Solution to Bashed Chainrings?

On Jul 16, 11:35*pm, SMS wrote:
On 7/15/2011 10:14 AM, Ronsonic wrote:

This whole conversation is absolutely bizarre to this Floridian. Here the
greatest threat to our wildlands and their flora and fauna are wild / feral
pigs. You can use an army of motorcycles to drive entire herds of horses
each dragging a mountain bike through our forests and marshes and it
wouldn't cause the damage these hogs do. Seriously. This is paper cuts to
chainsaws.

Well in many states, including California, they definitely have problems
with horses. It's not just the enormous trail damage (it's estimated
that one horse does more damage than 50 mountain bikes or 50 hikers),
but the mess, the smell, and the pollution. If we could buy each
equestrian a mountain bike to ride our parks would be much better off.

The problem with MV is that he hasn't studied any science because he
knows that the actual science totally contradicts his position. It's
called "argumentum ad ignorantiam" (argument from ignorance).

Every study shows that the impact of mountain bikers on erosion, plants,
and wildlife is less than or equal to the damage of hikers, and far less
than the damage of horses.

Mountain bikers move through an area quickly, minimizing the time that
they are disrupting wildlife, compared to hikers. Here's a similar
example: today we were kayaking in Elkhorn Slough near Monterey. One of
the volunteer docents that travels around by kayak asked us to move more
quickly through an area with sea otters (we were stopped watching them).
She said that to minimize the disruption to their activities it's better
to go through the area quickly. This is the same thing that mountain
bikers do.

If you knew ANYTHING about the research, you would know that NOT ONE
study addresses moving quickly. You are bluffing. The Wisdom et al
study proved that mountain bikers have more impact on elk than either
hikers or equestrians. Moving quickly didn't help them one bit. Like
ALL mountain bikers, you don't know what you are talking about, and
substitute LIES instead. No surprize there!

Mike Vandeman wrote:

SMS wrote:

Ronsonic wrote:

This whole conversation is absolutely bizarre to this Floridian. Here the
greatest threat to our wildlands and their flora and fauna are wild / feral
pigs. You can use an army of motorcycles to drive entire herds of horses
each dragging a mountain bike through our forests and marshes and it
wouldn't cause the damage these hogs do. Seriously. This is paper cuts to
chainsaws.

Well in many states, including California, they definitely have problems
with horses. It's not just the enormous trail damage (it's estimated
that one horse does more damage than 50 mountain bikes or 50 hikers),
but the mess, the smell, and the pollution. If we could buy each
equestrian a mountain bike to ride our parks would be much better off.

The problem with MV is that he hasn't studied any science because he
knows that the actual science totally contradicts his position. It's
called "argumentum ad ignorantiam" (argument from ignorance).

Every study shows that the impact of mountain bikers on erosion, plants,
and wildlife is less than or equal to the damage of hikers, and far less
than the damage of horses.

Mountain bikers move through an area quickly, minimizing the time that
they are disrupting wildlife, compared to hikers. Here's a similar
example: today we were kayaking in Elkhorn Slough near Monterey. One of
the volunteer docents that travels around by kayak asked us to move more
quickly through an area with sea otters (we were stopped watching them).
She said that to minimize the disruption to their activities it's better
to go through the area quickly. This is the same thing that mountain
bikers do.

If you knew ANYTHING about the research, you would know that NOT ONE
study addresses moving quickly. You are bluffing. The Wisdom et al
study proved that mountain bikers have more impact on elk than either
hikers or equestrians. Moving quickly didn't help them one bit. Like
ALL mountain bikers, you don't know what you are talking about, and
substitute LIES instead. No surprize there!

Crazy mother****er,

Have you not had your fill of the troubles your craziness causes you?
Why don't you leave this stuff to people who can think and act clearly
and responsibly? Go do the things that give you joy, and leave
quarreling about things to people who can be trusted to observe the
rules of social interaction.

Having a crackpot stalker in our group is no fun to us, but it's
surely even less fun to the crackpot. Win the game. Go commune with
nature, instead of hassling other more level-headed folks about it.
Find your favorite quiet spot and take some mindful deep breaths. Go
out and see if you can't feel the life force in a Genista and try to
make contact with it instead of trying to destroy it. Then try to see
that all things can find a rapport with the wilderness within their
own ability to grasp and appreciate it. Not your ability, but
theirs.

As long as their ways comply with common ethical and legal rules, you
are no more correct than they are in the ways you commune with
nature. Have your own way, and leave others to have theirs.

Chalo

On 7/17/2011 3:09 AM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:

SMS wrote:

Well in many states, including California, they definitely have problems
with horses. It's not just the enormous trail damage (it's estimated
that one horse does more damage than 50 mountain bikes or 50 hikers),
but the mess, the smell, and the pollution. If we could buy each
equestrian a mountain bike to ride our parks would be much better off.

Not to mention that the mountain bikers are getting to the trail heads
in vehicles that typically achieve 20 to 30+ mpg, while a truck or
oversize SUV with a gas motor hauling a horse trailer will usually be in
the 6 to 9 mpg range.

