Re: [RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
This owns the internets today. The rest of us just need to go home. On 12/8/13, Philip Williamson wrote: > Sometimes it's nice to be a silverback. Having hashed this out in 1986, my > answer is twofold. > "Mountain bike" = fat tire knobs + (intended) location*. > > That's it. My Quickbeam has been a mountain bike for brief periods, but now > > it is not. Probably it will be again. My Bontrager is always a mountain > bike, but I could turn it into a road bike. I've ridden it on the road, but > > never made it into a road bike. > > The Quickbeam: if it has slick tires and I'm way out in the woods on a > singletrack trail, I'm either "hardcore," or "stupid," but it's still a > road bike. If it has fat knobbies and I'm out there, it's a "mountain > bike." Same trail, different bike, only based on the tires. Even if some > guy says knowledgeably to his girl, "cross bike," without noticing that > it's fixed, it's still a mountain bike, because I'm not riding 'cross. > Cyclocross is its own thing, and 'cross bikes are race bikes**. > The Bontrager: has drop bars. Knobby tires. A front shock, but I've had > rigid mountain bikes, so that's not a criterion. It is INTENDED to ride on > dirt. I've ridden it with the lunchtime roadies, but have dropped into the > ditch and ridden up a hill on dirt when a car wouldn't pass me. "Mountain" > bike. > I'm building up a Singular Gryphon, which is supposed to be a drop bar > mountain bike, but right now I intend to ride it on the road. It's a "29er > road bike." If I put on fat knobbies in order to ride trails, it will > become a mountain bike. If I put on knobbies in order to look cool while > riding around town... not a mountain bike. It would be a poseur bike. > I have a friend's bike in my shed. She may have NEVER ridden it offroad. It > > has knobbies, and I'm about to put flat bars back on it, but it's just a > 'bike.' There's no expectation that it will get more than a mile into the > woods, ever. "Bike." > > Short story long. > To summate: A mountain bike has fat tires and is found in the woods. > To clarify: If you intend to ride your bike in the woods, you will optimize > > it so you can ride more confidently there. You will probably choose knobby > tires, because they work better in the woods. Are knobbies a sign, or a > symbol? If they are a sign, then you have a mountain bike. If they > symbolize riding in the woods, but you do not ride there, you simply have a > > bike. Which is rad. Bikes are rad. > > *"Fat tire knobs" might have a lower width limit. "Intention" also applies > to the manufacturer (an Ibis Mojo was always intended to be a mountain > bike, but a Trek 820 was always intended to sell bikes to people who wanted > > mountain bikes). > **per Ira Ryan - blew my mind. > > Philip > www.biketinker.com > > On Saturday, December 7, 2013 7:11:05 AM UTC-8, ted wrote: >> >> Please help me out of my ignorance. What objective characteristics >> distinguish a "true" mountain bike from other types of bikes? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Cheers, David "it isn't a contest. Just enjoy the ride." - Seth Vidal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
My daughter was learning fractions when I was teaching her trail riding. I explained the hills were no problem because "what's the one gear everyone has on their bike no matter what?" Answer: getting off and walking. "Oh! We just use the lowest common gear!" Here she is, in full LCG: http://www.flickr.com/photos/32311885@N07/9295755568/in/set-72157634656798828 With abandon, Patrick On Sunday, December 8, 2013 2:42:30 AM UTC-7, Philip Williamson wrote: > > LCG? > #baffled > > philip > www.biketinker.com > > On Saturday, December 7, 2013 8:44:13 AM UTC-8, Deacon Patrick wrote: >> >> Yes, Takashi, rough climbs standing can be tricky. Do enough of them (or >> a few long ones) and there is a rhythm you develop when standing that makes >> it flow much smoother, with the bike simply bouncing, rolling up and down >> and jouncing beneath. As for riding more technical trails etc, much the >> same learning curve applies. Simply doing it, however slowly is required, >> teaches you more than you know. By the end of riding the same trail a third >> or forth time, my ability to wind my way through and over the bits is >> greatly improved. Even more amazing is to return to a trail from early on >> and find how little, if any, I need to get off and LCG in sections I did >> nothing but LCG in before. Quite satisfying to get those benchmark >> comparisons of skill, considering I made no effort to learn, I was just >> riding and enjoying. Grin. >> >> With abandon, >> Patrick >> >> On Saturday, December 7, 2013 7:30:12 AM UTC-7, Takashi wrote: >>> >>> When I was climbing on unpaved bumpy road, I had to pedal in half-rising >>> posture. >>> Otherwise, my body bumping up & down with my bike made me go much slower. >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77318553@N08/10327499973/ >>> I imagine that full suspension bike would have made it easier by letting >>> me pedal while sitting on saddle. >>> That was the only case so far that I wanted suspension on my Hunqapillar. >>> I'd walk anyway when it's technical, since I'm not skilled. >>> >>> When I rode on snow, cantilever brakes did not stop the bike very well. >>> Disc brakes are better for that, I think. >>> >>> Here's a picture of my truemountainbikeified Hunq: >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77318553@N08/8121255228/ >>> >>> >>> Takashi >>> >>> >>> 2013年12月5日木曜日 22時43分18秒 UTC+9 Brian Campbell: I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not do well? >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
