Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 81
  1. #1
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,105

    New Trail/Reroute at Hall Ranch w/pics! [o]

    The new reroute at Hall Ranch officially opened yesterday afternoon. The new trail reroutes the section of trail (Bitterbrush) that connects the bench at the top of the Rock Garden to the top of Antelope.

    Why? In short, to make the trail more year-roundable. The section of trail that got rerouted was steep, rutted, N facing and almost always in the shade, making it more erosion prone, thus, more prone to needing work and resources on an annual basis. The county was our friend on this one. It was their idea to make Hall Ranch more of a winter ride. Thanks County!

    Looking from the top of the Rock Garden. County rehabbed that first downhill corner.


    Old rehabbed trail on the right, new trail on the left.


    Intersection with Antelope and the old section of trail...


    Couple more shots of the new trail




    This is at the top of Antelope looking where the trail used to go


    Pros - fun, narrow and winding, true singletrack
    Cons - kinda flat with many switchbacks.

    There was some discussion about this trail earlier (Hall Ranch Trail Re-route looks lame) if you want to read the history.

    I've talked to the county (rangers, mucky mucks, emplyees, etc) quite a bit about this section. A few county employees went out on a limb for this and caught some beaurocratic hell for it, but I think we'll all be better off, especially if we can get it going all winter long.

    Why so many switchbacks? The manager in charge of the trail crews signed off on the project, but was adamant that the trail met current county sustainability standards. Among those standards are that the trail be at a 6-8% grade. In order to do that, crews had to lengthen the trail and add a bunch of switchbacks.

    All in all, I think it rides pretty well. It's bumpy right now but that will change. It's also really narrow right now (but that will probably change, too). If I have more trail to ride in the winter, I'm a happy guy. Plus, it's new trail for me so I'm a happy guy, too.
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bedell99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,185
    Is the 6-8% grade a Boulder rule now?

    Erik

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jonny boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    488
    Were any prairie dogs harmed in the making of this film? Just kidding, hope to see it dry in the winter on the thaw cycles.

  4. #4
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,105
    Not a hard rule by any means, but it's certainly one that BoCo is striving for if terrain allows. They've found that trails with easier grades are less prone to erosion and need less work in the long run. Given the sheer amount of traffic these areas get, I'm not sure it's a bad idea. Some middle management OS types are worried about hikers cutting the trail but I guess we'll see how that works out.

    Basically from what I understand, the trail crew boss said he was ok with the reroute as long as it was built by the common guidelines that they'd been using. Anything outside of that would've meant having to run the reroute up the entire chain of command, thus increasing the possibility that the project would be denied. Sooo, we were left with, if we wanted the trail more rideable in the winter with less of a chance of being told "no," this is kinda what we were left with. At least that's the way I understand it.

    Go check it out, I think it turned out pretty good, especially all things considered.
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,231
    I haven't ridden it yet (and probably won't for another month or so), but the last time I was up there it looked like there are WAY too many switchbacks for the length of trail. They could have easily gotten by with one or two, methinks. Why not take the opportunity to build in some fun rock features or something original?

    No judgment yet though, until these damn ribs heal and I can get out and ride a real trail.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    I haven't ridden it yet (and probably won't for another month or so), but the last time I was up there it looked like there are WAY too many switchbacks for the length of trail. They could have easily gotten by with one or two, methinks. Why not take the opportunity to build in some fun rock features or something original?

    No judgment yet though, until these damn ribs heal and I can get out and ride a real trail.
    I'm gonna go with ignazjr's knowledge of the process and say that's why. I don't get why people got such a boner for that section of trail. It sucked in the winter, it wasn't that fun or technical and kept getting worse as people went around the rocks. People always want "rock features" but then actively avoid any rocks in the trail. Not the same people but mountain bikers in general.

    Not picking on you smokkan I just think that acting like this reroute changes Hall's character is ludicrous. Too bad it'll be as wide as a bike path soon enough.

    I know I would have liked more trail to ride in the dead of winter. The same trail gets old after a while.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alshead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,562
    Wow- that's fast work. We were up there Tuesday and they were still cuttin trail. Lots o switchbacks, but hey- it's trail.
    "There are two kinds of mountain bikers in the world: those who are faster than me, and me."

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by concretejungle View Post

    Not picking on you smokkan I just think that acting like this reroute changes Hall's character is ludicrous.
    I never said it changed anything about Hall, and in general I'm perfectly fine with the change... I'm well aware of how muddy the old section got in the winter and spring. I'm just saying, instead of knocking out a boring new section of trail in a few weeks, why not take a little longer and build something more fun?

