You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
"Yep it’s clear that you think people you don’t know should for some odd reason stick to some rules that only exist in your mind."
But it's not though. The value of cycling being a wholly human powered activity is pretty much universally recognised. Certainly something I grew up with.
The value of cycling being a wholly human powered activity is pretty much universally recognised.
You just made that up. Bicycles are [s]children's[/s] toys. The only rule for toys is they need to be fun.
You stick to your self imposed made up rules if you wish.
Just don't think that anyone else is under any obligation to do the same.
Live and let live I say.
Sorry 5thElefant you couldn't be more wrong. If you or anyone else can't see it you never will. ☹
I guess you're not the target market then...
"I’d rather do half the miles and not feel like I’m cheating.I’d rather do half the miles and not feel like I’m cheating."
as i said before until you have tried one your opinion is void, imho, ride an ebike, and i bet you wouldnt make the same statement.
"Never felt twice the miles equals twice the enjoyment. I’ve got vehicles with engines for that…….hang on a minute 😉"
i didnt say he would get twice the enjoyment, just said he could do twice the miles in the same time, for me that would mean twice the enjoyment.
your vehicles for that, do you only go from a to b, or ever drive for the fun of it? twice the fun ?
Hi all. I'm an e-bike user. Too old and haven't got enough time to cycle to get fit (plus at my age there's a decreasing capacity to do so) but I do love mountain biking and going out for rides with my younger, fitter mates. I can now keep up with them and do longer distances than before. I still get a lot of exercise (those that try to persist the myth that it takes no effort to pedal a 24kg bike up a steep hill in eco mode (yes, I know some use turbo - that's their choice) are deluded or being deliberately inflammatory) and way more than I'd otherwise get because I simply wouldn't get enough enjoyment out of it if I had an unassisted bike, so I wouldn't go.
The e-mtb has reignited my love for being out there and allows me to get to the top of the hills in a reasonable time and without having to have a 10 minute recovery period before doing the downhill bit.
There are some on here that are purists and feel to ride the downs, you have to earn it by working the ups - fair play, it's everyone's right to an opinion, but do those same people go skiing or snowboarding and, if so, do they walk up the mountain or get a chairlift? Do people stand in line to shout abuse or "cheater" at those that use the bus uplift at Forest of Dean? Or are those people just doing the bit they like - the downhill and getting more runs in by using the uplift? What about BPW and those that dare to use the uplift? Where do you draw the line? e-bikes are incredible fun and in a short time (less than 5 years) will outnumber normal bikes on the trails.
When you're old and/or no longer able to devote time to keeping bike fit, will you simply give up or take the logical step and get an assisted bike?
As was said earlier "live and let live" as far as I am concerned. 😃
"your vehicles for that, do you only go from a to b, or ever drive for the fun of it? twice the fun ?"
I drive for a living A to B. For fun it's been 40yrs of Motocross I have a 1979 YZ250, 1997 CR250 and 2015 KTM SXF350. But my bycyles are all human powered I've never mixed the two and never will, both are completely separate distinctive pleasures. What others do is their buisness but for reasons mentioned before I see e-mtb's (not e-bikes in general), when ridden by fit able young men causing trouble for mtbing and all off road cyclists.
Hopefully I'm wrong but we'll see.
e-bikes are incredible fun and in a short time (less than 5 years) will outnumber normal bikes on the trails
Patently not true. I will literally buy everyone on here a pint if it turns out to be (I think I'm pretty safe tbh)
When I'm old and/or infirm I might then consider it. But my dad's 75 next month and still comes for the occasional ride with me on his 'normal' bike. He spends 6mths of the year on the Pyrenees, so he still enjoys his hills.
There are plenty of people out there of retirement age who could ride most of us under the table. I've met some seriously wiry audaxers in my time!
as i said before until you have tried one your opinion is void, imho, ride an ebike, and i bet you wouldnt make the same statement.
You have no idea what I have or haven't done....in fact I have.
Disliked it intensely though.
Found it almost pointless; was amazed at the cost for such a heavy and (for the price) badly specced bike; didn't like the almost laughably bad carbon footprint of said machine; and the less said about how it was being pitched/marketed the better.
So yes, I would make the same statement.
