# Aggressive Riders as Builders = less flack?



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Sometimes people like to complain about what's been done to the trails or say something is too easy/dumbed down/generally complain about the result of a maintenance fix. I've observed peoplet people back off when you say the design was person X's, aggressive technical/fast rider, vs. when they know or are told it's person Y's design, who is a more endurance or xc oriented rider.

Its odd because at place A designed by the more aggressive rider, it could actually BE an easier trail or re-route whereas at place B designed by the less aggressive rider it could be a more challenging and technical trail/re-route/change, but B will get flack and people will challenge the decision made.

Its up there with stuff that the non-trail working mountain bikers do to tick me off. Just because it wasn't designed by Cam Zink or Sam Hill doesn't mean its not going to have challenge, or that the reason and way it was done isn't right.

Anyone else observe this phenomenon?


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

Yes, many of our lead trail designers are very technically skilled riders, who also are very skilled trail builders. 

This allows them to build in things to beginner trails that only skilled riders even notice. A high rock line, a rock shoot, a jump, etc....

It also gives them clout when explaining why our trails systems need all levels of trails. 

It also helps that we have been able to build an over the top extremely difficult trail.

When someone starts talking smack about how the trails are tough enough for their skills we invite them to ride Schooner with us. 

When someone complains the trail is too easy we invite them to go ride with us. We point out all the optional lines they didn't notice on the easier trails, and then we crush them on the harder trails.

I took over trail maintenance at a system from a guy who liked working on trails, but who only occupational rode. At the time I was racing expert. It was a lot easier for me to convince the average rider why we were making a change.


----------



## ebxtreme (Jan 6, 2004)

I 100% agree with this observation. 

The best trail builders in our area are the best riders most of the time. This isn't a total blanket statement but the majority of the time. As a result, people aren't that quick to complain about the trails because we try to accommodate all users whenever possible with ridearounds for less skilled riders AND harder options for more skilled riders. That even goes for the gnarliest dh trails. Granted, if you can't ride a steep or gnarly section, then that probably won't have a ridearound, but big jumps/gaps or drops almost always have them.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

i think having more skill or understanding what can be ridden can most definitely allow for more creativity. That's a pretty good starting point.

Being able to turn that vision into a working sustainable model is another thing entirely.

Not as of much import on a typical multi-user trail than a mt. bike specific skills trail. But part of the game of trail building or large maintenance projects is you're going to get critics. 

Tune in the good suggestions, tune out the ones that aren't. Especially for maintenance on multi-user which appears to be the subject by the OP.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Having good riders is important, but if they just dig and don't test ride as they build, the result may be a miss. Everyone has seen a trail that was just scratched down a slope with no thought for drainage or sustainability by "great riders". Guessed attempts at flow can also be a miss. 

Something that does help, apart from a dedicated test ride dummy is having different styles of rider on the team. If you can build a trail that provides fun for long travel, slack geometry, duallies as well as hardtail XC bikes then everyone is happy. It really helps to have someone who rides like that digging with you so there are alternate possibilities along the way. I am not saying A and B lines because sometimes the A line may be slow and punchy and the B may be fast and exposed rather than the other way around. 

Add in a single speed 24/26 rider and anything can happen = alternate lines added from the start that are rideable from the start and cater to alternate ambitions but equal fun and challenge.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

I'm glad you mentioned the dedicated test ride dummy, Ridnparadise. I was beginning to think I was the only one who had one. I'm nowhere near a good rider but I have Steve-n-Eric. I consult with them a lot.

Steve will test-ride anything technical I build and Eric will test-ride anything to do with air.
Eric is one of the best dirt jumpers I know and he's never owned a bike.

This is Steve riding something HE built. He was about 15 at the time.


----------



## TwistedCrank (Aug 6, 2004)

Trail Ninja said:


> This is Steve riding something HE built. He was about 15 at the time.


He was nothing if not persistent.

I, for one, lack the patience to ride the same segment over and over until I've got it dialed. However the commute to the projects has created its own repetition. I'm of the mind the a well-placed pebble can create the flow of a hundred feet of trail.

