimal for efficiency. Don't make it so high that your knees lock-out at that point. You just sacrifice DH performance, which this thread is about. I compromise and put my seat an inch lower since I don't like to contact the saddle when I don't want to. I hover over the seat and move a bit forward anyways, on the steepest and most technical of ascents.


This is a very general statement that doesn't apply in all situations. Yes, you try and pedal in circles but there's also a time and place to stand and mash. You can't generalize one type of climbing as an absolute standard.



Varaxis said:


> There's also a well known theory that the front of your right knee should be exactly over of the pedal axle with the right crank at 3 o'clock for optimal fit, which is known as "knee over pedal spindle". I think that KOPS system deals with a more ergonomic position which helps minimize knee issues which may develop over time due to poor bike fit, but I'm not sure of the science behind that.


Ummm... I like to think of myself as fairly knowledgible when it comes to cycling. I've never hear of this "well known theory" that you're refering to. Did you just make this up?



Varaxis said:


> Like I said earlier, I'm not sure why people think they can just get into sport known to be dangerous like mountain biking and expect to learn just from riding. There are bike skills camps out there, like BetterRide.net, that run you through the basics and lead you into more advanced stuff and claim to instruct pros. There are pros like Greg Minnaar that run stuff like bikeskills, but I'm skeptical of his ability to instruct. There are also mountain bike parks sprouting up all over. These things popping up is a sign of MTB getting serious. That and some high schools in CO and TX are picking it up as a sport.


Um, people expect to learn from riding because that's where everyone starts. Unless you're suggesting that people should take lessons before throwing a leg over a bike?

So could you explain why betterride (a bike skills camp) is okay in your book but receiving instruction from Greg Minnar at a bike skills camp warrants skepticism?



Varaxis said:


> I was taught the same thing about butt behind the saddle to counter not going over the bars under hard braking. I guess from there, it just carries over to any situation which they have to hit the brakes hard. That's why I call it a noobie move now, since I find that it just puts you into a death grip situation, since you're hanging on and you stop working with the bike. It's going to be a really hard habit to break if you ever want to become more aggressive (faster and harder charging) and pick up the attack stance. I'm not saying never be in that position, since I still find it useful for any time my front wheel is about to head down something steep until my rear wheel is about to go over too, I'm just saying there's more of an advantage to flowing with your bike rather than letting the bike take the lead over when you're being bounced around. It's hard to control the bounce in that position (since you give up a lot of the suspension your arms and legs have) and if the bounce transmits to your 4 points of contact, your hands and feet, what if you slip? If you don't slip, what kind of grip are you using on the bars?


You're sort of correct in that if you're in this position, it's almost impossible to control your bike. I'd suggest that you received poor instruction. Move your butt behind the seat doesn't mean moving your butt behind/off and below the seat. Your butt can be behind the seat with your thighs still touching the seat. It's much less a "noobie move" so much as it's a poor instructor move.

Regarding your hands and feet losing contact with the bike: It's going to happen. YOu may as well accept that and learn how to deal with it.



Varaxis said:


> You say your rear bounces on a choppy surface, but I wonder how much. Too much pressure in your tires can cause that. Tires like different pressure for optimum performance, but I like experimenting under 35 psi. Bigger and higher volume tires and tough casing can get away with 20 psi. I only ever pinch flat if I'm not smooth; I usually only see pinch flats after a crash. You can control the bounce with better technique; you don't need to get back and hit the brakes. There's something called going dead sailor in the dirt jumping scene, which is basically doing nothing in the air and stiffening up from fear, which typically leads to ugly landings. Loosen up and flow and move with the bike. The rear can lift and move where it likes without much detrimental effect on where you're going--the front is what you should be controlling.


Agree



Varaxis said:


> I guess the attack position is relatively advanced and requires a certain mindset. Maybe I shouldn't criticize the passive style of riding so much by comparing the two.


Disagree. The attack position is pretty basic and requires a minimal amount of knowledge on what that position really is.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

*We need more conceited opinionated blowhards on these boards*

O sowwy, biking iz srsbsns.










I'm honored that you're treating my post as some sort of technical tutorial worthy enough of your careful dissection and criticism, but has anyone ever said you're highly opinionated and that your ego might be a bit huge? You condone general statements, probably cause they can be interpreted in a way not intended, but do you realize virtually all of your opinions are general statements? No one likes walls of text. Your opinions are assumptive too. Talk about a hypocrite.

I don't care to reply to all your opinions, but I figure I should elaborate on my point that pros might not be great instructors.

Good communication is needed to minimize leaving too much to interpretation. It's one of the basic skills a good teacher needs. Building good rapport with students is also an useful skill, to help motivate and to keep their attention. People will be excited to learn the moves that top pros use, so rapport is naturally high, but inexperienced teachers are likely to mimic/repeat what is taught to them without understanding the systematic purpose. When I see their actions contradict their words, I have to wonder.

Learning physical skills is a bit less clear cut than teaching something like math and there are "tiers of skill" used to do the accomplish the same thing. If Minnaar were to simply go, "eff dat newb shitz" and blast through in his typical pro fashion, I'd be truly impressed, but I likely wouldn't be able to do that. For example, the different tiers of riding over a log may be: dismounting and carrying the bike over, getting the front over and putting a foot down to carry the rear over, lifting the front wheel and bouncing off and over it, clearing it with a bunny-hop, and so on. You can't really sort by difficulty, but you can sort in effectiveness in regards to speed, reliability, and adaptability (the number of situations you can use it in). Some people can skip right to the bunny hop while others need to start with the others. A teacher needs to be able to sense that.

To help explain the difficulty of teaching physical skills, try to relate it to another sport like basketball. It's a bit more complicated to teach mountain biking than to teach how to shoot free throws in basketball. While there are many many different effective ways to shoot free throws with a goot FT%, biking is more like active on the court action without the team play. A high level biker would be like Jordan, a threat everywhere on the court under all sorts of pressure. He can pull off shots fading away and manage to perform despite multiple tough obstacles. Some people adapt much better than others and some are completely happy with being mediocre, having no ambition to go further than the basics just to safely perform. To get to that point, performing like Jordan, from playing Horse...

Most of my skepticism stems from words not matching action. Ride like a pro! *shows you how a beginner rides it*

Excuse me for being cranky. Too much rain and mud up here in NY this week which isn't my style.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*PKB Syndrome...*



Varaxis said:


> O sowwy, biking iz srsbsns.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It seems to me that you should reread your posts and those attributes you've associated with me. I'm not suggesting that they're not correct. I am suggesting that I'm not the only guilty party.

Huge ego? Er.... okay. Sure.... I'm sure you can find all kinds of posts talking about my DH skills and my egotistical opinions on DH specific skill requirements.....

Your metaphor is way off base. If you want to equate a sport to a sport, how about some consistency? How to corner better may equate to shooting a free throw. But learning to mountain bike would be more like learning to play the game of basketball. Now there are a lot of people that play basketball without going to a skills clinic beforehand.

Cheers and try to stay dry.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Ken and Var...you 2 need to slow dance making out to Journey...

:lol:


----------



## RDTigger (Sep 9, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Weight back will increase rear wheel braking force ... and the braking force will drive the front wheel down and increase front wheel braking force. A neutral position leaves almost no rear wheal braking force.


