# The Origin of Flow



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

The Origin of Flow

The concept of Flow isn't exactly new to Mountain biking. In fact, it's a concept that has been applied to many facets of life. We say things are flowy, have good flow, we say we were flowing, and we tell people to go with the flow, but what do we mean exactly? Where did this concept come from, and when did it first enter the vernacular we use to describe our activities and lives? After a little research I found Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and his work on ecstasy, the feeling, not the chemical and his research with composers. He broke it down very scientifically, and I found what he had to say resonated with my own experiences, and contradicted some concepts that have grown out of this very concept of what flow is.

Dr. Csikszentmihalyi explains that in his research the composers he came across expressed this concept again and again where his subjects described the music of flowing out of them. Their sense of themselves disappeared, in fact their sense of physical existence melted away. A door had opened and their work flowed out of them, sense of time disappeared, difficult tasks seemed easy and they could "see" what they had to do, and could do it even if their task was difficult. Does this sound familiar?

He broke it down to this. The human brain can process 120 bits of information per second. A conversation with a person requires processing about 60 bits, and that's why 2 people talking to you at the same time is about all you can understand. When you exceed that, you enter the flow state, or flow channel. You escape the control space in your brain and are forced to use your entire cognitive ability to perform the task at hand, and in the context of MTBVT, that task is riding trail.

If has occurred to me that as we attempt to create this Flow with purpose built trails, we have deviated from the very origins of the concept through a lack of understanding of where this feeling is derived. Erroneously, trail builders have decided that speed is flow, that smooth and wide is flow. That jumping is flow. That berms are flow. I contest that while these elements can put the rider in the flow state that can only happen with the right mix of features and velocity. If the trail is not requiring the processing of 120 bits of information per second, the rider is operating 100 percent in the control channel. It is not until we push that limit do we escape our conscious mind and open the door to the true flow state.

By buffing out and smoothing out tread, opening up sight lines, and eliminating the irregularities of a trail, we are minimizing the information we are having to process, and making it more difficult to achieve flow. We are requiring higher speeds, and maybe increasing the likelihood of serious injury on the "Flow" trails we build today. As compared to a trail like "Joe's", which to me epitomizes good flow, or Burning Spear, there is so much going on at any moment that, even at low speeds, a rider is processing changes in riding surface, friction coefficients, grades, direction change so rapidly that the flow state is maintained and the feeling of ecstasy is exaggerated.

Over-engineering of mountain bike trails does make it easier for riders to go fast. It may allow people to leave the ground with both wheels at the same time for the first time in control, but that, by the very definition, is not flow. A rider will achieve flow state on these trails by going faster and faster to accelerate the bits of information they are processing until their brain is slightly overwhelmed, then the magic happens and the door to the flow state will open. By designing more featured trails with more varied surfaces, turn shapes, and tread irregularity we would actually facilitate the transition from the control state to the flow state. While this may rob the beginner and intermediate riders that "Wind through the hair" experience, it will put them in Flow faster, and it will also allow expert riders to continually achieve Flow on the same trails at slightly higher speeds, but without reaching the kind of velocity where a crashes get very serious. I hope this clicks with you. Please enjoy the TED talk on this subject. Happy riding.

$.02

https://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csi...ihalyi_on_flow


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

^Shared over from my regional forum. The Joe's and Burning Spear are primitive trails that have had some improvement on blown out sections and erosion control, but are mostly raked in and highly featured.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Wow, that's the first time I've heard it put so succinctly, but yes! Within this "flow" of thought, that may be why some old school trail is so enchanting, it grabs your attention and holds it until you are back at the trailhead. Sort of like sex. I have felt for a long time that trail designing is a lot like composing music or choreographing a dance routine... because that's what it feels like when I'm doing it. Rhythm is so very important to establishing flow, and can intensify or break it. It's about creating and blending wave forms into an exhilarating experience on the terrain you have to work with.


----------



## UncleTrail (Sep 29, 2007)

The word "flow" describes how water moves due to gravity.

When you talk about flow you are referring to how water flows. Non-linear. No right angles. Smooth. Unstoppable. 

So when you build "flow" trails you are building trails designed to drain water. That's what a flow trail is. Grade reversals, wide turns, half-rule, etc....

The trails flow with contours to allow water to flow easily, which in turn creates a trail that "flows". Harsh angle and straight lines are not normal in nature, nor on flow trails.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Here I am again to ruin the spiritual moment

The origin of the term _flow_ is that it originally was a description of fluids and groups of loose particles in motion. Fluids flow, a group of particles may be said to be a fluid and flow as well (think grains of wheat or pea gravel). Other modern uses of flow are slang for the original.

Flow is all about energy. The hydraulic grade line and the energy grade line in the image I've plagiarized below are how flow is objectively measured. It is really impossible to talk about flow without talking about energy.

The








People say go with the flow because that is where the energy in the system will take you when you don't fight it. When riding a bike, we are actually fighting that energy just to stay on the trail to some degree. The more technical the trail, the more energy has to be spent fighting the natural energy in the system. The system _really_ doesn't want people to go up mountains.

Human reaction and the ability to process technical features on a trail is only "flow" in MTB slang. The definition is pretty well set. What I find interesting in the discussion is how people think fast trails aren't technical. As you've shown here, the faster the ride, the more information has to be processed and the technicality of the trail increases. If a trail is boring, riding it faster is the solution.

Excellent post, but I'm going to disagree with a few things you've stated and tell you how I translate your post:

First, "Erroneously, trail builders have decided that speed is flow, that smooth and wide is flow. That jumping is flow. That berms are flow. I contest that while these elements can put the rider in the flow state that can only happen with the right mix of features and velocity."

Second, "Over-engineering of mountain bike trails does make it easier for riders to go fast. It may allow people to leave the ground with both wheels at the same time for the first time in control, but that, by the very definition, is not flow.

ALL liquids flow, the trickle out of your faucet is flow. The Mississippi river is flow. The honey drizzling down onto a piece of bread is flow. Even glaciers have an extremely slow flow. Glass itself is very slowly flowing. Deciding that a specific type of flow defines all other flows is incorrect, but I know you're not talking about this type of flow here.

For lack of a better term people use the term _flow_ to describe a zen state while in motion on a bike. For each and every person that state is different. The processing power of their brains is different and their physical reaction times is different. It can happen on a mountain bike, it can happen on a bmx bike, it can happen on a road bike.

"By buffing out and smoothing out tread, opening up sight lines, and eliminating the irregularities of a trail, we are minimizing the information we are having to process, and making it more difficult to achieve flow."

This I don't agree with. People are making faster smoother trails to help conserve momentum, or in other words, reduce energy losses while riding. This doesn't make it more or less difficult to achieve the zen state you describe. The rider being too slow or too fast for the trail is their own fault and the reason they don't achieve the zen flow state. Coming to a non-bermed switch-back that makes me practically stop has ruined the zen experience for me more than a few times; it breaks the rhythm described.

The summary of your post to me is that zen flow can be achieved at slower safer speeds if technical features are present in a trail at a certain frequency that the human brain can process them. I agree 100% with this statement, but I don't agree that what everyone else is doing to achieve zen riding isn't the right or wrong way to do it. I like speed and I like some technical challenge. I've been in what you describe as _flow_ on both.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

I just finished putting an issue of IMBA's print magazine together (I'm the communications director) that I'm tentatively hopeful will be well received by both sides of this debate.

It includes a 5-page story about flow trail construction, with advice about using both in-sloped and out-sloped trail tread, the "lifted and tilted" building style that emphasizes big berms, finding appropriate siting for gravity and flow trails, etc. 

The issue also includes a story about an IMBA chapter in West Virginia that is only interested in developing and maintaining hand-built singletrack for advanced trail riders. The article points out that IMBA totally supports this kind of trail development -- we do not tell chapters how to build trails, who to build them for or what level of skill their trails should accommodate. In this case, the chapter has good relationships with their local ski resort (as well as the nearby national forest) and when they want to ride flow trails and jump lines they head to the resort to find those experiences. 

