# Mountain Bike Myths Debunked



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

Time to play MTB Mythbusters. Here, you can all post myths you've heard about mountain biking and see what we can do about confirming, debunking or frowning at them. Post up!!


----------



## papanoel (Nov 11, 2008)

"A mountain bike is heavy. You can't use it on the road"

An old roadie said this to me maybe 10-13 years ago.


----------



## zzsean (Nov 3, 2004)

My favorite:
Carbon will shatter if you breath on it/expose it to sunlight/wrap it in garlic...


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

papanoel said:


> "A mountain bike is heavy. You can't use it on the road"
> 
> An old roadie said this to me maybe 10-13 years ago.


Heavy. In their dreams. Take these as an example:








22 pounds!









18.5 pounds!

Some roadies can get pretty territorialut:...


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

zzsean said:


> My favorite:
> Carbon will shatter if you breath on it/expose it to sunlight/wrap it in garlic...


:lol: Carbon'll barely shatter if you take a sledgehammer to it.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

"Carbon is suitable for off-road use"


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> "Carbon is suitable for off-road use"


Derraileur Cable Housing

Ignorant bike shop mechanics (sorry, redundant) used to always give me a hard time for running solid derrailleur cable housing - saying that it would compress and therefore not shift as well. That was 10 years ago - now I think it's much more accepted.

Leg Shaving:

The reasons for leg shaving all myths. Nobody actually shaves their legs because it's less injury-prone or easier to massage - they do it because they're narcist's. They like looking at legs - their own, and those of others!


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

iheartbicycles said:


> Derraileur Cable Housing
> 
> Ignorant bike shop mechanics (sorry, redundant) used to always give me a hard time for running solid derrailleur cable housing - saying that it would compress and therefore not shift as well. That was 10 years ago - now I think it's much more accepted.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I know! it shifts fine.
Leg shaving?.... :shocked:


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

"Made in the same factory as [known brand X]"
...made to mean the same as:

"The same exact thing as brand x, even though it's got higher end tubing, is lighter, and looks notably different, including geometry"


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

A bike will climb better with a longer stem.


----------



## Dr.Strangelove (Jun 6, 2008)

A hardtail is better for learning tech skills as a beginner, ...is it really?...I would say a full-suss is more confidence inspiring and allows you to make more mistakes, then when you get on a hardtail you can transfer what you learned...


----------



## mondaycurse (Nov 24, 2005)

Dr.Strangelove said:


> when you get on a hardtail you can transfer what you learned...


...and then relearn everything. At least that's what my friend had to do after going full-sus to HT.


----------



## Dr.Strangelove (Jun 6, 2008)

I seriously don't think they had to relearn everything. What is so different?


----------



## Garlock (Jul 9, 2008)

I'll just leave this here:


----------



## rfeather (Aug 22, 2006)

*better contact with trail - easier control*

It's easier to control a bike when the handlebars aren't bucking back and forth as your rear tire bounces of off rocks and roots; not to mention more consistent contact with the ground. I felt that yesterday as I followed my son down a logging trail reinforced with mine rock in my hard tail. He waited for me at the bottom.
Rich


----------



## Dr.Strangelove (Jun 6, 2008)

rfeather said:


> It's easier to control a bike when the handlebars aren't bucking back and forth as your rear tire bounces of off rocks and roots; not to mention more consistent contact with the ground. I felt that yesterday as I followed my son down a logging trail reinforced with mine rock in my hard tail. He waited for me at the bottom.
> Rich


Yeah your completely right, but saying that someone had to relearn how to ride a bike is :crazy:...

This is a bit off topic...I'll start a thread on the HT v FS for beginners maybe?I'd love to know if there has been any real research on this one as I hear it said so many times...


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

MTBs tear up trails, causes erosion, and frighten wildlife. 
All mtn bike riders are a bunch of irresponsible beer swilling vandals that run over children hiking the trails.

-- at least according to the gospel of mike v.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

mountain_bomber156 said:


> Time to play MTB Mythbusters. Here, you can all post myths you've heard about mountain biking and see what we can do about confirming, debunking or frowning at them. Post up!!


Carbon fiber is ill-suited for mountain use.


----------



## 2clue (Jun 9, 2007)

mondaycurse said:


> ...and then relearn everything. At least that's what my friend had to do after going full-sus to HT.


Last week was my first time riding a HT in 3 years after being on a FS 5inch bike I was perfectly fine going down a rocky trail. Maybe it was the carbon on the Ibis Tranny that made it easier....


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> A bike will climb better with a longer stem.


That remains to be seen


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

Dr.Strangelove said:


> A hardtail is better for learning tech skills as a beginner, ...is it really?...


Yes.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

dave54 said:


> MTBs tear up trails, causes erosion, and frighten wildlife.
> All mtn bike riders are a bunch of irresponsible beer swilling vandals that run over children hiking the trails.
> 
> -- at least according to the gospel of mike v.


Bullsh1t!


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

kapusta said:


> Carbon fiber is ill-suited for mountain use.


Nope.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

You have to be a seriously fit athlete (or have a beard) to be able to enjoy riding a singlespeed bike.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

perttime said:


> You have to be a seriously fit athlete (or have a beard) to be able to enjoy riding a singlespeed bike.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

perttime said:


> You have to be a seriously fit athlete (or have a beard) to be able to enjoy riding a singlespeed bike.


One look at the grin on my face on my ss debunks all aspects of that myth completely


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

perttime said:


> You have to be a seriously fit athlete (or have a beard) to be able to enjoy riding a singlespeed bike.


That one's kinda true...I have a beard


----------



## 2clue (Jun 9, 2007)

highdelll said:


> That one's kinda true...I have a beard


I don't!


----------



## Skinner29er (Apr 12, 2009)

"Ha ha ha....there is no mountain biking in Florida!"

A co worker said that to me as I was leaving early to go for a ride.