    Think about it, in order to ride that section down to the junction, you had to have climbed the rock garden- so it's not like you're alienating beginner riders by putting in something difficult. Instead, it looks like they took the easy way out and put in a smooth trail like all the stuff in south Boulder. Let's just hope they don't cover it with pea gravel or river rock like so many other trails.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    I never said it changed anything about Hall, and in general I'm perfectly fine with the change... I'm well aware of how muddy the old section got in the winter and spring. I'm just saying, instead of knocking out a boring new section of trail in a few weeks, why not take a little longer and build something more fun?

    Think about it, in order to ride that section down to the junction, you had to have climbed the rock garden- so it's not like you're alienating beginner riders by putting in something difficult. Instead, it looks like they took the easy way out and put in a smooth trail like all the stuff in south Boulder. Let's just hope they don't cover it with pea gravel or river rock like so many other trails.
    If those are your concerns I'd move from Boulder.

  10. #10
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    I never said it changed anything about Hall, and in general I'm perfectly fine with the change... I'm well aware of how muddy the old section got in the winter and spring. I'm just saying, instead of knocking out a boring new section of trail in a few weeks, why not take a little longer and build something more fun?
    I'd estimate that it's because it's the goal of Boulder County OS to build trails that are well maintained and as maintenance free as possible for multi-use, not to build fun trails for bikes. Bikes are not high on the priority list per se.
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kokothemonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    277
    Look, this section of rehabbed trail was by no means epic, or any insurmountable technical challenge (similar to sugar mag), but this just looks horrible.

    Are these what multi use "sustainable" trails look like now? If so, who actually enjoys riding these types of trails? I just don't see this trail design as fun or entertaining in any way, unless I'm a beginner, or on a rigid singlespeed. At least going uphill this old trail had a few step ups to keep my attention, now it just looks like the same turny flat trail wrapping back on itself just like any other newly designed trail on the front range.

    What I find comical are the sales pitches for these new trails:

    Sustainable: Guess what, nothing is sustainable-everything takes maintenance. Unless you just pave the trails (which looks like they are about trying to do), they all take maintenance. I would like to see a long term comparison of two trails, one that is steep and rutted and get re-routed every 5ish years, versus the flat turning current design. I would bet the impacts are similar.

    User groups: If I'm a hiker or horseback rider, I hate these designs. I am trying to get from point A to B, why do I want to engage in 50 switchback just to get to the bottom of a measly hill? These trails all feel like the security line at DIA, you feel like a rat in a maze. Who are these being built to satisfy? As far as I can tell nobody save for the singlespeeders and complete beginners.

    Environmental impact: Whomever is claiming these trail building designs are reducing environmental impact are completely wrong. Instead of one single ribbon down a slope you now have a 10 foot wide flat turning mess that consumes the entire hillside. If there was ever any critical habitat in the area you have just trampled all over it with these new alignments. The uber flat switchback design is a complete fail from the NEPA perspective.

    For this isolated small segment of trail this is really not a big deal. It's what it represents that is troubling to me. As long as they leave the fun trails alone I'm good with new trails being built that satisfy these requirements. That's not happening though. I'm really really concerned with how the trails are going to look around here in 5 years.

  12. #12
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,469
    Quote Originally Posted by kokothemonkey View Post
    Look, this section of rehabbed trail was by no means epic, or any insurmountable technical challenge (similar to sugar mag), but this just looks horrible.

    Are these what multi use "sustainable" trails look like now? If so, who actually enjoys riding these types of trails? I just don't see this trail design as fun or entertaining in any way, unless I'm a beginner, or on a rigid singlespeed. At least going uphill this old trail had a few step ups to keep my attention, now it just looks like the same turny flat trail wrapping back on itself just like any other newly designed trail on the front range.

    What I find comical are the sales pitches for these new trails:

    Sustainable: Guess what, nothing is sustainable-everything takes maintenance. Unless you just pave the trails (which looks like they are about trying to do), they all take maintenance. I would like to see a long term comparison of two trails, one that is steep and rutted and get re-routed every 5ish years, versus the flat turning current design. I would bet the impacts are similar.

    User groups: If I'm a hiker or horseback rider, I hate these designs. I am trying to get from point A to B, why do I want to engage in 50 switchback just to get to the bottom of a measly hill? These trails all feel like the security line at DIA, you feel like a rat in a maze. Who are these being built to satisfy? As far as I can tell nobody save for the singlespeeders and complete beginners.

