Hank Rearden

No to both. You just posted something that was incredibly ridiculous based upon my experience, and the experience of the folks I ride with.

Yes to all of the above. I carry the neccessary layers/gear in a Camelbak. Remember that guy (you) who claimed that "You can't really carry extra clothes and other gear in a CamelBak."?

Yes. And as an added bonus, I'm not limited to relatively poor brakes and I don't have a bike with compromised handling that's bogged down to the point that I can't have as much fun while logging those miles.

You need to pay more attention to your own arguments. You're the one who claimed that clothes/gear couldn't be carried in a Camelbak.

Backpacks have these things called "compression straps." If you tighten them your load won't hit you in the head when riding drops. You should try it sometime...

One of my bikes has eyelets. My other two bikes don't have eyelets. They serve different purposes and eyelets wouldn't be work on the bikes that lack them.

The presence or absence of eyelets doesn't neccesarily hurt/help my riding. But that is another one of your goofy tangents. The topic of discussion is your ridiculous claims about Camelbaks not being able to carry clothes/gear.

What you do has absolutely nothing to do with my image. That's a red herring. The discussion has been about linear pull brakes vs. disc brakes. You're the one that made the absolutely ******** claim that a disadvantage of a bike with discs was that you can't carry clothing/gear in a Camelbak.

I'm also a roadie and I think your stereotype is almost a dumb as your Camelbak claim.

Why am I a poser(sic) because you think that clothes/gear can't be carried in a Camelbak?

CrashVector

My bike is a Kona Dawg Deluxe with HAYES nine disk brakes.
Wife's bike is a Trek 3900 with Shimano Acera linear brakes

My current tires: Serfas Vermin
Wife's tires: Bontrager ConnectionTrail B's

Yes. Wife bike = cheap POS in my opinion. I can trash it and buy another the same day. My wife and I ride the exact same setup.

Yep. If I were not riding in wet conditions or doing serious hardcore riding, I would prefer to spend the money on other components and just get linear brakes instead. I stand by my statement that 90% or better of mountain bikers do not need disc brakes...they just perceive they are better and therefore want them. I, on the other hand, commonly frequent trails that run through water, ride in the rain, take serious hills, etc. Disc brakes for me are more of a factor of being able to stop in case I warp a rim after a big hit, considering where I ride, not being able to stop in that situation could mean a ride home in an ambulance.

In my experience, disc brakes are actually easier to maintain. I bled mine out of the DOT3 fluid they came with, and refilled them with synthetic DOT4. Other than that, you just ride. They pretty much adjust themselves.

badsac

Yup. That's pretty much me. I have no problems with modulation with the front Juicy 5 on my new bike. The back is just too grabby. I can't balance the bike in corners near as well as I used to be able to on my old bike with rim brakes. So I end up skidding more where I don't need to.

BTW, the person who earlier said they have to think about stopping with their rim braked bike, that's because you're stepping from one type to the other. If you only rode the rim jobbie, you'd get used to it so you wouldn't have to think about it.

blue_neon

You just need to have control with hyrdraullic brakes. I havn't yet had a problem with 'skidding' or accidnelty locking up the rear wheel, you just need to back off a bit when braking....

never

This sums it up right here. It's because you are used to mechanical v-brakes so you're accustomed to needing more lever travel (and more hand force) to make the bike stop. Hydraulics require less movement (and a lot less force) so initially, it feels like there is no control between on/off. Once you get used to them, you should have the level of control required to modulate the braking force. You don't need additional hand strength to stop hard and the hand pressure required to stop is consistent throughout the range. With v-brakes, your stopping ability was dependent on how hard you applied pressure, whereas with hydraulics, it depends on how much you move the lever. And again, once you get used to them, you'll find it's a lot easier to modulate brake pressure because of the reduced hand force required to stop.

If someone was to learn to ride only on a hydraulic brake equipped bike, they would wonder what the hell everyone was complaining about (with respect to hydros).

never

When I ride, I like to push myself to the edge of my ability. If you are pushing yourself when you ride, chances are good that will need to stop aggressively on occasion.

Maelstrom 

haha...ya..I meant rim...sometimes I type what I thought I thunk...

Maelstrom 

Unless your brakes are setup wrong, there is tonnes of modulation in juicy's. Especially when I compare it to my 3 different hayes.

never

What? Are you are saying that you don't consider the increased power an advantage or that hydraulic discs are less powerful than rim brakes? Have you ridden a bike with good hydraulic discs and a bike with a good v-brake setup?

And road bikes do use caliper brakes but riding a road route is nothing like riding a singletrack trail.

