# 'Rake and Ride' Ramble



## Megashnauzer (Nov 2, 2005)

i first heard the 'rake and ride' term at the imba world summit and it wasn't used in a good way. unfortunately, it's how we build trails in our flat, sandy corner of the world. the trail that was used as an example of rake and ride is a really fun trail although not epic. the person that used the rake and ride term said he hated said trail. do all trails have to be manicured? does it necessarily take several thousands of dollars to have a fun and sustainable mtb trail? thoughts?


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

Megashnauzer said:


> i first heard the 'rake and ride' term at the imba world summit and it wasn't used in a good way. unfortunately, it's how we build trails in our flat, sandy corner of the world. the trail that was used as an example of rake and ride is a really fun trail although not epic. the person that used the rake and ride term said he hated said trail. do all trails have to be manicured? does it necessarily take several thousands of dollars to have a fun and sustainable mtb trail? thoughts?


If flat is all you have, you certainly can not bench flat, so rake and ride it is! The downside to most rake and ride trails is probably the chosen alignment of the trail that was raked.

2 years ago I built a rake and ride with a sustainable side slope alignment. My thought was to create a more challenging section and if I didn't like it, I could just go hit it with the SK650 and it would look like a lot of everything else in my neighborhood's trail system (nearing 10 miles, which is a separate thread all together). The tread is worn it at about 6 inches wide, I've seen people jogging it, and it is in fact more challenging. I wiped out on it two nights ago when my front tire departed from the 6 inches and slid out.


----------



## Bob W (Jul 6, 2004)

*Organics*

I think the main technical issue leading to the negative thoughts on rake and ride trails is tht the organic layer is typically not removed. Granted in some areas (espscially sandy areas) the root structure just below the surface helps hold the trai togehter. But in other areas the leaving of the organic layer can lead to issues down the line.

We have done rake and ride trail in areas that have little organic matter and did not need full bench cut due to side slope. These trail shave held up exceptionally well for the past 4 to 5 years. Like most things it come down tothe specific conditions of your site and how best to construct the trail. Thisis why we have forums like this, to share.

Bob


----------



## seenvic (Sep 9, 2003)

OP - aren't you in FL? Different set of rules down there. Apples and oranges. 

We have done the rake and ride thing here - it doesn't work very well for us. Our forest floor is too thick with matted roots/organic material that raking simply won't remove. Riding on it is slow going, even if going DH. 

In FL, the opposite is true. If you remove all the pine straw, you are riding on sand (sugar sand in much of the state). Leaving the pine straw on top of the sugar sand makes for better riding. I got this info from riders I know and a USFS trails person who rides and knows more about trails than most of us. 

You are not wrong for where you live.


----------



## BigJay (Aug 15, 2004)

Rake n' ride are a primitive form of trailbuilding... it his fast... sometimes can be sort-of sustainable for certain soil types but the main problem is you can't build a destination on rake n' ride trails... but then again, Kingdom Trails did it in Vermont. They have perfect soil and most of the trails are rake n' ride... The type where you clear the corridor... rake the top soil and rely on the thousands of riders each week to "dig" the trail in. Now most of the trails are rooty just like everywhere else.

On the other hand, i have a rake n' ride trail in my backyard. It's 3mi loop and some of it is benched. Some of it is raked (and cut with a weed wacker) and not benched. For the 10 people that get to ride this trail, it does the job. I don't have to think about "impact" because even when totally wet, the trail still rides great. I've built a few bridges on it and 2 years down the line, not a single problem with it!

I guess traffic is the main difference here. Rake n' ride is good when you have very little traffic... but if you plan on building a legal and public trail, you should plan for a "real" trail.

(Again, i'm not saying it can't be done... especially on flat areas)


----------



## Megashnauzer (Nov 2, 2005)

this is a new trail we built and it doesn't see a bunch of traffic because it's in bfe. it will never be a destination but it's worth hitting if you're in town for a while. we're in nw florida so we have mostly sandy soils with some actual dirt in rare spots. organics are a huge reason our trails hold together and it's why i keep the slopes at around 5% max to keep them from washing away. plus the sandy soils drain so fast there are never trail closures. the best time to ride is after the rain when the sand is packed. since this place is never going to be a destination, i see no reason to haul in truckloads of red clay or gravel to make a more stable bed. one of the reasons that the fellow didn't like rake and ride was the rooty sections of trail. roots to us are like rocks to everyone else. it's part of mtbing. i'm not sure if public land managers prefer a manicured trail over the rake and ride variety.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

In E. Texas, I'm sure the soil conditions are similar to yours. The only clay is down in the valleys where you don't exactly want a trail anyway.

And if you dig too deep, you get into some serious unconsolidated sand that washes downhill, creates pits in the low spots, and ruins any flow you might have had otherwise.