"as i said before until you have tried one your opinion is void, imho, ride an ebike, and i bet you wouldnt make the same statement."
im sorry but you started the assumptions in your supposition 2
2: are arseholes
i think that would set the tone for follow up emails
Apologies for saying that you your opinion was not worthy as i presumed you hadnt ridden one , but i still think your opinion is worthless as your argument that fit e-bike riders are arseholes for riding one, is a crap and offensive way of making an argument. far better to have made your case after having said that you had e-bike experience.
can i ask why you tried one, bi-curious maybe?
did you go for a ride last night ?
I've tried our shop demo ebikes, if i could afford one I'd have one
I tried one a couple of weeks back. A Focus Sam 2 to be exact.
I won't lie, it was frikkin awesome fun. Whether it's fun and whether it's going to be good for us long term on this little island though are different things yet to be seen.
I think there's one in my future but for now, no. I liked how insanely light my steel hardtail felt after getting off it though. 🙂
The 'arseholes' was a throw away comment, but TBF it fits some of the characters on this thread.
l had accompanied a friend on a demo day (was going to ride my own bike) and there was a spare bike, so thought I might as well give it a try.
I can see the appeal, if I was less fit, or didn't have the inclination to get fit, then it might work. If I were a casual 'go for a pootle on the canal path' type of cyclist and wanted to do more miles, again it might appeal.
But there is a certain masochistic element to cycling that I feel we'll lose with these things 😉
I enjoy the simplicity of it being me and the machine - that's why one of my main rides is a rigid SS. Faffing with batteries and all the added gumph that goes with these bikes defeats the point for me. Mechanicals are annoying enough without having to worry about dodgy motors, electronic problems and duff batteries.
Ok it might still be cycling, but it's a different sort of cycling.
I see it as a natural evolution of a sport that has become increasingly focuses on the descents. Plenty of folk on here claim that climbing is just a chore and they only do it to get to the fun bit. For them an e-bike makes perfect sense and there are clearly enough of them to make a viable market. Not sure they'll ever be a majority though, but time will tell.
I doubt they will ever be a majority. I have one, but i also have three other bikes. The motor assist makes it accelerate like a good fit rider on a decent bike, but it doesn’t ‘respond’ like a good bike does. A good bike feels ‘alive’ under you when you give it the berries, or chuck it into a corner or down a cliff, ebikes don’t feel the same, probably due to the weight. I bought mine with the intention of using it to get my weight down, so i can switch back to a normal bike. Im not getting any lighter, but my fitness has improved to the point where i can use a normal bike again without blowing out my arse after half a mile.
ajantom - When you did a demo ride did you (could you) adjust the mode settings? Riding my bike with the motor set to 100% is very, very different to riding it set at 10%. I have no idea how most people ride theirs but I can't imagine they ride far if they do ride them set to 100%.
Yeah, I was a bit giddy with the "majority" comment but it's undeniable the tidal wave is coming, whether you like it or not.
It's clear that there are those who feel it should be just man and bike and those who are happy to take advantage of technical developments. I wasn't mountain biking then, but were there similar arguments when front & rear suspension came in? And disk brakes? And dropper posts?
My point still stands about the skiers and snowboarders. I bet there are many who would gnaw off their own leg before getting on an electric bike that still happily go up a chairlift. And yet there will still be those hardy skin users that think it's cheating because you've not earned your downhill ski by skinning up the mountain first. Likewise with car purists that want the basic car with no power steering, etc. so they can "feel the road" - any of you ebike haters use turbos, esp anti-skid, power steering, electronically controlled engines, etc? 😉
There's an article somewhere online I read recently where someone was pedalling up a hill on an e-bike and was passed by the uplift Landrover full of hardcore downhillers, one of whom, without a sense of irony, shouted "that's cheating!" at him. There are - to paraphrase the above - arseholes on both sides of the debate I think.
If you're on an e-bike and you're smugly dissing struggling non-assisted bikers, you deserve all the abuse you get. If you're on a non-assisted bike and you abuse a considerate rider on an e-bike, you deserve the same amount of abuse.
The weight thing... I'm 100kg (6'5" tall and built like a rugby player) so the extra 10kg of battery & motor is a relative drop in the ocean. For a smaller, lighter rider - or a much more technically able one - I can see that the extra weight would make a difference, but horses for courses and all that; for many, if not most, e-bike riders, the extra weight will make zero difference to their downhill experience and may even help by making the bike less jittery and feel more planted - I know mine does.
