# Bench Cutting Unnecessary?



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Some dude I taught, obviously not well enough, at a local trailbuilding school decided after roughly 6-8 months of experience, benching is unnecessary.

I responded already, maybe a bit harsh. He's on the other side of the state so I can't work directly with him to help. How do you folks deal/respond to stuff like this? Link to post and cut and pasted post below:

http://www.crankfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12620&sid=23c2eccd9cb57044f577a1c952dbb999:

Whats the stuff on duff? - I think removing duff is unnecessary.

I built a trail reroute at Cockaponset last spring and did not remove the duff over 90% of it because we didn't have time. It turns out that the duff layer disintegrated in about 2 months of use without any apparent negative side-effects.

Also, when we built trails in the Black Hills, there really was no duff layer, so...

Full benching for grandpas?

I'm not a fan of full-benching a sidehill trail, even for multi-use trails that will get horse traffic. I understand benching is necessary, but we don't need a stinking highway. I think a quarter-bench is fine for 90% of the trails.

KISS - keep it simple stupid...

The more complex the project, the less trail we build and the greater likelihood of over-building and dumbing-down the trail. - according to me.


----------



## cjohnson (Jul 14, 2004)

*I probably wouldn't respond.*

The OP used the term "full bench" he did not say "benching is unnecessary." Regarding the duff, for his trail/soil/geology/geography he did write, "without any apparent negative side-effects."

All a person can do is rely upon what the OP wrote, unless someone has witnessed otherwise, there is no reason not to believe him.

I don't think you were harsh.


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

*How much cross slope?*

I think questions about benching always depend on the amount of cross slope. Trails contouring on a 10% or less cross slope don't need to be benched because the benched trail would be outsloped at about the same angle as the cross sloped. On a steep cross slope you have no choice but to bench, otherwise there is no tread to walk/ride on. In steep terrain even partially benched trails are unacceptable. A 24" quarter-benched trail on a steep cross slope would be only 6 inches wide.

Since they require significantly less work, why not build all contouring trails on 10% or less cross slopes? The problem with contouring trails on 10% cross slope is there isn't a lot of downhill slope to keep the trail draining. On low cross slope contouring trails the critical edge often develops a berm, trapping water on the trail and capturing rocks. On steeper cross slopes the sudden drop off at the edge of the trail encourages water and debris to exit the trail.

So 10% or less cross slope trails might technically be following the rules of good trail design but moving the trail onto steeper cross slopes that require benching would result in significantly improved sustainability. I often see contouring trails with drainage issues that would have been prevented by moving them 30 ft up slope and the only reason that didn't occur was to avoid the effort of benching.

Regarding duff, I guess it depends on the type of duff. Thick layers of wet leaves or 18" of pine needle duff almost always need to be removed during trail construction. The big problem with duff tends to be it retains water and can cause mud or drainage issues.

I find trail builders often start rationalizing when a feature of trail construction requires a lot of extra effort like removing duff or benching or switchbacks. They will talk themselves out of doing it the best way. Too often decisions make to save a few hours of construction effort lead to hundreds of extra hours of trail maintenance. This is why land managers have become such fans of sustainable trails, they know that when trail construction is finished, so is the greatest demand on their resources.


----------



## Relayden (Jun 15, 2005)

Well said.


----------



## PaintPeelinPbody (Feb 3, 2004)

bweide said:


> I find trail builders often start rationalizing when a feature of trail construction requires a lot of extra effort like removing duff or benching or switchbacks. They will talk themselves out of doing it the best way. Too often decisions make to save a few hours of construction effort lead to hundreds of extra hours of trail maintenance. This is why land managers have become such fans of sustainable trails, they know that when trail construction is finished, so is the greatest demand on their resources.


Yep


----------



## sambs827 (Dec 8, 2008)

Seems like someone trying to justify their laziness. There are sections of trail that my club has built that aren't bench-cut, but I'm not proud of them. I don't go around saying "We didn't bench cut this because we all that organic goodness on top is really great." I say "yeah, we didn't bench cut this because we just couldn't get it done within a certain timeframe." 

Now that I've built a few trails with a proper bench cut, I have no desire to build any without. Just seems dumb...around here at least.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

We hardly ever bench cut, or do more than we have to. I've watched a lot of ridden in tread develop into a perfect bench. Placement of the line is critical, but after a couple years you can't tell the difference. We hate to disturb the topsoil if we don't have to, and don't have much use for full bench highways. Leaving the duff looks the same or better in about two years in most cases. Sustainable old school trail is possible and desirable if the terrain permits, western high desert/mountain in this case.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

bweide said:


> I think questions about benching always depend on the amount of cross slope. Trails contouring on a 10% or less cross slope don't need to be benched because the benched trail would be outsloped at about the same angle as the cross sloped. On a steep cross slope you have no choice but to bench, otherwise there is no tread to walk/ride on. In steep terrain even partially benched trails are unacceptable. A 24" quarter-benched trail on a steep cross slope would be only 6 inches wide.
> 
> Since they require significantly less work, why not build all contouring trails on 10% or less cross slopes? The problem with contouring trails on 10% cross slope is there isn't a lot of downhill slope to keep the trail draining. On low cross slope contouring trails the critical edge often develops a berm, trapping water on the trail and capturing rocks. On steeper cross slopes the sudden drop off at the edge of the trail encourages water and debris to exit the trail.
> 
> So 10% or less cross slope trails might technically be following the rules of good trail design but moving the trail onto steeper cross slopes that require benching would result in significantly improved sustainability. I often see contouring trails with drainage issues that would have been prevented by moving them 30 ft up slope and the only reason that didn't occur was to avoid the effort of benching.


I think this is absolutely correct. But what do you do when limited space requires the trail to be built in exactly such terrain?

