Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 99
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,004
    Quote Originally Posted by traildoc View Post
    P:

    Your consistency is at least consistent. Section 25 made a pretty good case from my POV about the Rocky Ridge Trail. It sounds like Rocky Ridge is similar to the Tea Cup and Jordan trail in Sedona. They both serve as a major connector between two different areas and are used by a highly skilled and lesser skilled group of riders.

    Chalkpaw has helped me make Tea Cup a more rideable trail for those lesser skilled riders and guys like now banned Gemooker who came up with the same stupid comment like you have about the trail improvements we did on the trail.

    Jennifer Burns and Plumber Phil came in and did a major re-route below Roller Coaster Proper and Jennifer totally decommissioned the steep eroding technical climbing section to eliminate a section that was eroding faster than the rest of the trail.

    I also did additional trail work on Tea Cup that the FS cited me for and I got additional flack from doing the work, but I don't see anyone tearing the work out and making the trail harder to ride.

    The trail has become more user friendly for the masses and that should be a good thing in my play book. There are still challenging spots that the higher skilled rider can test their skills on, so in my opinion the trail has improved dramatically since Chalkpaw, Jennifer, Phil and I have worked on it.

    I assume they would defend the work they did on the trail as a good thing, as I have, while critics like you think the work we did effed up the trail. I say you don't know what you are talking about, and you would have a difficult time proving me wrong.

    TD
    TD, I think you're missing the point. I believe the issue here is whether the removal of rocks to enhance flow actually enhances erosion. Sanitation versus maintenance. One doesn't necessarily beget the other. Certainly when it's not done without other features to divert water. I believe the work on Teacup was maintenance.

    This is just my own opinion but I think Rocky Ridge is more eroded today than it ever was in the 90s. And some attribute that to the 2002 sanitation. It was indeed more rideable for awhile. I also think the same thing about the section of Sunset between Hobbit Forest and the intersection with Upper Brookbank where considerable rock removal occurred during the same time period. I suspect that even HPS would admit that much has been learned since then regarding sustainable trail building techniques and/or maintenance and he might do it a bit differently today if he had a do-over.

  2. #27
    banned
    Reputation: traildoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    TD, I think you're missing the point. I believe the issue here is whether the removal of rocks to enhance flow actually enhances erosion. Sanitation versus maintenance. One doesn't necessarily beget the other. Certainly when it's not done without other features to divert water. I believe the work on Teacup was maintenance.

    This is just my own opinion but I think Rocky Ridge is more eroded today than it ever was in the 90s. And some attribute that to the 2002 sanitation. It was indeed more rideable for awhile. I also think the same thing about the section of Sunset between Hobbit Forest and the intersection with Upper Brookbank where considerable rock removal occurred during the same time period. I suspect that even HPS would admit that much has been learned since then regarding sustainable trail building techniques and/or maintenance and he might do it a bit differently today if he had a do-over.
    rockman:

    The work Chalpaw and I did on Tea Cup trail was mainly done to make the trail easier to ride rather than maintenance. On the Jordan trail it was a mixed bag.

    I like to defend Section 25's POV because I understand his thought process that the trail is more enjoyable for the masses who use that trail. I haven't spent enough time on the trail to know how much it has eroded over the years, but in a prior post you indicated erosion is not really an environment issue in Flagstaff, so that really isn't as big of issue as rideability of a major connector trail by many different users.

    I have no idea who originally routed the trail, but I would venture to guess that they didn't use current sustainable routing practices, so I assume the trail erodes faster then it would have with more better routed grade reversals in the fall line sections.

  3. #28
    Meatbomb
    Reputation: Phillbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    5,187
    Quote Originally Posted by traildoc View Post
    Chalkpaw has helped me make Tea Cup a more rideable trail for those lesser skilled riders
    Who are you to decide the skill level of all the trails?


    Lesser skilled riders will never increase their skillz if you just keep making the trails easier. Why not just pave 'em and be done with it?

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,004
    Quote Originally Posted by traildoc View Post
    rockman:


    I like to defend Section 25's POV because I understand his thought process that the trail is more enjoyable for the masses who use that trail. I haven't spent enough time on the trail to know how much it has eroded over the years, but in a prior post you indicated erosion is not really an environment issue in Flagstaff, so that really isn't as big of issue as rideability of a major connector trail by many different users.
    TD, that is eroneous. I never said or typed anywhere that erosion is not an issue in Flagstaff.