Yeah, was able to adjust modes. Tried everything from 100% to fully off. It was a mid-range model.....BTW I love the fact that mid range = £3000+!
No denying it was fun to be able to power up hills, though I found the weight and balance a bit odd. Downhill I found it pretty uninspiring, but then I'm not a long travel suspension, plow through everything kind of rider which these beasts seem to be aimed at.
I’m not a long travel suspension, plow through everything kind of rider which these beasts seem to be aimed at.
But still feel the need to post negative stuff about them.
It's like 29er threads from a few years back.
Funny how quite a few of the ant 29er mob from back then are now riding them.
Just saying like...
"Funny how quite a few of the ant 29er mob from back then are now riding them."
E-mtb's are nothing like another wheel size or change in standard. Fitting a motor to a bicycle and it being it still being accepted as cycling is a seismic change. But I'm starting to sound like a record stuck on auto so I'll just leave it now.
What I'm getting at is that some people can't help but post negative crap about the latest thing they don't get/dislike.
Seems a bit sad they feel the need to do this.
Specially when they then change their minds a couple of years later and it's suddenly the best thing in the world ever.
Hey, I embraced 29ers!
I tend to be an enthusiastic early adopter of cycling technologies - Scott Unishock, and then RockShox Mag 20s in 1991/2, Microdrive gears on my 1992 Kona Explosif, Magura rim brakes in 1991 or so, early Hope disc brakes, early 29er in about 2002/3, one of the first batch of Surly Krampus 29+ bikes.
But these are all positive steps forward in bike evolution.....I am yet to be persuaded that sticking a motor on a bike fits in the same category.
As to my comment that you quoted, are you trying to tell me that anyone pretends that there is any finesse to riding a 250w motored, 20+ kg, 160mm full-sus? Pull the other one!
Thing is, it really doesn't take long for what today might be utterly crass becoming tomorrow's mainstream. I won't put my money on the majority riding e-bikes in 5 years time, I'll put it instead on the industry replacing pedals on them with footrests.
Lots of e bike here in France , especially where i live as Enduro riding is massive .
I dont get the more miles argument ?
if you only have an hour to ride , does it matter if you do twice the miles but half of the effort is not yours ?
I am not agaisnt e bikes , my mum has two and uses them a lot ; but they are not for me right now .
The only negative i see is the damage to the trails .
if you only have an hour to ride , does it matter if you do twice the miles but half of the effort is not yours
Its the 'look at me' generation effect in full force.
'Hey look at my strava, I rode 200 miles and did 20,000ft of climbing last week.'
'But you have a bike with pedal assist, so you didn't really.'
'Burn the anti-ebike heretic! Burn him!'
If someone uses an ebike to get a strave kom the only person they are actually kidding is themself surely?
One look at me will tell you I don’t do 200miles a week rofl
Some of you folks on here are going to be apoplectic with rage once (if I can anyone with the knowledge to do it) I retrofit my Scott 710 E-Genuis with a thumb throttle so I still get out n’ about, at the moment I can just about manage to pedal with enough force acting on the cranks in turbo mode to get out on the bike but I have to be careful about route choice as any hills (and I’m talking about gentle road climbs) kill my legs but I fear even my current mobility (due to progressive ms) will fade to nothing over the coming months. If I can’t sort out a workaround for my Scott then I guess I’ll be buying a rear hub motor/trigger throttle and building it into my cove hummer that’s been unused for the past few years, there’s no ****ing way I’m going back into a wheelchair - I used one for 3 months 25 odd years ago when I broke my spine and was paralysed from the chest down, thankfully the paralysis was eventually reversed thanks to the work of an amazing neurosurgeon who was willing to try an experimental operation.
I managed 5 road miles tday and one small hill (woohoo...go me 😉 ) but now my legs are so ****ed I can barely support myself without holding onto something so a trigger throttle to override the crank pressure sensor on the Bosch cx performance motor would enable me to continue to exercise my leg muscles on the flat but use the trigger to help me up climbs.
Dude, you're exactly who should be using an ebike, and you command my respect for still attempting to get out and about instead of giving up like many would.
are you trying to tell me that anyone pretends that there is any finesse to riding a 250w motored, 20+ kg, 160mm full-sus? Pull the other one!
I'd say Nico has a fair bit of finesse.
You can stick to flogging yourself on your rigid bike if you want though. No one is stopping you.