-Recognize that the lack of side-slope is a liability, not an asset.
-Design grade reversals into the trail. Use terrain features such as trees and rocks to force drainage.
-Do maintenance early and often. De-berming is critical. Clean out clogged drainage knicks ASAP.

Walt


----------



## tcstoned (Mar 29, 2006)

Im partial to rake it, ride it low impact trail building. Less erosion. The look and feel seems more like mountainbiking, not trail riding. I know you imba nuts dont like it. Sorry my two cents.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Our terrain and vegetation does not allow rake and ride. I cannot imagine putting in trails without bench cutting.





Dense chaparral everywhere (hauling peeler core to build a switchback platform).





There are various ways to clear brush containing coyote brush, coffee berry, blackberry, poison oak, and other tangled vine stuff. Here is one:


----------



## mtbikernc69 (Mar 23, 2004)

> How do you folks deal/respond to stuff like this?


I ignore them or tell them to never do any construction, maintenance or repair on any of the trails I work on. Yea it's harsh, but it's straight forward, no BS, "that's just how it is". Anything worth doing is worth doing right and if you're not going to eventually do it right, don't do it at all. I'm one of those fanatical detail types. Deal with it.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

tcstoned said:


> Im partial to rake it, ride it low impact trail building. Less erosion. The look and feel seems more like mountainbiking, not trail riding. I know you imba nuts dont like it. Sorry my two cents.


i'm not an imba nut. But if you are saying trail that is 100% "rake and ride" should be the RULE and STANDARD, then you really don't understand trail building or mountain biking.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> We hardly ever bench cut, or do more than we have to. I've watched a lot of ridden in tread develop into a perfect bench. Placement of the line is critical, but after a couple years you can't tell the difference. We hate to disturb the topsoil if we don't have to, and don't have much use for full bench highways. Leaving the duff looks the same or better in about two years in most cases. Sustainable old school trail is possible and desirable if the terrain permits, western high desert/mountain in this case.


Haha "we hate to disturb the topsoil"...

Here in some spots we have up to 2 feet of organic before we hit mineral. You must live on the moon or something...


----------



## Berkley (May 21, 2007)

When it comes to difficult sections of trail - tight corners and the like - rake and ride just doesn't work. When you allow people to pick their own line, it results in a trail that ends up far wider than it should be. Benching creates an "acceptable" line and challenges people to ride it which in turn results in a lower impact factor.

That being said there are some areas where we have neglected to bench cut - one of the most fun trails we ride was never benched, and runs mostly through pines with a lot of loamy tread. It actually has worked out - drains well and it's really fun to ride.


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

*Bench vs. Rake In Experiment*

It would be interesting to conduct an experiment creating two parallel trails, one raked in on a 10% cross slope low on a hillside and a benched in trail up higher on the hillside in a section of 25% cross slope. Both trails would be similiar in every other possible respect. For example, both would have the same average overall grade and the same number/spacing of grade reversals. It would then be interesting to see how the two trails aged and how much maintenance they each needed.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

bweide said:


> It would be interesting to conduct an experiment creating two parallel trails, one raked in on a 10% cross slope low on a hillside and a benched in trail up higher on the hillside in a section of 25% cross slope. Both trails would be similiar in every other possible respect. For example, both would have the same average overall grade and the same number/spacing of grade reversals. It would then be interesting to see how the two trails aged and how much maintenance they each needed.


I'd like to see that. Either in several different types of ground and weather conditions or in an area that is as "average" as you can find.

I've got fall-line trails here that will never flow no matter how much water you put on them (4 feet of snow melt + 10 inches of rain in a week).

I've got other trails within a few hundred feet that would flow in a heavy fog if they weren't benched right.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Found a ~500 year old trail (30" wide, 6" cup, obviously built) on the side of a ridge a couple weeks ago. Hasn't been used in a long time. Going to prune some scrub oaks that have grown up in places but otherwise it's 90% rideable. The other 10% is mostly due to LARGE (up to 600 years old) trees falling parallel onto the trail. The route breaks a lot of rules, but it's genius because it was used/built by someone (maybe over generations) who knew the terrain intimately. Almost all construction techniques are specific to a locale, and what is important in one soil/climate combo can be ignored in others. It's important to know which, overbuilding is as unacceptable as under building if aesthetics are considered, it's about finding the ideal path.


----------



## justinwp (Nov 12, 2010)

I would say there is never any reason to do less than a full bench cut when on any significant slope. Given the realities of maintenance on many trails(not enough) why take the chance.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

justinwp said:


> I would say there is never any reason to do less than a full bench cut when on any significant slope. Given the realities of maintenance on many trails(not enough) why take the chance.


Because you will use/build/have exponentially less trail, and it will not give the same riding experience. In the motorized world, for instance, driving down a forest two track is an entirely different experience than driving down a county road with a constructed road bed. So with trails, and while there may be many reasons for constructed trail beds there are also good reasons for "old school" trail treads. My favorite trails are what I call primitive trails, and I find them fun to ride because they present such an array of challeges and obstacles while generally following the path of least resistance. They don't particularly favor bikers but do tend to have a good flow for bike length and width objects. The more constructed trails seem a little mediocre in comparison, it's not something that can really be reproduced. It's the path of a wild system on it's own terms, and worth maintaining as such. I realize not all places are suitable for this, but the ones that are should be maintained with as little interference as possible so that this experienced can be preserved. The high desert/mountain southwest is such a place and that is what our approach is in the Zuni Mountains Trail Partnership. We are integrating this approach with water course restoration, the real key to maintaining an area's natural personality.

Sorry for the slight hijack/digression, but I it's a part of the picture. Waiting for the temp to hit 40° before heading out... check out yesterday's find:


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

bsieb said:


> Almost all construction techniques are specific to a locale, and what is important in one soil/climate combo can be ignored in others. It's important to know which, overbuilding is as unacceptable as under building


+1

"Allowing a trail to appear" seems to work perfectly in my area: pick a line between the trees, clear some bushes, sticks and branches, ride it a couple of times, point it out to some of the guys riding in the area.