Sometimes it's nice to be a silverback. Having hashed this out in 1986, my answer is twofold. "Mountain bike" = fat tire knobs + (intended) location*. That's it. My Quickbeam has been a mountain bike for brief periods, but now it is not. Probably it will be again. My Bontrager is always a mountain bike, but I could turn it into a road bike. I've ridden it on the road, but never made it into a road bike. The Quickbeam: if it has slick tires and I'm way out in the woods on a singletrack trail, I'm either "hardcore," or "stupid," but it's still a road bike. If it has fat knobbies and I'm out there, it's a "mountain bike." Same trail, different bike, only based on the tires. Even if some guy says knowledgeably to his girl, "cross bike," without noticing that it's fixed, it's still a mountain bike, because I'm not riding 'cross. Cyclocross is its own thing, and 'cross bikes are race bikes**. The Bontrager: has drop bars. Knobby tires. A front shock, but I've had rigid mountain bikes, so that's not a criterion. It is INTENDED to ride on dirt. I've ridden it with the lunchtime roadies, but have dropped into the ditch and ridden up a hill on dirt when a car wouldn't pass me. "Mountain" bike. I'm building up a Singular Gryphon, which is supposed to be a drop bar mountain bike, but right now I intend to ride it on the road. It's a "29er road bike." If I put on fat knobbies in order to ride trails, it will become a mountain bike. If I put on knobbies in order to look cool while riding around town... not a mountain bike. It would be a poseur bike. I have a friend's bike in my shed. She may have NEVER ridden it offroad. It has knobbies, and I'm about to put flat bars back on it, but it's just a 'bike.' There's no expectation that it will get more than a mile into the woods, ever. "Bike." Short story long. To summate: A mountain bike has fat tires and is found in the woods. To clarify: If you intend to ride your bike in the woods, you will optimize it so you can ride more confidently there. You will probably choose knobby tires, because they work better in the woods. Are knobbies a sign, or a symbol? If they are a sign, then you have a mountain bike. If they symbolize riding in the woods, but you do not ride there, you simply have a bike. Which is rad. Bikes are rad. *"Fat tire knobs" might have a lower width limit. "Intention" also applies to the manufacturer (an Ibis Mojo was always intended to be a mountain bike, but a Trek 820 was always intended to sell bikes to people who wanted mountain bikes). **per Ira Ryan - blew my mind. Philip www.biketinker.com On Saturday, December 7, 2013 7:11:05 AM UTC-8, ted wrote: > > Please help me out of my ignorance. What objective characteristics > distinguish a "true" mountain bike from other types of bikes? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
Lowest Common Gear. So low, it's a whole character less than walk. Jeff Hagedorn Warragul, VIC Australia On Sunday, December 8, 2013 8:42:30 PM UTC+11, Philip Williamson wrote: > > LCG? > #baffled > > philip > www.biketinker.com > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
LCG? #baffled philip www.biketinker.com On Saturday, December 7, 2013 8:44:13 AM UTC-8, Deacon Patrick wrote: > > Yes, Takashi, rough climbs standing can be tricky. Do enough of them (or a > few long ones) and there is a rhythm you develop when standing that makes > it flow much smoother, with the bike simply bouncing, rolling up and down > and jouncing beneath. As for riding more technical trails etc, much the > same learning curve applies. Simply doing it, however slowly is required, > teaches you more than you know. By the end of riding the same trail a third > or forth time, my ability to wind my way through and over the bits is > greatly improved. Even more amazing is to return to a trail from early on > and find how little, if any, I need to get off and LCG in sections I did > nothing but LCG in before. Quite satisfying to get those benchmark > comparisons of skill, considering I made no effort to learn, I was just > riding and enjoying. Grin. > > With abandon, > Patrick > > On Saturday, December 7, 2013 7:30:12 AM UTC-7, Takashi wrote: >> >> When I was climbing on unpaved bumpy road, I had to pedal in half-rising >> posture. >> Otherwise, my body bumping up & down with my bike made me go much slower. >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77318553@N08/10327499973/ >> I imagine that full suspension bike would have made it easier by letting >> me pedal while sitting on saddle. >> That was the only case so far that I wanted suspension on my Hunqapillar. >> I'd walk anyway when it's technical, since I'm not skilled. >> >> When I rode on snow, cantilever brakes did not stop the bike very well. >> Disc brakes are better for that, I think. >> >> Here's a picture of my truemountainbikeified Hunq: >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77318553@N08/8121255228/ >> >> >> Takashi >> >> >> 2013年12月5日木曜日 22時43分18秒 UTC+9 Brian Campbell: >>> >>> I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain >>> bike? By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very >>> versatile frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If >>> yes, what are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what >>> it does not do well? >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
Anyone can cobble together a definition, but judging by the history of the term and the bikes it covers, a mountain bike proper is something optimized for rough, unpaved terrain at the expense of performance on pavement and at the expense, if need be, of luggage capacity. For me, this means a cockpit different from that of an all rounder (let alone a pavement bike): more upright, wider bar, a bar with straight ends instead of a drop bar (though perhaps a drop bar designed for off road also works -- I've not found them a good compromise between road drops and "straight" bars). A saddle position that lets you stretch off the back for dropoffs. The cockpit also allows braking while shoved off the back of the saddle. Fat tires -- 50 mm being skinny for this purpose. Wide range gearing with a lot of low gears and biased toward range rather than close ratios. Easy to shift shifters (obviously, not down tube, and here is where indexing comes into its own, IMO. Very good brakes, of whatever type, that can accommodate fat tires. A frame with high bb clearance and a certain nimbleness at the front end and a geometry that gives both a very low standover and still allows easy high torque pedaling. A position that lets you move around easily to balance as you move the bike around and across obstacles. So: tires, cockpit, geometry, gearing, then brakes and bar type. I don't add suspension, since I am not enough used to it to fully appreciate its benefits, but I daresay many would add it as an essential element. Of course there are all sorts of variations on this theme, and you can build anything in between a road bike and a full suspension bike, but a bike that can handle even mildly technical rough stuff is different, at least for me, than a dirt road bike. My Fargo is wonderful on dirt and gravel roads, but it's lousy on singletrack -- leaving skill, or lack of it, aside, it's just not optimized for it, with its narrow drop bar, stretched out position, and close ratio gearing, all of which are wonderful for dirt roads. On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 8:11 AM, ted wrote: > Please help me out of my ignorance. What objective characteristics > distinguish a "true" mountain bike from other types of bikes? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- *RESUMES THAT GET YOU NOTICED!* Certified Resume Writer http://resumespecialties.com/index.html [email protected] http://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/ Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
For that mountain road full of fist-sized rocks, 60 mm + 700C tires run at sub 20 psi (depending on the rider's weight) are wonderful. It's amazing how a 60mm+ 622 Big Apple -- IME, the 29ers are smoother than the 26ers at the same width and pressures -- can swallow small obstacles like those rocks, or washboard. I daresay a 3" tire, or a 4" one, would be even better, but I've not ridden such and can't say what would be compromised by the greater width and weight. I do know that 622X60 Big Apples at 15 psi can roll over riprap surprisingly smoothly. On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Takashi wrote: > When I was climbing on unpaved bumpy road, I had to pedal in half-rising > posture. > Otherwise, my body bumping up & down with my bike made me go much slower. > http://www.flickr.com/photos/77318553@N08/10327499973/ > I imagine that full suspension bike would have made it easier by letting > me pedal while sitting on saddle. > That was the only case so far that I wanted suspension on my Hunqapillar. > I'd walk anyway when it's technical, since I'm not skilled. > > When I rode on snow, cantilever brakes did not stop the bike very well. > Disc brakes are better for that, I think. > > Here's a picture of my truemountainbikeified Hunq: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/77318553@N08/8121255228/ > > > Takashi > > > 2013年12月5日木曜日 22時43分18秒 UTC+9 Brian Campbell: > >> I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? >> By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile >> frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what >> are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not >> do well? >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- *RESUMES THAT GET YOU NOTICED!* Certified Resume Writer http://resumespecialties.com/index.html [email protected] http://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/ Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