The problem with MV is that he hasn't studied any science because he
knows that the actual science totally contradicts his position. It's
called "argumentum ad ignorantiam" (argument from ignorance).

Scary that Vandeman makes Scharf look like a fountain of knowledge and
reason.

Every study shows that the impact of mountain bikers on erosion, plants,
and wildlife is less than or equal to the damage of hikers, and far less
than the damage of horses.

Mountain bikers move through an area quickly, minimizing the time that
they are disrupting wildlife, compared to hikers. Here's a similar
example: today we were kayaking in Elkhorn Slough near Monterey. One of
the volunteer docents that travels around by kayak asked us to move more
quickly through an area with sea otters (we were stopped watching them).
She said that to minimize the disruption to their activities it's better
to go through the area quickly. This is the same thing that mountain
bikers do.

If you knew ANYTHING about the research, you would know that NOT ONE
study addresses moving quickly. You are bluffing. The Wisdom et al
study proved that mountain bikers have more impact on elk than either
hikers or equestrians. Moving quickly didn't help them one bit. Like
ALL mountain bikers, you don't know what you are talking about, and
substitute LIES instead. No surprize there!

Yawn

Crazy mother****er,

Have you not had your fill of the troubles your craziness causes you?
Why don't you leave this stuff to people who can think and act clearly
and responsibly? Go do the things that give you joy, and leave
quarreling about things to people who can be trusted to observe the
rules of social interaction.

Maybe this *is* what gives Vandeman joy?

Having a crackpot stalker in our group is no fun to us, but it's
surely even less fun to the crackpot. Win the game. Go commune with
nature, instead of hassling other more level-headed folks about it.
Find your favorite quiet spot and take some mindful deep breaths. Go
out and see if you can't feel the life force in a Genista and try to
make contact with it instead of trying to destroy it. Then try to see
that all things can find a rapport with the wilderness within their
own ability to grasp and appreciate it. Not your ability, but
theirs.

As long as their ways comply with common ethical and legal rules, you
are no more correct than they are in the ways you commune with
nature. Have your own way, and leave others to have theirs.

I think Mikey V. cares more about spoiling mountain biking than
preserving nature.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 7/17/2011 1:09 AM, Chalo wrote:

snip

As long as their ways comply with common ethical and legal rules, you
are no more correct than they are in the ways you commune with
nature. Have your own way, and leave others to have theirs.

Well stated. If you believe the rules are wrong, or are not being
enforced, work for changes, don't take the law into your own hands and
physically attack anyone. I expect that jail was not a pleasant experience.

The rules about access are not always logical and sometimes should be
changed. I.e., both hikers and mountain bikers would like to see greatly
reduced access for equestrians, but the equestrians are generally
well-connected and wealthy, and get their way.

The big expansion of mountain biking should take place in national parks
outside the heavily used core area. Let's get kids out from in front of
the video games and out on mountain bikes. Not only will it get them
some exercise, it builds a future constituency for the national parks.

Since all the experts agree that mountain bicycling is no more damaging
to trails or wildlife than hiking, there is no reason to have such
limits on mountain biking in national parks.

On Jul 17, 9:53*am, SMS wrote:
snipity
Since all the experts agree that mountain bicycling is no more damaging
to trails or wildlife than hiking, there is no reason to have such
limits on mountain biking in national parks.

"Experts" other than Mikey, you mean?

On 7/17/2011 10:53 AM, SMS wrote:
On 7/17/2011 1:09 AM, Chalo wrote:

snip

As long as their ways comply with common ethical and legal rules, you
are no more correct than they are in the ways you commune with
nature. Have your own way, and leave others to have theirs.

Well stated. If you believe the rules are wrong, or are not being
enforced, work for changes, don't take the law into your own hands and
physically attack anyone. I expect that jail was not a pleasant experience.

The rules about access are not always logical and sometimes should be
changed. I.e., both hikers and mountain bikers would like to see greatly
reduced access for equestrians, but the equestrians are generally
well-connected and wealthy, and get their way.

The big expansion of mountain biking should take place in national parks
outside the heavily used core area. Let's get kids out from in front of
the video games and out on mountain bikes. Not only will it get them
some exercise, it builds a future constituency for the national parks.

Since all the experts agree that mountain bicycling is no more damaging
to trails or wildlife than hiking, there is no reason to have such
limits on mountain biking in national parks.

I agree with your points, but I think there's a dark side to mountain
biking. I don't think, in most locales, it's a wildlife disruption or
erosion issue, but yahoo bikers disturbing other area visitors. I've
seen trail damage caused by riders treating sensitive areas like
amusement rides, but as you say, I've seen as much impact from other
groups. I don't see the problem of downhill thrill seekers riding lifts
or pedaling up summit roads to bomb downhill ski areas, which are
generally little more than bulldozer created meadows, but the same group
on the hiking trails is a different matter. Mountain bikers have the
potential to at least frighten hikers, if not even injure them in a
collision. Their garish outfits and equipment are also jarring -- an
aesthetic impression sure, but many people seek these areas just for an
aesthetic experience. Peace, quiet and beauty need to be protected, too.

