Results 1 to 49 of 49
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    39

    Hall Ranch Trail Re-route looks lame

    So has anyone else seen the new planned route for the Hall Ranch trail at the top of the rock garden? The work day is September 29th an I encourage anyone that would like to keep our front range single track fast and fun to ride to show up. They are re-routing because of the muddy conditions the existing trail has during the winter. But, the new re-route is as non-fallline as a trail can get. Show up and encourage them to remove all the 180 turns and build a trail that is fun to ride and is more in the overall fast-flowing-technical nature of Hall Ranch.

  2. #2
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,063
    Showing up at a work day and expecting to influence the planned re-route -- ie what you're there to work on -- seems unlikely, no?

  3. #3
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    The trail was laid out by the Hall Ranch Ranger, Denny, and Mike from trails crew. Both guys are very cool and open to suggestion. Both are avid riders, too, for what it's worth. Best thing to do if you want to influence the trail is show up and help.

    At the end of the day, though, they have to operate within county guidelines for recommended grade, etc for multi use trails, ie lowest common denominator. The goal is to build a trail that'll be as close to 4 season as possible with as little long term maintenance as possible. I haven't seen the flagging yet, but I plan to check out the route tomorrow.
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  4. #4
    contains quinine
    Reputation: Debaser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,619
    Quote Originally Posted by ignazjr View Post
    The trail was laid out by the Hall Ranch Ranger, Denny, and Mike from trails crew. Both guys are very cool and open to suggestion. Both are avid riders, too, for what it's worth. Best thing to do if you want to influence the trail is show up and help.
    If those two are involved, I expect the best possible outcome. Stand up guys fosho.
    Take the long cut, we'll get there eventually.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,239
    What year is this?
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,233
    This is totally going to ruin my Strava times.

  7. #7
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,472
    If you want to influence a trails routing you need to be involved well before the build day(s)

    You also need to understand at least something about sustainable trail construction.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bedell99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,185
    Is the reroute after the keyhole?

    Erik

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3
    Boulder County Open Space - Unnecessarily restricting peaceful behavior for no reason other than it makes political types feel good about themselves.

  10. #10
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,472
    Quote Originally Posted by freebcos View Post
    Boulder County Open Space - Unnecessarily restricting peaceful behavior for no reason other than it makes political types feel good about themselves.
    Say what?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Say what?
    maybe the chicken is back!

  12. #12
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    I went up to take a look at the reroute this morning. The flagging is pretty loose at best. Knowing the guys in charge of the project, they'll definitely listen to ideas about potential changes to the flagging. I doubt you'll get it rerouted entirely, but if you show up and have a tool in hand, you'll be able to manage the trail for flow.

    Personally, I found the potential of what's flagged to be pretty good. It's going to add quite a bit of extra mileage and it uses the natural terrain pretty well. It's not steep at all, but I believe what's flagged is well in line with the fast and flowy nature of the non-rock garden part of Hall. Think of the Hall Ranch loop uphill in the clockwise direction. I'm stoked for it.

    If anyone does the workday on the 29th, swing by the shop afterwards for beers!
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  13. #13
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Erik - the reroute will go from the top of the rock garden and thru the meadow where the doubletrack is down to the junction with Antelope. The plan is to put the trail in an area that drains better and gets more sun so we can ride it more year round.
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  14. #14
    contains quinine
    Reputation: Debaser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,619
    Quote Originally Posted by ignazjr View Post
    Erik - the reroute will go from the top of the rock garden and thru the meadow where the doubletrack is down to the junction with Antelope. The plan is to put the trail in an area that drains better and gets more sun so we can ride it more year round.
    Sounds like a good move to me.
    Take the long cut, we'll get there eventually.

  15. #15
    Living the High Life
    Reputation: Ithnu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4,535
    Quote Originally Posted by brokefork View Post
    maybe the chicken is back!
    Hope so, been kinda dull around here without him.
    You have just been mentally Rick Roll'd. Yup you're thinking about it right now aren't you? Don't fight it.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bedell99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,185
    That sounds great. It gets so muddy in that area during the Winter.

    Dave,

    See you on the 30th.

    Erik

  17. #17
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3
    The chicken will rise again!

