# You''re dumbing down the trails!



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Opinion - It Should Be Hard, Shouldn't it? - Pinkbike

Comments will make your head roll.

RANT warning for what follows... National Trails Day is coming this weekend and I'm doing a reroute where the wanna-bes are gonna nag...

Interesting stuff. But not really. I think pinkbike community, and many established/long-term riders, really don't realize how few true beginner trails there are out there, try finding a loop in Southwestern New England that is truly beginner friendly. I do want ONE or TWO loops for "Jim" from accounting. I want more volunteers to love riding, and trails, and come out for the "small" crew days when we put in the tech and challenge and stuff that the 1-5% of riders will hit.

I'm a firm believer that you can have flow + tech together. But its funny because those established riders will nag new challenge lines and put in their own granny lines or ramp ledge/long or drops where there's something advanced. Hubris tastes like suck perhaps?

Haters gonna hate, and they should realize though, they ain't as hot a rider as they think... and with flow, just add speed to add difficulty (but that still brings the whambulance out).

I'll continue to build flow, and I'll continue to build tech.

End of rant: I'm re-routing a nasty section of fall line, its maybe 100'. I will have to spend 3x the time keeping it closed as building the re-route because someone is going to hate that the reroute isn't a straight climb up and not as technical. The reroute is gonna be faaasssst with berms.


----------



## jeffw-13 (Apr 30, 2008)

Why cant the old section stay in to give people options? Ive done several reroutes in the local park to bring some old fall line stuff up to modern specs but leave the old section alone so people who prefer that can go that way. We also have a lot of hiker, horse & trail runners who prefer the more direct line to a mile of switchbacks, etc. 

Unless it's a continuing maintenance issue for you I dont see why both lines cant stay in place. In one example wear on the trail indicates that the new line is preferred as the old route has become grown in, in 2 others the old section and new section are both getting used.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

For Saturday's work day: Existing trail is a funnel right on the fall line that's blowing itself out and dropping a ton of sediment below, creating a bog that floods frequently, that then drops the sedimentation into a river that's part of the drinking water supply.

Also have too much trail at this place as it is to maintain and as a City park the usage is high enough its tearing a scar into the hill.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

I've never once heard anyone lobby for easier or flow trails as a way to bring new riders and $ into the sport. It's always "why don't you build the trails I want" sort of rant. The article seemed more focussed on lift served or for profit terrain.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

jeffw-13 said:


> Why cant the old section stay in to give people options? Ive done several reroutes in the local park to bring some old fall line stuff up to modern specs but leave the old section alone so people who prefer that can go that way. We also have a lot of hiker, horse & trail runners who prefer the more direct line to a mile of switchbacks, etc.
> 
> Unless it's a continuing maintenance issue for you I dont see why both lines cant stay in place. In one example wear on the trail indicates that the new line is preferred as the old route has become grown in, in 2 others the old section and new section are both getting used.


It depends on the type of property the trails are on. Most land managers of nature preserves, public parks, and the like don't want big scars left on the land from poorly designed trails. I imagine most people don't want that either. Runoff laden with sediment, common from deeply incised fall line trails, can also pollute nearby water ways and in large enough quantities be harmful to the creatures living there.

The wear you are seeing on the fall line trail may be caused more by water than an indication that users prefer to use it. Overtime these kind of trails generally get worse until they are pretty much unusable to everyone and at that point are very difficult to rehabilitate. We still have issues from time to time with old fall line trails interfering with new sustainable reroutes which cross them. It is nearly impossible to keep the water from flowing down them once they get incised enough.

Back to the article, the main premise, that easy trails bring in more money, is deeply flawed in my view. There isn't any evidence to support this in the article either. This is nothing more than a poorly reasoned rant. I actually think the opposite is true, hard trails attract more money, and find myself seeking out more difficult trails when I travel to ride. Most people I know who also ride do the same. He probably doesn't understand, as well as most other people who make the "dumbing down the trails" criticism, that it really boils down to what type of trail features the land managers will allow. This is usually tied to liability and a perception of risk that is misaligned with reality. If these people ever want to change the situation, they need to direct their criticism towards the land managers and not the builders. Without this kind of input trail builders and planners have no one to back them up if they want to make more technical trails but the LMs won't allow it.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

When I started riding we learned most of our skills bashing around the streets, schools and shopping centres. When that was old hat we started going bush regardless of our machinery. These days your kids can't safely learn on the road, nor can they ride schoolyards and shopping centres without being chased away. Therefore a lot of new riders learn in the bush.

It's pretty narrow-minded to force your own standards and challenges on those who follow in different circumstances. Sort of like senior hospital doctors inflicting unsafe work hours and responsibilities on juniors because they had to do it. Not only that, but for everyone whining like Levy, there's another 20 putting in easier alternate lines around tech features and therefore pressure from the land manager on the volunteer trailcare group to patch up the damage. In all probability Mr Levy's type is just as likely to fly past tech options on those smooth flow trails and complain at the bottom how easy it was.

Finally, if you give beginners trails to enjoy, they stay on them and are far more likely to accept and handle the challenges on tougher trails when the do venture there. Beginner trails are a win win for both the target group and the experts using them to access the less populated gnar more rapidly.

I think more MTB brains are dumbed-down than trails.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

People get hooked on this sport or they don't. Challenging, fun, even scary terrain is what hooks people. They come back and work to improve. An idea that easy flowy trails will be more likely to draw multiple returns is not well matched to human nature and the terrain. 
That idea fits paved terrain and those attracted to it better. 
There are both at my park. They both get good use. 
I don't see any benefit in making just one kind.
It is very difficult, probably almost an art form to make a complete section of trail challenging from end to end. I have respect for what it takes to do it. I don't have the capability to improve that and wouldn't ever have wanted a change tailored to my earlier beginner skill level. I never rode a beginner trail. I got lucky and hit my favorite most difficult one the first time out. Got hooked.


----------



## rob_co2 (Apr 23, 2004)

Sounds like all the more reason to create a tiered trail system that provides for different levels of users. No reason to fight over this feature or that feature.


----------



## oden (Mar 4, 2013)

While we (I think) should completely respect water ways in terms of sediment load (how could we justify such ignorance otherwise), old established trails should be respected too (and not altered to match skill) so long as water ways are not contaminated . If new trails need to be built to accommodate the influx of beginners; then so be it. With that said, it should be up to the builders/club to purse the land owners for new land options for trails.. There is nothing wrong with progress/new demands from the public (of riders); however, if we destroy old for new, it further galvanizes that we are a "throw away" society (displaying our super ego) that will never be happy & never respect tradition & minorities. Rant over


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

I had a bit of discussion on another forum about this article. It's really very simple. These are not accurate numbers but it works like this:
90% of existing riders want flow. 10% want gnar. Trail builders have to choose when building "public" trails. I still build plenty of gnarly trails but my land managers won't let me build them on their dime.


----------



## jeffw-13 (Apr 30, 2008)

rob_co2 said:


> Sounds like all the more reason to create a tiered trail system that provides for different levels of users. No reason to fight over this feature or that feature.


If the terrain and acreage in the park allows for it, yes. The park most local to me doesn't really lend itself to technical features unless a tree falls across the trail. I've added a couple technical lines through the odd rocky area but for the most part its pretty buff. Like I said above, we also get a lot of horse and hiker traffic, so bike specific 'stunts' wouldn't go over well with the land managers unless there was an easy go-around for the other users.

About a 1/2 hour to the north the terrain changes drastically. Glacial rock deposits make for challenging, technical riding that really tests your skills and endurance. The builders there did a fantastic job of incorporating the boulders and rocks into the trails and have almost created a skills park of sorts, with the different technical areas connected by more traditional XC type trails. This is a bike only trail, so there's no issues with other user groups as there's another trail system in the park for them where bikes are off limits

I guess what Im saying is that we have a tiered system of sorts here, but it's not within the same park.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

Just reading how that description was written tells it all.
That's the trail type to get me going. 
It's the type I see and admire the builders skill for.
Would not tire of exploring and riding.
Would contribute effort to preserve and work on.
Should be the priority with all risks and responsibilities of use acknowledged and accepted.


----------



## MSLKauai (Dec 17, 2009)

One thing for sure, I'd bet that Orthopedic Surgeons would like to to see more and more beginners learning on trails and technical terrain that pushes them beyond their skill levels so they can get "hooked" on the adrenaline of mountain biking.


----------



## pinkrobe (Jan 30, 2004)

The most popular trails in my neck of the woods are, by far, the ones with the least tech and the flowiest lines built to an "intermediate" spec. The trails that everyone TALKS about are the ones with the gnar/drops/gaps/fire swamp/etc. I would love to build a beginner-friendly trail...


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

MSLKauai said:


> One thing for sure, I'd bet that Orthopedic Surgeons would like to to see more and more beginners learning on trails and technical terrain that pushes them beyond their skill levels so they can get "hooked" on the adrenaline of mountain biking.


Obviously cynical humor for sure. 
But this points to a real problem in our sport, the low end fork with limited capability on the bikes sold to beginners. The puffery put out by the manufacturers leads people who have not had a chance to ride mountain bike trails into a false sense of security. The 'X' series Suntour forks, except for the new XCR air, come on 90% or so of bikes beginners buy in the $400-1k price range.
Suntour last year listed the XCR, XCT, and XCM forks as RTR. "No fast ups or downhills. Just flowing through the woods behind your house, along the river and through the city with your friends."(spelling/puncuation correction) 
Basically for bike paths and dirt roads only. Once their description was added to posts on MTBR, they took it down for this year. 
When you take a bike with that fork down fun/difficult singletrack it pogos over multiple rocks/roots, flexes and can start eventually freezing up.
None of this can be discovered in a parking lot test ride. The manufacturers and shops selling these bikes don't point it out. They sends out thousands of riders every season to find out for themselves.

That's what those OP docs would like to see stopped.


----------



## MSLKauai (Dec 17, 2009)

eb1888 said:


> Obviously cynical humor for sure.
> But this points to a real problem in our sport, the low end fork with limited capability on the bikes sold to beginners. The puffery put out by the manufacturers leads people who have not had a chance to ride mountain bike trails into a false sense of security. The 'X' series Suntour forks, except for the new XCR air, come on 90% or so of bikes beginners buy in the $400-1k price range.
> Suntour last year listed the XCR, XCT, and XCM forks as RTR. "No fast ups or downhills. Just flowing through the woods behind your house, along the river and through the city with your friends."(spelling/puncuation correction)
> Basically for bike paths and dirt roads only. Once their description was added to posts on MTBR, they took it down for this year.
> ...


I've become a lot more cautious over the last few years about convincing my non mtn biking friends to come out with me on a ride and try it out. A lot of them have heard about the "car drop" trails where you don't have to do much climbing and that's what they want to do, and, more often than not, they get on the steeper stuff and get hurt. I told one friend of mine recently I wouldn't ride with him on anything on the upper mountain until he can ride the lower stuff a lot faster than he currently can.

Bottom line is that mountain biking is a dangerous sport where most people don't wear much protective clothing and there are real consequences to a bad screw up. Add to that the reality that a lot of people starting out are nowhere near ready in terms of conditioning to do some of the trails they start out on and you have a real recipe for injury. And, IMHO, it's the funnest sport on the planet that will also put you in incredible condition at the same time.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

My trail building time for the next month is going to be a reroute caused by a boundary line adjustment. The old fence line wasn't the boundary, and the park's neighbor paid for a survey that proves our trail is on his land. Ooops!

The bad news is we loose the best rock garden in the entire park, plus a large, very challenging rock over. The good news is I get to close some nasty, highly eroded trail that includes a chronically wet area. You loose some and you win some. But I still get people complaining about closing trail that has evolved into a 12" wide trench 9" deep, with roots across it. 

I don't give a rat's patootie about the "dumbing" down the trail complaints. Our so-called "beginner" section is so full of rocks and roots that I can't in good conscience recommend it to any beginner. Three years ago a rider had to be taken out in an ambulance because he impaled himself on a sharp rock. On the beginner section. That was part of our new park manager's first week on the job. Really set the tone for our relationship.

Edit/ After actually reading the article, I don't really disagree with it. But I'm more in line with the OP in wanting for "my" park a better balance between miles of rocks 'n roots and at least one section I can set a beginner loose on without fearing for their lives./Edit

Walt


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

The curiosity that seems missed here is that most of the trails we ride were not meant for bikes. They where hiking, equestrian, informal pathways, animal track, abandoned roads and such. Formal maintenance depends upon their location and the more inconvenient the access or more limited budgets and trails become pretty rough. And many of those rough trails are the very ones we love.

The politics of trails and bikes have caused us to take a studied look at what makes trails work. We have been encouraged to maintain trails as a way of building cred and relationships. Over the last 27 years these experiences have taught us what makes trails work for bikes AND require less maintenance. In addition we have learned how to make them palatable to land managers who must consider ALL trail users.

And there is the conundrum.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Berkeley Mike said:


> The curiosity that seems missed here is that most of the trails we ride were not meant for bikes. They where hiking, equestrian, informal pathways, animal track, abandoned roads and such. Formal maintenance depends upon their location and the more inconvenient the access or more limited budgets and trails become pretty rough. And many of those rough trails are the very ones we love.
> 
> The politics of trails and bikes have caused us to take a studied look at what makes trails work. We have been encouraged to maintain trails as a way of building cred and relationships. Over the last 27 years these experiences have taught us what makes trails work for bikes AND require less maintenance. In addition we have learned how to make them palatable to land managers who must consider ALL trail users.
> 
> And there is the conundrum.


I'm going to be brutally honest for a moment Mike. You've posted a lot of things on this forum that have required me to bite my tongue so to speak, and not respond to them because I thought your comments were simply stupid and inflammatory. But you've NAILED this, and I'm not afraid to admit it.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Cotharyus said:


> I'm going to be brutally honest for a moment Mike. You've posted a lot of things on this forum that have required me to bite my tongue so to speak, and not respond to them because I thought your comments were simply stupid and inflammatory. But you've NAILED this, and I'm not afraid to admit it.


I agree. An astute observation. Also a great way of saying that needs and methods constantly change in pursuit of a common goal.


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

This issue is definitely not as black and white as it seems. How "flowy" trails ever got labeled as beginner trails is a mystery to me, I guess because theoretically you can ride them at grandma speeds? 

If built properly "flowy" trails can be just as much fun for advanced and expert riders. Like has been mentioned, more speed is an easy way to boost the skill involved, whether it's finding the right lines to keep it on the trail or doubling/tripling rollers. A lot of the factors that are going to make the trail fun for more experienced riders are dependent on the quality of the trail building. The berms need to be able to handle high speeds and there should to be features to launch off of, a reward for being able to carry that speed. Not only will that appease the better riders, you're leaving something to work towards for the beginners. 

Most of the trails where I live are slow and technical (very rocky). Occasionally you'll come across a downhill, and it's so covered in poorly constructed switchbacks that you can't carry any speed through the trail. I would personally LOVE some properly built "flowy" trails to pop up.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

FWIW, today went really, really well. We busted through ~600 yards with a good rough in of the new trail. The rock bar guys pulled out several tons of rock (that will help make some great insloped switchback), AND there are still plenty of feature size rocks for people to ride over.

Dumbed down? Maybe, but I'm happy with less chatter, and more grins. There's still plenty of tight and twisty for the fans. It's all about the balance.

Walt


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

ajd245246 said:


> This issue is definitely not as black and white as it seems. How "flowy" trails ever got labeled as beginner trails is a mystery to me, I guess because theoretically you can ride them at grandma speeds?
> ...


Where I build the overall trail difficulty is defined by difficulty of individual features (grade, drop size, mandatory airs, etc; see Whistler trail standards). So a trail is by definition easy if it can be rolled at low speed, even if it is a lot more challenging at high speeds.

Despite all the internet comments, I never see anyone asking for more gnar when I'm out building. Spent a few hours today touching up a new jump and everyone who came past either rolled it or avoided it.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Unfortunately when we build and people ride by, they never test our work unless we demand it.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

cerebroside said:


> Where I build the overall trail difficulty is defined by difficulty of individual features (grade, drop size, mandatory airs, etc; see Whistler trail standards). So a trail is by definition easy if it can be rolled at low speed, even if it is a lot more challenging at high speeds.
> 
> Despite all the internet comments, I never see anyone asking for more gnar when I'm out building. Spent a few hours today touching up a new jump and everyone who came past either rolled it or avoided it.


My experience is that although given how loudly guys who rant about "dumbing down" trails might make you think everyone thinks that way, people who want super tech type trails are well in the minority. Go to just about any riding area that offers a lot of "intermediate" trails and a few "expert" trails, the vast majority of use will be on the intermediate or beginner trails. The noise created by the gnar, core, experts, is well out of proportion to their actual numbers. People might buy heavy, "AM" bikes with slack angles, lots of suspension, and burly wheels and tires, but not that many of them will ever actually take that bike to its full limits.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

zrm said:


> My experience is that although given how loudly guys who rant about "dumbing down" trails might make you think everyone thinks that way, people who want super tech type trails are well in the minority. Go to just about any riding area that offers a lot of "intermediate" trails and a few "expert" trails, the vast majority of use will be on the intermediate or beginner trails. The noise created by the gnar, core, experts, is well out of proportion to their actual numbers. People might buy heavy, "AM" bikes with slack angles, lots of suspension, and burly wheels and tires, but not that many of them will ever actually take that bike to its full limits.


To clarify, there are a lot of expert riders here riding full on DH bikes, and the big jump trails tend to be the more popular (We have separate XC/freeride areas, can't comment on what the XC site gets). But these trails are still smooth surface 'flowy', rather than 'gnar' roots and rocks.


----------



## KR65 (Sep 8, 2013)

cerebroside said:


> Spent a few hours today touching up a new jump and everyone who came past either rolled it or avoided it.


I don't know where you build trails but thank you for doing it.

As for no one touching the new jump, I'd be in that category as well. Age and lower back issues are the defining criteria regarding type of trails to ride. For me, I'm happy riding flowy single track/trail stuff. I gave up jumping anything bigger than a average-sized pumpkin 25+ years ago. I've gone ass-over-tea-kettle over the front bars a few times to know it's not fun. :eekster:


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

please don't take the mountain out of mountain biking.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

cerebroside said:


> To clarify, there are a lot of expert riders here riding full on DH bikes, and the big jump trails tend to be the more popular (We have separate XC/freeride areas, can't comment on what the XC site gets). But these trails are still smooth surface 'flowy', rather than 'gnar' roots and rocks.


To clarify my opinion I wasn't talking about lift served stuff or DJ type "parks". I would expect at a lift served area or carefully manicured DJ park that the majority would be those looking for bigger thrills on more specialized machinery.

I was and I'm assuming others were talking about (maybe wrongly) more traditional trails.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

tim208 said:


> please don't take the mountain out of mountain biking.


Nice slogan but what exactly is it supposed to mean?


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

tim208 said:


> please don't take the mountain out of mountain biking.


I'm surrounded by mountains. There are trails up there but no one rides them. They ride the flowy stuff in the foothills.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

tim208 said:


> please don't take the mountain out of mountain biking.


By that I presume you are saying I should build all trail hard corp the way you like it; but guess what, that's only your opinion. Mountains are not removed by building real trail on them. Trail that is sustainable and provides just as much vertical climb and descent cannot be called dumbed-down. Too easy for you..... speed up, do more loops or jump on the pedals and get out to the gnar faster.

We rode some raw sections of trail today. On steep slopes, the outer edges were failing in places with significant exposure. Tight, eroded corners, steep grades on narrow (inadequately made) trail is a challenge and it is fun to challenge yourself. However, coming to a dead stop because your 800mm bars cannot get between large trees despite any skillset does not make the trail challenging. It makes it suck.

So do tight, technical turns appearing out of flowing trail. So do log-overs in the middle of blind corners. So does climbing to descent to climb using short, steep pitches for the sake of adding another 50m to a trail.

Above all, thinking you know what everyone wants sucks balls. Example - I think the 120m ski flying would be a lot more exciting if there was a hipped take-off. Straight jumps are just too dumbed-down for my liking and hardly worth spectator interest!