Yes, Takashi, rough climbs standing can be tricky. Do enough of them (or a few long ones) and there is a rhythm you develop when standing that makes it flow much smoother, with the bike simply bouncing, rolling up and down and jouncing beneath. As for riding more technical trails etc, much the same learning curve applies. Simply doing it, however slowly is required, teaches you more than you know. By the end of riding the same trail a third or forth time, my ability to wind my way through and over the bits is greatly improved. Even more amazing is to return to a trail from early on and find how little, if any, I need to get off and LCG in sections I did nothing but LCG in before. Quite satisfying to get those benchmark comparisons of skill, considering I made no effort to learn, I was just riding and enjoying. Grin. With abandon, Patrick On Saturday, December 7, 2013 7:30:12 AM UTC-7, Takashi wrote: > > When I was climbing on unpaved bumpy road, I had to pedal in half-rising > posture. > Otherwise, my body bumping up & down with my bike made me go much slower. > http://www.flickr.com/photos/77318553@N08/10327499973/ > I imagine that full suspension bike would have made it easier by letting > me pedal while sitting on saddle. > That was the only case so far that I wanted suspension on my Hunqapillar. > I'd walk anyway when it's technical, since I'm not skilled. > > When I rode on snow, cantilever brakes did not stop the bike very well. > Disc brakes are better for that, I think. > > Here's a picture of my truemountainbikeified Hunq: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/77318553@N08/8121255228/ > > > Takashi > > > 2013年12月5日木曜日 22時43分18秒 UTC+9 Brian Campbell: >> >> I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? >> By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile >> frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what >> are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not >> do well? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
Please help me out of my ignorance. What objective characteristics distinguish a "true" mountain bike from other types of bikes? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
When I was climbing on unpaved bumpy road, I had to pedal in half-rising posture. Otherwise, my body bumping up & down with my bike made me go much slower. http://www.flickr.com/photos/77318553@N08/10327499973/ I imagine that full suspension bike would have made it easier by letting me pedal while sitting on saddle. That was the only case so far that I wanted suspension on my Hunqapillar. I'd walk anyway when it's technical, since I'm not skilled. When I rode on snow, cantilever brakes did not stop the bike very well. Disc brakes are better for that, I think. Here's a picture of my truemountainbikeified Hunq: http://www.flickr.com/photos/77318553@N08/8121255228/ Takashi 2013年12月5日木曜日 22時43分18秒 UTC+9 Brian Campbell: > > I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? > By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile > frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what > are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not > do well? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
A true mountain bike will work better on singletracktrail than one that is not a true mountain bike. A Fargo set up like mine is not a true mountain bike. Patrick Moore iPhone > On Dec 5, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Montclair BobbyB > wrote: > > Ah, but who's to judge what a "true" mountain bike is? As the late William > Nealy pointed out in his book, "The Mountain Biking Way of Knowledge" (a > must-own for every 'true' mountain biker), the Vietnamese have been riding > bicycles on the Ho Chi Minh trail for decades... and I'm sure these were > Flying Pidgeons, not StumpJumpers. > > I say a bike is defined by how far you're willing to take it. I have a > so-called mountain bike (that frankly sucks as an all-around or commuter)... > it's geared too low and the geometry is best suited for rough terrain at slow > speed, yet I'm sure there are people who ride this same bike to work... so > does that NOT qualify it as a commuter??? > > I say ride the elephant through the forest... go shred on your Hunq. > > Peace, > BB > >> On Thursday, December 5, 2013 8:43:18 AM UTC-5, Brian Campbell wrote: >> I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? By >> which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile >> frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what >> are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not >> do well? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