Maelstrom 

I must say this brings me back to 3 years ago when there was a thread a week about this. V's vs hydros. This has been overdone and I tend to agree partially with everyone.

90% of the people that have hydros don't need them, they do end up being a bling thing imo.
Under the right circumstances hydros are better at power and modulation. There may be some hype to it, but for those of us who fill the 10% who need it, 5% improvement in either makes a big difference.
Good v's are good enough. Heck My gf's tekros are fine for a commuter. They stop...slow down and go through pads once a year or something.

Personally, being used to hydros I would never go back to v's. The way I ride and the decents plus speed I ride at they would not last long. I burn through 2 disc pads (on the front) per day on whistler mountain if I do the full 30 runs possible. I would hate to see that number on rubber.

badsac

Yeah, there is tonnes. But less than good V's.

I'm not sure why this is a concept that's hard to grasp. All things being equal, if it takes more effort to lock up a wheel with V's then you're going to have a wider range of lever effort available to modulate ***********, hence making it easier to manage the amount of braking force required.

Perhaps it's peoples riding profiles that are dictating their bias. If a V brake wont do the job for a downhiller then it's hard to think of it's ability to modulate braking effort for someone like an XC'er who might have differrent requirements?

Maelstrom 

Its not hard to grasp, and you just pulled me in. You obviously can't grasp the fact that the pressure built from a sealed system doesn't require the force to lock up as it would a v brake. The build up of pressure assists in that. And if setup properly you can have tonnes of modulation, which wasn't my point with the statement you quoted.

Further to that point, the speed a dhillers or even a freeriders wheel is moving will generally be faster. (I don't know many xc guys hitting the speeds of dhillers, if I am wrong I am sorry) so the force required is substantially more. So when I say juicy's have more power I speak from that experience. When I say v's don't, I am speaking from my POV. Going 20k to 45k (I have heard peaks higher speeds but don't hit those myself) down a mountain is real proving ground for v's. You will loose almost all modulation as you will burn through rubber at which point you can't stop. So yes this applies to my position which I CLEARLY stated as someone who rides downhill, even my xc trails generally have 3000ft descent so I still need the longevity and stopping power, especially since I am near a temperate rainforest.

So pressure from hand being equal my statement still stands. My point was to the person who claimed to have problems with his juicy's. It was likely a setup problems specific to that issue. My point was to that, I didn't feel like getting pulled into an argument that is 4 years old and beat to death by a bunch of people who want to be right and aren't willing to give in either direction.

Can you grasp that or do I need to spell it out some more?

cyccommute 

Agreed. But knowing how to stop and knowing your bike are far more important than just having the raw power to do it. I'm a very agressive rider; always have been. I also have never shot off a trail or gone off a cliff because my brakes didn't do the job. No bike I have ever owned has ever had brakes that wouldn't stop me when I needed to stop...even back in the very old days of sidepull brakes for road bikes!

cyccommute 

I'd have to disagree. Try hauling down a touring bike loaded with 50+ pounds of gear during a 50 mph descent off of Trail Ridge Road or the east side of Loveland Pass all the way to Georgetown or the west side of Lolo Pass or even the stupid short but very steep hills in Souix City, Iowa (about a 300 foot drop in a block followed by a 300 foot climb to get out of the hole ) All done with cantilevers by the way.

I've never run across a singletrack that makes that kind of demand on the braking system and I've ridden in some pretty gnarly places.

cyccommute 

That were me Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it), I have 9 different bikes and they all have different brake systems. Eight are cable actuated and one is hydraulic. The hydraulic is the only one that really gives me headaches - mild ones- but...

cyccommute 

"Your experience". Not mine. I

Perhaps I should have said "I" can't (and don't what to) carry extra clothes, yada yada. You took it the wrong way. Perhaps I took your comeback as an insult but go back and reread it. You came off as a little strong.


I'm not limited by poor brakes either (my argument all along) nor is my bike handling compromised by a rack. I find having that much junk on my back compromises my enjoyment. I'd like somewhere else to put it but bike makers don't want to give us that option because it would make their bikes too 'freddish' if they were to add a little tab.

No. I'm the one who said I didn't want to carry my stuff in a Camelbak. You are the one who is claiming that I "have to" carry my stuff in a Camelbak. I would rather not but because the great Mr. Rearden has spoken...

Oh thank you for point out what those straps are for. I always wondered but I guess I'm just too stupid to understand.

And why wouldn't eyelets work on the bikes that don't have them? Is there something unsafe about adding them? Do they compromise the strength of the bike? Or just the image?