The definition of MTB is not something only you and you anal mates can ride. Don't forget, MTB is just another way to ride a bike. The bush does not belong to you and trails have to represent the majority. It's funny coming from a background of both snow skiing and MTB how the "I only shred gnar" attitude is so similar in both activities.

Snow sport is full of people proving themselves, but they have room to do it. MTB trails are really just one line - very limited. Little ski kids get into all sorts of funky country, popping out turns over rocks on skis their parents paid for. Funny how when they grow up they look at those kid lines and laugh about trying to be rad on something just not made for real skiing. Seems like a lot of riders never grow up and see beyond their childish challenges.

Let's face it - you don't need to have any MTB skills to win at a place like Albstadt, just a big motor - gnar is all but dead in XCO. There's a bike available to make every line easier these days. What people want is to have fun when they ride - your favourite, impassible eroded pile of rock following a blind entry into the corner is not a challenge. It's just a PIA waiting to be removed.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

No one wants technical features to be constructed like you have given as examples, even good riders aren't looking for that.
We're looking for features that test limits of traction, like a just tight enough off camber sweep, at speeds that require maintaining momentum through the previous curve after the short steep uphill of the last switchback around a tree with rocks or logs to block shortcuts. Something a seasoned rider with endurance can accomplish but a beginner need not worry much about because he will not have the leg power yet for enough speed to wash out the front. Make the outside of that off camber curve a bit of an ugly trench with some roots for scenic value with a dip and small top before a bermed curve the other way to snake around a couple trees and curve up another rise over roots to switchback and down to embedded rocks to jump as a slowdown before a turn through two tight trees. And again a different scene. There is always plenty of opportunity for beginners/intermediates to slow down, but the trail is a challenge followed with another one at speed. That's 75yds of a couple mile trail. Throw in some short steep climbs that beginners will have to walk the first 5-10 times. And many more features that aren't flowy for more than 20-30 feet unless you're a very good rider.
That's what you guys can do.
I can study it and try to ride it a little better. But the 3D physics and different surface management and water control for quick drying is pretty much an artwork to me.
And I've read the book and watched the DVD and there isn't much more than a hint of that in there.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

A) I don't want to build trails that need hours of work every season. Maybe 30 min a year to clear dead fall, deberm what dropped in the fall and move on. I want trails that drain or just move water off on their own, not that dry, dry means water was on them and they had to dry. I can build in tech to that, but everything will get ramped and dumbed down anyways so why not build it the way your riding buddies want it? 

B) most riders talk big game. Why isn't Duffman or Whistler DH as heavily trafficked as A-line? I think they're just as much fun and you need more than speed and jump skill to rail them, but there's rarely folk there unless it's race day. 

C) The harder more raw and less used stuff should be further out from the beginner stuff. No where near the first 2-3 mile looping out of the lot. 

I'm just a hack rider and halfway decent builder. What do I know? 

Sent from my LG-D950 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

I do like the idea we build magnificence for all mentalities. I will aim for that.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

sure is a bunch of touchy feel good people out there. Build what you want. Ride what you want and don't worry about others. I live in a place, where there is not much trail building. Lots of national forest here. 

The first word in mountain biking is mountain. Big ups, big downs, rooty, off camber, exposure, condequences, stuff you find in the mountains. We learned to ride on this stuff, so can others. I guess, as a whole I am not enjoying the pussification of America, and this seems to fall in there as well. Should there be super easy beginner trails, for families, sure. should there be intermediate levels trails yes, should there still be trails to test yourself against yes.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

tim208 "mountain biking" is just a term to help differentiate the type of bike from road bikes or cruisers. It's not a hard and fast rule that people who ride them have to be North Shore experts. They could just as easily have been called "trail bikes" but that term was already in use. I'll bet none of the "mountain bikers" in Florida feel that the easy trails around here are anything like easy.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

eb1888 said:


> No one wants...
> We're looking for...


What group do you speak for?
I've been riding "mountain bikes" for over 50 years. That's not what I'm looking for. It never has been.
I ask the people who are going to ride the trails I build what they are looking for. Every single one of them has a different idea of what they want.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

I honestly appreciate the desire to take on difficult trail. Like trail ninja, I've been riding in the bush for about 5 decades and made my own lines in so many places I can't remember. Being able to clear an obstacle wasn't something you even cared about other than the fun of doing it, because chances are you wouldn't even ride exactly there again. When there is no trail at all, you make your riding challenge suit your mood on the day.

Where there is trail, you will find the mood of the trail has a lot to do with your own riding mood. Even if you built the trail, it does not mean you will fly the lines you were doing before it opened for ever after. Chances are it will change, become rougher and harder and offer a different mood and different challenges. As riders we have to be able to adapt to the changes in our trails, seek new adventures and (when the porkers fly overhead) help repair and build trail. 

Mostly trail gets nastier with time. That upsets the majority of users. Sometimes the majority opinion leads to ride-arounds, features modified etc. If this happens early in the life of a trail it means the builder tried to make riders conform to his opinion of riding and was wrong. If it happens later in the life of the trail, it is probably because the feature that was modified no longer fit the feel of the trail or the style of riding predominating (eg tight loopy turns cut to swerving arcs, or rocks smashed down to remove a short section of brain bleeding from a trail otherwise fast and flowing. 

You cannot overcome majority opinion and a lot of these trail changes happen because volunteers must respond to, or avoid complaints from the land manager about degradation, erosion etc by modifying the site. So, while trail workers cop flak for dumbing things down, it is because of "majority" opinion.

tim208, we have put a plan to our LM that would see a trail marked for closure re-opened with a lot of changes as a black, one way climbing trail including the use of very steep creek valleys, natural rock and bush features and aspects. Something really tough for those into an uphill challenge. 

In addition we have proposed re-aligning a tough and rocky XC trail up out of a boggy, low area into a zone with rock bands that would allow for a really gnarly black trail - lots of ups and downs and sustained challenge, rather than just a tough feature here and there. To accommodate riders with smaller eggs, there is also a new blue trail proposal that takes riders high above this trail joining it near each end where average riders can use it to get to blue trails back to the trailhead.

We don't know whether the powers that be will give us the go ahead. They don't like the sound of black diamond trail. They want us to bring a lot of other trails up to speed before considering new stuff.

There's so much going on politically regarding trailwork and trail maintenance, the entire concept of dumbing trail down only makes sense if you are involved at the volunteer level. If authorised works are undertaken, there is a reason. if punters change something, there can only be 2 reasons - they want to cope better with something out of character and too hard (majority), or they want to build something really silly out of sticks and bark and sand and hit it (the little buggers).


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

Trail Ninja said:


> What group do you speak for?
> I've been riding "mountain bikes" for over 50 years. That's not what I'm looking for. It never has been.
> I ask the people who are going to ride the trails I build what they are looking for. Every single one of them has a different idea of what they want.


I'm offering an option within the range of trails a LM would approve and fund for building by a talented trail building group. The no one wants really means the LM would not approve. The we're looking for is one option to only flowy trails that both intermediate and better riders would like.
IMBA's Trail Solutions and the DVD only(99%) lay out the information for flowy trails. There is almost nothing offered as a blueprint for technical trails experts and intermediates would find challenging.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

eb1888

The key to the IMBA TS is to design well flowing trails that shed water. 

Flow can be tight techy twisty singletrack where having a couple good lines and putting them together creates flow. This is advanced/expert because you need to be a darn good rider to put the puzzle pieces together. And it can be built sustainably.

Where you have wide open, "just add speed to up difficulty," sight lines are key and fast turns and features will play a part in developing the challenge. Again it can be built sustainably.

The issue is that building the first one, which I love, means on a couple people will ride it and the work to finding the right lines to put together slower speed flow, is tough. You can screw up a section big time with a bad turn, i.e. you just cleaned that big ledge, now you have a left the shape of a "7" and into the base turn of a "2". That in a tech challenge section sucks even for the best riders that can stall and hop. 

So IMBA gives trail builders the "Beginner" and base skills. Ala log over, turning, pedalling properly, basic mtb body position, etc. Then you need to have opportunities or builders that can get you as a builder to the next level.

If you master the base skills, you can build crazy lines that managers approve, and don't erode themselves to death in a season or two. Only issue is, if the trail isn't in the right place (too close to lot or part of access to popular trails) it will get dumbed down instantly, or if its at a park without other challenges, it may not get any use.

YMMV depending on your system and Land Managers. At Whistler in the Valley, this isn't much of an issue, but where you have a 400 acre park/preserve/open space, its tough to get in what every user and the LM want.


----------



## gravitylover (Sep 1, 2009)

Trails can really only be built to fit the "lay of the land" and a rider will make of it what he/she can. Features can be added but in the end any trail is as easy or difficult as you choose to make it. Enjoy the buff, play with the off camber, find a root to hop off - make it what you want it to be.


----------



## MSLKauai (Dec 17, 2009)

LIke virtually every other sport out there where speed and real injury consequences go hand in hand, a small minority of "experts" emerge that can handle the toughest challenges that can be dished out. Put a lot of intermediate riders on trails well above their ability and you'll get one thing -- injuries. 

The bike companies want the sport to grow, obviously, so they want more trails that beginners and intermediate riders can handle and enjoy. It's simple economics. There should be plenty of tough stuff for the fearless to joust with, but it's always going to be a farily small percentage of the overall trail system being constructed and maintained. You also get into liability issues when trails that have extremely dangerous, life threatening features are built with public funds.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

one thing I don't understand is. There is all this talk about sustainability, yet most of the trails that we ride in north Idaho, are not flow trails, and they have been around here for decades, probably built in the 30's-50's and they are still riding good. Why all of a sudden is there this big political correctness movement when the old mining trails are still good?


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

We still ride CCC trail here in New England. That's 20-30s stuff. They are the ones who really developed modern trail building, but they borrowed from the Roman road Builders concepts, soooooo... Hack a trail in up and down = bad; build something that you want to use and last that integrates to its environment and use with a ton of thought = sustainable.

Simple, no?


----------



## robbiexor (Aug 22, 2011)

The world is run by those who show up, not by those who complain on the internet. If you don't like the way trails are built and managed, get involved with your organization. If your organization laughs at your bad ideas, maybe learn a little and reconsider.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

tim208 said:


> one thing I don't understand is. There is all this talk about sustainability, yet most of the trails that we ride in north Idaho, are not flow trails, and they have been around here for decades, probably built in the 30's-50's and they are still riding good. Why all of a sudden is there this big political correctness movement when the old mining trails are still good?


If the trails are still there and riding good then they have either not seen much use or were properly designed for that type of environment. A trail doesn't have to be a flow trail to also be sustainable.

I don't think this has anything to do with political correctness. This is people who enjoy using trails and being outdoors wanting to preserve the same spaces and experiences for future generations. You can't have that when a trail falls apart in a few years.


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

tim208 said:


> sure is a bunch of touchy feel good people out there. Build what you want. Ride what you want and don't worry about others. I live in a place, where there is not much trail building. Lots of national forest here.
> 
> The first word in mountain biking is mountain. Big ups, big downs, rooty, off camber, exposure, condequences, stuff you find in the mountains. We learned to ride on this stuff, so can others. I guess, as a whole I am not enjoying the pussification of America, and this seems to fall in there as well. Should there be super easy beginner trails, for families, sure. should there be intermediate levels trails yes, should there still be trails to test yourself against yes.


Your post reminded me of a short hour long film on the evolution of mtb'ing on the north shore I watched awhile ago on the Rush channel. What specifically struck me was the small number, almost click, of riders who initially got the ball rolling. They were 'core', and it seems like if you got into the sport back then that made you core as well. The only trails around were technical fall line trails and the bikes were stone aged compared to today. Now that mtb'ing is popular enough to demand multiple styles of trails beginners don't need to take the risk to learn on terrain that may be a little over their heads, and most don't.

In a nut shell, back then you didn't get into the sport if you were a wuss. Today, there are people trying to get into the sport that are wusses. If they stick with it and put the work in they can get past that, but IMO there are a large amount who aren't willing to put it in and would rather just cruise on a smooth trail and become that terminal beginner/intermediate.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

ajd245246 said:


> In a nut shell, back then you didn't get into the sport if you were a wuss. Today, there are people trying to get into the sport that are wusses. If they stick with it and put the work in they can get past that, but IMO there are a large amount who aren't willing to put it in and would rather just cruise on a smooth trail and become that terminal beginner/intermediate.


Great post. :thumbsup:

There are also those of us that beat ourselves up enough BITD and are now happy riding without testing/proving ourselves all the time. I find I tend to build much mellower stuff now than I used to (though I still like to throw in a couple features to make sure it's not a cakewalk every run through).

I think location has a lot do with perception of what's difficult too, of course. I've seen a few videos of things from the southwest US lately that people referred to as 'trails', but were inarguably nothing but dirt sidewalks, similar to rail-trails. I think at a certain level of simplification, it's no longer mountain biking, no matter what type of bike someone's on.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

ajd245246 said:


> Your post reminded me of a short hour long film on the evolution of mtb'ing on the north shore I watched awhile ago on the Rush channel. What specifically struck me was the small number, almost click, of riders who initially got the ball rolling. They were 'core', and it seems like if you got into the sport back then that made you core as well. The only trails around were technical fall line trails and the bikes were stone aged compared to today. Now that mtb'ing is popular enough to demand multiple styles of trails beginners don't need to take the risk to learn on terrain that may be a little over their heads, and most don't.
> 
> In a nut shell, back then you didn't get into the sport if you were a wuss. Today, there are people trying to get into the sport that are wusses. If they stick with it and put the work in they can get past that, but IMO there are a large amount who aren't willing to put it in and would rather just cruise on a smooth trail and become that terminal beginner/intermediate.


pretty good post.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

thefriar said:


> We still ride CCC trail here in New England. That's 20-30s stuff. They are the ones who really developed modern trail building, but they borrowed from the Roman road Builders concepts, soooooo... Hack a trail in up and down = bad; build something that you want to use and last that integrates to its environment and use with a ton of thought = sustainable.
> 
> Simple, no?


I guess, I hear all the time, the ccc trails where not sustainable, yet they have been. Also it seems like sustainable, seems to have taken on a new politically correct definition. Which seems out with the old and in with the new, old ways can not be sustainable.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

Definitely lots of good points, and I will say mountain biking was considered an extreme sport when I started. so times have changed with that also. I bought my first mountain bike in 1988 and have been braking frames ever since.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

ajd245246 said:


> In a nut shell, back then you didn't get into the sport if you were a wuss. Today, there are people trying to get into the sport that are wusses. If they stick with it and put the work in they can get past that, but IMO there are a large amount who aren't willing to put it in and would rather just cruise on a smooth trail and become that terminal beginner/intermediate.


This is just plain smarmy and elitist. I am flabbergasted than anyone actually says such things out loud. :bluefrown:


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

I hope ajd did not mean that as a slight on every non-expert, Mike (up to him to explain). I kind of get what he is saying, from personal experience. If you live in the (real) mountains and have distinct seasons, there has to be something when the snow is gone. Over the years that something has evolved from fishing, golf, hiking and climbing to other activities like MTB, moto and paragliding etc. If the rest of your crew were riding back in the day, then you may have felt obliged to join in and take what comes. Buff singletrack would not have existed.

Pardon the slight sidetrack regarding group pressure - one of my riding and digging buddies has been racing enduro with his mates. He's had enough of the entire enduro concept. Says it has put ego and competition between he and his mates on their social rides (plus he hates the marketing BS). Don't know why I threw that in there, other than I don't have any interest in MTB as a sport. It's a recreation activity to me. 

A bit of group pressure is OK, but when the group mentality starts to dominate over personal recreation and freedom, then people protest. Here, people are protesting about the gnar being eroded. What some are forgetting is that back in the day you rode where and what you wanted; in town or on the hill. Now you can't. You ride on the authorised trail in front of you. They also forget that the gnar back then was mostly fast fire road and rarely a true MTB experience.

ajd is being unfair saying riders who have only ever experienced the limited freedom of MTB in the last decade are happy to stay wussy. There's nothing wrong with going out for a spin on a gentle trail in the bush. You will probably be a nicer dude on the road the next day. There's nothing wrong with limiting yourself to green and blue trails forever. I do see MTB as becoming more like the modern day skate park or freeride snow zone in attitude. It may not be criticism of the dude too scared to take the big kicker, but it is becoming criticism of the trail pandering to that "lesser" rider.


----------



## MTRRON (Nov 14, 2008)

robbiexor said:


> The world is run by those who show up, not by those who complain on the internet. If you don't like the way trails are built and managed, get involved with your organization. If your organization laughs at your bad ideas, maybe learn a little and reconsider.


Not 100% of the time.....But I agree


----------



## gravitylover (Sep 1, 2009)

No not really. There have always been smoothish trails going back long before there were mtb's and some of us rode those with our 10 speeds and beach cruiser types 40 years ago. Some of us like being a wuss sometimes, it's relaxing as opposed to riding aggressively and being fully engaged all the time.

Personally I prefer a trail (network) that's not an all out physical abuse session but with tech challenges that push me to my absolute limit. My wife will never be the type of rider many of us are and she prefers trails that aren't terribly steep or unnecessarily rough, does this make her a terminal beg/intermediate? Yeah but, she rides a few times a week and enjoys the heck out of it. Would you begrudge a woman with no desire to become a better rider (or kids) a place to ride and enjoy so you can have more expert trails? I don't think so.

If a riding spot has a variety of trails that all sorts of people can enjoy it's probably for the better. If that spot has a majority percentage of the trail miles ranging from easy to moderately exciting and a smaller percentage of really tough stuff any rider should be able to get a nice long, high mileage ride in and that's what a public park is really all about isn't it? A place where the majority of users can enjoy themselves and get a reasonable value out of their tax dollars that were spent on the place.



ajd245246 said:


> In a nut shell, back then you didn't get into the sport if you were a wuss. Today, there are people trying to get into the sport that are wusses. If they stick with it and put the work in they can get past that, but IMO there are a large amount who aren't willing to put it in and would rather just cruise on a smooth trail and become that terminal beginner/intermediate.


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

pinkrobe said:


> The most popular trails in my neck of the woods are, by far, the ones with the least tech and the flowiest lines built to an "intermediate" spec. The trails that everyone TALKS about are the ones with the gnar/drops/gaps/fire swamp/etc. I would love to build a beginner-friendly trail...


absolutely. The hardest trail in my area is behind my house and maybe gets 1 rider every few days. Its so hard that most people claim it is too hard to be fun, doesnt have flow etc. Once you learn it it does have flow, you just have to know it well.

The most popular trails are the beginner to intermediate ones with good flow. The newest trail starts out easy then progressively gets harder and immediately became one of the most popular trails.

Im building a complement trail to the one behind my house that will be easier.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

ajd245246 said:


> In a nut shell, back then you didn't get into the sport if you were a wuss. Today, there are people trying to get into the sport that are wusses. If they stick with it and put the work in they can get past that, but IMO there are a large amount who aren't willing to put it in and would rather just cruise on a smooth trail and become that terminal beginner/intermediate.





Berkeley Mike said:


> This is just plain smarmy and elitist. I am flabbergasted than anyone actually says such things out loud. :bluefrown:


Yeah Berkeley Mike, is seems that way, but....

I come from old school road racing, upstate new york. You show up to a ride and there are some pro's in there also, and you friggin hold your line and suffer hard and long in the Adirondacks, rest days, recover, repeat. Hard chainring-eating living.

I went to mostly MTb riding and always showed up for the left-for-dead rides. You show up, ride your ass off till you have tunnel vision, then go up a gear and kill yourself, up and over and through rocks, beaver ponds, bounce off trees...all that. If you don't come home covered in blood and some ticks you were a sally. sufferfest is the name of the game, always. And the telephone pole sprints home and back to the shop.