Building trails makes you a better rider because it allows you to "get into the line" - expecially if the building is not just scraping junk off an existing surface.


----------



## ebxtreme (Jan 6, 2004)

Ridnparadise said:


> Everyone has seen a trail that was just scratched down a slope with no thought for drainage or sustainability by "great riders". Guessed attempts at flow can also be a miss.


I think what you're saying here isn't what I'd describe as a good builder. A good builder should already have these things in mind during the routing and clearing process. Then, you adjust as needed during the build process. OTOH, there are good builders who aren't necessarily the best riders.

Back on topic, I use my wife as someone I think of during the build process. If there's something she or her friends wouldn't ride (they're plenty skilled), then I think about how to accommodate that level of rider. In the end, I wouldn't be able to build as much as I do without her blessing, so she sure as hell better be able to ride and have fun on my trails!  The whole debate on ride-arounds (in other threads) is kind of lame, IMO, because those are what allow riders to progress on trails they'd otherwise not ride.

EB


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

thefriar said:


> Sometimes people like to complain about what's been done to the trails or say something is too easy/dumbed down/generally complain about the result of a maintenance fix.





Skookum said:


> But part of the game of trail building or large maintenance projects is you're going to get critics.
> 
> Tune in the good suggestions, tune out the ones that aren't. Especially for maintenance on multi-user which appears to be the subject by the OP.


The long running members (27 years) of our group keep reminding the rest of us that old adage that, *"No good deed goes unpunished"*.

You just cannot make everyone happy, especially on multi use trails, try as we may. People hate change, no matter how badly eroded a trail might be, the want it to stay just like that. Many believe that trails just "happened" and human intervention is wrong, let "Mother Nature" take her course. (Which, as we know, is to eradicate and reclaim a trail.)

We understand how to design for hikers, horses, and mountain bikes where needed. There will always be complainers. Just keep in mind that there are hundreds of users who like what you do, and there continued use of the trail proves it, even when they are totally silent and absorbed in the trail experience they receive.


----------



## sambs827 (Dec 8, 2008)

The student Mountain Biking Club at SUNY Oneonta has really boosted the trail building and maintenance efforts here in the past few years. In the past a lot of the trails were:

A) Old farm roads/ATV tracks/skidder tracks
B) Deer paths just ridden/hiked on repeatedly
C) Rake & Ride jobs, with some parts maybe possessing some wee bit of partial bench cut.

When our club started building 3 years ago we were all what most would call "intermediate" riders but "beginner" trail builders. We learned quickly what does and does not work in our area and acted accordingly.

A lot of stuff on our first project (2.5 miles of singletrack with A LOT of tight 120-180 degree banked turns) is difficult just because of the elevation we're dealing with. There is only one place (the exit at one end) where we have optional lines.

Our current project (http://forums.mtbr.com/trail-building-advocacy/awesome-fall-progress-744864.html) is about 0.3 miles and already has 4 different spots where the trail splits into A-line/B-line. In each of these places there is enough of a split so riders don't bugger up the area in between by choosing their own lines. Within each optional line and in other sections of the trail there are features as described by previous posters: beginners roll right past them but more advanced riders notice possibilities for air time or pumping.

As the case is right now, the two most technically skilled/aggressive riders (Mike and I) are the chief designers and builders in town. We happen to LOVE building jumps that you have to commit to well (50-60 yards) before you hit them, but want slower riders to not be intimidated. Our most common solution is to build a roller on the back side of the lip so slower folks can take the same line as the fast people.

I've figured out a decent method for checking the flow of a section or feature I've just built that seems to work pretty well. I generally ride my Remedy up to the woods to do trail work. I'll ride up in my bike shoes and carry my work boots in my pack. After we build a section Mikey and I ride it as fast as we can can clipped in. Since since we are (currently) the fastest people in town when it comes to anything other than heinous climbs, if it flows for us then it will probably work for any of the other fast/aggressive riders around. Then I will re-don my work boots, choose an awful gear for the section of trail, and will attempt it without getting out of the saddle for any descents or features so as to emulate the newbies. Riding on EggBeaters with work boots doesn't help your bike handling abilities.