This... Getting back will increase weight on the back wheel, the front wheel is not where you want the braking force... BAIL OUT!

I would think getting flat and low would bring the center of gravity down and also even out the weight distribution on a descent. However if you are on a mean grade I could see the "get back" technique working. It's really physics too me I am sure plenty have first hand experience.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Wrong!*



CHUM said:


> Ken and Var...you 2 need to slow dance making out to Journey...
> 
> :lol:


I'm more of an REO guy.


----------



## wickerman1 (Dec 24, 2003)

RDTigger said:


> This... Getting back will increase weight on the back wheel, the front wheel is not where you want the braking force... BAIL OUT!
> 
> I would think getting flat and low would bring the center of gravity down and also even out the weight distribution on a descent. However if you are on a mean grade I could see the "get back" technique working. It's really physics too me I am sure plenty have first hand experience.


You want braking force do be as equal fron and rear, and I use both brakes all the time.
Rear wheel braking only will accomplish diddly squat, Front wheel braking only will send you OTB.
The "backwheel braking force increases front wheel braking force" from the person you quoted is... um well lts just hope he isn't an instructor.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

wickerman1 said:


> You want braking force (t)o be as equal fron[t] and rear, and I use both brakes all the time.
> Rear wheel braking only will accomplish diddly squat, Front wheel braking only will send you OTB.


Front brake only won't send you over the bar if your body position is right. I use my brakes independently quite a bit. The only time I use rear only is when I need just a tiny bit of speed taken off for a little more control.


----------



## OSOK (Jul 11, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Weight back will increase rear wheel braking force ... and the braking force will drive the front wheel down and increase front wheel braking force. A neutral position leaves almost no rear wheal braking force.


The tire that'll stop you 100% is the front tire. Unweighting the front tire to brake with the rear makes no sense. I can brake my front tire to the point of skidding and will NOT go over if properly placed over the bike, and NOT overly back like in Lee's pic.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

OSOK said:


> NOT overly back like in Lee's pic.


In those pics, the point is not about getting to the rear. It is about pushing the bike at the ground for more traction overall, at the moment you are braking hard.

Sort of the reverse of a bunny hop where you shift your weight to get off the ground.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

OSOK said:


> The tire that'll stop you 100% is the front tire. Unweighting the front tire to brake with the rear makes no sense. I can brake my front tire to the point of skidding and will NOT go over if properly placed over the bike, and NOT overly back like in Lee's pic.


What perttime said. With the weight distributed properly, which may not always be that far back behind the tire, force keeps the front end down and pushing into the ground. Look at the guy's fork. It's still pretty compressed. He's not unweighting the front end at all.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Just wondering if the size and weight of your bike makes any difference on how you ride DH...my bike has twenty-four inch wheels, has a base of approx 63" (from front of front tire to back of back tire,) and has a steel frame that weighs about 30 pounds...I only weigh about 117 pounds myself. I've been watching some of our group ride through different sections and it seems like those with longer bases have an easier time getting down and over high vertical obstacles.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Other things being equal, larger wheels are more stable, longer wheelbases (typically measured hub-center to hub-center) are more stable, heavier bikes are more stable.

More stable is not always better, though. It also means it's harder to change the direction of the bike - you'd have an easier time managing a lighter bike.

I was starting to assume you're riding a child's bike, but glanced back through the thread - I don't know the Terry Jacaranda, and I suspect it's gone through a few revisions. But it was made by a company that specializes in high performance bikes for women, and Bikepedia mentions one as light as 22 lb. All steel is not created equal, and the descriptions I bumped into just now had it made out of at least Chromoly, and maybe a high-quality butted tubeset from one of the brands making nice ones. The point of all that is that if the bike is a tank, it's not necessarily the frame that's the problem. Does it have a lot of extra crap bolted to it? 

Why don't you post some pics? You might also get some information about it on the Vintage/Restoration forum.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Bikepedia mentions one as light as 22 lb. All steel is not created equal, and the descriptions I bumped into just now had it made out of at least Chromoly, and maybe a high-quality butted tubeset from one of the brands making nice ones. The point of all that is that if the bike is a tank, it's not necessarily the frame that's the problem. Does it have a lot of extra crap bolted to it?
> 
> Why don't you post some pics? You might also get some information about it on the Vintage/Restoration forum.


You're right, in its day, the Terry was a high end MTB, one of the first made specifically for women. (Actually, they still make high end women's bikes, but don't have an MTB model anymore.) I'll post a pic of it as soon as I can get one,

I looked it up on Bikepedia and mine is the 1993 model that's listed as having...Frame Construction TIG-welded steel, Frame Tubing Material Tange #900 and Fork Brand & Model Tange chrome-moly. (I'm not sure what this really means, I just know that given as much as I crash, she's pretty much indestructible,) The hub to hub measurement is 39". It's listed as weighing only 24 pounds, but I just weighed it again on the scale and it's definately 30. I'm thinking much of it is in my saddlebag, tools, spare tubes, energy bars, rain jacket, etc. I don't really worry about having the lightest of everything, cause I figure the more weight I carry, the better workout I get. I did upgrade some parts. I got better rear brakes and I had my large gear in front replaced with an even larger gear (because I used it as a road bike for quite awhile and I really love to go fast,) Other than that I have a pump, a bottle cage and a bike computer on it and that's it.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Btw, other than a full side view of the bike, are there any other specific shots of the bike that would help?


----------



## IAmHolland (Jul 8, 2010)

Tank Girl said:


> It's listed as weighing only 24 pounds, but I just weighed it again on the scale and it's definately 30. I'm thinking much of it is in my saddlebag, tools, spare tubes, energy bars, rain jacket, etc.


Bike weights are just the bike. Yeah, it's probably all that other stuff. I have a steel rig myself. It's a medium sized Rockhopper, 1990. It's rather light, IMO. It's definitely under 30, probably around 25 or so even with a seatbag and a bike rack.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Tank Girl said:


> I looked it up on Bikepedia and mine is the 1993 model that's listed as having...Frame Construction TIG-welded steel, Frame Tubing Material Tange #900 and Fork Brand & Model Tange chrome-moly. (I'm not sure what this really means, I just know that given as much as I crash, she's pretty much indestructible,) The hub to hub measurement is 39". It's listed as weighing only 24 pounds, but I just weighed it again on the scale and it's definately 30. I'm thinking much of it is in my saddlebag, tools, spare tubes, energy bars, rain jacket, etc. I don't really worry about having the lightest of everything, cause I figure the more weight I carry, the better workout I get. I did upgrade some parts. I got better rear brakes and I had my large gear in front replaced with an even larger gear (because I used it as a road bike for quite awhile and I really love to go fast,) Other than that I have a pump, a bottle cage and a bike computer on it and that's it.


Tange is a manufacturer of steel tubing for bikes. #900 is probably a model number for the tubeset. Many frame manufacturers start with a set of tubes that are already butted, and then cut them to length and assemble them into a frame. The weight and riding characteristics of the finished frame have a lot to do with that tube set. Tange makes everything mid-end to very high-end tubesets, so it's hard to know where #900 fits. It's not a current tubeset. Clicking around online, it was near the bottom of their range of butted tubesets - so actually pretty good. Tange also makes forks, and has historically made them at several different levels.

