Solution to Bashed Chainrings?

On Jul 19, 11:54*pm, RobertH wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:00 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly
"scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and
dishonest.

I read these and they didn't seem all that fatally biased or
dishonest:

IMPACTS OF EXPERIMENTALLY APPLIED MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING ON
VEGETATION AND SOIL 2001 article by Thurston and Reader, Environmental
Management. Study showed potentially severe impacts from both
activities, and similar recovery times.

EROSIONAL IMPACT OF HIKERS, HORSES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OFF-ROAD BICYCLES
ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS IN MONTANA Wilson and Seney, Mountain Research and
Development, 1994.

Yes, these are all peer-reviewed and published papers so you have at
least some assurance that they are based on fact.

It speaks volumes that there are zero papers that have ever concluded
that mountain bikes cause any more damage to trails or wildlife
habitat than hikers. After all this time you can be sure that if there
were any evidence that mountain bikes caused more damage than hikers
that a reputable and qualified person would have written a peer-
reviewed and published paper on the subject, but no one has.

On 7/21/2011 10:55 AM, A. Muzi wrote:
-snip snip-

Ronsonic wrote:
Shall we release some wolves into England and tell the locals it's
okay, they belong there.


You may have meant that as hyperbole.

Assholes did exactly that to us in Wisconsin. Really.


People from Chicago released wolves in Wisconsin?

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

On 7/21/2011 7:22 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:17 am, wrote:
On Jul 20, 11:20 am, wrote:

meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too:

Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference.

In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected
ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers,
were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above
timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity,
someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a
storm.

Neither were killed due to doing something stupid, as mountain bikers
are. Mountain biking is INHERENTLY stupid and predictably dangerous.

Yes, a person could get attacked by a HANDSAW wielding wacko nut while
mountain biking.

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

On 7/21/2011 7:20 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:00 am, wrote:
On Jul 20, 4:49 pm, Michael wrote:

Besides that, horses evolved in North America, and hence arguably have
the right to go wherever they want to.

Horses were introduced to N. America by the Spanish in the 1500s.

Both are true statements.

Well it's complicated isn't it. The 'horses' that evolved in 'N.
America' evolved in a very different climate -- wasn't so-called N.
America down near the equator tens of millions of years ago? And then
didn't those horses become extinct in an evolutionary process as time
went on and 'N. America' changed? So arguably the timeline of horse
development in 'n. america' proves even further that Mother Nature
doesnt actually want them here. They are introduced species.

That is, unless the early horses were hunted to extinction by early
man, then all bets are off.

Anyway Vandemort's point is a non-starter. Horses almost never get to
'go wherever they want to go.' I love horses and that would be fine
with me, but the reality is they are fenced into pens and parcels then
directed along a very narrow path by their riders, thus destroying the
surface of that path.

But since they have the right to go wherever they want to, that's not
a problem. Bikes, on the other hand, have NO rights.

I understand that hiking on the UC Berkeley trail system is a privilege
and not a right.

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

On 7/21/2011 1:54 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:54 pm, wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:00 pm, Mike wrote:

BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly
"scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and
dishonest.

I read these and they didn't seem all that fatally biased or
dishonest:

Then you know NOTHING about science. See http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm
for the details.

IMPACTS OF EXPERIMENTALLY APPLIED MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING ON
VEGETATION AND SOIL 2001 article by Thurston and Reader, Environmental
Management. Study showed potentially severe impacts from both
activities, and similar recovery times.

EROSIONAL IMPACT OF HIKERS, HORSES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OFF-ROAD BICYCLES
ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS IN MONTANA Wilson and Seney, Mountain Research and
Development, 1994.

If we're going to be really honest with ourselves, and I don't suppose
we are, we'll have to admit that the trail itself is an unholy
unnatural gash through the wilderness. (This also confirmed by
scientific research.) Worrying so much about trail damage is kind of
fundamentally bogus as an environmentalist cause.

Yes, of course. The mouyntain bikers think "conservation" means
"preserving trails".

If you really care about wildlife, destroy the trail entirely, then
keep your animal-terrorizing self at home and out of the wilderness..

I agree, I have been saying that for 15 years. Where have you been?

Cutting down trees with a HANDSAW to build a tree fort, perhaps?

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

On Jul 21, 8:34*am, "Ronsonic" wrote:

Shall we release some wolves
into England and tell the locals it's okay, they belong there.

