# Where to start for private trail on 4 acres of relatively flat land



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

I recently purchased a house outside of town with about 4 acres of woodlands. Its all pretty flat but it does have a gentle slope to it. No rocks but lots of fallen trees. I was hoping to make a little trail with small obstacles for my kids and I to play on and practice one. But I really don't know where to start. 

Do I start by making the obstacles and then form a trail to get from point to point?

Do I start by following the animal trails through the area just to get something going ASAP?

We really don't have much for a mountain biking community or anything here, so I've never worked on trails. So any pointers you can give me will be appreciated.


----------



## Spec44 (Aug 17, 2013)

I have 5 acres of hardwoods, & the soil is really sandy (and flat). I started years ago by mowing a path & walked the dog on it for years (before I got back into MTBR). That packed it down pretty well. That being said I recently expanded it by just walking and raking a 12" wide gap in the leaves, exposing the sand. I wound around trees and have little straightaways, and the more I ride it the more compact it'll get. THere are some soft spots I tamped.

Hindsight being 20/20, I'd say give a little thought ahead of time to what features you would like to create so you can incorporate them into the plan, i.e. some stuff may require longer straight-aways.

I started by adding some logs (just 6" - 8" stuff for now), and have a short section of boardwalk I built that I will incorporate somehow...maybe a little drop-off (I'd like to make it so I can adjust the height). I think I'll get a truckload of dirt this summer for some whoop-d-doos, maybe a table-top, berms, etc. With the minimal effort required to clear the trail initially re-routing it isn't a big deal.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Spec44 said:


> I have 5 acres of hardwoods, & the soil is really sandy (and flat)...


Yeah that sounds just like my place. Although my soil is more of a sandy loam so it packs pretty nicely. There are quite a few deer trails through it already, so I don't think it would take much for me to trim back some brances and have a few main trails quickly. I just didn't want a bunch of trails criss crossing everywhich way. So I've been walking around in my woods looking at all the fallen trees and things and trying to figure out what I can do with them.

We had a big storm last fall and some of the trees that came down are 100'+/- Cottonwood trees with trunks 2' in diameter. I was hoping to make a balance beam on one, but none of them are in area that lends to that easily. In one place there are 3 trunks like that stacked up on top of each other. I might try to make something going over that stack, but its a challenge to make it look natural. Not to mention make it challenging but still passible. I might do a boardwalk across a couple of other fallen trees too. My kid really wants a bridge across them. I might try to incorparate a drop and some whop de dos too.

Thanks for the input. If you have some pictures of what you've done I'd love to seem them. This project gives me a new appreication for what it must take to build a really good trail.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

I'd figure out where you want the trail to go. There's probably a way to get it there and back if you put some thought into it. Figure out how to get it where you want it, then make that happen. Going about it willy-nilly or using game trails is probably not going to net results you want.


----------



## bvibert (Mar 30, 2006)

Get some little surveyor's flags and start marking out where you want the trail to go. That will make it a lot easier to visualize what the trail will look like, and to make adjustments. As you're laying out the trail you can see how you can (or can't) make it go to whatever features you want to incorporate.


----------



## Spec44 (Aug 17, 2013)

2nd the surveyor tape. Also, deer have a pretty good tendency to like path of least resistance, so their trails are often straighter than I like. They do seem to like my trail, though, as I see their tracks and rubs and scrapes all over it.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

Fargo1 said:


> Do I start by making the obstacles and then form a trail to get from point to point?
> 
> Do I start by following the animal trails through the area just to get something going ASAP?


After these, the third worst way to lay out a trail is to route it through the easiest path between brush and trees. I've dealt with the result of all these layout techniques, and they rarely lead to a good outcome. Please don't take what I'm saying as a criticism of you personally, it's more like I've learned the hard way.

The most important factor is to know the slope of the land. It's actually very difficult to eyeball this and get good results. The flatter the slope, the more difficult it is. You would think that a gentle slope would be forgiving, but the same principles apply.

To do the job right, you need some kind of slope measuring device. A clinometer is a good investment, but a clinometer app for a smartphone is way better than nothing.

Check out the IMBA website if you aren't up to speed on general trail layout principles. Building a good trail is surprisingly large amount of work. Putting in a line with the attitude that you will fix it later if it doesn't work is a bad idea because the work needed to fix the problem ends up looking huge compared to just putting up with the bad trail.

Walt


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Thanks Walt. Off course I was going to also incorporate the 3rd worst idea as I moved from obstacle to obstacle.

I'll have to see what I can find at IMBA. If you have any good links please share. 

It sounds like the most important thing is actually the slope of the land. I never really thought about that. I don't have a clinometer but I have a good Garmin GPS, a Colorato 450t. So maybe I can use that. I'll start looking at this from the topographic perspective if thats the best way to start.


----------



## Saladin (Sep 25, 2014)

I don't know anything about trail building but have similar plans whenever I can buy some land. My method beyond surveying the obstacles and determining the approach would be to ride the land without the trails if possible. Then I could find out where I get a good ride across the slope and up and down it, where I can get some good acceleration, where I can get some good technical climbing, try some tight turns around some trees to find where it might be good to build a switchback and berm. Basically imagining that without the trail, the path I took was fun and once the leaves are clear and the ground packed, it'd be faster and more fun.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

I haven't actually built any trails, but I design roads for a living, so take what I say with a grain of salt and some sugar.

Get Google Earth Pro installed on your computer (it's free these days). Use the ruler tool to create your intended path. The ruler tool looks like a little ruler icon at the top of the screen. Using the path tool might take a small bit of learning, but it's not too hard. Screw around drawing various paths on your property and save them as you go. Right click on the path name after you save it and choose "Show Elevation Profile" to see the profile of your path (Google Earths elevations are rough but serviceable). Redraw paths until you have what you want optimizing the use of the property and avoiding conflicts with property lines, utilities, etc. (Google Earth Pro has a level that shows property lines but don't trust them). Save the path you want as a .kmz file. Convert the .kmz file into a gps format (.gpx is common) using something like GPSBabel: convert, upload, download data from GPS and Map programs. Get some ok gps software for your phone and you can use that file to walk the designed path and place flags as you go (If you have an android phone this looks like it'll work well https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vecturagames.android.app.gpxviewer&hl=en).

That is a quick and dirty way to get the macro design of a trail system figured out with grades you like (I prefer trails that are up all the way out, then down all the way back, no rolling hills type of stuff). Google earth and phone gps aren't very accurate (heavily wooded property may especially have poor elevations in google earth), so it'll still take field design work unless you have the equipment to properly survey the site. The micro design you can do on the fly as you follow the path you've laid out. Work with the natural ground and be certain to provide for proper drainage. Build a homemade clinometer if you don't want to buy one. Build up the trail and place culverts across drainage areas. If there is a lot of available wood, build catwalks.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Also, you should do the reverse of what I mentioned above and take your phone out and use it to get some gps points of the features on the property you'd like to be a part of your trail system, then you can convert those points to a .kmz file and show them in Google Earth to help you lay out the trail.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Thanks coldfriction, I think that sounds like sound reasoning. A lot of work, but I see where you are coming from. I already marked some of the obstacles on my gps, I was hoping to do something similar to what you describe. But then Walt mentioned its not such a good idea to lay out the obstacles first, so I'll see what I can come up with combining some of the ideas I've gotten here. I can see that its going to be more work that just walking through the woods with a saw and shovel if I want a good trail.

Although in the end I don't konw if I really have enough acreage to make a good trail, it will more accurately be a practice obstacle course. But hopefully I can make it flow well enough to ride it smoothly. I think the biggest thing I've picked up here will be to have good flow.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Four acres has a 1670 ft perimeter. Doubling that with winding curves should be easy and have a fairly small footprint and impact to other things you'd want to do on the property. If you have ten feet of elevation difference from one end to the other you should be able to build a trail that's .5% grade up and back. It might not seem like much, but that's enough grade for curbs to drain water effective on the side of a road. With a little pedalling and pumping, you would have 1670ft (1/3 of a mile, 2/3 mile total) trail with some pretty good flow. If you have less vertical, you could build an entrance ramp at the top to give you a boost. Adding obstacles and practice features to that would bring much more satisfaction and fun than a small obstacle line. It'd be short enough to ride in loops with enough space to add whatever features you want.

If you'd like, I could lay out something for you if you give me lat/long coordinates and parcel numbers if it's more than one parcel. 

As for the extra work it sounds like all this is, spending 10% of your time properly planning will save you 50% of your time constructing. How many people besides yourself would be working on this? You could probably find help in some local bikers if you shared the finished trail, and the trail will stay in better condition with a few more riders than just yourself.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Coldfriction said:


> Four acres has a 1670 ft perimeter. Doubling that with winding curves should be easy and have a fairly small footprint and impact to other things you'd want to do on the property. If you have ten feet of elevation difference from one end to the other you should be able to build a trail that's .5% grade up and back. It might not seem like much, but that's enough grade for curbs to drain water effective on the side of a road. With a little pedalling and pumping, you would have 1670ft (1/3 of a mile, 2/3 mile total) trail with some pretty good flow. If you have less vertical, you could build an entrance ramp at the top to give you a boost. Adding obstacles and practice features to that would bring much more satisfaction and fun than a small obstacle line. It'd be short enough to ride in loops with enough space to add whatever features you want.
> 
> If you'd like, I could lay out something for you if you give me lat/long coordinates and parcel numbers if it's more than one parcel.
> 
> As for the extra work it sounds like all this is, spending 10% of your time properly planning will save you 50% of your time constructing. How many people besides yourself would be working on this? You could probably find help in some local bikers if you shared the finished trail, and the trail will stay in better condition with a few more riders than just yourself.


Hey thanks for the offer. I might just take you up on that. Actually I have about 8.5 Acres of land, but only 5 in the woods. The rest is my farmsite with the house and garage and garden etc. I might make an extended loop around the house but mostly I am looking to do a loop through the trees as you mentioned. As far as grade, I think I actually have more grade than that. My guess is that I have 30' difference from top to bottom. Maybe slightly more. Although most if it is all in one corner but that may not be a bad deal either.

I'll talk with my wife to make sure she is comfortable with giving out our location online. If so I may also include a couple of places that had some interesting features.