There are some areas with seeps and that sort of thing where we can't rake 'n ride, but we typically end up digging out the deep organic muck and then filling in with rock and sand to a point higher than the original soil surface.


----------



## tflounder (May 12, 2008)

I build trails in SFL but grew up in NWFL. Leaving as much organic material on the trail is good and should be encouraged (like planting grass seed). The sand can not hold up to even minor riding, having roots to hold things together could be an answer. serious sand pits can be addressed as needed. I hear complaints about gravel and sand from riders here and I have the same answer for anyone that complains - tough sh*t, if you don't like bumps take up road riding!


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Thanks Megashnauzer. You have pointed out that the "rules" for trail building may work some places for some trails and not for others. 

Where I build we have no dirt/soil/clay. We have solid rock, gravel (big gravel) and a thin layer of organic matter that doesn't decay well (mostly red cedar). The summers are extremely dry and the winters are very rainy.

If you dig to mineral ground you are in loose gravel and if you don't, you have 2" to 6" of what can best be described as bark mulch.

Rake & ride is the preferred method of building here. Not because it's been proven to be the best method but because people are in a hurry to get trails done. It's just coincidence that it's usually the best method.

I'm one of a very few people who will actually cut a trail around here and I create a lot of work for myself trying to stabilize benches on the sides of gravel piles.

Everything here is light traffic so I'm OK with rake & ride.

Big Jay, the Seven Summits in the Kootenays would be a good example of a "destination" rake & ride trail system.

"Recognized as one of a relatively limited number of Epic trails world-wide by the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA). "

It goes to show that you can't apply a set of rules for trail building that's universal. If it works, it works.


----------



## Megashnauzer (Nov 2, 2005)

thanks for the support. like you said, what works, works. i have a fear that the fellow that used the term rake and ride will run into my land manager and tell him we're doing it all wrong. i guess i'll cross that bridge if i come to it.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

I'd also like to mention that I am able to go back and look at trails I "built wrong" 30 years ago and see how well they have stood up. Except for the system with the housing subdivision on top of it, they're all doing fine.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

I've seen Rake 'n Ride work OK across the face of a hill with ~5% fall line slope. Since that's the standard out slope for benched trail, cutting a bench accomplishes very little.

The problem with working on such flat hills is that your maximum trail slope should then be 2.5 degrees, which really limits what you can do. It's really easy to end up with a fall line trail.

Walt


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

I don't think I'd do well at one of those conferences. Although I think IMBA has done some great things turning people away from building totally unsustainable trails, there has to be a little "use your own judgment " rather than "it has to be exactly this way or it's wrong". I read somewhere that even IMBA admits that their guidelines are just that, guidelines. 

I sometimes hear IMBA reps quoting the "bible" (Trail Solutions) and saying there is no other right way to build trails. The North Shore trails are so wrong according to IMBA but they are unquestionably the most popular trails in the world. And yeah, they are mostly unsustainable. People spend thousands of hours every year maintaining those trails and they seem to be pretty happy to do it.

I'm out there building miles of singletrack day in and day out (about 20 miles last year) using no money and primitive tools (no power tools). I'm not stupid and I'm not going to waste my time and energy building trails that aren't going to last. If I build it, it's more than likely going to be "right" no matter how different it is to "the standard". Even if it's "wrong" I did it for a reason.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

Trail Ninja said:


> I don't think I'd do well at one of those conferences. Although I think IMBA has done some great things turning people away from building totally unsustainable trails, there has to be a little "use your own judgment " rather than "it has to be exactly this way or it's wrong". I read somewhere that even IMBA admits that their guidelines are just that, guidelines.
> 
> I sometimes hear IMBA reps quoting the "bible" (Trail Solutions) and saying there is no other right way to build trails. The North Shore trails are so wrong according to IMBA but they are unquestionably the most popular trails in the world. And yeah, they are mostly unsustainable. People spend thousands of hours every year maintaining those trails and they seem to be pretty happy to do it.
> 
> I'm out there building miles of singletrack day in and day out (about 20 miles last year) using no money and primitive tools (no power tools). I'm not stupid and I'm not going to waste my time and energy building trails that aren't going to last. If I build it, it's more than likely going to be "right" no matter how different it is to "the standard". Even if it's "wrong" I did it for a reason.


I think you'd do fine at a trail building conference. I think that anyone who has worked at trail building for any length of time appreciates that the IMBA standards, while an excellent starting point, can't cover all the various conditions we face.

Some of the reasons for bending the rules may pertain to local soil conditions like Trail Ninja said.