The "heavier bike for a better workout" thread comes up from time to time on the XC racing and training forum. I think it can have some merit if you're riding with a group, and you're not the one who slows it down. In general, though, I'd choose to ride a lighter bike at the same effort, for the same amount of time, and cover more distance. Not much more under most circumstances, but we can dream. Anyway, I think they're more fun. 

It's also worth thinking about sprung vs. unsprung weight for mountain bikes - sometimes, it can help to transfer some items from your bike to yourself, so the bike is easier to handle. One of the things to think about with any kind of technical bike handling is make the path your center of mass follows smoother than the terrain. Pump tracks are a great example of that. That means that the accelerations the bike experiences are greater than those you experience, so you wouldn't have to do as much work on weight that's traveling with your body as on weight that's traveling with the bike. Anyway, I think the best load-bearing places on the whole mountain biker/bike system are down near the biker's hips, like in a jersey pocket, and down near the bottom bracket, like where water bottles typically go.

If you want to spend some money, there are probably a fair number of places where you could save meaningful amounts of weight. I didn't catch if you were planning to buy a different bike at some point, were committed to this one because of money, or maybe if you just can't find another bike that fits right.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Tange is a manufacturer of steel tubing for bikes. #900 is probably a model number for the tubeset. Many frame manufacturers start with a set of tubes that are already butted, and then cut them to length and assemble them into a frame. The weight and riding characteristics of the finished frame have a lot to do with that tube set. Tange makes everything mid-end to very high-end tubesets, so it's hard to know where #900 fits. It's not a current tubeset. Clicking around online, it was near the bottom of their range of butted tubesets - so actually pretty good. Tange also makes forks, and has historically made them at several different levels.
> 
> The "heavier bike for a better workout" thread comes up from time to time on the XC racing and training forum. I think it can have some merit if you're riding with a group, and you're not the one who slows it down. In general, though, I'd choose to ride a lighter bike at the same effort, for the same amount of time, and cover more distance. Not much more under most circumstances, but we can dream. Anyway, I think they're more fun.
> 
> ...


Thanks for explaining about the frame/tubeset manufacturing, that's interesting to know and something to keep in mind for my next bike. I'm thinking of getting something used for about $700 within the next couple months, so any suggestions you think I ought to check out would be appreciated.

Your point is well taken re: riding a lighter bike just as hard for greater distance and speaking of dreaming...I already am...certainly at $700 it won't be my next bike, but I'd definately love to try a Pivot Mach IV, it sounds like my kind of ride.

As for making "the path your center of mass follows smoother than the terrain." That's intriguing advice, I'll try to get as much weight off the bike as I can and see what comes of it.

And finally, I did a post on the vintage/retro/classic forum re my bike.and was told having 24" wheels is a definate disadvantage. The only upshot is that I have nothing else to compare them to as yet, just as I don't know what suspension is like, so at least I don't know what I'm missing.

Thanks for all the info!


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Tank Girl said:


> As for making "the path your center of mass follows smoother than the terrain." That's intriguing advice,


 That reminds me of some skiing advice I saw 20 or 30 years ago: knees bent when going over a bump, straight when going through a depression; to make your body follow a relatively straight line.

Straight lines somewhat apply in the horizontal plane too: trying to go around everything is often more difficult than following a relatively straight line over some of the less threatening obstacles.


----------



## RDTigger (Sep 9, 2010)

perttime said:


> That reminds me of some skiing advice I saw 20 or 30 years ago: knees bent when going over a bump, straight when going through a depression; to make your body follow a relatively straight line.
> 
> Straight lines somewhat apply in the horizontal plane too: trying to go around everything is often more difficult than following a relatively straight line over some of the less threatening obstacles.


Yep, that's is a basic fundamental of carrying speed. Get in an athletic position like a shortstop meaning knees bent and bent over at the hips in a relaxed position.

Watch any racing, bicycle motocross, and you find them using this balancing technique to create a straight line to balance out the bike and keep the wheels on the ground. Can't go anywhere without traction.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

I see what you guys are getting at...I'll be more mindful of this next time I ride.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

On "not going around everything": it might not be all that obvious, which obstacle is the tricky one. Do you go through several small rocks or over one large rock, for example. Depending on the shape of the rocks, the big one may well be the one where you are less likely to get stuck.

Also, taking the easy line in one place might put you in an impossible place for the next turn or obstacle. Better scan the trail ahead to get a bigger picture on an overall better line.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Got to demo a Pivot Mach 4 on the Legends ride this weekend at the Biketoberfest in Marin and was able to do things I never dared attempt on my rigid Terry, it was an amazing bike.

The question I have is this...how do you take on large roots going downhill, that are all at different angles, that form a set of "stairs" on a rigid bike? I can't begin to think how I'd have done it on my Terry, but I hardly noticed them at all with the Pivot. Is there a way to do them with the rigid? Is it something you can build up endurance for, because it seems like it'd be brutal on your wrists. and how do you keep control of not only your steering, but your speed?

Btw, for those who know the area, I was riding up in Tamarancho.

Also, what is the best site to go to for accurate and detailed trail maps and info? And is there a standard that trails are rated by with regards to difficulty?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I wouldn't call it endurance. I'd just say it's the basics built up from riding other stuff. If your wrists are getting beat up, you might be using technique that's too hard on them. My shoulders typically take the brunt of the pounding due to how I position myself (my arms and upper body being low, with elbows out to the side), on the occasions when I stiffen up my arms too much and hit a large square bump.

Walk the roots, find the best line (preferably straight as possible), aim your bike through it with enough speed/momentum to not get hung up, and, if the roots are dry, I think it should come naturally. I'd say line is foremost the most important part of clearing really rough uneven terrain; you don't want to hit slippery roots at an angle that will wash out your wheels. Momentum and balance will take care of the rest. The more speed you have, the more profound of a "skimming" effect you have over the section. The slower you go, to more pronounced each bump gets and the better your balance needs to be to keep the bike in control without feeling so wobbly that you want to dismount.

https://www.bikeskills.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/root_drop_feb.jpg

Which line would you take going down through this?

https://lh3.ggpht.com/_uUy91M0IKkg/S_Gw4VaU67I/AAAAAAAAAa8/BiuJ_QQgTtc/s800/20100508_MtBeacon16.jpg
https://lh5.ggpht.com/_uUy91M0IKkg/S_Gw4iZJL_I/AAAAAAAAAbE/HPoKw50ZUnQ/s800/20100508_MtBeacon18.jpg

Looking down, the right side looks easiest to start, but the left side looks easiest on the bottom but they both have really gnarly sections before or after. It's really steep, so making a turn to switch sides mid way isn't really a smart thing to do. In this case, the best line would be just down the center, since it's moderately gnarly all the way through and gives you a straight line through the transition to carry a lot of your speed through to the next section since you don't need to slow down to turn. Those easy sections look tempting, but you need to realize how much more effective going straight is when going fast through rough stuff.

I should probably suggest that it's probably a good idea to work on *balance* and core strength. Some things you can do on your bike to help are practicing trackstands and maybe some fast and tight figure eights--get those handlebars turned so far they're between your legs, almost over the top tube, and go as fast as you dare. Cross training with other sports may help; I'd suggest yoga, but I never tried it myself. You may be surprised how your overall riding ability goes up with increased balance, since it helps to maintain effective positioning over the bike.