  18. #18
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by ignazjr View Post
    Erik - the reroute will go from the top of the rock garden and thru the meadow where the doubletrack is down to the junction with Antelope. The plan is to put the trail in an area that drains better and gets more sun so we can ride it more year round.
    Sounds like a good idea. That part of the trail is usually the muddiest part of the ride, and sometimes it is so bad it keeps folks from continuing on.

    I will show up to help, I ride Hall a lot in the winter.
    .




    Strava: turn off your dork logger when you're not on sanctioned trails.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by freebcos View Post
    The chicken will rise again!
    Naw, pretty sure his head was chopped a while back. You could take his place though, spouting nonrelevant crap endlessly, forever and ever. Just kidding, you know.

  20. #20
    Living the High Life
    Reputation: Ithnu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4,535
    Quote Originally Posted by brokefork View Post
    Naw, pretty sure his head was chopped a while back. You could take his place though, spouting nonrelevant crap endlessly, forever and ever. Just kidding, you know.
    The mods even pulled that thread I started with a headless fried chicken kicking. Ah memories...
    You have just been mentally Rick Roll'd. Yup you're thinking about it right now aren't you? Don't fight it.

  21. #21
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3
    He's here - there - everywhere.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Ithnu View Post
    The mods even pulled that thread I started with a headless fried chicken kicking. Ah memories...
    Could you post that one again, laughed my ass off!

  23. #23
    starladear
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    371
    Why not leave both routes open?

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,239
    Quote Originally Posted by brokefork View Post
    Naw, pretty sure his head was chopped a while back. You could take his place though, spouting nonrelevant crap endlessly, forever and ever. Just kidding, you know.
    Mike? He lived for a while w/o a head from what I hear.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  25. #25
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,472
    Quote Originally Posted by starladear View Post
    Why not leave both routes open?
    One would assume there's a reason for the re-route.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jonny boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by ignazjr View Post
    Erik - the reroute will go from the top of the rock garden and thru the meadow where the doubletrack is down to the junction with Antelope. The plan is to put the trail in an area that drains better and gets more sun so we can ride it more year round.
    Good deal. That one section could cut your ride short on many days in the winter, so hopefully that occurs less frequently with the re-route.

    I wonder if with this development it makes sense to flag trail conditions for the main route and for the upper loop, separately? As in, there are even more times you should not be riding the upper loop in the winter. And apparently many people don't understand that.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    150

    come on people

    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    Sounds like a good idea. That part of the trail is usually the muddiest part of the ride, and sometimes it is so bad it keeps folks from continuing on.

    I will show up to help, I ride Hall a lot in the winter.

    I took a look at the trail flags yesterday and my first thought was "are they flagging a cross course in the middle of Hall with all those 180 turns?". Then I realized it was actually going to be a mtb trail, and that it would replace (I assume?) a fun section of trail, both up and down, and my next thought was "what is being done to Boulder County trails, both new and alterations, is a f...ing joke."

    The idea of this change is good, to make Hall more rideable in the winter since people will try to ride it anyway. But the original section needs to be kept open for the 9 months of dry season riding. With both trails available, it's kind of like having stairs and a wheelchair ramp option to get to the same place. Now that I think about it, from the looks of it you could literally take a wheelchair up and down the new section. I don't mean to be mean, but the trails builders should be ashamed of that fact.

    If the guidelines for slope, etc. are really what is making most/all new Boco trails "the enemy of fun", then time/effort spent working on new trails would be better spent changing the guidelines instead. And let me preempt the response of "well if you don't like it show up with a shovel and give your input". Here's my input: do the opposite of what is being done. Instead of making Every trail easier and rideable by anyone, make some trails harder. Don't put in 180 deg turns on flat terrain. Do not put in excessive off-camber turns to deliberatly slow down riders (Picture Rock anyone?). Refuse to conform to guidelines that do not makes sense and/or change the character of existing trail. Do not be an enemy of fun.

  28. #28
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,360
    Quote Originally Posted by williford View Post
    Do not put in excessive off-camber turns to deliberatly slow down riders (Picture Rock anyone?).
    I can't say that I have noticed this at Picture Rock. Yeah perhaps some sections could be steeper which would please the gravity set, but you still have to ride up the thing. I think PR is great. The only detriment to fun on that trail is its popularity. The only way to ride it is to chase the sunset down when no one is coming up...

    As to Hall Ranch, I'll wait and see. Personally I'll be please with more winter riding options. Does the reroute add any mileage to the trail or is it just avoiding mud?