Another one I run into a is building in a smaller park around existing trails (ski, hiking) means there are going to be a lot of 180 degree turns. According to IMBA, these should be insloped turns (with a rock wall to support the lower leg). I agree that this type of construction is superior to climbing turns. However, it's also labor intensive. One such turn can easily consume 80 hours of labor. My entire volunteer labor "budget" this year was about 100 hours. My tiny work force will crumble in despair if I force them to build trail this way all the time. But I've done it in places where compromise would have been disaster.

Another place I "violate the IMBA standards" is building on the fall line. But only under very specific conditions because overall it is a very good standard.

One: a short fall line trail segment to set up a grade reversal, or to gain elevation to put the trail on the uphill side of a tree or large rock is usually worth while.

Two: if the trail can be put on a ridge line, it will shed water just fine even if the ridge line is quite steep. You could, I suppose, argue that a ridge line is by definition not a fall line.

Three: trail built inside of a large ravine will have enough side slope that it will shed water even though it's directly on the fall line of the hill that the ravine cuts through.

Four: the top of a hill can support a fall line segment of trail a lot better than at the bottom because there's a lot less hill above it to collect water.

IMBA's literature doesn't say much about evaluating water flow. I find that reviewing a proposed trail corridor early in spring when the snow is melting off is valuable. Places that are most trouble are:

Seeps. These should be avoided at all costs unless you're willing to build elevated causeways.

Unconsolidated surface flow. My fancy term for a place where the water runs in a sheet through a loose organic layer over a heavy clay layer of soil. In places where the slope is very shallow these act like a big seep.

High surface water flow. Some areas are just wetter than others. Moving the trail a few yards can sometimes avoid a mess.

Obviously these terms are highly subjective and have a lot of overlap. Your area may have completely different features.

Again, I'm not saying the IMBA standards are wrong, only that they have to be adapted to local conditions. I suspect most of the IMBA staff would agree.

Walt


----------



## Megashnauzer (Nov 2, 2005)

we had the imba tcc here about a year and a half ago. all we did was cut the corridor and then rake it in. they wisely look to local knowledge when designing and building a trail. 

we have some fall line trails and if the slope isn't more than 5%, they hold up pretty well. if we can keep leaf litter on the trail then our problems are minimal. it's when the trail goes into a more open area or get steeper than 5% that the problems begin. the next trail i build i'm shooting to stay under tree cover for that very reason. it's also nicer riding in the shade. 

i also do all the work by hand. i have used a mower and weedeater to do some maintenance but mostly it's loppers, an ax and a rake. on some of our older trails there's a lot of shoveling to remove sand. our older trails were inherited from a motorcycle group so they need a lot more maintenance than our club members want to volunteer for. still about 90% of the trail is pretty respectable.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Walt, you're such a good explainer. Your post looks so much better than my "Screw off, I'll build what I want" post. 

One of my favorite trails is at a place called Hornby Island just off Vancouver Island. It started out as a steep bench and turned into a creek bed over the years. During winter run-off and heavy rain there can be a foot or two of fast water. IMBA came and helped them put a nice trail on the high bank. 2 years later the new trail looks like it hasn't been used.... it hasn't. The creek bed is too much fun to ride. Especially when it's full of water. You have to ride from memory.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

Megashnauzer said:


> we had the imba tcc here about a year and a half ago. all we did was cut the corridor and then rake it in. they wisely look to local knowledge when designing and building a trail.
> 
> we have some fall line trails and if the slope isn't more than 5%, they hold up pretty well. if we can keep leaf litter on the trail then our problems are minimal. it's when the trail goes into a more open area or get steeper than 5% that the problems begin. the next trail i build i'm shooting to stay under tree cover for that very reason. it's also nicer riding in the shade.
> 
> i also do all the work by hand. i have used a mower and weedeater to do some maintenance but mostly it's loppers, an ax and a rake. on some of our older trails there's a lot of shoveling to remove sand. our older trails were inherited from a motorcycle group so they need a lot more maintenance than our club members want to volunteer for. still about 90% of the trail is pretty respectable.


I think the difference between your trails and mine are the presence of sand where you work.

Where I'm building there is a fairly thick layer of leaves, sticks, then black crumbly soil. Depending what part of the mound is being considered, there will then be a tough composite of heavy clay and chert-type rock. Low down on the side of the mound it's mostly clay. As you get toward the top, there will generally be more rock.

Most of the mound is under 10% slope. Quite a bit is 6% or less. We've had our most severe erosion losses in a places with the *lower* slope. It boils down to having more surface water flow in these places (probably just an accident of local micro-geography), along with a failure to respect the "half rule". Even though the slope of the trail itself is at or below the 5% limit that works well in your soil, the heavy clay where I'm working can turn a poorly routed trail into a stream bed in even a moderate rain fall.

While I'm not fond of eroded trail, the worse problem is that the water puddles along the trail, the clay softens as riders go over it, making mud holes, and the problem starts to spiral out of control. Some 100 yd sections of the trail take 2-3 weeks longer to dry than most of the remaining 12 miles.