I'm not too experienced to put too much faith into generalizations like this, but I think that the faster you go, the straighter you should go, even if it means hitting bumps that could be avoided by swerving a little. My current attitude/theory is that speed gives your "mass" greater force that can easily counter deflection forces (forces that can throw you off balance and/or make you lose control). It might be a bit crazy for some people to accept, but it works for me. The only time it really fails are cases when my buddies and I can say that I'm "outriding" my bike and equipment. No wonder people look down on super light XC race bikes... stuff breaks so easily and the front flexes so much.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

IMHO, the single biggest thing that suspension makes easier is maintaining traction on a technical descent.

People were certainly doing them before suspension. But they had to do them slower to maintain the same level of control. Sometimes, going slower makes things harder, so they had to do them a lot slower.

I don't know if you ski... I think descending really cut up stuff is sort of like skiing crud. You need to let the bike run a little bit, and make sure you have time and leeway for your line to be wider than plan A.

Riding bikes on singletrack is generally higher-consequence than skiing crud, though, so sometimes the only thing left, at least for those of us with grey hair and a desire to keep our collar bones intact, is to take it slow. The big trick there is that it's hard to stay loose, and I know if I start to get tense, it's harder for me to balance and flow - things suddenly become much, much more work. Riding the brake down a technical descent can be a lot like sideslipping down difficult ski terrain, but I think that riding bikes slowly takes more balance, while defensive skiing takes less.

So all that returns us to line selection, probably one of the biggest differences between a good riding style on a hardtail and a full-suspension rig. Generally, roots going across your direction of travel won't screw you up too much as long as you stay off the brake. Diagonal ones, or ones that run just off parallel to the way you're going are a much bigger problem. If you can find a smooth line, awesome. You're all good. If you can't, just bashing across a lot of perpendicular roots toward a smooth runout is pretty good too. If you can't find a line like that, though, stop and watch someone else do it, if you're not in the back of the group; walk it if you are and it would be a high-consequence fall. We all get hurt sooner or later. There's no sense rushing it.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Tank Girl said:


> The question I have is this...how do you take on large roots going downhill, that are all at different angles, that form a set of "stairs" on a rigid bike?


Every root is a bit different, so one way to do it doesn't apply to all of them. And how large is large 

I have a couple of spots where roots form sort of small ledges: some straight across the trail, some at an angle (45 degrees?). Those are no different from dropping from a curb: the faster the easier, also on a rigid bike. Whatever comes next on the trail may limit how fast I want to go. I tend to chicken out when there's several features one right after another. I could certainly fly over each one separately but I worry about being out of balance for the next one.


----------



## wickerman1 (Dec 24, 2003)

Tank Girl said:


> Got to demo a Pivot Mach 4 on the Legends ride this weekend at the Biketoberfest in Marin and was able to do things I never dared attempt on my rigid Terry, it was an amazing bike.
> 
> The question I have is this...how do you take on large roots going downhill, that are all at different angles, that form a set of "stairs" on a rigid bike?


If the roots are dry find the best line and go for it... as someone mentioned inc myself, use your arms as suspension. Get your body down low, elbows out arms bent,they are your suspension. If the roots, are wet, lower your tire pressure a few pounds, it makes a world of difference in traction, with less pressure your tire has a wider footprint=more traction. If anything, walk it first leave the bike and check it out, look to see what looks to be the easiest line and try it out.remember though do not brake on a wet root... you will lose control of the front end almost immediately.
here is a pic of a rooty section here in BC(Burke Mtn) with me on the bike just coming into it 
I'm still on relatively flat ground but heading into the slope of it, my body position is still rather high but as you can see my arms are bent and I am going into the ready position.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

wickerman1 said:


> remember though do not brake on a wet root... you will lose control of the front end almost immediately.


Better not brake on roots at all, if you can avoid it. Roots are trying to stop you and if you are braking over a succession of roots (or rocks for that matter), your wheel may get stuck between them.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Also, way too easy to stop the front wheel when it's coming off a root and have it slide instead of hooking up when it reaches the ground.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

perttime said:


> Whatever comes next on the trail may limit how fast I want to go. I tend to chicken out when there's several features one right after another. I could certainly fly over each one separately but I worry about being out of balance for the next one.


This is probably one of the greatest challenges I face. I am working on a trail where there are several quite different features in a row that curve on a steep downhill with a pretty nasty drop off on one side. It's pretty intimidating. I had one of the guys from my group show me how he rides it and he made it look pretty easy. But if I endo or lose control on this section, it could be very ugly. How do you tackle something like this?


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Btw, thanks to everyone for all the advice on how to ride over roots downhill, I did my first set of steep gnarly roots tonight on my rigid bike (the first I ever did was with the Pivot Mach 4) and it wasn't nearly as tough as I thought it'd be. One thing I did notice tonight is that I'm not keeping my arms bent as much as I probably should be. I'm just wondering what difference does it make?


----------



## wickerman1 (Dec 24, 2003)

Tank Girl said:


> One thing I did notice tonight is that I'm not keeping my arms bent as much as I probably should be. I'm just wondering what difference does it make?


the steeper it is, the more your arms have to extend if they are bent to around the halfway point. If they are nt bent much, if it is steep, you will run out of arm so to speak.
then you dont have as good of control over the bike if your arms are fully extended.


----------



## RBowles (Jun 1, 2010)

Theres no shame in getting off your bike and pushing it over an obstacle that you aren't comfortable enough to deal with.

-Works for me.

Edit: Downhill switchbacks freak me out, especially if they are full of loose rock, roots or shale.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

When your arms are bent, they have the flexibility to absorb some bumps. Also, it leaves you more free to move around to control the bike. Like keeping your knees bent lets you absorb bumps and control the bike instead of being just a passenger.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

I see what you guys are saying. I think part of my problem is the kind of handlebar I have. It is almost perfectly straight. Even though I have a small bike, I am pretty petite and my arms are short enough that it's difficult for me to extend back into the ready position without feeling stretched forward and a bit off balance when I need to be at my lowest and farthest back. I was just reading a handlebar thread and am wondering if I should get one with a "rise" and a 15 degree angle back (if that's the right vernacular.)


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Tank Girl said:


> I see what you guys are saying. I think part of my problem is the kind of handlebar I have. It is almost perfectly straight. Even though I have a small bike, I am pretty petite and my arms are short enough that it's difficult for me to extend back into the ready position without feeling stretched forward and a bit off balance when I need to be at my lowest and farthest back. I was just reading a handlebar thread and am wondering if I should get one with a "rise" and a 15 degree angle back (if that's the right vernacular.)


Not necessarily. I think starting with the stem makes more sense. You're also going to start getting into compatibility problems as you get into a bar-swapping project.

Most likely, you have a quill stem for a 1" steer tube. Can you raise it any higher? That was the saving grace of that generation of stems... Anyway, that will give you a somewhat more upright riding position, but it may not be enough - you may want a stem with less extension too. In that case, I highly recommend getting a threadless-to-threaded adapter so you can use new stems and handlebars.

Do you have V-brakes or cantilevers? I can't remember if you ever said... Some stems were also the cable stop for the brakes on bikes with cantilevers. Weird system, and it ups the difficulty of the project considerably.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

The handlebar trend is getting a bit out of hand. It's a lot of marketing to get you to buy stuff. There's going to be a lot of guys that run narrow handlebars that can smoke you and then there are a lot of guys that ride fast downhill that refuse to ride narrow, even on level singletrack. It's more a matter of comfort and personal preference. There are people out there that ride drop bars and radical designs like the On One Mary on the trails.