    I was only stating my opinion with regard to prior sanitation and subsequent erosion. It doesn't mean squat. In fact, I think Rocky Ridge should have a total makeover into a far easier trail to ride. I couldn't care a less about the tech and think that, as a vital connector, it should be a type 3 trail. But at what effort and expense? I'd rather see a the money put into the Lower Brookbank and upper Oldham reroutes and I'll just ride the road if I don't have the time or energy for Rocky Ridge.

  5. #30
    banned
    Reputation: traildoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    TD, that is eroneous. I never said or typed anywhere that erosion is not an issue in Flagstaff.

    I was only stating my opinion with regard to prior sanitation and subsequent erosion. It doesn't mean squat. In fact, I think Rocky Ridge should have a total makeover into a far easier trail to ride. I couldn't care a less about the tech and think that, as a vital connector, it should be a type 3 trail. But at what effort and expense? I'd rather see a the money put into the Lower Brookbank and upper Oldham reroutes and I'll just ride the road if I don't have the time or energy for Rocky Ridge.
    rockman:

    Per you prior post (The notion that trails and roads lead to enhanced siltation is a bit odd since there isn't a perennial stream with head waters in the SF Peaks, Dry Lake Hills, or Elden. Seems like a non-issue to me but I've heard that as one of the reasons for rerouting Schultz out of the drainage. Sedona is a bit different in terms of water quality and turbidity in Oak Creek.) you lead me to believe that erosion doesn't really contribute to water quality issues in Flagstaff.

    Trail erosion in Flagstaff is more of a sight issue. It's ugly not really a big environmental issue, but if you want to pretend like it's a big issue most people believe it is.

    A forest fire would be considered to be a million times bigger erosion problem than any trail built in Flastaff, right? While driving to Moab over a year ago I think I saw some erosion going on on Hwy 89 heading to Moab from Flagstaff.

    I haven't driven though there recently because I am up north of there, but did they have any erosion issues this year with the heavy rains or is it nonexistant since over a year has gone by since the big fires?

    Personally I always try to build to a sustainable standard so I can't be criticized for building a piece of crap trail and I don't need a maintainable but not sustainable trail to make me a happy camper.

  6. #31
    banned
    Reputation: traildoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillbo View Post
    Who are you to decide the skill level of all the trails?


    Lesser skilled riders will never increase their skillz if you just keep making the trails easier. Why not just pave 'em and be done with it?
    P:

    You are the best. You say lesser skilled riders will never increase their skillz, if I keep making trails easier. That statement is ridiculous and no one else reading this thread believes what you just stated. I do believe there are other people like you that believe it, but just because you say it doesn't mean it's true.

    As riders skill level improves on trails like Rocky Ridge they will certainly seek out other trails that they enjoy riding. If they never become a Flagstaff downhiller type I feel OK about that and don't lose any sleep over it.

    What percentage of Flagstaff riders even WANT to ride those eroded trails like Ginger anyway? I understand a lot of Phoenix riders want to be good enough to ride Ginger, but they are a special group, so they don't count when computing the percentage.

  7. #32
    The .05 percent
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    541
    Quote Originally Posted by traildoc View Post
    P:What percentage of Flagstaff riders even WANT to ride those eroded trails like Ginger anyway? I understand a lot of Phoenix riders want to be good enough to ride Ginger, but they are a special group, so they don't count when computing the percentage.
    The real ones do. lots of posers in town, even more come up from the valley. Ginger is awesome, teaches the concept of full commitment. If you feel this is an eroded mess of a trail maybe you should stick to the fort valley system. What is your obsession with computing percentages anyway? Does this really matter? Maybe of you would spend more time riding your bike and less time trying to figure out where you fit in you would probably have a better overall user experience. As far as rocky ridge who really cares? Rocks will return. Quit crying and go ride a bike
    .
    Last edited by sinatorj; 09-06-2012 at 04:32 PM.
    29'ers are the scientologists of the MTB world

  8. #33
    bland
    Reputation: m77ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    The real ones do. lots of posers in town, even more come up from the valley. Ginger is awesome, teaches the concept of full commitment. If you feel this is an eroded mess of a trail maybe you should stick to the fort valley system. As fast as rocky ridge who really cares? Rocks will return. Quit crying and go ride a bike
    .
    Ginger
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Who dumbed down easy/lower oldham and rocky ridge?-ginger.jpg  