----------



## Keatan (Apr 23, 2008)

highdelll said:


> That one's kinda true...I have a beard


Yes, I have less fun on my SS after I shave. However, the athlete thing....


----------



## Camshaft213 (Feb 16, 2008)

"Never use a garden hose on a bike, its better to leave it dirty"


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

"29er bikes are superior"


----------



## agabriel (Jul 3, 2007)

Camshaft213 said:


> "Never use a garden hose on a bike, its better to leave it dirty"


Gotta say - much better to leave it dirty. A mountain bike looks silly when its clean.


----------



## Camshaft213 (Feb 16, 2008)

agabriel said:


> Gotta say - much better to leave it dirty. A mountain bike looks silly when its clean.


Got to say I disagree....if the bike has just "normal" dirt and dust from a dry ride, then no problem, but if it's caked in mud, then hell yes I'm going to clean it


----------



## aintnothang (Mar 31, 2009)

highdelll said:


> "29er bikes are superior"


ha.


----------



## agabriel (Jul 3, 2007)

Camshaft213 said:


> Got to say I disagree....if the bike has just "normal" dirt and dust from a dry ride, then no problem, but if it's caked in mud, then hell yes I'm going to clean it


So keeping in mind I wipe my rig down after every ride; I think you should get dirty just looking at your bike.


----------



## sundowner (Mar 13, 2007)

Skinner29er said:


> "Ha ha ha....there is no mountain biking in Florida!".


I heard this one to. Took the dude that say it out to Markam Park in SFL and never heard him say it again.


----------



## Garlock (Jul 9, 2008)

highdelll said:


> "29er bikes are superior"


even the mythbusters proved that wrong!



> .I'll start a thread on the HT v FS for beginners maybe?


:madman: *DON'T*

I thought this one up while tearing up descents with a friend today (I usually ride a HT).
*"It's not about the bike"*


----------



## FloridaFish (Mar 29, 2004)

Garlock said:


> I'll just leave this here:


sorry, have to post this one


----------



## mkdive (May 4, 2009)

great thread *subscribed*


----------



## sherijumper (Feb 19, 2007)

" Full suspension is a fad " ..................Yes I heard that once from a high end bike shop employee around 15 years ago .


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

highdelll said:


> "29er bikes are superior"


In some cases, yes.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

sherijumper said:


> " Full suspension is a fad " ..................Yes I heard that once from a high end bike shop employee around 15 years ago .


:alm to forehead::
   
:bluefrown: :sad:


----------



## LWright (Jan 29, 2006)

Bikes do not belong on tight, twisty, steep singletrack, but horses do!

As for the HT vs FS, over the same terrain, the more the machine does, the less you have to do, the less the machine does the more you must do. To ride the same, the HT rider has to ride better, make more adjustments than the FS rider, thus riding a hardtail teaches you to ride better! Common sense really. And yes, I ride a FS because it gives better control and comfort.


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

A few more:

"Square-tapers are out-dated"

"Bar-ends have no place on risers"

"Grip-shifters are for wally-bikes"


----------



## agabriel (Jul 3, 2007)

LWright said:


> Bikes do not belong on tight, twisty, steep singletrack, but horses do!


I had a hiker on the trail yesterday who told me the trail wasn't wide enough for bikers; I told him sure it is, look how far I made it.


----------



## VTSession (Aug 18, 2005)

"The Hardtail Is Dead"

I read an article with this title is a mountain bike mag about 5 years ago. I knew the second I saw the title that this would never be true.


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

For downhill/ free ride/ dirt jump, the less pads and gloves and the more sagging jeans you have = the more skill you have.


----------



## rabidchicken (Apr 16, 2009)

sundowner said:


> I heard this one to. Took the dude that say it out to Markam Park in SFL and never heard him say it again.


Exactly. I rode in Colorado for 4 years. With the exception of miles of climbs and miles of descents, the trails at Markham are just as technical.

I have an overweight coworker who keeps telling me you can't mt bike in Florida. He has yet to take me up on the invitation to ride.


----------



## bikerboy (Jan 13, 2004)

Walmart/Target/ToysRus sells mountain bikes


----------



## sherijumper (Feb 19, 2007)

VTSession said:


> "The Hardtail Is Dead"
> 
> I read an article with this title is a mountain bike mag about 5 years ago. I knew the second I saw the title that this would never be true.


Let me guess............MBA ?


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 25, 2009)

"29ers are just a fad"


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

"I can lock up my wheels with these v-brakes or 160mm discs, so bigger disc brakes are pointless and overkill" That just means your brakes are grabby or the rider is. Even v-brakes can grab quickly enough to break the traction limit on a steep hill and skid your tires, but that is entirely different from being able to stop quickly _under control_ with a stronger and better modulating disc


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

boomn said:


> ...your brakes are *grabby* or the rider is...


wouldn't mind if Rachel A. was :blush:


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

highdelll said:


> A few more:
> 
> "Square-tapers are out-dated"
> 
> ...


"Not necessarily, but most people find the modern BB's like the Octalinks, ISIS and GXP to be better."

"What kind of idiot told you that?"

"No."


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

VTSession said:


> "The Hardtail Is Dead"
> 
> I read an article with this title is a mountain bike mag about 5 years ago. I knew the second I saw the title that this would never be true.


Calling the hardtail dead is like saying that World War I never happened.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

Killroy said:


> For downhill/ free ride/ dirt jump, the less pads and gloves and the more sagging jeans you have = the more skill you have.


Skill to get yourself killed.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

bikerboy said:


> Walmart/Target/ToysRus sells mountain bikes


HA HA HA HA HA! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

"100% nitrogen is better than dry air in your tires."


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 3, 2008)

Killroy said:


> "100% nitrogen is better than dry air in your tires."


i swear nitrogen is better than air in your tyres? maybe not for mtb'ing, but in f1 (haha bit of a difference) they use nitrogen, maybe some pro's use it for road or aerodrome races? (cos it dosnt expand untill VERY high temperatures by the way)


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

"Nino is 100% unbiased"


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

DH'rs are a bunch of rowdy, drunken, scruffy hoodlums.