If you want to get to your kids' soccer game in one piece! And Mike's got grandkids? Talk about your inner child :-). That's why you guys always have to wait for me. dougP On Thursday, December 5, 2013 7:01:52 PM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote: > > You mean you're supposed to have some control going down those trails??? > > On 12/5/13, Mike Schiller > wrote: > > fun to scream down a fast trail just barely in control... > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
You mean you're supposed to have some control going down those trails??? On 12/5/13, Mike Schiller wrote: > fun to scream down a fast trail just barely in control... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
I think a Hunqa can serve as a nice trail bike and handle pretty rough terrain and meets the def. of most '80's MTB's. Those of riding back then did quite a bit on those rigid steel bikes including some crazy downhill races ( Mammoth Kamikaze) . But... unless you have some really good skills you will struggle to stay with today's MTB's on a group ride. They generally take bigger tires ( 2.4") and have hydraulic disc brakes which permit faster riding (they stop faster too). The suspension keeps the wheels on the ground climbing so you can climb fast too. I think the Hunqa's niche is off-road touring and exploring... which is mostly what I do these days, but now and then it's fun to scream down a fast trail just barely in control... where a suspended, disc braked, big tire bike excels. ~mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
Hi Patrick, I'm REALLY enjoying my Krampus. I've raced HT and FS mountain bikes, and then went to the other extreme by riding everything I previously rode on my Sam. The Krampus hits the sweet spot for me-- a really nice blend of the best features of both "worlds". I'd' LOVE to see Riv tackle this new wheel size. In many ways it is simply the next evolution of where Grant has been heading. Cheers! On Thursday, December 5, 2013 9:56:06 AM UTC-7, Deacon Patrick wrote: > > If where I ride mine, loaded or day riding, doesn't qualify it as a > mountain bike, then mountain bikes are much more exclusive that I thought. > By your definition though, my set up is DQed, but it seems to me that it > shows riding with racks, fenders, and bags really isn't critical to the > definition of a mountain bike. When I do a day ride, I can easily > experience temp fluctuations of 40-50˚F, with sun, rain, sleet, hail, snow, > wind -- and that's most any time of year. So I like a bag to carry stuff so > I'm comfortable. But if you consider the Great Divide Mountain Bike trail > and the Colorado Trail (including some of the more famous MTB sections and > technical sections) mountain biking, then I've done those with my > Hunqapillar. > > Too many photos to count, but the various sets will give you a feel for > what I ride: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/32311885@N07/sets > > This set shows the setup closest to what you describe, on a fairly > technical section: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/32311885@N07/sets/72157633380317495/ > > With abandon, > Patrick > > On Thursday, December 5, 2013 6:43:18 AM UTC-7, Brian Campbell wrote: >> >> I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? >> By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile >> frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what >> are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not >> do well? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
Well..you ride barefoot.so your in a different category altoghther! I was aware of your exploits (love the pics) and realized that your experiece(s) answered my question (before it was asked) but was curious as to other folks experiences. Plus, we can't keep swapping ketchup recipies or argue over carbs vs. no carbs! Gotta talk about something! On Thursday, December 5, 2013 11:56:06 AM UTC-5, Deacon Patrick wrote: > > If where I ride mine, loaded or day riding, doesn't qualify it as a > mountain bike, then mountain bikes are much more exclusive that I thought. > By your definition though, my set up is DQed, but it seems to me that it > shows riding with racks, fenders, and bags really isn't critical to the > definition of a mountain bike. When I do a day ride, I can easily > experience temp fluctuations of 40-50˚F, with sun, rain, sleet, hail, snow, > wind -- and that's most any time of year. So I like a bag to carry stuff so > I'm comfortable. But if you consider the Great Divide Mountain Bike trail > and the Colorado Trail (including some of the more famous MTB sections and > technical sections) mountain biking, then I've done those with my > Hunqapillar. > > Too many photos to count, but the various sets will give you a feel for > what I ride: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/32311885@N07/sets > > This set shows the setup closest to what you describe, on a fairly > technical section: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/32311885@N07/sets/72157633380317495/ > > With abandon, > Patrick > > On Thursday, December 5, 2013 6:43:18 AM UTC-7, Brian Campbell wrote: >> >> I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? >> By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile >> frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what >> are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not >> do well? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