I think risers are just for additional positions, mainly intended for comfort. There's no "right" way to mount them: straight up, towards you, away, upside down... whatever feels best for you. They're not recommended for short riders with non-DH/FR bikes with high front ends (ex. under 5' 6" on 29ers with 100mm or higher travel forks).

Wider handlebars give you more steering precision: it reduces steering sensitivity which makes steering slower, requiring more movement to turn, but gives more leverage to hold it steady easier. It requires a bit more reach and it's more vulnerable to being clipped on trees and shrubs too. They're significantly heavier as well. They're more popular with the DH crowd, since they need it at the speed they go at. Most XC rides come with shorter bars mainly for the weight savings.

There's a healthy in-between for everyday riders who don't care about weight and don't want the clearance issues on twisty tree lined singletrack. I think 660mm with 20mm rise is probably the safe medium, with 580mm flats that weigh 110g for XC racers and weight weenies, and the 762mm risers that weigh 300+g for the DHers.

This is something DHers ride:






Wide DH bars don't make you go fast like that rider. It's more about the rider than the equipment, but it helps if you feel comfortable on it. I wouldn't feel comfortable riding my bike that fast on that trail, mainly cause I know its wimpy lightweight XC parts would break.

Not related, but this handlebar marketing reminds me of this video which cracks me up:


----------



## chas_martel (May 14, 2006)

Varaxis said:


> I saw that picture before and seeing it again makes me laugh since it seems so exaggerated.
> 
> I'll just repeat what you quoted, since that picture doesn't change my opinion at all. Many people learned about getting back and low for this purpose, to stop really fast without going over the bars. The most likely place to hit the brakes hard is on a descent, so people use this technique there. While you say getting back is the best, I'm trying to say getting low while maintaining a position in which you have more use of your arms and legs is better. You simply need to be in a position to have your body's inertia transfer into you bike rather than over the bars.
> 
> Look at his arms and legs. It's pretty hard to steer if you're riding the down the entire steep descent like that. If there's a drop of any sort with your arms extended like that, that's going to jerk you forward and if you held onto the front brake lever, the wheel may have locked up mid-air, and you may get bucked over anyways. Hit a large bump and your front may bounce and you will likely recovery safely and have it pointed clear again, but what happens if the rear hits the bump? His legs are already almost fully bent. That saddle is going to hit him in his gut. If you get some wind knocked out... **** happens. You should note that his saddle is low as well.


You are missing the part about weight transfer and leverage. Getting toward the rear
helps braking in exactly the same way that the 911 is such a phenomenal braking car.

This is elementary physics, has nothing at all to do with bikes.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

chas_martel said:


> You are missing the part about weight transfer and leverage. Getting toward the rear
> helps braking in exactly the same way that the 911 is such a phenomenal braking car.
> 
> This is elementary physics, has nothing at all to do with bikes.


I'd picture it more like a 911 (or any car) carrying a load weighing 5 to 10 times more than the vehicle. Compare handling during braking with the weight on "stilts" standing mid air 2x higher above it (attached to center of frame), with the load resting on a platform that extends from the trunk to a bit behind it, or with the load strapped on top of the roof.

The car would stop slightly slower than normal with the load on stilts, but the load with have a lot of inertia being such heavy mass with a lot of forward moving force and would pull the car forward a bit and maybe lift the rear end of it a bit. The car would stop much slower (slower than with the load on stilts) with the load on top, since the load's inertia will carry the car forward more, though it's less likely to flip the car forward. The car would stop much slower (about the same as with the load on top) with the load on the platform suspended behind it, since it's inertia also carries the car forward with about the same force.

Ok, so stilts is a bad idea, plain and simple. Forget about that and now, imagine that you have to make an adjustment in steering while braking or if there were a large bump you were unable to avoid coming up. Imagine how the car would handle with the load strapped on top compared to the load suspended behind it. The front would come up easily with the load in suspended behind it, but when the rear wheels go over it, it would be noticeably harsh. If you have to make a turn, it would turn fairly lightly, but the rear would swing with great force and maybe the inertia would cause your rear to feel funny (off balance). With the load strapped on top, it would feel relatively neutral without much control/handling issues.

Now that I tried to explain in your terms, see what I'm trying to say? BTW, most of the weight on a car is where the engine is and it's in the front on the 911. I do admit I like the low stance, getting the center of gravity closer to the axles.

On a downward slope, to center your body, you naturally shift to the rear. Your body's balance is most natural when it's "perpendicular to sea level", cause that's the direction gravity is pulling you, but since you're at speed, you have to compensate for inertia as well. To put inertia in perspective, when you run really fast downhill, do you lean back or lean forward? When you try to slow down when you are going really fast downhill... figure out the best way. Leaning back would lead to virtually complete abandoning of control (probably won't stop as fast/soon as the ideal method, due to skidding/sliding), staying leaned forward would mean really slow deceleration, the best way is something you can't do on bikes, but is "neutral" or something like a compromise between the two extremes. I would prefer to never abandon control. It seems like a great idea to some in their minds before actually practicing it. Heck, a lot of novice skiiers and snowboarders stop with their asses until they learn better.

You're at least smart enough to know physics logic carry over from other things and bikes don't gain their own special physics. I posted in one of my very early posts about the similarities of DH biking to skiing and there have been a number of posts after mine that mention skillsets learned from skiing proving useful to mtn biking. I guess no one likes reading big walls of text or people wanted to emphasize my points. Thanks for emphasizing that point for me.

Edit: For some reason when I thought about getting a drink (after seeing such a post), I wanted to make an analogy of a catering server carrying drinks on a tray (rubber coated top that stays dry). A tall wine glass vs a hard liquor glass, axles being the thumb and index finger, where would the weight be best suited and how would each perform moving about at a fast pace and needing to navigate through a throng of party goers. I'd say the hard liquor glass in the center would do best. Were the server to tilt the tray, the weight would still be best in the center. I didn't think it would make much of a point though, since it's hard to see the similarities and the weight difference and speed aren't quite the same.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Not necessarily. I think starting with the stem makes more sense. You're also going to start getting into compatibility problems as you get into a bar-swapping project.
> 
> Most likely, you have a quill stem for a 1" steer tube. Can you raise it any higher? That was the saving grace of that generation of stems... Anyway, that will give you a somewhat more upright riding position, but it may not be enough - you may want a stem with less extension too. In that case, I highly recommend getting a threadless-to-threaded adapter so you can use new stems and handlebars.
> 
> Do you have V-brakes or cantilevers? I can't remember if you ever said... Some stems were also the cable stop for the brakes on bikes with cantilevers. Weird system, and it ups the difficulty of the project considerably.


I have a Girvin Flexstem with cantilever brakes in the front, (and a V brake in the back.) I'm not sure what a cable stop on the stem is, but I suspect I have one as there is an anchor point on the front of the stem that the cable for the front brakes attaches to. (The angle is odd in the picture, but the red thing is the anchor point for my brake cable on the stem.)

Thanks so much for all the feedback. I've logged about five hundred miles in the past two months and I've been working a lot lately on improving my form...thankfully, I'm really starting to see a difference.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

The way your front end is set up is going to make any adjustments fairly problematic. The red thing is the cable stop I was asking about. It's part of your brake system - I'm sure you can see that if you were to raise or lower the stem, it would change the tension in that cable, and mess with the function of your brakes.