....Wait, that might actually be true.


----------



## Killroy (Mar 9, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> i swear nitrogen is better than air in your tyres? maybe not for mtb'ing, but in f1 (haha bit of a difference) they use nitrogen, maybe some pro's use it for road or aerodrome races? (cos it dosnt expand untill VERY high temperatures by the way)


Air is 70% nitrogen. Its the water in the air that does the majority of expanding when heated, not any of the gases (N2, 02, C02, other). That is why racers use air dryers on their compressor air lines and not nitrogen.


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

It's the bike that gets you to the top first. 

P


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

It's the bike that gets you to the bottom first. 

P


----------



## steadite (Jan 13, 2007)

Killroy said:


> Air is 70% nitrogen. Its the water in the air that does the majority of expanding when heated, not any of the gases (N2, 02, C02, other). That is why racers use air dryers on their compressor air lines and not nitrogen.


I think the point of nitrogen is because oxygen is what degrades the rubber. The pressurized gas inside the tire forces the O2 into the rubber and oxidizes the rubber. Not sure any of this relates to bike tires since there's a tube.


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> i swear nitrogen is better than air in your tyres? maybe not for mtb'ing, but in f1 (haha bit of a difference) they use nitrogen, maybe some pro's use it for road or aerodrome races? (cos it dosnt expand untill VERY high temperatures by the way)


Nitrogen is a gas like any other and obeys physics rules like all of us do. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

There is no difference in expansion of any gas in huge quantities, like the amount in a bicycle tire.

Having said that, I prefer about 78% of nitrogen in my tires. 

Ali


----------



## WTF-IDK (Feb 23, 2009)

*Clydes can't ride.*

Not true!

I just spend more time and money fixing my bike because something brakes almost every time I ride.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

WTF-IDK said:


> Not true!
> 
> I just spend more time and money fixing my bike because something brakes almost every time I ride.


Is it your brakes that brake? Mine are always doing that too


----------



## jugdish (Apr 1, 2004)

rabidchicken said:


> Exactly. I rode in Colorado for 4 years. With the exception of miles of climbs and miles of descents, the trails at Markham are just as technical.


 Yeah, epic is only so-so... hahaha!


----------



## WTF-IDK (Feb 23, 2009)

boomn said:


> Is it your brakes that brake? Mine are always doing that too


it's no myth that I can't spell.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

WTF-IDK said:


> Not true!
> 
> I just spend more time and money fixing my bike because something brakes almost every time I ride.


'Course they can. They have just as much right and desire to ride as anyone else.


----------



## steadite (Jan 13, 2007)

Here's one that drives me nuts: "aluminum is stiffer than steel".


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

"Every MTB video has to have a soundtrack of Limp Bizkit or some other garbage nu-metal band"


----------



## Twenty Times (Mar 27, 2009)

"You need mountains to mountain bike."

I live on Long Island. We have over 150 miles of sanctioned trails that will test the skills of nearly every rider. Our trails are insanely well kept buy volunteers and there always seem to be a project in the works for future trails. And not 1 mountain range.


----------



## eedavis (Oct 13, 2006)

*More fun with nitrogen*



[email protected] said:


> i swear nitrogen is better than air in your tyres? maybe not for mtb'ing, but in f1 (haha bit of a difference) they use nitrogen, maybe some pro's use it for road or aerodrome races? (cos it dosnt expand untill VERY high temperatures by the way)


My hazy recollection from reading Carroll Smith on this subject 10 or so years ago is that he thought nitrogen-filled tires was a good idea b/c the nitrogen was dry and the tire-busters at typical race tracks use a junky compressor without even a water trap on it to run the tire machines and air up tires.

Digression: when I bought a new Mazda a couple of years ago, the salesdude spent 10 minutes telling me that they'd filled the tires with nitrogen, why they'd done it and how much it'd cost to get the nitrogen "changed" at the next service (24.95 USD). I nearly bit my tongue in half trying not to laugh in his face. Hilarious. (I have a compressor with a water extractor/filter, it'll just have to be good enough. I'm keeping my 25 bucks.)

Digression +1: Ever notice how fast a tire filled with CO2 goes flat? Is it my crappy tubes or are CO2 molecules really smaller than nitrogen?


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

I thought the reason they use N2 is due to the higher molecular weight of N2, compared to some of the other constituents of air, preventing it from dissipating too fast through membranes and around seals. Along with that, you end up only having one reactive (in terms of pressures and temps) species, rather than several with their own properties.


----------



## eedavis (Oct 13, 2006)

*even MORE fun with nitrogen*



Jerk_Chicken said:


> I thought the reason they use N2 is due to the higher molecular weight of N2, compared to some of the other constituents of air, preventing it from dissipating too fast through membranes and around seals. Along with that, you end up only having one reactive (in terms of pressures and temps) species, rather than several with their own properties.


N2 most likely does have larger molecules than O2, CO2, etc (splitting the hair that molecular weight might not correlated neatly to molecular size), I'm too lazy to look that one up. Anyone? Applied to bike tires, it hardly seems worth the hassle and expense of dealing with N2, it wouldn't get you off the hook for checking tire pressures before every ride.

Shocks and forks, tho... maybe I could make a name for myself in the blogosphere advocating use of N2 in air forks and shocks .... yeah, right 

I could buy the monoatomic argument for an application like F1 tires where the system sees a real delta-T, even the generalized Ideal Gas Law is qualified as most accurate for single-constituent systems. I could certainly imagine F1 engineers factoring tire-fill gas into spring rate and tire growth calculations. For bike tires? Waste of ride time, again.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Oh, you're absolutely right about the incorrect term I used. That was a typo. Thanks for the correction, and it wasn't splitting hairs at all.