In many other areas this clearly wouldn't work at all.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> The more constructed trails seem a little mediocre in comparison, it's not something that can really be reproduced. It's the path of a wild system on it's own terms, and worth maintaining as such.


i 100% understand what you're talking about. i would say for most people on this board who've participated in trail maintenance on primitive paths and rogue trail building, we've both ridden and worked on trails that are less "constructed".

But sustainable build practices are necessary for a trail system that has high traffic. These trails that follow the path of a wild system work because they don't get alot of traffic, and once they do, they reveal their weaker points with wash-outs, ruts, erosion to the level where sections become unrideable.

If you are going to "construct" a trail in the manner of which you want it to resemble more of a meandering desire path, you have to be smart in your routing, and you have to put more work into some sections or expect to put more work into sections later. You can still implement sustainable building techniques into what you are talking about, but it takes more careful work up front. This should not be confused with discounting the importance of sustainable trail building practices.

The original point of this thread was talking about bench cutting and it's validity. As a sustainable application there simply is nothing more appropriate on a hill slope for a popular trail.

Hard work is necessary and needed for trails. i've chased behind a group of trail builders that want to slam out as much trail as possible, They laughed at IMBA build practices and how unnecessary they were as they cut in fall line trails. i've also seen internet arguments about other trails they've built, they've been super protective at having races held at trails they've built, and scold people for not helping trail build on one hand, and discourage people from riding the trails in crummy condition on the other. The 500 lb. gorilla is the do alot of work, but they cut corners for having maximum mileage. It's not that this area is more fragile than a trail system in some woods 10 or 100 miles away. It's the build practices, what people want out of them.

But to me i don't think it's constructive at all to spell out all the ways that sustainable build practices are unpractical and unnecessary. Even in your case the construction of rehabilitation of a trail that fits the character of a trail you favor, takes more work up front in careful deliberation and examination in planning.

But to me i see on the ground where people on one hand talk bad about people who don't do trail work, but by their very own trail building practices create more work down the road... It happens all the time, and as a minority i'm looking to defend the ideal of quality and sustainability.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I agree that it takes more planning and care in routing, and it's not exactly about cutting corners, it's kind of about the opposite. Mindlessly running maximum full bench through contours could be considered cutting corners too. I want more options and more variety in my experience. Deficiencies in existing trails can be mitigated, we do it all the time. We work hard at bringing a trail into sustainability without changing it's personality. And yes, you are completely right about needing more constructed trails to manage heavy traffic, although that can be diluted somewhat by having a larger distributed network to absorb the traffic. That is the philosophy the FS is using currently around here, so it meshes well. 

Another thing that needs to be said is that I'm talking about trail development in the context of an official Partnership which includes the FS, NPS, BLM, State, County, and local governments, and a handful of private non-profits. An entire mountain is being sculpted into a ride destination consisting of hundreds of miles of singletrack linking in at least six communities ranging from 26,000 to 260 residents. On the ground resources include professional YCC crews and supervisors, including a retired FS trail engineer with international experience who thinks nothing of chiseling out a trail ledge in solid rock. Our YCC crew members have developed their masonry skills over many years and do stunning natural stone features reminiscent of past historic CCC projects. They also are perfecting a rolling grade dip that works well on low side slope trail. Not your typical rake and ride operation, but that essentially is what it all is following. A very artistic and solidly engineered form of rake and ride blended into existing historic/ancient corridors and singletracks. I suspect any experienced trail designer/builder would end up doing things about the same way in our particular location. Hike a few dozen miles of 500 year old trail and you get a pretty good feel for how these trails age and what problems need to be headed off. We are discovering that full watershed restoration is fundamentally tied to trail sustainability on this mountain. Again, maybe not your average scenario but really every situation is unique, and I guess that is what ties this in to the OP.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

bweide said:


> It would be interesting to conduct an experiment creating two parallel trails, one raked in on a 10% cross slope low on a hillside and a benched in trail up higher on the hillside in a section of 25% cross slope. Both trails would be similiar in every other possible respect. For example, both would have the same average overall grade and the same number/spacing of grade reversals. It would then be interesting to see how the two trails aged and how much maintenance they each needed.


We just built a trail in Stowe VT, we left some rake and ride and benched alot. The stuff we left "old School" we guided pretty heavily because we know as soon as the root bed becomes exposed people are going to start trying to ride around them. We anticipate the briging in of material as the OM compacts and displaces, but in the specific circumstance (terraced terrain where it is hard if not impossible to side-hill) we think that between keeping the trail on the crowned high ground and hummocks, and keeping folks on the tread by guiding, the trail will be sustainable and the root bed will act as a natural armouring. Again the real crux here will be keeping people on trail where it becomes rooty. Personally, in New England, I like riding primative trail the best, but it can only handle light traffic before it gets widened and looses it's single track asthetic. I feel like if you are building as part of a legal, advertised network, you have to build it bomber. Over the first few season it will tighten up as the real line gets burned in.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

DaveVt said:


> I like riding primative trail the best, but it can only handle light traffic


That may well be one reason why "primitive" works here. There's a plenty of trail users but there's also lots of trails, so one single trail does not take all the "load".


----------



## monkeyhands (May 10, 2009)

The problem is when people take what they learned in IMBA trailbuilding school and treat it like dogma in their own work and in criticizing the work of others. The end result of is often that they make boring, uncreative trails. Trailbuilding is like an artform than anything in that there are some generally accepted best practices rather than hard and fast rules. Simply saying that the ONLY acceptable way to build a trail is with a full bench cut prevents a trailbuilder from using the entire palette of available options, depending on the terrain, soil and climate. There are times and places where rake and ride is perfectly acceptable and there are times when it is not. Likewise there are instances where a full bench is necessary and times when it is not. A good trailbuilder will have the insight and experience necessary to make that judgement so that the end result fits within the vision he has for his creation.

