BTW, just as a point of correction, it was Charlie Cunningham who invented the roller-cam brake and stuck it under the chainstay. However it was Richard who (amongst many others) later went on to proclaim it as a daft idea. As I recall, I think he said it in the context of responding to someone blaming him for roller-cams and U-brakes.

Also, if anyone's interested, here's a pretty cool page on obscure mountain bike brakes.

Here is the picture of the 1985 Fuso MTB.

That's a beautiful bike!

Hi All,
I am a road bike enthusiast in Texas. My claim to fame is that I am the owner of the Dave Moulton bike featured on his website. If you are interested, go to www.prodigalchild.net and check out page 5 of the bicycle pictures. More importantly though, I wanted to say a few words about David Moulton. The first thing that comes to my mind when people express opinions is their credibility. David learned the art of frame building at an early age and unlike myself he had the courage to pursuit a career that he loved. He experimented, perfected and elevated his craft until, I presume, the burden of hand crafting frames was lost to more corporate, mechanized bicycle companies. I never knew how much it would mean to own something designed and built by a single craftsman, something so mechanical yet so personal. It doesn't have a company name on it - it simply says "dave moulton". I can't begin to tell you how enjoyable it is to ride. The feel, the demand for speed, the strength and balance is pure perfection. For me, the real test of time is the fact that this bike was built in 1985 and it still draws a crowd when I take it out. But, getting back to my original thought concerning credibility - I've learned more about David the past few months, I've read his book which I highly recommend (he is a unique and multi-talented individual) and it is quite obvious to me that, as the old saying goes, he's forgotten more about bikes than you and I will ever learn. His integrity and credibilty was proven in the fact that he was willing to let it all go rather than jump on the next fad and just to make a few extra dollars.

Yes...you're a better historian than I, it was Charlie not Richard....

Ah, the MTB can be a thing of beauty. It's the whole form fits function type of beauty, the same thing I see when i look at any nice bike. Given my Talus may be ugly to some folks, but to me, that bike is dreamy...the frame is well suited for terrain most people would choose to walk across (so easy to keep it from fishtailing...love at first slide..), but at the same time has enough good looks to turn heads when I'm outside of a restaurant eating near it. given, it's prolly more like a cute bulldog (if there is such a thing) than a greyhound, but there is some beauty under that dirt-coated exterior ;)

Given, a good roadbike frame will most likely outlive a mountain bike frame of the same quality, if both were used as they were intended...so it's a longer lasting beauty...and I think we all can appreciate that.

Well, welcome to the forums!

A response to Khuon

This was exactly what I had in mind when I produced my first MTB. I felt the people already building MTBs had their own following and nothing I did or said was going to change that. If I was to have a place in this market I had to find a small niche, and felt there might be a place for a light weight bike built on the lines of a cyclo-cross bike. A bike that would handle well on a wide range of different terrain, climb not nothing else and be fun to ride.

However this bike was not bullet proof and I never said it was. Most who bought this bike loved it and rode it as it was intended, but there were a minority who would destroy the frame first time out and then want their money back. The problem as I saw it the wheels available to me were way too strong and heavy for the frame I was building. To beef up the frame or to put shock absorbers on it was to defeat the original intended purpose, and simply make it the same as everything else out there.

Then a dealer and good friend of mine was sued by someone who broke his shoulder while jumping his bike off a pick nick table. This was not one of my bikes but the fact that he sued the bike dealer and the manufacturer made me think that this whole MTB business was going in a direction I did not want to go. And I quit.

I could be accused of whining on this forum, but actually what it has done for me is that it has been a wonderful healing experience. There was some residual bitterness when I started this discussion and by seeing the point of view of others expressed here has made me realize the good times far outweighed the bad. The bike business gave me so much satisfaction and pleasure over the years and amazingly still continues to do so. It’s a bit like a divorce; I should concentrate on the good that came out of it, the children I produced, (My frames were always my babies) and not dwell on the bitterness that came towards the end.

1985 Fuso MTB

Very sweeet! I notice a few things. I realize it's a smaller frame.

Ritchey may have adopted the design of the 2 main tri tubes meeting @ the steer tube. Nice.
He altered the race frames to not have the long steer tube for 90's race frames.

It's to my eye, more advanced than Ritchey 85 frames ( don't really like.) For the Norba wins, he seemed to have just inclined the toptube at the seattube?

Looks fast. Looks 17 inch seattube, 18 toptube? What steel did you use?
My bike is 16 by 18, an incline. Maybe Ritchey had to change his design 'cause the Fuso riders were outriding his frames. ;)

>jef.

