Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 81
  1. #26
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,902
    Quote Originally Posted by williford View Post
    It seems like no organization, including and especially BMA, wants to see a balanced mix of beginner, intermediate, and expert level trails in Boulder County.
    Absolutely false.
    BMA does want to see a mix of trail types and is working towards that goal. The land managers hold all the cards. Every time someone criticizes BMA like this it hurts the credibility they will need with those land managers to eventually make it happen.
    Thanks for being part of the problem.

  2. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Moustache rider View Post
    Absolutely false.
    BMA does want to see a mix of trail types and is working towards that goal. The land managers hold all the cards. Every time someone criticizes BMA like this it hurts the credibility they will need with those land managers to eventually make it happen.
    Thanks for being part of the problem.
    BMA may "want" to see something like a 15% / 45% / 30% mix of beginner/intermediate/expert trails in this area, but if that's true, the results of the past decade+ have shown that they are completely ineffective, as it's been more like 95% / 5% / 0%. Yes they do a good job fighting for trails whatsoever against a heavy anti-mtb environment. But when they say "see what we've done for you" regarding picture rock, benjamin, wild turkey, high-fructose mag, aka the same windy, anti-speed, beginner type of trail, they are telling me they care more about quality than quantity, and I am not alone in that perception. If you think I'm part of the problem for not falling in line behind whatever BMA says and does, then I guess I'm part of the problem.

  3. #28
    Unpredictable
    Reputation: Ridnparadise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,908
    This section of trail may not be great, but as per usual there are haters coming out of the woodwork to criticise it. Were you there to have your say when it was being mapped and built? Did you volunteer and contribute? No would be the typical answer.

    One suggestion was a sustainability comparison between this sort of gentle trail and steep ones that have to be re-routed every 5 years. Umm - there's a research fail right there.

    Be logical about trail grade. Firstly steep trail is not always faster or harder to ride - it just needs more brakes. Second, water accelerates along any trail grade and draining it off steep trail before it reaches waterfall speed is hard without water bars - great fun to ride there aren't. Thirdly there is no reason why tech features cannot be added to flow trail as alternate lines. Fourthly, not gentle trail stays buff for ever. They get roughed up and harder to ride as they narrow over time. Steep trail really only makes sense on rock, in bike parks, where winter snows destroy the trails yearly and on DH and enduro race courses.

    I think a lot of people forget that trails are built for all riders including entry level riders and kids. Without them there may be no need for LM's to consider MTB trails in the future. Sure, there should be harder trails, but either help build them or keep a little quieter when someone does the work for you and it isn't how you want it.

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Puddy View Post
    I guess I should buy a CX bike for all the awesome curvy, buff, fast, "flow" (wouldn't flow be bad for trail design since water likes to flow as well?) singletrack on the Front Range because my 6" full suspension bike is ridiculous on these trails.

    Do you need 6" of suspension for the rest of Hall's? I mean, when I grab my FS it's generally for something bigger than 80% of the rides I consider, "front range" trails. That's just me though.
    It's Hall's Ranch, probably one of the most heavily used trails in Boulder County. I'm suprised you all are so suprised.
    Last edited by jugdish; 12-09-2012 at 07:02 PM.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  5. #30
    Perpetually single track
    Reputation: ibmkidIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,165
    Quote Originally Posted by williford View Post
    If you think I'm part of the problem for not falling in line behind whatever BMA says and does, then I guess I'm part of the problem.
    Just thinking you're still missing the point here. No bike advocacy group is perfect but complaining about the one well organized group that is fighting the good fight up in Boulder is less than helpful. If you feel their direction needs work I'd recommend you get further involved with them. Volunteer, chat with the folks on the board at a build day. See what you can do to change their direction and maybe understand a bit more on what they are up against.

    My gut feeling is that Mtn. Bikers would have been marginalized even more in that county if it wasn't for what BMA has been doing up there.
    The more out of shape you are, the steeper the hill looks.

  6. #31
    zrm
    zrm is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by jugdish View Post
    Do you need 6" of suspension for the rest of Hall's? I mean, when I grab my FS it's generally for something bigger than 80% of the rides I consider, "front range" trails. That's just me though.
    It's Hall's Ranch, probably one of the most heavily used trails in Boulder County. I'm suprised you all are so suprised.
    Ha, isn't this kind of the crux of the biscuit? People buy bikes with lots of suspension, slack angles, etc and expect the trails to suit their bike rather than buying a bike to suit the trails.

  7. #32
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,861
    when I first started riding Hall many years ago, a hardtail with an 80mm fork was perfect. It has eroded quite a bit since then. The trail never was made for big bikes nor was it made for expert riders. It just happened to get that way from neglect and or lack of maintenance. I guess we'll have see what the future brings for Hall. The only constant is change.