You might be able to raise your handlebars if you also replace your brake cable. I'd start with the stem at max. height, and work backwards, since you can always cut away the extra slack on the loose end of the cable when you settle on a new height. This is the cheapest option I'm going to mention - all you need is a new brake cable, and possibly a new piece of housing, so it should cost under $10.

You might also replace your handlebars with riser bars. You probably need a set with a 25.4mm clamp. They'd put your grips a bit higher and a bit closer to you. You don't get to fine-tune much unless you also do the new brake cable, and you'll probably have to replace your grips too.

Another of the relatively inexpensive options would be to get a headset or fork-mounted cable hanger for your brake and another quill stem, with a shorter extension, and try your luck with that.

You could also just redo a whole bunch of the front end all at once. If you replace the stem with a threaded-threadless adapter and a new, threadless stem, you can choose one that works with whatever set of handlebars you want. You'll also be able to swap stems easily to dial in the fit, and most adapters also have some vertical adjustability, like a quill stem. When I finally did it on my road bike, I kicked myself for waiting so long. The one big problem is that your front brake wouldn't work. You could either get a cable hanger that replaces your stem spacer, one that bolts onto your fork, or you could get a V-brake for the front. That would be my choice, but if your brake levers aren't adjustable between V-brake and cantilever compatibility, you'll need to replace them.

With a rigid stem, you'll probably feel more control, but you'll also (probably) take more of a beating. Although elastomers stiffen up over time, so you may already be taking the beating, just without the extra control. 

I have to say I'm a little surprised you're still riding that bike. I don't know what your budget and circumstances are, but a late-90's hardtail in your size would be a lot easier to fit to you and maintain. Or at least, I think fitting would be easier - what's the effective top tube length on your bike?


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Tank Girl said:


> I'm not sure what a cable stop on the stem is, but I suspect I have one as there is an anchor point on the front of the stem that the cable for the front brakes attaches to.


That's it, all right. If you want to raise the bar, you'll also need more cable because the distance between that "stop" and your cantis determines your braking.

For moving the stem up or down, there should be a bolt at the top of the vertical part for loosening and tightening it. The shaft that goes into the headset bearing should have a line to mark minimum insertion. Don't raise the stem so much that the line becomes visible.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> I'd picture it more like a 911 (or any car) carrying a load weighing 5 to 10 times more than the vehicle. Compare handling during braking with the weight on "stilts" standing mid air 2x higher above it (attached to center of frame), with the load resting on a platform that extends from the trunk to a bit behind it, or with the load strapped on top of the roof.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


Oh, no. Here we go again.

Veraxis, FYI, the engine on the 911 is in the back. The "trunk" is in the front. And the stilts analogy is false.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

My top tube measures 19" from seam to seam. The only time I feel I am stretching is when I get into the ready position and I'm wondering if that's how it's supposed to feel.


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

Learn to ride loose on down hills. Get up on your legs and keep you arms relaxed. Hold the grips tight enough to keep from slipping, but don't try to squeeze the bar in half. Most importantly relax and look ahead. Look where you want to go. Getting your weight back a little on steep sections isn't a bad idea. Just get a little back. Putting all of your weight back can cause your front tire to wash in a turn from lack of grip. Putting too much weight on the front will cause you to jack forward if you take a big hit. On a full rigid, big tires set up tubeless are nice. Some 2.3's at less than 30psi will feel a lot better than some 2.1's running 35+. I am a big fan of ergon grips, especially on a full rigid bike. They can help disperse the shock to you wrist. Also consider a pair of gloves. I really like plain old pearl izumi gels (not gel lites). Clipless pedals are nice, and that counts for a lot of downhills. Competitive Cyclist has a nice fit calculator on their site that is free and can really help you get a ball park fit to get started. Sounds like you are riding a lot which is great. The more you ride the more confidence you will get in to what your bike can do. Sounds like you are having fun, keep it up.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I have to say I'm a little surprised you're still riding that bike. QUOTE]
> 
> You're not alone. My MTB group can't believe I'm still riding it either, especially on the trails that I do. I had a new used bike budgeted for this coming month, but may have to wait because my hours just got cut this week...upshot is...there might be more to choose from after Christmas. Thanks for all your help


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Tank Girl said:


> My top tube measures 19" from seam to seam. The only time I feel I am stretching is when I get into the ready position and I'm wondering if that's how it's supposed to feel.


Assuming you have a horizontal top tube, that makes the reach on that bike very, very short. I feel like "that guy" for asking, but did you Google "effective top tube?" It's not necessarily the same as the physical measurement of the actual frame member. For comparison, my ETT is 590mm, about 23-1/4". The measurement of my actual top tube is significantly shorter.

You shouldn't feel stretched out when you're in the ready position. Ideally, it should be a very neutral position in which you have the freedom to drive your front end down or pop it up. If you feel stretched, it's probably pulling you forward.

Both raising your handlebars and moving them back will help. Of course, you can take it too far. I've been paying attention to where I want to put my hands when I ride my bike, because I think there's a "One True Spot" that has neutral handling and feels good on long days. However, whether or not this position exists, experimenting with where your handlebars are located is likely to help you find at least a better position. I usually give at least one ride to messing with the setup on a new or significantly reconfigured bike. I do it alone, so I can stop, start, and fiddle with things to my heart's content. Try to do that on the kind of terrain you ride, so you get it closer to right and don't get any nasty surprises when you're with your group and don't want to be stopping all the time.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Assuming you have a horizontal top tube, that makes the reach on that bike very, very short. I feel like "that guy" for asking, but did you Google "effective top tube?" It's not necessarily the same as the physical measurement of the actual frame member. For comparison, my ETT is 590mm, about 23-1/4". The measurement of my actual top tube is significantly shorter.


Definately don't feel like "that guy" for asking, when I posted the literal figure for my wheel base, you were the one who redirected me without being condescending, which I totally appreciated. That said, no I didn't google it, I gave the literal seam to seam measurement. However, I just now googled it and if the effective top tube measurement is the horizontal distance from the center of the top tube/head tube junction to the center of the seat tube then my effective top tube length is 20".


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Btw, I like the idea of a "fitting" ride where I try out new equipment. Excellent idea. As for feeling like I'm in a neutral position when I am in the ready position, I don't. I did a fairly technical ride tonight and on the descent, I definately felt stretched out whenever I got into the ready position.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Well, that's almost as short anyway.

Specialized does a women's hardtail down to a 525mm top tube - 20.7". I think the women's version of the FSR is almost as small; looks like the Pivot you liked comes almost as small too. Trek has one a little bigger. Cannondale has some small adult women's bikes, but their geometry charts are broken right now. The Santa Cruz Juliana is available a little smaller, at 521mm. I don't know every brand in the world, of course, but it seems like it's going to be very hard to find something as small as your current bike in an adult/26"-wheeled model.

Bummer.

I'm not sure what other adults in your situation have done about it. Starting with a child's frame and building with a decent-quality lightweight rigid fork and a generally better kit seems like the better option to me, but it does tie you to rigid bikes.