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

*Another Myth...*

"Your bike is cooler/ better than mine"


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

mountain_bomber156 said:


> That remains to be seen


It's a myth. I tested it. 100mm vs 70mm. As steep as I can get up, no difference. It's technique not stem length.


----------



## ddraewwg (Jul 22, 2004)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> "Carbon is suitable for off-road use"


The myth is that carbon was UNsuitable for offroad use. Obviously that myth has been thoroughly trashed.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> It's a myth. I tested it. 100mm vs 70mm. As steep as I can get up, no difference. It's technique not stem length.


I know.


----------



## TeeKay (May 27, 2005)

Add a few more myths:

- It's a singlespeed; it's not for riding off-road.

- It doesn't have a suspension; it's not for riding off-road.

- Riding a singlespeed is tougher than riding a geared bike.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

TeeKay said:


> Add a few more myths:
> 
> - It's a singlespeed; it's not for riding off-road.
> 
> ...


-Not true.

-What? No!

-Definitely not true.


----------



## Noobi-Wan Kenobi (Dec 24, 2007)

*Saw this one posted several times.*

---the bikes I sell are twice as good and half the price of comparable bikes from the big name manufacturers.---


----------



## Strafer (Jun 7, 2004)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> I thought the reason they use N2 is due to the higher molecular weight of N2, compared to some of the other constituents of air, preventing it from dissipating too fast through membranes and around seals. Along with that, you end up only having one reactive (in terms of pressures and temps) species, rather than several with their own properties.


This is what the tire tech at Costco said, Nitrogen molecule is larger so the tires don't lose pressure as much.
You know who gets tires from Costco because of the green valve stem caps they put on to denote tires are filled with nitrogen.


----------



## palerider (Jul 15, 2004)

*remember this one*

A few years back there was a study that concluded extended time sitting on a bike seat will cause e.d. While this may be true for a percentage of riders, it was reported as if any one that rode a bike would suffer terribly. Thus we got seats w/ holes. Lets see mythbusters confirm that one.


----------



## Clutchman83 (Apr 16, 2006)

Strafer said:


> This is what the tire tech at Costco said, Nitrogen molecule is larger so the tires don't lose pressure as much.
> You know who gets tires from Costco because of the green valve stem caps they put on to denote tires are filled with nitrogen.


Oxygen is nearly the same size as Nitrogen and they make up 99% of what is in the atmosphere. I think it has more to do with having a isotropic gas for predictable temperature and expansion behavior. For a street car that characteristic is basically useless. I believe it's just a marketing thing.


----------



## agabriel (Jul 3, 2007)

Clutchman83 said:


> Oxygen is nearly the same size as Nitrogen and they make up 99% of what is in the atmosphere. I think it has more to do with having a isotropic gas for predictable temperature and expansion behavior. For a street car that characteristic is basically useless. I believe it's just a marketing thing.


Don't forget moisture - nitrogen is great for driving off moisture which could help with weight since water is heavy.


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

TeeKay said:


> ...- Riding a singlespeed is tougher than riding a geared bike.


That's a Myth? - your fukkin kiddin me - how the fcuk is it easier??!!


mountain_bomber156 said:


> -Definitely not true.


are you fukkin high!!?? 
have I lost my mother fukkin mind??

By that logic, you'd rather just use only the socket - fcuk the wrench 

you guys have to be kiddin' right?


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

highdelll said:


> That's a Myth? - your fukkin kiddin me - how the fcuk is it easier??!!
> 
> are you fukkin high!!??
> have I lost my mother fukkin mind??
> ...


Well, saying that not to belittle the singelspeeders...
Took that from a buddy of mine who's never ridden anything else...
Gonna kick his ass...


----------



## steadite (Jan 13, 2007)

palerider said:


> A few years back there was a study that concluded extended time sitting on a bike seat will cause e.d. Thus we got seats w/ holes. Lets see mythbusters confirm that one.


Not possible to have ED with Kari Byron around...they couldn't test it.


----------



## lampy29 (Oct 16, 2008)

Mountain bikers aren't in as good physical shape as roadies... I don't know many roadies who race in 24 hour events.

*Horses rip up trails more and are ridden (mostly) by rich female (or at least feminine) *******s who won't share the trail.*


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

TeeKay said:


> - Riding a singlespeed is tougher than riding a geared bike.


Definitely false.
Riding singlespeed is much easier on the old brain, at least: you don't have to shift or remember what gear you are in


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

^^^Maybe easier on the brain, 
Definitely harder on the legs - either by pushin a big gear all the time, or spinning out with a smaller gear ( I do the former )


----------



## Dirt Bringer (May 10, 2006)

"Dual suspension wastes pedal energy"
Yea...8 years ago...
"Hydros are better"
Until they fail on the trail
"sram is better"
Tell that to my low normal steup
"clipless is better"
No its not.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

Dirt Bringer said:


> "Dual suspension wastes pedal energy"
> Yea...8 years ago...
> "Hydros are better"
> Until they fail on the trail
> ...


Dual suspension wastes pedal energy.
Not really.
Hydros are better.
*Yes.*
SRAM is better
No.
Clipless is better
Yes, unless you don't want it to be.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

Dirt Bringer said:


> "Dual suspension wastes pedal energy"
> Yea...8 years ago...
> "Hydros are better"
> Until they fail on the trail
> ...


Are we talking about myths or opinions?


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

boomn said:


> Are we talking about myths or opinions?


The idea was myths, but...


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

TeeKay said:


> - It's a singlespeed; it's not for riding off-road.


Depends

I have two. One is definitely good for trails. The second one I am not sure about right now: There's some trails around where I could manage with the 2.2" slicks. I have to try some uphill on trails when nobody is watching (with 36/15 gearing).


----------



## TeeKay (May 27, 2005)

boomn said:


> Are we talking about myths or opinions?