A hack will follow the rules to a T without any imagination.
A true artist knows the rules and also knows when to break them.


----------



## tcstoned (Mar 29, 2006)

Well said.


----------



## juice (Feb 8, 2004)

Responding in general to this thread; come back after 5 years of maintaining your work and then let's talk.


----------



## Berkley (May 21, 2007)

I never understood the guys who prefer the "natural" thing when it comes to riding. The fact that a trail is present in the woods, eliminates anything natural about it (ignoring deer trails and the like). If you're going to go to the trouble of riding a trail, you might as well build it in a way that will minimize impact and in turn keep it as natural as possible.

Bench cutting and proper construction eliminates enormous mud pits that form when people ride around small areas of mud. It also lets us drain the trail in areas where there are springs, or where re-routing a traditionally wet section is not possible. 

Once most of the leaves have fallen, we leaf blow as many of the trails as possible. Easier to follow the trail, more fun IMO, and keeps them drier following precipitation and during the spring melt out. The areas we ride and build in receive quite a bit of precipitation and without a proper bench cut and removal of decomposing material, many of them end up retaining moisture and become nightmares in terms of traction and erosion. They end up really tough to ride when you have a thick layer of wet leaves covering the also wet roots and rocks. Some people enjoy spending every waking minute trying not to slide out and crash. I don't.

As mentioned above, rake and ride might work initially, but down the road it often becomes a problem. Also, benching doesn't mean removing all technical challenge. Where we build, if you remove 1 rock/root, 3 more pop up in its place. You can build technical trails with a proper bench cut.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

juice said:


> Responding in general to this thread; come back after 5 years of maintaining your work and then let's talk.


OK. Here's pics of a few pieces of trail that are several decades old. The only use of tools has been to trim the infringing vegetation or remove deadfall.














































This one is only a few years old, cleared by trimming some branches and bushes.


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

A lot of times trail building discussions seem to degenerate into "OR" discussions. Benching or rake and ride. Outslope or grade reversals. Quality layout or quality construction. Sustainable or natural. These are usually false distinctions. The correct answer is generally both. Benching and rake and ride. Outslope and grade reversals. Quality layout and quality construction. Sustainable and natural. The trick is to know when and where to apply each method.

I agree with the distinction between a hack and a true artist with the caveat that the true artist first has to have a deep and thorough understanding of the rules so they know when to apply the rules and when not. You can't skip over learning the rules step to becoming a true artist. Unfortunately a lot of people who seem consider themselves artists have skipped over the learning the rules step.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Even though I sometimes post here, I do not consider myself a trail builder.

I mainly ride what has been there for years. Occasionally, a need for a new connection or reroute presents itself in the rather small area that I know intimately. Then I go out and see if the terrain presents a solution. Often it does. And "my" solution is adopted by the riders in the area.


----------



## tcstoned (Mar 29, 2006)

How bout maintaining, building, and riding for more than fifteen years. Now thats juicy.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

There's places where riding it is all the building and regular maintenance that is needed. 

Trimming the vegetation might be needed occasionally.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

One huge variable in how is trail is built, rake and ride vs full bench cut, is the amount of traffic and the weather climate.

We have old overgrown mining roads up in the hills, that have reverted to single track; a few of us work on brushing to keep them open, but no tread work means very "primitive" trails. Best guess is that these trails get 20 - 50 users, 99% or higher mountain bike, per month. The majority of the riders do not know they exist or will not make the effort to get to them. They hold up really well.





In the California State Park where I am the trail steward, it gets 100+, up to 1000+ users a day, each and every day, 365 days a year, thanks to the location near the ocean and our mild climate. Of that use, 20-50% is equestrian traffic from visitors who camp and locals who trailer in daily. On top of that, our rainy season only runs from Oct to April at best, no rain in the late spring to early fall months. Bench cut is the only thing that works; rake and ride would be blown out in days.

Here is a good example of a grade reversal getting blown out. We use peeler core to keep horses and bikes from knocking down the outside edge, but they tend to get short cut.


----------



## sambs827 (Dec 8, 2008)

Berkley said:


> When it comes to difficult sections of trail - tight corners and the like - rake and ride just doesn't work. When you allow people to pick their own line, it results in a trail that ends up far wider than it should be. Benching creates an "acceptable" line and challenges people to ride it which in turn results in a lower impact factor.
> 
> That being said there are some areas where we have neglected to bench cut - one of the most fun trails we ride was never benched, and runs mostly through pines with a lot of loamy tread. It actually has worked out - drains well and it's really fun to ride.


Some parts of it, anyway......

The worst is when you do a full bench cut and think you have it right, only to find that it's a swamp a week later.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

monkeyhands said:


> A hack will follow the rules to a T without any imagination.
> A true artist knows the rules and also knows when to break them.


haha i know what you're saying, but c'mon... "artist"... really?....



juice said:


> Responding in general to this thread; come back after 5 years of maintaining your work and then let's talk.


5 years around here is actually a pretty decent timeline.

**********

i look at it from not only the point of view of a trail builder, but as being in the construction trade for a long time. i understand and have been part of some pretty impressive works in and out of my profession, and i have no illusion of how much energy it takes for something to happen.