Patrick: I'm confident *(by anyone's definition)* your Hunq qualifies as a "mountain bike" and you sir definitely qualify as a "mountain man"... Peace, BB On Thursday, December 5, 2013 11:56:06 AM UTC-5, Deacon Patrick wrote: > > If where I ride mine, loaded or day riding, doesn't qualify it as a > mountain bike, then mountain bikes are much more exclusive that I thought. > By your definition though, my set up is DQed, but it seems to me that it > shows riding with racks, fenders, and bags really isn't critical to the > definition of a mountain bike. When I do a day ride, I can easily > experience temp fluctuations of 40-50˚F, with sun, rain, sleet, hail, snow, > wind -- and that's most any time of year. So I like a bag to carry stuff so > I'm comfortable. But if you consider the Great Divide Mountain Bike trail > and the Colorado Trail (including some of the more famous MTB sections and > technical sections) mountain biking, then I've done those with my > Hunqapillar. > > Too many photos to count, but the various sets will give you a feel for > what I ride: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/32311885@N07/sets > > This set shows the setup closest to what you describe, on a fairly > technical section: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/32311885@N07/sets/72157633380317495/ > > With abandon, > Patrick > > On Thursday, December 5, 2013 6:43:18 AM UTC-7, Brian Campbell wrote: >> >> I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? >> By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile >> frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what >> are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not >> do well? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
If where I ride mine, loaded or day riding, doesn't qualify it as a mountain bike, then mountain bikes are much more exclusive that I thought. By your definition though, my set up is DQed, but it seems to me that it shows riding with racks, fenders, and bags really isn't critical to the definition of a mountain bike. When I do a day ride, I can easily experience temp fluctuations of 40-50˚F, with sun, rain, sleet, hail, snow, wind -- and that's most any time of year. So I like a bag to carry stuff so I'm comfortable. But if you consider the Great Divide Mountain Bike trail and the Colorado Trail (including some of the more famous MTB sections and technical sections) mountain biking, then I've done those with my Hunqapillar. Too many photos to count, but the various sets will give you a feel for what I ride: http://www.flickr.com/photos/32311885@N07/sets This set shows the setup closest to what you describe, on a fairly technical section: http://www.flickr.com/photos/32311885@N07/sets/72157633380317495/ With abandon, Patrick On Thursday, December 5, 2013 6:43:18 AM UTC-7, Brian Campbell wrote: > > I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? > By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile > frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what > are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not > do well? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
I have a 54cm Hunqapillar which I initially purchased for it's loaded touring capability. However, already having too many other bikes that fill that niche, it's never actually been used for that, and instead has increasingly filled my (limited) mountain bike niche. It's been a very capable mountain bike. For me, at least. Though I've ridden single track trails in Colorado since the 1980s, I've never owned a bike with any suspension. My hunq performs at least as well as my old MB3, and probably a little better since it seems the 29er size wheels are slightly better than the old 26ers. The Hunq has no toe clip overlap, which is important to me for more technical moves. I originally built it up with dirt drop bars for touring mode, but I've since switched it over to Albastache bars and greatly prefer these for climbing and braking positions on trails. I think tire choice, and terrain or trail type, is your greatest consideration. It all comes down to your particular preferences or situation. I use 50mm Schwalbe Dureme tires. Again, originally purchased for their touring capabilities, but have worked well for me as a moderate mountain bike tire. Especially, since I typically ride from home to trails and these tires perform well on anything smoother than very rocky terrain. The Hunq has clearance for larger tires, so you have the option for an aggressive 29er tire if you choose. For me, I no longer seek out the narly trails, and am happy just riding some of the smoother