I think people forgot the point of this thread - to list myths that have been debunked. 

All you have to do is list the Myths (that have been debunked) only.

You need not list your opinion of said myths, or why you think said myths are wrong. (After all, they are debunked because they are wrong, so that's implicit. Got it?:thumbsup: )


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

perttime said:


> Depends
> 
> I have two. One is definitely good for trails. The second one I am not sure about right now: There's some trails around where I could manage with the 2.2" slicks. I have to try some uphill on trails when nobody is watching (with 36/15 gearing).


That high gearing can be a _blast_ on rolling or somewhat flat trails. You just have to keep booking it! I guess that could be hard with slicks though


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

TeeKay said:


> I think people forgot the point of this thread - to list myths that have been debunked.
> 
> All you have to do is list the Myths (that have been debunked) only.
> 
> You need not list your opinion of said myths, or why you think said myths are wrong. (After all, they are debunked because they are wrong, so that's implicit. Got it?:thumbsup: )


Actually, the point of this thread was _to _debunk myths.


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

mountain_bomber156 said:


> Actually, the point of this thread was _to _debunk myths.


That's just a myth.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Khemical said:


> That's just a myth.


That's a myth, too.


----------



## Dirt Bringer (May 10, 2006)

mountain_bomber156 said:


> Dual suspension wastes pedal energy.
> Not really.
> Hydros are better.
> *Yes.*
> ...


Nice response 
I like clipless more...only because I used platforms to learn on though, so here is my response

"clipless is better"
yes, if you start on platforms
"Hydros are better"
until they fail...then try bb7's
:thumbsup:

The edges tend to blur till they overlap.


----------



## Barkleyfan (Jul 26, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> It's a myth. I tested it. 100mm vs 70mm. As steep as I can get up, no difference. It's technique not stem length.


Length changes weight bias a little. Rise makes more of a difference, however.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

Barkleyfan said:


> Length changes weight bias a little. Rise makes more of a difference, however.


Yep, especially if you can also move the saddle forward to match (or if starting from scratch, use a steeper seattube angle), that will really move your weight forward and IMHO will have a noticeable impact.


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

*Since we're busting myths...*

My favorite MythBuster..


----------



## Dirt Bringer (May 10, 2006)

boomn said:


> Are we talking about myths or opinions?


The edges tend to blur till they overlap


----------



## nachomc (Apr 26, 2006)

highdelll said:


> My favorite MythBuster..


I'd bust her myths..

Does that even make sense? I think you know what I mean.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

highdelll said:


> My favorite MythBuster..


Expected


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

Running tubeless is better than tubes.


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

Riding single speed makes you a better rider.


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

29ers are better than 26ers


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

Buying online is better than buying at the LBS. (Buying online you'll get a better deal)


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

Upgrading your rear derailleur will make your bike better.


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

Rock Shox feels the same a Fox Forks


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

CupOfJava said:


> Running tubeless is better than tubes.


Actually that one is true.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Handle bars should be lower then seats.

Never cross chain

XC riders have no technical skills

DH riders have no fitness

On decents get weight back as far as possible.

Use mainly your front brake.

Ride at a high cadence.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

LMN said:


> Handle bars should be lower then seats.
> ........
> XC riders have no technical skills
> DH riders have no fitness
> ...


To all these: Depends.
(want me to elaborate?)



> Never cross chain


False.
Doing it sometimes, when you absolutely need to, is not the end of the world. Just, don't make it a habit.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

perttime said:


> To all these: Depends.
> (want me to elaborate?)
> 
> False.
> Doing it sometimes, when you absolutely need to, is not the end of the world. Just, don't make it a habit.


No need to elaborate.

Actually I think all MTB myths fall under the category of "depends".


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Yeah, I singled out the one about cross chaining just because it said "Never".


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

perttime said:


> Yeah, I singled out the one about cross chaining just because it said "Never".


Just so we are on the same page. The statements I made are what I think are common MTB myths.


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

Why on earth is cross-chaining 'ok'??? :skep:


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

highdelll said:


> Why on earth is cross-chaining 'ok'??? :skep:


The better question is why is not OK? I cross-chain all the time, why should I stop?


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

LMN said:


> The better question is why is not OK? I cross-chain all the time, *why should I stop?*


Crossing your chain is inefficient, can damage your chain and cassette prematurely, you need a longer chain to cross (I shorten my chain since I do not cross and shorter chains are much more efficient at shifting) and just plain not good. You can use your gears much more efficiently without crossing your chain. Actually all my bikes are 2x9 or 1x9 now a days. So crossing my chain isn't really relevant.


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

^^^ Also wears rings faster -


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CupOfJava
Running tubeless is better than tubes.



LMN said:


> Actually that one is true.


I'd like to hear your reasons. This will be interesting.


----------



## brassnipples (Feb 26, 2006)

LMN said:


> The better question is why is not OK? I cross-chain all the time, why should I stop?


Obviously it's not a big deal, but it does (intuitively) add unnecessary stress/wear to the chain and maybe rings. if you are out of the habit you can run a shorter chain, one that doesn't need to be able to do a big/big combination, so there is less weight (yea yea, about the same as a good snot rocket) and more tension from the rear der in smaller gears. Also if you are out of the habit you might be able to get away with a shorter cage which is less likely to find rocks.

I wouldn't say it's "not ok", but it's unnecessary and there are advantages to not doing it.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

highdelll said:


> Why on earth is cross-chaining 'ok'??? :skep:


It is a bad habit: inefficient and puts unnecessary stresses on chain et al. If you have enough chain and go big-big because you need one lower NOW, it will not destroy the drivetrain there and then.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

CupOfJava said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by CupOfJava
> Running tubeless is better than tubes.
> 
> I'd like to hear your reasons. This will be interesting.


Arguing for tubeless: 
1. dramatically less flats.
2. allows lower air pressure, which means lower rolling resistence, a better ride and more grip.