The lack of eyelets was an aside (that you seem to be overly focused on) about a pet peeve of mine. I like having somewhere, other than my back, to put stuff. What's wrong with that?

Now you are just being insulting. I am sorry that you took it the wrong way. I should have said "I" "don't" want to carry my stuff in a Camelbak. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about how you carry your stuff. I'd like the option to carry stuff the way "I" like to carry it. But because of "image" I don't have the option. I have to resort to band-aids like seat post racks or other options.

You are a poser (which is the correct spelling by the way) because you think that what is good enough for you is good enough for everyone else. Or at least that is how you have come across.

I like options. I like to do things my own way. I don't tell people that they can't do something just because I don't do it that way. I also don't like people telling me that I "have" to do something their way. I may have said "you can't carry everything you need in a Camelbak" but, taken in context, I don't think I said, or meant, that I was going to send the Camelbak police after you. No one else took it that way. I'm pretty sure that most people took it as a personal statement not as a personal affront.

cryptid01

Wooo Wooo Wooo! <grammar police come sliding in>

Webster's prefers "poseur", at least in the manner it appears you're trying to use it.

And to weigh in on the V's v. Discs argument, cyccommute, it's kind of like religion IMHO- it's whatever works for you. But please don't let your admitted closed-minded-retro-grouchiness fool you into thinking that disks are a "fashion statement" or that they are not superior to V's in almost every aspect of braking as it relates to mountain bike control, e.g. power, reliability, modulation, effectiveness in adverse environmental conditions, and perhaps most significantly, required effort at the lever as it relates to rider fatigue.

dminor 

I don't know why I am weighing in on this now (and many of you will probably roll their eyes and ask the same thing ). My experience has followed the old motocross axiom: "The faster you can stop, the faster you can go." So, better braking power will (once you hone the art of using it) eventually make you a faster rider. Then modulation is easily achieved by the number of fingers on the lever. If you have REAL powerful brakes, you can afford the luxury of one-fingering them.

mx_599

yup

Hank Rearden

How the hell else is someone supposed to take this statement?

"You can't really carry extra clothes and other gear in a CamelBak."



How do you propose that bike manufacturers add rack eyelets to full suspension bikes and suspension forks? You can't really believe that they don't add them due to aesthetic reasons, can you?


No, you are the one that claimed that one couldn't carry stuff in a Camelbak. There's a big difference.


No problem. I'm glad I could help you out!

Please explain how you would suggest that manufacturers would add eyelets to the myriad of full suspension bikes that are available. Once you're done with that, explain how a rack would work with eyelets attached to a full suspension fork.

This assumes of course that riders would be willing to severely compromise the handling of their mountain bikes. Emphasis on "mountain bikes."

So I'm a poseur (check Webster) because you made the outrageous claim that ""You can't really carry extra clothes and other gear in a CamelBak" and because I can, and do, carry lots of gear, quite successfully, in a Camelbak.

Got it.

I think that part of the disconnect here is that you like to tour. Looking at the links in your sig, that riding is about as far from what I call "mountain biking" as one could get. It also explains why you think that linear pull brakes are as good as (or even better than) disc brakes.

The areas that I mountain bike and the trails that I mountain bike on are not places where adding weight to your frame (even if it was possible to add racks to my frames) is desirable. Trail clearance issues, weight distribution problems, hardware durability, poor bike handling etc. are reasons why the mountain bikers that I know wouldn't even consider moving their gear froma Camelbak to a frame rack (again, if it was possible).

cyccommute 

[snip]

I didn't want to respond anymore to this thread because we are getting too far away from the issue at hand but there are some things here than just need to be addressed.

All of the manufacturers have these guys that work for them. They are called engineers. Engineers design stuff. And engineer can easily design any structure to accept any other structure. It's what they do. I'm not an engineer (but I know a lot of them) but show me any bike - any bike - and I could probably tell you where and how to put a rack eyelet on it. It wouldn't cost much, it wouldn't compromise the structural integrity of the bike and it probably wouldn't even look half bad.

How, exactly, does a rack carrying 15 to 20 pounds of load "severely compromise the handling of ... [a] 'mountain bike'"? I've ridden lots and lots of miles with mine and never felt that I was going to lose control of my bike.


From Dictionary.com

pos·er1 n.
One who poses.
A poseur.

You seem to be the one who is telling me that I'm not a "real" mountain biker because I don't do things the way you do. I already said I mistated and should have said that "I" don't want to carry extra gear there. But there again, I guess I'm not a "real" mountain biker.