We've never heard any complaints about our trail work. That's probably because everyone in town (except maybe a grumpy old hiker or two) recognizes that our work is always sustainable and enjoyable on bikes, skis, snowshoes or plain ole feet. There's also the wee fact that we (college students only around for 4 or 5 years) are building the trails that they can enjoy for decades.

My buddy Mikey and I have learned a lot in the past 3 years of doing trail work


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

thefriar said:


> Sometimes people like to complain about what's been done to the trails or say something is too easy/dumbed down/generally complain about the result of a maintenance fix. I've observed peoplet people back off when you say the design was person X's, aggressive technical/fast rider, vs. when they know or are told it's person Y's design, who is a more endurance or xc oriented rider.
> 
> Its odd because at place A designed by the more aggressive rider, it could actually BE an easier trail or re-route whereas at place B designed by the less aggressive rider it could be a more challenging and technical trail/re-route/change, but B will get flack and people will challenge the decision made.
> 
> ...


My observation is that it's hard to keep everybody happy and as a trail manager you have to try and say show up or shut up in a nice way.

Defining challenge and flow are the key. Is a pile of logs put across a trail a challenge? Generally yes. Does the pile of logs across the trail flow or help flow? Generally no.

One problem with who builds or designs trails is that the designer or builder may not see or use what's in front of them or know to make an adjustment if they don't know how to pump, flow, rail or fly a little.

Keep in mind that aggressive or good riders are no guarantee that you've solved problems or don't have some coming. I'm the steward at a bike park, am not a good rider, and do a lot of work when better riders do something that will not last or that will harm a more important feature.

The best stuff I've been part of has a lot of diversity as part of the design, build and upkeep - nothing aggressive or passive.


----------



## hankthespacecowboy (Jun 10, 2004)

I like your method of flow-checking for newbies:thumbsup: It is pretty easy to get focused on building for people at the same or greater skill level than yourself, and totally abandon the perspective of the less skilled rider. Ultimately, having lines to accommodate varying skill levels helps preserve the fast/big/techy line by not forcing less skilled riders to try and navigate (walk) their way through these sections.


----------



## Visicypher (Aug 5, 2004)

I think Brad's winning vid for Shoot the Trail is pertinent here. What do you think EB?


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

slocaus said:


> People hate change, no matter how badly eroded a trail might be, the want it to stay just like that. Many believe that trails just "happened" and human intervention is wrong, let "Mother Nature" take her course. (Which, as we know, is to eradicate and reclaim a trail.)


Hahahaha, that's beautifully stated!

I've cut back on discussing plans for trail reroutes because most riders seem to see it as unneeded at best or some kind of threat at worst.

Back to the OP's question. You're probably right that most of the riding public will accept a hard core rider as a design authority. But I could show you a fairly bad chunk of trail designed by someone like that in my area.

My $0.02 is I don't think good riders are any better or worse inherently at trail design. But I do think it's a skill that takes years of effort to get good at, and dedicated riders tend to spend more time riding than building. I've learned most of what I know about trail construction on foot, not on my bike.

Walt


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

If a section of trail is dumbed-down by nobody in particular, without explanation, then the assumption is they did it because they lacked the skills to ride it as it was before.

If the same thing is done by a known technically skilled rider, then the assumption is they had a good reason for doing it.

Not saying it's right, just saying I think that's the explanation for the phenomenon you notice.

I agree with Walt above -- a good rider is not automatically a good trail builder, any more than a good restaurant critic is automatically a good cook. But people assume that.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Good rider definitely doesn't equal good builder. I hate having to lecture good riders for building crap trail, but it happens.

Agree, building is a time and practice honed art. I've personally found working in as many different trail systems, and riding as many different trail systems as possible, and interacting with those other local builders and riders has been the biggest influence on my building outside of classroom and practical professional instruction sessions.