Nowadays we have weekend warriors clogging up the trails every 2.5 miles taking a break and instagramming some such crap while us -real riders- (for whatever that means) are forced to say 'Hi hows it going?' when we really want them to get the hell off the trail, or start hammering so we have a jackrabbit to chase. The pussifaction of MTB -is true- and recently for the first time in 20 years I am seeing wimpy 'go-rounds' being made on spots which...hey if it is too tough you CX dismount and run over it, mount back up and hammer. That is how i had to do it when I was a MTB noob. You either ride what is there, or run it. simple. heart rate doesn't drop, snot flys out, go home half dead and piss sand because you are basically dehydrated and spent.

It is rare to find this class of rider anymore. except at races. the trails used to be all hard-core mo-fos. There are tons of easy places to ride for beginners. It is called: any trail at any level, and using your damn feet if you cannot ride it. simple. do noobs not know how to dismount and run ???

But.......hey nothing can be done but rant about it, and that does nothing.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Some "dumbing down" has to happen just to sustain the sport and deal with properties that are poorly designed or only ridden by a small minority of the bikers.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

tim208 said:


> I guess, I hear all the time, the ccc trails where not sustainable, yet they have been. Also it seems like sustainable, seems to have taken on a new politically correct definition. Which seems out with the old and in with the new, old ways can not be sustainable.


I don't know where you're hearing this, but by and large it's not true. Many of them have held up pretty well with not much more than clearing deadfall. Some of them have drainage issues here and there, but generally CCC trails were well-designed and well-built by people who knew how to do it. IMO, when people start talking about "old" trails that aren't sustainable, they seem to mean trails built in the last 20 years by riders who were learning as they went.


----------



## MSLKauai (Dec 17, 2009)

robbiexor said:


> The world is run by those who show up, not by those who complain on the internet. If you don't like the way trails are built and managed, get involved with your organization. If your organization laughs at your bad ideas, maybe learn a little and reconsider.


So true!


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

127.0.0.1 said:


> Blah blah blah...
> 
> It is rare to find this class of rider anymore. except at races. the trails used to be all hard-core mo-fos. There are tons of easy places to ride for beginners. It is called: any trail at any level, and using your damn feet if you cannot ride it. simple. do noobs not know how to dismount and run ???
> 
> But.......hey nothing can be done but rant about it, and that does nothing.


Only at races? Wow. I haven't taken a racer out for a spanking on a technical ride lately, but I fear for the next racer that wants to keep my SS's back wheel.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

thefriar said:


> Only at races? Wow. I haven't taken a racer out for a spanking on a technical ride lately, but I fear for the next racer that wants to keep my SS's back wheel.


around here ? yesh...I can go ride with my racing buds fine...but it used to be everyone I would run into randomly in the woods was on a mission and that included not stoppin for nuttin.

now it is all Hey this trail is too hard lets cut down these small trees and widen it, ot lets jigger this babyhead aside to make it smoother...or cut this root out...makes me sick. I been counting on that babyhead I been counting on that root being wet so I could ride over it...counting on the toughness of the trails. now each day I see more stuff homogenized makes me sad evrytim

I am too old for this s**t and recovering from a major injury in 2011 and this year I am back to aaallllmmmooosst >300/20min watts so I am starting to ripsnort more and more trails and ...the homogenization is killing me inside

oh well it is what it is....got to work around it a) road b) machines c) ride at night


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Go east. Where the rocks live, in the South near NYC and near the Sound. Like Blue Mt. in Peekskill, Sprain, Millers Pond, Huntington, Trumbull.


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

Wow didn't expect that much response to my post. Wasn't trying to incorporate any snobbery in there but I can see where it could be interpreted. I should mention that there is a distinction between a wuss and a terminal beginner/intermediate. Wuss was meant as a slander, it was directed at people who are chronic complainers and don't take any time to get better and also don't get involved to put their say in. Their main argument being "it's not fair", like they are owned something. Please.

Terminal beginner/intermediate should not be taken offensively. Every sport has them whether it be mtb'ing, skiing, golf, rock climbing etc. Chances are YOU are a terminal beginner/intermediate at something, I know I am. Just out there to have fun and that is great, they keep industries alive since they make up the largest piece of the pie.

Lots of good posts that I agree with. As gravitylover said the only real solution I see is to have a variety. If you put beginners on advanced trails and visa versa there will be unrest. The thing I don't like is the altering of existing trails to suit everybody's needs. If it's too hard or to easy, find something else to ride! Yes this might mean getting in the car and going for a bit of a drive. 

I am still split on the go arounds, there are positives and negatives.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I have trained racers and raced for the last 15 years. I have worked with real champions and I am not impressed with the sort of stuff posted by hammerheads here. Truly accomplished riders are far more gracious. .

There is so much more to mtb than just the hammer and riders who treat others as if they are only in the way. That is so roadie. _My_ ride, _my_ experience, _my_ mojo, the world is not cool enough for _me_. Some folks can do nothing without making it a competition. Fortunately they are a very small percentage of riders. I'm done with fast clowns; as if speed were the only index of value.

The greatest factor after the _me_-ness is the limited access we have. Again, as I have seen in so many thread over the last 20 years, we struggle over scraps and the use of resources.


----------



## ajd245246 (Sep 1, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I have trained racers and raced for the last 15 years. I have worked with real champions and I am not impressed with the sort of stuff posted by hammerheads here. Truly accomplished riders are far more gracious. .
> 
> There is so much more to mtb than just the hammer and riders who treat others as if they are only in the way. That is so roadie. _My_ ride, _my_ experience, _my_ mojo, the world is not cool enough for _me_. Some folks can do nothing without making it a competition. Fortunately they are a very small percentage of riders. I'm done with fast clowns; as if speed were the only index of value.
> 
> The greatest factor after the _me_-ness is the limited access we have. Again, as I have seen in so many thread over the last 20 years, we struggle over scraps and the use of resources.


Not really sure who you're replying to but it seems you're making a whole lot of generalizations about members you know nothing about. :nono:

I was riding up in VT last week, probably one of the best solo rides I've had in years. You know why it was so great? There were TONS of people out riding. Little tots, teens, free riders, and old dudes on full rigids with their dogs. It was amazing. It worked where I was riding because it is a very well constructed network with something for *everyone*.

However, I still hold true to everything I wrote (even if poorly conveyed). Mtb started as an 'extreme' sport and now it can still be extreme, but more so for recreation.. I mean seriously, do you know anyone who mountain bikes for a reason other than fun? I don't.

My beef is with the people who have barely set tire to trail and complain that the trails are too hard and they have nothing to ride, demanding that existing trails get axed down to accommodate their skill level (which IMHO is not fair to the riders who are on those trails 10 times as much). They have two options at that point. 1) Get out and ride more. 2) Get in contact with the trail builders and explain the situation. If you do neither of those things then no one can help you. That's like not handing in homework, then complaining to the professor about the zero when you never sought assistance; no leg to stand on.

Now by saying that I come off like some super stud who only rides the most gnarly trails, and that's simply not the case at all. No matter how you slice it the problem comes down to acreage, LMs approving multiple trails, and competent trail builders. If you have those three things you're in for a great network and happy riders across the spectrum. If you don't.. well you're going to have to make sacrifices somewhere, and since most locations have existing trails it is hard to get more approved, but if you touch what's already there you PO the riders who have been riding there for years, decades. Sound accurate?


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

127.0.0.1 said:


> around here ? yesh...I can go ride with my racing buds fine...but it used to be everyone I would run into randomly in the woods was on a mission and that included not stoppin for nuttin.
> 
> now it is all Hey this trail is too hard lets cut down these small trees and widen it, ot lets jigger this babyhead aside to make it smoother...or cut this root out...makes me sick. I been counting on that babyhead I been counting on that root being wet so I could ride over it...counting on the toughness of the trails. now each day I see more stuff homogenized makes me sad evrytim
> 
> ...


How bout we let ajd245246 respond to this:

_Wuss was meant as a slander, it was directed at people who are chronic complainers and don't take any time to get better and also don't get involved to put their say in. Their main argument being "it's not fair", like they are owned something. Please.
_

Sound familiar?

Like I said. Here the complainers are those who see everyone else as lesser and a problem. No doubt 127blahblahblah has less trouble with the rest of us pathetic types when he's out churning up the trails in the rain! In love with that one root and that one babyhead? Grow up.


----------



## gravitylover (Sep 1, 2009)

What the hammerheads either forget or just don't know is - Not everybody wants to get better. Some people just ride for the pleasure of riding and enjoy easy trails again and again and again. It's the people that enjoy easy trails that drive the economic engine of the bike industry. Without them there is no money to develop the high end parts and bikes that we love. Another perspective is that with more easy trails it gets the slowpokes out of the way, kind of like when a ski area has an entirely separate beginner trail pod keeping the slower trail users safely contained.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

Ridnparadise said:


> How bout we let ajd245246 respond to this:
> 
> _Wuss was meant as a slander, it was directed at people who are chronic complainers and don't take any time to get better and also don't get involved to put their say in. Their main argument being "it's not fair", like they are owned something. Please.
> _
> ...


nope. I see it this way: Landowner approves a trail built a specific way and it should stay that way. the trailbuilder comes back and see someone built a go-round.

why do you think I churn trails in the rain ? I ride in the rain but don't churn a damn thing. I take care of trails. trails which would suffer, I don't damage them. get a life and stop making stuff up.

my point is, you can't ride it, run it. don't build go-rounds.

to summarize...I am XC and building re-routes or go-rounds for something other than erosion control is a scourge and should be abolished. just pave everything. again I will say get off the bike and run. that is way harder than riding, and will toughen up the beginners and make them perform better next time


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

gravitylover said:


> It's the people that enjoy easy trails that drive the economic engine of the bike industry.


And this matters why? It means zero to me or anyone else who doesn't draw a check from the 'industry' (or suffer from a major case of marketing victimhood). The entire bike industry could collapse upon itself today, and we'd all still be riding tomorrow. Screw 'the industry'. Pretty much the same goes racing as far as the vast majority of riders are concerned too.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

127.0.0.1 said:


> to summarize...I am XC and building re-routes or go-rounds for something other than erosion control is a scourge and should be abolished. just pave everything. again I will say get off the bike and run. that is way harder than riding, and will toughen up the beginners and make them perform better next time


And if you take the lead in working with a land manager to get approval to develop trails, do the work to design the trail system, do the work to build trails, and then stick around to manage and maintain them, then you can influence the trail system to use the "no ride around" approach. This means that there will need to be enough trails to provide beginner and intermediate riders with all the riding they desire. So you would have to invest a lot of time building easier trails as well as the no option advanced trails.

I personally prefer this type of trail system, but it requires having enough land to build a complete trail system with all levels of riding.

If you don't have enough room to build lots of trails in all difficulty ranges, then optional lines and options often are the best way to go. 
Like it or not, most beginner and intermediate riders don't like to have to get off their bikes to hike over difficult sections. While you may be very skilled and comfortable getting on and off your bike, and strong enough to easily carry your bike, for may riders this is difficult and just not fun. You may not want these people to be mountain biking, but land managers typically care more about them than advanced riders. So you can preach that all mountain bikers should be willing to dismount as much as you want, but that doesn't make it so.

For those who maintain trails, when we have a smaller trail system, building trails with a small number of difficult sections, results in a lot of effort to undo those who either remove the technical challenge or make reroutes. From a management stand point, it is not practical to maintain trails that beginners and intermediate riders use that have features that only advanced riders can clear with out dismounting. Unless of course you have unlimited time to go back and block off reroutes and replace technical features.

In many cases we build optional challenging lines on our beginner and intermediate trails. This give advanced rider the option for more challenging lines. But then the question is, are the technical features optional lines, or are the easy lines optional?

Those who desire more technical trails should be supporting all the easier trails that are being built, as these trails provide the masses with trails they can ride, which increases our numbers and grows our political clout. This clout can be used to also build advanced trails. But if advanced riders don't support the groups building trails, then those groups are going to have less desire to build the advanced trails.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> And this matters why? It means zero to me or anyone else who doesn't draw a check from the 'industry' (or suffer from a major case of marketing victimhood). The entire bike industry could collapse upon itself today, and we'd all still be riding tomorrow. Screw 'the industry'. Pretty much the same goes racing as far as the vast majority of riders are concerned too.


So you want public land managers to provide you with recreational opportunities that don't support the larger public good. Just you and your bros!

Your are more than welcome to talk to your local land managers and run that vision by them.

Keep in mind that those who develop trails for the larger public good are more likely to be successful. And it really is up to the land managres what types of trails remain or get built on the property they manage.

If you really want just your vision of trails, then find some like minded riders, and chip in to buy some land. Then you can build trails how ever you like and exclude what ever riders or industry folks you would like.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

indytrekracer said:


> So you want public land managers to provide you with recreational opportunities that don't support the larger public good. Just you and your bros!
> 
> Your are more than welcome to talk to your local land managers and run that vision by them.
> 
> ...


I made no comments about how I like to build trails, just that I don't give a damn about racing or MTB as a business venture, and I don't think the majority of riders do either.

In my neck of the woods, we actually do build almost exclusively on privately owned lands. Oddly enough, our XC stuff is comparitively very beginner/intermediate friendly as far as level of technicality when compared to most typical NE riding (can't do much about the elevation change, hills are hills). But seriously, I build 5 miles of smooth flowy trail with a handful of 6" logovers left in place for speed checks in spots that need them, and sure enough, some pussies keep cutting them out. Probably the same kitted up, entitled d-bags that rip right by us when we're out there doing maintenance while on their 'training rides' without so much as a mumbled 'thanks' or a nod. Enough of that **** goes on and maybe I will just go back out there and erase all the easy stuff and build just for myself and my buddies. The fewer chumps on the trails the better IMO.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Oh and as far getting a bunch of riders together and buying some land to build higher-level technical trails on, been there and done that too.

Vietnam, Milford | NEMBA


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> I don't give a damn about racing or MTB as a business venture, and I don't think the majority of riders do either.


I would agree most of us riders don't. But from a builder and advocate's perspective, if we're a marginal, fringe user in the LM's eyes, they're just not gonna let us deliver or execute our goals and ambitions.

I wish I knew how many riders used each park, open space, preserve, and associated other user demographics. If I could tell an LM who thinks Hikers are the only users, that its actually MTB and dog walkers that use the trails, I could get more credibility, more weight, and more trail than just being a whatever we're viewed as in absence of that data.

Beginner trails get the LMs kids/cousin/brother/sister/etc. out and when that happens, they begin to think about us not as aliens, but peers.

As far as people dumbing down your trails, do you have a meetup presence? They're our big violators around here, they try to dumb things down so that they can get more riders/popular groups. Not sure the drive, maybe the organizers want to be the cool kids or viewed as such? Also, CX riders have been known to cut out roots but leave the 6'' overs around CT...


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

I can buy the screw the industry mind set at a few levels and agree we'd still be riding. Still, organization and thought to design has proven worthy because the few of us who do most of the work are less alone in doing it. We're less burdened by all the time required to fix crap that needs repair and attention.

For those wanting a peeing contest, pee away - buckets, trees, in the breeze - I don't care.

Lots of effort making stuff that lasts and a progression hasn't taken away rocks, challenges or last night's session on a crappy decades old switchback and gully full of rocks and roots. It did bring out the families, benefactors and community that makes riding much better within 40 minutes from home. Better by quantity, diversity, and a very slow growing community of decent people in a nice active life style.

My associates involved in advocacy, building and the community here see a cycle of the crappiest builders, biggest whiners and most emotional jerks come and go in a cycle that ranges from one summer to about the time it takes to get through high school, college, get into racing or find a sweetie and make a baby. It's screw them and move things forward if only an inch at a time.

Those in my posse approx age 55 - 65 and going strong may also be making our own future when we take some time to make the right corridor for others. We have 70-80+ y.o. enjoying our dumb trails thrilled to see their kids and grand kids on the radical and nasty trails.

You have to look at rewards in different ways. The "industry" might not be rewarding me but we have around 40 kids and active families in our kids' program. Last night I watched dozens of happy kids and parents pack up and go home. I watched poor kids mix with rich kids where making the little jump was all that really mattered. Dozens of thrilled and tired kids and their ear to ear smiling parents were new motivation for dumb trails because I don't think money, the app store or food court could replicate the joy and love there. The kid I thought struggled the most in last year's lessons is back doing well. His mom he's found a sport where he's into it and not teased so maybe a few dumb trails are priceless.


----------



## snowgypsy (Jun 5, 2011)

Trails are awesome and everyone, regardless of skill level, deserves an opportunity to experience the joy inherit with mountain biking. 

However, part of the fun of mountain biking is the challenge, to discover new limits, push past them, and realize small victories with every ride - that rock, that root, that ledge, that corner that was once impossible.

Beginner trails get you there, but where do you go from there?

We have beginner/intermediate trails and we have advanced/expert trails. Last year, we took out a few rocks on a beginner trail because, well, the trail was supposed to be a beginner trail. This was a good choice. Then, someone removed a really, really challenging, gnarly root from an expert trail. This enraged me. This root has been the bane of my existence, I've never cleaned it and now, will never have the chance to build up to it, my friends will never have the chance to, my future children will never have the chance to attempt it. This makes me incredibly sad. 

There's room for everyone and every skill level. But that means everyone. There are those of us who love "dumb trails." There are those of us who love tech and blood and near death experiences. 

In the past year, we've built several beginner/intermediate trails. And made several trails more beginner-friendly. I understand the reasoning, but at the same time, if you want to continue to push the sport and elevate what's possible on a bike, you need to also develop trails that force riders to grow. I was chewed out at our last trail work day as we spent two hours trying to remove a root and rock from another beginner trail (that was actually entirely rideable for even a beginner) when I suggested that maybe, maybe, we don't need another beginner trail, but perhaps a trail that people can build up towards and work on - those small victories. Maybe we should leave that root and let a beginner rider embrace the challenge. Maybe we need trails that are difficult, not because they were hiking trails that people decided to put bikes on, but because they were designed to challenge riders and to build new skills, that had flow and tech, that had sections you cleaned, and sections you walked and built up towards over a period of time.

Just look at Sedona. Look at hymesa and captian Ahab in Moab. These are not beginner trails. The first time I was there, I walked a lot. That gave me goals and ambitions. The next year, I grew. I came. I conqered. And I found new challenges to work towards. They build a few easier trails to develop skills, yes, and then, they built other trails - the ones you dream about, the ones you build up towards, the ones that make you a downhill queen. Look at Kokopelli and the Wranger loop - it's a beginner trail with small, short techy moves and signs that teach you how to do them. Then, you learn. Then you go on the trails and practice, and you savor.

The flow of CB is fun, but I'm missing moab and arizona and rocky ledges and drops and vertical ascents over slickrock. I miss failing and trying and failing again. I miss the butterflies in my stomach.

I know, I know, get on the board, make the decisions. And I'm working on it. :thumbsup:

But the bike park on the mountain shouldn't be the only place where people are asking what's possible on a mountain bike and allowing their creativity and daring to shine. We need some trails that look at rocks, at trees, at descents and ascents differently. We need some trails that challenge riders, that explore new possibilities. Beginner trails are important, but so are the rides that inspire greatness.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Greatness?


----------



## snowgypsy (Jun 5, 2011)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Greatness?


Yes, greatness. As in that which inspires and that which keeps you coming back for more.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

thefriar said:


> As far as people dumbing down your trails, do you have a meetup presence? They're our big violators around here, they try to dumb things down so that they can get more riders/popular groups. Not sure the drive, maybe the organizers want to be the cool kids or viewed as such? Also, CX riders have been known to cut out roots but leave the 6'' overs around CT...


It seems there's a small hiking group on MeetUp that started using one of the most scenic sections. Other than that, our local batch of trails don't exist publicly on the internet; it's strictly a word-of-mouth operation (knock on wood). After watching what often happens to trail systems when they get popular, we keep a constant vigil for any GPS tracks or maps that might pop up and have them taken down ASAP, with a polite explanation. If people want to learn them, for the most part, they have to do it the old-school way; either ask for a tour, or get out there and figure it out. This is a great filter that keeps most of the newer-school riders off of the majority of them, so they stay nice and skinny, and the lines stay the way we intended them to be. Seems that most of the people who are likely to cut sally lines also don't like to venture anywhere that isn't pre-packaged onto their dumbphones, so they tend to stick to the public trails, of which we have many quality ones (but the flavor just isn't the same IMO.)