Negatives: 
1. Harder to change tires.


----------



## Dirt Bringer (May 10, 2006)

CupOfJava said:


> Riding single speed makes you a better rider.


In some ways it does.


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

double post


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

LMN said:


> Arguing for tubeless:
> 1. dramatically less flats.
> 2. allows lower air pressure, which means lower rolling resistence, a better ride and more grip.
> 
> ...


You forgot to add for negatives:
1) Much Heavier - if you're using UST
2) If you're using non-UST and decide to go lower pressure you could be at risk of burping and getting a flat which will make it a pain in the ass when you're 10 miles away from the parking lot since your forgot to carry an extra tube thinking you'll be dramatically less likely to get flats
3) A pain in the ass to set up and clean up - you'll need an air compressor if you're going tubeless brew.
4) Expensive
5) You can only go lower air pressure if you're using UST. Tubeless brew you'll probably need higher pressure


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

Dirt Bringer said:


> In some ways it does.


I think it makes you a different kind of rider, not necessarily a better one. I can ride 32x20 or even 32x18 all day long even on my geared bike.


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

*Another Myth...*

"It's safe to leave your Yeti 575 unlocked outside of a bar in Moab while you go inside and drink"


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

So, you used to have a 575?


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

perttime said:


> So, you used to have a 575?


haha, I wish 
I was referring to This trainwreck of a thread


----------



## Clutchman83 (Apr 16, 2006)

highdelll said:


> haha, I wish
> I was referring to This trainwreck of a thread


Damn, that's hella funny! Don't leave your bike unlocked or else TONKAH's gonna get it!


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

CupOfJava said:


> You forgot to add for negatives:
> 1) Much Heavier - if you're using UST
> 2) If you're using non-UST and decide to go lower pressure you could be at risk of burping and getting a flat which will make it a pain in the ass when you're 10 miles away from the parking lot since your forgot to carry an extra tube thinking you'll be dramatically less likely to get flats
> 3) A pain in the ass to set up and clean up - you'll need an air compressor if you're going tubeless brew.
> ...


I only use UST but

1) Much Heavier is a myth. Tubeless Cross Mark is 690gram, regular Cross Mark is 530 grams + 100 grams for a tube. Difference is 60 grams, which is not much heavier. 
2) I don't use non-UST tubeless. But if you are foolish enough to ride without a pump or a tube then you deserve to walk out.
3) If you are a competent user you don't need an air compressor. I can seat my tubeless tires with a hand pump. But no doubt they are harder to mount. But then agin you only 
4) Good tires are expensive, doesn't matter if they are tubeless or not. Plus think of all the money you save in tubes.
5) A couple of years ago I did run tubeless brew. Still could run much less air pressure, with much less flats, and in that time I never burped a tire. But again why would you run tubeless brew, no real advantage over UST (when you add the weight of sealent there is no advantage).

I have been running a tubeless for 7 years now. In that time I have had about the same number of flat that I would have in 1/2 a year with tubes.

There was one horrible time 3 years ago when I had to run tubes for a season. It sucked, my bike felt like a piece of garbage and I flatted all the time. Yuck.


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

LMN said:


> I only use UST but
> 
> 1) Much Heavier is a myth. Tubeless Cross Mark is 690gram, regular Cross Mark is 530 grams + 100 grams for a tube. * Difference is 60 grams, *which is not much heavier.
> 2) I don't use non-UST tubeless. But if you are foolish enough to ride without a pump or a tube then you deserve to walk out.
> ...


60g per tire is 120g for a pair - people spend a fortune to lose that much weight especially if it's rotational weight. You also forgot (or failed) to factor in the extra weight of UST rims (comparing Mavic 717 and 819 rims) which are about 100g per rim so you're actually talking about 320 for both front and rear which is almost 3/4 of a pound. (I didn't even mention tubeless rim strip and sealant)


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

CupOfJava said:


> 60g per tire is 120g for a pair - people spend a fortune to lose that much weight especially if it's rotational weight. You also forgot (or failed) to factor in the extra weight of UST rims (comparing Mavic 717 and 819 rims) which are about 100g per rim so you're actually talking about 320 for both front and rear which is almost 3/4 of a pound. (I didn't even mention tubeless rim strip and sealant)
> 
> Yea keep crossing your chain it will make you a much better rider cool guy. You should probably know what you're talking about before you post here.


Your right I should probably know what I am talking about. Maybe I should share by background with you and you can judge if I know anything about cycling.
1. Riding and racing for 15 years.
2. Coach 5 members of the Canadian National XC Team. (I am a consultent for several other national team members)
3. My wife is currently ranked #1 by the UCI in the world.

Just because my opinion differs from your does not mean that I don't know what I am talking about. You want to cut into me and make yourself feel like a big man fine, I ask you this, how many World Cup Racers come to you to do their bike fits.

Lets talk about the importance of wheel weight (a good subject for myths). Last year I did a little study on the importance of wheel weight, specifically UST vs non-UST. The LUNA mtb team runs nothing but UST tires (doesn't seem to slow them down does it) when she signed with them both of us were neverous about this (the extra weight). So we compared a Stans wheel with a converted non-tubeless tire (Kenda Karma) to a Mavic SLR with a UST tire (Cross Mark). The difference in wheel weight was about 200 grams for a set. Did a whole bunch of stop watch tests the conclusion, no measurable difference.

Mathematically (assuming that there is no other advantage for the heavier tire) 200 grams in wheel should slow you down by at the most 20s in a 2hr XC race. Now 20s can be significant, Catharine missed a medal in the Olympics by only 9s. But then again she won the world cup before the Olympics by 2 minutes.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

LMN said:


> Handle bars should be lower then seats.
> 
> Never cross chain
> 
> ...