----------



## singlesprocket (Jun 9, 2004)

a lot of the trails in my neck of the woods are hopelessly stuck in the 90's... people just don't know better. though i have a good working relationship with the trail steward and always come out and help.
he understands flow and now we have shared vision. i share my knowledge how to build berms and jumps and will be intergrating these features into the trail system. this is a huge step where there was a fear of even building a 6" drop.

on any trail system there is always a group of whiners that complain that the trail is being dumded down or something else. they are almost always are the ones doing the least amount of work or never come out to the builds...


----------



## ebxtreme (Jan 6, 2004)

Visicypher said:


> I think Brad's winning vid for Shoot the Trail is pertinent here. What do you think EB?


Yeah, that's a good example of a guy building BIG freeride features and still adding ride-arounds for everyone. Brad is likely one of the best non-sponsored riders in our area, but all of his trails have ride arounds for the jumps/drops. Even most of his steep/gnarly lines have ride-around options.

I feel that AM/XC trail builders should have that attitude where they build fun features to keep all levels satisfied.

http://www.pinkbike.com/v/222391/l/

Shoot the Trails 2011, Brad W on pinkbike.com


----------



## TheBigV (Aug 18, 2011)

No offense, but a lot of this discussion kinda pisses me off. I am a long-time XC rider. I like tight twisty, flowy "traditional" singletrack. There seems to be a certain segment of MTBers that thinks that any trail that lacks man-made freestanding obstacles, jumps, ladders, bridges, teeter totters, etc. is "easy." I think you can design a very "difficult" course just picking good lines and being creative where you have switchbacks, long climbs, etc. 

There also seems to be more and more a push towards "gravity riding" or "all mountain", etc., where everyone has 2 feet of suspension travel. A lot of riders aren't interested in that...that doesn't make them "weak." In fact, I know a good many trial riders who are good at doing "tricks" get murdered on grouprides longer than an hour on anything that requires speed and endurance. 

Another thing that p!sses me off is when trailbuilders decide to co-opt a perfectly nice section of trail, and make it an "expert area", but don't provide ridearounds, or try and restrict access via insanely difficult filters. Why not allow people the option of riding the regular trail vs doing all the obstacles?

Makes me worry that in a few years, there will be nothing left for the "old-timers" to ride.


....rant over


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

The discussion isn't focused on current trail building concepts or styles, but rather how much or how little the community embraces a builder's trail or changes based upon that builder's (perceived) ability as a rider. The main point being that a non-aggressive/non-technical rider can be a much better builder at the end of the day, but because they're perceived as not being able to ride anything technical or aggressive their trail work is automatically demoted/bashed regardless of its end of day attributes. That's just not cool.

For example I'm a New England based rider. Trail here is tight twisty, rock, root, rock, and more root & rock plus violent quick technical climbs. Our trails are generally extremely sustainable because elsewhere they'd be considered rock gardens. But we do have a bunch of old social trail that runs up and down fall lines, widens by 6''-foot every year, and lose 2-4'' of tread depth over a season that the Land Manager's really aren't fans of, and education or not, believe we are the cause of.

We do have to blow up some of the old techy fall line runs and replace it with sustainable lines/re-routes. We don't want the trail to become an environmental issue or point of contention with other user groups. When we do this, we try to add something of similar challenge that's sustainable (we won't take an easy trail and make it impossible or the other way around). 

Some of our builders get flack for sustainable re-routes because people perceive the action as dumbing down the trail for that builder's own skillset, even when those builders may be some of the best trail builders in the region. If told it was other builders who happen to be monster tech riders and fast as baboons chasing tourists with munchies, people tend to zip their lips... its this selective lack of respect for the builders that gets me going. Just because they can't hang with builder X on a bike they keep their trap shut, but because they FEEL superior to Builder Y, they run their gums...

TheBigV - sounds like you're talking about poor design more than anything. Work with those trail builders, spend time, understand their relationship with the Land Manager, and see how you can get trained up to help get better results. RE: one style of rider vs. another, not the topic of the thread, the above should clarify the discussion...