You might check in with the Women's forum too - I think most of the posters on this one are taller than I am (5'8") and very wowed by gadgets, so that's going to color their responses. IMO, the single most important thing to get right is fit, so I'd consider sacrificing some other things worthwhile - what good does a whole bunch of suspension travel do you if you can't control the bike?


----------



## IAmHolland (Jul 8, 2010)

If your stem is long, you can use a short stem with a slightly longer TT, so height does matter there. Also note, that as you raise your seat the ETT will extend, so you might get away with something larger. Those measurements are typical of 24" bikes, I've been researching them for my son, as that's his next bike.

You might have to ask in the women's forum. You sound fairly petite. I don't know of many FS bikes that are that small. I know Santa Cruz bikes makes some that have a small TT. The Juliana/Superlight, and the Nickel come in at 20.5" for the XS, which should be able to fit you. I don't much beyond that.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> IMO, the single most important thing to get right is fit, so I'd consider sacrificing some other things worthwhile - what good does a whole bunch of suspension travel do you if you can't control the bike?


You are dead on with regard to fit. That was the reason I bought this bike back in 1993. Back then, women's specific geometry was just coming out and it was the first bike I ever got on that actually felt like a part of my body, not something that I was clumsily trying to hang onto. I didn't ride long back then, got too busy with working overtime and only just recently got back into it.

Now that I am really progressing, I am noticing that the fit isn't as optimum as it could be. Even with the Pivot, I felt stretched but in a different way (the Pivot I tried was the XS, they didn't have an XXS demo there.) It's kind of strange to describe, but with my Terry Jacaranda, the fit feels best when I am climbing (I do raise the seat for climbs) but I feel like my handlebars are too close on the flats and too far away on downhills when I put the seat down and shift to the ready or braking position.

With the Pivot, I felt a little stretched all the time, but least of all when climbing. And though it was a more persistent feeling, it wasn't as much of an issue I think because I had full suspension and balancing was easier and wasn't as critical. Not sure if any of this makes sense...but that's the best I can describe it.

Long story short...I'm going to have my bikes professionally fit from now on. There's a place that sounds first rate here in Sonoma County called Aria Velo that I am going to check out. If anyone has experience with them, I'd love to hear about it. Also, any comments or suggestions with regards to my wonky fit described above would be appreciated. Thanks


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Btw, thanks for the heads up on checking out the women's forum for small bikes.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Will try to get some better shots of my bike, but here are a few that will give you an idea of how small it is...

My bike is the bright turquoise blue one with the 24 inch wheels.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Tank Girl said:


> You are dead on with regard to fit. That was the reason I bought this bike back in 1993. Back then, women's specific geometry was just coming out and it was the first bike I ever got on that actually felt like a part of my body, not something that I was clumsily trying to hang onto. I didn't ride long back then, got too busy with working overtime and only just recently got back into it.
> 
> Now that I am really progressing, I am noticing that the fit isn't as optimum as it could be. Even with the Pivot, I felt stretched but in a different way (the Pivot I tried was the XS, they didn't have an XXS demo there.) It's kind of strange to describe, but with my Terry Jacaranda, the fit feels best when I am climbing (I do raise the seat for climbs) but I feel like my handlebars are too close on the flats and too far away on downhills when I put the seat down and shift to the ready or braking position.
> 
> ...


I hadn't realized you were the original owner for this bike. Good for you for test-riding first - it sounds like you got it as right as was available.

As far as the fit feeling different when you're doing different things - you're right. No matter what the terrain is doing, the force of gravity points straight down. If you were in the same position relative to the bike ascending, descending, and on the flats, you'd only be in a balanced position during one of those states. If you were to maintain the same riding position on the pedals in all three states, the handlebars would rotate up and toward you on a climb and down and away on a descent. Good thing we can bend at the waist, back and elbow. 

For me, a good fit is in a balanced, neutral position on the flats, with my elbows bent but not totally folded up. That gives me the flexibility to adjust to climbing, descending, etc. If I had the reach set up too long, I would be in a lot of trouble on a descent, and having it too short can make climbing a real chore.

I think most mountain bikers compromise their fit in favor of whatever they enjoy the most. I choose to have a slightly longer stem than might be optimal for descending because I really like getting to the tops of things and cleaning difficult uphill sections of trail. The classic DH setup, with high bars, a shortish reach, a low saddle, and the rider sitting very upright is kind of silly looking cruising on a bike path or on a climb, but nobody makes descending look as fun and easy.

Anyway, having both reach to the bars and drop relative to the saddle to play with means that you can mess around and find a handlebar position that doesn't compromise everything else as much when it favors what you like (hopefully.) For example, the same body position might be achieved with high, far handlebars and low, close handlebars, but their behavior climbing and descending would be a little different. You really just have to mess with it, and figure out what works for you and makes your favorite parts of mountain biking most fun.

EDIT: And never sell that bike. Strip it for parts and put the frame on the wall, but never ever sell it.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

I was reminded of a small custom bike from http://www.englishcycles.com/ :
http://www.englishcycles.com/bikepics/lyra/lyra.htm

I don't know her height but I believe that's 26" wheels.
Obviously, "custom" means more $$$.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Thanks Perttime for the link, I checked it out and while it is expensive, it's nice to know you can at least get a custom bike if you need to go that route.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I think most mountain bikers compromise their fit in favor of whatever they enjoy the most.
> 
> You really just have to mess with it, and figure out what works for you and makes your favorite parts of mountain biking most fun.
> 
> EDIT: And never sell that bike. Strip it for parts and put the frame on the wall, but never ever sell it.


I think this is going to be a tough call for me. I really love doing all of it. Even when I face things that are challenging and scary, I don't say to myself that I could never do them, I just figure I've got a ways to go before I learn how to take them on.

I love climbing, something I'd never thought I'd say. But I got some advice from a woman who races and she told me to work on long slow ascents and they have really built me up. I've only been riding MTB for about two and a half months now, but if I do anything less than a 1,000ft climb during a ride these days, I don't feel I've gotten a very good workout. Even with that climb, I feel I could still keep going. And I totally understand what you mean about cleaning sections going uphill, there's something addictive to the power and grace required to pull that off.

When it comes to the flats, especially the gently rolling stuff...I am a speed demon, except when the scenery is just too gorgeous to fly by.

Downhill has been my toughest challenge, in large part because I have no suspension and mistakes made downhill, especially on a rigid, are the least forgiving. Also, the fit on my bike is at it's worst for DH and I feel precariously perched in the ready and braking positions. I did much better DH with the Pivot on trails I'd never attempt with my Terry. However, I did a ride tonight on a Santa Cruz one of my MTB group guys let me borrow and it was the best ride I've had yet. The fit felt even better than the Pivot and it seemed to accomodate whatever position I needed uphill, flat and down. I felt a little stretched out on the DH, but I didn't adjust the seat lower like I usually do, which probably would have helped. I'm definately going to try all the bikes that I can, before I buy, so I can make a well informed decision.

There is something I don't fully understand, that could influence the kind of bike I get. I'm not totally clear about the differences between XC and AM, and those between Freeride and DH. I'm thinking I'm an AM girl, because I like all of the mountain, up, down and inbetween and I'm thinking XC is more about distance and obstacles, but I'm not sure. As for freeride and DH, I'd love to have those skills and feel that rush without a doubt, but it wouldn't be enough for me.

