Block user
Fantasy
Points: 3906          Rank: 5195
PLAY NOW

Recent

taldfind mikelevy's article
Sep 20, 2018 at 9:01
Sep 20, 2018
The Mechanic's Special - Interbike 2018
I think it is because this article was meant to highlight the lesser known tools.
taldfind pinkbikeaudience's article
Sep 4, 2018 at 3:32
Sep 4, 2018
DH Fantasy League: Prizing Announced for Final Round - Lenzerheide World Championships 2018
Umm, wouldn't World Champs be the 8th of 7 rounds in this contest? According to the contest description above and in previous articles, the bike should have been given away after WC round 7 in Lebresse. Not that I would win the bike either way, I just value integrity.
taldfind RichardCunningham's article
Mar 9, 2018 at 15:47
Mar 9, 2018
Tech Photos from the Pits at the Windrock Pro GRT
No way man, Sram says 39.99 has a far superior weight to stiffness ratio, and makes for stanchions that are 13% slicker. They call it Better Stanchions, or BS for short.
taldfind alexcgevans's article
Feb 10, 2018 at 12:26
Feb 10, 2018
Social Saturday, Attempt Number 2
VitalMTB started producing raw video edits from World Cup DH races, a few months later Pinkbike started doing the same. VitalMTB started adding suspension kinematic analysis information to their bike reviews, a few months later Pinkbike followed suit. VitalMTB took an idea from one of it's sister websites, VitalMX, and started posting "Social Scoops" and now, a few months later, Pinkbike is doing the same. When will Pinkbike start doing a bi-weekly industry insider podcast, test sessions, and create a gear-to-your-house subscription service?
taldfind vernonfelton's article
Dec 9, 2017 at 11:39
Dec 9, 2017
IMBA Opposes Bill to Allow Mountain Bikes in Wilderness
@mosierman: You don't get it, do you? The wants of "non-bike people" are not more important than the wants of "bike people." The wants of "non-e-mtb people" are not more important than the wants of "e-mtb people." The wants on "non-Mexican people" are not more important than the wants of "Mexican people." The wants of "non-gay people" are not more important than the wants of "gay people." The wants of "Christian people" are not more important than the wants of "non-Christian people." And ultimately, the wants of moisierman are only enough to govern the life of moisierman. They are not (and never should be) enough to govern the lives of taldfind or TheOrigianTwoTone. To justly keep bikes out of wilderness, you need more than "Hikers don't want them here." Wilderness is public land, it is not the private property of hikers to manage as they wish. It is co-owned by all Americans, including the bikers, and therefore all have the right to use it.
taldfind vernonfelton's article
Dec 8, 2017 at 21:15
Dec 8, 2017
IMBA Opposes Bill to Allow Mountain Bikes in Wilderness
@mosierman: "so if a study finds that my moto doesnt do any more damage than hiking or pedal-biking it should then be allowed in Wilderness?" Yes, so long as the study meets the strict criteria of a scientific study and it's findings are supported by subsequent studies. This is how consistent, and therefore just, applications of the law work. Horse Back riding is permitted in the wilderness, and as far as I understand the available data, it is the most damaging to the environment of the forms of recreation currently permitted in wilderness areas. That can very easily become the standard used to determine what is, and isn't, permitted within the wilderness. If a form of recreation does more harm, or requires more development to be practiced, than what a horse will do, than it is not permitted. My understanding and memory of how moto bikes fit into the hierarchy of impacts, it does more to erode a trail than a bike or hiker, but less than a horse. It has a similar impact on how it changes the behavior of animals as horses. It has a similar impact on trampling as bikes and horses. And it has a higher impact on water contamination than horses. It also has a much higher impact on noise and air pollution than a horse. Considering all it's impacts, it is currently believed to have a larger impact than a horse. Therefore, it does not meet the most logical (to keep the wilderness act strong) and easily implemented standard for wilderness entry. "As a mtn biker, would you feel you lost something if all of a sudden any motorized vehicle could go on mtn bike trails?" My personal feelings on this are irrelevant. To re-illustrate my previous point: I feel that seeing a moto-bike on the trail ruins my wilderness experience, well that moto guy may feel that my presence is ruining his experience. But his bad mood caused by me does not justify me being banned from using the trail any more than my bad mood caused by him justifies banning his use. "To gain access to Wilderness, mtn bikers are going to need to convince non bike riding people that this is a good thing." Good point. How about that if mountain bikers are allowed into wilderness, then they will have no stake in fighting against any proposed wilderness areas. They will cease to be an enemy to the effort, and will either become neutral or a champion to the cause.
taldfind vernonfelton's article
Dec 8, 2017 at 8:36
Dec 8, 2017
IMBA Opposes Bill to Allow Mountain Bikes in Wilderness
Exaclty how far do you travel on a bike without using the power of your feet?
taldfind vernonfelton's article
Dec 8, 2017 at 0:10
Dec 8, 2017
IMBA Opposes Bill to Allow Mountain Bikes in Wilderness
@gticket: " A machine, bike or helicopter, will only dull the uniquely American experience of a wilderness." In your opinion. For others the best way to experience the wild is from the seat of a bicycle. You do not have the right to dictate how other people experience the wild places that all citizens have a right to experience. It is not the government's place to say who's opinion on how to experience any aspect of life is right or wrong so long as that action by a citizen does not prevent any other citizens from acting as they wish. It does have a right to dictate how much human impact is acceptable within the boundaries of the land it manages. But the only way to justly manage that impact is to manage it consistently. The only way to do that is to use scientific data, and the currently available scientific data comparing the impact of hikers and mountain bikers declares the impacts of each to be very similar, and quite a bit lower than the impact of other forms of recreation that are currently allowed access to wilderness areas. You feel that seeing a bike on the trail ruins your wilderness experience, well that biker may feel that your presence is ruining his experience. But his bad mood caused by you does not justify you being banned from using the trail any more than your bad mood caused by him justifies banning his use.
taldfind vernonfelton's article
Dec 7, 2017 at 22:59
Dec 7, 2017
taldfind vernonfelton's article
Dec 7, 2017 at 22:55
Dec 7, 2017
IMBA Opposes Bill to Allow Mountain Bikes in Wilderness
@Pynchonite: Mountain bikers having the same impact on the environment as hikers is not some misleading viewpoint, it is a fact established by multiple, scientifically sound studies conducted throughout the world. See my comment below to see names of those who conducted the studies. What is misleading is to use shuttling as an example of why bikes are bad for wilderness, when shuttling is impossible to do in wilderness because there are no roads for you to use to shuttle your bike to the top!
Load more...
You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2018. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.064063
Mobile Version of Website