----------



## TheBigV (Aug 18, 2011)

I usually try to make it to my local trail days to add my input. IMHO, if you don't help build, no got no business complaining. If people in your area have problems with re-routes, tell them to come to the next trail day to provide their input


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

TheBigV said:


> I usually try to make it to my local trail days to add my input. IMHO, if you don't help build, no got no business complaining. If people in your area have problems with re-routes, tell them to come to the next trail day to provide their input


That might work where you live, ride, build. For us in a very tightly controlled area with a gazillion regulations (central coastal California), for every hour of trail work day, there are 100 hours of meetings, scoping, planning, project evaluation forms, permits, etc., etc., etc. Ideas, choices, decisions are suggested, debated, modified, approved,and done long before the trail work day.

Unfortunately, input on that trail work day is about two years too late for a particular trail. Those who want a say so need to get involved on the front end of the process a couple years in advance of the work.

And yes, we have miles and miles of XC trails that you would love as an old timer, since they are reworked, and maintained by a bunch of old timers (I got my first MTB in 1979). This discussion is about new trail types that many riders are requesting. For us, they are an addition to our network, and are not replacing the existing trails.


----------



## Hardtail 355 (Oct 19, 2011)

Bottom line, those who b!tch the most do the least!

What happened for being greatful for whats out there. I know I will be getting involved with the local trail building and maintenance next season when I have time.

If all you have to contribute to the situation is complaining, well your part of the problem. As DMX said, talk is cheap mother ******

So thanks to those that have made it happen


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

slocaus said:


> That might work where you live, ride, build. For us in a very tightly controlled area with a gazillion regulations (central coastal California), for every hour of trail work day, there are 100 hours of meetings, scoping, planning, project evaluation forms, permits, etc., etc., etc. Ideas, choices, decisions are suggested, debated, modified, approved,and done long before the trail work day.


No wonder the state is broke. Your trail process is probably a microcosm of everything else govt there is trying to do.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Fattirewilly said:


> No wonder the state is broke. Your trail process is probably a microcosm of everything else govt there is trying to do.


We pride ourselves in the fact that we have learned how to get more trails built, old ones rerouted and new ones constructed, in spite of the slow crawl that is government with all its regulations. It does not happen fast, but it does happen. :thumbsup:


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

TheBigV said:


> No offense, but a lot of this discussion kinda pisses me off. I am a long-time XC rider. I like tight twisty, flowy "traditional" singletrack. There seems to be a certain segment of MTBers that thinks that any trail that lacks man-made freestanding obstacles, jumps, ladders, bridges, teeter totters, etc. is "easy." I think you can design a very "difficult" course just picking good lines and being creative where you have switchbacks, long climbs, etc.
> 
> Makes me worry that in a few years, there will be nothing left for the "old-timers" to ride.


I can't speak for what is happening in your area. Certainly there are trails being built like that where I live too. I don't see this as a negative as long as there are ride-arounds provided.

I look at it like this: I can build 400 yards of trail by myself in the time it takes for a team of guys to put together a couple of wooden structures. Far from being shoved aside, XC trail construction continues to dominate the local scene, even if the free-ride folks make more noise. I wish I could get some of that effort channeled into my work, but that's just jealousy speaking.

Walt


----------



## trailbildr (Dec 8, 2004)

I have found that building *better* trail usually kills a lot of this type of criticism. We have some trail builders in my area who aren't the best riders and build really tight, non-flowy stuff. They don't understand flow because they aren't that type of rider. I'm a firm believer in flow and realized quickly that the success or failure of a trail is decided when it is flagged. We run sections of trail, check turn radii with rope and keep good sight lines. Of course, building optional log/skinny/jump lines right next to the trail (within the trail corridor) helps a lot as well.

Even people who like skinny's and jumps and stuff like to ride fast. If you can keep the speed up while maintaining sight lines with optional technical trail features, most of your complaints will fall off.

Of course, every time somebody does complain, I insist that they show up for the planning meetings with the rangers, come out and flag the trail then help us build it. That shuts a lot of people up when you just tell them that they can do it and you'll help them. Like most people, when given the pressure to actually DO something about their complaints, they quickly shut up, get on board or disappear...