    I was also fortunate enough to see the trail alignments at Heil before any of the trails were constructed. In every single case, BoCo already had the trail and the alignment in mind before a tool was laid to trail. BMA, IMBA, and the rest if us were *extremely * limited as to how much say we really had. The decisions really do come down to the land managers.
    Redstone Cyclery
    turner*intense*transition*REEB*Rocky Mt
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,845
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Ha, isn't this kind of the crux of the biscuit? People buy bikes with lots of suspension, slack angles, etc and expect the trails to suit their bike rather than buying a bike to suit the trails.
    Damn dude, I had a post typed up that I deleted saying basically the same thing. Agree 100%.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by jugdish View Post
    Do you need 6" of suspension for the rest of Hall's? I mean, when I grab my FS it's generally for something bigger than 80% of the rides I consider, "front range" trails. That's just me though.
    It's Hall's Ranch, probably one of the most heavily used trails in Boulder County. I'm suprised you all are so suprised.
    Harry and Lloyd discussing riding in Boulder county:

    Harry: I expected the Rocky Mountains to be a little rockier than this.
    Lloyd: I was thinking the same thing. That John Denver's full of ****, man.


    Sorry, I couldn't resist. In truth I withhold my judgement until I actually make it down to ride that section of trail, but my preliminary thoughts based on just reading this thread are that we on the Colorado Front range have a terrific opportunity to build some fantastic destination worthy trails, which in turn could become tourism revenue dollars. For living in such a great state I do spend quite a bit of money to ride trails in neighboring states (Curt Gowdy in Wyoming, Moab in Utah...et cetera). I do feel like the state as a whole could benefit from building some more diverse and some technical trails.

  10. #35
    zrm
    zrm is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by DanD View Post
    Harry and Lloyd discussing riding in Boulder county:

    Harry: I expected the Rocky Mountains to be a little rockier than this.
    Lloyd: I was thinking the same thing. That John Denver's full of ****, man.


    Sorry, I couldn't resist. In truth I withhold my judgement until I actually make it down to ride that section of trail, but my preliminary thoughts based on just reading this thread are that we on the Colorado Front range have a terrific opportunity to build some fantastic destination worthy trails, which in turn could become tourism revenue dollars. For living in such a great state I do spend quite a bit of money to ride trails in neighboring states (Curt Gowdy in Wyoming, Moab in Utah...et cetera). I do feel like the state as a whole could benefit from building some more diverse and some technical trails.
    Maybe I don't get out as much as you. but I've found there are no shortage of trails with lots of rocks in them out there. In addition, what is it that makes you think that highly technical trails are more of a tourist draw than trails that aren't as technical?

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    375
    I frequently used to see a dude riding Hall on a unicycle. Did anyone consider his flow?

  12. #37
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,145
    Quote Originally Posted by ignazjr View Post


    Old rehabbed trail on the right, new trail on the left.
    Where's the "bench" cut ?
    I see the mini-ex up there but did volunteers build this?

  13. #38
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,701
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Maybe I don't get out as much as you. but I've found there are no shortage of trails with lots of rocks in them out there. In addition, what is it that makes you think that highly technical trails are more of a tourist draw than trails that aren't as technical?
    I'm with zrm. If you're riding Boulder County Open Space trails for the gnar, then YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

  14. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Ridnparadise View Post
    Were you there to have your say when it was being mapped and built? Did you volunteer and contribute? No would be the typical answer.
    "Yes" is my answer. I have volunteered at Hall on trail building days before (but not during the building of this section), thanks for asking.

  15. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    375
    All I know is I'm trading in all my bikes for a 14 inch travel steed and strava-ing the hell out of anything in my way.

  16. #41
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,145
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    I'm with zrm. If you're riding Boulder County Open Space trails for the gnar, then BRING A GOLF CART.

  17. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Puddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    63

    Gnar, Gnar Bra!

    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    I'm with zrm. If you're riding Boulder County Open Space trails for the gnar, then YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
    ^ I'm not riding BCOS for the gnar but in the past I could ride my old ML8 on some of the trails and it was FUN. Now it seems like they are going to dumb down every trail to the lowest common denominator and completely remove anything approaching technical.

    I guess I should ask the bike industry why I need hydraulic disk brakes and full suspension for trails that are built with speed mitigation (lets be honest here kids that is what this is all about, make MTB slower so that all of us can get along with hikers and horses while we all sing Kumbaya and stroke our pet Unicorns) as the main focus. I used to think that we could all play together and get along but I am starting to think that the multi-use trail concept doesn't give any of the respective parties what they want.
    Feels like an Arby's night.