Time versus quality is always something that people have to weigh and considering that a vast majority of the effort we're discussing is pure volunteer basis you have to factor in having limited resources.

i understand the concept of having the capacity to not only know the rules, but also have first hand conceptualization of why the rules and standards are created. That's where folk can actually wrap their head around something and have enough proficiency to cheat around a problem.

i understand that concept of people applying the principles in a more concrete manner, and i agree that it can be a problem. Many times i wonder if it's folk who are not technically gifted hiding behind the excuse of the standard. In other words, the book says a root will create a dam so i should remove it or some other nonsense. If that's the case then it's not the standard, it's the builder skewing the guidelines to fit the technical level of the building rider. (which is super common on both sides of the spectrum, but is another topic)

i think the conversation is working it's way to the center of the path now in terms of both sides saying similar enough things. But i personally think it's best to advocate more on the side of quality of standards, because it's really easy to lose, and a culture is created on the skimp.

Are we not as individuals looking to grow mt. biking. Land managers who entrust us with building quality low maintenance trails are going to get pissed if we make them look bad with headaches that have no solutions. And what we're doing is handing off the headache and the solutions to the next generation. And if they're all of the mind that cutting corners is the standard, then are we not just perpetuating more and more work, and losing opportunity to put energy and effort in other things?


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

perttime said:


> OK. Here's pics of a few pieces of trail that are several decades old. The only use of tools has been to trim the infringing vegetation or remove deadfall.


You have a lot of rock in soil in the picture you took. That provides an outstanding tread base. In other words rock is hard, helps reinforce the shape of the trail tread. In other words you can beat the $hit out of it.

The other picture you provide of a newer trail looks like it was build on an old road bed. i could be wrong, but if that's the case, again you are likely going to have a trail on something that was constructed for machines and has subsequently just grown back in, and someone reclaimed a trail through it...


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Skookum said:


> You have a lot of rock in soil in the picture you took. That provides an outstanding tread base.
> 
> ...
> 
> The other picture you provide of a newer trail looks like it was build on an old road bed.


Much of the ground here has lots of rocks and roots in it. The rocks have been there for the last 10,000 years, or so. They do help with keeping things from getting rutted. Also, the ground mainly soaks up all the water.

The last pic?
It is part of an esker (didn't know that word before): a ridge of gravel and stuff left by the last ice age. Very common here. As far as I know, there was never a road in exactly that location. The shiny thing on the right is a 4 lane main road, cut through the esker.

Comparing with slocaus' examples above, I doubt "my" trails see more than a couple of hundred riders in a nice summer month, plus whatever people go by foot. The terrain does not really encourage high speeds or horse riding which also limits the wear and tear. Some of those trails have been used for our annual group ride event, meaning maybe 200 riders in a day. After such days, you can tell there's been some traffic there but the ground recovers very well.


----------



## TunicaTrails (Jun 29, 2009)

HUGE +1 :thumbsup: A certain someone I know turned into a huge PITA once he learned to coin "sustainability" for things he liked and was responsible for, and "unsustainable" for everything else he wanted to put his stamp on. Although good trail workers are truly gems, it's gotten to the point where it makes me wish I could give back all the great volunteer work he gave us sometimes.



monkeyhands said:


> The problem is when people take what they learned in IMBA trailbuilding school and treat it like dogma in their own work and in criticizing the work of others. The end result of is often that they make boring, uncreative trails. Trailbuilding is like an artform than anything in that there are some generally accepted best practices rather than hard and fast rules. Simply saying that the ONLY acceptable way to build a trail is with a full bench cut prevents a trailbuilder from using the entire palette of available options, depending on the terrain, soil and climate. There are times and places where rake and ride is perfectly acceptable and there are times when it is not. Likewise there are instances where a full bench is necessary and times when it is not. A good trailbuilder will have the insight and experience necessary to make that judgement so that the end result fits within the vision he has for his creation.
> 
> A hack will follow the rules to a T without any imagination.
> A true artist knows the rules and also knows when to break them.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

monkeyhands said:


> The problem is when people take what they learned in IMBA trailbuilding school and treat it like dogma in their own work and in criticizing the work of others. The end result of is often that they make boring, uncreative trails. Trailbuilding is like an artform than anything in that there are some generally accepted best practices rather than hard and fast rules. Simply saying that the ONLY acceptable way to build a trail is with a full bench cut prevents a trailbuilder from using the entire palette of available options, depending on the terrain, soil and climate. There are times and places where rake and ride is perfectly acceptable and there are times when it is not. Likewise there are instances where a full bench is necessary and times when it is not. A good trailbuilder will have the insight and experience necessary to make that judgement so that the end result fits within the vision he has for his creation.
> 
> A hack will follow the rules to a T without any imagination.
> A true artist knows the rules and also knows when to break them.


Word.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Skookum said:


> haha i know what you're saying, but c'mon... "artist"... really?....
> 
> 5 years around here is actually a pretty decent timeline.
> 
> ...


I'm wondering whether we all need to be building trails that will last forever. Mountain bike trails are dependent on riders to keep the tread packed and visible and without use they disappear quickly around here. We have to grow the trail network as users are able to keep more tread ridden in, it limits how much new trail we can develop. This is the opposite problem some of you have, so different tactics and methods are to be expected. When use becomes heavy enough to warrant constructed trail bed that can be done. (By some of the logic here small towns should only be installing 4 lane highways as streets so that they will last forever.) Many of us have plenty (!) of time to prepare for large onslaughts of hundreds or thousands of riders per day on the same trail. In the meantime, we will offer our increasingly rare, well preserved, narrow, old skool singletracks which waltz, rather than commute, through all different kinds of terrain and exhibit many trail construction/maintenance techniques, usually the simplest method that works well over time, up to 20 years for some trails. As a retired general contractor I know everything has to be maintained, even fully benched trail. A more realistic approach is to seek that sweet spot where you get maximum ride experience for minimal initial and ongoing effort. That way you can have more miles of trail and less of those blown out six feet wide maintenance monstrosities.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

bsieb said:


> I'm wondering whether we all need to be building trails that will last forever. Mountain bike trails are dependent on riders to keep the tread packed and visible and without use they disappear quickly around here. We have to grow the trail network as users are able to keep more tread ridden in, it limits how much new trail we can develop. This is the opposite problem some of you have, so different tactics and methods are to be expected. When use becomes heavy enough to warrant constructed trail bed that can be done. (By some of the logic here small towns should only be installing 4 lane highways as streets so that they will last forever.) Many of us have plenty (!) of time to prepare for large onslaughts of hundreds or thousands of riders per day on the same trail. In the meantime, we will offer our increasingly rare, well preserved, narrow, old skool singletracks which waltz, rather than commute, through all different kinds of terrain and exhibit many trail construction/maintenance techniques, usually the simplest method that works well over time, up to 20 years for some trails. As a retired general contractor I know everything has to be maintained, even fully benched trail. A more realistic approach is to seek that sweet spot where you get maximum ride experience for minimal initial and ongoing effort. That way you can have more miles of trail and less of those blown out six feet wide maintenance monstrosities.