1. :skep: 
2. :skep: 
3. What the ****!
4.  
5.  
6.:madman: 
7.:madman:


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

CupOfJava said:


> 60g per tire is 120g for a pair - people spend a fortune to lose that much weight especially if it's rotational weight. You also forgot (or failed) to factor in the extra weight of UST rims (comparing Mavic 717 and 819 rims) which are about 100g per rim so you're actually talking about 320 for both front and rear which is almost 3/4 of a pound. (I didn't even mention tubeless rim strip and sealant)
> 
> Yea keep crossing your chain it will make you a much better rider cool guy. You should probably know what you're talking about before you post here.


Maybe we are getting off on the wrong foot here.

No point getting in an internet pissing match so to speak.

Evidently you are rather attached to tubes. I am assuming that you give tubless an honest try didn't like and went back to tubes. In my experience, which is fairly significant, you are first rider I know who has done this. Countless world cup level riders have switched to tubeless as well as many ameture level riders. Nearly all of them swear they will never use a tube again.

You are fairly unique in your experience, so what was that drove you away? Don't say it is the weight, if my 110lb wife can drop elite male riders on her heavy tubeless tires weight isn't a significant factor.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

LMN said:


> Evidently you are rather attached to tubes. I am assuming that you give tubless an honest try didn't like and went back to tubes. In my experience, which is fairly significant, you are first rider I know who has done this. Countless world cup level riders have switched to tubeless as well as many ameture level riders. Nearly all of them swear they will never use a tube again.


Really. I converted my FRX5's to tubeless, and the I9's on my DH rig, and I have to say, it is absolutely awesome. Unless you have a biiiiiiiiig issue with gaining a couple grams, it's a great thing to do. Don't shun something you don't know about.


----------



## CupOfJava (Dec 1, 2008)

nm...


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

CupOfJava said:


> nm...


You read the lets make peace post I take it Mr. Christ. 

BTW as for our discussion well preping my bike a race for a tommorow I actually weighed my spare tubes. I was wrong about tube weights. I couldn't find a single tube that was 120 grams. Some of the light weight tubes small tube came it at 130 but most were at 170-210 grams.

So back on the topic of mountain bike myths

1: UST is heavier.
Maxis CrossMark 2.1 exception series 530 grams + 180 gram tube is 710 grams.
Maxis CrossMark UST 680 grams + 20 grams for valve stem. 700 grams. (no need for sealent with these tires)
Are UST rims heavier? Maybe but just about every highend wheel set is UST and the standard for lightweight rims, Stans, are tubeless rims.

I think we can say Myth busted!!!

2: Myth Cross Chaining wears out your drivetrain quicker. True it does wear out your big ring and big gear in the rear casset quicker. But really when is the last time you replaced your drive train because those gears were worn out? I don't know about anybody else but the gears in the middle my cassett that wear first. As for the big ring, I replace 3 middle rings for every big ring (and as I said I cross chain a lot). The chain side plates may experience more wear from cross chaining but worn side plates is not the reason you replace a chain.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

CupOfJava said:


> Rock Shox feels the same a Fox Forks


Yeah, that's total BS. RS feels much better


----------



## Clutchman83 (Apr 16, 2006)

kapusta said:


> RS feels much better


We have found a myth!!!

Everybody knows that RST makes the bombest ass suspension ever .:ihih:


----------



## jimbo2k (Dec 31, 2003)

*Mine too*



nachomc said:


> I'd bust her myths..
> 
> Does that even make sense? I think you know what I mean.


Although there was a dark haired one with tats that was in a few episodes that was at least equally hot Jim


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

jimbo2k said:


> Although there was a dark haired one with tats that was in a few episodes that was at least equally hot Jim


Hair not so dark, but Scottie Chapman...
















sorry, no bikini shots


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

Clutchman83 said:


> We have found a myth!!!
> 
> Everybody knows that RST makes the bombest ass suspension ever .:ihih:


:devil: :lol:


----------



## otis24 (Apr 1, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> i swear nitrogen is better than air in your tyres? maybe not for mtb'ing, but in f1 (haha bit of a difference) they use nitrogen, maybe some pro's use it for road or aerodrome races? (cos it dosnt expand untill VERY high temperatures by the way)


The last time I got new tires for my car they filled them with Nitrogen.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

otis24 said:


> The last time I got new tires for my car they filled them with Nitrogen.


::shrug:: what's the big deal with nitrogen?


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

*Another Myth...*

"Both Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis did not test positive for the performance-enhancing substance DHMO - "


DHMO.org said:


> Is it true that using DHMO improves athletic performance?
> Absolutely! With the numerous allegations of amateur and professional athletes using anabolic steroids and/or blood doping to enhance performance, virtually no attention has been paid to the performance enhancing properties of Dihydrogen Monoxide. It is perhaps the sporting world's dirtiest of dirty little secrets that athletes regularly ingest large quantities of DHMO in an effort to gain a competitive edge over an opponent.
> 
> One technique commonly used by endurance athletes in sports such as distance running and cycling is to take a large amount of DHMO immediately prior to a race. This is known within racing circles to dramatically improve performance.
> ...


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

highdelll said:


> "Both Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis did not test positive for the performance-enhancing substance DHMO - "
> 
> They both DID test positive!!


I heard once that Lance got slapped with a lawsuit for "testing positive" of an "illegal drug." Turns out it was one of the ingredients in an approved chamois cream. (Don't know if it was the same thing, but...)


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

I was at a race @ Whiskeytown in '03 - I had heard from several people that others were using it - I got 3rd in my division (but I missed a turn - and had to do a bunch of catchin'-up) so I can't say if it affected my placement.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

*DH Debate*

I was reading in this month's issue of MB that Steve Peat is all for the possibly pending UCI ban on skinsuits, while Johnny T is standing there shocked that the UCI can be such a bunch of bastards. What do you think? 
The myth parts are:

JT:
1. The skinsuit is historical DH gear
2. The skinsuit shows logos better (what the f***...)

