Anyone have anything they'd like to rant about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaredshtles

Yup - around here you get ENDLESS griping about "sanitation" every time a trail crew goes out to improve sustainability of a rocky trail. And these trails have been, at one point or another, nice smooth sidewalks. But nobody remembers them like that because everybody migrated here 18 months ago.

Fuck the gripers.

:D

---

One of my local parks has a small number of trails used for biking, hiking, and horses. The trails aren't very difficult for riding -- no real technical features, no jumps. They're just fun little trails. Lots of beginner riders, people with kids, casual day hikers, that sort of thing.

After last winter's heavy storm damage, some trails were much rougher than before -- big washouts, large rocks in the middle of the trail, big ruts. The county park repaired the trails and more-or-less smoothed them out like they used to be, so that they were back to the easy-ish trails they used to be.

Early this season, as the park service was fixing the trails from the winter damage, a douchebag biker at my weekly ride group loudly bitched about how the park service was "ruining" the trails. I told him these are supposed to be easier trails, and if he wanted harder ones, there are a bunch of DH trails not far away. Or he was welcome to try riding the trails on my rigid SS, instead of his 6" endurobro bike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw

Ok, I wasn't going to comment on your 'hiking' trail comment, but now that you keep mentioning it I guess I will. Hiking trails are good for hiking. They suck for biking. That's all we rode in the 80-90's and they sucked then and still do. Well, they're slightly entertaining now and then, but I'll take a bike specific trail any day over a hiking.

You are wrong about having enough space in my location. We don't have enough without getting on railbeds and that is hardly single track. I don't live in the mountains.

---

So you guys are laying out two extremes, "overly twisty" and "overly direct", both in the same topography/ground cover. And then you want to claim that there's no way to build between the two?

Think about that for a second.


I've worked on trails in a lot of different places (although not new England) and everyone has their reasons why something can't be built a certain way..........until someone who knows what they're doing comes and shows them.

I don't really care to change the way trails are where you live, but I've built in a wide enough range of soils/rock/topography to know that excuses of why a trail is too this or too that are just that. You just have to think outside of the 'easy' way to get through things. Unless you're just straight up bound by property lines you can always figure out a way run things out a little better and avoid the type of trail building that started this conversation. And even then you can usually still get it done, but as mentioned, you cut down some mileage. But I'll always do that to make something flow better, avoid trails that look like small intestines, and just build something else or ride descents twice and go faster the second time. When I say point A to B I'm not necessarily talking about 30 miles away on a grand vista. That applies to something about 200 feet away as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmcrawfo

Could you imagine spending the same amount (proportion) of time clearing ski runs ?

---

People in Vermont actually do that shit :D


http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/...trails-vermont

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

So you guys are laying out two extremes, "overly twisty" and "overly direct", both in the same topography/ground cover. And then you want to claim that there's no way to build between the two?

Think about that for a second.

---

You have no clue about our local trails or what is possible or not possible, so maybe we should just leave it at that. But if you'd like to carry on with your assumptions then go right ahead. And I could really give a shit about going from point A to point B anyway...that's road weenie shit. I'm looking for skinnies, drops, steep ups, and fun corners. If it's all in a tight area and we get a couple hr ride in then we win.

Actually in a lot of places around the northeast an awful lot of time is spent maintaining ski runs otherwise they grow back in and become quite marrow very quickly. Mowing and edge trimming is a big time sink even for small areas. To keep tree areas skiing well also takes a ton of time unless you can convince the deer to come in and keep the understory from growing in.

woo- Sure somewhat more direct and flowy can be built and when I lay things out I try to do that but with property boundaries and such that means relatively tight switchbacks and stacked loops if you want to maintain some sort of distance. Search Lippman Park for a good example of this strategy. Having ridden there a bunch of times now a similar approach has worked into my thinking but super twisty intestine style is the current fashion.

There are a few places near me where we use the old hiking trails to connect riding spots and they're a different kind of fun when they're rideable but unfortunately you spend a bunch of time walking and carrying the bike because you can't even roll through without clotheslining the der. When it gets to where it's steps carved into a hillside it's a real turn off. What frequently happens is a riding trail will develop parallel to the hiking trail if the land manager is ok with that. We are starting to see this happen more often in NY State Parks and there are a couple of projects like this in the works to open next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw

You have no clue about our local trails or what is possible or not possible, so maybe we should just leave it at that. But if you'd like to carry on with your assumptions then go right ahead. And I could really give a shit about going from point A to point B anyway...that's road weenie shit. I'm looking for skinnies, drops, steep ups, and fun corners. If it's all in a tight area and we get a couple hr ride in then we win.