  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,004
    Quote Originally Posted by traildoc View Post
    rockman:

    Per you prior post (The notion that trails and roads lead to enhanced siltation is a bit odd since there isn't a perennial stream with head waters in the SF Peaks, Dry Lake Hills, or Elden. Seems like a non-issue to me but I've heard that as one of the reasons for rerouting Schultz out of the drainage. Sedona is a bit different in terms of water quality and turbidity in Oak Creek.) you lead me to believe that erosion doesn't really contribute to water quality issues in Flagstaff.
    TD, the comment above is with regard to the contribution of eroding trails to increased sediment loads in regional streams. Personally I don't really think it's a big deal in the Flagstaff area in contrast to Sedona. For example, increased siltation isn't great for aquatic habitat in Oak Creek. I also think a newly graded road like Verde Valley School Road or Schnebly Hill is a bigger issue in that regard than all of the trails in Sedona combined.

  10. #35
    Dog-food-eating-chicken
    Reputation: nlytendone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    27
    I am brand new to the area. I rode up Rocky Ridge the other day, not really knowing what to expect except possibly rocks and a ridge. I was not disappointed. I have to say that trail put the ear-to-ear smile on my face. Made me work and pay attention. I dabbed once or twice, sure, but maybe not next time. Isn't that the point?

    Amen to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Section 25 View Post
    I use to have this bright yellow Cramps t-shirt. I use to bring it on road trips, where a dozen or so friends would meet up in places like Sun Valley or Moab and spend a few days riding, playing croquet, drinking, and arguing about what bands make the all-time top 50.




    When we had our first big gathering in Flagstaff, back in 1995, I had a broken collarbone and was forced to wrench on bikes and run shuttles. I also modified my Cramps t-shirt with a magic marker, writing WHINER on the back of it and passing it out at the end of each day to the biggest whiner of that day. It's a shame I lost that shirt. I'd love to award it to you in perpetuity.

    I've heard your claptrap before. After Anthony completed his first half a day of volunteer trail work on Brookbank, back in 2001 or maybe it was 2002, he showed up at National Trail Day, which was forced to be at Buffalo Park due to forest closure. He walked around barking orders to folks like Gavin Rose, a fellow employee of CREC, at the time. Gavin had over 14 years experience in Australia before coming to the U.S. to work in conservation corps. It's not entirely uncommon for folks to have an inflated sense of skill and purpose, after very limited experience. Give them a keyboard and suddenly, they are trail designers, trail builders, geologists, experts on soils (or dirt, as a novice would call it), fall lines, etc.

    You see, until I see your work, it's all talk. Rocky Ridge is not a good trail. It is a fabulous trail. I liken it to the Sistine Chapel. A trail that rewards your spirit. For visitors to Flagstaff with no imagination, who think they must park and begin all rides at Schultz Creek, they deserve their hardship if they are so impaired they can't read the name of the trail on the first sign they see leaving the trailhead. Shocked comma shocked that there are all these rocks on Rocky Ridge! While their wide smooth pathway was directly in front of them. Here's a thought. park at Buffalo Park and head up Lower Oldham before taking on Rocky Ridge. Or finish the ride going down it.

    The technical trails do lie above. They always have. Rocky Moto is just as challenging as Rocky Ridge. It may have been designed that way but I suspect Anthony was just so inept at building trail, he was incapable of building anything with any flow. After all, his first effort, which I witnessed in person, was later named; Anthony's Abortion.

    What we have is not a fall line trail. Rocky Ridge skirts Dry Lake Hills and over 3 miles has a mere 200 feet of elevation change. I've never installed a single waterbar on it. I doubt there are 3 or 4 left on the entire length. Over 60% of all trail maintenance I do is removing loose rocks, like babyheads, from trails. They force riders to widen the existing trail. I don't see any build-up of babyheads on Rocky Ridge. You say builders could do much better. How so? The trail you seem to want could nver exist there. You'd be hung from a tree if you tried to make that trail out of Rocky Ridge.