So? I also like to ride to work, ride on the road, ride a mountain bike - both epically and singletrack, and I like to tour - both on- and off-road. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Because I do those other things does that make me not a "real" mountain bike rider? Because you don't tour does that mean you aren't a "real" bicycle rider?

For your information, I have a very long mountain bike pedigree. I have over 80,000 lifetime miles of riding bicycles, over half of it is on mountain bikes. I have owned a Miayata Ridge Runner, a Bianichi Grizzly, a Specialized Rock Combo, a Specialized Hard Rock, a Specialized Rockhopper, a Trek of some kind, a KHS Alite 3000, a Stumpjumper Pro (1998), another Stumpjumper Pro (2003) and a Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Elite. (Eleven mountain bikes if you are counting) Is that enough to make me a "real" mountain biker?

Need more? I've ridden my moutain bike to 13,500 feet; I've done up to, and including, 100 mile off-road rides on a mountain bike; I don't come down hills like some kind of scared newbie (fastest I've ever gone off-road is 45 mph); I know-and have been on- just about every trail- flat, steep, high, low - within a 50 mile radius of Denver; and I've done it all with a rack and trunk bag on my bike. Never noticed that I can't handle my bike because of it.

Now, is that enough for you, Mr. Rearden or do you need a list of broken bones (I can give it to you), bruises (I could probably come up with something), scars (I could provide pictures), broken bike frames and broken parts?

Am I a "real" enough mountain biker for you or can you just dismiss me as only a "tourist"?

PCS2

hey ccyco,

you might just want to look at hank's post history and look at the type of comments he usually gives. That might give you an indication at what you are dealing with.

I wouldn't get too worked up about anything he says or even respond given his standard replies. I find your info to be pretty spot on if that helps

Speaking of which, since this thread has already been jacked to hell, my wife and I are going to be making a trip out to CO soon (our last one got put on hold....we had tickets and everything!). Looking forward to hitting up some of the trails!

Nice pics btw, I really liked the secnd set!

Hank Rearden

So you weld some eyelets on the back of a Horst link frame. You mount part of the rack to those bits. Now what do you do? How do you attach that moving structure to the relatively sationary frame? That's just one example.

Perhaps we have different riding styles and/or prefer different types of terrain. Adding two ten pound weights to each of my fork legs would severely compormise my bikes' handling and would sap a great deal of the fun out of my rides.

The same goes for adding that kind of weight to the chainstays.

You seem to be hung up on the "fred" thing and now the "real mountain biker" thing.

It sounds like you've ridden a fair bit. Great. I'm sure you had fun and will continue to have fun. At the same time, arguing that adding that kind of weight to a bicycle and will not compromise it's handling is far fetched. Arguing that manufacturers don't add tabs solely for aesthetic reasons is equally far fetched.

Pretending that there would be an easy engineering and manufacturing solution to adding eyelets that would accept a rack to full suspension bikes is wishful thinking. Add to that the simple fact that it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (microscopic market demand) and I understand why manufacturers haven't "fixed" the problem that you have with "modern" bikes.

Finally...even if your wish was magically, and miraculously, granted, and based solely upon the trail rash that I see on many mountain bikes that have been ridden on challenging mountain bike trails, the racks wouldn't survive long (assuming of course that people would actually use them as oppossed to the much easier Camelbak solution).

Maelstrom 

I have to say, I do agree with this overall assessment. Again it comes down to what you use your mountain bike for. A mountain bike is built and designed to be ridden on trails. Ideally any trail rider I know avoids roads, fireroads and anything beyond a technical double track. Commuting on a mountain bike doesn't make you a mountain biker, it makes you a commuter on a mountain bike. The lack of eyelets isn't the problem of the manufacturer but a problem with the misuse of a product. IT does sound like you have cornered an uncreated market cyclo, someone who commutes with lots of stuff on trails and in the mountains. Kudos to you, but of the 100's of riders I know from dhillers to endurance racers, none feel the need to use anything beyond a camleback and most would like have the same concerns as Hank, the parts just wouldn't last on anything remotely rugged.

It would be like buying a f1 car and complaining there is no room for groceries.

That said, there likely is a market, but so small that manufacturers can't see a reason to make mountain bikes into commuters when there already is a commuter sub section of bikes.

Have you ever considered getting into manufacturing. I bet it would not be to difficult to engineer after market attachable eyelets to a bike. I still think there would durability issues but if you could make it work it could have a nice niche market to sell in.

dminor 

We had a local female (I'm not stereotyping here, it's just a gender fact) auto reviewer for the newspaper who would roadtest agro sports cars, then complain about the lack of cupholders.