---

touchy little thing aren't ya?


This topic got started because of overly twisty trails, doubling back on themselves needlessly while not really seeming to go anywhere as a new plague of trail building style. And I'm saying there are better ways to build and lay out trails, no matter where you live. Sorry if you're stuck in skinny land, this doesn't apply to you. I promise you I'm not trying to challenge your manhood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gravitylover

but super twisty intestine style is the current fashion.

There are a few places near me where we use the old hiking trails to connect riding spots and they're a different kind of fun when they're rideable but unfortunately you spend a bunch of time walking and carrying the bike because you can't even roll through without clotheslining the der. When it gets to where it's steps carved into a hillside it's a real turn off. What frequently happens is a riding trail will develop parallel to the hiking trail if the land manager is ok with that. We are starting to see this happen more often in NY State Parks and there are a couple of projects like this in the works to open next year.

---

The current fashion is correct. Some of us are just saying we don't like that. Porcupine rim/downieville/Kitsuma/Monarch Crest descents aren't famous because they're built like that. They're popular and known nationally because they haul ass and get rowdy. I mean this is the 'rant' thread right? ;)

Stuff you have to walk up, usually just means fun coming down to me. I don't get bent out of shape having to walk my bike up something.....because I'm coming for the downs. So that's a difference of priority a lot of folks have. I'm speaking from a perspective of maximizing fun descents, not cycling the most miles on dirt, up and down, preferably on all 'rideable' surfaces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

touchy little thing aren't ya?


This topic got started because of overly twisty trails, doubling back on themselves needlessly while not really seeming to go anywhere as a new plague of trail building style. And I'm saying there are better ways to build and lay out trails, no matter where you live. Sorry if you're stuck in skinny land, this doesn't apply to you. I promise you I'm not trying to challenge your manhood.

---

No, you're just being ignorant telling people what "is" and you have no fucking clue. That is the epitome of a jackass and yeah, not a fan of jackasses. I would not tell anyone how to do something in their neck of the woods without really knowing wtf I'm talking about.

And no, I'm not short. Just your average 6'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

The current fashion is correct. Some of us are just saying we don't like that. Porcupine rim/downieville/Kitsuma/Monarch Crest descents aren't famous because they're built like that. They're popular and known nationally because they haul ass and get rowdy. I mean this is the 'rant' thread right? ;)

Stuff you have to walk up, usually just means fun coming down to me. I don't get bent out of shape having to walk my bike up something.....because I'm coming for the downs. So that's a difference of priority a lot of folks have. I'm speaking from a perspective of maximizing fun descents, not cycling the most miles on dirt, up and down, preferably on all 'rideable' surfaces.

---

It's really short punchy walk ups (and downs) that get tiresome. The extended hike a bikes with a significant payoff are fine but that's rarely the case. One of the other reasons, other than small parcels of workable land, for the new style is that we often have really tight drainages to work within and it's tough to run a trail over the ridges between them without a lot of effort and benchcutting. Bottom line is most of us utilize a variety of trail styles in an area to achieve a reasonable distance to justify the time spent building and traveling to ride it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw

No, you're just being ignorant telling people what "is" and you have no fucking clue. That is the epitome of a jackass and yeah, not a fan of jackasses. I would not tell anyone how to do something in their neck of the woods without really knowing wtf I'm talking about.

And no, I'm not short. Just your average 6'.

---

Calm down. All I'm saying (now for the third time) that if you want to build trails that don't have overly meandering routing that constantly double back on themselves, there's a way to do it. I'm sorry that's so mind blowingly offensive to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw

No, you're just being ignorant telling people what "is" and you have no fucking clue. That is the epitome of a jackass and yeah, not a fan of jackasses. I would not tell anyone how to do something in their neck of the woods without really knowing wtf I'm talking about.

And no, I'm not short. Just your average 6'.

---

hahaha that was me on FB yesterday :) You kind of sound like creaky when he goes off on woo, lindahl or stucky ;) Go take a safety break and a lap :hunter:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gravitylover

One of the other reasons, other than small parcels of workable land, for the new style is that we often have really tight drainages to work within and it's tough to run a trail over the ridges between them without a lot of effort and benchcutting.