There's a lot to unpack here. I'd take issue with the implication that more work up front equals more maintenance down the road. My experience is opposite, if the work is put into sustainable design. I'm personally spending about half my time replacing poorly laid out trail (some that I did myself) that is less than 5 years old and has not had huge amounts of use.

I have little experience with 6' wide trails except as repurposed fire road. Around here these trails are generally not so much designed as slashed in for the quickest way between two points, so I'm not sure that supports your argument. Apologies if I'm making an unwarranted assumption.

I agree that there is no such thing as maintenance free trail. However, I'd like you to tell me that you have a sure fire way to get people excited about redoing what's already been done instead of building new trail, and every person who dearly loves the old, eroded to $hit trail is going to fall in line and support the effort to keep the trail up to decent quality. Because I'm getting really sick of fighting these battles.

Walt


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Walt Dizzy said:


> There's a lot to unpack here. I'd take issue with the implication that more work up front equals more maintenance down the road. My experience is opposite, if the work is put into sustainable design. I'm personally spending about half my time replacing poorly laid out trail (some that I did myself) that is less than 5 years old and has not had huge amounts of use.
> 
> I have little experience with 6' wide trails except as repurposed fire road. Around here these trails are generally not so much designed as slashed in for the quickest way between two points, so I'm not sure that supports your argument. Apologies if I'm making an unwarranted assumption.
> 
> ...


Wasn't implying more work up front means more later on, that's ridiculous.  I'm saying everything takes maintenance, and if it is at an acceptable level then what's the problem? And I'm not talking about eroded out trails, I don't have any. The old trail I have is a hundred years old or more, certainly pre-IMBA, mostly in good condition. (The 6' referred to the picture slocaus posted above) I use a lot of non-volunteer resources so that's maybe a tactical difference. Mostly I just don't do too much bench cutting, leaning heavily on intelligent design instead. Well designed old skool path of least resistance trail. It's the place really, they're all different, and we cannot emphasize that too much. One patented trail building method doesn't fit all places, it ain't a battle, I get sick of making that point. Maybe we need to distinguish between low use/back country/mtb trail and high use/urban/multi trail, not much those have in common really.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Pictures are good. Reading perttime's posts I was thinking "that wouldn't work". Then I see the pictures and obviously it does work. 2 of the trails in his pictures would wash out in a week around here and one would be a mud bog in a month. You can see most of that trail has been around for a while and is holding up well.

You could run a fire hose on this trail and the water would disappear in 20 feet. It's a full bench but it could have been a ditch and still worked. About 500 feet down the trail I had to build an aqueduct under the trail to run water down the trail to a spot I could get it off the side.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Trail Ninja said:


> Reading perttime's posts I was thinking "that wouldn't work". Then I see the pictures and obviously it does work. 2 of the trails in his pictures would wash out in a week around here and one would be a mud bog in a month. You can see most of that trail has been around for a while and is holding up well.


A couple of things are becoming obvious to me 

1. What works in my area would be totally unacceptable in many other places. I must not try to tell you how to do a trail in your area.

2. In a few different ways I am lucky with the conditions we have:
- the ground is mainly pretty tough and tolerant, and recovers well even when abused a bit. 
- probably, digging up all the embedded roots and rocks to make a "constructed" trail would result in less durable trails.
- we have a tradition where a trail is not a big deal. Neither is going out into the woods for a day. So there's lots of trails for a not-that-large population

There are some spots that get soft in wet weather but they recover well even if they get rutted. Also, people who frequent the trails know where the likely soft spots are and have other trail options if they do not want to get the bike dirty. The vegetation usually restricts the possible lines so that going around a puddle is much harder than going through it.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

bsieb said:


> I'm wondering whether we all need to be building trails that will last forever. Mountain bike trails are dependent on riders to keep the tread packed and visible and without use they disappear quickly around here. We have to grow the trail network as users are able to keep more tread ridden in, it limits how much new trail we can develop. This is the opposite problem some of you have, so different tactics and methods are to be expected. When use becomes heavy enough to warrant constructed trail bed that can be done. (By some of the logic here small towns should only be installing 4 lane highways as streets so that they will last forever.) Many of us have plenty (!) of time to prepare for large onslaughts of hundreds or thousands of riders per day on the same trail. In the meantime, we will offer our increasingly rare, well preserved, narrow, old skool singletracks which waltz, rather than commute, through all different kinds of terrain and exhibit many trail construction/maintenance techniques, usually the simplest method that works well over time, up to 20 years for some trails. As a retired general contractor I know everything has to be maintained, even fully benched trail. A more realistic approach is to seek that sweet spot where you get maximum ride experience for minimal initial and ongoing effort. That way you can have more miles of trail and less of those blown out six feet wide maintenance monstrosities.