At this point the trail is mostly for my family and a handfull of close friends. I may open it up to others later, but I would need to get some things cleaned up out of the yard first. However, I'm not sure how many people would want to drive 30 minutes to get here when there is a pretty decent trail right in the city limits. But for me this would be a dream. Thanks again for the offer, I'll see if I can get something to you.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Feel free to send me a private message anytime, or not if that's the case. I'm located in Utah and chances are I'd never be in your neck if the woods anytime soon, but I would help in person if I could. I'm a registered civil engineer, so you could in theory report me to the state for anything nefarious. You can export terrain data from Google Earth, or even get better terrain data from your state GIS department and give me that to work with without disclosing your location, but I can't help with that without knowing your location.

Sadly my family has 6000 acres of land with 1200 vertical feet of elevation drop in northern Utah that I've wanted to build on for a while, but I'm certain they wouldn't let anyone but family use it. I live a couple hours away from it and wouldn't be able to ride it enough to keep the trails in functional shape. Park City is closer and Moab is just a little farther. Even given my locality there is huge appeal to privately owned trails; public stuff takes forever to get approved and what they allow to be built is very limited. Too bad my family sold off the earth moving equipment my Grandpa owned before he died. I'd mostly be working by hand now. I've been mulling over starting a trail design business on the side of my day job just for fun. I envy you. Hopefully you can do something to be proud of.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

My brother is actually a civil engineer by schooling, but now works with metal building software. But with no trail experience I don't think he can help much either. 

So let me see if I got this strait, you live in the mountains of Utah, but you envy me because I have 5 acres of land I can build a trail on?  Hmm, I'm not so sure I would be too envious. 

However, I get your point. I'm pretty excited about this. If you spent any time here you would really be impressed with my land. I think I have one of only a dozen places on this side of the state where the elevation changes  The Western half of the state is beautiful with the Badlands (and oil rigs) but this side is pool table flat. Anyway, I'd love to get your thoughts. I'll send you my physical address in a PM. Then you can view my general layout in google maps. Maybe later I can get some pictures of some of the natural features I have to work with and give you some lat/long on them.


----------



## YRG (Feb 26, 2012)

How about:
Flag it
Get a moto and ride it in

If you have a decent riders eye, it should be fun


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

In response to:

"However, I'm not sure how many people would want to drive 30 minutes to get here when there is a pretty decent trail right in the city limits."

Most bikers I know drive three or four hours away from the Salt Lake City and Park City area to go ride in Moab and St. George. I have friends that drive an hour to a bike park on the weekends to ride because the trails near where they live don't have much in the way of jumps. The biking community is incredibly mobile and always looking for a new experience. I don't know if there is a biking community where you are or anywhere nearby though.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I really don't see anybody traveling to ride a little backyard trail unless it's something extremely unique and fantastically constructed. 

Truthfully, though I'm not saying there's not value in many of the suggestions given so far, I think all this GPSing and stuff is WAY overthinking things for a little backyard project where you can likely easily see the entirety of the layout from a single vantage point. 

Grab some surveyors flags and a few beers and just start marking out a general layout using a little imagination and common sense and you should be fine. And yeah, a little moto is a huge help if you're not really going to be seeing any traffic. It'll also help you keep from making your turns too tight, etc.

FWIW, in my experience, the best project for a small area and particularly for kids is a pumptrack.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Coldfriction said:


> In response to:
> 
> "However, I'm not sure how many people would want to drive 30 minutes to get here when there is a pretty decent trail right in the city limits."
> 
> Most bikers I know drive three or four hours away from the Salt Lake City and Park City area to go ride in Moab and St. George. I have friends that drive an hour to a bike park on the weekends to ride because the trails near where they live don't have much in the way of jumps. The biking community is incredibly mobile and always looking for a new experience. I don't know if there is a biking community where you are or anywhere nearby though.


Yeah you would think that. I do. I drive for trails, but the guys around here don,t. They have a little race course that they setup along the river and thats all they know. They race there all summer and all that matters is the fastest time. They have a few obstacles that are setup that are actually kind of fun, but if you go into the bike shop to talk about doing some actual trail riding all they will ask is what your time is around the local track. I once went into the LBS looking for platform pedals. They didn't have any in 3 stores. Everyone is clipped in because they are faster around the race track that way.

The saddest part is, about 3 hours from here is some incredible mountain biking in the old iron ore mines in Cuyuna MN. They have over 25 miles of incredible IMBA created trails. People drive from Canada, Minneapolis and further away to drive these trails. I've heard people say the rival trails in CO and MT. But I've yet to talk to anyone at any of our local bike shops that has ever been there. Its crazy. To me it seems like they all just want to be the big fish in the little pond one track in town.

Personally I think its well worth the 3 hour drive. I hope to make a 10 hour drive down to the Black Hills of SD someday to do some riding. But not many here feel the same way I do. ND is not a very outdoor oriented state. Unless you fish, hunt, or drink beer outside. Thats it. Very limited outdoor communities. Thats why I made the comment about people not driving a half hour to ride. But its also as slaphead mentioned. Its still just a backyard track. Although I think I can make it a good one. I do plan to ask around next time I am at the bike shops and if people are interested in helping I'll be happy to share what I have.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Ohh I wanted to post this link.





I watched it last night and found some really good info in there on trail building and maintenance. It was based on the IMBA books mentioned before.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

"extremely unique and fantastically constructed" is very possible here in the long run, which isn't exactly what cutting a trail with a moto is. The total elevation drop on the property is something around 40' over a 900' straight line from corner to corner, which is a decent 4.5% grade. I'm typically not allowed to design a road steeper than 6% for comparisons sake. Being private property, he can build things that wouldn't be allowed on public property, like catwalks, drops, jumps, etc. If I lived nearby I'd drive the thirty minutes to help build and ride, and probably try to get a club formed with liability waivers signed and host some small race events if that's what people in the area are into. Where he lives, there aren't a lot of options nearby from what I can tell.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Coldfriction said:


> "extremely unique and fantastically constructed" is very possible here in the long run, which isn't exactly what cutting a trail with a moto is.


I dig the enthusiasm, but I get the impression the OP was looking to build something to get a little roll going in the yard, not a venue to host events that lawyers need to know about. 

Personally, I wouldn't be able to help myself from going out and throwing in a rake-n-ride roughly around the perimeter in the short term. You've obviously put enough consideration into it that I doubt you're going to go out and waste time building something that's blatantly unrideable.

Grab a bunch of surveyors flags and just go out and start prowling around your spot a whole bunch. Get a rough idea of where you want to go, stake a general corridor, go back and fill in the details with more flags, scratch it in with hand tools to the best of your ability, and enjoy it. For your purposes, it's pretty damn hard to really do anything wrong. Go out in the yard and learn how to build trail. It's fun as hell, but it takes some practice. Sounds like you've got a good spot get started.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Just ride it in, do as little cutting/trimming as possible at first. If you develop problem or boring sections, re-route to solve the problem. Old school*, like the great cathedrals and megalithic structures were built. 

*learn as you go


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

If flow isn't important, drainage doesn't matter, and you're ok with not liking the final product and are willing to rework over and over, then just wing it. The only reason I can see for lack of initial planning and design is pure laziness and ignorance. There is no other reason not to do things with a little planning and a design philosophy in mind. It took me a matter of a half an hour to lay out almost one mile of trail for Fargo ensuring a fairly smooth downward grade from one end of his property to the other. It might take another half an hour to get that data in a gps unit or a phone. One hour of building get's you what? Not very far. You might as well have a plan. And if you ever want to convince someone else to build on the property they own/manage, the probability of convincing them to let you rises ten fold if you can show you have a plan and put some thought into it.

If you have thousands of acres with hundreds of feet of vertical to work with, you can fix any poor design and just turn the trail downhill when you don't have the flow you want. In the case of having a few acres and not a lot of vertical, doing that wastes your vertical and decreases the length of flow you could get. It's very difficult to eyeball a 1% grade, but even a new rider can feel the difference riding down it than riding up it. If you point the trail down, don't correctly berm and corner, you can build a trail that you blow the potential energy you've gained riding up in your brakes on the way down instead of in gaining speed to go farther. The less you have to work with, the more thought needs to be put into what is being done with it. The more fun you get out of the work you've done, the more work you'll want to do as well. Build one cruddy trail and it will probably be the last one you build.

You can get a good trail with a little experience just and just making broad decisions in the field, but you'll get a better one if you know where the other end of the trail is supposed to be and how you intend to get there. The micro build-to-fit should be used under the context of a macro design. Top down design, not bottom up.

*The old cathedrals and megalithic structures were planned to no end and the smartest engineers/designers of the day knew in advance what they wanted and spent a lot of time making sure they did it right. They absolutely did not wing anything.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Bull!

Trial and error works well for a few hundred feet of trail. Don't make it so complicated, it's his own property, for goodness sake. I designed a route for my 3.5 acre parcel last week, and I will basically ride it in with friends, tweek any awkward sections by adjusting the tread, do a little benching here and there, install some drains as required, continue riding until I have a fast flowing tread, then do final pruning. It will be a fun old school trail instead of a highway project. Try it sometime, you may find it inspiring.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

^lazy and/or ignorant! " I designed a route" <- preceded by "Trial and error works well for a few hundred feet of trail." means you didn't design a route. You don't understand what design is. Proper design precedes production.

Would you design a deck, or just buy some undetermined type and amount of wood and start nailing it together? Would you design a house, or just dig a few holes, pour in concrete, put some wood on top of that, throw on some siding and shingles, and just hope for the best? Would you design a bike? Why bother knowing about and understanding things such as the front triangle, down tube, seat tube, top tube, rear triangle, chain stay, seat stay, tube sizing, tube diameters, reach, stack, leverage rates, spring rates, bending moments, shear stresses, aluminum, carbon--it's just a bike, don't make it so complicated it should only be $300 anyhow amirite? Would you design a desk? Should it be 28", 30", 32" off the floor? You wouldn't believe how many hours I've spent designing sidewalk. Is sidewalk worthy of design?

I was once asked to write a sorting algorithm that would sort 10 million unique numbers that were randomized. I did it without thinking using the basic programming tools I then understand--a bottom up brute force approace I would later learn is called a "bubble sort". It took over four hours for the computer to do it on what was then a semi-modern system (think ten years ago). The professor then proceeded to teach the class what a little more top down design approach would do as he introduced the Big O and little o concepts of computer science. Using a "quicksort" method on the exact same data took the exact same computer about five seconds.

Design is real, and it is worth doing. It consumes very little resources except for a little time researching and drawing things out. Why would a trail not be worthy of design, when everything you're willing to spend money on is, especially when it is your own? The details can all be trial and error, which ends up giving the trail it's personal character, but the overall layout should have some thought put into it.