It is my opinion that the 'quality' of a MTB frame is not as important as it is on a road bike. There is a connection between the rider and the road that transfers more directly to the rider than the suspension on a MTB will allow. When climbing, on the MTB you are always going over loose rocks, dirt, sticks and such that causes wheel spin and change in direction, and you are also sitting the majority of the time, especially if you don't have fork lock-out (which I don't) and you have only a couple of hand positions and any rhythym you develop is constantly changing. It is differant climbing on a road bike, where you get into a rhythm with your pedaling, breathing, and position on the bike, and any changes are dictated more by yourself rather than sudden loss of traction or direction. You stand, you sit, you use differant hand positions based on how you feel and the gradient and what your objective is. One of the hardest things I found was learning breathing while racing my MTB. It seemed so differant than on the road what with the unpredictability and thus constantly adjusting everything from postion to gear to place on the trail.
I have found that it doesn't matter too much what type of frame you ride off-road because there are so many other things happening that between the larger tires, the suspension, and the obstacles you are riding over you don't feel that same connection as when you are on the road.
I ride a 1984 Moulton (seen on prodigalchild.net) that I can tell rides differant than all the other frames I've ridden (Pinarello, Olmo, Tesch, Miyata, Follis, Bianchi-all steel frames). Faliero Masi saw me win my first road race in 1979 (Willows, CA) and I remember an interview in 2000 when he was asked what he thought of the diverse materials use in bikes frames. He said something like they don't have the class that steel does.
I think that is something a rider can develop on a road bike. It is a style, class, that makes him unique. It may be the way he sits on the bike, the way he pedals, or his position on the road bike. But it is distinguishable as the rider is individualistic. I don't see the same thing on a MTB.
The maker's influence is inherent in a road bike frame. A very good frame maker, like Dave Moulton, resides in his creations, his frames. I can feel it, just as I can feel a frame that rides differant. This is so glaring on a road frame, but is not so obvious on a MTB frame.
Dave is a real artist, and his book, Prodigal Child makes a point to me that he really loved making bikes just like he loves writing songs. It was a passion he had and it showed in his work. It is the same love that has allowed Lance Armstrong to win again. It is a love that Jan Ulrich is recognizing and now starting to express.
I remember when I was a teenager and my mom came into my room after I had gotten my first racing bike, a 1958 Bianchi Specialissima, and I was staring at it, and she said with much insight, "You really like bikes." I still do.
I will continue to race MTB's, and ride my Moulton and Pinarello because they are part of me and help me be who I am.
We are all so fortunate to be able to ride when we can; to be able to ride such a dream bike as the Moulton makes life a little bit nicer.

And while I do ride a full-suspension bike, I actually didn't get into suspension until 5 years ago. The majority of my MTB experience has been on full-rigids. What you say is true... now... but this was not always the case. One of the things that became lost on the world of mountain biking with the introduction of suspension is the feeling of being more connected to the terrain. For some reason, everyone seems to think that MTBs always had suspension and at some point a nice riding frame became less important than nice riding suspension. The frame simply became something to hold the suspension components in place instead of really contributing to the ride qualities. I think that like me, many seasoned riders who went from full rigid to suspension are now starting to seek the experience that's currently lost on them by riding suspension. I miss my old Nishiki Ariel. My worse cycling mistake was having gotten rid of it. At anyrate, all I know is that my next MTB will be a lightweight full rigid. Mr. Moulton, if you were still making those Fusos, I would definately consider getting one.

Agreed, this is why I only ride hardtail. I appreciate feeling the terrain under my back wheel. Given the front is pretty soft, but hey, that's about how you find mountainbikes anymore.....all of them have at least a suspension fork anymore...with a very slim amount that have solid forks.

I do think frame quality matters on a hardtail though, since you do have to deal with that back wheel, so the frame has to have some give, while still keeping you planted to the ground...even if the ground isn't playing nice with you that day :)

Someday I may play with a solid fork mountain bike though. A singlespeed would be even better, if I want to go back to simplicity, might as well go as far as is reasonable for off-road.

My SOLID fork is staying, I'm doing runs and high speed cornering 5-8 mph over front suspension.

Sure, I get vibro, but it seems way more accurate when I'm tring to take high edges and such on single track.

The wheel is exactly where I put it, and it's always correct in it's weigh, angle in relationship to the bike.

I decided NOT to go suspension on the Ritchey. I do really like front shocks, but not on a HQ steel hardtail.

>jef.

Hi Everyone,
I'm enjoying the historical and technical information that is coming from this thread. I having been riding a 1985 Dave Moulton that is on Dave's website www.ProdigalChild.net (in case you've missed it). I am not a bike techie and I ride for simple pleasure so most of this is new information to me. I thank everyone who is contributing. I want to add one thing that crossed my mind since I am a pilot and have a big interest in aviation things. I see a very real relationship between what goes into designing a plane and designing bikes. High performance aircraft are built light, yet strong, aerodynamic and as efficient as possible in overcoming drag. The same holds true for road bikes, it's just a smaller scale. It is also true that aircraft become less stable as they become more manueverable, the same as in bikes. Utility aircraft are designed stronger and heavier, create more drag, are less efficient yet more stable - like MTBs. Anyway, I'll jump to my conclusion by saying it is not surprising that the greatest invention of the 20th century came from a couple of bike mechanics in Ohio. To paraphrase Col. Walter Cunningham on aircraft design, "if it looks fast, it is fast"... and I think you can say the same about bikes. Of course, not everyone is interested in just speed.

If my memory serves me right this one was a 50cm. (19 ¾ in.) center to top with a 51cm. (20in.) top tube. It was built in Columbus SL (Standard road tubing and lugs.)