Of course we should. It could be pretty entertaining. Quite how
gruesomely entertaining, you can read in my short story "The
Survivor". Don't get it from Amazon; you have to pay on Amazon. Get it
from Smashwords free of charge
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/72627

Come to think of it, another free short, in "Two Shorts"
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/73667
has a hi-fi connection...

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLING.html

On Jul 21, 7:42*am, SMS wrote:
On 7/21/2011 12:17 AM, RobertH wrote:

On Jul 20, 11:20 am, *wrote:

meh. Both natural flora and fauna kill humans too:

Yes but not often enough to make any real positve difference.

In all seriousness, the mountains can be deadly in many unexpected
ways. A few weeks ago a father and daughter, both experienced hikers,
were killed when a blast of wind blew them off of a trail above
timberline. The same weekend, on a different mountain in the vicinity,
someone was crushed by a boulder they were hiding under during a
storm.

There are tragic accidents for both hikers and cyclists, as well as
non-accidents caused by doing something stupid. Look what happened at
Yosemite a couple of days ago to two hikers. Tragic, but it should not
reflect on all hikers.

If you're just looking at the impact of various activities upon habitat,
all the studies and evidence have proven that there is basically no
difference between cyclists and hikers, but that horses have a far
greater negative impact. For disturbing wildlife, cyclists have the
least impact of the three activities.

It's immaterial as to a) when horses came to North America, or b) when
mountain bikes were invented. This is not a debate on who was here
first, it's a debate on who is creating the most negative impact on
habitat and who is damaging trails the most. In that respect, our
favorite troll has absolutely no scientific evidence to back his position..

Repeating those lies won't make them true. Anyone (with a brain and
some honesty, which excludes you) can read the research and will see
that I am absolutely right and you are dead wrong.

On Jul 21, 9:43*am, SMS wrote:
On Jul 19, 11:54*pm, RobertH wrote:





On Jul 18, 9:00 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

BS. I wrote the ONLY scientific paper on the subject. Every allegedly
"scientific" paper written by a mountain biker was fatally biased and
dishonest.

I read these and they didn't seem all that fatally biased or
dishonest:

IMPACTS OF EXPERIMENTALLY APPLIED MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING ON
VEGETATION AND SOIL 2001 article by Thurston and Reader, Environmental
Management. Study showed potentially severe impacts from both
activities, and similar recovery times.

EROSIONAL IMPACT OF HIKERS, HORSES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OFF-ROAD BICYCLES
ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS IN MONTANA Wilson and Seney, Mountain Research and
Development, 1994.

Yes, these are all peer-reviewed and published papers so you have at
least some assurance that they are based on fact.

It speaks volumes that there are zero papers that have ever concluded
that mountain bikes cause any more damage to trails or wildlife
habitat than hikers. After all this time you can be sure that if there
were any evidence that mountain bikes caused more damage than hikers
that a reputable and qualified person would have written a peer-
reviewed and published paper on the subject, but no one has.

1. You are wrong. See http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.
2. Absence of research doesn't imply absence of impact. DUH!

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Repeating those lies won't make them true. Anyone (with a brain and
some honesty, which excludes you) can read the research and will see
that I am absolutely right and you are dead wrong.

For the above statement to be true, [anyone] must be equal to [Mike
Vandeman]. That's some kind of inflexible technical definition of
insanity, I think.

For your own benefit, I urge you to

1) seek help and treatment for your illness, and

2) stop pestering sane people.

Chalo

On 7/22/2011 1:33 AM, Chalo wrote:

snip

2) stop pestering sane people.

Most people here have had him filtered out for years.

Usenet is an emotional outlet for him. It's better that our favorite
troll spend his time posting this nonsense than committing more crimes
against trail users. He may be banned from the trails where the previous
crimes occurred, but there are lots of other trails around where he
could re-offend.

Another positive is that by posting so much fact-free nonsense he is
actually helping to promote mountain biking, which not only aids in
creating a bigger constituency for habitat protection, but helps the
economy in terms of equipment sales. Perhaps that's been his goal all
along, to publicize the positive aspects of mountain biking.

This has been a good thread since it included many links to definitive
research that proves that mountain biking is no more destructive on
habitat than hiking. It's always good to discredit trolls with
irrefutable facts. A lot of people that have done no research
instinctively consider mountain biking to be higher impact to habitat
than hiking or horseback riding, when in fact all the research ever
performed shows the opposite to be the case.