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by kerryn View Post
    As to Hall Ranch, I'll wait and see. Personally I'll be please with more winter riding options. Does the reroute add any mileage to the trail or is it just avoiding mud?

    From the looks of it, the only mileage that may be added is due to them running 180 switchbacks down the slope from just past the bench at the top of the rock garden to the other bench where antelope connects. Aside from the needless switchbacks, it is a more direct route than the existing trail so the mileage difference is negligible. The main difference is the severe detriment to the quality of the trail.

  30. #30
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Severe detriment to the quality of the trail is in the eye of the beholder, eh? If you want fall line-esque trails, there are plenty of them around. Check out Left Hand OHV if you want gnarly fall line trails. At Hall Ranch, however, Boulder County is trying to manage for the amount of use this trail gets so they have to do less work to the trail over time. The trail in its current state (pre-reroute) sees pretty major work every couple of years because it is poorly built and easily destroyed.

    Personally, I'm cool with it either way. To be able to ride more year round is great, but it's such a short and, IMO, negligible part of the trail that I really don't care. I get the fortune or misfortune to hear about it all day long in the bike shop and I will go as far to say, though, that the vast majority of BoCo's trail users prefer the way Boulder County has been building trails lately. Heil, Hall, Betasso, any of the reroutes or new stuff done in the last few years, most people LOVE. Also, the majority of trail users at Boulder County OS parks have never heard of mtbr. We are a very limited audience.

    I hear you williford, but the reality is if you want tougher, faster terrain, there is PLENTY of it out there, and close, too. Just not on Boulder County OS property. Lowest Common Denominator.
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  31. #31
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,472
    Quote Originally Posted by williford View Post
    From the looks of it, the only mileage that may be added is due to them running 180 switchbacks down the slope from just past the bench at the top of the rock garden to the other bench where antelope connects. Aside from the needless switchbacks, it is a more direct route than the existing trail so the mileage difference is negligible. The main difference is the severe detriment to the quality of the trail.
    180? That's a lot.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    180? That's a lot.
    ha, 180deg

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    150
    Agreed, a lame trail for some is exciting for others; it's all opinion. It's good to hear, though hard to believe, that most random users you talk to prefer the way trails are being built. Everyone I've talked to about it thinks it's atrocious, but maybe we ride in different circles. I'm wondering if those who say good things about the new trail designs would be happy with Any new trail no matter how easy/difficult it is, just out of sheer need for more trail. My take is, this section is only going to be ridden by people who went up or down the rock garden, so why make this new section wheelchair accessible?

    Yes Picture Rock/new Betasso are good for mountain biking in general and give connection options for bigger rides, but it is sad that the lowest common denominator is the only group catered to with trail building. (Does anyone question why West was caught riding some rogue stuff off of Flag?) Do you know who decides the guidelines for new trails? And why are the guidelines vastly different everywhere else I've ridden?

    ohv is great, I probably ride there 10x more than Hall/Heil. It makes me feel a little sketch with the rampant illegal shooting all over the place, and I've had a gun pointed at me twice, but hey it beats riding lame trails.

  34. #34
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    It's in Boulder County Open Spaces charter, although not explicit, to manage with a bias towards preservation over recreation. What is explicit in its charter is that all recreation will be passive recreation. Mountain biking is also explicitly written in as passive recreation. What passive means, though, is at the discretion of those in charge. Right now, those in charge are Ron Stewart (self appointed head of OS) and 3 county commissioners. Decisions are based on that hierarchy. If low level management is comfortable making a decision, they will. If they are not comfortable making that decision, even something like trail layout can, and will, and has, gone all the way to the top - Ron Stewart. You could say that the trail crew in general on OS property manages with a WWRD attitude. In the counties eyes, mellow and flowy lines are passive and get bikers out enjoying the beauty of Open Space. Steep trails, features, etc, are for thrillseekers and are not conducive to multi usability nor are they conducive to passive recreation.

    To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised someone in OS ok'd this reroute at all. Moving the trail a few feet out of the existing trail corridor is generally ok, but an obvious change in thinking reroute like this generally can only be approved in a parkwide management plan review and re-draft.