As for Tom Ritchey changing his design because of this bike; I doubt it, I only built 50 of them and it wasn’t around long enough to have any impact. If it did I would flattered.



If you do decide on a solid fork make it a traditional curved and tapered fork. It may not look as cool as a big and beefy straight fork, but it has worked on bikes for over a hundred years and I don’t think you can better it. The bend serves two purposes; it gives the fork the rake necessary for correct steering geometry, and a curved and tapered blade has just enough give in it to absorb shock but at the same time give you precise steering.

As for single speed; I wouldn’t go that far, but you might consider a single chianwheel. I used to ride cyclo-cross with a single 48 tooth chainwheel with chain guards on either side to keep the chain from unshipping. I used a 5 speed freewheel 14-16-18-21-25 teeth; as simple as you can get and it worked fine. (This was before 6 and 7 speed became available.)

I can see going to a solid fork, but as Dave mentioned, definately a curved one, not the straight ones you see so common-place. Usually you will see a non-suspension MTB also being a single-speed. I would not ride that, as you need gears for the vastly variable terrain you encounter, unless you mainly ride fire roads.

I have to agree with Dave in that the well-made road bike is a beautiful creation, but I can't see the same beauty in the MTB. My wife's grandfather raced with wooden rims and won the bronze medal in the 1912 Stockholm Olympics (road race), and her father raced six day races in Madison Square Garden on bikes that resemble the same bike I ride now. There is such a rich history behind the road bike, so many legends and stories that make up it's heritage. It is not the same with the MTB.

I don't see myself riding the same MTB I now own 20 years from now, but I will be riding the Moulton 30 years from now, and it won't be the bike that will keep me from riding as best as I can.

The road bikes are a prized possession that have an intrinsic beauty that is unmatched by any MTB I have seen, but the MTB's of today get the job done very well, and I race them because it is so much fun. I don't expect any more from them.

This is where I disagree. I think there is a history behind the MTB. It started out very grass-roots and grew from there. I think there's a definate connection with most people's experience as a youngster starting to ride bikes and MTBing. I mean, everyone I knew as a kid got their bikes out and rode around fields, in the dirt, jumped off stuff, etc. We did it on everything from BMX bikes to single-speed cuisers. It didn't matter. If it had two wheels and we could pedal it, we would ride it. And we often rode it closer to MTBing than strictly road biking. While there may not be as much "pageantry" surrounding MTBing, there is definately a culture. A well made MTB can be as much celebrated as a well made roadbike and there's no reason one shouldn't cherish them equally.

I have a theory; if something is designed right from a practical point of view then it will look right from an aesthetic point of view. I always refer to this as functional art, and it is true of a bridge, a building, boat, or bicycle.

The above Fuso MTB I believe looks fast, but it would look even faster and be faster if the tires were a little narrower. And what spoils the looks of this bike from a purely aesthetic view is the tires, the overall picture is not balanced; all you see are these huge tires.

The mountain bike evolved from the old balloon tire cruiser bikes, which was a bicycle pretending to be a motor-cycle. Some of those old bikes even had fake gas tanks. The fat tires of the old cruiser were for effect not for practicality; everyone knows fat tires make a bike harder to ride.

Some will say the fat tires are needed for traction, but I have ridden cyclo-cross on nobbly sew-up tires about one inch diameter and never had a problem with traction. With lighter tires you can ride higher gears, and it’s higher gears that give you more traction.

It seems to me there is a movement towards simplicity in bikes, I see people interested in single speed and fixed gear bikes. Maybe it’s time to rethink the MTB. Fat tires and shock absorbers are for motor cycles, the MTB is a bicycle, human powered, low revolutions and a lot of instant torque. Maybe designers should start looking toward the road bike for design influences, after all it’s been around for a hundred years; surely it has something to offer.

I see why you think mt.bikes are ugly. Yours sure was, and it's not the tires! Though I remember coveting this bike when it came out!

I think you made a real contribution to bicycling. Thanks for that and thanks for getting out of the way as the sport passed you by.

I think these comments were uncalled for. But since you brought it up, what exactly is it about his MTB that you find ugly?

Well, post pics of the beautiful bikes you build...Oh, you just ride.....O.K..post pics of what you ride.
Rockhopper, Cannondale?...naw, seen em. Don't bother.
That factory stuffs just dull, everybodies got the same.

well compairin Roadbikes to mtb is like compairin a Cadillic to a Jeep lol
Some like the cadillic and some like the jeep
but you cant expect Cadillic to build a jeep
it would have more flare to it and softer ride and such but then it's not really a jeep is it
oh nice lookin Bikes Dave

I think it's more like comparing a sportscar to a Jeep.

The beauty of a good mtb, is it doesn't fold in half when you drop off a cliff.

Those beauty lugs ain't gonna save you now!

You mean like this, Jeff?

Hi Dave. I was admiring your bikes on your site and in the thread you posted on the MTB forum. I'd have to agree with the statement that MTBs are with few exceptions just ugly. Mine is. My roadbike is nice, but not beautiful, although the roadbikes are the place for the beauty to shine. However, I do believe that MTBs can be quite attractive. Here's a bike that is definitely in my future...