His trail loop is about 0.4 miles long or 2300 feet. That's not a few hundred feet. You literally could not tell in the field how much vertical you were eating away and how much you had left before getting to the end by trial and error, and vertical is the most precious resource to waste in this case. Fargo will do what he pleases regardless of what anyone says, but the advice you're giving is of little value; he came here for advice, not to be told just to do whatever and it'll work in the end.

I'm beginning to understand why half the trails I ride feel like a monkey made them, have washed out fall lines, and erratic climbing and falling behavior when an alternate path should clearly have been taken. In all honesty they were probably horse and hiker lines originally, and not designed by anything other than where someone felt like walking or taking their horse. Thanks to all the cruddy trail builders that have given all the land managers the excuse, "There is already a trail in the area for you to use. We don't want another one."


----------



## Peanut Gallery (Apr 11, 2015)

Coldfriction said:


> If flow isn't important, drainage doesn't matter, and you're ok with not liking the final product and are willing to rework over and over, then just wing it. The only reason I can see for lack of initial planning and design is pure laziness and ignorance. There is no other reason not to do things with a little planning and a design philosophy in mind. It took me a matter of a half an hour to lay out almost one mile of trail for Fargo ensuring a fairly smooth downward grade from one end of his property to the other. It might take another half an hour to get that data in a gps unit or a phone. One hour of building get's you what? Not very far. You might as well have a plan. And if you ever want to convince someone else to build on the property they own/manage, the probability of convincing them to let you rises ten fold if you can show you have a plan and put some thought into it.
> 
> If you have thousands of acres with hundreds of feet of vertical to work with, you can fix any poor design and just turn the trail downhill when you don't have the flow you want. In the case of having a few acres and not a lot of vertical, doing that wastes your vertical and decreases the length of flow you could get. It's very difficult to eyeball a 1% grade, but even a new rider can feel the difference riding down it than riding up it. If you point the trail down, don't correctly berm and corner, you can build a trail that you blow the potential energy you've gained riding up in your brakes on the way down instead of in gaining speed to go farther. The less you have to work with, the more thought needs to be put into what is being done with it. The more fun you get out of the work you've done, the more work you'll want to do as well. Build one cruddy trail and it will probably be the last one you build.
> 
> ...


ill take all that advice. I'm in the early stages of working on 70 acres and could use all the help I can get.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I think it is better to work it out on the land than going through a an extensive paper excercise/filter. Spend your time getting intimate with the piece of land you are developing. I design and develop a lot of trail on a fairly regular basis, and the thing that makes trails special has nothing to do with engineering on paper. It's about sculpting a fun riding experience. If you want to build good trail think in terms of energy, momentum, and flow through an organic terrain form. The first thing I would do is build a makeshift sweat lodge and tune in to the frequency of the place/space if I wanted to create a powerful experience.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

^That's why there's a whole profession called "surveying." There's an entire phase of information and "feel" gathering on any site design. Typical generic project management from beginning to end looks like this:

Figure out more or less what is wanted->research existing conditions (for site design this is "surveying"->Produce multiple concepts->perform additional research as you realize what you don't know in producing the concepts->refine the concepts and narrow them down until you have one design you like->finalize the chosen concept and call it "the plan"->start construction/production->realize you didn't have all the information you thought you did as conflicts and problems show up->change the plan (contractually known as "change orders")->finalize construction/production

A-Line at Whistler is a paper engineered trail and is world famous. The Gravity Logic guys don't guess what they're doing before they start. Everything falls on a parabolic curve and if you know the speed a rider enters a jump and the angle of departure of the jump, you know right where to put the landing without much guess work. The first guy to hit a big double has to have balls of steel if that jump hasn't been designed on paper (I believe this is actually the way most doubles are built and many bike fail videos are produced).

Experience and feel for trail building are amazingly valuable, but you don't start with those things and you have to start somewhere. Why not quantify energy and momentum (better to think it terms of potential energy "elevation" and kinetic energy "speed" as they translate from one to the other) if you can, even though after riding and building a bit you may obtain a good natural feel for them? The human brain also understands how objects fall on a parabolic curve naturally--baseball and basketball don't take much active thought to play. That people can throw a rock and hit their target consistently on earth is actually pretty cool. With enough practice and experience I expect anyone could get a good natural feel for trail design and building. This is a good reason people should volunteer to help other more experienced trail builders before starting out on their own.

With that said, after the first year I spent surveying, I will never trust my eyes to tell me a grade again. Laying out a planned trail line in Google Earth and checking the profile grades of that line takes very little effort in front of a computer. It also takes very little effort to check your grades with a clinometer in the field, but how do you know that the grade the clinometer shows is the grade you want where you are? What is more difficult, rerouting a line in Google Earth in five minutes or rerouting a trail after you've cut soil? The fact that you can export that to a gps format and use it in the field makes doing so a no-brainer in my opinion for anyone looking for some help in building a trail. The best approach is to take what you're doing as you build it it back to the original design and review/change the plan to get a feel for how field work and paper work relate.

And props to all trail builders, especially ones who take care to do it right however they go about it. I'm just trying to add to the knowledge base here.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I think the OP wants a little singletrack with some personality and challenge as can be developed in ~4 acres of land with trees and some slope. The nice thing about developing trail on the ground is that it's easy to modify and improve as it develops, whereas later on it will require a crew or two to obliterate the old and install the new. If it's his own trail he's not going to destroy it or do something stupid, it's just a trail in the dirt, and if he is like the rest of us his developing skills will likely dictate changes as time goes by. Over building is not a virtue, what if you overbuild a mistake? OP has the luxury of time and his own discretion. I would do it naked, under a full moon, if I had that canvas upon which to paint what will become over time a true small masterpiece. So have I inspired you to shed that tripod and workstation and grab a girl and go design a trail that will impress a Japanese gardener whilst wowing your riding buddies? Cause that's what I'm going to do.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Yeah, put some thought into it, duh, but no need to go overboard. 

I also very highly doubt anyone can do a better job laying out a trail in that small of an area from a satellite image than somebody on the ground can.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

One man's garbage is another man's treasure. Different strokes for different folks. Variety is the spice of life. And all those things. Being too designed is like being too healthy, too wealthy, too intelligent, etc. I love to design things and have the ability to do it all the time as it takes little effort and resources, and I can't be out where the trails are very frequently, so I approach things from the perspective I have. I like riding different types and styles of trails and I'm glad different people do different things in this world.

Maybe I'm unique, but the very least I'd do is print a topo map from http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/usgs/maplocator/%28ctype=areaDetails&xcm=r3standardpitrex_prd&carea=$ROOT&layout=6_1_61_48&uiarea=2%29/.do and sketch in an intendend line. Google earth is usually accurate to a few feet vertically, and you can usually pick out fences and other features from the aerial depending on the state you're in. Being able to carry the data around with you while on the trail in your phone or gps unit is pretty nice. You can do a better job with satellite data than you can on the ground when it comes to these things.

A profile grade line and a plan view trail line don't have any more information than a line. On a personal trail I'd only make it 8 inches wide because I love single track. You can't overbuild a profile grade line or a plan line. They're just a plan elements telling you what directions and grades to shoot for. The plan view of a path in Google Earth gives horizontal info, and the profile grade gives you vertical info. Build whatever the heck you want, but at least know about where you want it before cutting soil. It will save headache and time. I do recommend following bsieb's advice in trail building and only lightly putting the line in before you make it a lot of work to change.

Edit: The usgs topo isn't very good clear for flat areas, the Google Earth data is better.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I am an artist and approach things from that perspective, and I don't need a bunch of math and tech to tell me which way the energy is flowing. You can't do that from somewhere else. Odds are the best trails you have had the fortune to ride were designed this way. I've been building on FS land in partnership with the FS for 20 years or so, and the only thing we use maps for is to document routes developed on the ground so that the official paperwork and red tape can be accommodated. You start surveying hundreds of miles of trail and though it would be a windfall for surveyors (jk) little else would be accomplished. On private and local gov't land we use the same procedure for establishing easements. Trail building is best done on the ground and then documented unless very tight easements, indefinite boundaries, or sensitive zones, or unusual terrain, like tundra, or are encountered. Those extreme trails mentioned earlier have little in common with singletrack on mellow terrain. I will be working with Joey Kline from IMBA in a week or so on designing some more radical dh trail but I doubt if anything will go down on paper or be digitized until the construction is completed. Obviously this is how I/we do it our unique situation. And just to be up front, I was a general building contractor (gb98) for ~20 years and have worked closely with surveyors and engineers and landscape architects a lot, and still do on trail related infrastructure such as trailheads and a few technicalities. But for trail, we have myself/us and a YCC trail engineer and his crews and all our designing is done on the ground and then presented for the nepa process and all the other administrative tasks to be done before actual construction starts. Once construction starts, all inspections and approvals are on the ground in real time and required decisions are generally made by consensus on the spot without generating any paper or digital reporting. What am I missing here? And thanks for the good dialog, we all learn from a civil and honest discourse on a topic of inquiry.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Work with what you have, and who you have. Energy and odds are mathematical terms. I suggest you speak to feelings as it seems that is your approach. Use subjective terms like "cool" and "sweet" more maybe just tell Fargo to be "smooth" and "flowy" and that's all the help he needs. Even you do need the math, your brain does it from the experience you have without it being apparent, but the math is still there. The only way to communicate "energy flow" is with grade lines, period. The total energy of the rider = kinetic energy (velocity or speed) + potential energy (elevation and chemical energy burned up in pedaling is potential energy). There is no other energy (unless you start to throw in E=mc^2 and say the mass of the rider is energy, but we haven't figured out how to tap that to turn the cranks yet). The potential energy is converted to kinetic energy as you descend and vice-versa as you climb. Any and all energy in biking is lost through drag and frictional forces, and heat, not some mystic voodoo feel. The same laws of physics govern all trails, no matter how extreme or mellow.

The "best" trail is a subjective term, while getting the most flow out of your property isn't subjective at all; it is an optimization problem. I descended a trail today where I had to brake as much as not during the descent, on what is considered one of the better intermediate biking trails around within a forty minute drive, and every time I lost energy to the brakes I thought how much better the trail could have been if it were designed differently. It's not a bad trail, but it would have been better if it weren't laid out with the thinking of getting to the destination in as short a time and distance as possible. Which is the exact attitude of the guy has who actually has to move the soil building the trail. A longer trail is nothing but more work for him. 