As to my comment that you quoted, are you trying to tell me that anyone pretends that there is any finesse to riding a 250w motored, 20+ kg, 160mm full-sus? Pull the other one!
Does there have to be finesse? Are people are having the wrong kind of fun? Is this the same as shortboarders sneering at longboarders in surfing or dry fly fishermen mocking those that use the wet fly? Why on earth does it bother so many people that some get more enjoyment by using available technology?
Ah... next post holds the clue...
‘Hey look at my strava, I rode 200 miles and did 20,000ft of climbing last week.’
Strava. Or rather the obsession with it for some. I've seen lots of posts on various message boards and there's a common theme running (which they will, no doubt, deny) and that is, "it's not fair, some electric bike cheat may/will knock me down the Strava leaderboard." Does it really bother you that much? Do these people have so much vanity that they really care they are 131st fastest out of 5,000 cyclists up a hill in the arse end of Gloucester? More to the point, do they really think anyone else is judging them by that achievement? If so, wow.
The only negative i see is the damage to the trails .
Is there any evidence for this? This is a popular strawman argument I've seen. "Oh the bikes are heavier - stands to reason they cause more damage." I think it's a lot more down to how people ride than what they ride. I watched what I assume are experienced riders coming down the end of lower cliff at Cannock last week and many of them were scorching into the last berms and bends with skidding turns, heavy braking, feet down, mud flying... I saw some less aggressive e-mtb users come down and hardly move a stone. Going uphill I'm yet to spin the back wheel on anything other than a wet rock step up. If there's evidence about trail damage from e-mtbs over normal then let's be seeing it.
If the physics of the situation dictates that to get a man and machine of combined weight x up vertical distance y over length of trail z you use energy whatever, then the length of time it takes you to do that will affect the power used, right? There are variables, but broadly to get the same combined weight up the same height & distance at twice the speed uses pretty much twice the power. Therefore if rider a goes up at 5mph and rider b at 10mph with (an appropriate level of) assist then very approximately the same energy is being consumed but, and here's the crucial bit, rider b on his electric bike is capable of covering more distance in the same time or the same distance in less time so can get, if not exactly the same workout, a pretty decent one nonetheless.
Most arguments against electric bikes are only valid if used against throttle-based ones. And even those have their place for certain people (one of whom has posted above).
By that argument , accepting that riding any vehicle off road will cause some trail damage , the fact that you can do more miles in the same amount of time on an e-bike means that you must cause more trail damage .
and so by that comment, as we ALL cause damage with our bikes, we should all stop riding? Or is there should we have a limited mileage restriction?
Having seen the damage walkers do (massive wide trails on popular routes), are you fighting to restrict them too?
"The only negative i see is the damage to the trails ."
This, but to some degree it's the same argument for those shuttling. However, the added weight of the bikes and the bigger tyres cause more damage than the same rider on 2.4 tyres and a much lighter bike.
Everything we do causes some impact , I was simply stating that the further you ride the greater that impact is . Didn't mention anything about stopping riding , walking , driving , flying or anything else .
By that argument , accepting that riding any vehicle off road will cause some trail damage , the fact that you can do more miles in the same amount of time on an e-bike means that you must cause more trail damage
More damage than who, though? Considerate/gentle e-bike riders or balls-out skidding nutcases on "lightweight and agile" non-electric bikes? There has been a study done by IMBA that was pretty ambivalent about the difference in damage done by eMTBs over MTBs: "Initial observations suggest good support for the field study hypotheses. We saw some differences between the impacts of eMTBs and mountain bikes, particularly at turns and grade changes. However, for the most part, the soil impacts observed in this study were not greatly different from those of mountain bikes, and were much less than those associated with motorcycle use."
Nothing that could be classified as rock-solid evidence, nothing damning, but apparently IMBA are not planning to release the full report now and, to boot, have softened their stance on eMTB access to trails - seems a relatively reasonable leap of logic to guess that they aren't too concerned about the damage an eMTB causes over a MTB?
A whole lot more effort should be put into controlling the excesses of some riders on the trails, no matter what they're riding. It's not just MTB trails, the same needs to be done on ski slopes too. There is a growing number of "I'm out to enjoy myself and I don't care who else it may affect" people out there (usually, but not exclusively, 18-35 year olds) but I guess they largely have that attitude in life and not just in their sporting pursuits.