trails. I think the only situation where the Hunq wouldn't be recommended would be where you wanted to keep up with a group of fast riders, all on suspension bikes, on very technical trails. Since that's not me, I'm quite happy with my Hunq as my mountain bike. Mike G. On 12/5/13, Shoji Takahashi wrote: > I love this (Thanks, BB!): "ride the elephant through the forest... go > shred on your Hunq." > > I have a set of bullmoose bars in the shed, and I'll be setting up Davinci > splitters to fast swap with the Noodles. But who am I kidding-- it's a > commuter and family hauler for me right now. (And great one at that.) > > That said, check out CNYRIV's, Deacon Patrick's, and Cosmic Country's > Flickr sets-- lots of mountain action. > > > > On Thursday, December 5, 2013 10:02:34 AM UTC-5, Montclair BobbyB wrote: >> >> Ah, but who's to judge what a "true" mountain bike is? As the late >> William Nealy pointed out in his book, "The Mountain Biking Way of >> Knowledge" (a must-own for every 'true' mountain biker), the Vietnamese >> have been riding bicycles on the Ho Chi Minh trail for decades... and I'm >> >> sure these were Flying Pidgeons, not StumpJumpers. >> >> I say a bike is defined by how far you're willing to take it. I have a >> so-called mountain bike (that frankly sucks as an all-around or >> commuter)... it's geared too low and the geometry is best suited for rough >> >> terrain at slow speed, yet I'm sure there are people who ride this same >> bike to work... so does that NOT qualify it as a commuter??? >> >> I say ride the elephant through the forest... go shred on your Hunq. >> >> Peace, >> BB >> >> On Thursday, December 5, 2013 8:43:18 AM UTC-5, Brian Campbell wrote: >>> >>> I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? >>> >>> By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile >>> >>> frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, >>> what >>> are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does >>> not >>> do well? >>> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
For sure. The Hunq is shredable. No argument there. I even take my lightweight Terraferma on the rough stuff--on the "road" in this photo I'd've vastly preferred having my Hunq but I was on my Terraferma when I got there so no turning back! http://www.flickr.com/photos/cwmcmillen/9765741231/ It all depends, I suppose, on what feels best. There's no right answer, but it is fun to learn what others are doing and where they might find a given bike has limits or conversely unknown possibilities. My wish with the Hunq is that it could take wider tires; as it is 2.3 is pretty wide so I'll survive. Best wishes, Christian PS: If anyone wants to sell their Bullmoose bars I might in the market. On Thursday, December 5, 2013 10:02:34 AM UTC-5, Montclair BobbyB wrote: > > Ah, but who's to judge what a "true" mountain bike is? As the late > William Nealy pointed out in his book, "The Mountain Biking Way of > Knowledge" (a must-own for every 'true' mountain biker), the Vietnamese > have been riding bicycles on the Ho Chi Minh trail for decades... and I'm > sure these were Flying Pidgeons, not StumpJumpers. > > I say a bike is defined by how far you're willing to take it. I have a > so-called mountain bike (that frankly sucks as an all-around or > commuter)... it's geared too low and the geometry is best suited for rough > terrain at slow speed, yet I'm sure there are people who ride this same > bike to work... so does that NOT qualify it as a commuter??? > > I say ride the elephant through the forest... go shred on your Hunq. > > Peace, > BB > > On Thursday, December 5, 2013 8:43:18 AM UTC-5, Brian Campbell wrote: >> >> I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? >> By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile >> frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what >> are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not >> do well? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
I love this (Thanks, BB!): "ride the elephant through the forest... go shred on your Hunq." I have a set of bullmoose bars in the shed, and I'll be setting up Davinci splitters to fast swap with the Noodles. But who am I kidding-- it's a commuter and family hauler for me right now. (And great one at that.) That said, check out CNYRIV's, Deacon Patrick's, and Cosmic Country's Flickr sets-- lots of mountain action. On Thursday, December 5, 2013 10:02:34 AM UTC-5, Montclair BobbyB wrote: > > Ah, but who's to judge what a "true" mountain bike is? As the late > William Nealy pointed out in his book, "The Mountain Biking Way of > Knowledge" (a must-own for every 'true' mountain biker), the Vietnamese > have been riding bicycles on the Ho Chi Minh trail for decades... and I'm > sure these were Flying Pidgeons, not StumpJumpers. > > I say a bike is defined by how far you're willing to take it. I have a > so-called mountain bike (that frankly sucks as an all-around or > commuter)... it's geared too low and the geometry is best suited for rough > terrain at slow speed, yet I'm sure there are people who ride this same > bike to work... so does that NOT qualify it as a commuter??? > > I say ride the elephant through the forest... go shred on your Hunq. > > Peace, > BB > > On Thursday, December 5, 2013 8:43:18 AM UTC-5, Brian Campbell wrote: >> >> I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? >> By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile >> frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what >> are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not >> do well? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