You can't please everyone but the converse of that is that not all criticism is baseless. You should always be looking to build trail for everyone and not just your personal riding style. Don't forget the horsies and hikers and families and trail runners...

mk


----------



## ebxtreme (Jan 6, 2004)

trailbildr said:


> I have found that building *better* trail usually kills a lot of this type of criticism. We have some trail builders in my area who aren't the best riders and build really tight, non-flowy stuff. They don't understand flow because they aren't that type of rider. I'm a firm believer in flow and realized quickly that the success or failure of a trail is decided when it is flagged. We run sections of trail, check turn radii with rope and keep good sight lines. Of course, building optional log/skinny/jump lines right next to the trail (within the trail corridor) helps a lot as well.


Bingo! My biggest complaint about some trail designs isn't whether it's tight and twisty, it's usually about how poorly it flows. Tight and twisty can flow as well as any wide-open trail. However, things like descending radius turns are one of my biggest pet peeves or corners that aren't commensurate with the approach speed. I think that is an area where a better rider/builder will consider the speed of a better rider will come into a corner and build it accordingly. Coming downhill into a 180 degree corner with a 5 foot radius that goes immediately uphill just doesn't cut it....

EB


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

*wide range of trails for a wide range of riders*



trailbildr said:


> You can't please everyone but the converse of that is that not all criticism is baseless. You should always be looking to build trail for everyone and not just your personal riding style. Don't forget the horsies and hikers and families and trail runners...mk


One of the cool things about trail building is the diversity of trails that can be built. We get to vary the average grades, the trail widths, vary the types of turns, and in natural features, and in man made features.

I have been involved in building everything from 3' wide, 3% average grade trails with no features up to 6" wide, 10% grade trail with lots for natural features and narrow bridges.

Both trails are great, but they are very different.

Riders also come in all shapes and sizes. Freeriders, XC, racer, down hillers, single speeders, campground folks, etc... Ages range from 3 to 80+.

So I am not so sure that being a "Hard core" rider is the key. The key is understand the wide range of trails and the wide range or riders.

I learned a great deal helping with kids and beginner clinics. I got to see new riders on my trails and that opened my eyes to things that are hard for them. In many cases, I could make the trail less dangerous for them, while not detracting from the challenge to other riders.

Often after building something new, I will sit and watch folks ride it. I may even ask folks with different skill sets than myself what the they think.

I have found that the more you can relate to riders the easier it is to explain why each trail is built the way it is.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

ebxtreme said:


> Bingo! My biggest complaint about some trail designs isn't whether it's tight and twisty, it's usually about how poorly it flows. * Tight and twisty can flow as well as any wide-open trail*. However, things like descending radius turns are one of my biggest pet peeves or corners that aren't_ commensurate_ with the approach speed. I think that is an area where a better rider/builder will consider the speed of a better rider will come into a corner and build it accordingly. Coming downhill into a 180 degree corner with a 5 foot radius that goes immediately uphill just doesn't cut it....
> 
> EB


_ commensurate_

That's an awfully big word, i'm not sure i can even pronounce that correctly.

On a serious note i did like that post as well, but i'm glad you interjected with your comment i highlight in bold. Flow is not exclusive to descending grades. And on multi-directional multi-use trail, it really is more challenging to obtain versus a one-direction trail.

So whilst i liked the overall premise, and most all the points, the message did contain that single maybe contradictory tangent.



indytrekracer said:


> One of the cool things about trail building is the diversity of trails that can be built. We get to vary the average grades, the trail widths, vary the types of turns, and in natural features, and in man made features.
> 
> I have been involved in building everything from 3' wide, 3% average grade trails with no features up to 6" wide, 10% grade trail with lots for natural features and narrow bridges.
> 
> ...


Another great post.

i think just a few points since we are floating a bit away from the original topic is the misconception that flow equates to over-groomed and/or over-sanitized trail as well. It certainly does not. But it does help make the experience for all trail types generally more enjoyable, and makes them more sustainable as you are not having the wheels of the riders work against a trail builders myopic vision.