SP:
1. The skinsuit offers no protection to the rider
2. Kids can have a better image of the sport they are joining 
3. They don't show logos any better (but they do show the body better:skep: )

Hmmm...


----------



## primoz (Jun 7, 2006)

mountain_bomber156 said:


> Heavy. In their dreams. Take these as an example:
> 22 pounds!
> 18.5 pounds!
> Some roadies can get pretty territorialut:...


Well if you like it or not, this is heavy compared to road bikes. If you want 18.5lbs mtb, you have to spend a whole lot of money. Getting 18.5lbs road bike is about same amount of money as 25 or 26lbs mtb. UCI limit for road bikes is 6.8kg (a bit less then 15lbs), and most of road bikes are under this limit without some extra work. So yes, mtb are at least heavier if not heavy


----------



## GrantB (Jan 10, 2004)

deleted for reasons of pointlessness


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

primoz said:


> Well if you like it or not, this is heavy compared to road bikes. If you want 18.5lbs mtb, you have to spend a whole lot of money. Getting 18.5lbs road bike is about same amount of money as 25 or 26lbs mtb. UCI limit for road bikes is 6.8kg (a bit less then 15lbs), and most of road bikes are under this limit without some extra work. So yes, mtb are at least heavier if not heavy


Yes, I know they are heavier, and that's not about to change, but it's still pretty fking light for a mountain bike.


----------



## Strafer (Jun 7, 2004)

Helium in your tires makes your bike pedal like it lost a couple of pounds.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

Strafer said:


> Helium in your tires makes your bike pedal like it lost a couple of pounds.


 :lol: :skep:


----------



## SCB (May 19, 2007)

The point of nitrogen in tires is that it doesn't react. Not only will it not degrade rubber, it won't cause tires to explode in the case of a fire or overheated brakes. It takes 500°C and 250 atmospheres to break the bonds between the two nitrogen atoms. That's why it's used in F1 and aircraft. Absolutely no point in bike tires.


----------



## Clutchman83 (Apr 16, 2006)

SCB said:


> The point of nitrogen in tires is that it doesn't react. Not only will it not degrade rubber, it won't cause tires to explode in the case of a fire or overheated brakes. It takes 500°C and 250 atmospheres to break the bonds between the two nitrogen atoms. That's why it's used in F1 and aircraft. Absolutely no point in bike tires.


Well, to be specific, air isn't likely to mess up a tire either... F1 use has more to do with dealing with a predictable gas that doesn't expand as much with temperature, it really has nothing to do with fire or exploding.

I agree it has no practical use for bike tires.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

Clutchman83 said:


> Well, to be specific, air isn't likely to mess up a tire either... F1 use has more to do with dealing with a predictable gas that doesn't expand as much with temperature, it really has nothing to do with fire or exploding.
> 
> I agree it has no practical use for bike tires.


I agree, too. It's like having a 62" flat screen TV just to watch infomercials. It's cool, but not at all practical.


----------



## Strafer (Jun 7, 2004)

mountain_bomber156 said:


> I agree, too. It's like having a 62" flat screen TV just to watch infomercials. It's cool, but not at all practical.


Someone disagrees with you.


----------



## SCB (May 19, 2007)

Clutchman83 said:


> Well, to be specific, air isn't likely to mess up a tire either... F1 use has more to do with dealing with a predictable gas that doesn't expand as much with temperature, it really has nothing to do with fire or exploding.
> 
> I agree it has no practical use for bike tires.


O2 is flammable, N2 isn't. The molecules are very similar in size and pressure increases due to temperature is almost the same.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

Strafer said:


> Someone disagrees with you.


----------



## acctnut (Dec 1, 2008)

'Do not crosschain,ever, or die, on any bike, period' - what bike shop tells the person who wants to return bike because of metal on metal noises.


----------



## Clutchman83 (Apr 16, 2006)

SCB said:


> O2 is flammable, N2 isn't. The molecules are very similar in size and pressure increases due to temperature is almost the same.


Air is not pure O2. It's 70% Nitrogen bonded to other atoms that can diffuse the explosive potential for O2. Pure N2 is about having a predictable gas to deal with. Air is okay, it's not gonna explode in your tires.

Air allows for burning given a proper fuel but it is actually fairly resistant to combustion without a fuel source.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

Clutchman83 said:


> Air allows for burning given a proper fuel but it is actually fairly resistant to combustion without a fuel source.


Because you don't want the whole world exploding because you lit a candle. 

JK


----------



## cstone (Apr 5, 2009)

How are single speeds easier on trails with hills?


----------



## tojnom (Feb 2, 2008)

Crosschain on my MTB no big deal, but I never do it on my road bike.


----------



## mountain_bomber156 (Feb 17, 2009)

cstone said:


> How are single speeds easier on trails with hills?


Dunno.


----------



## Three Phase (May 15, 2006)

Too much lubrication on the chain is worse than no lubrication at all.


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

2009? you can do better 

Bu yes, let's keep this one going


----------



## subiebikr (Jan 8, 2013)

Awesome!


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

subiebikr said:


> Awesome!


Chains stretch. Chains dont stretch. Interfaces between links and pins wear.

Cables stretch. Cables dont stretch. Cable housing compresses.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

Reviving old threads is cool.


----------



## pattongb (Jun 5, 2011)

LMN said:


> Your right I should probably know what I am talking about. Maybe I should share by background with you and you can judge if I know anything about cycling.
> 1. Riding and racing for 15 years.
> 2. Coach 5 members of the Canadian National XC Team. (I am a consultent for several other national team members)
> 3. My wife is currently ranked #1 by the UCI in the world.
> ...


GAME/SET/MATCH! :thumbsup:


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

Couple of myths from the wife:

1. You don't need to spend alot of money for a bike, you can get one at Walmart for $99.

2. You only need to ride once a month, that is plenty.

BTW - Highdell..... I think this chick is pretty smokin' hot. AJ from the series Overhaulin.


----------