To make my long explanation short, rake and ride construction can and has been done successfully in the trail system I maintain. But fall-line trails, specifically in flatter areas are very much a problem.

YMMV

Walt


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

Trail Ninja said:


> Walt, you're such a good explainer. Your post looks so much better than my "Screw off, I'll build what I want" post.


To be honest, I can get tired of debating the issues. It hits me worst toward the end of spring when I somewhat worn down from the physical exertion of moving dirt, and getting antsy to be out on my bike riding trails.

Low work day turnout tends to sour my mood too. Trail repairs are difficult to "sell" to the club, and they are putting a significant drag on building new stuff. Quite a bit of my motivation to fix the problem areas of our trails is to reduce the spring maintenance work.

The Dept. of Natural Resources has a state level trails coordinator, and she is very much aware of problems with the trails. This has the potential to reflect poorly on the park manager who has been very, very good to us. Right now, we're an asset to the park. When we start to get more complaints than compliments, it will be time to start worrying.

Walt


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

In my limited experience working with my local Regional District (I guess like a "county") in District parks, I've found that they are so happy to have anyone willing to put in volunteer time building and maintaining trails, they let me do pretty much what I want. They have plans and I try to stick close to those plans but considering that their other option is to have nothing done, they are pretty slack about calling me out on anything I do. 

I work by myself and I'm not affiliated with any clubs so none of the political stuff related to dealing with groups affects me.

It's actually a pretty sweet deal if you like building trails.

If you have people waiting in the wings to take over your trails if you slip up, there may be cause for concern. Otherwise, you're probably OK.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I think there is a lot of room for creativity when building trail, especially if you consider it a form of art and the designing/crafting of an experience within an environment. A talented artist can play with the rules in ways that less experienced artists should not, and may also be considering addition levels of interaction with environment, much like designing a Japanese garden. 

I think IMBA wisely addresses the more common committee level trail building flow.


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

I think one of the big problems associated with rake and ride trails is that people often use them as a quick and dirty construction method to build trails straight up/down fall lines and across level ground. The real problem isn't the rake part but the poor trail layout part. If the trail is laid out trying to stick to good trail building practice (contouring, moderate grades, grade reversals), then the raking construction method is often appropriate. In particular, raking in tread on 5-7% cross slope is far superior to trying to construct bench by digging into the hillside because the soil on the hillside is less disturbed.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

bweide said:


> I think one of the big problems associated with rake and ride trails is that people often use them as a quick and dirty construction method to build trails straight up/down fall lines and across level ground. The real problem isn't the rake part but the poor trail layout part.


Yup, also what is the use of the trail. If it's the secret gray area spot where only the hard core's know about and ride, then it "appears" to hold up fine. But once the cat gets out of the bag and it get's used by a wide spectrum of riders, the flaws will inevitably be exposed.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

bweide said:


> I think one of the big problems associated with rake and ride trails is that people often use them as a quick and dirty construction method to build trails straight up/down fall lines and across level ground. The real problem isn't the rake part but the poor trail layout part. If the trail is laid out trying to stick to good trail building practice (contouring, moderate grades, grade reversals), then the raking construction method is often appropriate. In particular, raking in tread on 5-7% cross slope is far superior to trying to construct bench by digging into the hillside because the soil on the hillside is less disturbed.


I agree, we have dozens of miles of raked trail that is maintenance free and has ridden in to a perfect bench. If the slope doesn't warrant digging then digging can mess it up, it's easy to end up sloped back in to the high side, thus creating a gutter.


----------



## crux (Jan 10, 2004)

bsieb said:


> I agree, we have dozens of miles of raked trail that is maintenance free and has ridden in to a perfect bench. If the slope doesn't warrant digging then digging can mess it up, it's easy to end up sloped back in to the high side, thus creating a gutter.


Think that we lucked out with the terrain available here in the southwest. Most trails could be done via rake and ride method.

Having lived in several places over the years I can honestly say that some places require more initial work getting a trail put together along with nearly weekly maintenance. 
.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

crux said:


> Think that we lucked out with the terrain available here in the southwest. Most trails could be done via rake and ride method.
> 
> Having lived in several places over the years I can honestly say that some places require more initial work getting a trail put together along with nearly weekly maintenance.
> .


I agree, just tired of getting dissed for using what works in our admittedly ideal trail building conditions. If you don't have to build what amounts to miniature roadways the trail will be far more responsive to the terrain.

My personal passion is for what I call primitive trails, trails that have been around for a long time and mtbs are just their most recent user group. Gives me the old school feeling of freedom and adventure about what lies ahead, has helped me develop a great low duck, and perfect my aspen hopping.


----------