If done responsibly, mountain biking can be no more disruptive to man or
nature that hiking or kayaking, but it often doesn't play out that way.
I'm vehemently opposed to every kind of off-road bicycle racing, as
something of an oxymoron, something that gets me a lot of blank looks
from my MTB brethren. Mountain bikers need to be honest about their
behavior and values and make some necessary changes. With its historical
"gonzo" orientation, people are justified in finding it inappropriate in
many settings and restricting it. It doesn't have to be that way. For
the most part, I like mountain biking well enough, but I, too, don't
care much for mountain bikers.

More than a decade ago, when I used to ride with "the guys", one of the
more perceptive members remarked: "I don't think I'd like to run into us
in the woods". True words, and I changed my style shortly thereafter. We
should all change until we're benign enough that we wouldn't mind
encountering ourselves. I don't think that's too much to ask.

On 7/17/2011 10:54 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]Mountain bikers have the
potential to at least frighten hikers, if not even injure them in a
collision. Their garish outfits and equipment are also jarring -- an
aesthetic impression sure, but many people seek these areas just for an
aesthetic experience. Peace, quiet and beauty need to be protected, too.
[...]

Depends on whether or not the area allows hunting. Wearing clothes that
blend in can get you shot by a trigger-happy nimrod.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Peter Cole wrote:

If done responsibly, mountain biking can be no more disruptive to man or
nature that hiking or kayaking, but it often doesn't play out that way.

I hate it when, while fly fishing in apparent seclusion, some garish and
loud group of white water thrill seekers goes floating past. The fish
dart for cover too.

Too bad I don't own the river.

--
JS.

Mike Vandeman wrote:

There is no right to bring a bike onto a trail.

Correction, Mike Vandeman has no right to use a trail.

On Jul 17, 8:54*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 7/17/2011 10:53 AM, SMS wrote:





On 7/17/2011 1:09 AM, Chalo wrote:

snip

As long as their ways comply with common ethical and legal rules, you
are no more correct than they are in the ways you commune with
nature. Have your own way, and leave others to have theirs.

Well stated. If you believe the rules are wrong, or are not being
enforced, work for changes, don't take the law into your own hands and
physically attack anyone. I expect that jail was not a pleasant experience.

The rules about access are not always logical and sometimes should be
changed. I.e., both hikers and mountain bikers would like to see greatly
reduced access for equestrians, but the equestrians are generally
well-connected and wealthy, and get their way.

The big expansion of mountain biking should take place in national parks
outside the heavily used core area. Let's get kids out from in front of
the video games and out on mountain bikes. Not only will it get them
some exercise, it builds a future constituency for the national parks.

Since all the experts agree that mountain bicycling is no more damaging
to trails or wildlife than hiking, there is no reason to have such
limits on mountain biking in national parks.

I agree with your points, but I think there's a dark side to mountain
biking.

BS. It's ALL dark side. There's NOTHING good about mountain biking,
even for the mountain bikers themselves. They are all PRETENDING to be
having fun, as they break bones or even DIE.

I don't think, in most locales, it's a wildlife disruption or
erosion issue,

BS. Mountain bikers like to ride in natural areas, i.e., wildlife
habitat. Bike tires ALWAYS create V-shaped ruts. Sometimes faster,
sometimes slower.

but yahoo bikers disturbing other area visitors. I've
seen trail damage caused by riders treating sensitive areas like
amusement rides, but as you say, I've seen as much impact from other
groups. I don't see the problem of downhill thrill seekers riding lifts
or pedaling up summit roads to bomb downhill ski areas, which are
generally little more than bulldozer created meadows, but the same group
on the hiking trails is a different matter. Mountain bikers have the
potential to at least frighten hikers, if not even injure them in a
collision. Their garish outfits and equipment are also jarring -- an
aesthetic impression sure, but many people seek these areas just for an
aesthetic experience. Peace, quiet and beauty need to be protected, too.

You are talking about stuff that mountain bikers neither understand
nor care about.

If done responsibly, mountain biking can be no more disruptive to man or
nature that hiking or kayaking,

BS. Mountain biking is INHERENTLY irresponsible.

but it often doesn't play out that way.
I'm vehemently opposed to every kind of off-road bicycle racing, as
something of an oxymoron, something that gets me a lot of blank looks
from my MTB brethren. Mountain bikers need to be honest about their
behavior and values and make some necessary changes. With its historical
"gonzo" orientation, people are justified in finding it inappropriate in
many settings and restricting it. It doesn't have to be that way. For
the most part, I like mountain biking well enough, but I, too, don't
care much for mountain bikers.

More than a decade ago, when I used to ride with "the guys", one of the
more perceptive members remarked: "I don't think I'd like to run into us
in the woods". True words, and I changed my style shortly thereafter.

No one in their right mind wants to encounter a bike in the woods. If
we wanted to be around bikes & other big, fast-moving pieces of
MACHINERY, we would stay in the ciity! DUH!

We
should all change until we're benign enough that we wouldn't mind
encountering ourselves. I don't think that's too much to ask.

You are right. So don't allow bikes off-road. QED