What is a Mountain Bike?

[Mike Muz]

Bikes precede paved roads. Do we need to have this silly discussion again?

Indeed,

Look at old Tour de France footage, and you will see riders pedalling over mountains on unpaved roads.

Obviously, depending on your definition of unpaved.

Mike

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

Re:

Does this bike from 1961 qualify as form of mountain bike?
http://www.woodfill.com/Personal/BlackJ ... hStuff.pdf

 

[Featch]

I had a mountain bike in 1966. We called them "trackers" but they had the key features of later incarnations.

 

[DrJo]

yessum andy you are that old...

 

[Featch]

Re:

Thank you Jo!

 

[petitpal]

Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but I think maybe the original question was more about what we think defines a mountain bike rather than necessarily pulling apart the quote. It's a tricky one really - it feels like a similar question to: 'what's the difference between a pony and a small horse?' If you show me either I can probably tell you which is which but I would struggle to define why on paper.

As someone else has pointed out - when you look at what road bikes can be put through (particularly over the cobbles in Belgium) you'd have to say that they're probably tougher than a lot of our beloved MTBs from BITD. And when you think about what cyclocross bikes get up to - really it's not that different to what I used to do on XC races back in the 90's. Neither of them look like a 'mountain bike' to me though. So it's not about solidity or capability, necessarily.

In theory most bikes could 'get up a mountain'. The klunkers got up to the top by van, from the pictures I've seen and from what I've read (happy to be corrected on that!) - so by the definition of, 'capable of being got to the top of a mountain by hook or by crook' pretty much any bike fits the generic term; assuming you want it to.

I think what this has got me thinking now though (which is a bugger because I should be concentrating on bug fixing today!) is: what makes my Zaskar a mountain bike and my fold up shopper just a normal bike. I guess the term, 'Mountain Bike' itself /could/ be applied to a specific set of criteria (which might be what the OP and original quote is hinting at) vs any bike we ride off road and call a kind of mountain bike.

I think I need to let this pound around my head for a while So I'm going to shut up now, before I get fired, and let my thoughts congeal for a while!

Edit: Just thinking about it I think the Klunkers in a van was more the Repack race than the general case (before I get bombarded! )

 

[petitpal]

OK so my current line of thinking is if we see the term 'Mountain Bike' to mean, 'bikes that came out of the original Californian MTB movement or those that derive from them' then that's sort of working for me - sort of. Which doesn't mean that no other bikes can ride off road, ride up mountains or whatever - but they aren't Mountain Bikes (captial M, capital B) because they don't come out of that tradition. Doesn't mean they aren't just as valid or capable - they just don't get the tag. Still a WIP though!

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but I think maybe the original question was more about what we think defines a mountain bike rather than necessarily pulling apart the quote.

You are right, the quote was just there to help focus the discussion.

I started the thread after I learned that the Marin Mountain Bike Hall of Fame have introduced criteria as to who can be nominated based on the specifics of the bike they are associated with. In particular they are ruling out anyone who's bike tyres are less than 2 inches wide.

This is in contrast to the original Crested Butte MTB Hall of Fame who would allow anyone to be nominated and then leave it to their members to decide who should be inducted in the ballot. This creates a problem as there are already people inducted into the hall of fame who used narrower tyres.

This started me thinking about what a 'mountain bike' actually is. A form of safety bicycle yes, but what differentiates it from other safety bicycles? This is a tricky question, especially when you consider that the 'mountain bike' has diversified in order to adapt for the various disciplines and is ever-evolving.

I was interested to hear what other people think a mountain bike is.

In by head own head I relate the term back to the first Ritchey bike design, however modern mountain bikes are very different in terms of both look and spec.
Maybe defining it anymore than 'A safety bicycle modified in some way for off-road use' is futile?

 

[petitpal]

I still think that I'm seeing the term 'Mountain Bike' as a proper noun that encompasses bikes that came out of the Marin tradition - a modern full suspension is still more alike, to my eye, to an early Ritchey MTB than it is to a road bike - even if that road bike were used off road, or to climb a mountain. Even though we may have had, and indeed have, lots of bikes used off road from all sorts of generations - as per your 1930's photo - they aren't 'Mountain Bikes' in the proper sense. I'm not saying they are necessarily any better or worse - they just from a different tradition. Maybe to come back to my earlier analogy they are ponies rather than small horses.

Broadly then I think I'm leaning towards anything ridden off road fitting in to your, 'a safety bicycle modified in some way for off-road use' but some of those bikes being 'Mountain Bikes' (in the Marin tradition sense).

 

[legrandefromage]

Early production 'All Terrain Bikes' were more sturdy tourer related than anything else.

Lug and tubing options were limited, customising these would have been expensive for mass production until new options came along.

Many tourers can do most of what the 'MTB' is supposed to do, especially pre WWII 650b stuff.

This wouldnt take a lot to start looking like an 'MTB'