APRIL 7 - Sorta Cutting Edge News

MOUNTAIN BIKING NO MORE DESTRUCTIVE THAN HIKING

Every year an untold number of trails are closed to mountain bikers in the United States because well-organized and well-spoken hikers make one seemingly logical claim: Mountain bikes are inherently destructive. To non-cyclists, this seems to make intuitive sense. They've seen, after all, those Mountain Dew commercials and excerpts from the latest freeride movie (typically of people riding off-trail) and it sure looked like the bikes were bitch-slapping Mother Earth.

In reality, however, no objective scientific study has shown that typical on-trail mountain biking is any more destructive than hiking. This is hardly new news. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of mountain bikers who know about these studies. Thus, when we do drag ourselves to meetings, we're generally at a loss when it comes to countering claims that we represent the forces of Satan.

The folks at IMBA are trying to remedy this. They have compiled a review of all the scientific studies, so that you can use this information to keep trails in your area open to mountain biking. IMBA's review, titled "Natural Resource Impacts of Mountain Biking," looks at all the available studies that have measured the impacts of bicycling and other trail use. "Like all forms of recreation, bicycling does affect natural resources," said Gary Sprung, IMBA's senior national policy advisor and author of the document. "But since the birth of mountain biking, some environmentalists and hikers have maintained that cycling causes more damage to trails, vegetation and wildlife than hiking. The science performed to date does not support that notion."

Eight empirical studies are summarized in the report, which does not evaluate sociology studies. "The more challenging issue for trail users is not their differing environmental impacts, but rather their social conflicts, which are quite real, thoroughly studied, and manageable," said Sprung. You can check out the science review at www.imba.com/resources/science.

JUST HOW LIGHT IS LIGHT?

Last week Cannondale announced the release of their Six13 carbon/aluminum road bikes. You may recall that Cannondale riders in last year's Tour de France were forced to strap weights onto their bikes in order to meet UCI's completely asinine minimum weight limit. Well, after two years of R&D and 18 months of race testing, the folks at Cannondale are ready to sell the same frame to the public. The Six13 frame weighs in at just 2.5 pounds and is offered in 12 frame sizes. At this time, Cannondale predicts they'll sell three Six13 models (one equipped with Campy Record, one with Dura Ace and one with Campy Centaur).

Cannondale claims that the Six13 is the lightest production bike available. They also recognize that you'll probably roll your eyes when you hear that, since just about every bike supplier purports to sell the lightest road bike available. To prove that their new bike is really, really light, Cannondale is urging attendees at the upcoming Sea Otter race to pit their bike--gram for gram--against the Six13. If your bike weighs less than their Campy Record-equipped model, Cannondale will give you a free Saeco team jersey. If your bike weighs more, they'll give you a Six13 water bottle for trying. The contest is open to the first, you guessed it, 613 riders.

If you're the gram-obsessed, slave-to-technology type who gets off on the fine details of carbon bonding and weaving, go visit the new web site dedicated to the Six13 at www.cannondalesix13.com. If you ignore the porno soundtrack music that accompanies the site, you'll probably walk away impressed by the depth of information.

PORK SAUSAGE, PANTANI & MARKETING 101
Last week I invited you to weigh in on anything that struck your fancy in my column. This is an ongoing invitation--if I've pissed you off or made you laugh, send me a line. Here's what some of you had to say about last week's reporting.

Jimmy Dean isn't sexy enough to sell pork sausage. I was incensed. You wondered whether I'd taken my Xanax lately.

Pork Sausage: Just the Tip of the Iceberg
When I read about the sausage company ditching Jimmy Dean for a representative that would connect with a more youthful market, it made me think of ALL the other companies being represented by a famous spokesperson that would NEVER touch the product. (I'm fairly certain Britney doesn't drink a whole lot of Pepsi, but she sure sells a lot of it.)

A lot of the younger kids in the neighborhood I work in already have problems with obesity, and they're FRIGGIN' 9 years old. Now I know there's more to it than "Britney likes it, so I should drink it, too," but it sucks that the American Association of Fruit Growers doesn't have the same kind of budget...

It's the quick fix mentality that bugs me, I guess.
Mike Richen

On Deceptive Marketing in the Bike Business
I have not seen the "Designed in the USA" stickers plastered on bikes, but I would draw the same conclusion you did, and it would bug me, too. Perhaps not as much as it appears to bug you, but it would bug me in any event.

It reminds me of an ad I saw while watching some Olympic event on television years ago. It said " is a proud sponsor of ABC's broadcast of the Olympic Games." So you're telling me you bought commercial time, and you're proud of it?

As with the stickers you mentioned, I can only guess that they were targeting the proto-hominids that, on some level, were making the connection = Olympics = good.

The word "USA" on bike = good. Grunt. Hungry. Kill. Eat.

Then again, for the cost of printing the stickers, if they sell one bike that they would not have sold otherwise, the cost-benefit analysis works out in their favor. This assumes, of course, that they have not lost any sales to anyone who was offended by the sticker. I guess marketing is a tough pseudo-science.
Eric