    What utter nonsense. In 2002, you'd dab two dozen times riding Rocky Ridge, hiking your bike again and again. In 2003, you could clean the entire trail. It should be mentioned that FBO was invited to create technical braids along the trail, but they declined and preferred to cry about not being consulted before work began. Soft dirt? Quickly washed away? Trenches? More claptrap. Soil is soil. It is packed hard or not packed and loose. It washes off of every trail in Flagstaff, more quickly on steeper trails. It has not washed away from Rocky Ridge at an accelerated pace. There are no trenches, despite the ten-fold increase in big downhill rigs skidding down local trails. There just isn't enough room for them to get going too fast for the turns and have to skid. On the upper parts of the trail, the turns are mostly big sweepers that allow high speeds. So again, no skidding. Also, no moto traffic means no deep ruts like on Secret Trail. There are no new boulders. Crews made one pass in 2003. They removed rocks and boulders and created a trail for riders to ride and hikers to hike, not for bikers to hike as before. It remains that today, almost ten years after the restoration work was completed. It rides great in both directions, can be ridden in middle ring and without a single dab, for any expert level rider and for most intermediate level riders. It sheds water fairly well and doesn't require much of an aerobic challenge. Since most new trail construction in Fort Valley is beginner friendly, Rocky Ridge is perfectly situated, and a trail of great character. But like all great monuments, it requires some light maintenance from time to time. I rest my case.
    My legs hurt.

  11. #36
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,445
    I like Rocky Ridge. Ride your bike where you dab....dabbing makes you want to be better....wanting to be better keeps you coming back....coming back makes you ride more....riding more makes you better.....getting better makes you smile more....when you smile more you gripe less....griping less is good.

  12. #37
    I love bike!
    Reputation: dsittman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Maadjurguer View Post
    I like Rocky Ridge. Ride your bike where you dab....dabbing makes you want to be better....wanting to be better keeps you coming back....coming back makes you ride more....riding more makes you better.....getting better makes you smile more....when you smile more you gripe less....griping less is good.
    You're so wrong on all points especially about smiling more. Oh wait...you don't matter anyways because you're in the 0.7542%. Nevermind...carry on.

  13. #38
    bland
    Reputation: m77ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,278
    Who knows how this story will end. Some say we will be taken over by aliens. Others say Mitt/Barry/Whoever will ruin us. We are overdue for a massive flu pandemic. The sun will explode soon enough. I'm just going to try to get rad all over these trails and dole out some high-fives before this all ends. The world is worse when you are behind a keyboard. The world is best when you are behind handlebars.

  14. #39
    banned
    Reputation: traildoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    TD, the comment above is with regard to the contribution of eroding trails to increased sediment loads in regional streams. Personally I don't really think it's a big deal in the Flagstaff area in contrast to Sedona. For example, increased siltation isn't great for aquatic habitat in Oak Creek. I also think a newly graded road like Verde Valley School Road or Schnebly Hill is a bigger issue in that regard than all of the trails in Sedona combined.
    rockman:

    So then we agree in Flagstaff erosion of trails like Rocky Ridge and Ginger is no big deal since their aren't any regional streams near Flagstaff, so sediment is just going to move to a lower point in the surrounding area, but it isn't going to effect aquatic or human habitat.

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,004
    Quote Originally Posted by traildoc View Post
    rockman:

    So then we agree in Flagstaff erosion of trails like Rocky Ridge and Ginger is no big deal since their aren't any regional streams near Flagstaff, so sediment is just going to move to a lower point in the surrounding area, but it isn't going to effect aquatic or human habitat.
    No wrong again. The erosion of trails like RR and Ginger is still a big deal. My point (taken from another thread) was strictly wrt to Schultz Creek. Maybe the sedimentaton affects Bebb's Willow habitat. I don't know. The presence of eroding trails in the SF Peaks is a far different deal than the urban and residential impacts from Sedona on Oak Creek and water quality. Different watersheds. That doesn't mean trail erosion isn't important. What is your point?

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tysonnemb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    887
    Changing a trail to make it easier to ride is not cool. If the masses want a trail to be easier, go ride an easier trail. There are plenty to choose from. The tough trails give me goals.

    Maintaining a popular trail to keep it rideable for a longer period of time, and the maintenance makes the trail 'easier'? Well I feel that is a good trade off.

    At the end of the day, I love riding, I love accomplishing new things, and I appreciate those who do the good trail work.

  17. #42
    Meatbomb
    Reputation: Phillbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    5,187
    Well said....

  18. #43
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation: big0mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,535
    Quote Originally Posted by m77ranger View Post
    Ginger
    I gotta find me that "trail!" Looks like exactly what my crew likes!