This, but to some degree it’s the same argument for those shuttling. However, the added weight of the bikes and the bigger tyres cause more damage than the same rider on 2.4 tyres and a much lighter bike.
That flies (largely) in the face of the findings of the IMBA. What are you basing your assertion on?
You seem to be failing to understand physics. A narrower tyre will focus pressure on a smaller area, therefore potentially causing more damage. Are fat tyres only on eMTBs? I saw some 4" tyres on a rigid frame two weeks ago. Not an eMTB. Ban those too? What tyre width and combined weight is the optimum according to your rules? What about a 50kg rider on a 24kg eMTB compared to a 110kg rider on a 14kg bike? What size tyres do they have?
This kind of unsupported assertion is really not helping the whole situation. It's demonstrably bollocks, I'm afraid. The IMBA study used the same riders, riding the same way, on the same trails and tried to measure something very small. They haven't really published any damning evidence. And yet you seem to know better?
No Neil, you just insinuated that e-bikes should be restricted, by suggesting they cause more damage.
No, he didn’t - he simply said that because they can cover more ground in the same time that they must cause more damage (of whatever degree).
True, surely?
All I said was that the more miles you do on a bike , electric or traditional , the more damage you will cause . Show me where I insinuated or implied that e-bikes should be restricted .
Edit Beaten to it .
All I said was that the more miles you do on a bike , electric or traditional , the more damage you will cause . Show me where I insinuated or implied that e-bikes should be restricted .
But where's the logical end to that line of argument? Ban superfit riders who cover lots of miles? They're doing more damage than fatboy on his electric fatbike who only covers 10 miles before heading to the cake shop, surely? 😉
There are too many variables to try to use the "they damage trails so ebikes are bad, man" generalisation. I get that they don't fit into the world view of some who are purists, but they are not just motorbikes no matter what those people think. Stick it on eco mode and climb a hill faster than your usual efforts would allow and then tell me it's not giving you any exercise. Stick it in Turbo mode and you get an easy ride up. It's neither better nor worse - it's just down to the rider and what they want to get out of the sport.
Not once have I mentioned banning anything . My point is that if you cover twice the distance you will cause twice the damage and it was only made because you said
" Therefore if rider a goes up at 5mph and rider b at 10mph with (an appropriate level of) assist then very approximately the same energy is being consumed but, and here’s the crucial bit, rider b on his electric bike is capable of covering more distance in the same time."
Which goes against the point that you are trying to make . which is that e-bikes cause no more trail damage than regular bikes .
Selective editing, Ramsey Neil. I also mentioned the same distance in less time.
Your assumption is that the same rider on an e-bike instead of a non e-bike would go twice the distance. They might do but they might not and as there's no evidence that eMTBs cause more damage than MTBs it's not helping your point.
If the person on the eMTB stayed on a normal MTB, did smaller rides and built up fitness they would eventually be travelling further than before. Oh no - they're causing more damage to the trail!
See the problem with that line of argument?
A lot of assumptions and not a lot of substance in your arguments . Care to explain why you think this is true .
"Most arguments against electric bikes are only valid if used against throttle-based ones."
Ramsey
if i do 30 miles on my ebike a week, and someone else does 90 miles, should they be stopped. you might do more miles in the same time than someone not on an ebike, but typically you get 2 - 3 hours out of a charge about 25-30 miles. i know lots of people who regularly ride for longer and further, that argument doesnt quite work. also when i say i can do twice the miles, that might only be 20 miles in total, some else doing twice the miles might only do 15 miles
I give up , I really have got better things to do . It wasn't me that said that but then if you bothered to read back you would know that .
A lot of assumptions and not a lot of substance in your arguments . Care to explain why you think this is true .
“Most arguments against electric bikes are only valid if used against throttle-based ones.”
Pot. Kettle! You're the one making paper-thin arguments about eMTBs causing more trail damage when I've repeatedly (and with sources - e.g. the IMBA studies) pointed out there is no evidence for this.
Anyhow... many (not necessarily you) treat ebikes as "sit on top and twist throttle to go with no effort whatsoever" and those of us that actually use them are pointing out that this is far from the truth and they are very capable, in the right setting, of causing the user to have to do a lot of exercise.
I accept that you don't like them - fine, but don't go proliferating unsubstantiated arguments about them causing more trail erosion as that just comes across as biased misrepresentation to suit your agenda. There may well be a study out there showing they are more damaging to the trails, but I'm yet to see it if so.