---

That's mostly what I was getting at before. It may suck but you can usually do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

That's mostly what I was getting at before. It may suck but you can do it.

---

Benchcutting needs to be done right and that usually means getting the land manager involved rather than going out with a keen eye and a rake and clipper. I haven't cut a tree or carried a shovel in probably 12 years. This winter I hope to mark out 5-6 miles of trails and then ride them in with minimal physical labor other than a few ramps here and there and raking a few corners to make them easier to see at speed. If I put that to the county parks dept it would probably be reduced to 1-2 miles and take a couple of years to make it happen. Reality is once it's done and the trails are obviously used they'll just become part of the network.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gravitylover

Benchcutting needs to be done right and that usually means getting the land manager involved rather than going out with a keen eye and a rake and clipper..

---

Like I said......effort.


I dream of perfectly consistent 6% fall line slopes everywhere (in summer at least). But yeah I'm not talking about raking and trimming.

If you want to bed something in quicker, you can buy electric (IE quiet) motos now.......with headlights :D

www.altamotors.co

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

I'm speaking from a perspective of maximizing fun descents, not cycling the most miles on dirt, up and down, preferably on all 'rideable' surfaces.

---

I'm on his team

I'm with kidwoo on this one too...

Also: some of my favorite trails were originally just hiking trails. They aren't fun to ride on? That's crazy talk.

That's what I used to ride in the East before moving to the mountains. I can understand there are different grades of hiking trails and, especially in the NE, they might not be that fun. And I'm all the steep descents.

That said, where I live, in Salt Lake, we have 100s of miles of buff singletrack inside a 30 min radius. I still frequently find myself on hiking trails. They're more interesting and more fun to me. Also not afraid of some hike-a-bike.

Level 3 Denver loses it's network ALL DAY!!

Takes out our Westminster Data Center connections to rest of the country

That's gonna leave a scar

Still down. They are replacing hardware

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTT

Level 3 Denver loses it's network ALL DAY!!

Takes out our Westminster Data Center connections to rest of the country

That's gonna leave a scar

Still down. They are replacing hardware

---

Hmmm... shouldn't that Level 3 hardware be redundant?

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

Early this season, as the park service was fixing the trails from the winter damage, a douchebag biker at my weekly ride group loudly bitched about how the park service was "ruining" the trails. I told him these are supposed to be easier trails, and if he wanted harder ones, there are a bunch of DH trails not far away. Or he was welcome to try riding the trails on my rigid SS, instead of his 6" endurobro bike.

---

Yeah we have a group of downhillers here who are like that. They won't ever do maintenance themselves but the second someone else moves a grain of dirt they are all up in arms. Our trails tend to erode easily so having good drainage is important. Long sections of trail had ruts going down the middle which got deep after winter storms a few years back. Riders were riding on both sides of the rut, making the trails much wider. I went up and did some work, filling in the ruts and installing drains. The downhillers were outraged. They actually came back and destroyed the drains I built.

They came across me re-doing the work a week later and got all in my face. I let them say their piece. Apparently, according to them, these drains are dangerous when you're going REALLY FAST. Keep in mind these are gradual dips and these guys are on 9" travel bikes with full face, body armor, leatt etc. I pointed out that the ruts are dangerous too and causing the trail to be widened, which sucks. A rider actually died on this trail not long before, apparently after getting sideways in a rut and crashing after going off a drop. But according to the downhillers they actually dug these ruts into the trail when they built it 10 years ago. Yes, they actually said that... And no they didn't build the trail. Maybe a bunch of the pussy lines around the features, to be fair. Years later and they are still bitching about the drains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

<snip>
Stuff you have to walk up, usually just means fun coming down to me. I don't get bent out of shape having to walk my bike up something.....because I'm coming for the downs. So that's a difference of priority a lot of folks have. I'm speaking from a perspective of maximizing fun descents, not cycling the most miles on dirt, up and down, preferably on all 'rideable' surfaces.

---

Nothing wrong with a little (or a lot of) hike-a-bike.

That's just dumb, thanks for proving our point about hiking trails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttahflake

That's just dumb, thanks for proving our point about hiking trails.

---

I agree - and I never recommend people go on those trails. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttahflake

That's just dumb, thanks for proving our point about hiking trails.

---

"cycling" vs. "getting to fun, rowdy descents"


You are looking for cycling. Especially if those sections of trail don't look fun to ride down to you.

And you are a pain in the ass.
Always so smug, little guy disease.
Pushing bikes is for fat guys.