    Quote Originally Posted by tysonnemb View Post
    Changing a trail to make it easier to ride is not cool.
    No one will ever convince a certain segment of people that this is fact. Several numbnuts seem to grade the "riding experience" by how many people can ride a given section of trail. By that criteria Desert Classic must be the best trail on the planet.

  19. #44
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,169
    Rocky Ridge. It's how I'd get back to my car after riding wasabi, ginger, burrito, pvt and prom. Cool to have as semi-tech in its previous state for sure, but plenty on the fort valley side for those looking for less tech. I guess its all the hardtailers coming in from buffalo park or something that benefit from it being smoother. That said, trails DO need maint and either you do it every week, or you let it erode and degrade and do it every few years. Give it another 10 yrs and I'm sure it will be gnarly again.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  20. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,652
    I have to say a well planned trail system has a lot of thought put into it. Yes, we need difficult tech trails for the advanced riders and something for the less skilled to work towards. I do think that certain main arteries and connections should be made much easier. RR is one that I think would benefit the system if it was easier. After a big ride riding more advanced trails I would like to ride across RR and not get totally worked using it as a last connecter. As TPS or whatever he is now stated RR is part of the AZ trail and THE connection between Lookout Road trails and the Shultz Creek trail. What if new trails were created to fill the advanced rider needs and RR was made easier? Would that be a good trade off? I think so, especially if the new trails built to take it's place were built with rider influence on it's layout and design. RR was not really built with bikes in mind and if you have been to a place with trails built by riders with intentions of trails to appeal to mountain bikers it's a whole different ball game. The steep up and downs that are eroding on RR don't actually need to be there, a nice flowing contoured line I think would be sweet. There are a few key players in Flag that have been putting a lot of thought and work into planning the DLH and Elden trail system, much more advanced trails are part of the plan and so is making some trails more user friendly and sustainable. I have been part of this process and I feel confident that the ideas put forth so far are really good for a super cool system. Change isn't always easy but I think in this case it's going to be awesome. As far as dumbing down every trail I can assure you that is not anyones intent, it just has a lot to do with placement and planning and a major part of this is making sure that all levels of riding are represented in this system. We are at a major crossroad for the DLH and Elden systems and everyone involved wants to make sure we are making the best decisions for all of the different groups and interests out there. This is kind of a big deal around here and who knows when the next time this opportunity will happen again. I promise you the people that have become involved are not doing it purely for their own desires but actually care about our home based trail systems and our visitors experiences here.

  21. #46
    banned
    Reputation: traildoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by raisingarizona View Post
    I have to say a well planned trail system has a lot of thought put into it. Yes, we need difficult tech trails for the advanced riders and something for the less skilled to work towards. I do think that certain main arteries and connections should be made much easier. RR is one that I think would benefit the system if it was easier. After a big ride riding more advanced trails I would like to ride across RR and not get totally worked using it as a last connecter. As TPS or whatever he is now stated RR is part of the AZ trail and THE connection between Lookout Road trails and the Shultz Creek trail. What if new trails were created to fill the advanced rider needs and RR was made easier? Would that be a good trade off? I think so, especially if the new trails built to take it's place were built with rider influence on it's layout and design. RR was not really built with bikes in mind and if you have been to a place with trails built by riders with intentions of trails to appeal to mountain bikers it's a whole different ball game. The steep up and downs that are eroding on RR don't actually need to be there, a nice flowing contoured line I think would be sweet. There are a few key players in Flag that have been putting a lot of thought and work into planning the DLH and Elden trail system, much more advanced trails are part of the plan and so is making some trails more user friendly and sustainable. I have been part of this process and I feel confident that the ideas put forth so far are really good for a super cool system. Change isn't always easy but I think in this case it's going to be awesome. As far as dumbing down every trail I can assure you that is not anyones intent, it just has a lot to do with placement and planning and a major part of this is making sure that all levels of riding are represented in this system. We are at a major crossroad for the DLH and Elden systems and everyone involved wants to make sure we are making the best decisions for all of the different groups and interests out there. This is kind of a big deal around here and who knows when the next time this opportunity will happen again. I promise you the people that have become involved are not doing it purely for their own desires but actually care about our home based trail systems and our visitors experiences here.
    Great post ra . Now that you have explained to the group who are against making RR more flowy and less technical for the masses, you have to wonder if they finally get it?