    Yes, the background politics are really that bad. Be stoked you can ride what little you can ride on County OS trails. For real ass hauling, no regard for who's around the corner type of fun, go to US Forest lands. It's what my "riding circle" does.

    edit - I am absolutely not trying to start an eflame or get personal, strictly trying to explain that even something like a minor trail reroute has extremely deep political roots. Just trying to clarify the politics behind something that seems, on the surface, should be a no brainer. Anyone up for a BoCo political discussion, come on by Redstone. Beers are on me.
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    150
    This explanation is very helpful, I really appreciate it. My guess is that Ron and the commissioners are nothing more than passive recreationers at best, if even mtbers. It is sad that they pull the strings on trail design.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,239
    Solution to boring trails, break out the rigid SS.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  37. #37
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,472
    Quote Originally Posted by ignazjr View Post
    Severe detriment to the quality of the trail is in the eye of the beholder, eh? If you want fall line-esque trails, there are plenty of them around. Check out Left Hand OHV if you want gnarly fall line trails. At Hall Ranch, however, Boulder County is trying to manage for the amount of use this trail gets so they have to do less work to the trail over time. The trail in its current state (pre-reroute) sees pretty major work every couple of years because it is poorly built and easily destroyed.

    Personally, I'm cool with it either way. To be able to ride more year round is great, but it's such a short and, IMO, negligible part of the trail that I really don't care. I get the fortune or misfortune to hear about it all day long in the bike shop and I will go as far to say, though, that the vast majority of BoCo's trail users prefer the way Boulder County has been building trails lately. Heil, Hall, Betasso, any of the reroutes or new stuff done in the last few years, most people LOVE. Also, the majority of trail users at Boulder County OS parks have never heard of mtbr. We are a very limited audience.

    I hear you williford, but the reality is if you want tougher, faster terrain, there is PLENTY of it out there, and close, too. Just not on Boulder County OS property. Lowest Common Denominator.
    There is a lot of trail building on the docket for the next few years in Summit County. A lot of it is on FS land and some of it on open space. The NEPA seems to be moving along without too much in the way of show stoppers so we should hopefully be starting on some of it this coming building season.
    We've had this conversation with the folks from the FS and open space quite a bit - steep and technical vs gradual and flowing. The bottom line always comes back to sustainability. No one in the planning process is "anti fun". or out to "kill fun". They are open to ways to create a variety of experiences, but the trails have to be able withstand the amount of use they get and the elements.

    Steep trails have to have either very durable soil types or utilize rock armoring along with a lot of attention paid to drainage control and even then, they require extra maintenance. All those things are possible but they take a lot of labor - something that most folks who complain about how "sanitized" the trails are don't seem to be willing to put the same amount of time and energy into as they do complaining. The FS stance is that those types of trails are best suited for the lift resorts since they are set up to charge fees that pay for the cost of professional maintenance. Open space's stance is "fine, but the more time and money on maintenance, the less time and money we spend on land acquisition and planning and building new trails, that's not a trade off the majority of the public and the elected officials who ultimately make the calls wants us to make". They will also point out quite accurately, if people want steep and rocky, there is plenty of that type of riding around in the old mining roads that abound around here as well as some single track.

    You can lessen the grade of the trail but still have lots of rocks and roots rather than a completely buff tread surface which is what we are recommending although we recognize that people tend to go around at lot of this stuff and create braids. (yes we all do it at least some of the time, even you super rad AM brahs with mad skilz out there). So you need to create pinches, narrow tree corridors and so forth to keep people on the trail. Usually though, it's buff, flowing, rolling single track that stays in the best shape and requires the least amount of maintenance.

    It all comes down to everything is a compromise in trail design and building. You'll never please everyone. Someone will always be unhappy that a trail doesn't fit what they think is fun and some people will absolutely love that same trail. The trail designer/builder has to work within a lot of constraints, be they social, environmental, financial, availability of volunteers and so on. Folks will always, and should voice their opinion and desires of course, but they should also understand that there is a lot of consideration and balancing that has to go into what a new trail will look like.

  38. #38
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,579

    Soft Bike Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ignazjr View Post
    It's in Boulder County Open Spaces charter, although not explicit, to manage with a bias towards preservation over recreation. What is explicit in its charter is that all recreation will be passive recreation. ....

    To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised someone in OS ok'd this reroute at all. Moving the trail a few feet out of the existing trail corridor is generally ok, but an obvious change in thinking reroute like this generally can only be approved in a parkwide management plan review and re-draft.