I look at it this way. When you are building on public land for an advertised trail network like the IMBA ride center up here in the stowe/waterbury VT area, you have to build it bomber. Having these big, easy to find and well built networks are a buffer for the more primative, misty, old school networks. In Stowe, it amazed me how much we were able to funnel traffic to the town forrest once we put in a small network of signed riding. Alot of the other loops that were getting hammered and had completely lost their asthetic value as single tracks reverted back to sweet old school trail. As someone said before, you can not generalize and say one way of construction is the only way. Traffic is the big variable IMO. 
Also, I disagree that IMBA style full benched trail automatically means it's boring. Average speeds greatly increase and the sense of flow does with it. The technicality comes in proper braking and cornering techniques and the better riders will ride these trails much faster then beginners. In this way one trail bed is enjoyable to many skill levels of MTBer and you don't need multiple lines. Also, if the builder is creative, features like armouring and grade reversals can be designed to accomodate multiple skill levels and will be ridden differently by different riders.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

bsieb said:


> Wasn't implying more work up front means more later on, that's ridiculous.  I'm saying everything takes maintenance, and if it is at an acceptable level then what's the problem? And I'm not talking about eroded out trails, I don't have any. The old trail I have is a hundred years old or more, certainly pre-IMBA, mostly in good condition. (The 6' referred to the picture slocaus posted above) I use a lot of non-volunteer resources so that's maybe a tactical difference. Mostly I just don't do too much bench cutting, leaning heavily on intelligent design instead. Well designed old skool path of least resistance trail. It's the place really, they're all different, and we cannot emphasize that too much. One patented trail building method doesn't fit all places, it ain't a battle, I get sick of making that point. Maybe we need to distinguish between low use/back country/mtb trail and high use/urban/multi trail, not much those have in common really.


Thanks for explaining your thoughts. I hadn't read all the posts above yours, it seems that the topic has shifted toward why we don't want to fix what isn't broken. My bad for not picking up on the change in discussion.

Edit/ I won't argue the point that bench cutting may not be needed at all times. Because I don't always do it myself. /Edit

Walt


----------



## jollybeggar (Feb 2, 2004)

It's seems to me that a well laid out route would over come the need for excessive trail "building". If you choose your route wisely your trail will need less modifying of the natural terrain and result in less damage to the environment around it. Keeping benching, and switchbacks to a minimal I would think would be the ideal, learning to read the terrain and build with low impact in mind would prevent many problems from being created by over building.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

jollybeggar said:


> It's seems to me that a well laid out route would over come the need for excessive trail "building". If you choose your route wisely your trail will need less modifying of the natural terrain and result in less damage to the environment around it. Keeping benching, and switchbacks to a minimal I would think would be the ideal, learning to read the terrain and build with low impact in mind would prevent many problems from being created by over building.


In theory, depending on your terrain and vegatation......











Laying out new trail through chaparral.







We basically try to follow the IMBA 5% to 15% grade and half rules, depending mostly on soils, but with deep chaparral and steep slopes, your "natural" trails would mean you would walk the beach, but you would not ride in the mountains here. 

But our trails are spectacular, even if we have do to a lot of construction, bench cutting and brush clearing!


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

Skookum said:


> The other picture you provide of a newer trail looks like it was build on an old road bed. i could be wrong, but if that's the case, again you are likely going to have a trail on something that was constructed for machines and has subsequently just grown back in, and someone reclaimed a trail through it...


+1 on the old logging route comment. Those trees are very young, there's an exit route for a skidder there somewhere and I think we're looking at it. There's already a berm forming on the lower edge but that's easy enough to knick if a puddle forms.

Pretending the highway isn't below, I would have meandered the trail up/down the slope to the right. Much more initial work, much more fun trail at the end of the day, and I wouldn't be worried about knicking that berm because the drainage points would be very well defined.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

jollybeggar said:


> It's seems to me that a well laid out route would over come the need for excessive trail "building". If you choose your route wisely your trail will need less modifying of the natural terrain and result in less damage to the environment around it. Keeping benching, and switchbacks to a minimal I would think would be the ideal, learning to read the terrain and build with low impact in mind would prevent many problems from being created by over building.


Most builders are already looking to minimize switchbacks, it takes about 50 man hours to build one by hand properly!

On the benching comment, I hope you're not advocating selecting those flat spots along the bottom of the hill for the trail. People looking at those flat spots really need a trail building class. Ridge routes can work, but they can definitely be done wrong too. Regardless of whether you bench or not, the trail should still have a sustainable alignment and stay out of low lying areas that will collect water.

Once you have that figured out, whether or not to bench can come down to desired trail spec. If you only need a 1 foot wide tread, that's something that can be ridden in, depending on your conditions. If you have to have 3 foot wide tread, you're benching if you have any significant side slope.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Fattirewilly said:


> +1 on the old logging route comment. Those trees are very young, there's an exit route for a skidder there somewhere and I think we're looking at it. There's already a berm forming on the lower edge but that's easy enough to knick if a puddle forms.
> 
> Pretending the highway isn't below, I would have meandered the trail up/down the slope to the right. Much more initial work, much more fun trail at the end of the day, and I wouldn't be worried about knicking that berm because the drainage points would be very well defined.


Replay









OK, that is not exactly virgin wilderness. More like a suburban bypass to avoid going on the pavement. The trees are young because they were planted after the highway was cut through the ridge. So the whole sideslope is man-made. The bushes on the left are apparently a fence gone wild and there's buildings on the other side of them. Puddles are unlikely, as the ground will soak up almost any amount of water.

Making the trail meander up and down would be fun but cutting trees to make a trail goes against my grain. Not so sure I would have got permission to do it either, or to do all the digging it would take to make it fast enough to work. The main interest in the part of the trail just ahead is merely staying on the skinny tread, in the sideslope, between the trees and the bushes. Then there's a short piece of open ground where you can pick up enough speed that you don't have to pedal up onto the following - totally artificial - noise barrier.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

jollybeggar said:


> result in less damage to the environment around it.


False.