So you can't explain why you think most arguments against electric bikes are only valid if used against throttle based ones but instead just make assumptions and go putting words into my mouth .
Anyway just so that you know I have nothing against e-bikes , my job involves selling bikes and e-bikes are a valuable revenue stream for the shop I work in so it's important that I have good knowledge of them . I have ridden them on numerous occasions including going for a shop training ride with the Spesh rep which involved 5 of us on Turbo Levos offroad it was great fun and I came back absolutely knackered and buzzing at the end of the ride .
All I said was that you can't argue that e-bikes cause no more erosion while at also saying that people can ride further on them in the same time which is what you did .
By the way I just took a quick look at the IMBA report on e-bikes and trail erosion and came up with this .
Physical impacts to trails from eMTBs will likely fall
somewhere between those caused by mountain bikes
and motorcycles. We expect that they will much more
closely resemble those of mountain bikes.
• We expect that eMTBs may lead to more soil
displacement under certain conditions, such as
through turns, including bermed turns; on ascents and
descents; and where there are abrupt changes in trail
conditions.
You've also snipped off the bit I originally quoted. Accidentally I'm sure and not so it looks to support your argument more, right? "However, for the most part, the soil impacts observed in this study were not greatly different from those of mountain bikes"
They've also softened their stance on eMTBs on trails: https://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/news/article/imba-updates-stance-on-e-bikes-51230/ This change in stance combined with a lack of willingness to publish their full report has led many people to make the not-illogical leap of faith that their full report would not be all that damning to eMTBs or why else would they change their stance?
I'm not denying that riding further causes more erosion, but that's not limited to eMTBs and yet that's where you seem to want to pitch it. Yes, an unfit person can immediately go further. But then an unfit person who gradually built up fitness on a non-eMTB could also go further and then do "more damage". You are conflating trail damage with eMTBs only as far as I can see - or repeatedly failing to acknowledge the problem isn't just with eMTBs it's with any form of usage of the trail... bike, e-bike, horse, motorbike and... walking:
Turn your ire on walkers: http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/research-reveals-walkers-do-more-damage-to-trails-than-mountain-bikers-335785
"Which goes against the point that you are trying to make . which is that e-bikes cause no more trail damage than regular bikes."
i took this to mean that you thought that e-bikes caused more trail erosion?
and you are right, i didnt read back and see this
"All I said was that the more miles you do on a bike , electric or traditional , the more damage you will cause . "
although i have read this thread a few times and contributed, sorry for the hasty reply
That's classy , I appreciate that Lester .
frobisher said "Selective editing, Ramsey Neil. I also mentioned the same distance in less time."
Wrong it wasn't selective editing , I just posted the most relevant bit , it's not like I took the middle bit out or anything like that .
frobisher said "Pot. Kettle! You’re the one making paper-thin arguments about eMTBs causing more trail damage when I’ve repeatedly (and with sources – e.g. the IMBA studies) pointed out there is no evidence for this."
Wrong I was pointing out your confused logic , I didn't ever say that e-MTB's cause more erosion , just that as you said they could go further in the same amount of time as human powered MTBs then that would cause more trail erosion .
Wrong The IMBA did not say there was no evidence that e-mtbs don't cause more trail damage , they have softened their position on trail access for e-mtb's because of the sheer amount of them but they say under certain conditions e-bikes will cause more erosion.
frobisher said You are conflating trail damage with eMTBs only as far as I can see – or repeatedly failing to acknowledge the problem isn’t just with eMTBs it’s with any form of usage of the trail… bike, e-bike, horse, motorbike and… walking:
Wrong Why should I have to acknowledge anything , everything causes trail damage in different levels and I don't have an anti e-bike agenda .
frobisher said Turn your ire on walkers:> http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/research-reveals-walkers-do-more-damage-to-trails-than-mountain-bikers-335785 < Not wrong as such but there are statistics out there that prove quite the opposite , as they say you can prove anything with statistics . This has been probably my longest Singletrack post ever . Can somebody explain how to do quotes these days . Anybody on here remember Dylan Turvey from the MTBR forum , arguing with him with facts was like throwing eggs at a tank as he just rumbled on as your arguments just bounced off like the eggs on the tank , ultimately you could never win . I never thought I would feel like that again , until today . No more from me I have pretty much hijacked this thread and achieved nothing. Goodnight .