Do you feel drainage? I can tell you that doesn't work. Do you feel wilderness lines, easements, property lines, etc? Of course you don't. What exactly do you present before construction starts if you don't do any design beforehand? Do you follow any standards or specifications? Why bother having a YCC trail engineer if you don't care for the math, maps, grades, etc? I suspect you guys have him around because the law requires you to, but he's just a warm body for the approval process.

Concerning contractors, they are the guy who sees a longer trail as just more work. I've dealt with contractors on multi-million dollar projects trying to skirt around the plans and specifications all the time. They are almost always there to make the most money by getting as close to spec as possible and as close to tolerances as they can with as little work as possible. They don't care about building the best product in my line of work because government contracts aren't awarded on reputation, they fall to the lowest bidder almost always. This especially applies to a general contractor who typically subs out most of the real work to another lowest bidder to maximize their own profit. 20 years as a contractor isn't a qualification for getting the best trail possible; it is a qualification for getting the cheapest trail possible. In my experience contractors dislike engineers for making them do things correctly, and engineers dislike contractors for trying to get things done (sometimes you just have to let things slide for the sake of the project). They both don't get anywhere without the other, but it seems to me that contractors generally seem to think they don't need engineers for some odd reason. The world really needs everyone.

What I don't understand and what I'd like to know is why wouldn't anyone take thirty minutes to an hour to lay out something on a map and understand the grades they are working with before going out to build, even if they don't use it in the field? The software and resources are free and easy to use. I don't know how anyone can feel elevation over the course of miles. Do you find that you have to climb to get back into a proper path where you could have avoided the climb if you didn't drop the trail so fast? Do you find you are using your brakes on a downhill just to have to pedal hard in a minute to climb again? Wasted energy that is. 

Creating a simple plan prepares your mind for what you might want to do, and can't hurt anything. If things change drastically, cool, if not, no problem. Why not go into it with some forethought? A simple trail line on a map and a grade profile can be made when it's too dark to work outside and keep the stoke up for building. We're all here thinking about trail building on a computer typing or reading without a shovel in our hands, but it's too complicated or difficult to do trail design in front of a screen? Laying out trails in Google Earth is nearly as good as it gets without actually building a trail for someone without any CAD software and survey gear.

I doubt that any trails I've ridden have been laid out by an designer who pre-planned grades, energy losses, etc. with the intent of optimizing the biking experience except for what I've ridden at bike parks. That doesn't mean such planning and design is a bad thing. I believe it was Plato arguing against democracy who said that if you want to train a horse you take it to someone who trains horses, not ask everyone how they would train a horse and just do what they say (this is the reason the United States is a Democratic Republic and not just a Democracy). Most trails were designed by people concerned with hiking and horses before the time of mountain bikes. The trails weren't the reason, the destination was. For bikers today, the trail is the reason and the destination is where you started, but hopefully with a bigger smile.

Building trails is better than not, but confirmation bias can have you believing that what you did is good when it isn't. Being objective and mathematical is how I roll.

Edit: Typos. I have a lot of them when I type this quickly and don't proof read before posting.


----------



## YRG (Feb 26, 2012)

Coldfriction said:


> If flow isn't important, drainage doesn't matter, and you're ok with not liking the final product and are willing to rework over and over, then just wing it. The only reason I can see for lack of initial planning and design is pure laziness and ignorance.


Dude, that's a bit harsh. Sounds like your trails are better than everything. I think you better back it up with a list of your work.

Motos make fun trails
Rake and ride can be a great approach
A riders eye on the ground can see a good trail

Building trails at the core is folks playing in a big sandbox. Have fun. 
I think walking and flagging is more intimate and personal than the computer. The computer can be a time saver, but lacks soul. It is no substitute for walking the land.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Coldfriction said:


> I haven't actually built any trails.


Just to keep things in perspective here.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Coldfriction, your process is not how most trail is built, and there is a reason for that. Use whatever process suits you best but don't knock what works for others. You make a lot of generalizations about what "most people" do, and about what I do, about how many actual miles of trail have you designed and built so far, and how many years have you been observing and maintaining those trails?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

"None" appears to be the answer.

So while input and suggestions from the uninitiated and the armchair critics can be worthwhile to a point, for someone that has never built an inch of trail (even though they seem to have plenty of free time to ride) to have the gall to call anybody who's actually been out there putting the time and effort in 'lazy' is about as ignorant a statement as one could make. 

FWIW, as a long time designer in my day job, I typically spend much of my time taking the stuff that engineers killed a huge portion of the time/budget coming up with and re-working it so it can actually happen in the real world. Mostly this is because they lack hands-on experience and don't like to accept input from those they think they're 'superior' to for whatever reason, which seems to be basically what I see in this case. 

Spend some years getting dirt under your nails and show us your handiwork before pulling a know-it-all attitude and insulting those with actual experience. Put up or shut up, as they say.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

... erased because it sounded like dick wagging, in retrospect.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

The only thing I've suggested is trying to have additional information before you begin. Having an alignment and profile on hand before starting using Google Earth doesn't negate anything or any methods of anyone else. I'm not telling anyone what they have to do, but you guys are telling them what not to. If there's a tool to help you know what the length and grades you might end up with on your trail before beginning, why not use it? It can help identify routing problems early. I've tried to add something to the toolbox, not take anything out, but I guess your box is full. Knowledge is power, but ignorance is bliss. What can you do.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Moto's make great trails if the guy using it constantly aware that he's on a moto and not a bike. The moto rider doesn't have to pedal when he's climbing, has a 200+ lb piece of equipment under him that you have to consciously make an effort to roll a corner as tight as a bike can. Grades are harder to determine on the back of a moto than they are on foot. A moto won't properly bench a trail if benching is needed. It is a great quick and dirty way to get something ridable and improve on. A lot of trails I ride were moto trails to begin with, and have erosion and other problems because of it. Without motos, mountain bikes wouldn't have many trails at all. One of my favorite trails of all time was and still is a moto trail, but I ride up the road and come down it because it's grades are crazy in places and I hate hiking a bike. Slickrock and Porcupine rim were moto trails before mountain bikes even existed.

My point is that a rider's eye on the ground can see a good trail a couple hundred feet in front of him, but grades beyond that can't really be known to any degree of accuracy. That's why info on paper is useful; it tells you whether or not pointing the clinometer downhill at -7% is going to eat through most of your elevation in the first half of the trail, where you could have used a -5% grade and been able to touch your brakes less or even reduce the uphill pedaling. Imagine riding with your brakes slightly pressed on a flat trail all the time; there isn't really a difference between that and applying your brakes coming down a hill on a hilly trail, both are the same wasted energy.

Nothing substitutes reality. You have to walk the land and flag it, but why not carry a gps unit, phone, or piece of paper having a preplanned route (that is easily changed in the field) with you? Every decent trail book and trail website I've used has profile data. Why do they do that? For example Big Spring Hollow Mountain Bike Trail - South Fork Provo Canyon, Sundance | Trailforks is the trail I rode yesterday that was straight down the mountain and I had to brake half the time wasting the energy I spent climbing (it's a multi-use trail and once I hit about 20 mph I try to back off). It's considered a mellow as all get out trail around here, but it's wasn't built with energy flow in mind. You have to do the math to find the trail has an average 8% grade. IMBA recommends 15% max, and a 10% average, so it should be flowy right? It's not. A few turns and grade reversals snaking the trail down the canyon would have made it a better biking trail. But now that the trail is there, and well established, like hell will anyone be allowed to make it longer; it's very heavily used so there obviously must be nothing wrong with it. It simply wasn't built with bikers in mind.

The computer is a tool, but the brain is really where all this stuff needs to be. You use the tool to assist you, it doesn't make a single decision for you in laying out a planned trail path and changing it to make the profile what you want. It helps you make those decisions yourself without doing the hardwork in the field and figuring it out after you realize you did something wrong after three days work. But there is no wrong in trail building amirite?


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Quite the discussion this has turned into. I am personally thankful that coldfriction layed out this trail for me. I am sure its not perfect and its hard to know how strictly I will stick to it once I get a shovel in hand. But its a great tool to have. My area has such a mild grade and the woods are so thick you really have little idea that their is any grade there just walking it. So I have found his map helpful. Now it might change if I decide I need more grade revesals just to stretch out the ride, Or I might not be able to follow it simply because of my trees. But no matter how my final trail ends up being built, I have already found his information helpfull in building my trail. But I have also found it helpful and encourageing to know that good trails can also be built by the seat of the pants.


----------



## YRG (Feb 26, 2012)

Slapheadmofo had the best advice in this entire thread. I think it did not get the attention it deserved. Perhaps it was lost in its brevity,
"The best use of a small space is a pumptrack"
We have 15 acres and would not even consider building a trail ( with the possible exception of a pump n jump trail ). I would be bored of it before it was even finished. But a pump track and maybe jump lines are a things you can come back to day after day and still love. The kids will learns skills so fast you will be amazed. They make for great social spots.
If you are not familiar with them, they can change the way you ride and the way you look at trails.
If you are gonna do the work, build something you can love for a long time.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

That's sweet.

Agree that for something that stays interesting and really hooks the kids, pumptrack and jumps are the way to go. That's what I did in our yard, as well as down the street on a another little plot for the town kids.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

A pump track is probably one of the best uses of a small space for biking. They are a little harder to use if you have a full size, full suspension bike, and may want to buy dirt jumper style bikes to use it. The soil that Fargo has should work for a pump track, but I'd look into adding some clay to make it a bit more cohesive should he build one. Look into getting some bulk dry clay powder for that.

If he were to build a pump track, I would probably recommend he not do it in the woods on his property. There are a few open spaces behind his house near an old barn that would work better I think. He is thirty minutes from the nearest city and the woods are supposedly quite dense. I think a pump track that doesn't get very frequent use may turn into an overgrown mess quick. They also require more maintenance if you are doing it without a club or a bunch of people helping all the time. A single track trail would probably be more sustainable with less traffic for his purposes.

I believe his original intent is a skills park of sorts, and maybe a short pumping section on a loop trail with log rides would be the best way to go if he's looking for something to help with the rides he does when he's travelling to ride.

The entirety of the Ogden bike park I sometimes go to is on about thirty acres with multiple jump lines (the biggest line has twenty+ foot doubles), a pump track, and can be ridden in a loop. There are enough lines not to be bored. Trailside Park in Park City is even smaller but a ton of fun as well. Small spaces can be pretty fun if used correctly.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

I've never been to a pump track. I have no idea how to ever ride one. Let alone build one. They sound cool though. 