I personally have no interest in growing, promoting, profiting, competing, or any of the other related offshoots to just riding trails. I could care less if I was the only one in the world riding bikes in the woods or if I had to do all my bike and trail maintenance and building myself, which is pretty much what I do anyway. I miss the days when I could tell who had been riding over the past few days just by tire tread, at places that are practically overrun by bikers these days. I personally would like to bring a little of that back. Somewhat more challenging and less manicured trails play into that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

bitflogger said:


> You have to look at rewards in different ways. The "industry" might not be rewarding me but we have around 40 kids and active families in our kids' program. Last night I watched dozens of happy kids and parents pack up and go home. I watched poor kids mix with rich kids where making the little jump was all that really mattered. Dozens of thrilled and tired kids and their ear to ear smiling parents were new motivation for dumb trails because I don't think money, the app store or food court could replicate the joy and love there. .


I'm well into a town pumptrack project for exactly these sort of reasons. I really have no idea how the 'industry' ties into this - it's a couple guys out there busting our balls moving a bunch of dirt by hand on our own time and spending our own money (with a little help from the town rec department as far as procuring dirt) to give the local kids a place to ride. My dad had been involved in a similar project for years. There is no 'industry' support of anything, it's all strictly grass-roots and volunteer effort. The only time I see any 'industry' types show up is when they blow in to take advantage of others' hard work by using their track as a venue to overcharge people for a 'MTB Training School' operation.

:skep:


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> I miss the days when I could tell who had been riding over the past few days just by tire tread, at places that are practically overrun by bikers these days. I personally would like to bring a little of that back. Somewhat more challenging and less manicured trails play into that.


this hit me right in the feels. Many a frozen mud slog, me shivering, liver quaking trying to fuel me... 30 miles deep... and I see a fresh track... and know...


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

127.0.0.1 said:


> this hit me right in the feels. Many a frozen mud slog, me shivering, liver quaking trying to fuel me... 30 miles deep... and I see a fresh track... and know...


...cuz there's only one idiot within 100s of miles running a Racing Porc/Z-Max combo. :thumbsup:

Ahh...the good old days...


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> ...cuz there's only one idiot within 100s of miles running a Racing Porc/Z-Max combo. :thumbsup:
> 
> Ahh...the good old days...


or Farmer Johns frontward and backward.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

So epiphany. 

When the sport started, no rules and major renegade image. 

Fast forward 20-30 years. It's an established sport. Families do it. The older folks and some people still want to be renegades. 

Land managers have an issue because while many of us aren't interested in being renegades, for others they let that image get ahead of the sport and the activity and fun. They lash out and react. 

So while LMs accept us, we are still a problem group because there's still that mentality. Thus issues... Just a thought and not aimed at anyone or thing. 

Sent from my LG-D950 using Tapatalk


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> But seriously, I build 5 miles of smooth flowy trail with a handful of 6" logovers left in place for speed checks in spots that need them, and sure enough, some pussies keep cutting them out.


There are much better ways to build speed chokes than putting logs in the middle of the trail. The logs probably seem out of place if the rest of the trail is flowy. The users are letting you know this by removing them. Try a series of gradually tightening turns instead. They are much harder to remove and will better match the character of the rest of the trail.

_Below is not directed at anyone in particular._

Fighting human nature to find the path of least resistance is a waste of time in my mind. You will always lose because they outnumber us by at least 10:1. Build the easy lines into the features to begin with and, hopefully, the hard lines will stay the way they were intended. I can't understand why this is an issue (other than stroking one's ego). If the trail is on public land, let the user choose. Don't tell them how to ride a trail or which trails to ride.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

aero901 said:


> There are much better ways to build speed chokes than putting logs in the middle of the trail. The logs probably seem out of place if the rest of the trail is flowy. The users are letting you know this by removing them. Try a series of gradually tightening turns instead. They are much harder to remove and will better match the character of the rest of the trail.
> 
> _Below is not directed at anyone in particular._
> 
> Fighting human nature to find the path of least resistance is a waste of time in my mind. You will always lose because they outnumber us by at least 10:1. Build the easy lines into the features to begin with and, hopefully, the hard lines will stay the way they were intended. I can't understand why this is an issue (other than stroking one's ego). If the trail is on public land, let the user choose. Don't tell them how to ride a trail or which trails to ride.


Correct. Not sure where the quote came from, but correct.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I appreciate the advice, but in this case, logs weren't placed into the trail - they just downed trees that purposely weren't removed during building (I know, nitpicking, but still). They're not obtrusive to anyone I've ever seen ride there. There are a couple tightening turns 'upstream', and size wise, you can literally roll over them without lifting your ass out of the saddle. 

FWIW, in our area, LMs love us. Liking a little solitude and a tight trail here and there doesn't = 'renegade'.


----------



## rebel1916 (Sep 16, 2006)

127.0.0.1 said:


> There are tons of easy places to ride for beginners. It is called: any trail at any level, and using your damn feet if you cannot ride it. simple. do noobs not know how to dismount and run ???
> 
> But.......hey nothing can be done but rant about it, and that does nothing.


Yeah, a lot of people like to have fun when they are riding. For a beginner, that may mean 100% flow or close to it. For your solid intermediate, knows what he is doing, but never gonna be great guy, it might be 80/20 between buff and gnar. Virtually no one I know wants 80/20 the other way. Public spaces need to maintained for the public, not 3 angry dudes *****ing about how much more bad ass things were BITD.


----------



## AllMountin' (Nov 23, 2010)

So, if the 80 percent of riders want 80 percent flow, then we only build 80 percent+ flow trails?

The right thing would be to build 2 gnar trails for every 8 flow trails. Everyone gets theirs. Newb got no right to ***** if he can ride 8 out of 10 trails. He can learn the ropes if he wants to ride with the big boys.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> It seems there's a small hiking group on MeetUp that started using one of the most scenic sections. Other than that, our local batch of trails don't exist publicly on the internet; it's strictly a word-of-mouth operation (knock on wood). After watching what often happens to trail systems when they get popular, we keep a constant vigil for any GPS tracks or maps that might pop up and have them taken down ASAP, with a polite explanation. If people want to learn them, for the most part, they have to do it the old-school way; either ask for a tour, or get out there and figure it out. This is a great filter that keeps most of the newer-school riders off of the majority of them, so they stay nice and skinny, and the lines stay the way we intended them to be. Seems that most of the people who are likely to cut sally lines also don't like to venture anywhere that isn't pre-packaged onto their dumbphones, so they tend to stick to the public trails, of which we have many quality ones (but the flavor just isn't the same IMO.)
> 
> I personally have no interest in growing, promoting, profiting, competing, or any of the other related offshoots to just riding trails. I could care less if I was the only one in the world riding bikes in the woods or if I had to do all my bike and trail maintenance and building myself, which is pretty much what I do anyway. I miss the days when I could tell who had been riding over the past few days just by tire tread, at places that are practically overrun by bikers these days. I personally would like to bring a little of that back. Somewhat more challenging and less manicured trails play into that.


So when did it dawn on you that you and maybe a few brahs were not the only ones out there? "Secret" trails almost never stay secret for very long and when they are built illegally the chances are they're going to eventually get shut down. Double whammy.


----------



## rebel1916 (Sep 16, 2006)

AllMountin' said:


> So, if the 80 percent of riders want 80 percent flow, then we only build 80 percent+ flow trails?
> 
> The right thing would be to build 2 gnar trails for every 8 flow trails. Everyone gets theirs. Newb got no right to ***** if he can ride 8 out of 10 trails. He can learn the ropes if he wants to ride with the big boys.


That would be cool. Check Lippmann park in Ellenville NY.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

evasive

the ccc trails seems to work for me. I just keep hearing about how the ccc trails aren't sustainbable, yet they are still going strong. However they do need maintence every now and than. 

one thing, this thread has shown, even if you do similar things, people just have different points of view. which is good.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Random thoughts:

NEVER alter an existing trail solely for the purpose of accommodating lesser-skilled riders. There has to be a more profound reason that drives such action.

Where I am locally it is fortunate that a large portion of the MTB crowd is relatively new and enthusiastic, and the new trails recently built by the local park system provide accessible riding that still includes a few intermediate challenges. I am hoping that future trail developments reflect the improving skills of the now relative beginners. Those beginners are not going to be beginners for very long and they will want more challenging trails (all of which, locally, are currently illegal). They will get bored and go elsewhere. Some will say that that makes room for the next class of beginners, but I think we are on the crest of the wave right now and the beginner trails will become underutilized later. We have enough here.

btw - BITD, a beginner learned without so-called "beginner" trails. Maybe it weeded out a few prospective advocates, but we are not too bad off in spite of those "losses" are we.

-F


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

zrm said:


> So when did it dawn on you that you and maybe a few brahs were not the only ones out there? "Secret" trails almost never stay secret for very long and when they are built illegally the chances are they're going to eventually get shut down. Double whammy.


Apparently long before it dawned on you that making wild assumptions usually means you end up being way off base?

Our trails were built legally and at the cost of many years of groundwork, both in the woods and at town hall. Many are also on private property with permission of the landowners, while some is on town recreation land that the powers-that-be insist is restricted to resident and guest use. We're basically mandated to keep them off the radar of the general public as much as possible by those who allowed us the opportunity to build them. We actually have a number of other completely legal and extensive trail networks in our general area that have been very successful in keeping themselves off the beaten path for ages. Not every trail has to be built on public land and cater to the lowest common denominator you know.

And I'm pretty sure we don't have 'brahs' in New England. Even a couple managed to sneak in, they probably wouldn't have grey hair.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> And I'm pretty sure we don't have 'brahs' in New England. Even a couple managed to sneak in, they probably wouldn't have grey hair.


False.

Have you been to a High School Lax game in the past 15 years?

(If you're in Maine, I'm not sure what sports you guys play, moose chasing?  )

Have fun at NEMBAfest!


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Just to get a little perspective. There are approximately 40 million mountain bike riders in the US alone. MTBR has 365,000 members worldwide. Even if every member of MTBR was a hard core gnar rider in the US (which we know they're not), that's still only 1% of the riders who have a stake in the trails we build.

This may put some light on why we are asked to build easier trails by most land managers.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

My FS LM wants a 20/60/20 ratio of expert/Int/Beg. The expert and beg levels are the hardest to achieve. I never hear complaints without suggesting the complainer design me the kind of trail they want. That is always the end of the matter.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

I realized the other day that my riding/building area is approximately 10/30/60% green/blue/black. Vast majority black if you go by length. IIRC the green trails are a connecter from the carpark and a paid build from grant money, with volunteer built trails being all blue and black.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

When we have our monthly Gala group rides we can draw 80. We split into groups. The A group, faster and more skilled comprise 5-10. The C riders for the newer and modest riders have about 10-15. The rest are B+, pretty quick, and B more average. The rides tend to be XC and the deciding factors are skill and stamina but the 500-700 ft initial climbs show the groups divisions clearly. The split goes roughly 10%/70%/20%.

These rides have their devotees and are supported by a sense of service to the community. For many these events provide the "riding buds at the trailhead" which many of us have had for years. They tend to not serve the riders who already have their group of handful who may ride the same bikes, tires, bars and styles of clothing; riding bud groups do that. They also know each others styles and abilities.

Generally from some in the local mtb community we hear that the rides are boring, tame and such. Fair enough but the goals for these rides are largely social and devices to develop the mtb community. Those who might complain do attend on occasion but seem to lurk and people watch. That said, these riders complaining probably didn't hang with our A riders for very long. And our A riders can hang with anything tech the complainers could find and claim to ride.

So the numbers tell us about the trails we need. Not so different from anywhere else. I say that the complainers are a minority; a tail trying to wag the dog.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> the goals for these rides are largely social and devices to develop the mtb community.


Which is great if that's your aim. But keep in mind that your goals are not necessarily everyone else's goals. Creating trails can be an art from, and by adhering to a 'design by majority rule/committee' process is a sure-fire way to dumb things down and distill a lot of 'personality' out of trails in general. I love trails with character myself.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

A lot of the principles of trail building for mountain biking were devised here in California, well before agencies decided to organize, refine, and mitigate for common usage. We know how to ride all sorts of stuff here; the desire for that is hardly lost on me. I have 15 years of training riders after many years of riding everything on a hard tail.

What I do have is access to numbers that many people do not have. Most guys ride with a few guys and that is their sample. I have been riding with literally thousands. I'm just saying that statistically the presence in the community that uses the more difficult trails is small. It takes a gathering riders from all over the country to fill Lift Parks for a weekend but that is a very small part of the mountain biking activity on any given day.

The real challenge comes when these riders com back to their neighborhood haunts and complain that the trails are not as cool as [fill in you favorite destination here]. Few places have trails like that and it takes a social circumstance of secrecy, isolation, neglect, or land ownership for them to exist at all, let alone sustain themselves. Again; a statistically small event.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I get what you're saying. I'm sure my tastes have a lot to do with my local experience (as do everyone's). Geography of course plays a huge role too - I live in MA, and we have a million little pockets of woods scattered everywhere, and each of them has been being traversed in one way or another for a good long time, so there are lots of little neighborhood networks that have developed. Many of the most popular places to ride today started with a few 'brahs' scratching in some trail between some cool rocks and terrain features, which we have in abundance. You're typical NE trail rider at any level is going to be fairly comfortable on technical terrain just out of necessity.

Just for context, this video is from a very popular network of XC trails near Boston. NEMBA does an annual 'Wicked Ride of the East' there (along with a bunch of other organized rides) that typically sees around 300 riders. Someone that knows their way around can easily string together 30-40+ miles of mainly singletrack similar to what's shown in the vid. I'm sure in many places, this would be considered more technical than your typical XC trail, but this is what it looks like around here

MTB Harold Parker State Forest - YouTube

There's no shortage of people that get completely sucked into the sport dealing with more challenging terrain IME, and I think there's benefit to building towards more experienced riders, not only for fun, but also as something that gives the rest of us something to shoot for. I like having to put a foot down and walk a section here and there on a trail myself, even after almost 25 years at it. I like 'that frigging log' and my old friend '****in' suckass rock!'. I don't want the trail to figure it all out for me, and it really doesn't seem most riders around here do. Flow, like respect, means more when you earn it. There are a million places where total raw beginners can go ride rail-trails, fireroads and quad/double track to get rolling, but in general, if people build singletrack around here, it's going to be pretty bony by nature, so even beginners are used to dealing with some decent challenges. I mean, you can set up a bunch of basketball courts with 6' high hoops that are 3' in diameter and everyone that shows up is gonna swish it all day long, but that kind of misses the point IMO.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I blame Strava.

-W


----------



## jeffw-13 (Apr 30, 2008)

Walt said:


> I blame Strava.
> 
> -W


:thumbsup: Ive noticed that since people started using Strava a lot of the corners in the local park are being shortcut - where it used to go around a tree it now cuts a straighter line to the inside of the tree and there are new lines around some of the technical features.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Walt said:


> I blame Strava.
> 
> -W




I somewhat blame the XC racer mindset in general. Strava's just on of many symptoms. "Hey the closer to road riding we can make this game, the 'better' (read:faster) we'll be at it. We need more trails that reward fitness over riding skills".


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Moar rock and choke stones... 7 person rocks don't move for strava weenies.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

thefriar said:


> moar rock and choke stones... 7 person rocks don't move for strava weenies.
> 
> View attachment 903012


hey you two guys on one side. Lift harder.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

4 x 3, 4 shifted to down hill... But that size rock will typically not move. Ever. Unless you have a rock bar and drive.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

I'm not sure I get some of this. slapheadmofo, you have all this tech trail available, so I am not sure what the complaint is. 

That vid of the Harold Parker trails shows trail that has its appeal, BUT, it also shows "convoluted trail turning back on itself unnecessarily" and inviting shortcuts. It shows very narrow trail; my 800mm bars are unlikely to pass through without major interruption to flow (like being on your face interruption). It also shows one rider (and hears another) able to ride most of the trail and a bunch of others unable to ride it. From the sounds at the end, "fun" trail is not what is defined. I see no flow and that's OK. I've ridden bunches of rocky terrain and it is what it is. Every time I hear someone say a tech trail that only they can ride well has flow, I hear BS. What is meant is "I am a great rider and everyone else is less worthy". 

From that video, I see a bunch of riders who would be better catered to with alternate trails; easier trail. In this area the trail braids would be infinite on that system, not necessarily from Stravatards, but also walkers and runners and dogs etc. Again I see an example of trail unsuited to all bikes and all riders, regardless of their fitness or skill. I am not sure how an exclusionist approach to the sport makes it better.

There are guys making trail like that here, illegally, in a National Park. They could be helping with legitimate trailwork instead of compromising our image with the LM. Like slaphead, they don't like the idea of trails other people can ride and they deliberately add dodgy features like log overs in corners and random ups and downs regardless of drainage to make the trail less appealing. Their idea of trail width is nothing over 30cm and most only 15cm wide. In one place they have 15cm of dirt and 15cm of grass on sticks on air right on the edge of a 60m drop right where the trail goes over roots on the outslope of a juvenile gum tree that will triple in size over the next 15 years. Challenging - yes! Rideable - yes I have ridden that section once, but never again. Death is not on my MTB bucket list.

These guys are responsible for the vast majority of trail in the park. They can "build" 1km of trail in the time it takes us to make 50-100m. They all argue that their old trails are an example of why this sort of trail is cool. Thanks guys, we really enjoy being made responsible for your crap! Thousands of hours of our time has gone into works needed on your trails to avoid our LM closing trail in bulk. If you ever did any maintenance, or thought about the effect of time on your work, then maybe your arguments would sound better.

In the next few months there will be another cull of tech features that just have no place. Using my bars as a barometer, we will ensure that less people get thrown off trail because they ride with a modern MTB setup. Oh there will be whining from the narrow bars and spandex crowd, but last time I checked, the trails belonged to all riders courtesy of a LM who would rather have seen us kicked out a decade ago.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I see the charm of the Harold Parker trails for these guys. I am reminded of The Worm over by the Boeing plant near Seattle. A bunch of features for features sake, enough to keep you busy with full-rigid fun. I can just see the guys building this, wandering through the chaparral, discovering rocks and stumps, dips, and clearing as they go, back and forth, emerging after a few hours and going at it again the next day. The difference is that The Worm is built legally in the underbrush on either side of maintenance roads serving a long colonnade of huge power lines.

Just like dh'ers in the SF Bay area, slaphead and friends are hard to sell and support with land managers. They also don't get trails built for them by the powers that be. Further, groups like IMBA do not seem to be able to work for them or their philosophy.

Our dh'ers are woefully underserved around here and many just wish there were some way to help them out. Yet, they are a small portion of the whole and it is the whole that suffers from their free-form creativity in virgin areas.

The demand, born of some sense of how trails ought to be or can be if you just sort of creatively ride, also expects some control over who has access. These trails would not be the same if they saw 200 riders per day. As such the creation of these styles for this usage are exclusionary. Those on the right side of the rule feel a sense of pride for their abilities, the remainder, well, they are out of luck. 

The caveat is that maybe one day the noobs will learn the skills need to ride here like the rest of US big boys. Fair enough. However, that is hardly public spirit, and that spirit is why larger agencies cannot support them.

It is a tough equation and we are all just trying to have fun.


----------



## gravitylover (Sep 1, 2009)

I know I've said it before but, I don't think a trail should be "built" any way other than what the land dictates. If it needs machines or mega man hours of trenching and benching it will probably feel dumbed down from the get go. Sure flow is fun and lack of features is good for the masses but a trail that makes you think a little and work a little is better. I'm not talking about added features or chokes and slowdowns (like added logovers) I'm talking about moves dictated by what the land tells you to do to get through smoothly to create your own flow and connection with the land. 