Also, in a kind of unrelated thread, can you explain to me about gear ratios and how to figure them out. I've been reading about them and trying to figure out what I've got going with my Terry. I've seen some calculators for it, but none of the ones I've seen figure for 24" wheels. I did have a larger front cog put on because I used her as a road bike, so she is set up different than the original specs. Also, I'm wondering how having 24" wheels makes a difference with regard to how fast I go. If I used the same amount of power with the same gear and the only difference was the size of the wheel, would I go faster with the bike with the bigger wheels?


----------



## wickerman1 (Dec 24, 2003)

Tank Girl said:


> You are dead on with regard to fit. That was the reason I bought this bike back in 1993. Back then, women's specific geometry was just coming out and it was the first bike I ever got on that actually felt like a part of my body, not something that I was clumsily trying to hang onto. I didn't ride long back then, got too busy with working overtime and only just recently got back into it.
> 
> Now that I am really progressing, I am noticing that the fit isn't as optimum as it could be. Even with the Pivot, I felt stretched but in a different way (the Pivot I tried was the XS, they didn't have an XXS demo there.) It's kind of strange to describe, but with my Terry Jacaranda, the fit feels best when I am climbing (I do raise the seat for climbs) but I feel like my handlebars are too close on the flats and too far away on downhills when I put the seat down and shift to the ready or braking position.
> 
> ...


One to consider is Santa Cruz Juliana.Friend I ride with has one,and she's very short at 5'1. She had a hard time finding a new bike that fit her,and she tried many for a year. the Juliana was perfect. Nice bike too,


----------



## IAmHolland (Jul 8, 2010)

glad you like the Santa Cruz. they make good bikes. fwiw, i know a few women riders and they all love the SC bikes. The only bad thing I have heard of them, was from an Ibis rider. His comment was, it's too stiff....of course, next to his carbon mojo, most every aluminum bike is.

I think the geometry on the trail SC bikes are really great. AM is a bit tougher, due to suspension travel, the stand over tends to be higher, and you may not be able to clear it. I don't know that for sure, but guessing with a 24" bike that you are about 5 foot tall.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

Use that calculator, select "gear inches" or "mph @ 80rpm" for the "gear units" and use "24 inch (nominal)" and compare that to "26 inch (nominal)" for the "wheel size", to determine distance per stroke. It's close enough.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Don't worry too much about how to label yourself or what the marketing text associated with a certain bike is. Keep doing test rides and demo days, and you'll figure out what you want.

As far as gear ratios... there's a little bit to that. People sometimes talk about gear inches, referring to how far they'll roll with one rotation at the crank. Rotations at the crank to rotations at the wheel is just a ratio

(chainring teeth)/(cog teeth)

Then, multiply that number by the circumference of your wheel. Since circumference is a linear function of diameter, you can see that the circumference, and therefore the gear inches, on a 24" wheel are (12/13) of the circumference and gear inches of a 26" wheel, give or take. There's a lot of variation due to tire size, and nominal sizes aren't always that well related to reality. So measuring the actual diameter of actual wheels is necessary if you want to be really precise about this stuff. Personally, I don't think it's usually very useful, unless you ride a singlespeed or are trying to make the drivetrain on a bike with one wheel size equivalent to the drivetrain of a bike with a different wheel size.

If you only ever rode with perfectly smooth tires on perfectly smooth surfaces, the physical size of the wheel wouldn't matter - only gear inches. Since you're mountain biking, though, there are some benefits and disadvantages to your 24" wheels. Being able to handle your bike is a pretty big benefit. Someone with 26" wheels is a little bit less effected by trail chatter, though. That's part of why 29ers are really popular lately.

You wouldn't be able to use the same power in the same gear if you changed wheel, at least unless you rode at higher cadence on the smaller wheel. Power is the rate at which work is performed, and is independent of the other things. I think maybe what you're asking is if you used the same cadence and the same gear, but changed the wheel, would your speed change? It would - same cadence and same gear with a 26" wheel would go about (13/12) times as fast as on the 24" wheel, around 8% faster. However, it would also be more work, so it would require you to generate more power.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Thanks for recommending bikes to try. I'd been told that the Santa Cruz Juliana and Ibis Mojo were bikes I should check out and it's good to know of others to try. I'll definately try to score some more rides on demo days, now that I know of them and how to find out about them. 

Thanks also for explaining how the gears work. I wanted to understand it better just for general knowledge and I was specifically wondering, if all other things were considered equal, would I have to pedal more to keep up with people who have larger wheels,


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2010)

But the rear wheel does no braking at all, especially if the front wheel is braking. Leaning backwards while frontwheel braking can result in two outcomes. One, the front wheel can't grab any traction if jammed on. But two, if executed smoothly, the center of gravity will be beougt forwards and not skid. Personally, I hate frt wheel braking on downhills. 

Also I have to contradict going down with no brakes tanking over stuff. Too fasta speed will inevitavbly lose traction when cornering. 

Ps. I really want this thread to be a sticky.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

icalebkim said:


> Also I have to contradict going down with no brakes tanking over stuff. Too fasta speed will inevitavbly lose traction when cornering.


Depends 

You most likely don't want to be braking hard when going over "stuff". "Stuff" being rocks, roots, ruts, etc. Brake where these less stuff.


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2010)

Whoops. I didnt know this was a triplepage thread. I was referring to the last post on the first page.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

My last line in this thread was about fit and I thought I'd follow up on that, in case any other beginners run into similar issues.

Two things have changed since my last post here and it seems both have had a direct impact on how my bike fits. First was changing the seat. The original seat was a wide style gel seat with a cloth cover. I hadn't realized how much a difference the width can make in your positioning until I got a streamlined narrower seat. Not only is it a lot easier for me to get into the ready position, I no longer feel stretched out in the DH or too close on the flats. To be frank, I'm not so sure if it's the width of the seat that made the difference and/or the length/angle of the rails underneath. Also, of minor note...cloth covers, like I had on my old saddle, are a pain. They tend to grab at your clothes, especially in wet conditions, and they rip up, especially if you crash a lot. Avoiding them at all costs would be my suggestion. 

The other thing that seems to have helped my fit, is the change in the way I ride. In the beginning I sat on the seat all the time, the way you'd ride an old Schwinn three speed. But now that I've gotten stronger, especially in my core, I'm out of the saddle much of the time and I think this kind of bike fits best for that, because the feeling of a poor fit never crosses my mind anymore.


----------



## Tank Girl (Sep 24, 2010)

Just wanted to say thanks and wish everyone who posted help for me on this thread a happy new year. I've been a nurse now for almost 20 years and I still think of my teachers whenever I perform the skills they taught me and now you guys are like that too. 

I come back and reread this often to remind myself of techniques and frankly, it's because of the kind of response I got on this thread that I kept with mtbr.com. I'd never had experience with forums/threads before and was a bit wary, but everyone was great. Even when things got a bit contested, that people cared so much about the sport and getting it right, meant a lot...and between Varaxis' pic of the little girl gone over the top for the race, CHUM's suggestion about the slow dance to Journey and Ken saying he was an REO man, you guys totally cracked me up. All of that came to mind recently when I reported a trail closing on another thread. A guy posted a pic of Darth Vader and said he found my lack of details disturbing, which I thought was frickin' hysterical and clever because not only was he was right by calling me on it, he found a creative way of saying so. I posted back with an Obiwan quote which I thought was funny, but may have been taken literally...oops!


----------

