All

Way too much inside jokes and interrupting. I'm sure it's all great for people that follow them, but not really an "inside line" episode

These 3 don't do it for me. Maybe I have high expectations after 3+ years of very interesting VitalMTB podcats with spomer but this one is below the quality bar for me. The weird teenage banter, inside joke rambing combined with no structre and little insight from an athlete pov ... I switched off after 15min. Inside line and Needles show how it's done for WCs.

DAK NORTON

Mopeds will kill MTB access. Once you allow a motorized vehicle on non-motorized trails, you are on a race to the bottom. On the plus side, my access to dirtbike trails is sure to get better!

I get you. I'm not a digger. Not everyone must and should dig. Imagine if everyone who rides now would do it. I'll try to do my part helping from time to time, with money or lobbying for the sport. Anyway what I have seen is: You have a perfect normal trail (wanna call it old school?), roots, rocks, it's been riden for generations of bikers and bikes, summer, winter. And then the bright idea! "we got to make this trail sustainable". rocks provoke erosion. stumps will make someone crash. this turns is off camber. there's too many leafs. 1...

I've been following Vital MTB (best media source in the game!) religiously since before it was Vital MTB back when I was 11 years old and this thread is the one that has prompted me to make an official account login so I can comment. I couldn't agree more with StudBeefpile - the wide, bermy flow trails that are popping up all over the US absolutely suck. There is a complete disconnect between the natural terrain and geography that once defined and dictated the course of trails. You could pick up many of these new age flow trails and place...

Most recent meeting with land managers, and one of those groups was from the "california state parks"....after an all day affair of P4B talking about the benefits of eMTB's, we broke out into some round table discussions. I was with Cal State Park group, he said, and i've said this on other forums: "We have sat here all day, heard about how you are all going to sell more bikes, more people getting outside, all this is great, but-we didn't ask for this, we are under funded, under staffed and can't handle more people in the parks system"....it went into...

I think this whole topic could be easier if it were split into two questions instead of just asking "should eBikes be allowed at "x"? This question by itself causes people to go in different directions because of how they view/define ebikes. The first question: are eBikes actually bikes or are they a different category, e.g. Pedal Assisted Motorcycles? No, they have motors, therefore they're not bicycles. Having "bike" within the name doesn't mean they're a bike! (From dictionary.com, bicycle = "propelled by pedals") Trying to categorize them with bicycles is deceptive/disingenuous. (Note that this doesn't mean they're bad...

Makes perfect sense to classify a bike with a motor as "non motorized."

The notion of "I will take the added protection"...I do not get it. I see a lot of racers and consumers that have suffered accidents where they have hit their head, not once have I said with a half shell "Damn, if they only had their ears covered". So its 'perceived' protection IMO. Added heat and weight, why not just wear a proper lightweight full time full face like a TLD Stage, Proframe, etc...? I think it's pretty gimmicky, but ain't hatin' on anyone who runs one, I know a guy who loves his, he's riding more, so F it...