What is a Mountain Bike?

[petitpal]

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'

Agreed - I think my argument though is that it's not a 'Mountain Bike' as I would understand it just because it doesn't come out of the Marin tradition. Doesn't mean it's not capable or solid - I'm thinking of 'Mountain Bike' more as a brand name (well not exactly - but hopefully you see my point! )

 

[Woz]

....one of those discussions again. No harm to knock about some thoughts.

Good post by petitpal, and his analogy of a pony vs small horse got be thinking. Of course a pony
is a younger horse rather than a dwarf horse. Anyhow, due to marketing and our conditioning it
is rather easy to recognise what a MTB is and distinguise it to what it isn't; albeit perhaps not
universally defined.

Fundamentally, I would say an MTB is optimised for off-road use. Nothing to do with
at least 2" tyre width (my favorite Panaracer mud tyres are 1.75" :!: ) or wheel dimension or flat bars.

A road bike is optimised for aerodynamics, a porteur optimised for carrying loads, a fat bike
optimised for traction, a touring bike optimised for comfortable long distance riding and so fourth.

A blurry line perhaps are CX bikes, but really a true thougherbread CX bike is a strictly
optimised race machine: to do a mass start race lasting about an hour, typically in winter,
with mud with a few obstacles to sholder the bike. They are light weight, and have no bottle cages.

Needless to say, the above definitions can be picked apart - does a MTB with road slicks remain a MTB?

Personally I would say no, but neither does it become a road bike.

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

...I think my argument though is that it's not a 'Mountain Bike' as I would understand it just because it doesn't come out of the Marin tradition. Doesn't mean it's not capable or solid - I'm thinking of 'Mountain Bike' more as a brand name (well not exactly - but hopefully you see my point! )

This is where the lines really blur. As around 1978 Marin MTB pioneer John Finley-Scott took the above photo of his 1961 British built Roughstuff bike to Tom Ritchey and 'tasked' him to build a version of it. The resulting bike would have looked something like this 650b Ritchey. These bikes were also entered into Marin Cyclocross races:


Here's a version with straight bars and Finnish 'Hakka' tyres fitted:

 

[Woz]

The resulting bike would have looked something like this 650b Ritchey. These bikes were also entered into Marin Cyclocross races:

What is interesting with CX at a local amature level even today, is that almost "anything goes" - even flat
bars and MTBs. This probably as something to do with the origins of having a bit of fun in winter and
trying to keep fit.

When the UCI get's involved with Pro or World Championships, it's more strict with regulations about tyre
width etc. Always as been as far as I can recall.

That Ritchey, while capable to do a CX, IMHO it is not really specifically designed for one. For a start, a
triple ring with a FD would be a waste of time with a heavy weight penalty.

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

That Ritchey, while capable to do a CX, IMHO it is not really specifically designed for one. For a start, a
triple ring with a FD would be a waste of time with a heavy weight penalty.

According to the letter bellow they seem to have done well at the National Cyclocross championships:


I also have a letter that says that they came 6th the year before.

 

[legrandefromage]

But its not 1st though. 5th isnt really anything, especially 6th.

Well, according to my parents anyway.

 

[petitpal]

Could you argue though that those early Ritcheys, and their counterparts, diverged in one direction while other areas evolved in a different route. So although you can trace the lineage back to a similar starting point, it's actually the direction of travel they took that defines where they belong in the 'offroad', 'MTB' or 'Mountain Bike' camps?

And LGF - 5th would have been a dream when I were a lad. Cardboard box? I should have been so lucky...

 

[petitpal]

Actually, Graham, reading your letter (which I singularly failed to do before, sorry) sort of lends weight to my argument, I think. What I notice is how Charles Kelly uses the term "Mountain Bike" in quotes - indicating that it's a new term that not everybody will understand. Which makes me think actually while lots of bikes developed for off road use, in their own ways, and maybe started at similar points, "Mountain Bikes" come from that US tradition. And you can see how as the Ritchey (and so on) bikes developed they turned into what we tend to think of as "Mountain Bikes" today - as opposed to cyclocross, or whatever, that largely kept the same sort of 'road bike with grip' feel (just my random thoughts, as usual!)

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

Could you argue though that those early Ritcheys, and their counterparts, diverged in one direction while other areas evolved in a different route. So although you can trace the lineage back to a similar starting point, it's actually the direction of travel they took that defines where they belong in the 'offroad', 'MTB' or 'Mountain Bike' camps?

I think that this demonstrates that at this point the various camps were interbreeding and as in nature this can lead onto healthier and more diverse offspring.
Whether this means that the resulting 26" Ritchey mountain bikes represent an optimal point in the evolution of the mountain bike or just one stage in an ongoing process is debatable. However there is no denying the classic design status and commercial success of the Ritchey design.

On the downside the international commercial success of Ritchey clone bikes lead to the end of at least one of the off-road traditions that contributed to its gene pool. In particular the British 'Tracker' bike tradition which dates back to the 1940s. Not that the 'Tracker' bike riders stopped riding, as most of them moved on to riding BMX, mountain bikes or motorbikes.

 

[Woz]

Actually, Graham, reading your letter (which I singularly failed to do before, sorry) sort of lends weight to my argument, I think. What I notice is how Charles Kelly uses the term "Mountain Bike" in quotes - indicating that it's a new term that not everybody will understand. Which makes me think actually while lots of bikes developed for off road use, in their own ways, and maybe started at similar points, "Mountain Bikes" come from that US tradition. And you can see how as the Ritchey (and so on) bikes developed they turned into what we tend to think of as "Mountain Bikes" today - as opposed to cyclocross, or whatever, that largely kept the same sort of 'road bike with grip' feel (just my random thoughts, as usual!)

I noted the "MountainBikes" in quotes too. That says a lot really.

Perhaps CK is reading this and could butt in with any comments;
- would be interesting to know more precisely what the UCI had to say back in the day and fuss over
to concern them it wasn't a CX bike.
- was it the 1981 Championships in Pacifica CA?