  18. #43
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Puddy View Post
    I used to think that we could all play together and get along but I am starting to think that the multi-use trail concept doesn't give any of the respective parties what they want.
    You may be closing in on the truth.

  19. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by Puddy View Post
    ^ I'm not riding BCOS for the gnar but in the past I could ride my old ML8 on some of the trails and it was FUN. Now it seems like they are going to dumb down every trail to the lowest common denominator and completely remove anything approaching technical.

    I guess I should ask the bike industry why I need hydraulic disk brakes and full suspension for trails that are built with speed mitigation (lets be honest here kids that is what this is all about, make MTB slower so that all of us can get along with hikers and horses while we all sing Kumbaya and stroke our pet Unicorns) as the main focus. I used to think that we could all play together and get along but I am starting to think that the multi-use trail concept doesn't give any of the respective parties what they want.
    The bike industry still get's theirs from you buying their bike(s). They aren't buildingk bikes for Hall Ranch. Buy/bring a different bike and you might find the trail entertainingk again, or, ride somewheres other than Hall. Trails <10mi from Boulder or Golden are going to get "sanitary attention" no matter how much everyone ebeotches.

    Plus there's much bigger issues at Hall than a little trail maintenance, I mean, the parking lot posing has got to stop

  20. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kokothemonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleBitey View Post
    The bike industry still get's theirs from you buying their bike(s). They aren't buildingk bikes for Hall Ranch. Buy/bring a different bike and you might find the trail entertainingk again, or, ride somewheres other than Hall. Trails <10mi from Boulder or Golden are going to get "sanitary attention" no matter how much everyone ebeotches.

    Plus there's much bigger issues at Hall than a little trail maintenance, I mean, the parking lot posing has got to stop
    What's ironic is that my bike from 15 years ago was more appropriate for the way trails are designed now.

    Anything I go buy from the bike store today it's too much bike for everything new being put in, save for the singlespeed which I wish I had.

  21. #46
    Unpredictable
    Reputation: Ridnparadise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    Where's the "bench" cut ?
    I see the mini-ex up there but did volunteers build this?
    There is a bench. It's just not dramatic and will shed water well by the looks. For better riders it should also ride better than a more manufactured bench, being less "sanitised".

    It looks like better placed trail than the closed bit above.

  22. #47
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Ridnparadise View Post
    There is a bench. It's just not dramatic and will shed water well by the looks. For better riders it should also ride better than a more manufactured bench, being less "sanitised".

    It looks like better placed trail than the closed bit above.
    I agree the line looks really good but the trail tread wasn't cut in IMHO.
    The tread only needs 3-4% outslope, that looks like a lot more.

    As far as initial looks post-bench cut...
    If you give it time, maybe 2-3 years that manufactured look goes away
    and you end up with a very sustainable tread.

    Also... IMHO that little lip on the critical edge is going to catch water and
    channel it down the trail. It needs to be removed.

    We live in the cool semi-arid transitional zone and it takes longer for
    vegetation to grow back in. You shouldn't be afraid to cut your
    benches/backslopes in for the sake of saving a few blades of grass. It
    grows back.

    Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine. I hate riding on trails where I feel like
    I'm on the velodrome sliding down the banking and worried about clipping
    an outside pedal on something hard.

  23. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by kokothemonkey View Post
    What's ironic is that my bike from 15 years ago was more appropriate for the way trails are designed now.

    Anything I go buy from the bike store today it's too much bike for everything new being put in, save for the singlespeed which I wish I had.
    Ask santa for that singlespeed, hell, leave off the suspension too. It will be like you found a bunch of new trails.
    Just make sure if it's a 29er singlespeed that everyone knows so.

    First world riding problems solved

  24. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Puddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    63

    Retrogrouch

    Actually, I am just riding my 1999 Kona hardtail with a bunch of re-purposed parts and my Talus 36 dropped as low as it will go. Makes everything fun again, I am transitioning perfectly into retrogrouch mode!
    Feels like an Arby's night.

  25. #50
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Moustache rider View Post
    Every time someone criticizes BMA like this it hurts the credibility they will need with those land managers to eventually make it happen.
    Thanks for being part of the problem.
    The "poor BMA" card is about played out. A LOT of good done over the years, but it doesn't excuse the current leadership's "my way or the highway" model that's polarizing the local mountainbike community, including many former supporters and members.

    It seems the current policy is to respond to any differences of opinion either with personal attacks or the "you disagree with BMA = you hate mountainbiking". It's tiring, and it's childish.

    Simple reality is BMA has not been effective at building anything except green level trail for many years now. Folks are looking for an advocacy voice that's willing to fight to save the goodness in the trails we have right now. The idea of continually sacrificing good trail today in the name of "relationship building" for some ambiguous benefit in the future isn't working.

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
  •