    Yes, the background politics are really that bad. Be stoked you can ride what little you can ride on County OS trails. For real ass hauling, no regard for who's around the corner type of fun, go to US Forest lands. It's what my "riding circle" does.
    The truth isn't pretty. Thanks for your blunt observations.

    Much the same is being attempted here in CS at Red Rocks Canyon and
    Manitou Section 16. Adding @ 35 switchbacks into proposed trail reroutes
    in what we were told is a "sustainable" trail design. Stairs were built on some sections before planning even took place.

    I'm not going to apologize for calling it for what it is. It's a "soft bike ban".
    I can't blame them for trying to "just build something bikers won't want to
    use". If I hated bikes, I would do it too. Yes 32x18, that's how politics is
    played. I don't make the rules, but I do know how to play the game.

    We'll find out soon if our efforts at RRC last year paid off. Browsing the draft docs
    online I see where the City has actually admitted hikers and bikers impacts
    are the same. A huge victory IMHO. I believe the city abandoning the
    process last year was a victory too. The City was scared about the
    political fallout of closing trails to bikes, which I believe some in the RRC friends group thought they could do.

    I also see these new trail layouts as a passing fad. Hikers will create shortcuts
    between the switchbacks, new social trails will be made, and then we'll
    need more planning meetings, and more trail maintenance, and more trail
    reroutes. We've been down this road before. History repeats itself.
    This is nothing new.

    I hope that is becoming clear(er) to the MTB advocates that
    "Passive recreation" and "sustainable trail design" are both open to
    interpretation to suit the circumstances. They can be used to deny or
    grant access depending on who is using them and how.

    It's almost like the entire open space community is still in denial about the
    role mountain biking plays in our local communities and state. It's a
    love-hate relationship.

    Pretty pictures of MTBers sells airplane tickets and fills hotels, and for
    many of us is the reason we moved/live here. Yes Open Space likes our money.

    But the reality of sharing trails is too much for NIMBY's.

    So while some believe progression mountain biking is dropping a 50' cliff, progression to me will be when we finally move past this juvenile discussion of "who" should be allowed where, and we finally start building trails/parks with mountain bikes in mind. Yeah that's why I'm here.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,239
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    There is a lot of trail building on the docket for the next few years in Summit County. A lot of it is on FS land and some of it on open space. The NEPA seems to be moving along without too much in the way of show stoppers so we should hopefully be starting on some of it this coming building season.
    We've had this conversation with the folks from the FS and open space quite a bit - steep and technical vs gradual and flowing. The bottom line always comes back to sustainability. No one in the planning process is "anti fun". or out to "kill fun". They are open to ways to create a variety of experiences, but the trails have to be able withstand the amount of use they get and the elements.

    Steep trails have to have either very durable soil types or utilize rock armoring along with a lot of attention paid to drainage control and even then, they require extra maintenance. All those things are possible but they take a lot of labor - something that most folks who complain about how "sanitized" the trails are don't seem to be willing to put the same amount of time and energy into as they do complaining. The FS stance is that those types of trails are best suited for the lift resorts since they are set up to charge fees that pay for the cost of professional maintenance. Open space's stance is "fine, but the more time and money on maintenance, the less time and money we spend on land acquisition and planning and building new trails, that's not a trade off the majority of the public and the elected officials who ultimately make the calls wants us to make". They will also point out quite accurately, if people want steep and rocky, there is plenty of that type of riding around in the old mining roads that abound around here as well as some single track.

    You can lessen the grade of the trail but still have lots of rocks and roots rather than a completely buff tread surface which is what we are recommending although we recognize that people tend to go around at lot of this stuff and create braids. (yes we all do it at least some of the time, even you super rad AM brahs with mad skilz out there). So you need to create pinches, narrow tree corridors and so forth to keep people on the trail. Usually though, it's buff, flowing, rolling single track that stays in the best shape and requires the least amount of maintenance.