And trying to tie it all together is how i really like all this sentiment. For it is common to hear persons speak/act that they build what they want to ride. i've come to the notion that there is a balance to this as well. Persons motivation to create excel when given freedom to create, and from that individuality we find really cool things that can translate into different themes and styles. So while, as responsible stewards we should always be leaning in the direction of inclusiveness, we should not allow it to come at the expense of forward progression either. Be that on the climb or descent and even on the pause to soak in the scenery.


----------



## sambs827 (Dec 8, 2008)

TheBigV said:


> No offense, but a lot of this discussion kinda pisses me off. I am a long-time XC rider. I like tight twisty, flowy "traditional" singletrack. There seems to be a certain segment of MTBers that thinks that any trail that lacks man-made freestanding obstacles, jumps, ladders, bridges, teeter totters, etc. is "easy." I think you can design a very "difficult" course just picking good lines and being creative where you have switchbacks, long climbs, etc.
> 
> There also seems to be more and more a push towards "gravity riding" or "all mountain", etc., where everyone has 2 feet of suspension travel. A lot of riders aren't interested in that...that doesn't make them "weak." In fact, I know a good many trial riders who are good at doing "tricks" get murdered on grouprides longer than an hour on anything that requires speed and endurance.
> 
> ...


Chill out. Go ride your bike. As others said, by build day it is often too late to make any decisions as far as flow are concerned. Even then, merely giving your input on build day can be aggravating to others unless you're swinging a tool.

There are plenty of trails that are old school but are still sustainable. Problem is, many old school trails are NOT sustainable and need to be re-routed for environmental and/or safety reasons. If you think a smooth trail is not challenging that just means you're not going fast enough.

For the record, the stuff my group has built ranges from minimal-input, super rocky and technical and "old school" to buffed out, 3 feet wide in places, optional jumps, fat sweeping berms on every corner, rock drops.......and nobody seems to complain about ANY of it. Most of our rides include both ends of the spectrum and everything in between.

You said it yourself: there seems to be a 'push towards "gravity riding" or "all mountain", etc., where everyone has 2 feet of suspension travel.' That's what people want, and those trails can be incredibly sustainable. The fastest rider I know (just won the NY and NJ State Series for Cat 1 19-29) rides all of the jumps, drops, and other "all-mountain" features in our town on his full-carbon 22 lb XC race bike. The second fastest rider I know rides the same features on a rigid SS 29er. So it's not just the big-bike guys who are taking everything over. It's just what people have realized works.


----------



## sambs827 (Dec 8, 2008)

skookum said:


> persons motivation to create excel when given freedom to create, and from that individuality we find really cool things that can translate into different themes and styles. So while, as responsible stewards we should always be leaning in the direction of inclusiveness, we should not allow it to come at the expense of forward progression either. Be that on the climb or descent and even on the pause to soak in the scenery.


^ ^ winner!!! ^ ^


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

TheBigV said:


> No offense, but a lot of this discussion kinda pisses me off. I am a long-time XC rider. I like tight twisty, flowy "traditional" singletrack. There seems to be a certain segment of MTBers that thinks that any trail that lacks man-made freestanding obstacles, jumps, ladders, bridges, teeter totters, etc. is "easy." I think you can design a very "difficult" course just picking good lines and being creative where you have switchbacks, long climbs, etc.
> 
> There also seems to be more and more a push towards "gravity riding" or "all mountain", etc., where everyone has 2 feet of suspension travel. A lot of riders aren't interested in that...that doesn't make them "weak." In fact, I know a good many trial riders who are good at doing "tricks" get murdered on grouprides longer than an hour on anything that requires speed and endurance.
> 
> ...


Lighten up, embrace change, do what the cool old timers do - don't let your mind get old even if your body does. I'm in my 50s with no skill and have a blast with my old fart version of riding what the kids ride.

I stopped at the bike park and downhill runs yesterday and saw I'm not alone when it comes to shameless old farts, and realized the trail scenario is far from nothing left as you put it. It's actually more stuff than ever to ride.

My other old fart tip would be to get something like 5 - 6 inches of travel instead of 2 feet. It really helps my old fart bones ride longer and wake up the next day.


----------