There's a bunch of other trail building info in the issue too -- I hope a bunch of you on this thread will be interested to see it. It should arrive in members' mailboxes in late June. Let me know what you think!


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

I think what is described needs a different name. Maybe calling them _rythm_, _harmony_, or _tuned_ trails would be better. We all could use more adjectives to describe trails. I'd leave _flow_ for trails with smooth transitions meant to minimize changes in momentum. Riding a tuned trail sounds just as cool as riding a flow trail and gives more credit to the trail builders as artists.

Edit: The best flow trails would need to be tuned to achieve zen riding. A tuned flow trail seems so much cooler sounding than a flow trail.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Tuned trail -- that's killer! Am applying for trademark and copyright protection on "IMBA-Tuned Trail" right now. 

No, I'm kidding. But the name is great.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

What we are describing is artisan trail, best produced locally as possible, by artisans with an intimate knowledge of the terrain involved. I would describe an artisan as an artist who produces a useful or consumable product of the highest quality. (In contrast to fine art, which is produced only for the purpose of artistic expression.) This introduces the concept of the degree of understanding and skill behind the product. A skilled architect can create an inspiring and unique building from a pile of specs and building materials, another a functional strip mall. Most trails built will probably not be in the Frank Loyd Wright category, but will still functionally support a local bicycle/health/rec/alt transportation/zen/happiness industry.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

So what is the difference between a technical trail, a flow trail, an artisan trail, or heaven forbid a designer trail? To me two of those describe a trail, the other two describe a person and none are mutually exclusive.

DaveVt is talking about something different than all of these as far as I'm interpreting his post. He seems to be talking about a natural rhythmic connection between a rider and a trail based on the human ability to process the trail as it is ridden. His argument appears to be that without sufficient technical features, the human brain is not sufficiently stimulated with the decision making process to achieve a zen state or be in the zone.

Whether or not the trail is appreciated seems to be whether or not it is tuned to the rider and the rider to the trail. If both are tuned to each other, constructive harmonic vibes are obtained and that special zen state is found. There simply is no single tuning of a person or tuning of a trail that is better than any other; the experience is purely subjective. Using the term flow for this magic that makes biking so enjoyable seems derogatory. Flow simply isn't worthy for what it is.

I also think DaveVt is trying to say removing features from a trail will make it harder to achieve the zen state of riding because the decision making process is being dumbed down. The counter argument is that if removing features increases speed, then the decision making process may be maintained or even increased because of the increased speed.

I think the entire point here is that trails would be safer and provide the mental stimulation desired by leaving features in instead of trying to build _flow trails_. I generally agree with that, but there's something about riding a trail at a certain speed that just does it for me. If I'm going too fast I lose the feeling as I extend too far beyond my comfort zone, and if I'm going too slow I lose the feeling because my decisions no longer matter and I could do anything without any risk. I imagine most riders are similar. A trail tuned to me keeps that feeling up the entire ride.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Yeah, but speed comes at a price, usually in maintenance and construction costs as well as environmental impact. What I hear is that a challenging trail can achieve the same user experience at lower speed, and ostensibly at less cost and less environmental impact. This agrees with my observations.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

UncleTrail said:


> Harsh angle and straight lines are not normal in nature, nor on flow trails.


You need to look more closely at nature. I have paddled a lot of white water creeking around VT, NE. I can think of many acute turns and straight lines in many rapids. Or in plant and animal structure as well.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Coldfriction said:


> I think what is described needs a different name. Maybe calling them _rythm_, _harmony_, or _tuned_ trails would be better. We all could use more adjectives to describe trails. I'd leave _flow_ for trails with smooth transitions meant to minimize changes in momentum. Riding a tuned trail sounds just as cool as riding a flow trail and gives more credit to the trail builders as artists.
> 
> Edit: The best flow trails would need to be tuned to achieve zen riding. A tuned flow trail seems so much cooler sounding than a flow trail.


I am using the word flow in the context of this mans work. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: Flow, the secret to happiness | TED Talk | TED.com He coined the term flow state long before there were flow trails, and describes the mental state we all attempt to achieve while trail riding as the "flow state" due to how composures expressed their work flowing out of them. My understanding of the development of flow trails were trails that attempted to deliver an extended experience in the flow state, where your sense of self, time, feelings disappear due to the fact that those parts of your brain become engrossed in helping the normal cognitive centers deal with the information needing to be processed. A flow trail LOOKS like riding in the Flow State FEELS, but you are actually functioning more in the control state and so you end up with fast boredom. The TED TALK is a pretty interesting snippet of his larger concept, and his research dating back decades on Flow.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Coldfriction said:


> So what is the difference between a technical trail, a flow trail, an artisan trail, or heaven forbid a designer trail? To me two of those describe a trail, the other two describe a person and none are mutually exclusive.
> 
> DaveVt is talking about something different than all of these as far as I'm interpreting his post. He seems to be talking about a natural rhythmic connection between a rider and a trail based on the human ability to process the trail as it is ridden. His argument appears to be that without sufficient technical features, the human brain is not sufficiently stimulated with the decision making process to achieve a zen state or be in the zone.
> 
> ...


Yes. If a fast, very buff trail puts less skilled riders in the flow state, a less buff, less fast (not saying slow) trail will cause the same physiological shift in how their brains work and allow them to escape into the flow state just the same. That very buff fast trail may never challenge the advanced riders no matter how fast they try and go and will only be fast boredom. However the less buff trail when ridden fast will provide that experience and provide that feeling of "Zen" ,as you put it, to a greater percentage of users.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

I couldn't watch it at work earlier and was basing my remarks on your comments. His use of the term _flow_ is 100% coincidental with what _flow trails_ are in biking. They aren't the same thing at all. The origin of flow trails is in physics, the origin of Mihaly's flow state is in psychology. When they overlap it is coincidental. I'd imagine the creative state he describes is frequently felt by people building trails as much as riding them and pushes people to build.

The chart near the end of his talk reminds me a lot of another chart I used to see around here that had skill on one axis and risk/danger/exposure on the other with a diagonal area labeled fun/enjoyment or something similar. His chart is better as it includes a whole bunch of mental states.

I agree that the flow state he talks about is what most bikers are looking for most of the time. Doesn't have anything to do with flow trails unless that's where you get that flow state when riding. I would venture to say that the reason he used the term flow is because he was talking about the productivity rate of artists and workers, and production rates could be described with a term like _flow_.

I love TED talks, and it is a good one. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

DaveVT, interesting write up but I have to disagree with you on a few major points. 

Csikszentmihalyi theorizes a highly skilled individual engaging in a challenging activity pertaining to their skill set can enter a state of flow. Put an unskilled individual in the same situation and they will react negatively. Exceeding the brains processing power doesn't get you to a zen state of mind by default.

Trail flow and the human condition of flow are two entirely different things that share a similar name. Designing good trail flow requires attention to rider potential/kinetic energy and other measurable physical properties. The zen state of flow is psychological and varies with the skill set of the individual and the task at hand.

Arguing one style of trail is better than another, which seems to be the underlying theme of this thread, is self defeating. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

aero901 said:


> DaveVT, interesting write up but I have to disagree with you on a few major points.
> 
> Csikszentmihalyi theorizes a highly skilled individual engaging in a challenging activity pertaining to their skill set can enter a state of flow. Put an unskilled individual in the same situation and they will react negatively. Exceeding the brains processing power doesn't get you to a zen state of mind by default.
> 
> ...


The Flow State described is the optimal mental state athletes seek. It is possible to provide that experience, as cold fusion recognized, it has to do with stimulation. So, trail characteristics plus velocity add up to a slight overstimulation and allow riders to operate in an enhanced mental state.

I don't really understand the relationship between flow trails and water. Are you saying flow trails are trails designed to drain well? They do not represent a path that water would follow in nature, in fact they are the opposite, as water would flow straight down the fall line. Can someone decisively show where and by who the first flow trail was designed and what context they were speaking in. In my local scene, we talked about trails having flow well before we knew or thought about modern trail design, and we were talking about the mental state of flow, not how water moves. No arguing about the origins of trail design, just honestly curious.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

So, not to be entirely disruptive but ....

I built an advanced trail, one that isn't particularly high consequence, but one that requires bike handling skills, stuff like the ability to let the bike move, and or move the bike around while putting power down, the ability to thread through turns that have multiple apexes, the ability to pick lines through rock gardens that set you up for turns. About 90% of the people who have ridden it indicated it was hugely fun. Several of the people in the 10% that didn't think it was fun said it had no flow, that you couldn't establish a rhythm anywhere on it. I tried to explain there was a rhythm, but you had to stop addressing individual features to find it, and rather address sets of features.

Then, knowing I'm a recording engineer, a friend of mine who is a jazz musician (yes, jazz musicians mountain bike too, apparently) said musically, if you're looking for 4/4 time and rock and roll, this isn't the trail for you. If you're into jazz or prog-metal, I think you can find the flow on this.

Conclusion? Flow is in the mind of the flowie.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

When surfing, I find flow on a longboard with knee-high to chest-high waves. My brother-in-law who surfs every day finds his flow on a shortboard riding overhead waves that break on shallow reefs.

When climbing, I find flow on overhanging routes with big moves on decent-sized holds. Super-strong bouldering specialists find flow on 6-move problems with micro-sized crimps and horrible slopers. 

When running, I find flow on 60- to 90-minute trail runs with rolling terrain. My accomplished ultra-runner friends find their flow after 10 or 12 hours of mountain running. 

When mountain biking, I'm learning to find my flow while sending small to medium tabletop jumps. If it's a gap jump I lose my flow, where as the same airtime over a table top I stay in my flow state. I'm also able to find my flow while pushing hard on a long, demanding climb (the only thing I'm any good at one a bike). I struggle to maintain my flow on technical descents. 

So basically I'm a sucky surfer, a pretty good climber, a longtime runner and a modestly skilled mountain biker. I find flow in lots of situations that don't involve expert-level terrain-- although that definition changes as one progresses in the activity. 

For example, I started rock climbing when I was 15 and I'm 48 now, and have climbed hundreds of routes in the 5.11+/5.12- grade with both gear and bolt protection. That's the right level of challenge for me to find flow. But on 5.12+/5.13-, which I've only climbed, and just barely at that, on rare occasions, it's very difficult to find my flow. Extraordinary when it happens but hard to achieve. 

That's the rub for very experienced mountain bikers: Where can you go to find the right level of flow-inducing challenge? It's not easy to find this on public trails--most riders are totally overwhelmed by the challenge level that is just right for a highly accomplished rider. Unlike a crag, which can offer a moderate route a few feet away from a very difficult one, a trail system usually has to serve a wide variety of trail users, without focusing on highly particular skill sets. 

The nice thing about rocky, technical trails is that if they get too difficult it's easy to get off and walk though the challenging bits. For expert-level gravity trails it's not so great to have lesser-skilled riders sailing through the air and blowing themselves up when they stuff it into a tree. 

But a well-designed flow trail lets intermediate riders hit some jumps and rail some berms, while a highly skilled rider can burn through and catch enough air to engage her flow state. It's a less of a drag to be an intermediate on these trails than it is to hoof it through a mile-long rock garden. 

The conclusion of all this, for me, is that it's valuable to recognize that different riders will need different levels and types of challenges to find their flow. Which is a great argument for the need to develop entire trail systems, with a broad range of challenge. The hardest bit is to create enough capacity and development that even high-end riders find the right places to flow, because while they can ride the easier stuff the more modestly skilled folks can't do much with the high-end difficulty trails.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

A trail that flows and a rider who is in a 'state of flow' are two entirely different things. This thread is a semantics **** show.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

It's an entirely valid point, and not merely a matter of semantics, to suggest that the level of challenge presented by the trail will effect the rider's ability to find the flow state.


----------



## UncleTrail (Sep 29, 2007)

TheDwayyo said:


> A trail that flows and a rider who is in a 'state of flow' are two entirely different things. This thread is a semantics **** show.


That's what happens when people listen to shitheads trying to sound intelligent at TED talks.

Obviously "flow state" should never be confused with a "flow trail".

Where is Vandeman?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

TheDwayyo said:


> A trail that flows and a rider who is in a 'state of flow' are two entirely different things. This thread is a semantics **** show.




Almost any trail can be ridden with '"flow" if the rider is skilled.
"Flow trails" typically just seem to drop the challenge to the lowest common denominator. Personally, for me to find them interesting enough to reach that state of immersion that I would consider 'flow state', I would have to ride at speeds where a very slight mistake would be likely to have disproportionate consequences...not enough reward for the risk IMO.

Water will just flow wherever you make it. I would hope that every rider that's been at it more than a few weeks would be looking for more out of a trail than a courseway for the inanimate. Might as well just go hit the amusement park in that case.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Maybe flow trails need to step up to their name.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Maybe we need to stop thinking of all flow trails as one thing.

Here's an IMBA blog I wrote just now, inspired by this thread.

https://www.imba.com/blog/mark-eller/searching-flow


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Flow in the context of this discussion, is simple exhilaration, or something close to it. I think we have always known that trails that produce this are fun to ride. The fact that this can be produced at a lower impact is useful info, and also provides some useful terminology, which can enhance our ability to discuss and understand what makes trails successful.

Mark E, if anything IMBA has developed and promoted the concept of trails as a certain thing by offering standards. I'm not saying this was entirely purposeful, but it's a consequence that has influenced perceptions. And yes, we do need to stop categorizing. I would prefer that each trail be beautifully unique and exhilarating, as you would too I suspect.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

bsieb said:


> Mark E, if anything IMBA has developed and promoted the concept of trails as a certain thing by offering standards. I'm not saying this was entirely purposeful, but it's a consequence that has influenced perceptions. And yes, we do need to stop categorizing. I would prefer that each trail be beautifully unique and exhilarating, as you would too I suspect.


See, this is the thing. When I ride a trail, I notice whether or not it's built sustainably. I notice what they did do, and what they didn't do. I've been on trail 100 years old that looks like it was built by someone who read an IMBA trail book but didn't know what a bike was. Some of those trails are some of the best trails I've ever ridden. By the same token, I've ridden some very new trails that were obviously built by someone who had read the book, but had a sense of imagination. These are also great trails.

If someone can be productive, and built sustainable trail, I don't want them to stop. But if someone can be creative in addition to that, I'd rather ride their trail. Some of how good a trail is, regardless of what set of guidelines was used to inform the technique used to build it, is the ability of the builder to see interesting lines, and take a unique approach to challenges presented by the natural terrain.


----------



## opo 19 (Aug 11, 2008)

Long time builder infrequent poster.
But this topic is very interesting.....Great thread!

Shouldn't we consider the average speed on a trail coupled with the number of turns on that trail that do not require significant reductions in overall momentum/speed-in order to begin grasping at a "flowy trail"

Seems like most riders who reply, " That trail had sick flow" are referring to the ability to trust the turns with less braking, and also build up speed using the undulations in the terrain.

Having ridden places like Lynn Woods in MA many times low speed highly technical trails can have amazing flow. The builder needs to consider each move on the trail as part of the message the trail will convey. I often find trails lose flow when the continuity of the trail is disrupted.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

opo 19 said:


> Long time builder infrequent poster.
> But this topic is very interesting.....Great thread!
> 
> Shouldn't we consider the average speed on a trail coupled with the number of turns on that trail that do not require significant reductions in overall momentum/speed-in order to begin grasping at a "flowy trail"
> ...


There are two groups of people here talking about two different versions of flow. One version is an objective technical definition like the one you are using. The other is a subjective experiential definition. Pretty much everyone here seems to me to be in agreement with minor differences. I like the technical definition of a _flow trail_ as a trail built to minimize breaking, sudden changes in velocity, and being mostly gravity fed instead of pedal driven. That's not everyone else's definition though and those trails can't even be built everywhere. This trail is the closest example of what I've ridden that I'd describe as a flow trail: Rush Trail. I've never heard anyone who really bikes say much of anything bad about that trail, but someone did write the local paper suggesting there were dangerous rocks that needed to be removed from it. People ride the thing on fully rigid bikes, bmx bikes even, and I don't recall any rocks sizable enough to be a concern. So yeah, some people will never be satisfied.

When people complain about flow trails, I think they're really complaining about domesticated vs wild trails. I say domesticated in the sense of a domesticated animal. Domesticated animals are the tamed less intelligent versions of their wild relatives. A wild trail becomes domesticated when the rocks and features are removed from it so that it _behaves_ better with the general public. Wild animals excite me far more than domesticated ones, but I'd rather eat domesticated animals. Interpret that however you want.

Not every trail can put you in the zone, zen, euphoria, and the flow state here described, but everyone loves it when they get there. For some people, I don't think flow trails like the Rush Flow trail above do it for them. Those people just need to appreciate that flow trails do put some people in the state they're looking for and let them enjoy biking in their way. What ideally shouldn't happen is that a good trail be changed from satisfying one user group to satisfy another. Building new trail is what should happen in that situation. It is better to give than to take. Someone came to that conclusion a couple thousand years ago.

That said, I hate jack-knife switchbacks and think they should all be bermed. If I had to pick between berms and roots/ledges/drops/features, I'd probably take the features as they stimulate the brain more and make riding more enjoyable.

But...


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

I think of flow aka the zone as a state where I don't think, it just happens... The water analogy works as water will find the path of least resistance. 

However it doesn't necessarily mean smooth... sometimes I get in the zone on techy climbs (but it seems harder to find) maybe it's due to the fact that flowing uphill (water again) is very difficult, while hitting the zone on a descent (gnarly or otherwise) is an easier place to find

-------------------------------------
Opinions are like A-holes... everybody 
has one & they're usually full of...??


----------



## opo 19 (Aug 11, 2008)

Coldfriction said:


> There are two groups of people here talking about two different versions of flow. One version is an objective technical definition like the one you are using. The other is a subjective experiential definition. Pretty much everyone here seems to me to be in agreement with minor differences. I like the technical definition of a _flow trail_ as a trail built to minimize breaking, sudden changes in velocity, and being mostly gravity fed instead of pedal driven. That's not everyone else's definition though and those trails can't even be built everywhere. This trail is the closest example of what I've ridden that I'd describe as a flow trail: Rush Trail. I've never heard anyone who really bikes say much of anything bad about that trail, but someone did write the local paper suggesting there were dangerous rocks that needed to be removed from it. People ride the thing on fully rigid bikes, bmx bikes even, and I don't recall any rocks sizable enough to be a concern. So yeah, some people will never be satisfied.
> 
> Based on the pictures it seems the Rush Trail has a character or continuity that is consistent throughout much of the ride.
> The flow is constant. If you all of sudden finished the trail with a slow rock garden the flow would be disrupted-For the trail and the riders experience.
> ...


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Flow has too many definitions in biking. Is a trail that flows a flowy trail? Is a trail that flows a flow trail? Is a flow trail a flowy trail? In physics the term flow is well defined and has everything to do with rates of change. It's units per unit time crossing some area. IE gallons per minute, cubic feet per second, vehicles per hour, kilograms per year. In physics terms, a trail is just a pipe and a rider just another particle in the flow. In the majority of flows, the system decides where the fluid or particles go and how fast, not the fluid or particles (traffic is a little different but surprisingly has natural flow rates regardless of driver input).

Hydraulic engineers and physicists sit around all day long thinking about energy grade lines and hydraulic grade lines trying to figure out where the water will go. I've argued before that this type of flow can be built into a trail by design; that a trail can be built to decide the riders speeds and accelerations making the rider a particle in flow. Trails that treat the rider like a particle in flow are flow trails to me. The trail takes the biker where it wants them to go at the speed it wants them to go. 

The primary argument of the OP is that the nature of flowing systems is that they take the thought out of riding. This does seem to be a realistic conclusion and certainly at least as valid as any other. As mentioned here, an amusement park offers a brainless thrill ride based on these ideas and people lap them up. I personally find myself working and figuring out how to keep my speed up on flow trails sufficiently mentally stimulating to keep them fun, but I will say I generally find myself in the flow state on longer rides in the middle of nowhere on narrow singletrack. 

This thread is one of mixed up semantics and has posters posting on multiple subjects thinking the conversation is all about the same thing. The real value to me is that I now realize that when I say flow, someone else is thinking something very different than what I mean, and when they say flow I shouldn't think of my version. Requesting clarification if context doesn't provide it is really necessary here.

How do pump tracks fit into all of this? Are they technical? Plenty of people here have said they are the place to look for flow. I imagine they are sufficiently stimulating to put a rider in the flow state of thought, but I don't see how that would be different than a flow trail. If a flow trail removes decision making, does a pump track add it back in because there isn't any gravity keeping speeds up and it is mentally stimulating trying to stay in motion? Real questions I would love to hear some real answers to.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

I'm not sure why I'm obsessed with pointing out that flow is not unique to mountain biking ... I guess it's because I think too much of the discussion seems to focus on the nuances of trail design when I believe the more interesting thing is that flow can occur in lots of different settings and with different types of stimuli. For example, some of my most flow-y sports experiences were when I was a rower, repeating the same exact movement stroke after stroke, hour after hour. Even with repetitive motion sports flow is a vital part of the experience. So how can a trail the twists and turns and offers jumps and features be too "boring" or "predictable" to facilitate flow?


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Mark E said:


> I'm not sure why I'm obsessed with pointing out that flow is not unique to mountain biking ... I guess it's because I think too much of the discussion seems to focus on the nuances of trail design when I believe the more interesting thing is that flow can occur in lots of different settings and with different types of stimuli. For example, some of my most flow-y sports experiences were when I was a rower, repeating the same exact movement stroke after stroke, hour after hour. Even with repetitive motion sports flow is a vital part of the experience. So how can a trail the twists and turns and offers jumps and features be too "boring" or "predictable" to facilitate flow?


When a trail is designed to control the rider and only offer 1 line with little room for options, every turn in-sloped, similar radius, evenly spaced, regularly shaped features it loses the key ingredients for me, which is the improvisation. I think the Flow state is different from a runner's high which is a straight endorphin high as a response to lactic acid burn.

Paddling continuous class 4 white water is my most flowy experience. Endless input from complex paddle strokes, boat angle and lean, features made of water, rock and ledge to interact with. Epic Flow!

I want to go back to a point being made that I disagree with. It's no coincidence that the Composures that first described Flow, as in "their work just flowed out of them" used that word. While some insist that flow trails are somehow related to the movement of water, or fluidity, I think the mental state also refers to fluidity and was inspired by artist familiar with the unimpeded movement of water down a stream. Being in flow feels fluid. Riding a trail with flow feels fluid, although I disagree about the components that might deliver the most fluid experience, the mental state in which we are most affective is a state that allows for fluid and rapid decisions. I think maximum variety is the key. Flat turns, bermed turns, roots, rock, dirt, wood. The more varied the better. The more uniform the turn shapes, tread shape, and features, the more monotonous it is, even if it's fast and has jumps. Just my opinion, it is highly subjective.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

I hear you. I'd say down-river and flat-water both offer flow, but in different formats. Kind of like different kinds of highs, though I'm a "get high on life" kind of guy for the most part.


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)

Coldfriction said:


> Flow has too many definitions in biking. . . .
> 
> This thread is one of mixed up semantics . . .
> 
> How do pump tracks fit into all of this? Are they technical? . . . .


I agree.

The Mental-State-Flow concept discussed in above is different from the Physics-of-Flow idea.

Mental State Flow seems to be more about focus, concentration (and "losing yourself in concentration"). I'm glad the O.P. brought the idea to the table, and I will have to go add that talk to my Netflix list!

I drew this and wrote about it a while back over on the ridemonkey dirt jump forum, Distance between jumps | Ridemonkey.com. 


















BMX'ers and skaters have been talking about "flowy" trails and skateparks for a really long time.

I think the most obvious connection is that the original skateparks were attempts at making a "concrete wave" experience, because skateboarding was so closely related to surfing culture.

Having ups and downs associated with gravity and water, and smooth edges also associated with water flow . . . made certain skatepark designs "flowy" while others weren't.

The key about ups and downs when you're sitting on a boat is that there is a rhythm. Rhythm is about motion relating to time intervals.



































As I pointed out in that ridemonkey thread, the ups and downs associated with "flowy" dirt jumps are because you're experiencing the up and down motion at time intervals that would be like a natural wave pattern.... :thumbsup:

Now . . . does "flow" have to mean jumping? Not at all. I can totally understand how XC riders want to have their zen-in-the-woods-on-singletrack. But, there could be ways, let's say, series of turns with a series of body motions (leaning) required, in certain repeated ways that would get that rhythmic sensation.

Thinking about singing/rapping or even dancing to a beat, versus off-beat. One is irritating, the other is captivating.... 

Concrete Wave in Paris - e-architect









Even just in terms of wave shapes . . . . I don't know how many of you guys wakeboard . . . . but there is a strong similarity between good wake launch and mellow sender dirt jump:


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)

Hope I'm not overposting here.... but I just saw another connection with pump tracks.

Back when we were trying to deal with an upgradient section on our track, I came up with a method where each roller got longer as well as more spaced out from the previous one. I called it "accelerating rollers."

As you pump each roller and start going a little faster, then the length and spacing of the next roller can get longer to synch up with the same up-and-down rhythm.

This reminds me of that:










https://forums.mtbr.com/urban-dj-park/dj-pump-track-plans-402237.html#post6248369
https://forums.mtbr.com/urban-dj-park/dj-pump-track-plans-402237-2.html#post6352136


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)

Dirt waves


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)




----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

There's "Flow" and there's "flow". Unfortunately, when IMBA coined the term and created specific guidelines for "Flow", it kind of robbed "flow" of all the variety it was capable of.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

I don't think IMBA coined "flow." Nor have we created specific guidelines for it. If that were the case this would have been a very short thread. 

We do use "flow trail" a good bit right now, as do lots of people who are currently building gravity trails. The come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, for skill levels from beginner to advanced. There's no single formula. 

The was an attempt at marketing "IMBA Flow Country" in partnership with Hans Rey a few years ago but that has focused on a few European resort areas.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Mark E said:


> I don't think IMBA coined "flow." Nor have we created specific guidelines for it. If that were the case this would have been a very short thread.
> 
> We do use "flow trail" a good bit right now, as do lots of people who are currently building gravity trails. The come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, for skill levels from beginner to advanced. There's no single formula.
> 
> The was an attempt at marketing "IMBA Flow Country" in partnership with Hans Rey a few years ago but that has focused on a few European resort areas.


Mark,

I found the IMBA guidelines. Here ya go: http://www.imba.com/flowcountry/trailcharacteristics

There are also nine "Flow Trails" listed in the "Model Trails" section, most of which are in the US. I assume that these trails had to meet certain guidelines, developed by IMBA, in order to be listed as "Flow Trails". So, could Captain Ahab be nominated as an IMBA Flow Trail? I tend to doubt it, as it probably doesn't meet IMBA's guidelines (which you claim don't exist) for Flow Trails.

I think the first time I heard the term "flow" relating to mountain biking trails, was when Hans Rey came up with the Flow Country Trail idea. It probably wouldn't have became such a buzz word without IMBA's support. Yes, the "Country" part of the name has been dropped, but the design, a far as I can tell, remains basically the same. Also, other "flow trails" such as Soquel Demo Flow Trail near Santa Cruz or Half Nelson in Squamish, while not official IMBA Flow Trails, follow the same design principals.

I think Flow Trails or flow trails (hence the confusion!) are a great addition to mountain biking. The point I make is that IMBA is primarily responsible for creating the perception of what "flow" is, which can in turn influence trail design and maintenance for better or worse. Not to knock IMBA, it just is what it is.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

https://www.imba.com/flow-country/appendix-trail-characteristics


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Wow wow wow. So many posts and no-one has made the one obvious defining link. In fact, no-one has used the magic word. The one definition that binds them all.

*FUN*.

Flow = Fun. Fast or slow. Easy or hard. Natural or manufactured.

The hard part is MTB trail is a skinny, limited line through the bush. Even the most accepting, happy person will eventually ride all the available lines on any trail. That's when Dave VT's flow via overload theory starts to erode. Will that trail never be "the one" again? You have to hope fun provides the answer.

Building a trail that makes people happy takes a mix of skills. Time taken to appreciate the terrain, then to appreciate where MTB and those terrain features come together, overlay the destinations, allow for environmental impact zones, ensure the land manager is on-side as you go, make detailed plans you agree to change as the reality of building progresses and more than anything else, ride and re-ride your work as you go. It doesn't matter if the trail is steep or gentle, fast or slow, relaxed or gripping. It doesn't matter whether the flow is provided by a series of berms, floating jumps, re-entry creek crossings, rock ledges, sharp climbs, rainforest turns around trees, turns away from a cliff edge or slippery skids from downhill stone to downhill root. What matters is that as many people as possible can love the trail as often as possible.

That means making trail for other people; trail that other people love. It means riding trail that makes the greatest lovers disappointed at times, even the trail builders on their day off.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

bpressnall said:


> I think the first time I heard the term "flow" relating to mountain biking trails, was when Hans Rey came up with the Flow Country Trail idea. It probably wouldn't have became such a buzz word without IMBA's support. Yes, the "Country" part of the name has been dropped, but the design, a far as I can tell, remains basically the same. s.


Hans tacked on the 'country' part, but the term 'flow trail' was around for a number of years before that.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Thanks for pointing that out! It might be time to take it down as the whole Flow Country thing isn't really a big hit in North America. 

But that's not meant to be the only "flow trail" advice or model. It's a particular product, thus the caps and proper noun format.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

HI Mark,
So what is the difference in design of the original Flow Country Trails and the newer IMBA Flow Trails listed in IMBA's Model Trails section of the website? I have seen video of Han's first Flow Country Trail at Livigno, Italy, and it looks a lot like some of the IMBA Flow Trails. 

As Hans said,
"The tracks shall never be extreme or too steep or dangerous, small berms and rollers shall provide the addicting roller coaster feeling and sensation. Flow Country Trails go predominately downhill with short uphill sections, if the terrain permits to naturally reduce speed, and to enhance the roller coaster character. Ideally a good biker would not have to do too much braking or pedaling. Flow Country Trails are narrow, natural singletracks (1-3' wide) with diverse and appropriate elements such as: berms, rollers, rocks, roots, small jumps and drops which should also be rollable or can be avoided. In certain areas the trail can be more technically demanding, steeper, rougher, or more narrow, but will still be easy to navigate for all riders. Potentially with some pedal sections and short climbs."

Now to me that sounds almost exactly like an IMBA "Flow Trail", except perhaps the "natural" part, and the width, which if often more than 3', but you say, "...the whole Flow Country thing isn't really a big hit in North America". I'm confused, perhaps you could explain what characteristics IMBA requires in a trail in order to be recognized as an IMBA Flow Trail. There are only eight IMBA Flow Trails in the world (six in the US), so I imagine the qualifications are fairly strict.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

The Flow Country pages definitely need some updating -- the terminology and definitions continue to change. The upcoming article I mentioned earlier in the thread should help. It's not overly prescriptive but does try to define a few different categories of gravity and flow trails, ranging from hand-built, narrow singletrack with flow elements (like bermed turns and smaller jumps) to large-scale, usually machine-built, gravity/flow trails. 

The model trail recognition for flow trails is not meant to say that those are the only examples of that trail style in the world, or even that they are the definitive, be-all-end-all examples. Just like the Epics are not the only great trail rides in the world. It's a collection of inspirational trails in a particular style. 

No doubt, some people take the model trails lists as "these are the only trails IMBA recognizes as outstanding," but that's not really the point. Yet there is considerable value in list these examples of inspirational trails because they clerly have served as models that people have used to create new, and even better, examples of the trail building art. 

That's what we are trying to achieve with the model trails program.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

DaveVt said:


> I don't really understand the relationship between flow trails and water. Are you saying flow trails are trails designed to drain well? They do not represent a path that water would follow in nature, in fact they are the opposite, as water would flow straight down the fall line. Can someone decisively show where and by who the first flow trail was designed and what context they were speaking in. In my local scene, we talked about trails having flow well before we knew or thought about modern trail design, and we were talking about the mental state of flow, not how water moves. No arguing about the origins of trail design, just honestly curious.


The water/flow trail analogy doesn't work if you think of water flowing down an actual trail. Instead, the trail flow terminology probably originated as a way to describe the feeling of riding a trail which poses little resistance to forward movement and requires minimal corrective inputs to maintain course/speed. Similar to how fluids naturally flow in a path of least resistance.

I looked up the etymology of the word "flow" and found this interesting tidbit from an article about forces on a skier in a November 1980 issue of "Ski" magazine: "Go with the flow, enjoy the forces, let ankles, knees, hips and waist move subtly to soak up potential disturbances of acceleration and deceleration."

In this context the term flow is used to describe a fluid like state of motion.

If I were to attempt to characterize the physical distinction between flow trail and non-flow trail I would use a property called *Jerk*. Jerk is the the rate of change of acceleration in a system.

Jerk analysis is regularly used to smooth mechanical systems for reduced component wear and improved user comfort.

Flow trails have lower values of Jerk while technically challenging trails have higher values of Jerk. Abrupt corners, hard braking, and rough ground will all contribute to to higher values of Jerk.

In the simplest form, a flow trail allows an optimized trajectory for a rider by reducing harsh transitions between trail features and turns.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

--I hate this new fangled concept of "flow trails" these jokers have no clue. This must be Southern California.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Dave I do agree with your point and I hear great things about the trail systems in VT in a gnarly way, I hope that does not change. It is tough for any one man to speak for all on this subjective subject. Fortunately mountain bike trails are like a box of chocolates, and may I sample each and every one. 

We are builders, build as you see fit.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

The interesting thing about this thread is, it seems to indicate mountain bikers have a limited vocabulary to describe their medium. Skiers have many words to describe snow: powder, chowder, ice, hardpack, groomed, corduroy, chop, skier packed, boiler plate, bullet proof, mashed potatoes, crud, blower, breakable crust, rain crust, sun crust, death cookies, depth hoar, surface hoar, Sierra Cement, Cascade Concrete, graupel, avy debris, sastrugi, moguls, mank, corn, slush, chalk, punchy, rotten, cold smoke, piste, off piste, wind blown, dust on crust....well you get the idea. This poor word "flow" has to describe so many things, that when someone uses it, you can't be sure what they're talking about.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

bpressnall said:


> The interesting thing about this thread is, it seems to indicate mountain bikers have a limited vocabulary to describe their medium. Skiers have many words to describe snow: powder, chowder, ice, hardpack, groomed, corduroy, chop, skier packed, boiler plate, bullet proof, mashed potatoes, crud, blower, breakable crust, rain crust, sun crust, death cookies, depth hoar, surface hoar, Sierra Cement, Cascade Concrete, graupel, avy debris, sastrugi, moguls, mank, corn, slush, chalk, punchy, rotten, cold smoke, piste, off piste, wind blown, dust on crust....well you get the idea. This poor word "flow" has to describe so many things, that when someone uses it, you can't be sure what they're talking about.


This sounds like a scene from the movie "Clerks"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF0_hpix3zY


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

bpressnall said:


> The interesting thing about this thread is, it seems to indicate mountain bikers have a limited vocabulary to describe their medium. Skiers have many words to describe snow: powder, chowder, ice, hardpack, groomed, corduroy, chop, skier packed, boiler plate, bullet proof, mashed potatoes, crud, blower, breakable crust, rain crust, sun crust, death cookies, depth hoar, surface hoar, Sierra Cement, Cascade Concrete, graupel, avy debris, sastrugi, moguls, mank, corn, slush, chalk, punchy, rotten, cold smoke, piste, off piste, wind blown, dust on crust....well you get the idea. This poor word "flow" has to describe so many things, that when someone uses it, you can't be sure what they're talking about.


Flow describes a type of movement, not a type of trail surface. It is one of many descriptors of movement in bicycle vocabulary, i.e. spin, hammer, hop, manual, slice & dice, etc.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

The curiosity about this is that as we approach the limits of flow we become familiar with it at a certain level. At some point this experience becomes normalized as we become accustomed to the effect. 

With familiarity we conceptualized certain aspects of the experience and integrate these factors as an accommodation, reducing their impact: experience with these events make us more accustomed to the stress, allowing us even more data points, increasing our speed while keeping the stress levels, and load levels, the same. 

Just as with substance use/abuse, it takes a greater and greater dosage to achieve the same "high." Over time we get faster and faster.

As many have said, IMBA included, our greatest offense on the trails is our speed. There is no way to defend ourselves against others who oppose our presence when they object to our speed.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

One of the factors we are encountering with the East Bay Regional Park District in the SF Bay Area is a desire to limit access even on accessible trails. There is some undercurrent that suggests that we are overwhelming extant parking and eroding trails with our numbers.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

BM, that's amazing. So MTB is a problem not even because of being in the bush, but just because riders drive to the bush in increasing numbers! We are a problem for sure and not in any position to defend ourselves when it comes to facts like this. 50c adds another level of concern. How long before some researcher proves modern trails are too dangerous? It won't be hard either. When you analyse all injuries on a "new" flow trail and compare to hospital cases from before the flow trail existed, there can only be one result. 

So unlike other growing sports (e.g. soccer in the US), MTB will likely face prejudice instead of increased public funding for access and parking. Does this mean you guys are potentially facing another type of fight for freedom? I mean, if MTB clogs roads and carparks, damages the environment and injures more riders than ever before, shouldn't it be BANNED?


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> The curiosity about this is that as we approach the limits of flow we become familiar with it at a certain level. At some point this experience becomes normalized as we become accustomed to the effect.
> 
> With familiarity we conceptualized certain aspects of the experience and integrate these factors as an accommodation, reducing their impact: experience with these events make us more accustomed to the stress, allowing us even more data points, increasing our speed while keeping the stress levels, and load levels, the same.
> 
> ...


True. And full-suspension and 29'er wheels have also contributed that speed on mixed-use XC trails....

Flow trail tends to more often to be one-directional and non-hiking (at least at resort mountains).


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

cmc4130 said:


> True. And full-suspension and 29'er wheels have also contributed that speed on mixed-use XC trails....
> 
> Flow trail tends to more often to be one-directional and non-hiking (at least at resort mountains).


I think serious consideration should be given to trails designed to produce a fun experience on rigid and maybe even single speed bikes. There is a reason old guys end up riding them, they supply more fun per foot of trail than the faster straighter speed factor machines. We are currently designing our inter-mountain system around the gentler demands of endurance racing and bikepacking, because the level of impact on a relatively fragile environment is a primary concern. We have tried to keep the miles of trail per square mile of surface as low as possible to avoid concentrating impact on wildlife populations, or fragile soils, or plant populations. As a result we have a system that is well suited to less the intense forms of bicycling, by nature of being built by less manipulative methods, and retaining more of the natural wave forms, which include the aesthetics of a sense of authentic non-manipulated space. Humans vibrate strongly to nature's wave forms, which have a marvelous and endless variety of over and under tones for each of the senses. Sometimes emphasizing one sense over the others, which may be unavoidable in some settings, results in a diminished experience that requires speed to boost it to the interest level of pleasing natural flow. I'm using the term wave form in the sense of pure energy vibrating to a frequency in space time and perceived as matter, color, sound, smell, or texture, by typical human mtber senses.


----------



## rob p (Jun 11, 2015)

First time post; long time observer!
An article I wrote about flow for an Australian Mag earlier this year...
Hopefully it's legible. I can post text only if anyone is interested reading it and can't.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

It's fuzzy and not easy to read, but interesting. There's lots of ways of looking at flow. The (negative) attitudes described in the article are similar to around here. 

I like the concept that flow is a reward. The most recent time I caught myself feeling flow was on a long, climbing section of narrow and rough, old-school trail. The trailside vegetation had been given a serious haircut and for the first time (ever I think) you could see where the trail was going and really enjoy where you were riding. The transitions from cool, green, shady corners to stony and dry ridges were enjoyable and visible. It made everything flow nicely instead of being a slog and challenge to see ahead.

It's a good article Rob, but now you have firmly entered spandex, rigid seat posts and narrow bars into the jerk, not flow category of this thread


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rob p said:


> I can post text only if anyone is interested reading it and can't.


Would you mind?


----------



## davez26 (Dec 2, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> Would you mind?


x2. text please!


----------



## rob p (Jun 11, 2015)

As requested!

Cats and dogs.
Flow is perhaps the most over used term in the mountain biking. It is not a word that mountain bikers created, we borrowed it from other spheres of human activity and the natural world where it refers to actual and thoroughly defined things. Flow is what uncontained liquids do where a gravitational potential difference exists. Their behaviour governed by their inherent properties, the surface relative to which they are passing and gravity. In psychology, flow refers to the condition where a person is completely immersed in an activity ‘for it’s own sake’. Both of these meanings fit with the way we usually use the term ‘flow’, but what does it mean for riders and what does it mean when it’s attached to trails? 
A dog is still a four-legged, fur-covered canine if I call it a cat, but if I call it a cat, you call it a duck and someone else calls it a monkey, you can understand my amusement when you tell me your bringing your trail-duck along for a ride. Meaning is established through usage of words rather than an inherent relationship between the term and the thing it signifies. Every time a word is used to signify a concept that fits with our understanding or its definition, the function of the word is enhanced. When it’s used in ways that conflict with our understanding, ambiguity increases. If a word is used enough times to refer to dissimilar things, that particular assembly of letters and their enunciation in speech cease to mean a thing. The gross over use and application of flow to describe dissimilar and even contradictory things is rapidly eroding it’s ability to communicate anything.
I’ve endured flow being used to describe trails and riding experiences that range from drag-strip straights punctuated by less-than-bar-width trees to wobble through; dirt roller-coasters that negate the need for stopping and going related products from the two big S’s, to the featureless foot-paths where an ideal cadence can be maintained due to the absence of anything remotely engaging.
For a little while there, as flow was gaining traction in the mountain biking vernacular, its use even became an esoteric display of understanding and belonging to the mountain bike clique. Similarly, on many occasions, I’ve heard riders using flow to validate the particular style of riding they enjoy as though it is title worn by all mountain bike things that are good. While in my opinion the trails and riding experiences they’ve been referring to would best be described as awkward and frustrating. Maybe they were just well versed in popular psychology and completely immersed in their bar-tweaking experience?
In the context of mountain biking, flow is generally held to be a desirable attribute. It’s not uncommon to hear an account of how good a trail is reflect directly to how well it flowed. Or it was, until it preceded the word; trail. Immediately, the counter-movement of disgruntled log roll-over connoisseurs mobilised and started slapping their keyboards frantically to display their shred-credentials and to mitigate the imminent threat of all our trails becoming ‘flow trails’ or worse; ‘dumbed down’. 
These tend to be the same riders who are relatively new to the sport (though there are many that have been pedalling for years) that have developed adequate skills to navigate most of the trails in their respective microcosms. They tend to enjoy awkward trails that they will describe as technical. They tend to ride seated and maintain dropper posts users are compensating for something.
This cohorts view of trails is reduced to a binary assessment of the riding experience, they can either ride a trail or not. They have not yet (and many of them will never) develop an understanding of the nuances of (style, flow and interpreting a trail) riding a mountain bike nor have they developed the experience and trail interpretation skills to interpret the terrain in front of them. If they are able to navigate a trail, that trail is no longer a challenge. If they are able to navigate a trail that riders of lesser abilities within their sect cannot, it’s an opportunity to display their mountain cycling prowess.
As modern (and well executed) trail design and construction is tending to make trails accessible to the widest possible range of rider abilities while providing optional (and apparently difficult to perceive) technical features these folks are trapped in purgatory. When informal networks are legitimised and the trails that once challenged them have been replaced by trails that anyone can ride, they lack ability to perceive the more advanced challenges that are be woven into good trails (and of course there are plenty of trails that are not good trails and worthy of contempt). Consequently, these are the guys (it seems to be a guy thing except when there are subordinate lady parrots within the sect), that complain that trails are too-easy while riding around every technical feature, maintaining contact with the ground and their seats.
What is a flow trail and why does it seem all mountain bikers who where cutting laps before the 30-50 something’s bolted a bike to the roof-rack, slipped on some spandex and entered an event to score a number plate to display for the next six months, are suspicious of any trail associated with flow? 
I can sympathise entirely with those whose only experience of machine built trail, is reminiscent of a dusty foot-path I readily concede that there is metre after metre of unimaginative, featureless trail being unfurled across the universe on any given day. It is certainly true that flow trail has become with synonymous with in-sloped, machine built trails where most corners are bermed and the trail tread fairly uniform but do these trail attributes necessarily provide or are they required for flow? More importantly for those responding to the images of perfectly manicured soil sculptures, should this style of trail construction preclude the inclusion of natural technical features and irregular, more natural trail treads if we accept flow is a good thing as though these things are somehow incompatible with flow. 
Does this label flow trail; actually communicate anything useful and is at an appropriate application of flow? To address all these questions, it’s necessary to have a discussion about what, in the mountain bike context, flow means and then perhaps we can understand and enjoy some productive discourse about how it may or may not apply to trails.
Just as in the example I’ve cited involving the behaviour of liquids, flow should be considered a behaviour of mountain bikers; a state in which the rider is able to proceed along a trail minimising abrupt changes in speed; a description of the complex interaction between a particular rider with a particular trail. Obviously this also describes the rider travelling along a road, featureless trail, or at rest. Flow is therefore, far from an objective measure of the enjoyment a rider may derive from a trail, one attribute of the riding experience. Many good trails, and good riders offer and enjoy respectively experiences that do not fit with this understanding of flow.
Flow is not an inherent attribute of a trail; we certainly wouldn’t describe the riverbed and banks that confine and determine the path of a river as possessing flow. Rather, it is a particular state achieved through the synthesis of a rider with particular skills, fitness, experience and preferences with the trail.
Not all mountain bikers will achieve flow and those that do will not achieve it on the same trails as other riders. Each rider will interpret the trail differently and apply their particular set of skills, fitness and disposition. The same rider will not always achieve flow on a trail they have previously. Clearly, an advanced rider with a high level of fitness will be able to achieve flow in a wider range of trail conditions than will a beginner. 
This description goes some way to accounting for the diametric differences in experience any two riders may glean from the same trail. To a beginner or low intermediate rider, a trail littered with well-placed, manufactured rollers can be an annoyance as the expend energy absorbing, or ricocheting off each feature, while to the advance rider it’s an opportunity to experience truly dynamic, three dimensional flow as they double, triple, transfer and hip their way along the trail. The same can be said of a natural roots and rocks. The beginner rider may find these an annoyance, lacking the confidence, skills and experience to visualise and ride lines that the intermediate and advanced rider will perceive and execute, enjoying to rewards of the application of the understanding and techniques they’ve developed. For most riders, making a section of trail flow is the reward for time and effort invested in developing their riding.
When we start to think of flow as a behaviour that is a particular kind of interaction with a trail rather than an attribute of a trail itself, it’s obvious that some of those trail attributes that some riders and builders have come to view as incompatible with achieving flow; roots, rocks, irregular trail tread, become perfectly appropriate and indeed can create less immediately rewarding, through more genuinely gratifying experiences for riders of most ability levels.
For trail builders, the challenge is to develop trails that allow riders with the skills, fitness and confidence we associate with a particular trail technical difficulty rating to achieve flow.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

rob p said:


> As requested!
> 
> Cats and dogs.
> Flow is perhaps the most over used term in the mountain biking. It is not a word that mountain bikers created, we borrowed it from other spheres of human activity and the natural world where it refers to actual and thoroughly defined things. Flow is what uncontained liquids do where a gravitational potential difference exists. Their behaviour governed by their inherent properties, the surface relative to which they are passing and gravity. In psychology, flow refers to the condition where a person is completely immersed in an activity 'for it's own sake'. Both of these meanings fit with the way we usually use the term 'flow', but what does it mean for riders and what does it mean when it's attached to trails?
> ...


Yup. Where were you a week ago?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Very insightful and well written man. 

Cheers!


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Here's a new IMBA blog I wrote on the topic.

Has IMBA gone overboard with enthusiasm for flow trails? The upcoming issue of Trail News features a story about rugged, hand-built singletrack, as well as building techniques for gravity trails, plus trailwork tips and more. https://www.imba.com/blog/mark-eller/flow-or-not-flow


----------



## Co-opski (Oct 24, 2013)

I prefer "Schralp" to describe my "flow"


----------



## UncleTrail (Sep 29, 2007)

rob p said:


> As requested!
> 
> Cats and dogs.
> Flow is perhaps the most over used term in the mountain biking. It is not a word that mountain bikers created, we borrowed it from other spheres of human activity and the natural world where it refers to actual and thoroughly defined things. Flow is what uncontained liquids do where a gravitational potential difference exists. Their behaviour governed by their inherent properties, the surface relative to which they are passing and gravity. In psychology, flow refers to the condition where a person is completely immersed in an activity 'for it's own sake'. ...........clipped...................
> ...


[RANT ON] :rant: All the hipsters who think they experience something other MTB'rs do not and have decided to call it "flow state"
please go look up the definition of _nirvana_. :idea:

There's nothing new here. The article is inaccurate, insulting, and ignorant of MTB history IMHO. Flow trails were around long before the Millenial hipster showed up on the scene high on SSRI's.

Just another great example of why hipster beatings must continue to take place. [RANT OFF]


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

UncleTrail said:


> [RANT ON] :rant: All the hipsters who think they experience something other MTB'rs do not and have decided to call it "flow state"
> please go look up the definition of _nirvana_. :idea:
> 
> There's nothing new here. The article is inaccurate, insulting, and ignorant of MTB history IMHO. Flow trails were around long before the Millenial hipster showed up on the scene high on SSRI's.
> ...


Actually no....the doctor started his study on happiness in the 60s and led him to what he called the flow state, that is not MTB specific. The term flow state was "coined" by him....not some hipster dude with wax in his stash, and a canned beer. No one said their experience was unique or that I was new to MTBing you stinky old fart.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Unc, the first half or so of rob's article kind of rubbed me the same way, but IMO, he made up for it towards the end.

Just saying.


----------



## MTRRON (Nov 14, 2008)

it's a balance between endorphins and adrenaline


----------



## singlesprocket (Jun 9, 2004)

well that was entertaining... when i started riding and building trail around 30 years ago a flow trail was a trail you could ride without a chain (or pedaling). that's what flow meant to us, gravity and pump... glad a few of us are still building those trails. don't like, don't ride it.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

singlesprocket said:


> well that was entertaining... when i started riding and building trail around 30 years ago a flow trail was a trail you could ride without a chain (or pedaling). that's what flow meant to us, gravity and pump... glad a few of us are still building those trails. don't like, don't ride it.


I could ride down long sections of rt 89 without a chain. Is the Hwy a flow trail?


----------



## UncleTrail (Sep 29, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> Unc, the first half or so of rob's article kind of rubbed me the same way, but IMO, he made up for it towards the end.
> 
> Just saying.


It's all tongue in cheek. You are correct. I am being overly harsh.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

The reactions are so funny and silly. The love and hate reminds me of the singlespeed or bike lifestyle as religion stuff. The defense and some efforts somehow remind me of the extremes of weight weenie.

In 2006 WaltDizzy and I did a few mile area with machine. We had the resources and it let just a few people meet the land manager's deadline. It was done enough right that we really haven't touched it except leaf blowing. The way nature has worked to disguise the corridor cut no one knows it's "flow trail". In 2006 we didn't think of any name for the type of trail. Just that it was a great fit in an area that's otherwise nasty rocky and with more vertical than any ski area in the state.

So far there's no place I've traveled where flow trail has killed the fun or taken away rough and tough stuff I also enjoy. I get in the "flow" or "groove" with both.

Some recent group rides gave me a lot of insight on flow trail. A lot of people just don't know how to pump, pop and lean. Some among them said the new trail was boring as they pedaled or stood there while for others each pump or mini bit of flight got picked up the speed.

I started asked people who know how to pump to raise their hands in one place we ride. It been a mix of a few smiles and mostly WTF. It's lead to a few who get it or know what skill to learn next.

Regarding IMBA and flow. Last night our rep joined us on a ride that covered pretty much everything including brand new flow trail - zipping by our mini ex, 100 year old horse trail, through rocky gullies and up nasty steep climbs - her only policy recommendation after that was get a few pitchers of beer.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

I ain't gettn it. How do you define the Non Flow trails. 

In PA we have epic trails that could make you piss blood. You know rip rap, railroad ballast, baby heads, elephant heads, bricks, blocks, ankle breakers, frame benders, tombstones, backward tombstones . Is that what you like? However even these trails have some flow sections and other sections not so much. 

Show pictures and video of what you like non flow style.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Here's my Ideal trail. 1000 foot climb from the lot as the first filter. Technical tread is the second filter. On the trail, varied riding surface as much as possible, long sections that don't require pedaling if you know how to ride. For intermediates, it's a mostly low speed techy trail. As you learn the line and the skills increase, so does the speed.






Here's a machine built flow trail that drops about 600 vert. A lot of natural features left. Natural undulations and a-rhythmic pumping to keep that natural trail feel. It's grown back into single track. It's a flow trail that doesn't get boring because of the irregularities in the design and build.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Flying saucers*

This is an interesting thread; the TED presentation got me hooked when Csikszentmihalyi mentioned "...mandalas projected into the sky..." (from Jung) and in that context it made perfect sense.

That graphic showing the "flow state" as being between "arousal" and "control" spoke well to how MTBers will perceive the concept of flow when applied to trail design. Spot on IMHO; not a single point in that talk I'd feel inclined to argue about.

I also liked the "Dogs and Cats" article but have to take exception to the sentence "Flow is what _uncontained_ liquids do..." inasmuch the containment of said liquid is very much a factor on resulting flow. Containment being a pipe, a canal, a river valley or even surface tension. To be even more picky "fluid" may be a better choice than "liquid".

Getting past that, the analogy of a trail being sort of a "pipe" in a gravity-fed water system is a good one but leads to the matter of "flow rates" and are we talking velocity or volume? Or both?

Ever notice that MTB "flow trails" usually suck for hikers? Big advocacy problem IMHO.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

"Ever notice that MTB "flow trails" usually suck for hikers? Big advocacy problem IMHO."

This is very situational, I'd say. For example, in Draper, Utah, the trail system is laid out with gravity/flow trails designed for MTBers, mixed with shared-use singletrack, as well as hike-only and equestrian trails. Everyone is happy with the results. They have plenty of room and capacity for a variety of purpose-built trails designs. 

In other places where every trail has to function as a two-way, multi-user facility there can definitely be a downside for other users when the trail design is too strongly bike-oriented. However, there are also plenty of trails designed specifically for foot travel with little thought for other users--so maybe it's time to even out the balance a bit.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Dave "Fantastic Trail" and not a bad rider. That is flow fo sure. Definitely more buff then most of East Pa and not in a bad way.


----------