    It all comes down to everything is a compromise in trail design and building. You'll never please everyone. Someone will always be unhappy that a trail doesn't fit what they think is fun and some people will absolutely love that same trail. The trail designer/builder has to work within a lot of constraints, be they social, environmental, financial, availability of volunteers and so on. Folks will always, and should voice their opinion and desires of course, but they should also understand that there is a lot of consideration and balancing that has to go into what a new trail will look like.
    Let me just say, this is such a 1st world problem.
    Great post and insight.
    Be forewarned, just my opinion here.
    First off, run what ya brung. That being said if you’re out on some of these heavily used, multi-use FR trails that are too smooth or buff for you and riding you're big bike… well, what do you expect? Never having attended one of these planning meetings that Dave and zrm are talking about I can totally understand what they are reporting back from the “powers that be.” I haven’t been on Hall’s for years for various reasons but does it surprise anyone that BoCo is going to build the most sustainable (fill in the blank) they can. If you look at BoCo’s policies and politics it shouldn’t come as any surprise. Hell, I think it’s great that they are even open to building new trails and aware of the need. As Dave said, just a short drive away are some great tech trails, easily accessed and with waaay less people on it where you can let it all hang out.
    I have to say that I think it’s funny that riders think that the “powers that be” owe it to us to build trails to suit six inches of travel. Gear down, there’s still plenty of challenge on FR trails.
    Last edited by jugdish; 10-02-2012 at 06:39 PM.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bedell99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,185
    When they opened the Benjamin loop at Betasso, I stopped at the bench and one of bikers was saying how this trail sucks and it not technical/waste of time and I'm thinking the complete opposite. I thought it was great. I still think it is great and super fun.

    Everyone is going to have a different opinion when a new trail is made or fixed/sanitized. I caught some flack last year when I recommended that the upper portion of Longhornat White Ranch needed to be fixed. People went apeshit and wrote me some really nasty comments on my rep, but it was still a fact that a 4 foot gulley was not sustainable. Yes it is fun going down, but putting waterbars every 15 feet is not good trail design unless you want to work on it every 5 years.

    I think it is a good idea for BCOS to move this portion of the trail. In late Febraury the trail becomes a rail road track of people who decided to either hike or bike when the trail was a mud pit.

    Erik

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,942
    Does the reroute have anything to do with slowing down the overall speed of mtb'ers as they confront the hordes of runners? Ya know, so many switchbacks nobody gets their STRAVA on and they just mosey along, saying hi to everyone?

    And if the chicken is back under a new disguise, I for one will know.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    Does the reroute have anything to do with slowing down the overall speed of mtb'ers as they confront the hordes of runners? Ya know, so many switchbacks nobody gets their STRAVA on and they just mosey along, saying hi to everyone?

    And if the chicken is back under a new disguise, I for one will know.
    Go ride your bike and find out.

  43. #43
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    The reroute is solely to make hopefully make that section rideable in the winter. Secondarily to get rid of the erosion prone trail it's replacing.
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  44. #44
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,360
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    Does the reroute have anything to do with slowing down the overall speed of mtb'ers as they confront the hordes of runners? Ya know, so many switchbacks nobody gets their STRAVA on and they just mosey along, saying hi to everyone?
    That wouldn't stop Stravaites. It'll just be s new challenge to get around the switchbacks as quick as possible.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,225
    I think it's great if they are trying to keep it open in wet conditions. I agree with ignazir, if you want some challenging rides head up to Brainard Lake or LHOHV.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Revotseel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    32
    The reroute is solely to make, hopefully make, that section rideable in the winter. Secondarily to get rid of the erosion prone trail it's replacing.
    Eventually, Boulder will realize the best way to reduce erosion on trails is to outlaw mountain biking. And then Boulder will cease to be a travel destination for mountain biking. Oh, wait...

    Rode the reroute last night. One challenge can replace another. I'll look forward to killing more prairie dogs.
    ...and the Nun said, "Five bucks, same as in town."

  47. #47
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Revotseel View Post
    One challenge can replace another. I'll look forward to killing more prairie dogs.
    You'll need to get a permit for that.

  48. #48
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,360
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    You'll need to get a permit for that.
    What about rabbits? The stupid things dart under my wheels all the time. How I've managed to not squish one and wipe out I don't know. Only a matter of time I guess

    Also those frogs that croak on the trail and those birds that like to pretend to be a rock while nesting in the middle of a trail? I consider those fair game

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,239
    Quote Originally Posted by kerryn View Post
    those birds that like to pretend to be a rock while nesting in the middle of a trail? I consider those fair game
    Poor Wills.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

Posting Permissions

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