Around here a rake, a lopper, a small saw and two pairs of hands can lay out a beautiful trail with proper armoring that needs a bit of time to mature but once it does it rides so nicely riders of all types can enjoy most of it. Sure there may be a section that is too tough for some but I think there is a general understanding that you can't smooth everything out without ruining the character of the place so a little push is ok. I think a braid here and there so more interesting features can be included are ok. Maybe a short loop that takes off from the main trail for a tenth of a mile or two is a good thing so families and friends can ride together is also ok but a lot of you seem to think that means there are too many trails in too small of an area. I never saw it that way. 

That said, trails that people like my wife enjoy are really hard to build, not because they need to be smooth but because they need to not be intimidating. I hear it all the time from her and many people/customers at work that just want to have a place that they can ride for a few hours without the distractions of everyday life. They don't want to have to push up hills that are too steep or be afraid to roll downhill stretches because they don't have (or want to develop) the skills to do it, they just want to ride. (Un)fortunately there are more people like this than there are like us and since most of the trails we all ride are on public land we need to accept that we will be riding trails below our ability and we need to find the fun where we can or buy some land...


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

slapheadmofo said:


> I get what you're saying. I'm sure my tastes have a lot to do with my local experience (as do everyone's). Geography of course plays a huge role too - I live in MA, and we have a million little pockets of woods scattered everywhere, and each of them has been being traversed in one way or another for a good long time, so there are lots of little neighborhood networks that have developed. Many of the most popular places to ride today started with a few 'brahs' scratching in some trail between some cool rocks and terrain features, which we have in abundance. You're typical NE trail rider at any level is going to be fairly comfortable on technical terrain just out of necessity.
> 
> Just for context, this video is from a very popular network of XC trails near Boston. NEMBA does an annual 'Wicked Ride of the East' there (along with a bunch of other organized rides) that typically sees around 300 riders. Someone that knows their way around can easily string together 30-40+ miles of mainly singletrack similar to what's shown in the vid. I'm sure in many places, this would be considered more technical than your typical XC trail, but this is what it looks like around here
> 
> ...


Love it, looks like a trail I could work on for years and never get a completely clean ride. There a lots of huge rocks that could never be moved used to great advantage.

The trails I spend my time working on are kind of like that. I love riding them and would not trade them for anything.

Here's some of what makes it work out not-so-great.

Because this trail is by far the most challenging in the area, a lot of the riders just flat out avoid it. Like it or not, I have to compete with other area trails for workers every spring. My work day turnouts are typically half or less compared to other trails.

I can live with this, but the effect does snowball into other areas, like being somewhat marginalized in club meetings, which makes it harder to argue that the club should put money into "my" trail. It also means that our usage numbers are relatively low, and the park manager views us as something of a fringe group. We're tolerated, but when push comes to shove, how motivated is he going to be in arguing that the state should put resources toward our trails?

I'm not trying to argue that trail building should be a popularity contest, but there are consequences to only catering to a minority of a minority.

My solution has been to work toward a broader definition of what fun means in regards to trail riding. Yes, dammit, I have a philosophy. While fun for me is cleaning a climb on which I can barely keep my front wheel planted, I can also see that getting a reward by being able to fly down the back side of the climb (instead of picking the way through another rock garden) on the way back down is fun.

Someday "my" trail will have a beginner section that someone on a Wally World bike can ride and enjoy. But there will be always be a loop farther out that will eat department store bikes and spit them out in tiny pieces.

I understand that this kind of compromise will make nobody but me happy. My last reroute (on the easy loop) has already been described as "Walt is making *sidewalks*". I guess if I'm making someone mad I'm doing my job.

Walt


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

^^^Harold Parker is huge, no video shows it all. 

Harold Parker has it all, no questions. 

there are miles of doubletrack

there are miles of singletrack rock crawling

there are dozens and dozens of Expert XX rock and tree squeezes that should never be dumbed down, off camber leaf covered tombstones...etc.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Ridnparadise said:


> I'm not sure I get some of this. slapheadmofo, you have all this tech trail available, so I am not sure what the complaint is.
> 
> That vid of the Harold Parker trails shows trail that has its appeal, BUT, it also shows "convoluted trail turning back on itself unnecessarily" and inviting shortcuts. It shows very narrow trail; my 800mm bars are unlikely to pass through without major interruption to flow (like being on your face interruption). It also shows one rider (and hears another) able to ride most of the trail and a bunch of others unable to ride it. From the sounds at the end, "fun" trail is not what is defined. I see no flow and that's OK. I've ridden bunches of rocky terrain and it is what it is. Every time I hear someone say a tech trail that only they can ride well has flow, I hear BS. What is meant is "I am a great rider and everyone else is less worthy".
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but you make so many wild and completely off-base assumptions on so many things, that I don't have the time (nor inclination) to correct them all.

Suffice to say - I think maybe most New England riders are just cut from a different cloth than riders wherever you're from. We have a lot of rocks in woods here; that's what nature gave us to work with, and that's what many of us enjoy riding.

HP trails are legal, extensive, built and maintained by NEMBA, and wildly popular. The terrain is typical of what you find around here; bony. You'll hear from people (typically transplants or racer types) that there is 'no flow' or 'too many rocks', but I've yet to see a bunch of them get together and plan and execute the type of trail they're looking for. Mostly they just whine and say 'you guys should...'. Sorry, but the typical trailbuilder/rider around here has pretty much made peace with the fact that we have rocks in the woods, and that bikes can be ridden over them, and that trying to create some sort of glorified sidewalk is an epic waste of time and energy.

I'm by no means any sort of great rider. I'm a middle-aged hack that struggles through trails like the ones in the video (and has been for 20+ years). I have never ridden HP without many, many footdowns. At the same time, I've watched tons of riders with actual ability and talent fly through there like they were rolling down the road, on all sorts of bikes. Hell, I've seen my kid at 9 y/o on a 24" bike rip through tech stuff that guys in full kits on carbon 29ers walk around, many times. It inspires me to not be a ***** and ride like I mean it, not just sit on my ass and pedal and expect the trail to dish out a bunch of generic flow on a Styrofoam plate.

And you bought a new piece of equipment and feel that trails now need to all be built to accommodate it? With all due respect, **** your handlebars. How about instead of dumbing down the all trails to accommodate the results of your latest shopping adventure, up your game a little and learn how to wiggle a bike through a tight spot? What's next, a smooth tire fad hits and people go out and pave everything? C'mon now. Mtn biking is supposed to involve a bit of 'suck it up'. Like I said, you can put the ball on a tee or widen the goalposts all you want and feel good about scoring all the time, but for me (and many others), playing the game that way isn't really playing the game at all.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

We have more rocks in New England than pretty much everywhere except eastern Alabama. Or so sayeth 2 separate IMBA TCCs... Maybe 3. So that's a fact.

Harold Parker is great though because there are other varieties of trail around the area that do cater to a number of other riding styles. A large % of trail is legal, LM relationships are positive, and you're never more than a 2-3 hour drive from lift serve. That's what makes New England unique... you don't like Batchelor St., go ride Earls; you don't like Millers Pond, go ride Rockland... From super chunk trials type moves to faaaast flow in a 5-10 minute drive.

And smart builders do what g-love was saying, but use sustainable design techniques. If you have rock rock rock, then its not gonna be easy no matter how hard you try, if you have side slope and some decent mineral soil, then bench and flow buttery fast.

It goes sideways when you have people that feel entitled to ride one place expecting its another. Lets ramp everything and braid everything. It is new. It is annoying.

On new trails we keep easy lines, on old trails, we block the braids.

I think in NE specifically, part of our job as NEMBA and advocates is to direct people where to improve and to help give them opportunities to improve. It why we always tell our beginner riders, remember to improve your skills and not the trails... we all walk and we all crash. Its how you earn your turns and get to do nasty little whips and turn downs off random rock and root in the trail...


----------



## cjohnson (Jul 14, 2004)

*my 9 year old son complained about dumbing down the trails.*

We had a short section of trail that was super fun and fast. This section also needed continuous maintenance to keep it from eroding. No one not involved in the maintenance would ever realize the effort that was being put into it. I am sure they thought it was sustainable.

Time being valuable, a reroute was done. All we got was complaints. Even my 9 year-old son complained about it until I explained that he would no longer have to help me fix that section of trail anymore.


My point is that many users may think a section is sustainable because others are working hard to keep it riding nice. I would also add, for volunteer projects, a sustainable work force is needed too.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

slapheadmofo, you come across as a person with no lateral thought. What I am saying here and it is no wild assumption, is that just because a trail suits you it does not suit all riders. I don't need to hear how hard core your cloth is cut. I'm not the only one here who has ridden whatever comes in front of the wheel for nearly 5 decades.

There is a simple rule when making trail: design it for yourself and it will be altered by others over time - what you could call dumbing down. Design it for the majority and it will remain to age and get gnarlier. Selfish people don't make good trail.

As to ****ing my bars, well they are sexy and I'd take them over you any day buddy, but while we are on assumptions, they actually are not my bars. I did not make them, just bought them like so many other riders. There is a big difference between wiggling and grunting like a fat guy on a whore through saplings at 5kph and not fitting through no matter what you do at 30kph on a 60+% sideslope.

If I can't ride it, then nor can anyone else with bars over 700mm. After we take out 20 trail dangers (not features, but dangers) there will be thousands of other places to wiggle on our trail system.

There is no problem with something like this









or this









In the next pic the trail had fallen away creating a dangerous 45%, narrow outslope. Doing repairs to that problem made the tree choke after it a safer tech feature, rather than another chance to fall off the trail. It may not look too steep, but a fall here could mean a long climb out if you miss all the trunks on the way down









What we do have a problem with is unavoidable danger at speed. I have no pics of the sort of choke that will see our saws, but try to imagine the consequences of catching your bars, or worse still coming to a dead stop descending this sort of trail....















To you slapheadmofo, this is about someone interfering with your personal preference by dumbing things down. To us it means just not being dumb about what makes a good trail.


----------



## icecreamjay (Apr 13, 2004)

I've ridden Harold Parker with 720 mm bars. No problems. The place rocks. Technical skills are a necessity here. There has been a big resurgence of riders here and they ARE dumbing down the trails. I guess trails just evolve and change.

I'm with Slaphead, improve your skills, not the trail. 

I think a lot of the"conflict" in this thread has to do with the differences between East and West coast riding. That vid of HP is typical of our trails. We've been dealing with this with our NEMBA group rides because most of our riding areas really don't have any beginner trails except fire roads, and many of those are eroded and fairly technical. In fact the "easy" loop at the Wicked ride was entirely dirt roads. We just don't have easy trails, and to construct them like those "dirt sidewalks" we see in videos is nearly impossible, you'd have to dig all the roots and rocks out and bring in fill.


----------



## icecreamjay (Apr 13, 2004)

Well actually we do have dirt sidewalks, or should I say sand sidewalks. They're on Cape Cod.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

cjohnson said:


> We had a short section of trail that was super fun and fast. This section also needed continuous maintenance to keep it from eroding. No one not involved in the maintenance would ever realize the effort that was being put into it. I am sure they thought it was sustainable.
> 
> Time being valuable, a reroute was done. All we got was complaints. Even my 9 year-old son complained about it until I explained that he would no longer have to help me fix that section of trail anymore.
> 
> ...


Thanks for pointing out a problem I've faced and got tired of.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

This is brilliant.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Question as I sit here with a Rioja and Davidoff Special R Tubo:

Legacy vs. New.... How do we as the builders manage it. 

B Mike. You don't have any build chops since you just seem to opine. (no offense since you only jump on imba and advocacy but not tech or tool threads... I don't know you from years of posts in this particular forum) 

I want to hear from Trail Ninja, Walt, Rip, and the other bonafides. 

Sent from my LG-D950 using Tapatalk


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Oh and how the hell do we keep the volunteers coming and add to our core crews? 

(I forgot many others like slo, cmc, djburti, etc... The other fools that probably spend as much time meeting with LMs , planning, planning more, tweaking some, then building or managing, then tweaking and tweaking more than they do riding)... 

Those who show up do have a say so what do we as builders/planners/leaders do.... 

Sent from my LG-D950 using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

thefriar said:


> Oh and how the hell do we keep the volunteers coming and add to our core crews?


I don't have any bonafides, but since I too have been enjoying delicious alcohol, I'll give you the view from the cheap seats re: your second question.

I don't know if our situation is unique or not, so I'll describe it. We have an open lands consortium, made up of all the public land owners in the area: city, county, USFS, BLM. We also have a local land trust that has a contract with the consortium to handle all the trail maintenance, construction, etc. This arrangement predates my involvement or residency, so I'm not sure how hard it was to arrange. It seems to make things easier at the pointy end of the stick now, though.

In the past, most of the work that got done was by 1-2 guys, with occasional help from Montana Conservation Corps crews (maybe 1-2 weeks a summer). On top of that, there are roughly 6 community work nights per season that rely on volunteer labor. Attendance at these can range from minimal to excessive (depending on the project and the weather).

This stretches things a bit thin. This year, they're spreading the load a bit by creating a group that will function analogously to a cadre of NCOs. The group is largely composed of volunteers with a history of coming to most worknights, although there are a few new recruits, too. On community work nights we (I'm one) will take charge of a group of 3-4 volunteers and guide them to free up the full-time trail guys a bit more. We also show up for work nights 3-4 nights before the community work nights to rough in the work to be done. If it's new trail or a re-route, we put in the line, and make enough finished product to use as an example for the volunteers. When they figure out an efficient way of doing it, we'll also be on call to help with clearing deadfall, which has become a recurring problem in the wake of the pine beetle wave that broke over us about 5-6 years ago.

Giving the regular volunteers more responsibility seems to be paying off. They've also tapped some new pools of potential volunteers, namely my club, which has had on/off relationships with the land trust. My interests bridge the gap, so I've taken on the role of liaison. I'm an officer in the club, and a member of the land trust's trail committee. It's a process, but I have reason to be pleased and optimistic.

Now, if we could get more people to show up to move dirt at the bike park... But that's another topic.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Ridnparadise said:


> slapheadmofo, you come across as a person with no lateral thought. What I am saying here and it is no wild assumption, is that just because a trail suits you it does not suit all riders. I don't need to hear how hard core your cloth is cut.
> To you slapheadmofo, this is about someone interfering with your personal preference by dumbing things down. To us it means just not being dumb about what makes a good trail.


I'm far from 'hardcore', and have never made any sort of claim otherwise. I'm just a fairly seasoned, perpetual intermediate, weekend warrior and hobbyist-level trailbuilder. All in whatever 'spare time' I make while working full time, trying to ride a bit, and managing a household. As far as assumptions go, you know zero about me, how I build trails or how much time I spend keeping up with them, yet you see fit to go rambling on about how I like to build 'dodgy feature to make the trail less appealing', am 'exclusionist' and leave my 'crap' for people such as yourself to take clean up after, don't do maintenance, and put no thought into the time things take.

I've put over 200 hours this spring alone into my latest 'exclusionary' 'no-thought-or-flow' project for my town with my best 'hardcore' riding 'brah' (aka 'the boy') as well as many years of 'regular' MTB trail work and maintenance. Next time you build something that 6 year olds have to be dragged away from after hours of riding, can be ridden countless different ways without pedaling, and is also entertaining for experienced riders, you can start lecturing me about inclusion (and 'flow' for that matter).

I try build all that into XC trails too a much as possible - I have to say I'd be bummed to admit it if I had a hand in some of the stuff in your pictures. The LMs I deal with (not to mention we builders) hold us to higher aesthetic standard. So please, we can disagree about what type of trails should be being built, but if you're gonna start spouting completely uninformed BS, yeah....you, your patronizing 'tude, your handlebars, and the horse ya'll rode in on...

Just because I think mountain biking should try to keep a bit closer to it's roots and not be diluted in a major way by those looking to profit from it in one way or another through a bigger market (or somebody that bought the wrong tool for the job) does not in any way make me some sort of clueless renegade when it comes to trails, thanks.



















:thumbsup:


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

A local kid riding some of our dumbed-down flow trails. Next time you see him at the Redbull Rampage, ask him how he likes it.






These kids are riding the exact same trails. They like it just as much.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Legacy versus new. Good question. My cred is limited compared to some of the regular posters here, but this is how it pans out IMO. Note that we are in an area of reasonable rainfall (say 70"PA minimum) and we get torrential rains often. 200mm (8") overnight is not uncommon as are periods of 4-6 months without rain. While the ground is fairly durable, it erodes with time and use and is getting rougher in most parts of the trail network. There are not many MTB trails older than 20 years. Our local population is >500000 and we also drain the south side of our state capital, Brisbane. Winters are mild (22C average) and drier and Summers warm (28-30C) and wetter. Vegetation will overgrow singletrack in months if not used or maintained.

Historically our trail network is the result of illegal building. It has been through phases of serious north shore construction (still happens in places) which the LM tends to destroy, but fortunately there has been a blind eye shown to the trails until the last decade or so, after Department of Natural Resources handed management over to Parks and Wildlife. In general the trails have been scratched out and ridden into life. That means they were either made super fast to avoid being caught in the act, or convoluted to eek out distance. More effort was put into features like bridges than trail construction. One of our local figureheads still boasts to all and sundry that he built his trail with a pair of garden scissors!

Somewhere along the line the concept of grade reversals was confused with unnecessary climbing to descend to another unnecessary climb, meaning large sections of trail are falline rather than drained and handle weather and traffic badly (in the eyes of a National Park LM). Original builders do not seem to see that, in part because they either never interact with the LM or they don't choose to listen when they do. They see challenging trail and the need for riders to suck it up and try harder. Thing is it gets harder and harder for everyone as time goes on and the original builders essentially never come back to maintain their work, unless as recently, a trail saboteur cuts down a bridge (or many).

I love the trail system. All of it. I can find fault with lots of it, but I understand the value and need for a variety of terrain, trail designs and difficulty. I passionately believe the land belongs to us people and that riding a bicycle on it is a good thing. While historically as controversial as breast feeding in public: controversy does not outweigh benefit. MTB is one of the last (with very limited and environmentally sensitive) frontiers in our modern world and I believe that our LM will benefit from increasing the access of people to our bush. More people = more advocacy.

While I think it totally sucks to bang your crank on the upslope on every rotation because the trail is a degraded 20cm width on a 60% outslope, I can choose to avoid some trails for that reason because I know them. The LM cannot ignore it and frankly does not know how to rationalise litigation risk in such places. This extends to not signposting trails or allowing an accurate map of the system until all trails are brought up to IMBA (or Qld Parks and Wildlife Service) standard and legalised. Catch 22 - riders cannot know where they should ride, or where they are riding and consequently are exposed to added risk.

Our plan to deal with these historic trails is to leave them essentially unchanged. Bear in mind our LM is restricting where we work, expecting the areas closest to the trailhead to be upgraded first, then farther out in sequence. This is a terribly difficult situation for a couple of reasons. Firstly the low altitude trails were badly designed and badly placed. They have eroded past the point of rehabilitation and offer a smorgasbord of trail disasters that require closure and re-routing: a very large task considering our "nothing brought in or taken out" and no mechanised equipment restrictions. It is not aided by a lack of volunteer help - at our last posted trail day we had zero turn up and we never see any of the guys who previously built (and have been recently continuing to build illegally).

What we can do outside our designated area is "emergency" repairs in places we feel will totally fail, just to hold off the threat of trail closure. In reality, that is almost all that is needed in most places - improved drainage, stabilisation of eroded and narrow trail, environmental and tread management of creek crossings and other similar tasks. Like in the following pics where this















became this















and this















became this with a new bridge















If you think these pics show dumbing down, then it's time to go get a life. They show poor trail being turned into good trail, which has been happily accepted by riders and is lasting well, as it should with appropriate drainage.

In most places clearing sightlines at intervals will allow more rider confidence and maintain the current trail line. In some places certain exposed rocks or encroaching trees (they actually grow and get wider, by the way, so think of that when you put a 700mm gap between 2 saplings) have to be removed to prevent trail braids and other shortcuts developing over time. When it comes to genuine rider safety, then sorry if you are butt hurt, but your most favoritist rock or stabbing timber is going to be removed for the greater good. If we can slam the rock back into the tread, we always will, but if not.....