On Thursday, December 5, 2013 9:24:24 AM UTC-5, Christian wrote: > > Brian, > > Great topic! I would like to hear what others think as well. I own a > Hunqapillar. Last spring I began to explore local trails more and more on > my Hunq. Mine was, and is, set up with Noodles and for most of my trail > riding I used Clement XPLOR 40mm tires. I've since switched to Maxxis 2.1 > Crossmarks. It did really well on moderately technical (meaning roots and > rocks) trails, climbed really well, no flex. I enjoyed getting back in to > mountain biking so much I went and bought a Salsa Spearfish. Since I > bought the SF I've not taken the Hunq on trails once, but I ride the SF on > trails a few times a week. I love disc brakes; not so sure I love the dual > suspension--100mm in the front, 80mm in the rear so quite minimal--but it > can be nice. The SF is lighter and faster. Obviously very different > bikes. > > What does this mean? I really don't know. What I'd like to try is the > Hunq with Bullmoose bars or even Jones bars (I know I'd have to get a stem > adapter) to get it set up as close to mountain-bikey as possible to really > compare the two. > > I confess that my mind is wandering towards selling both and getting a > Jones. > > Other thoughts? > > Christian > > Your situation is similar to mine. I own a 2010 Salsa El Mariachi 29'er. Fully rigid, 1x9 w/ disc brakes. The problem is that the frame (18") is too small for me. I have a set back post and longer stem but still feel cramped. I picked up a set of Riv Bullmoose bars off this list a while back for another project. That project never happened, so I go to thinkingthat is usally when the trouble starts. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
Ah, but who's to judge what a "true" mountain bike is? As the late William Nealy pointed out in his book, "The Mountain Biking Way of Knowledge" (a must-own for every 'true' mountain biker), the Vietnamese have been riding bicycles on the Ho Chi Minh trail for decades... and I'm sure these were Flying Pidgeons, not StumpJumpers. I say a bike is defined by how far you're willing to take it. I have a so-called mountain bike (that frankly sucks as an all-around or commuter)... it's geared too low and the geometry is best suited for rough terrain at slow speed, yet I'm sure there are people who ride this same bike to work... so does that NOT qualify it as a commuter??? I say ride the elephant through the forest... go shred on your Hunq. Peace, BB On Thursday, December 5, 2013 8:43:18 AM UTC-5, Brian Campbell wrote: > > I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? > By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile > frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what > are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not > do well? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Hunqapillar As "True" Mountain Bike?
Brian, Great topic! I would like to hear what others think as well. I own a Hunqapillar. Last spring I began to explore local trails more and more on my Hunq. Mine was, and is, set up with Noodles and for most of my trail riding I used Clement XPLOR 40mm tires. I've since switched to Maxxis 2.1 Crossmarks. It did really well on moderately technical (meaning roots and rocks) trails, climbed really well, no flex. I enjoyed getting back in to mountain biking so much I went and bought a Salsa Spearfish. Since I bought the SF I've not taken the Hunq on trails once, but I ride the SF on trails a few times a week. I love disc brakes; not so sure I love the dual suspension--100mm in the front, 80mm in the rear so quite minimal--but it can be nice. The SF is lighter and faster. Obviously very different bikes. What does this mean? I really don't know. What I'd like to try is the Hunq with Bullmoose bars or even Jones bars (I know I'd have to get a stem adapter) to get it set up as close to mountain-bikey as possible to really compare the two. I confess that my mind is wandering towards selling both and getting a Jones. Other thoughts? Christian On Thursday, December 5, 2013 8:43:18 AM UTC-5, Brian Campbell wrote: > > I was wondering if anyone was using their Hunq as a "true" mountain bike? > By which, I mean, no racks, fenders or bags.While it is a very versatile > frameset, does anyone use theirs only in off road scenarios? If yes, what > are your thoughts on what it does well and maybe (shudder) what it does not > do well? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