Edit: Much of what is offered on internet boards is opinion. There are some opinions waged within this thread. But the notion that properly built sustainable trail building practices damage the environment is completely unfounded and absolutely false.

It's such a backwards statement. i don't mean to pick on you specifically JollyB. But i really wonder where all this stuff derives from. Right now i'm building a trail that's a dual track trail, i am actually building what could be the equivalent to a jeep trail. It's averaging 10' in width, and i guarantee you that if everybody stopped riding it, it would only take about 3-5 years before nature reclaims it. But some of the trail would still be around because animals would still use it. Animals are all lazy, they'll use the easy path when on the move.

Lazy like people who would rather put a rake on the dirt and scrub it around for a few seconds. Hydrology, erosion meh...


----------



## FM (Apr 30, 2003)

Skookum said:


> i've chased behind a group of trail builders that want to slam out as much trail as possible, They laughed at IMBA build practices and how unnecessary they were as they cut in fall line trails. i've also seen internet arguments about other trails they've built, they've been super protective at having races held at trails they've built, and scold people for not helping trail build on one hand, and discourage people from riding the trails in crummy condition on the other. The 500 lb. gorilla is the do alot of work, but they cut corners for having maximum mileage.


Skooks, I just came across this thread.

Not sure exactly who you are attempting to call out here- sounds like you don't actually know either. Regardless, poor form IMO. :nono:


----------



## zachi (Jul 25, 2006)

This has been a great thread. Much has been said. I am middle of the road in regards to liking less constructed trails but due to terrain and resources build 3ft benched trail with mechanized. I am as conscious to sustainability as my skill allows and I love to leave my trail as a finished piece with minimal visual disruption. That means usually as close to a 3/4 bench as possible with lots of hand work behind re dispersing organics to leave a 20" tread on virgin bench. 

Speaking from experience, what has not been said... is that it is all about relationship. The issue is how does one trail builder express their values to another. This does not happen from a place of judgment or right vs wrong. The more a person does not feel heard, the more extreme they become in expressing their opinions. Ultimately, a trail builder needs to be as much a relationship builder as a contractor due to the high amount of interaction with users and volunteers that normally occurs. 

Beer and food is a toxic love potion. Jet, from our local youth group bakes killer pies every trail day. I would show up just for that. Accepting and appreciating others efforts opens their ears to your input that the best of logic could never achieve. 

I only have this experience from the pain of one who has made all the mistakes. We are not coffin builders, we build beautiful escapes from the world we live in. Our approach should mimic the love and flow of our trails...

z


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Well said zachi... VERY well said.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

FM said:


> Skooks, I just came across this thread.
> 
> Not sure exactly who you are attempting to call out here- sounds like you don't actually know either. Regardless, poor form IMO. :nono:


Sorry you feel that way, i don't feel that way whatsoever.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

zachi said:


> This has been a great thread. Much has been said. I am middle of the road in regards to liking less constructed trails but due to terrain and resources build 3ft benched trail with mechanized. I am as conscious to sustainability as my skill allows and I love to leave my trail as a finished piece with minimal visual disruption. That means usually as close to a 3/4 bench as possible with lots of hand work behind re dispersing organics to leave a 20" tread on virgin bench.
> 
> Speaking from experience, what has not been said... is that it is all about relationship. The issue is how does one trail builder express their values to another. This does not happen from a place of judgment or right vs wrong. The more a person does not feel heard, the more extreme they become in expressing their opinions. Ultimately, a trail builder needs to be as much a relationship builder as a contractor due to the high amount of interaction with users and volunteers that normally occurs.
> 
> ...


Except on the internet. You cannot feed someone who lives so very far away, so unfortunately this tactic falls to the wayside. 
All kidding aside, i don't view most of the folk who've contributed more than a couple posts in this thread being that far apart in approach (or result) even though it reads like it on this thread.
Truth is each trail system is going to require a different approach, but i've always found that by setting standards high, you actually lean in that direction and achieve sustainability by default. And even though i'm currently building a dual track trail that averages 8 feet in width, that shouldn't constitute that i am advocating for super wide boring singletrack by any means.

But going back to your post, i do understand and feel it's very important to provide as much qualified trail building techniques to people who wish to learn. But what is more important and what i absolutely focus on when running a crew is trying to provide a positive experience so people will come back to find their own path in volunteering and stewardship and reap the rewards we all understand come with it. You touch upon that, and in that regard the actual trail becomes absolutely secondary.


----------



## ebxtreme (Jan 6, 2004)

For DH trails, I only full bench sections that require it. In other spots, the corridor is cleared and gets ridden in (gravity helps here, of course) and then fix problem spots as they rear their ugly heads. This is both in the interest of time AND to keep the trail more natural/challenging for the big bikes.

For XC/AM trails, we definitely bench any section that sidehills a slope. I suppose you can get away with the "rake and ride" mentality if it's on flatter ground and won't see much in the way of rider usage. It also helps if you don't have ridiculous amounts of organic on the ground. Again, those will require some work to fill holes and do proper drainage at some point or another.

Word.
EB


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

The tension between the idea of wider fully-benched trails vs. very narrow challenging trails that closely follow terrain is one place where the idea of stacked loops works well. The main trails can be fully benched, often by mechanized construction, and will carry the primary traffic. Spur/connector trails can be narrow hand-built and challenging to offer alternate routes that leave and reconnect with the main trails. Think of it like a ski resort with black diamond runs paralleling green and blue runs and rejoining at the lifts.

I think sustainability should be the key consideration when laying out and constructing trail. The extra work to build fully benched trail is more than offset by the 50 years of maintenance that will be required if the easy to build non-benched trail turns out to be unsustainable or sometimes worse, partially unsustainable. Entirely unsustainable trails get rerouted while partially unsustainable trails just eat up hours of trail work time for their entire lives.


----------