What I am wanting to build is something that I can make a few laps around in the evening for a little exercise and enjoyment. So I think good flow will be important as mentioned. I also want to put a few obstacles on it to help my kids and myself further develop different skills and confidence we can use when we get to real trails. I hope in the future to take some trips specifically for mtn biking and want my kids and myself to have the skills to really enjoy thoes trips.

Of course the hardest part is the time to build it. So I also have to keep things fairly simple and work with what I have.


----------



## Claybuster (Sep 24, 2014)

Sounds like the acerage is somewhat thick. I'd start by identifying and removing the invasive species. Or at least get a handle on them. That may give you a better eye on the land. And it'll be easier to maintain after the trail is built. 

Be careful with the "ride it in with moto plan", I did that ten years ago, and am just now getting back into MTB seriously.


----------



## Co-opski (Oct 24, 2013)

To the OP. How old are your kids? 
Honestly if they can rake and shovel get them involved in the trail building. My parents did that with my brother and I and the neighborhood kids on our land in Central Wisconsin. It gave us a sense of ownership in the trails. We would work them to fit our needs, building supperelevated curves, rollers, step ups, and table tops as-well-as the needed little maintenance here and there. Our rules were simple that our parents set up; don’t use the implements or drop any trees without first asking an adult. We would ride in circles for days, stopping only for a quick lunch and water. Our stable of bikes included early 90s Giant Iguana, Trek 970, Raleigh Technium, Specialized Stumpjumper and a GT Karaoram (loved the splatter paint fade). 

Point being lots of good trail building advice can be found here, but fun and smiles from you and your kids can be had simply. And the only down side to letting your kids help and being involved is there is a good chance that they may take it up as a profession. You should hope better for your kids.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Co-opski

The kids are 7 & 8. They will be lots of work out there with me. Right now they are really excited to do it. But I know how quickly that changes when it comes time to actually lifting shovels and pulling rakes. But you make a good point about keeping them involved and enjoying the whole process. I think I have a technical and engineering oriented brain like coldfriction. I could over anlyze and perfect my trail on paper to the point it becomes a chore to do it. So I appreciate the reminder to just get out there and have some fun doing it.


----------



## Co-opski (Oct 24, 2013)

Funny how fast the chores get done when riding is your reward. Have fun and keep us posted on the progress.


----------



## YRG (Feb 26, 2012)

Fargo1 said:


> I've never been to a pump track. I have no idea how to ever ride one. Let alone build one. They sound cool though.
> 
> What I am wanting to build is something that I can make a few laps around in the evening for a little exercise and enjoyment. So I think good flow will be important as mentioned. I also want to put a few obstacles on it to help my kids and myself further develop different skills and confidence we can use when we get to real trails. I hope in the future to take some trips specifically for mtn biking and want my kids and myself to have the skills to really enjoy thoes trips.
> 
> Of course the hardest part is the time to build it. So I also have to keep things fairly simple and work with what I have.


You owe it to yourself to find out before you build anything.
Watch video of the pros riding as well. SO MUCH BETTER than a extremely short trail.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

In my head I imagine Fargo's kids preferring a pump track as that is what I would have preferred at their age, but I also imagine Fargo preferring a trail with different skill building qualities. The best solution is both, but time and efforts constrain things. If it were me and I wanted a pump track, I'd try to get the local scouts or others involved to help. Also, pump tracks and dirt jumps are easiest to build and maintain when with reach if a garden hose, otherwise you really have to haul water to do them right.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

A pump track seems like it would take accurate berms and things. My track won't be that exacting. Also water would have to be hauled by bucket as mentioned above. So although I like the idea of a pump track I will likely stick to trying to build a small flowy loop through my trees with a few obstacles along the way.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Yeah, pumptracks can be a lot trickier to build than regular trail. Not many better ways to learn about building for flow though, which pays off when doing any sort of trail work.

Even if you just work in any sort of simple version of some pumps and bumps somewhere, they'll be pretty much a guaranteed hit w/ the kids.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

A pump track doesn't have to be very accurate at first and I'd just wing one if I tried, but I've been on a few without the right kind of bike (hard tails are best) so I know a bit what has worked for others. Even though they start out with a constant cross slope, most berms end up with a circular cross section where the faster riders ride the upper part of the circle and slower people ride the lower part. You can learn enough by watching videos to build a pump track, they are all different and you can start small for small kids and bikes and make it bigger as they grow.

You can pump roots on a trail, you can pump a curb, you don't need much to pump. If you have to have something technical to start with, my approach would be to create overlapping circles with a stake and some rope of varying diameter. Say make 10', 15' , 20' radius circles, or whatever fits your fancy. Then just dig and mound up the soil to make rollers. The frequency and size of the rollers you intend to pump is a trial and error sort of thing. I'm sure there's a way to do the math on it, but in this case it's absolutely not worth it. I would try to gap the rollers about the length of the bike using them and build them up to the axle height of the same bike. That is how I would probably start, it might not work. As you get better make transitions between the overlapping circles so that your kids can switch lines. Keep adding loops as you feel you want something more. You don't have to use circles or any particular shape, but half circles with tangents between them (like a runner's track minaturized) seem to be the norm.

The pump tracks in the pictures are awesome, but you don't have to start anywhere near so complicated. And you can forego adding clay to the soil you have. I would wait until you're building stuff you're certain you want to stay there long term. I believe some people even add concrete cement mix, but I would use powdered clay, as lime or cement mixed in will make it hard to rework if you want to change it. Clay will hold moisture in the soil and prevent it from turning into a dust bowl if it seems to do that to you.

You'll have done it right when you can keep looping the track without pedaling at all. Until then it's rebuild over and over.


----------



## YRG (Feb 26, 2012)

Fargo1 said:


> A pump track seems like it would take accurate berms and things. My track won't be that exacting. Also water would have to be hauled by bucket as mentioned above. So although I like the idea of a pump track I will likely stick to trying to build a small flowy loop through my trees with a few obstacles along the way.


Sounds like you really want a trail. That's cool, I hope I am wrong and it turns out great. A couple last thoughts....
If your trail is fun and flowy, it will likely require the same kind of maintenance as a pump track. Since it is spread out, it will be harder. Second, if you are seriously taking trail building advice from someone who hasn't built trails.......WHAT ARE YOU THINKING????

There is a great thread in the urban/dj/park forum that has been running since 2008 titled Dj pump track plans that has a wealth of info. Pump tracks are unforgiving. You must be pretty precise. Small changes can make big differences. It is a valuable (imo necessary) skill for trail building. But a good trail is just as unforgiving and you have virtually no space for a trail.

Good luck and I hope your trail is fantastic.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

I've been involved in over $100,000,000 of road construction and design. The company I work for in well over a billion. Take a guess how many of the engineers have "built" a road by your terms. Designing based on scientific and mathematical principles does not require bloody hands. But bloody hands do give perspective.

More experience does not always trump more brains. My grandpa once hired a kid with years of farm experience. I was fresh new to running a tractor. I followed the contours of the hillside to save time and fuel. The other guy drove straight up and down the hill, as though the field were flat.

Seven years of schooling and five years of design work count for more than nothing as you would believe. I hope your wife, if you have one, only allows a female doctor to deliver your children, as a man obviously could never know how by your ethos.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

This is a rough sketch of what I have planned for my ~3.5 acres. The brown trees are oaks, the white patches are snow on rock outcropping mostly. The connector trail taps a hundred+ miles of singletrack. I have ~24' of vertical drop in the dh area.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

I thought you were against preliminary design bsieb?


----------



## YRG (Feb 26, 2012)

Coldfriction said:


> I've been involved in over $100,000,000 of road construction and design. The company I work for in well over a billion. Take a guess how many of the engineers have "built" a road by your terms. Designing based on scientific and mathematical principles does not require bloody hands. But bloody hands do give perspective.
> 
> More experience does not always trump more brains. My grandpa once hired a kid with years of farm experience. I was fresh new to running a tractor. I followed the contours of the hillside to save time and fuel. The other guy drove straight up and down the hill, as though the field were flat.
> 
> Seven years of schooling and five years of design work count for more than nothing as you would believe. I hope your wife, if you have one, only allows a female doctor to deliver your children, as a man obviously could never know how by your ethos.


I am saying your years of schooling and design work count for very little in this context. Engineers do not design trails, trail builders design trails. Road builders do not design roads, engineers design roads. Kudos for finding the path of least resistance with your tractor. Every deer, elk, or moose I have seen knows that. With all your schooling, you should know when you are out of your area of expertise. The doctor analogy is kinda stupid and irrelevant. Perhaps you could be one of the best trail designers in the world. At this stage, you and I really have too little information to make that determination. Go find out first. FYI, the advice you provided in this thread is of little to no use. I give you props for passion and a willingness to help.
Cheers


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Actually, that looks pretty cool bsieb. Do you plan on primarily making it a skills loop, pump track, or something else? I believe you're in New Mexico from other threads I've read, but I see snow so I'm guessing you're up near Angel Fire or something. The cool thing about designs, is that you can share them before the trails exist and get ideas from others.

Here is a quick kmz file that will open with Google Earth of the location of a trail I would love to build (note I threw this together in literally two minutes, it's not at all what I would design but gives the general idea and location of the trail):
View attachment Renewed Sqaw Peak Trail.kmz


I probably aught to start a new thread, but it would be cool to see different ways people would get to the top at that location. The area has trails, and the existing trail is nearly impossible to ride up; it was made before mtbs existed by motorbikes.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Deer, elk, and moose trails do not follow the path of least resistance. They follow the path that they decided to follow, and the grades they follow are steeper than most mountain bike trails I've ever ridden. I've hiked their trails a fair bit and used to go photograph them during hunting season although I don't hunt. "There is no expertise in trail building" is all I am hearing when people say you have to build to know. "There is no hard discipline. There are no standards or specifications, nor could there ever be. There are no principles of designing a trail ever." "The only way to design trails is to build them!" is all you are willing to believe. IMBA itself should burn it's books? https://www.imba.com/resources/trail-building is a big fat lie? You simple can't communicate trail design except by building? The way I see it, I've given more useful information in this post and less opinion than anyone. Laying out a path and profile is the most simple thing in the world for any kind of transportation design, whether road, trail, highway, or airplane route. There is very little reason not to do it in the modern age with the free software available other than pompous arrogant pride and unwillingness to allow the design to be outside of your head.

I have helped fargo, and I've laid out some suggested paths for him. He's thanked me for that. I have had more information on his property than anyone here, but he doesn't want to share where he's located with the internet, and I don't blame him. But yeah I'm getting mad at people saying that my initial suggestions have no value because I haven't built a trail. That REALLY doesn't mean I don't have the ability to help someone understand their land and how they might be able to maximize grades and trail layout.

When people say bikers are snobs I used to think of roadies, now I'll start thinking of trail builders.

Edited to sound like less of a jackass, but I think I've failed.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

A few random thoughts:

4 acres is plenty of room to build the kind of trail the OP is considering. I have friends who have built trails with berms, jumps and drops, and pump tracks, on properties that size. Do some research on bike park features, and you can make yourself a skills course that will keep you entertained and challenged. Put in lots of intersecting trail segments and you'll give yourself options for varying the ride, which will help keep it interesting. 

Incorporating a pump track, or even just aspects of one into the trail, is a great idea. A good one needs to be precise, but even a sloppy one can be fun. There's no reason to struggle with trial and error though- as above, there's lots of advice and plans in the Urban/DJ forum. Or you can buy plans for very little from Lee McCormack (leelikesbikes.com).

Many of the trails around here have game trails (mule deer mostly) intersecting them. The game trails usually climb at 30+% grade.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Coldfriction, your assumptions about trail design are ridiculous to the point of being humorous. Quit while you're ahead. :thumbsup:


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Thanks for pointing out that website. I didn't know about it or passed it over too quickly before now.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

bsieb said:


> Coldfriction, your assumptions about trail design are ridiculous to the point of being humorous. Quit while you're ahead. :thumbsup:


I figured who am I to discourage someone from from correct planning because of their terrible first attempt.😉 I don't tell my kids their pictures on the fridge are garbage, they'd quite trying to be better. On your personal property you may be as terrible at design as you want.


----------



## YRG (Feb 26, 2012)

Coldfriction said:


> I figured who am I to discourage someone from from correct planning because of their terrible first attempt. I don't tell my kids their pictures on the fridge are garbage, they'd quite trying to be better. On your personal property you may be as terrible at design as you want.


Now you sound like my kid when he was six. Having skied a few days, he would tell people with years of professional experience that he knew more. Except in your case, you have zero days. You have convinced me that you lack intelligence.
Thank you for the entertainment.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

I really have to know, bsieb, are you really Traildoc calling out from his self imposed exile from Sedona after having a few of his sacred trails shut down by the Forest Service? I want to know because I was going to see if he'd show me around Sedona at one time and I thought he did a ton for that town. If you are him, don't blow a gasket the next time you lose a few of your trails because you didn't follow proper planning procedures, you are a talented builder.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

The biggest difference being I could be the guy rejecting your poor excuse for a trail proposal sometime in the future. Most land managers and engineers don't dig trail, but you really can't build on public property without their permission, so how do you personally communicate your intent to them? The only thing you've convinced me of is that you are probably building illegally. I can't do that as I have a professional license I don't want to lose. The nearest legit trail under construction is forty five minutes from my house. I'd rather not neglect my family to get some web cred with you. Technically the biggest difference between calling a travelled path a trail instead of a road is width. Cut slopes, fill slopes, retaining walls, borrow, excavation, superelevation, cross-slope, culverts, acceleration lengths, braking distances, etc. are all common between the two, they only differ in degree. They are more alike than not alike with road design being far more complex as you kill people when you do it wrong, but there is no wrong way to build a trail, right? 😉


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Coldfriction, congrats on being only the second person I've ever neg-repped in my life. 

Keep up the great virtual work, it's clearly your forte.
See if you can squeeze in just a BIT more arrogance to offset your cluelessness though - it will help you become even more convinced of your own virtues.

:thumbsup:


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Coldfriction said:


> The nearest legit trail under construction is forty five minutes from my house. I'd rather not neglect my family to get some web cred with you.


No problem travelling to ride though right?


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Please look back at the very first thing I said in this thread. I've not pretended to know more than anyone about actually building the trail hands on. I front up admitted that I don't know what others do, but what I do know is rejected flat out for not having met the bar others here place on each other. This is an unfriendly forum.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

If you had a few hours during the week to ride and maybe three hours to ride on Saturday unless you go out on a trip specifically for riding would you spend it to travel to a trail build only to build for 30 minutes? It's forty five minutes to get to the bottom of the trail, then however long to get to where they are building. I'd have to turn around the second I got there. Nobody builds trails close to the valley anymore, all the illegal builders screwed it for everyone nearby with their straight up the hill trails that have washed out and are mostly unridable except with a moto. I am looking into helping getting the Slate Canyon Bike Park in Provo going though, and that is close enough that I can move dirt after work a few days a week. It seems to have stalled a little in construction for some reason I have yet to figure out. I plan on contacting the Parks and Recreation department sometime this week.

There really aren't that many new trails being built in northern Utah as you might think unless they are illegal. We have a crazy ton of trails as is, but most were built before mountain bikes existed and are very climby up and brakefests on the way down. In Park City, they require a contractor to build approved trail with every development that goes in; volunteer labor is primarily only for bike parks around here.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Coldfriction said:


> I've not pretended to know more than anyone about actually building the trail


Not only have you done exactly that, but time and again you've also gone out of your way to insult people who know a lot more about the subject than you ever will.

Lame.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

For a little perspective. I originally shared a quick and dirty method for establishing a horizontal layout of a trail and ensuring to some degree the grades work for your layout. 

Concerning needing a trail path for the approval process, to be legal a land manager has to know a whole bunch of stuff before they can legally approve a trail. Does it cross any waters of the US? Does it pass near or through an archeologically protects site? Does it cross designated wetlands? Are there protected species nearby? How about wilderness? Or maybe there's a lame juniper study area as happened in Sedona that shut down a trail.

These are the reasons a designed path helps a land manager make a decision. I just don't see how designing on the ground can answer these questions and approval for construction be given. I've had to shut a project down for three months due to migrating swallows nesting on a bridge scheduled to be demolished. I've also had to get a Forest Service archeologist out on a project because a designer didn't plan for a method to backfill a wall and we wanted to skirt a known Indian refuse pile. We had to have the designer change the design for a resolution to that problem. I've had to delay the start of construction because a contractor did not have their permits figured out to work in the Waters of the US. It's obviously my tainted background, but I don't know how a design not laid out could get approval before construction begins.

I wasn't the first here to call someone's idea worthless. I got defensive very quickly and I apologize to the people I've offended. I do greatly appreciate people who build for bikes however they do it. Anything a biker builds is typically miles ahead of what used to be done. I really do miss reading Traildocs posts, this forum kinda ran him off a long time ago. Without him and his design in the field without permission, Sedona wouldne half of what it is.

Have fun building trails guys. I'd help in the ways I know how, and I could draw up legit plans to help in the approval process, but that doesn't seem to be the problem I thought it was.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Sounds like you could use a good designer instead of blundering through through all those problems the hard way. Yet you propose adding another level of complexity to the trail building process. Sheesh! 

In reality, the result would just be be a lot more mediocre trails, a thing we try to avoid if possible. We are building interesting dirt paths, not public works. In my situation we we are not allowed to use machinery to build trail. If you haven't run the tools, (ie picks, shovels, McCloeds, Pulaskys, rock bars, stone slings, etc, etc.) with the crew, and in those conditions, how do you know what you are working with in terms of capability? You propose imposing engineered grades on natural terrain for a wilderness experience? You have to do a lot better than that, and odds are the OP will have it down before you do, unless you start doing it too. You then might eventually have some useful engineer insight to share.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

You are either Traildoc or his most cherished disciple. What I suggested removes complexity for me, but I could see math scaring others. I wouldn't have posted at all had I known you were still around. The micro design is completely healthy and no different than what you already do. I never said anything about the surface grade or even intermediate grades. I only suggested a macro perspective.

I suggest you quit eating wheat, I've slaved 16 hour days in a combine at minimum wage and you simply could not appreciate it because you have not done what I have. Mix the nouns here around and you have Traildoc to a T. I'm leaving these forums alone as long as you treat people so poorly, and I'm not the first person to say that. You need to learn to appreciate other people for their differences.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Fargo1 said:


> Co-opski
> 
> The kids are 7 & 8. They will be lots of work out there with me. Right now they are really excited to do it. But I know how quickly that changes when it comes time to actually lifting shovels and pulling rakes. But you make a good point about keeping them involved and enjoying the whole process. I think I have a technical and engineering oriented brain like coldfriction. I could over anlyze and perfect my trail on paper to the point it becomes a chore to do it. So I appreciate the reminder to just get out there and have some fun doing it.


Yeah - get some flags and go out and mark out the route you have on paper and see how it looks on the ground.










Start out with a flag every 75'-100' or so, then start filling in the details. Don't be afraid to use a ton of flags, as close together as you feel they need to be to define the line you want, and expect to move them over and over until they're 'right'. A bunch of running along with your arms out in front of you like you're on a bike, some bushwacking runs through on the bike...get a good idea of what you've got going on, and if it seems like it'll be fun to you, bang it in. Doubt you'd need much more than some loppers and a rake to do the majority. Never hurts to run through with a leafblower to get some crap out of the way too IME, at least where I live.

You'll have years to improve on it as you see fit, and it's right out the door, so don't sweat every detail too much. What you learn on your first try will pay off over time.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Coldfriction, we are currently building a lot of trail in Eagle Mountain. Not exactly sure where you are but I think I'm fairly close to you. We are building on School Trust lands and Private land. Our intent is to tailor make a course for the High school cycling league. Once that is complete we have permission to build miles of additional trail. We'll be busy for decades. Feel free to come out and turn over some dirt. We'd love to have you there and if you ask, I'll talk you through the process of how we got to where we are. We meet most Saturday's at 9:15am at Hidden Hollow Elementary school (Google the location). You can also send me a PM and we can meet at a different time.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

As you know, the weather turned sour and I doubt anything will be ridable before next week. Unless I head to Logan to visit family and you're still planning on working, I would love to come help out if the ground is dry enough that you'll be working this Saturday. I live in Provo, about thirty five or forty minutes away. If you know anyone I could car pool with, I'm always up for carpooling. Thanks for the heads up. You should post that in the Utah forums if you haven't as well.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> Yeah - get some flags and go out and mark out the route you have on paper and see how it looks on the ground.


I picked up some of these flags and hope to stick some in the ground soon. I've also been playing with Google Earth that coldfriction introduced me to. Its interesting to watch the elevation graph as I change my route. I love those trails where your downward momentum takes you up the next hill. Between Google Earth and walking in the woods I hope I can put something together where my momontum carries me up and down. Granted I don't have much to work with since its mostly all sloping one direction, but I hope some zig zagging will provide some interested and extend the length of my trail. I like those pump track ideas too and hope to include some whoops and things in the future to practice pumping on too. Even if its not a whole pump loop. I've gathered some really good ideas here. Now if I can find the time and energy to bring it all together.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Riding the virtual bike is a good technique to sus out tricky spots, and from both directions. You may find it addicting once you start making progress, it has happened before.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Nevermind about phones for gps, they are suffuciently inaccurate as to be unusable. A dedicated handheld gps would be much better. Something like a Trimble handheld gps would be best but are over $1000. Sorry for the disinformation. I didn't realize phones were so bad.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Coldfriction said:


> I didn't realize phones were so bad.


Phones are bad for everything. They don't even do a decent job of making calls.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

bsieb said:


> Riding the virtual bike is a good technique to sus out tricky spots, and from both directions. You may find it addicting once you start making progress, it has happened before.


It made me give up backpacking...I'd find myself doing it on hikes all the time and finally realized I would just ditch the pack and be on a bike instead.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Fargo1 said:


> I picked up some of these flags and hope to stick some in the ground soon. I've also been playing with Google Earth that coldfriction introduced me to. Its interesting to watch the elevation graph as I change my route. I love those trails where your downward momentum takes you up the next hill. Between Google Earth and walking in the woods I hope I can put something together where my momontum carries me up and down. Granted I don't have much to work with since its mostly all sloping one direction, but I hope some zig zagging will provide some interested and extend the length of my trail. I like those pump track ideas too and hope to include some whoops and things in the future to practice pumping on too. Even if its not a whole pump loop. I've gathered some really good ideas here. Now if I can find the time and energy to bring it all together.


Sweet.

Trailbuilding takes time and energy, but it's also very enjoyable and rewarding. For me, it's fun. If it wasn't, I wouldn't do it near as much.

There are plenty of times now that I find I'd rather build than ride; it's probably almost a 50/50 thing for me for the past handful of years, same for a lot of people I know. Hell, my dad is 70 and he's had his picture in the local trailbuilding 'zine more then just about anybody I can think of. Don't think of it as a chore, enjoy the process.

Try to channel these guys take on it a bit...at least the first 2:00 (BMX trail builders are the the kings of the craft as far as I'm concerned).






Also, just wanted to post this Google Earth shot of a friend's front yard trails because it's cool. What you can't tell from above is that they're just high enough to be totally invisible from any of the houses. It's a pretty sweet set-up.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Here is what my property looks like with teh trail coldfriction drew up.








Here is another option I drew up








Here is what the elevation change looks like. EDITED to show in FT.








I'm not really sure if that will be accurate or not, but it looks like fun. I tried to keep things swooping back and forth to keep some up and down movement. This would all change though as I build the trail to meet up with some obstacles I have picked out.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Something like that looks like a great way to get the most trail out of the space you have for a good long loop. The left side of the profile looks like it could add some challenge at first glance to me. I believe the images would communicate better if Google Earth's scale were included. Also, your units are metric; there is a setting to change that. That trail is a good 3/4 of a mile, the max slope of 12% is entirely ridable up and almost 12% down is a good little speed boost to help get you through the more shallow grade through the middle section of the trail. You have a total vertical climb of 63 ft and a drop of 64 ft. Thanks for sharing. If you do build it, I'd be interested in knowing how well the design translates to construction; please share an as-built version if you are able someday of what you really end up doing.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Coldfriction said:


> Something like that looks like a great way to get the most trail out of the space you have for a good long loop.


Yeah this was my intent. I can also go back behind the barn as in you plan to add even more. I think I could get over a mile of loop if I loop it around in their enough. But doing that I also lose that ability to have the long diagnol downhill that you had. I also loose space to place obstacles off the sides of the trail. So I might not loop it so much. I'd like to have some side obstacles like balance beams and maybe bring in some rocks etc.

Looking at the elevation its not as impressive in ft. Its all a pretty gradual slope but maybe with a little building I can make some jumps and drops.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

You can do those things very easily with what you have laid out. Just shortcut the trail where different parts come close to each other. There is also no reason you can't allow the trail to cross itself. You can throw a diagonal on top of what you have no problem.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I would definitely give yourself the option of a few straighter segments for variety. And a few intersections or trail crossings will let you mix it up more. If you just have a long squiggly loop your only option is riding it reversed.


----------



## Xethur (Dec 6, 2014)

Fargo I wish you luck. I'm in the process of of building my own trail. I'm doing a bit of single track, a few pump track like stunts, and a bit of north coast.
http://forums.mtbr.com/trail-building-advocacy/trail-obstacles-942628.html

I can say that I have developed a whole new respect for trail builders having started this project. I did a lot of reading on here and then I started my trail by walking it a few times. I would have used flags, but I know every inch of my woods well. I'm working to make it worth riding as soon as possible and then add to it over time.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Fargo1 said:


> Here is what my property looks like with teh trail coldfriction drew up.
> View attachment 981581


\]

I personally would consider concentrating on something that follows the basic rectangular outline shown here, minus the X and the penis. Basic perimeter run (if the conditions work) to start, and take your time enhancing it with lobes and crossovers. Build with an eye to the future of course, but get something rolling and build your stoke in the short term.

cf - your plan makes good use of the space IMO.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

That almost sounds like a compliment, I'll try not to let it go to my head I did think the perimeter would be easier to construct and give decent length to the main loop Fargo wants. The straight edge of the "penis" has a downhill grade of about 10% over about two hundred feet. I recommended looking to use it as a jump line with drops or table tops that can be taken at speed. He could build a few more lines easy with similar downhill grades in the field by the barn at about a -13% grade if he didn't care to preserve the area for something else (I have no idea if he does). The lobe at the end of the "penis" is pretty flat, with what looks like a little worthless connector being where I recommended building either an earthen or wooden ramp to kick off the run down. I had no idea of where the trees are from that aerial, so it's probably not feasible to construct as shown and all the little curves would have to be relocated. 

I think the area right to the side of the barn would make a great pump track location, but it might not be flat enough, I don't know how building a pumptrack on a grade like that would work. Maybe a pump track that's mostly dug out of the hillside would work. The soil would be naturally compact and the hill would still allow drainage, and I don't think running a hose there would be very hard to keep the soil moist. No clue though really. Probably putting a pump track in the trees closest to the house would be better.

The winding leg of the X is all downhill from one end to the other with an average negative grade of about 4%. The other leg of the X essentially follows the natural contour of the land and is essentially level from one end to the other. I don't know why I thought it would be a good idea, but I imagined myself enjoying a level straight trail to just spin and ride as fast as I could without worrying about too much tech, but I guess you can do that on a road.

So that's my explanation for why it looks the way it does. I am not certain if Fargo bought the property specifically because he wanted to bike on it, but if you could see the surrounding geography, you'd say he did an amazing job of obtaining one of the few places with any forested grade at all. I really enjoy seeing the work eveyone posts here and am stoked for Fargo. Thanks! Five years lurking and the first time I try to get involved I let my ego get the better of me, go figure.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

Have you thought about doing a mini stacked loop system? Use the property line/perimeter as your main connector trail and branch off of it with a few loops, each having a different character and/or features, to keep things interesting. I think this is your best option in terms of trail density, will allow integration of different styles of trail, and maximize ride options. Add a pump track loop? It will also allow you to ride it sooner because you won't need to complete all the trail for it to be usable like in a single loop system.


----------



## BenVoiles (Apr 10, 2015)

I'm not sure if it has to be so complicated. Deer and other animals make trails and I doubt if they use Google Earth or anything like that. I have 24 acres right here where I live and I started a trail system just last Sunday. I've been rained out ever since. It has been some hard work. I have trees down since the tornadoes of 2011.
If it dries up I should have a workable trail by the end of this coming weekend. If I do I'll post some pictures. I also, have some other property about six miles from here. It is hillier and would actually be better but I have trouble getting away since my wife has MD. The last renters I had said they were into off road motorcycling and four wheeling so I thought they were make some nice trails but they didn't do much. I've been thinking about actually laying out a track where people could race but I'm not sure about liability if somebody go hurt. Anyway, it is interesting to read other people's opinions and experiences.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

aero901 said:


> Have you thought about doing a mini stacked loop system? Use the property line/perimeter as your main connector trail and branch off of it with a few loops, each having a different character and/or features, to keep things interesting. I think this is your best option in terms of trail density, will allow integration of different styles of trail, and maximize ride options. Add a pump track loop? It will also allow you to ride it sooner because you won't need to complete all the trail for it to be usable like in a single loop system.


Are you saying to just make a quick and dirty trail around the outside edge with no or very few loops just to get started? That might not be a bad idea. At least then I could get out and ride it sooner.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

This is the profile of the squiggly leg of the X trying to maximize downward grade to get flow. I learned to ride without a dropper post and I enjoyed riding to the top of trails and then bombing down them after dropping my seat all the way down. One hour up, ten minutes down. I hated wondering whether it was worth stopping at the bottom of any climb to raise my seat back up. For that reason I tried to work with the natural grades of Fargo's property to keep it uphill most of the way one way, and downhill the other. That's just how I prefer trails and what I look for when I'm trying to find something new. I've since gotten a dropper post and rolly terrain doesn't bother me as much as it used to.

BenVoiles, you are right to be concerned about liability, but I believe you may be able to manage it. In some states, such as Utah, you have no liability for allowing your property to be used for outdoor recreation if you allow public access and don't charge a fee (this probably doesn't cover jumps and non-natural features, but I don't know). If you build trails and post some no trespassing signs on your property, and people use it without your permission you are probably covered there too, but be sure to know how frequently you are supposed to post no trespassing signs. Lawyers will pick apart details like that if someone is trying to sue you.

If you want to have some control over the property and who has access, and build some cooler features but still allow others to ride, you could form a club and insure the club and the trails it builds. You would have to restrict access to members. If you want to host races you can insure what you've done for the event. It really sucks to have to buy insurance for anything. Bake the cost into race fees if you do that.