    I don't know if there are other user group internet sites quite like the MTBR forum, that allow users to express there POV. But if there is, I doubt any of those sites are as passionate as us mountain bikers are about our current trails, and those future trails that builders like you are dreaming about.

    We will all learn a lot from your passion to get your dreams approved then finally built. It hopefully will help others who want to get new downhill trails built understand the process necessary to get those type of trails built in their home town.

  22. #47
    slower than you
    Reputation: rockychrysler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by Section 25 View Post
    Lastly, I don't suppose Rocky wants to post a public retraction, after saying there were no water diversions built on Rocky Ridge recently. If he's ridden it, he knows they are there. It was his decision to go negative and say otherwise. It'd be nice if just once someone retracted their false accusations.
    I will issue a retraction when you put the rocks back in their divots.

    You know what you did, [insert avatar-de-jour here]. And it was not to control water.

    Every effort must be made to thwart such attempts to create an alt/revised history of your "trail work" endeavors. Just as Traildoc as appointed himself ambassador of Sedona (albeit too often a rather poor one) I have appointed myself foil to your oft-vaunted self assessments of your perceived contributions to the Flagstaff trail system.

    What you did to Rocky Ridge was not to control water. And it will not control water. It was done to make the trail easier to ride. Period.

    When you build new trail, your trails often contain a lot of fine work. You have a great eye for alignment and aesthetic. But, when you're trying to dumb-down existing trails to meet your personal standard, I find your work to be sub-par and grossly inappropriate. I like you as a person. Consider you a friend. But I hate what you do when you do things such as what you did to Rocky Ridge. I have held these opinions for some 15 years. I do not expect that you or I will change.

    So no. Sorry. No retractions.
    "Let our people travel light and free on their bicycles." Ed Abbey
    http://www.rockychrysler.com/

  23. #48
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,784
    Quote Originally Posted by m77ranger View Post
    Ginger
    great pic! ive never done any of the DH stuff but Wasabi...someday!

  24. #49
    banned
    Reputation: traildoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by rockychrysler View Post
    I will issue a retraction when you put the rocks back in their divots.

    You know what you did, [insert avatar-de-jour here]. And it was not to control water.

    Every effort must be made to thwart such attempts to create an alt/revised history of your "trail work" endeavors. Just as Traildoc as appointed himself ambassador of Sedona (albeit too often a rather poor one) I have appointed myself foil to your oft-vaunted self assessments of your perceived contributions to the Flagstaff trail system.

    What you did to Rocky Ridge was not to control water. And it will not control water. It was done to make the trail easier to ride. Period.

    When you build new trail, your trails often contain a lot of fine work. You have a great eye for alignment and aesthetic. But, when you're trying to dumb-down existing trails to meet your personal standard, I find your work to be sub-par and grossly inappropriate. I like you as a person. Consider you a friend. But I hate what you do when you do things such as what you did to Rocky Ridge. I have held these opinions for some 15 years. I do not expect that you or I will change.

    So no. Sorry. No retractions.
    rc:

    I understand the history of many of the trails in Sedona from Rama who was a big part of the current Sedona trail system. Whenever we would go on a ride I would ask him how each trail came into existence.

    My question to you is do you know why and how Rocky Ridge came into existence and do you remember the first time you rode it?

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,652
    [QUOTE=Section 25;9664932]Maybe I can combine three or four responses here so I won't need to make a bunch of posts.


    Some people seem to believe rocks prevent erosion. If you watch moving water, it moves at a steady speed until it hits something to divert it. In some instances, water is moving down a trail slowly, in a shallow stream. Then it comes to a pinch point, traveling between some rocks. What is the result? It increases the speed of the water as it narrows the flow. This dramatically increases erosion. Ideally, you would rather see a 3 foot wide and one inch deep stream of water than that same flow narrowed to a six inch wide and six inch deep stream moving a three times the speed. Rock or wood water bars are only helpful when they divert water off the trail. As soon as the drain clogs, and the water rolls over the log or rocks, that seemingly small 8 inch drop allows the water to carve into the soil below, and create considerable damage.

    I hate it when I like something you say TPS but every now and then I gotta hand it to you, this is pretty cool. I really like the rock pinch increased energy thought.

    Also, a filled water bar or drop off creates a mini water fall to keeper hole, water will spin around and dig a hole below the drop and then riders climbing the trail will eventually widen the tread trying to go around the hole, that is true for sure.

    Ever look at and consider canopy?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •