Results 1 to 32 of 32
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    89

    Best way to loop Demo - through ride LG to Aptos

    I am planning a one way ride from LG to Aptos in a few weeks making a detour to do a quick lap on Braille. It should be a good ride, 40+ miles and 4k in elevation via Old LG/SC Hwy, Summit and then Aptos Creek Fire Road.

    I am trying to figure out the best way out of Demo once I get done with Braille. Is it best to just ride all the way back to Summit and start the loop again, or can I save time/energy via Sulphur Springs Rd and then backtrack to the fire road.

    I've seen postings about mega-loops from Aptos before, but I can't seem to find anything. Thanks!

  2. #2
    Dirty by Nature
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,303
    Nice!

    My vote would be for Sulphur Springs. Please post up how it goes!
    Friends don't let friends ride e-"bikes" on dirt.

    Nature is not a sidewalk (I'm looking at you, MidPen).

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    5,314
    My buddies and I have done this with each option.

    If you go Sulfur Springs to Ridge, it's harder and you have to worry about DH traffic.

    If you go to the normal climb loop on Buzzard Lagoon, it's longer, but easier.

    So, my buddy went on Sulfur Springs and I did the normal climb loop. We got to the top of Ridge at the same time. He's actually a little better climber than me also.

    Take your pic, neither is "better" IMHO.
    Lead by my Lefty............... right down the trail, no brakes.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plantdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    685

    Best way to loop Demo - through ride LG to Aptos

    Whichever route you choose, it will be fun. Never done the LG to Aptos route, but have done Aptos-Demo-Aptos many times, in various configurations. Have fun!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    89
    Thanks! It should be a good/challenging ride. I am just getting back on the bike after a ski accident this winter. 40+ miles is ambitious, but should be doable. Worst case, I can always cut out the Demo loop, but that would kind of spoil the whole idea!

  6. #6
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,587
    I've done LG-Demo-Aptos a couple of times; don't confuse yourself---Summit Road becomes Highland Way past the SJ-Soquel Rd intersection.

    I'd probably bite the climb bullet and take Sulfur Springs instead of looping back on the pavement but consider staying straight and take Corral Trail from Sulfur; same amount of climb but about 0.3 mile shorter. (and .9 mile less of Ridge Tr traffic to contend with)

    Plus the lower wall section on Corral has a brand-new (as of this last Wednesday) bypass that is a fairly gentle climb. You might be the first to ride it in the uphill direction! The upper wall you'll still probably need to push up; the reroute around that might be a month or so out.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,363
    go down sawpit, out crazy pete's to hinkley fireroad and then down the west side of the mountain. no need to climb back up to the top and it cuts out a lot of boring fireroad.

  8. #8
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,587
    Quote Originally Posted by beaverbiker View Post
    boring fireroad.
    ...which is the only legal bike route through Nisene Marks SP to Aptos; perhaps PM "undocumented" routes next time???

    ...just sayin'
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    ...which is the only legal bike route through Nisene Marks SP to Aptos; perhaps PM "undocumented" routes next time???

    ...just sayin'
    ...you mean the trail that never gets used by hikers and is pretty much maintained by bike riders? i get what yer saying, but these trails aren't secrets to anyone

  10. #10
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,587
    Quote Originally Posted by beaverbiker View Post
    ...you mean the trail that never gets used by hikers and is pretty much maintained by bike riders? i get what yer saying, but these trails aren't secrets to anyone
    "Never" is a bit of an exaggeration; "seldom" is more appropriate---I can hook you up with a hiker whose arm was broken in a collision with a biker on "---- -----".

    And I've personally hiked all of NMSP quite a few times.

    I'm not sure where the open secret of the rampant SC trail poaching is headed; civil disobedience sometimes has positive effect, sometimes not.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    "Never" is a bit of an exaggeration; "seldom" is more appropriate---I can hook you up with a hiker whose arm was broken in a collision with a biker on "---- -----".

    And I've personally hiked all of NMSP quite a few times.

    I'm not sure where the open secret of the rampant SC trail poaching is headed; civil disobedience sometimes has positive effect, sometimes not.
    I know where it's heading... towards more and more trails being built in the county. After all the mtb poaching in UC, we finally got a multi-use trail built to access all those sweet poaching trails. Couldn't be better than that.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    Quote Originally Posted by beaverbiker View Post
    I know where it's heading... towards more and more trails being built in the county. After all the mtb poaching in UC, we finally got a multi-use trail built to access all those sweet poaching trails. Couldn't be better than that.
    That was one of the arguments against the new trail. If someone is working against your interests, why give them more ammo?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by HarryCallahan View Post
    That was one of the arguments against the new trail. If someone is working against your interests, why give them more ammo?
    And it was deemed unreasonable and the trail was built. Not sure I see your point.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carl Hungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,014
    Quote Originally Posted by beaverbiker View Post
    Not sure I see your point.
    Not sure I see yours either. You seem to be implying that years of poaching directly led to the Pogonip MUT trail getting built. That is/was not the case at all.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,363
    You really think MBOSC and the rest of the santa cruz cycling community would have the contingency it has without all the illegal trails in santa cruz? The massive network of trails in the santa cruz area is what drew many cyclists and businesses to the area over the decades. These same people helped make the new trail happen.

  16. #16
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Hungus View Post
    Not sure I see yours either. You seem to be implying that years of poaching directly led to the Pogonip MUT trail getting built. That is/was not the case at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by beaverbiker View Post
    You really think MBOSC and the rest of the santa cruz cycling community would have the contingency it has without all the illegal trails in santa cruz? The massive network of trails in the santa cruz area is what drew many cyclists and businesses to the area over the decades. These same people helped make the new trail happen.
    Actually, I think beavers has it right...

    without a demonstrated need for more trails (and the MTB community building volunteer trails) no new 'legal' trails would be built.

    without the organized efforts of local advocacy educating and getting 'buy-in' from local government and the non-MTB community there would be no new 'legal' trails built.

    striking the balance is tricky - but it looks more and more like Santa Cruz is moving in the right direction for MTB access thanks to all the local riders and MBoSC.

    my .02


    PS - please no more discussion of locations and trail names that are off limits...pretty please...
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carl Hungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,014
    Quote Originally Posted by beaverbiker View Post
    You really think MBOSC and the rest of the santa cruz cycling community would have the contingency it has without all the illegal trails in santa cruz? The massive network of trails in the santa cruz area is what drew many cyclists and businesses to the area over the decades. These same people helped make the new trail happen.
    I hear what you're saying. I guess what I'm disputing is this idea that if we all just keep riding undocumented trails, the powers at be will suddenly come to their senses and let us build more legal trails. I think pretending that the act of simply riding undocumented trail by itself will lead to anything positive is a huge fallacy and doesn't give nearly enough credit to the people that have put in an s-load of time and energy into getting one little 2 mile trail built. I'm not saying don't poach or whatever, just don't delude yourself into thinking that what you're doing is actually helping. I'm including myself in this equation for the record.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carl Hungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,014
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    Actually, I think beavers has it right...

    without a demonstrated need for more trails (and the MTB community building volunteer trails) no new 'legal' trails would be built.

    without the organized efforts of local advocacy educating and getting 'buy-in' from local government and the non-MTB community there would be no new 'legal' trails built.

    striking the balance is tricky - but it looks more and more like Santa Cruz is moving in the right direction for MTB access thanks to all the local riders and MBoSC.

    my .02


    PS - please no more discussion of locations and trail names that are off limits...pretty please...
    I would say that the Pogonip MUT getting built had VERY little to do with a "demonstrated need for more trails" honestly. It's nice to think that, but I don't think that's the way it went down. Environmental health and fire safety were much bigger concerns for the City Council than providing recreational opportunities. At least that's the impression I got from the meetings I attended. Maybe there was more that went on behind closed doors.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Frenzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    105
    I just learned about a new trail to ride in NMSP from this thread...not sure how I feel about this at this point.

    want to go ride it...yes

    upset that I now know it is ridden...yes
    "It's not about the bike"

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    It wasn't deemed unreasonable; it just wasn't as pertinent to the situation and problem of the property owner - City Of Santa Cruz. It was outweighed by the need of the city to deal with an expensive and ongoing law enforcement problem. But if we were talking about a new trail in an area, say a nearby park, already impacted by poaching, that makes it a very different issue.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Hungus View Post
    I would say that the Pogonip MUT getting built had VERY little to do with a "demonstrated need for more trails" honestly. It's nice to think that, but I don't think that's the way it went down. Environmental health and fire safety were much bigger concerns for the City Council than providing recreational opportunities. At least that's the impression I got from the meetings I attended. Maybe there was more that went on behind closed doors.
    What he said.

  22. #22
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Hungus View Post
    I would say that the Pogonip MUT getting built had VERY little to do with a "demonstrated need for more trails" honestly. It's nice to think that, but I don't think that's the way it went down. Environmental health and fire safety were much bigger concerns for the City Council than providing recreational opportunities. At least that's the impression I got from the meetings I attended. Maybe there was more that went on behind closed doors.
    interesting....from my perspective there was the basic NIMBY'ism going on from the residents (and an ex mayor) who were the major roadblocks (for many years)...tables were turned when rangers, fire, police chimed in with a lot of praise for the MTB community...a rather big community in SC County (this is way overgeneralized)

    Recognition of responsible riding goes along way. If it weren't for the volunteer trails in the immediate area there would be no demonstrated 'need' of a new connector trail that goes up and thru a legal system.

    Also displacing junkie camps helps

    on a side note the volunteer trails in my kneck of the woods have been given the 'ok' nod from Rangers who appreciate the activity from multiple user groups...and I believe will go a long way in in getting that little system legalized.

    This is also the case in Sedona as many volunteer trails have been integrated into legal status...as well as many other locales.

    By no means do I advocate solely in illegal riding - for real access I believe (for the interim) you need both to get the point across.


    Mr ToadSC of course knows way more than I will ever know (as do you I'm sure).
    Edit: pretty sure HarryCallahan knows way more than I do as well.
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by HarryCallahan View Post
    What he said.
    So if there weren't any trails up there and no one was heading that way, they still would have had mtb'ers build a trail that goes in that direction? Because a sweet flowy mtb trail is what is needed for environmental health and fire safety?

  24. #24
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Another recent 'opening' a trail for MTB's on a Federal level is the PCT re-route in the Sierra from Packer Saddle Campground to 'A' tree. The FS documents state multiple times that MTB flow cannot be stemmed on that section of the PCT as 1 of the reasons to legalize that section and rebuild the PCT at a lower level (taking out the Deer Lakes trail).

    this was around a month ago that the EA was released by the FS.


    EDIT: please note, that section of the PCT is not currently legal until the re-route is complete....jut so ya know
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  25. #25
    Dirty by Nature
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,303
    Well, Emma does connect to the campus and Wilder--all in a very legal and wholesome way. I'm sure plenty of people will use it for that.

    Plenty I tell ya...
    Friends don't let friends ride e-"bikes" on dirt.

    Nature is not a sidewalk (I'm looking at you, MidPen).

  26. #26
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtvert View Post
    Well, Emma does connect to the campus and Wilder--all legal. I'm sure plenty of people will use it for that.

    Plenty I tell ya...


    Emma connects to U-Conn....U-Conn connects to the upper campus legal fireroads for the last decade or so...

    purty sure anyhoo...only made it around 500 yards up emma yesterday - my son broke his chain
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  27. #27
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,587

    Nisene Marks

    My understanding is that NMSP should be an area of more concern than say Wilder or Cowell; there are deed restrictions that limit usages---horses are nearly completely excluded and bikes mostly limited to the roads.

    All it will take is the right group with the right resources to file a suit against the CSP's currently lax enforcement and it could come down very hard against bike access in Nisene and resultingly in all other State Parks in the Santa Cruz District.

    Don't say I didn't warn ya'
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    Quote Originally Posted by beaverbiker View Post
    So if there weren't any trails up there and no one was heading that way, they still would have had mtb'ers build a trail that goes in that direction? Because a sweet flowy mtb trail is what is needed for environmental health and fire safety?
    Pretty much yes. The premise is "Legal use tends to drive out illegal use." The trail was built to connect town with Uconn, so connects the levee trail with Uconn and becomes part of the trail system. It was deliberately routed through the area that had been the open air heroin market and shooting gallery. Most of us aren't stopping to cook up and shoot up along the trail, and the dealers don't want the visibility. Mtb'ers built the trail because even with all the approvals, the city would have said "nice idea but no money". And it's good PR.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carl Hungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,014
    Quote Originally Posted by beaverbiker View Post
    So if there weren't any trails up there and no one was heading that way, they still would have had mtb'ers build a trail that goes in that direction? Because a sweet flowy mtb trail is what is needed for environmental health and fire safety?
    The reason they had mtbers build the trail is because A) we're the only ones that actually know what we're doing when it comes to that and B) they know we provide free volunteer labor. Of course the bike industry/culture in Santa Cruz is starting to help move things in a good direction trail wise but I'm telling you recreation/bike culture/industry was pretty far down the list of things that made that specific project happen.

    When Santa Cruz City goes and buys that whole piece of land and adds it to its official park holdings and officially sanctions all those trails with the help of the local industry, then you'll have something.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,755
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    Another recent 'opening' a trail for MTB's on a Federal level is the PCT re-route in the Sierra from Packer Saddle Campground to 'A' tree. The FS documents state multiple times that MTB flow cannot be stemmed on that section of the PCT as 1 of the reasons to legalize that section and rebuild the PCT at a lower level (taking out the Deer Lakes trail).

    this was around a month ago that the EA was released by the FS.


    EDIT: please note, that section of the PCT is not currently legal until the re-route is complete....jut so ya know
    BTW the comment period for that ended last Monday. What is hilarious is that the section of the PCT that would open up to bikes cuts short, really who drops gold lakes road after the PCT, they are generally heading to Deer Lake, Elwell or A-Tree. Do they really think there going to stem bikers poaching the PCT by taking away a couple of bike legal trails that have been ridden for decades. Those trails will become less hard to ride and much more attractive to bikes. The reroute means more bikes on the PCT not less.
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  31. #31
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,618
    Quote Originally Posted by tahoebc View Post
    btw the comment period for that ended last monday. What is hilarious is that the section of the pct that would open up to bikes cuts short, really who drops gold lakes road after the pct, they are generally heading to deer lake, elwell or a-tree. Do they really think there going to stem bikers poaching the pct by taking away a couple of bike legal trails that have been ridden for decades. Those trails will become less hard to ride and much more attractive to bikes. The reroute means more bikes on the pct not less.
    shhhhhh!!!!

    Click Here for Forum Rules

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: squashyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    4,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Frenzzy View Post
    I just learned about a new trail to ride in NMSP from this thread...not sure how I feel about this at this point.

    want to go ride it...yes

    upset that I now know it is ridden...yes
    Don't get too excited, the trail is a nightmare leaving you wishing you never knew it existed. See for yourself if you must.

    On a side note, wish they'd stop removing so many jumps in Demo that have been there forever and were rock solid last time I hit'm. Please stop, please.
    I'm not sure how this works.

Similar Threads

  1. Niner Demo Day - LBL Canal Loop 6/17/12
    By ky_ace in forum Midwest - IL, IN, OH, KY, IA, MO, MI
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-05-2012, 04:48 AM
  2. Last minute: Aptos>Demo>Aptos
    By motorbacon in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-25-2012, 01:44 PM
  3. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-13-2011, 11:30 PM
  4. Aptos
    By Carl Hungus in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-12-2011, 06:12 AM

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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