You can usually just build for yourself and have trusted family and friends join in the fun without any worry of the above. That doesn't really cover you from being sued by your friends or family, but most decent people don't sue their friends and family, or really anyone else if they can help it.

Waivers are a good idea all around for everyone other than yourself riding your private land. IMBA has some information and an example of what they should look like. They can cover most liability and might negate the need to purchase insurance. Someone else here who has actually dealt with waivers and insurance could give far better advice than I can. Hopefull someone will chime in to clarify.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Aero - did you mean something like this. I could just build the simple red trail and later add the loops in yellow with different obstacles. I kind of like this idea. I might have to give a little more curve to the red line but it would really open things up to do obstacle sections. And I am still able to maintain the fast downhill diagnal if I want.








FYI the labeled obstacles are actual fallen trees and things I hope I can work with. The jump is just a left over mound from an uprooted tree.


----------



## BenVoiles (Apr 10, 2015)

To Coldfriction and some of the other guys. I hope you weren't offended by my comment about how it doesn't have to be so complicated. People have the option of doing it however they want. I just meant that is doesn't have to be that complicated, unless your building a racing course of some kind. I have enough property that all I need to do is clear the paths and I'll have plenty of options. I guess building on less property would need a little more planning to make it a long course. Anyway, I think this is all very interesting. I can't wait to show some pics of mine.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

You are correct and no offense was taken. The whole point of private property is that you should be able to do whatever you want without worry about what others think. Private property for biking seems to me to be the holy grail for builders. More people here agree with you than don't. This isn't a popularity contest and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just the kind of guy that would try to design with grades in mind, and unless you are on the ground with someone, it is really hard to help them do that without the Google Earth method or a contour map. I really don't have a lot else to offer here that isn't just an opinion. My focus in school and master's work was mostly structures and geotech, now I do roadway design. If you have questions on soils and structures that is probably where I can give the most advice. I can also review project plans prior to speaking to a land manager or even help draw up some professionally looking documents to help try to get approval. That I about the extent of what I am able to help with, but if anyone wants my help I'm more than open to advocate for more trails.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Fargo1 said:


> Are you saying to just make a quick and dirty trail around the outside edge with no or very few loops just to get started? That might not be a bad idea. At least then I could get out and ride it sooner.


Yes, that will get you started and you will start to observe the way the trail tread develops. We don't even really rake the surface if we can avoid it because the organic matter helps consolidate the forming tread. Your conditions may be different but in any case you will observe as you go. I think of the process as sketching a route with your wheels, modifying as necessary to keep the flow up, and then filling in additional details and doing any landscaping details last, after you have a high speed tread. I think you will enjoy the trail more if you make it as fast as possible and especially the intersections flowing and fast. The trees and brush will help separate the trail segments when all is finished so you don't want to remove more than necessary at first. I would look for suitable natural "corridors" and go from one to the other if possible. Do the minimum you can get by with until you have a stable high speed tread, which is the foundation of what you are building.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

I'd do what bsieb just recommended, but thought I'd chime in and say even if you don't rake, it might be worth removing branches that will fling up and gouge your legs. I had a legit stick almost a centimeter in diameter hanging out of my leg once while biking. I thought a snake or something bit me.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

I'm trying to get my old house ready to put on the market this weekend. So its pretty crazy around here. But I hope to buy a some tree trimming tools and start walking around next week cutting some trail. 

Right now I think the best way to start is to just wander around the perimeter and cut a winding trail 20'-30' in from the edge of property in the trees. That should give something a little more intersting that a strait line and yet leave room to go deeper into the woods for obstacles and other things later. I think it would look a lot like the perimter of the plan coldfriction originally drew up.


----------



## Xethur (Dec 6, 2014)

bsieb said:


> We don't even really rake the surface if we can avoid it because the organic matter helps consolidate the forming tread. Your conditions may be different but in any case you will observe as you go.


So you leave the dead leaves and the grass? Interesting, I had planned to rake all the organic material. I'll have to give that a try because it means I will be able to ride my trail sooner. I still have two obstacles to finish, some tamping to do, and a few saplings to remove, but if I don't rake the trail I could be riding it in a week.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

Fargo1 said:


> Are you saying to just make a quick and dirty trail around the outside edge with no or very few loops just to get started? That might not be a bad idea. At least then I could get out and ride it sooner.


Pretty much. Just do it right so you don't have to maintain it as much (read: more ride time). You will learn as you build so it makes sense to start with the easier trail and tackle bigger projects as you progress.



Fargo1 said:


> Aero - did you mean something like this. I could just build the simple red trail and later add the loops in yellow with different obstacles. I kind of like this idea. I might have to give a little more curve to the red line but it would really open things up to do obstacle sections. And I am still able to maintain the fast downhill diagnal if I want.
> View attachment 981905
> 
> 
> FYI the labeled obstacles are actual fallen trees and things I hope I can work with. The jump is just a left over mound from an uprooted tree.


That is looking more like what I was thinking. However, instead of a bunch of intersecting trails, there would be smaller loops which join back up with the perimiter trail. For an example see the graphic at bottom of this page titled "Stacked Loop Trail System": Trail Guide When you keep the entrance and exit point of your interior loops close together you can maximize the total trail system length.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Xethur said:


> So you leave the dead leaves and the grass? Interesting, I had planned to rake all the organic material. I'll have to give that a try because it means I will be able to ride my trail sooner. I still have two obstacles to finish, some tamping to do, and a few saplings to remove, but if I don't rake the trail I could be riding it in a week.


A rideable line is all you really need to start, after a dozen trips over it you will have a noticeable tread and some flow, and a better feel for what's going on. From there on you are only limited by your imagination. In my case, I'm not designing for the most trail I can pack in because I have a forest full of trail nearby. I want a baby ripper that can host mini time trials for shots.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Thanks for the link


aero901 said:


> Pretty much. Just do it right so you don't have towith a maintain it as muchcould could (read: more ride time). You will learn as you build so it makes sense to start with the easier trail and tackle bigger projects as you progress.
> 
> That is looking more like what I was thinking. However, instead of a bunch of intersecting trails, there would be smaller loops which join back up with the perimiter trail. For an example see the graphic at bottom of this page titled "Stacked Loop Trail System": Trail Guide When you keep the entrance and exit point of your interior loops close together you can maximize the total trail system length.


Thanks for the link. That gives me an idea for another way to do it. Instead of starting with the full perimeter I could start with a small loop and add additional loops later.

This might be a better way to get the kids to join on as well since wee could almost certainly get a small loop knocked out on a weekend


----------



## Spec44 (Aug 17, 2013)

bsieb said:


> A rideable line is all you really need to start, after a dozen trips over it you will have a noticeable tread and some flow, and a better feel for what's going on. From there on you are only limited by your imagination. In my case, I'm not designing for the most trail I can pack in because I have a forest full of trail nearby. I want a baby ripper that can host mini time trials for shots.


Right. I did a really quick and dirty rake of my line the first time to a) establish the line so I could see it repetitively, and b) because there was 3-4 inches of leaves, sticks, vines, salpings, etc. And when I say I raked it, I mean I spent minimal time creating a 6-12" wide dirt corridor. I also carried a pair of loppers and trimmed eye-pokers and pedal snags as I went. Now it has leaves on it again, but they pack down quick and I can see the line no problem.


----------



## BenVoiles (Apr 10, 2015)

*One day of trail cutting*







Here is what I accomplished in one day of trail cutting with the help of a young guy. This land has not been cut since way before the tornadoes which hit here four years ago today. If the rain ever quits I should have a pretty good set of riding trails in just a few more days of work.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Good show! Make the tread sway back and forth a bit so as to get good rolling grade dip drainage action. Sort of like a waltz, when you ride at speed.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Nice. My boys are begging me to get started on my trail. I think I will just do a small loop to get them started and add a perimeter trail or larger loops later. It may not be the best option but it will get things going.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

I'd say getting going is probably the best option. I believe you've given it enough thought to make something happen.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Coldfriction said:


> I'd say getting going is probably the best option. I believe you've given it enough thought to make something happen.


Yeah the problem is everytime I walk through the woods I see a different fallen tree or something that i think would be cool to incorporate. So I'm always scared of making a trail somewhere then finding out I should have run it somewhere else. Thats kind of my nature though. I'm always scared I might make the wrong decision.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Unless you're cutting down large trees, just start building and see where it takes you. I'm of the same mindset you are with making mistakes (I blame my dad), but just accepting a decision and running with it has to happen sometime. The sooner you do that the sooner you can ride. Designs are never really "done" until after the building is finished. It's your playground, so play.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Fargo1 said:


> Yeah the problem is everytime I walk through the woods I see a different fallen tree or something that i think would be cool to incorporate. So I'm always scared of making a trail somewhere then finding out I should have run it somewhere else. Thats kind of my nature though. I'm always scared I might make the wrong decision.


Have you done an exploratory ride? Sometimes getting things on the ground gets things on a different level. Just play with it a bit, try a few ideas, get some energy flowing. You can always change what doesn't work, that's whats nice about starting with minimal disturbance. Try for a fun little ride at first, nothing too intense. No need to over think, this is more like finger painting than construction.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

bsieb said:


> Have you done an exploratory ride? Sometimes getting things on the ground gets things on a different level. Just play with it a bit, try a few ideas, get some energy flowing. You can always change what doesn't work, that's whats nice about starting with minimal disturbance. Try for a fun little ride at first, nothing too intense. No need to over think, this is more like finger painting than construction.


There are too many little branches to do an exploratory ride. But my wife purchased a lopper today so I think I will go lop off some of those branches tonight and try to get something together.


----------



## Fargo1 (Oct 19, 2012)

Started walking the perimter laying out survey flags where the trail would go. I quickly realized the stacked loop idea might be better. So after a short while I turned back to make a small loop. So it looks like I'm starting with a loop in the the SW corner right on top of the hill. Probably the most challenging place and probably not the best place to start. But its a start anyway. I went outside the trees on the West side and have a fast downhill section that has a fallen tree I will build a small ramp on. Although I am concerned that it sits at a 45 degree angle to the trail. So I might lay another tree in front of it so the ramp sits more square with the trail. WE didn't clear any trees yet, but just putting the flags in helps to get an idea of what it might feel like. There are still a few sections that I don't know what to do. I am struggling with keeping the trail flowing. I always end up with little technical sections or curves that I think will be too tight for a fast flowing trail. But I am working on it as I go to try and keep it flowing.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Well none of this matters as long as it ends by the bottle opener.


----------