So my feelings are that all the good aspects of legacy trail, especially its character must be maintained. However, if it is not good trail, bothers the LM, or is dangerous, then it has to be altered to ensure long term survival, let alone sustainability.

Now for new trail - I will come back to this in a better mood after I go for a ride with the most desperately addicted of my digging buddies. Hold that thought or beer

OK, back now and armed with a glass of red:thumbsup: Had a good ride, including through both the bits in the pics above, among other spots. Very excellent, but not too much daylight here at this time of year.

New trail. New trail offers the privilege of a blank canvas. With careful planning, repeated on-site surveys and mapping, plus with a mind open to changes in the script, designing new trail caters to all the basics.

Essentials like gradient, sideslope, drainage, soil type, natural terrain features, view, dangers, vegetation, potential vulnerabilities, cultural sensitivity and wildlife are issues that create no conflict when you can plan and build legal trail. They all fall into place and hopefully, the result is something that feels right and rides right as soon as it is opened.

That is something our local illegal, "new" trails lack. They are made to deliberately ride like $#it unless you know what comes next (local heroes hut hut hut). Over time they get ridden into a semblance of good trail. Certainly they become challenging trail, but like a skyrocket, the use-by curve can be all down from then on. After design and construction, popularity is the killer for badly-made trail.

When you take on trailcare responsibility for Legacy trail, you face multiple difficulties that may have been avoided with forethought (or effort or time) when the trail was created. Inadequate trail width on steep sideslopes and chokes that are tight now, but will narrow over time are just a couple of obvious examples of trail issues where necessary remedies get called dumbing down.

With new trail, predicting change over time and building to the way the trail will look in 10 years can present issues as well. When a new trail has a relatively smooth surface on opening and is wide and offers open throttle assault, that does not mean it will be like that in years to come. Very quickly, confident riders find the line or lines and from then on the trail narrows to the consensus line. A confident rider is not just an expert rider, more likely some inexperienced bozo who feels strangely confident about where the trail is taking them. If we make the new trail right, harvested organic matter on the outslope sprouts new vegetation fast, bringing a natural border to reinforce the clear, new riding line(s).

Like I said, here grasses etc grow thick and fast reducing rider speeds over time. If riders cannot see a clear edge to a trail, they ride more conservatively. By building widely in the first place, you can assure that there is no hidden rock or stabber to take out a slightly wayward rider's crank or shin, now or in 10 years. As the surface starts to narrow and expose buried stone, both uphill and downhill riders face new challenges. Therefore losing the speed of new trail is not that big a deal, because handling the rough, new surface at a slightly lower speed is the new challenge.

When you take away all the immediate riding attractions and features, some trails serve purposes far more specific. If you are Rad Rick on your rad rig, recently smashed by a long session on the back trails, I believe you will enjoy a fun and relaxing final km to the trailhead, just as much as Mum Marge and her kids enjoy giving you a wave as they pass on their way along the new, gentle and inviting trail that replaced the old mongrel that broke her clavicle when she rode with her ex-husband the first time.

So, just like Strava can redesign a Legacy trail, so does time. With time comes change. That may be wider handlebars, but far more likely will be an exponential number of riders of all standards. Let's face it, that means an exponential increase in beginner over intermediate over expert riders. What worked in the builders' minds back then has changed and been changed and is a resource available for others now.

I am very sorry for this rambling and outrageously long discourse. Maybe it was the ride and excessive energy. Now I can go back and read the posts I missed since my last one. Looking forward to Trail Ninja's post and I hope I have not lost the plot.

PS: Not sure why previous pics are coming back - a MTB acid trip maybe


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'm far from 'hardcore', and have never made any sort of claim otherwise. I'm just a fairly seasoned, perpetual intermediate, weekend warrior and hobbyist-level trailbuilder. All in whatever 'spare time' I make while working full time, trying to ride a bit, and managing a household. As far as assumptions go, you know zero about me, how I build trails or how much time I spend keeping up with them, yet you see fit to go rambling on about how I like to build 'dodgy feature to make the trail less appealing', am 'exclusionist' and leave my 'crap' for people such as yourself to take clean up after, don't do maintenance, and put no thought into the time things take.
> 
> I've put over 200 hours this spring alone into my latest 'exclusionary' 'no-thought-or-flow' project for my town with my best 'hardcore' riding 'brah' (aka 'the boy') as well as many years of 'regular' MTB trail work and maintenance. Next time you build something that 6 year olds have to be dragged away from after hours of riding, can be ridden countless different ways without pedaling, and is also entertaining for experienced riders, you can start lecturing me about inclusion (and 'flow' for that matter).
> 
> ...


OK, this ends now mate. I certainly regret my offence and I think you can back off too. My long long post to follow is what I think about trail. I'm not in a pi$$ing contest here. I am a volunteer with a full time job and family too.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Ridnparadise, first things first. What red are you enjoying?

•••••

Thank you for taking the time to present your perspective. It is so easy for folks to pop-off about trails and what they ought to be. At the same time there are folks who pop-off about trails access advocacy and walk away if they do not get what they want in a season.

The people who really do the work, not just with a McCloud but with an eye to the administrative process, aging, reasonable safety, are all too easily dismissed. Your presentation cannot be dismissed.

As a long-time advocate some of the comments about trails just leave me shaking my head in response to the short-sightedness and narrow approach and the consequent political problems they create.

At the same time that part of the riding community enjoys a riding style that gets very little public support. I am not sure how to address that. There seems to be no program to create what they want. Currently such trails are evoked by building in remote areas and resisting amendments to trails to make them work in the long term.

We have trails which have some pretty stupid features, due to long neglect, as they break down from poor design and high usage. Repair that to something that will hold up, or reroute onto ground that handles the load better and you get, "what's the matter with you guys? That was my favorite part of the trail!"

We have some pretty nice trails near an urban center. Yet there are riders who wade into pristine areas in the park to make renegade fall-line trails for their dh jones. While that may serve a handful o f riders it jeopardizes our basic access in a climate which must manage an atmosphere of hateful hikers and equestrians just looking for an opportunity to shut us out.

There is a tendency for such riders to complain about a lack of advocacy on their behalf. Yet the local BMX crowd develops advocacy efforts for their special focus. That done our more general approach with its strength in politics and dollars can help out. We just cannot spearhead that issue. We have suggested the same for the dh riders. No one steps up.

**** it Dude, let's go bowling - YouTube

I understand but nothing will get done unless the administrative end is taken care of.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

The red was a Barossa Shiraz - nothing too fancy, but enjoyable.

Yes, advocacy and reporting take up so much time. The same sort of renegade building happens here and we get put in the awkward position of having to report it to the LM. It would be foolish of us to think that park rangers will not discover stuff themselves over time. It would look pretty bad if we failed to fulfil our eyes and ears expectations when we are riding and working right next to the stuff they want stopped.

It leaves a bad taste reporting stuff that will have to go, especially if it means we have to rehabilitate it instead of building ourselves and we know the builders will have no love for us as well. Their stupidity makes us look bad and potentially creates ill will among riders, however the alternative is that rangers take matters into their own hands and catch and fine the builders. The fines are substantial - from many hundreds to thousands of dollars.

Aside from an old, falline DH track that has been re-cut right across an authorised new trail line, this little effort turned up this week.









The construction is actually pretty sound, but the very steep exit ramp ends less than 2m from a busy trail with a 90 degree intersection. There is no trail above the log, so there has to be a walk-in through the bush. There will be no stopping for any rider descending the ramp and the same for riders descending the trail. It is a senseless recipe for disaster (and one my digging mate would love to have ridden). It will be gone by end of today according to rangers.

Sadly, all that effort could be applied to real trail maintenance and new legal work. We include log rides wherever we can in new work, but they obviously must parallel the trail or at least not put riders on the trail at risk.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Here's a related essay I put together for IMBA's upcoming book about bike parks, flow trails and other purpose-built mountain bike facilities. I want emphasize the point that not all purpose-built trails have to be designed for beginner/intermediate skill sets, and that community involvement is key for deciding the characteristics of new trails.

-- Mark

--

What Happened to Rowdy Trails?

Flow trails and other types of purpose-built designs have enjoyed a rapid ride in popularity, but not every mountain biker is convinced that these developments are for the better. Some have vocally lamented that too many new-school trails are customized for beginner or intermediate skill sets, devoid of the challenge offered by traditional singletrack that, in many cases, poses difficulties precisely because it was not designed with bicycling in mind.

In releasing a book about bike parks and flow trails, is IMBA proclaiming that all new trail construction should be engineered to appeal only to the broadest cross-section of riding abilities? Have we entered a new era, in which rowdy, rocky, or root-laden trails are no longer welcome additions?

The answer is an emphatic "No!" IMBA's position has long been that a diversity of riding experiences is beneficial, and that decisions about what kinds of trails will benefit a given community are best made at the local level.

For example, the Sandy Ridge Trail System in Oregon offers trails that feature a mix of machine- and hand-built features. There are options for all abilities, including experts-only lines like Follow the Leader, a black diamond trail with 350 feet of vertical descent and several challenging rock lines. "During the development process, we got a lot of feedback from the riding community that people wanted opportunities for more advanced, technical singletrack," said Zach Jarrett, an Outdoor Recreation Planner with the BLM. "I think the new trails are a perfect addition to the system."

For more about the community-driven process that led to the creation of rowdy trails for advanced riders at Sandy Ridge, read Jarrett's essay, "Using a GAP Analysis to Create a World-Class Mountain Bike Destination" in Chapter 4.

--

If you are not familiar with Sandy Ridge, check out this video: Sandy Ridge Trail System, Oregon | 2013 on Vimeo


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Nice, Mark. Yet we still have to have land managers who will support the more challenging trails


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Ridnparadise said:


> OK, this ends now mate. I certainly regret my offence and I think you can back off too. My long long post to follow is what I think about trail. I'm not in a pi$$ing contest here. I am a volunteer with a full time job and family too.


Cheers man. Not looking to have a *****-fest either - it's easy to find yourself painting with too broad a brush when it comes to internet BS. Done it a million times myself. I absolutely appreciate how much thought (and effort and passion) you and everybody else here puts into trails.

I agree that there's a need for 'beginner' trails, and flow trails are fun no matter how you slice it. I just feel that there's a tendency to set the bar a little low these days as far as what constitutes 'technical' and 'flow'.

Just for perspective, here's a vid of some guys that I would probably tag as 'enthusiastic beginners' riding a nice little stash of trails for the first time that has been built over the past 5 or 6 years (shout out to Merrimack Valley NEMBA for adopting my dad). The place is wildly popular and NEMBA does regular rides for all levels there, including PYT (practice your technique) rides aimed squarely at beginner riders. It also hosts the best pumptrack around. You can pretty much watch these guys' skills pick up in minutes. There's very little here that an advanced beginner can't handle technically IME.

Mountain Biking Russell Mill, Chelmsford, MA - YouTube

Next vid is a place that I would probably buck a trend and consider 'dumbed down' to some degree. (No offense intended - I count many of the main builders among my friends, and have pitched in a bit there myself). I'd consider it fun for an advanced intermediate level on., with plenty of challenge to be had right on up the ladder Again, wildly popular. But I personally would rather ride that seemingly endless moto-trialsy trail I stumbled onto in 1992, when all those rocks on the side of the trails were embedded in it's 20" surface and there were no B-lines, any day. Not that I don't think the overall product is bad or unchallenging by any means, a lot of great work has been done, and it's high visibility as well as highly trafficked, which of course means you have to cater to the masses at some level, but I personally might have gone with a little 'rawer' approach (if I were the one putting endless hours into it of course - and I know there are many other factors the builders had to deal with that drove the end product). But still, there's a certain level of 'pre-packaged-ness to it all that kind of detracts from the overall experience IMO. I feel there has been a huge de-emphasis on the adventure and exploration aspect of the sport. It's of course unavoidable in may ways with the information channels and prevalence of electronic gadgetry these days, but still, mountain biking should keep you on your toes. If somebody rides a trail I built and is able to put any sort of thought into their heart rate monitor, I consider that a failure on my part.

Wheel's-Eye view of Vietnam (Milford, MA) singletrack - YouTube

I would also consider something along these lines (particularly as a DH trail), somewhat over-sanitized for an adult also. I'm pretty sure my son would've gotten a bit bored after a few runs on a his 16" coaster brake bike when he was was 5.

SoCal Mountain Biking Big Bear S.A.R.T. GoPro HD - YouTube

Though it's great to have some trails aimed at drawing people into the sport (and of course, with this trail in particular, there's a obviously a strong business aspect), there's a balance to be struck between making things accessible and simplifying them to the 'walk-in-the-park' level. Kind of like at a certain point, rock climbing becomes 'scrambling', without the technical aspects, I feel mountain biking in many cases has turned into road riding on dirt.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Maybe we just have too much bike for these trails. All that stuff done on a rigid would say something. On the modern Barcaloungers.....


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

I can't say I liked the tombstones on the trail edge in one of those vids, but the trail was a bit confusing in parts, so a scattering of them could be needed as road markers. As to whether the trail needed more rock, only the rider knows. It is still a very rocky, low speed trail but I do see the pleasure of continuous, larger obstacles. 

We can't do that here as a rule. Riders would cook in their own juices without airflow. We have to offer pace. If you beat yourself up on a climb, you need to cool down with a bit of speed, even in winter.

However, we do have a place we are pushing for a seriously old-school, tech XC trail re-route. Lots of rocky challenges offer maximum effort along a line of eroded ledges. We want to build a new, blue "service" or "access" trail above all the gnar to get riders to and from the ends of that trail, re-creating the lower, tough line for expert riders, with some serious modifications. 

Another trail currently marked for closure by our LM could become an incredible, uphill only, black, XC trail. We think it should be part of the Commonwealth Games XC trail system and have presented a GPS map based on pin flagging to the LM, Council, State Government and the Games Committee (who included us in the consultancy group some time ago as a result of other proposals). 

There must be a place for tech XC. It is how I started riding - find something you never rode and learn. Making trail and jumps and squeezing in and out of things decades ago does not, however provide the benchmark for a life of MTB trail construction. Things change - how we are told to behave on the land, how we successfully advocate, how we prove we can get the basics right and how riders ride, make all the difference to being able to up the ante and turn out something really nasty with the LM's approval.

Many have said it before - be patient and keep demonstrating the right attitude and it will come. While my impulse is to go out, take possession of "my" land and dig $#it, I know that I am on a far better wicket because my LM is comfortable with what we do. Much to our surprise, this week we were offered the services of a 1200mm track-width excavator by our LM! That's pretty different to then wanting us removed from the park a decade ago.

IMO, that digger will not be needed on the 2 tracks I discussed above. They need the personal touch. However, it could really help a limited number of volunteers achieve what our LM wants in the near future; a sustainable, family and community recreation area for MTB.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

B Mike thank you for your efforts. I'm there in the trenches at meetings, reading fed/state/local policy to understand letter/spirit, and taking notes and making presentations and slowly gaining traction. You're not alone and the efforts are appreciated.

Long winded Advocacy hug...

Advocacy is admin as much as it is relationship management. It takes as much time invested to build and continue the relationships with other users, LMs, and our community of riders as it does to build a mile of sustainable trail with 10 volunteers.

Advocacy is relationship management, if you're in a technical industry and selling to sophisticated buyers and introducing a new technology, its not much different.

Advocacy and relationship mgmt are tough, ask anyone who's started in sales with cold calling. Need a strategy, not every client is the same, some like ritz and glitz, others just hate change. General strategies are tailored for the situation.

Unlike cold calling, advocacy is not something you should do alone, you (hopefully) have a team, and a strategy/shared vision, and you focus relationship development and advocacy where you or your team members have competitive advantages. You learn where to push, and where to give, negotiation, it HAS to be a win-win POV... which means education and more advocacy!

YMMV where you are, but here, and I'm hoping elsewhere, with good LM relationships and a buy in to sustainable trail design and building, *its critical to not just keep the advocacy with the LM good but advocating the same message to build strong core of builders*. And advocating to them that there is a vision and it takes patience.

Getting the general up keep and maintenance stuff done that our LMs don't have resources for, which can be 75% of the work load but delivers on the LM advocacy, so that when its time to do what we as riders want for tough stuff, there's still a core builder group there to help you and you can deliver on your builder Advocacy. I like to ride but my building and advocacy efforts somehow win out regularly.

*You can build sustainable and gnarly trail. *LMs won't let you do that unless your advocacy and education and relationship enables a level and mature discussion. It takes delivering on what your advocacy promises & commitments were. If your team is good, then the LM knows as much about sustainable trail and managing user groups as your team, maybe more, then they will get when your teams build something with tons of rock/ledge/natural features that are sustainable (key is natural features, built stuff that requires hours of on-going TM just doesn't last, won't debate that). Getting the LM to focus on overall shared use trail management and sustainable trails takes advocacy. Years of it. Patience is key.

RE: 
Barcaloungers...... rigids, DH bikes, SS HTs, Trials bikes, munis, enduro, trail, DJ... Getting into the whole my bike and skills are best, gets no where... I'm a builder and my pulaski can do just about everything on a build day, but it sure doesn't tamp as efficiently as my Lamberton, there's different tools for the job.

The great thing about this forum is the ability to exchange ideas, successes, failures, and lessons learned on a global scale. Our mileage will always vary, but some of the themes and variables are in our control as advocates and builders so we can help each other deliver more for our communities & sport. There are too few of us, so identifying and exploiting our competitive advantages are critical to our effectiveness.

[Note: Southern Tier 2x IPA and Widmer Upheaval IPA are both good post ride samples]


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Some of us riding since the 80s have watched the progression from our rigid/canti/5-speeds to the present day. I currently ride the latest 27.5 DS carbon wonder and have trained hundreds of riders from noobs to racers, from the age of 2 to 82, so I see the needs of riders from a pretty homogenized perspective.

The major point of the BarcaLounger is that the bike has made a very different kind of riding possible, radically broadening the facility of those availing themselves to the sport. All the while the sport expanding. This challenges the value of trails both in terms of the usage volume and perceived character. In a very real sense our reach has exceeded our grasp. And so, the empty and unserved feeling by group who feel a strong sense of their expression of the sport.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

I think your point is: 29er full suspension bikes are the root of all evil on modern trail systems.

I understand what you're trying to say:
-29ers are the weirdest shift in MTB tech
-They are harder to manual, get the front wheel up and over stuff, etc. (than 26 or even 27.5)... likely due to long chainstays and increased wheelbase
-They require wider turning radius than anything besides tandums and 36ers
-They give false confidence in tech situations by giving better approach angles, which leads to frustration when unable to clear something because obviously if they're clearing that rock garden they didn't get before, their skills are better and the reason they're not getting a TTF and need to ramp or redirect is its no suitable for the trail.
-Same false confidence leads to higher speeds, that don't jive with riding capability or trail
-Not good for small riders, and create user conflicts/arguments between 29er and 26er riders, dividing advocacy efforts and unity

Thusly, they are solely responsible for current trail design and adjustment.

This is the best thesis I've seen since I started riding a BMX in the woods 28 years ago.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

thefriar said:


> I think your point is: 29er full suspension bikes are the root of all evil on modern trail systems.
> 
> I understand what you're trying to say:
> -29ers are the weirdest shift in MTB tech
> ...


Well, now that you mention it...


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

We will have to move this thread to the "Useless Arguments" forum if we want to discuss wheel sizes.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

Improvement in bike technology is an interesting point to bring into this discussion. Are those who are against "dumbing down the trails" also against users having technology which makes it easier for less skilled riders to navigate lumpy trails like 6" of suspension or larger wheels? I wonder what kind of bikes these types of folks ride...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

aero901 said:


> Improvement in bike technology is an interesting point to bring into this discussion. Are those who are against "dumbing down the trails" also against users having technology which makes it easier for less skilled riders to navigate lumpy trails like 6" of suspension or larger wheels? I wonder what kind of bikes these types of folks ride...


Touché.

Yet folks ride what they ride and just want to have fun.


----------



## icecreamjay (Apr 13, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Touché.
> 
> Yet folks ride what they ride and just want to have fun.


Hell yeah! I've seen trails get " dumbed down" but in general our trails are in better shape than ever before and there's more of them. Still plenty of gnar in New England anyways, we could actually use more flow trails.

And to slaphead's comment about needing more exploration and adventure, I personally see that as the realm of fat bikes now. I do like getting out and just finding new trails and exploring nature . I do it on my fattie. Mellow yet go anywhere capable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Whoa, 2002 called! They want their thread/flame war topic back...

That was well written, I almost needed a sarc tag to get it for a second.

Just wait until I build a fleet of 32" dualies that can run over a 12" log without the rider even taking their finger out of their nose...

-W



thefriar said:


> I think your point is: 29er full suspension bikes are the root of all evil on modern trail systems.
> 
> I understand what you're trying to say:
> -29ers are the weirdest shift in MTB tech
> ...


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I have found that building the harder trails farther out works pretty well, at least on "my" mountain. Give the experts a long hard ride and then kick 'em in the crotch a few times before the long hard ride back. They whine like everyone else.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

bsieb said:


> I have found that building the harder trails farther out works pretty well, at least on "my" mountain. Give the experts a long hard ride and then kick 'em in the crotch a few times before the long hard ride back. They whine like everyone else.


I agree, make the ba$tards whine like babies.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Ridnparadise said:


> The red was a Barossa Shiraz - nothing too fancy, but enjoyable.
> 
> Yes, advocacy and reporting take up so much time. The same sort of renegade building happens here and we get put in the awkward position of having to report it to the LM. It would be foolish of us to think that park rangers will not discover stuff themselves over time. It would look pretty bad if we failed to fulfil our eyes and ears expectations when we are riding and working right next to the stuff they want stopped.
> 
> ...


Well, we went back for a walk today after re-surveying our next job and this is what we found. Sometimes, in their enthusiasm I think punters forget there are right and wrong ways to get stuff to ride. This feature would have been perfect out the back, away from lesser riders and part of a trail, rather than a threat to the trail and riders on it.

Sad


----------



## gravitylover (Sep 1, 2009)

icecreamjay said:


> Hell yeah! I've seen trails get " dumbed down" but in general our trails are in better shape than ever before and there's more of them. Still plenty of gnar in New England anyways, we could actually use more flow trails.
> 
> And to slaphead's comment about needing more exploration and adventure, I personally see that as the realm of fat bikes now. I do like getting out and just finding new trails and exploring nature . I do it on my fattie. Mellow yet go anywhere capable.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ding ding! Yeah the northeast is pretty short on flowy zones. The spot closest to my house is getting better though as more people find it and ride it in some of the trails are maturing into real giggle inducing flow trails. I like it...



Walt said:


> Whoa, 2002 called! They want their thread/flame war topic back...
> 
> Just wait until I build a fleet of 32" dualies that can run over a 12" log without the rider even taking their finger out of their nose...
> 
> -W


Haha! Just make sure there's room for the battery and hub motor on those 32er's.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Trail Ninja said:


> We will have to move this thread to the "Useless Arguments" forum if we want to discuss wheel sizes.


Yesterday Walt Dizzy who posts here was behind my climbing a hill with 29r and said my rear tire displaced and spit a surprisingly large rock at him. I didn't know the bike was some form of mechanized trail sanitizer. My only major discovery on the wheels prior where their being 3 inches larger than my 26r.

The 29r as tribe or religion escaped me. Riding bike while answering the requests for sanitized trails at same time? Cool.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Harold Parker trail builder here. What riders can not understand until they have ridden here is a quantity of rocks, big rocks, small rocks and glacial carved, house sized exposed bedrock. Granite. The trails are mostly dictated by the terrain and topography. Riders flock here because of the tech features. There are some easier trails, we call them dirt roads and boardwalks. Other constraints are seasonal wetlands, so we cannot build trails through them where the dirt and easier terrain are located. There are other nearby trails with LOTS of green and blue type trails. And we had 505 registered riders last year, whooot.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

I don't know if this falls into what most are saying or not. But I was at the local bike park yesterday, just having a blast on the black diamond trails. I am sitting at one intersection that you have to go buy, on every run. From there you have your choice of blue square trails or black diamond. I watched some guys getting major air and than drop the blue square trail. I didn't see anyone all day on the blacks, but saw people every run on the blues.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

There is a fine line between a blue square and black diamond rider. On snow it can mean being able to side-slide a tough line (radly) and boast you did it. On a bike side-sliding is not an option.

Maybe the difference between a blue and black rider is more definite in MTB because of the limited trail available - singletrack is not quite an open glade, but as with skiing the biggest difference is between your ears. While a real expert rider will not fuss over the rocks and variations on the trail immediately ahead of the wheel, most of us do. 

The more of this argument about dumbed trails (not just this thread) I hear, the more it seems that while the average person is intimidated by their need for challenge, the exhilaration of chasing and maintaining skills and challenges overcomes the fear once in a while. And thus we learn.

Next time, we accept the line and challenge in a more relaxed way and after a while it becomes like a friend. However, your friend, over time, has become degraded by use and weather. It is not the trail it once was, but like looking at your face in the mirror every day, you may not see how things have changed for everyone else. Unless your trails are on solid rock, they will degrade and become nastier over time.

In skiing, until you can "see" the line, you can't start to think about how to ski it. I think in MTB, the challenge of seeking that next line is being replaced by an energetic reaction to other people changing the lines you have scored. When your home hill is being changed, probably your immediate access to new challenges is going to be limited. For most that means planning and money as well to travel to new challenges, because you just cannot make your own new trails like we did as kids. Not anymore.

Trouble is, over time challenge creates popularity and then profitability via trailcare grants and then the overall level of what's being offered gets dumbed down to suit the majority; until the next generation of "challenged" tell you all you suck by raising the MTB bar. Then comes outlaw riding (insert outlaw basketball, yo-yo, chess etc as appropriate) and new outlaw trails. And so it goes...

What I guess I am saying is that majority opinion will always "dumb down" the edges of life. What it cannot do though is remove the chance of a challenge. Until someone proves to me that our world has no MTB challenges (even those yet not accepted), then really the argument of dumbed down trail is more about dumbed down attitude. 

MTB is too good to moan about dumbed trail. Find more trail, travel more, make your bike part of your life rather than just your MTB persona and think what riding really means. Geez Darn It - Get a shovel in yer hands, listen and learn and build trail you are proud of where it is needed and can up the ante of local riders.

Sorry for the rant. I'm grumpy because I hurt my back putting a sock on and I have a holiday in less than 2 weeks. No problem....other than grumpiness about the new challenge.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

A couple vids someone posted in the Beginner forum made me think of this thread. Equipment gets 'better', trails get easier, is this where it all ends up? DH bikes on trails that make a parking lot seem challenging? I was hoping the poster did this as a joke; at one time I'd be sure of it, but seeing the way things seem to be heading these days, it could be real. IMO, riding a trail like this only relates to 'mountain biking' as I know it thru a technicality. I'm pretty sure these could be mastered on a Razor Scooter.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> A couple vids someone posted in the Beginner forum made me think of this thread. Equipment gets 'better', trails get easier, is this where it all ends up? DH bikes on trails that make a parking lot seem challenging? I was hoping the poster did this as a joke; at one time I'd be sure of it, but seeing the way things seem to be heading these days, it could be real. IMO, riding a trail like this only relates to 'mountain biking' as I know it thru a technicality. I'm pretty sure these could be mastered on a Razor Scooter.


Okay. I recant. Beginners that skid on full 8'' DH rigs are responsible for dumbing down trails. Seriously? The dude coming up on the Rigid 29er with Moustache mountain drops was classic as its more than the right bike for that terrain.

Razor Scooter, Tricycle, roller skates, or this:









EDIT: Also... thats some serious and extensive turnpike work, serious labor to pull in that much fill and tamp/compact.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Ridnparadise said:


> There is a fine line between a blue square and black diamond rider.


The problem with even using these terms wrt to mtb is they pretty much have no definition. One location's "double black diamond" terrain might just make it into another's 'blue square' category, even in the same general area. I'm positive that what I picture as 'black diamond' terrain would probably be considered plain unrideable by many, particularly those that have never spent any time riding with riders who truly are 'experts'.

For a lift served example in our area - I would comfortably take my son down a bunch of 'black diamond' trails at Highland Mt when he was 6 or 7. Though they won't be clearing all the jumps, almost anybody with some experience on a bike can get down the mountain there. Go to Sunday River, or Attitash, or Plattekill and it's like you've gone to a different planet as far as the technicality of the trails. One person's 'expert' trail is another's 'novice' trail, and it seems like the rating level of trail difficulty in general is tending to be based more on beginner/dabbler or even non-biker (ie LM) impressions and not what truly makes a trail 'expert' or 'intermediate'.

I dunno, I just hate seeing good terrain wasted on a sidewalk.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> I dunno, I just hate seeing good terrain wasted on a sidewalk.


example of this

Great Brook Farm State Park

trail: stone row

100% pure XC knar, and to get to the top and ride over no dab was pretty tough, in fact impossible on your best day, but then, once in a while, you make it. super dooper tough

been this way since time began. a few years ago they went in an homogenized the very top, now anyone and everyone can just ride on over the top, no hassle, no struggle, no skills building.

it sucks. bottom line, sucks big.

Now, I am not too worried about it, I have the most concentrated mechanical bull ride of a singletrack nirvana in my hometown, no one is going to homogenize it ever, because no one rides this place more than once unless they are already expert, it is just that good at throwing gnar after gnar at you. full upper body gym experience. Note I never jump and there are no jumps in here, but it is up and down on granite rock faces and roots and fallen trees...super steep loose gravel climbs, loose shale descents...so though I rage at the homogenization i am lucky it is not gonna happen to me personally real close to home.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

127.0.0.1 said:


> example of this
> 
> Great Brook Farm State Park
> 
> ...


I know the spot you're talking about. I never quite did make up that frigging chute cleanly. Pretty sure that was the single spot in the entire trail network that was challenging to a decent technical rider (and it was in the middle of their most technical trail). Meh.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> I know the spot you're talking about. I never quite did make up that frigging chute cleanly. Pretty sure that was the single spot in the entire trail network that was challenging to a decent technical rider (and it was in the middle of their most technical trail). Meh.


I used to pedal 11 miles of road just to get to GB and try to clean stone row, then ride the rest of GB. Now I just don't go there much at all (it's been 2 years at least)

from 16 times a year to none. because of dumbing down Stone Row. oh well they have to cater to the goons who drive there in the Canyonero and unload shiny bikes with nary any mud or even a scratch so 'they' can have a 'true mtb experience'

.....gggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

thefriar said:


> Okay. I recant. Beginners that skid on full 8'' DH rigs are responsible for dumbing down trails. Seriously? The dude coming up on the Rigid 29er with Moustache mountain drops was classic as its more than the right bike for that terrain.
> 
> Razor Scooter, Tricycle, roller skates, or this:
> 
> ...


That trail was rad. I need to go there. I have never been able to skid without losing any speed at all. I need to get there and learn such skills. Plus I saw a few rocks and one root.

It would be a white trail, but is a bit narrow and has slight exposure. Therefore a green circle trail. There should be no confusion regarding trail rating if IMBA ratings are used. However, the trail rating may reflect width, the height of one obstruction on the trail or a steep sideslope rather than the difficulty of the ride. Such is the way when there are "standards" applied to something.

Even the crit circuit at the the velodrome on the way in to our trails is rougher than that trail.


----------



## skankingbiker (Jan 15, 2010)

tim208 said:


> please don't take the mountain out of mountain biking.


but what about those of us with no mountains?


----------



## TheBigV (Aug 18, 2011)

IMHO, part of the problem is that folks do not bother to learn proper bike handling skills (and never do) before hoping on their 32speed speed dual suspension, dropper seat post AM rig to soak up the trail. Most riders also do not want to "learn on the job" so to speak, and I think the risk tolerance for most beginner riders is a lot lower than it used to be. Getting hurt used to be part of the sport. When on group rides, all I hear is tech talk and pen!s size comparisons about fork travel, carbon components, etc., but rarely does someone ask a group member to show them how to clear an obstacle or how to corner. Its all about having the latest and greatest gear.

It seems many riders are not looking for a challenging ride but rather a smooth roller coaster. This is compounded by the weekend warrior racers who are mostly roadies trying to do something "extreme", but then moan and complain that the trail does not have places to pass. They basically want to ride a cyclocross race on a mountain bike
.......
I like the tiered trail system approach, but due to access restriction, oftentimes it is not practical or possible to build such a system. I have no problem with ride-arounds as they allow riders of different skill levels to enjoy the same trail. To me, ride arounds create the best of both worlds, as they allow new riders to test the limits of their skills when they feel comfortable.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

127.0.0.1 said:


> been this way since time began. a few years ago they went in an homogenized the very top, now anyone and everyone can just ride on over the top, no hassle, no struggle, no skills building.


Who is "They". Was it the Park Staff or the local group? Do you have any knowledge of the back story on why this happened?

If you have difficult trails that you want to stay difficult, you need to be involved. Are you a member of the local group? Do you volunteer at the trail? Do you go to public meetings about the park? Do you take part in the Parks Master planning sessions? Do you talk to Park Staff.

If hard core riders are too busy being hard core to be involved and leave that work to less skilled riders, then they shouldn't be surprised when gnarly sections are removed or if more easy trails get built.

As stated here many times, get involved, because *****ing here isn't going to make anything positive happen at your local trails.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

indytrekracer said:


> Who is "They". Was it the Park Staff or the local group? Do you have any knowledge of the back story on why this happened?
> 
> If you have difficult trails that you want to stay difficult, you need to be involved. Are you a member of the local group? Do you volunteer at the trail? Do you go to public meetings about the park? Do you take part in the Parks Master planning sessions? Do you talk to Park Staff.
> 
> ...


Exactly!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

indytrekracer said:


> Who is "They". Was it the Park Staff or the local group? Do you have any knowledge of the back story on why this happened?
> 
> If you have difficult trails that you want to stay difficult, you need to be involved. Are you a member of the local group? Do you volunteer at the trail? Do you go to public meetings about the park? Do you take part in the Parks Master planning sessions? Do you talk to Park Staff.
> 
> ...


And this means not just showing up one time, or two or three.


----------



## gravitylover (Sep 1, 2009)

Oh nooooo... :eekster: Ever since I got my fatbike there's this one corner that it drifts so well there's a berm forming. It's slightly off camber and on a super fast section of trail. When we got to it this morning there was a sign that somebody printed on their computer and laminated and tacked to a tree. It said "Whoever you are that is building this berm please stop. We like the trail just the way it was." I couldn't help but let out a hearty guffaw as I turned around and hit it even faster than usual because it was so soft and tacky and "build" the berm just a little bit higher as I accelerated out the end of the turn.

Sometimes a tree goes down and needs to be ramped so it can be ridden over because humping a saw miles into the woods to cut it out is a hassle and laying in a go around is the wrong thing to do. Sometimes a rider gets better and "builds" a berm. Sometimes it rains and washes a bunch of debris into a corner and that turns into a jump. Sometimes a feature that was intended to be cool is so poorly though out it needs to be removed or modified so riders aren't being carted/carried out. 

Trails change as they mature. If you don't like the change go somewhere else or join a trail work day. Mostly though I just want you to go out and ride your bike and have fun.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I was not allow to rep gravity lover but this was an excellent, fresh perspective.


----------



## gravitylover (Sep 1, 2009)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I was not allow dot rep gravity lover but this was an excellent, fresh perspective.


Thank you Mike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

gravitylover said:


> Oh nooooo... :eekster: Ever since I got my fatbike there's this one corner that it drifts so well there's a berm forming.
> 
> Trails change as they mature. If you don't like the change go somewhere else or join a trail work day. Mostly though I just want you to go out and ride your bike and have fun.


So, seriously, what's with all of you that seem to have some weird perspective that because some of us don't think every section of every trail needs to be lowered to the beginner level, we don't take part in regular trail work and aren't involved with our local groups, some of us for decades now? Not everybody that does trail work wants to build or ride sidewalks or what I would consider typical XC race terrain, believe it or not. Enough w/ the patronizing crap already.

Also, I'm curious, is it cool to skid a berm into existence on a non-'fatbike', or is this just part of the 'new rules' that people seem to think apply only to those that have bought into a certain tech fad? It seems there are a lot of people who've recently purchased somewhat larger tires that now think they can run by their own set of rules regarding where and in what conditions they travel (ie - muddy/soft conditions, off trail 'exploration', etc.). Am I cool skidding my AM bike around on the local XC trails to berm up the corners? Or do I need special equipment for this to be acceptable?


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> So, seriously, what's with all of you that seem to have some weird perspective that because some of us don't think every section of every trail needs to be lowered to the beginner level, we don't take part in regular trail work and aren't involved with our local groups, some of us for decades now? Not everybody that does trail work wants to build or ride sidewalks or what I would consider typical XC race terrain, believe it or not. Enough w/ the patronizing crap already.
> ...


Because if the people complaining about the lack of technical trails were out building trails, there would be no lack of technical trails.

Obviously that is a huge generalization, and I'm not trying to call anyone out specifically. I'm sure there are other factors that come into play where you are, but if I walked up to our land manager and said I wanted to build a super tech XC trail there would be zero issues. Sure, there is a process you have to go through, but it is the same process that applies to building flow trails. Difference is, I don't want to build a super tech XC trail.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

cerebroside said:


> a super tech XC trail


I'm also not sure where this idea of people wanting to carve out a whole bunch of 'super tech' trails comes from either. Is this because the 'new standard' is 'super simple' and anything that deviates from the currently popular flow style is now designated as 'super tech'? Is any section that a beginner/low intermediate level rider will probably have to walk now considered 'super tech', and existing trails that fall under this new dumbed-down definition need to be sanitized? You'd think with all this 'advanced' new equipment that trails could be built even tougher than they used to be, but it seems the opposite - as said above - people by these supposedly technologically awesome bikes, but need simpler trails to ride them on? I think BigV's observations are pretty accurate in this regard - there seems to have been a shift towards building 'dirt roadie' type trails more than what most long-time riders would consider 'true' mountain biking trails. I personally find them pretty generic, verging on boring, and I think most riders that get beyond a few seasons into it will end up feeling the same.


----------



## gravitylover (Sep 1, 2009)

Oh come on man. I was making a point that trails change as they mature, trails change as the technology changes and it's not a bad thing. Remember when trails got that nice cup shape and you could play with the banks on almost all turns? Bikes were full rigid or just hardtails then. For a while now trails have gotten wider as speeds came up on full squish bikes and that shape has been beaten down in a lot of places. I miss those small banks and I know a lot of other people do too. With a fatbike you ride it the way we rode those old bikes and the trails I ride frequently will morph slightly as I ride them, I can't change that nor would I want to. There are a couple of riders on rigid ss's around here now too so they are beating the trails into that same shape. Environmental damage? Bahh...


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'm also not sure where this idea of people wanting to carve out a whole bunch of 'super tech' trails comes from either. Is this because the 'new standard' is 'super simple' and anything that deviates from the currently popular flow style is now designated as 'super tech'? Is any section that a beginner/low intermediate level rider will probably have to walk now considered 'super tech', and existing trails that fall under this new dumbed-down definition need to be sanitized? You'd think with all this 'advanced' new equipment that trails could be built even tougher than they used to be, but it seems the opposite - as said above - people by these supposedly technologically awesome bikes, but need simpler trails to ride them on? I think BigV's observations are pretty accurate in this regard - there seems to have been a shift towards building 'dirt roadie' type trails more than what most long-time riders would consider 'true' mountain biking trails. I personally find them pretty generic, verging on boring, and I think most riders that get beyond a few seasons into it will end up feeling the same.


I'm borrowing some terminology from Whistler bike park (as mentioned in the initial article), where trails are designated either 'Flow' or 'Technical'. Both types of trails run the full range of difficulties. Flow trails have a smooth surface, but are difficult because of trail features (tables, gaps, drops, etc). Technical trails are difficult because of rocks, roots, steeps, etc.

Obviously a trail built by volunteers is going to have elements of both, but the stuff I build / see built seems to skew heavily towards the flow end of the spectrum. Note that this doesn't mean easy; you can still have drops or gaps of any size on flow trails (and we do).

I don't think trails should be 'sanitized', in fact I tend to do quite the opposite, but I'm not going to go too far out of my way to build or maintain rough, rooty (technical) trails that I don't ride. If you enjoy riding that sort of trail and want to help out I'm sure your assistance in maintenance or building would be appreciated by the club or land manager. The fact that these trails are either not being built or being sanitized indicates to me that people are not interested in building or maintaining them.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

slapheadmofo you are getting too argumentative again. Sometime earlier I showed you pics of trails that are 15-20 years old (that I did not build) and have tech features. You accused me of building trail your land manager would not be happy with. The rest of the time you are slagging everyone for building trail you are not satisfied with, but maybe your land manager would be. 

You just are not happy with the world of MTB. Maybe you need to find another challenge, like running through alders down a mountainside in a mankini. 

This is not rocket science - in some places you can build trail that is super tech because of the terrain - bedrock will last forever, but inadequately built trail on a steep slope will not. You are lucky to live near such terrain. Everywhere else, if you don't build a trail to handle the onslaught of riders after it opens and cope with all the poachers who smash it before then, it just won't last or impress the LM.

Can you please just let this go because it just sounds like a pi$$ing contest? Patience when building will allow the production of quality trail that will last into the future, but will also get much gnarlier over time.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

^ this!!!


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

One thing I have consistently pushed for in re-routes that might be controversial is to just leave the old trail "open" but stop clearing it, and see what happens.

If enough people care enough to keep it open, they do. In most cases, though, after a year the old trail is full of uncleared blowdowns and it pretty much closes itself. And nobody is *****ing at you for closing it. 

Of course, this is on the East Coast where trails require some ongoing attention to keep them passable due to blow-downs. Might not work in other parts.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

I'm learning mech to build a flow trail. So I can crush it fast or send our local kids ride out, and not have to do any TM to it for years....


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Ridnparadise said:


> slapheadmofo you are getting too argumentative again. .


:skep:

I'm simply giving my opinion on the subject (in which I'm not alone, by a long shot). Just because it's different than yours, there's no need for you take it personally (again). You're a bit oversensitive it seems.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

More fuel for the fire.

The Angry Singlespeeder: We need primitive trails | Mountain Bike Review

Primitive trails have always been easy for me to find and at times some of my favorites. I've also had to address some that are problematic in order to keep land managers and users happy.

On the whole there's a lot of silliness here. It's become clear to me these new "dumbed down" trails are helping keep the sport alive and building support yet there are no problems finding primitive and gnarly stuff as it's always been where I'm at. That's probably the same elsewhere.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

In terms of mileage, what is the ratio of old-school legacy trail to newly built flow trail? 100 to 1? 1000 to 1? 10,000 to 1? I'd guess it's much closer to the later than the former. The recent spate of pundits lamenting new school trails seem to be unaware of this.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Despite the Angry SS's assertions, the local IMBA-SORBA chapter in Pisgah seems to be unaware that the trails need no maintenance. Pisgah Area SORBA » Trails in our care in Pisgah


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

Mark E said:


> In terms of mileage, what is the ratio of old-school legacy trail to newly built flow trail? 100 to 1? 1000 to 1? 10,000 to 1? I'd guess it's much closer to the later than the former. The recent spate of pundits lamenting new school trails seem to be unaware of this.


Keep in mind the much of the trail at Pisgah was built for timber extraction over 100 years ago. The original trails would have been very smooth roads for vehicles or rail road grades. While they weren't built to modern standards or probably with much concern for sediment in the water shed, the were designed and built to standards of the period (primarily how steep a grade a team of horses or a locomotive could manage). Much of Squirrel gap was a railroad grade. There is a very cool thread on the NC forum with history of Squirrel Gap and info of an old locomotive engine that was push off the the railroad that sits deep down one of the ravines.

If the trails were returned to their original state that would be very lame indeed for recreational trails.

Of course there some trails in Pisgah that were not originally build at roads or railroad grade the are typically the step trails. In an areas like Pisgah once enough dirt erodes, you get to enough rock to make even step grades sustainable. The little bit of hiking I did in the Smokie Mountains was just like this. Steep fail line trails where the dirt eroded away along time ago and the trails have settled into being almost all rock.

If you live in an area with out a lot of rock under the surface, then erosion will never reveal a sustainable rock layer and then fall line trails will continue to cut into the hill side.

The really important concept for people to understand is that trail type and sustainability are not the same thing. I like hard narrow rocky trails. I have been involved in the construction of trails (Schooner Trace and Walnut at BCSP) that are hard trails that very much have an old school feel. So building trail that have the feel/difficulty that riders are looking for is possible.

Many people are lamenting "IMBA Spec" Trails. I doubt many of them have invested the time to understand what the IMBA guidelines are. IMBA's trail solutions manual list difficulty guideline ranging from easy to extremely difficult. You can build a wide range of advanced trails within the IMBA guidlines.

Pigah and most public lands are managed much differently than when they were owned by logging companies in past centuries. Mountain bike advocates didn't develop the IMBA standard because they wanted to make trail building harder. They did so because most land managers simply are not going to let you build trails that aren't built to some level of sustainability.

If you think differently, then form a group and go pitch to a land manager that you want to build a bunch of trails that are't sustainable and that are going to dump a bunch of sediment into the water shed.

If you really want more trails with the old school feel, get involved with local trail builders (even if it involves flow trails) learn the craft of trail building, go to conferences, volunteer with pro trail builders, etc.. elevate yourself to a level where you can take the lead in advocating for and then developing sustainable trails with what every old school feel that you like.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

I actually like best eroded primitive trails. These are trails where the natural weather and soil conditions have allowed the trail surface to be a representation of the underlying geology of the region. Trails like this can start from many sources like old horse and cow paths or hiking trails, or paths through the forest cut in over time or even machine built trails that have eroded over time. Trails are smooth with zero rocks are often times boring and lack interesting features. That is why people try to "build them in". I really dislike the idea of building a rock garden in a trail. Rock gardens should never be built. They should come to exists because you cut the trail through a rocky spot and trail surface is rocky. In end you don't need to build interesting features if you allow the trail to simply create them by not bulldozing the entire thing first. Even if you have machine built trails they can still turn into good trails if you let some erosion take over. Certain spots will erode and begin to create fun features as rocks get exposed. This sort of thing needs to be embraced not "fixed". Often times all the "fixing" that is needed is simply more tires. Bike tires will naturally cut in a line which kicks loose rocks off creating a primary line on trail. 

As for riding such trails... You ride the trails and features that are there. Sometimes they are easy and sometimes they are hard. Sometimes you will need to get off and walk and other times you will hang on by the skin of your teeth and be really happy about the experience. Mtn biking is about taking a bicycle over terrain that would seem difficult or impossible to a non rider. It is about getting out and covering ground and about having fun while doing it. Some trails are steep, some are rocky, some are flat, some are smooth, some have lots of tight turns, some are narrow and some wide. Some have flow and others don't. Not every trail needs to be the same. Not ever trail needs to be built to the same standard or maintained to the same standard. Not every trail needs to be "safe" either. Some trails will require constant attention and others not so much. What will keep people mountain biking is a variety of trails. Some days I want to tackle rocks and more rocks. Others I just want climb fast on smoother stuff. Some time I want to fell "lost in the desert and miles away from anything".


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Some of what's expressed makes me wonder if same people want or only accept: 

-Ice skating is only good on the frozen pond, lake or river. None of this smoothed out and structure rink stuff.
-Skiing is only good in the back country. No lifts, terrain parks or grooming.
-Skate boarding only on the street or an abandoned pool. Kill the parks.

Again, the silliness. I enjoy human-designed, built, sculpted, and buffed stuff like my skate and ski fun includes the all natural and the highly engineered and maintained.

We did our kids' lessons yesterday and it was interesting to see kids, parents and instructors react to diverse trails. Very interesting to notice the smooth and buffed was at once the easiest and biggest challenge. Everyone could bounce, bang or grunt down, through or up rocks with all their muscles and balance could do. Not everyone could or would fly. A few of us realized some are getting sideways in berms and flying where we used to ride around or roll over so dumbed stuff is challenge too.

This is at a private ski area where total mileage, glacier poop and erosion make most of it old school. The "dumbed down" stuff is at same time bringing more to the sport and creating new challenges for the experienced riders just like I see happen at the skate park, bike park, ski areas and indoor skating rink.

Our new school work hasn't eliminated riding opportunities. The counts for trespassing freeriders and spandex clad grumps remains stable. Same stability with a$$ clowns worth $6000 - $10,000 on the hoof not donating time or money. New school is now filling the parking lot, bringing out families, and very likely helping the sport. Sticking flow trail and a family element in the middle of the same old place hasn't killed any trails but has been followed with 7-50% increases in program participation and nearly 100% increase in volunteer time logged this season.

With so many years of digging, advocacy and volunteering my advice to those not liking new school is get to work, write checks or take a hike because this was all starting to look like a fool's errand before this new life and support for the sport.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

bitflogger said:


> New school is now filling the parking lot,.... this was all starting to look like a fool's errand before this new life and support for the sport.


I'm still not sure why growing the numbers of participants should mean anything to your average rider. How does growing the number of entry level riders really benefit someone like most of the riders I know? Guys who have been riding and pitching in for decades, but whose ideas of what mtb trails 'should' be isn't influenced in any way by the almighty dollar; there's an outlook discrepancy IMO between those who ride and build purely for the love of the game and those who are coming at it from more of an 'industry' perspective. I'm sure that a good portion of the drive behind making more beginner/flow trails is tied into growing a customer base, etc; things that mainly benefit those with a financial stake in things, but really doesn't do much for your average rider as far as I can figure.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

Marke

you are forgetting that IMBA supports more wilderness, which takes theses old trails away from us. And not every place in the US has new trails being built near them.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

..

just don't dumb down trails that are well established 15 years old or older is all I am asking...I have seen choice nuggets basically paved and it makes me want to do bad things to people. walk it or ride it don't touch it otherwise. go build something completely new in some other spot if you are of the class of 'everyone gets a participant ribbon for showing up' and 'we use purple ink to grade tests as red ink was deemed too shocking for our little snowflakes'

I ain't the fastest and ain't the best but I do appreciate suffering, boy-oh-boy do I ever. I've been working 2 years on one spot to get up over a big rock at the top of a spongy climb and I need to produce a huge watt dump in an instant to get up it, and this is after 2 minute anaerobic slogfest to arrive at said rock...don't anyone DARE dig a go-round here. I am getting close...but have not made it yet. I am cut up, bruised and scraped from failed attempts...this is old school.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

_"and nearly 100% increase in volunteer time logged this season."_

The key is not just increasing the number of new riders, it is to keep love in the sport and generate new trailcare volunteers. Whether you enjoy newer, less challenging trails, hard-corp old ones or all of them, they all require maintenance. Someone has to do that wherever a land manager demands it.

Unless there is a training ground for new volunteers, slowly, but surely trails will decay. Some will remain worthy of riding and others will close through neglect. Most will receive really dodgy ride-arounds where a couple of saw hours could remove deadfall and prevent erosion compounded by a trail braids. Eventually haphazard "cures" are put together to keep trails alive.

It is harder to fix trail than head off disaster. For that reason building "flow" trail is a technique that teaches the basics of trailwork. Taking that to established trails does mean that sometimes things are changed before they reach the point of needing an emergency "cure". You could call that dumbing down, but at least it will still be riding well in years to come.

There should always be tough trail. Good trails always make use of the terrain. Dig down, don't build up. Cow and other animal trails make good lines because they are contour trails. Smoother trails get rougher with time. Smoother trails can get good riders to hard trails faster - there's nothing wrong with that. All trail requires maintenance. When you help you have a better chance of shaping trails in your area in a way that suits you.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I preserve a lot of old school trail on FS land by making it sustainable. It usually does involve modifying the toughest sections because the eroding sections the most challenging. We make it a point to modify or replace them with equivalent or harder if possible. Mostly it will involve a re-route to the closest sustainable route. I welcome creative input on solutions from anyone who is willing to meet me at the place and show me their ideas. Many times they are excellent because the person really cares. If they require a compromise or two we can work that out on the spot. Some of these trails were built 25 years ago by myself and others, and have stood up remarkably well. Some serious challenges had to be cleaned up. But for the most part they are the same because of very detailed erosion control work by our YCC trail crews. I know how y'all feel about losing favorite challenges, I hated to see some of them go personally, but that's the way it goes sometimes. It certainly wasn't done to dumb down the trail. If anything it was done to save the trail. We still build a lot of old school trail and aren't afraid of challenging terrain.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Working a trail in consideration of the local geology is a nice aesthetic. Building a rock garden where it doesn't occur on its own is like a decoration or bike park.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Working a trail in consideration of the local geology is a nice aesthetic. Building a rock garden wherein it doesn't occur on its own is like a decoration or bike park.


Or the London Olympics.... Spew


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'm still not sure why growing the numbers of participants should mean anything to your average rider. How does growing the number of entry level riders really benefit someone like most of the riders I know? Guys who have been riding and pitching in for decades, but whose ideas of what mtb trails 'should' be isn't influenced in any way by the almighty dollar; there's an outlook discrepancy IMO between those who ride and build purely for the love of the game and those who are coming at it from more of an 'industry' perspective. I'm sure that a good portion of the drive behind making more beginner/flow trails is tied into growing a customer base, etc; things that mainly benefit those with a financial stake in things, but really doesn't do much for your average rider as far as I can figure.


What you are describing to me sounds like some kind of dream. I love having old-school gnarly trails. I get awards. I get people who say they love the trails as much as I do, and get upset with any changes to them. I get tons of recognition as having the toughest, most challenging trails in the state.

But the people who claim to love these trails don't show up to help out with the small mountain of work that has to be done to keep them open. I'm not sure why that is. People tell me I have to get out more to club events, to throw more parties, spend more time meeting riders.

Here's my take: I'm competing against trails in the area that offer more to beginner and intermediate riders. Apparently these people actually show up and perform trail maintenance. The riders that I attract do not.

I can adapt and offer more to the people who care enough to participate in the work, or I can stand my ground and refuse to compromise. If current trends continue, I'll gradually be buried in a never-ending time suck of cutting dead fall and weeds and emergency trail fixes until I'm forced to retire by failing health. I'm 59 years old and every additional year I get to work and ride is a blessing, but this can't go on forever.

My solution is to compromise and try to offer some newb-friendly trail, "dumb down" the parts that have the potential for flow, and do the minimum to maintain the gnarliest parts. Probably this will make nobody happy, but I can't see any other way out that doesn't end up with eventual loss of everything I've struggled for over the last decade. And it may go bad regardless.

You are incredibly lucky to have the user base you describe. It just doesn't work that way around here. It's all talk and no action.

Walt


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Ridnparadise said:


> Or the London Olympics.... Spew


Yeah; reminds me of mini-golf.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Walt Dizzy said:


> What you are describing to me sounds like some kind of dream. I love having old-school gnarly trails. I get awards. I get people who say they love the trails as much as I do, and get upset with any changes to them. I get tons of recognition as having the toughest, most challenging trails in the state.
> 
> But the people who claim to love these trails don't show up to help out with the small mountain of work that has to be done to keep them open. I'm not sure why that is. People tell me I have to get out more to club events, to throw more parties, spend more time meeting riders.
> 
> ...


As an advocate of 25 years I have seen so many types of riders. I understand how people come to their level of commitment, what with life and all,a a preference for who one spends time. As one who has to manage volunteers it is important to appreciate all of these things or you go mad.

On the other hand those who complain and do nothing or precious little to move things foreword and keep thing rolling? They have little standing in my book.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

I didn't think this thread would apply to me so much, but even my favorite local trail (365, ABQ foothills) has had a few spots noticeably flattened - and these already had flat oxbows around those wee craggly bits, but at some point somebody decided that these sections of trail needed to be all but wheelchair accessible across the entire width.

I don't do my share to work on trails, but as long as the drainage/erosion is handled, and there is a usable route which can be handled by a preteen on a BMX bike, I don't understand why somebody is taking the time to work on that stuff when so many other parts of the trail system could shine with some TLC.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

tehllama said:


> I didn't think this thread would apply to me so much, but even my favorite local trail (365, ABQ foothills) has had a few spots noticeably flattened - and these already had flat oxbows around those wee craggly bits, but at some point somebody decided that these sections of trail needed to be all but wheelchair accessible across the entire width.
> 
> I don't do my share to work on trails, but as long as the drainage/erosion is handled, and there is a usable route which can be handled by a preteen on a BMX bike, I don't understand why somebody is taking the time to work on that stuff when so many other parts of the trail system could shine with some TLC.


I'm sure the local trailcare group would welcome your assistance and ideas.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

I do indeed need to go help them, but I've had a partial change of heart - those lower trails are naturally Hover-round accessible for >80% of the distance, so I'd rather put time into the more remote areas (lower hiker traffic) on erosion-proofing those awesome bits of trail over anything else. 

I did decide to take my road bike (cheap, stock, aluminum frame 105 basic road bike on Hutchison Nitro road tires) on that trail (Embudito -> Elena Gallegos), which was quite telling. The 4 spots I opted to hike it instead were mostly trying to not ruin the cheap wheels/tires on my bike; the reactions from the two guys on FS bikes I rode past were priceless. As much as I can do little to comprehend why effort was made to dumb down some spots, it's not as though the riding experience really changed terribly; all I'd have to do is get out the less trafficked section and go play in the rock gardens I love to hate to appreciate being able to carry momentum... There are some other areas that can probably do more with help, especially since the trails being cut are quite technical and interesting (mostly because the terrain dictates it), so I just need to start being part of the 'helping' instead of just adding tracks.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

tehllama said:


> I do indeed need to go help them, but I've had a partial change of heart - those lower trails are naturally Hover-round accessible for >80% of the distance, so I'd rather put time into the more remote areas (lower hiker traffic) on erosion-proofing those awesome bits of trail over anything else.
> 
> I did decide to take my road bike (cheap, stock, aluminum frame 105 basic road bike on Hutchison Nitro road tires) on that trail (Embudito -> Elena Gallegos), which was quite telling.  The 4 spots I opted to hike it instead were mostly trying to not ruin the cheap wheels/tires on my bike; the reactions from the two guys on FS bikes I rode past were priceless. As much as I can do little to comprehend why effort was made to dumb down some spots, it's not as though the riding experience really changed terribly; all I'd have to do is get out the less trafficked section and go play in the rock gardens I love to hate to appreciate being able to carry momentum... There are some other areas that can probably do more with help, especially since the trails being cut are quite technical and interesting (mostly because the terrain dictates it), so I just need to start being part of the 'helping' instead of just adding tracks.


What you say makes sense. All trails in a system require maintenance. The trails close to the trailheads, especially in stacked loop systems tend to be easier, but receive the most traffic. They require more lasting maintenance and modifications because they will all degrade faster than tougher trails "out the back" (presuming similar drainage quality) and also need to cater to all level of rider. In other words, one person with a good work ethic and an understanding of trailwork can do a lot of good on lesser hit trails. In your case, you have worked with the maintenance team and hopefully can be trusted to do work on the other trails - officially.

However, consider that working alone is always dangerous and ill advised. In addition you have to get tools to or store them on site. Then there is access and exit time. If you ride in you may not be dressed for the job etc etc.

Don't be put off. You have contacts in the maintenance group. You need to find someone in that group with similar ideas and propose an official splinter trail maintenance group for the trails less maintained. Give you some tips: make sure you have someone prepared to supervise what you do. They could be in the maintenance crew or the land manager. Consider reporting everything you do via online blog. That way you are making your work transparent. Prepare plans for trail changes in detail and in advance. Present them to the "supervisor" and be prepared to do onsite surveys with said supervisor if that is deemed appropriate.

It all sounds annoying and drawn out, but I can assure you that lots can be done if you work with your land manager and the regular maintenance crew. You may just propose the thing they need to step up to the next level of volunteer assistance.

Fact you replied suggests you are interested


----------