    Environmental impact: Whomever is claiming these trail building designs are reducing environmental impact are completely wrong. Instead of one single ribbon down a slope you now have a 10 foot wide flat turning mess that consumes the entire hillside. If there was ever any critical habitat in the area you have just trampled all over it with these new alignments. The uber flat switchback design is a complete fail from the NEPA perspective.

    For this isolated small segment of trail this is really not a big deal. It's what it represents that is troubling to me. As long as they leave the fun trails alone I'm good with new trails being built that satisfy these requirements. That's not happening though. I'm really really concerned with how the trails are going to look around here in 5 years.
    Your problem is you think everyone thinks the same as you do. It's a big, wide, diverse world out there. Lot's of people like curvy, buff, fast, "flow" singletrack.

  13. #13
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,110
    I have been Hall free for several months now. I might fall off the wagon just to see this.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Your problem is you think everyone thinks the same as you do. It's a big, wide, diverse world out there. Lot's of people like curvy, buff, fast, "flow" singletrack.
    It's not fast or flowy, you have to pedal the same amount up or down. But if it dries out faster in winter like they hope it will, then it should be a good addition.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Puddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Your problem is you think everyone thinks the same as you do. It's a big, wide, diverse world out there. Lot's of people like curvy, buff, fast, "flow" singletrack.
    Begin Rant

    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.

    I really don't care about that section of trail because it wasn't that great to begin with and I appreciate the work that went into it but it just seems like any new trail that gets built in BoCo is going to wrap back on itself fifty times to meet some imaginary environmental impact standard. How come the trails out of Chautauqua don't have to be between 6% and 8%? Anyone ever hike up the backside of Sanitas? Why do we as a user group have to accept the limitations that a government body has imposed on community land?

    Rant finished (and yes I know b*$ching on the internet won't change anything)
    Feels like an Arby's night.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    148
    rode it sunday, carry on.
    been on the same fsr expert frame since new in 99. Ride because you love it, not to be a trendy a$$hole.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,231
    Bump because this has to be the worst section of trail in Boulder County. Six HUGE switchbacks in order to cover 100 vertical feet? I know it's only a half mile of trail, but it's absolutely horrible. Since when does "sustainable" trail building entail building twice (or three times) as much trail as you really need?

    Whoever designed this section of trail shouldn't be allowed to touch another inch of dirt around here.

    Edit: I just read Dave's original post, and there's NO WAY any section of this trail is 6-8% grade. I'm betting it's not even 3%. Also, the new section of trails is still north-facing, which means it's going to be in rough shape when it snows or rains over the winter/spring. Big FAIL by Boulder County.

  18. #18
    starladear
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    371
    Yeah whoever made us mountain bikers ride more trail in Boulder county should be prosecuted.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,231
    It's not more trail, it's just a substitute for already existing trail. Thanks though.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,225
    Whoever designed this section of trail shouldn't be allowed to touch another inch of dirt around here.


    Ouch, fire the bastards!

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    9
    Why all the single speed hate earlier? That section is awful on a single speed, you need big gears to make it reasonable.

    The one big upside to this new trail is that it sucks for hikers, so they might avoid it...or they might complain and get it fixed.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by slushhead View Post
    The one big upside to this new trail is that it sucks for hikers, so they might avoid it...or they might complain and get it fixed.
    No, they'll just cut the trail, and then blame some other user group for the damage.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by brokefork View Post
    Whoever designed this section of trail shouldn't be allowed to touch another inch of dirt around here.


    Ouch, fire the bastards!
    OK, it was slight hyperbole, but you know what I meant.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    150

    Donít Sanitize Walker Ranch

    Quote Originally Posted by kokothemonkey View Post
    Look, this section of rehabbed trail was by no means epic, or any insurmountable technical challenge (similar to sugar mag), but this just looks horrible.

    Are these what multi use "sustainable" trails look like now? If so, who actually enjoys riding these types of trails? I just don't see this trail design as fun or entertaining in any way, unless I'm a beginner, or on a rigid singlespeed. At least going uphill this old trail had a few step ups to keep my attention, now it just looks like the same turny flat trail wrapping back on itself just like any other newly designed trail on the front range.

    What I find comical are the sales pitches for these new trails:

    Sustainable: Guess what, nothing is sustainable-everything takes maintenance. Unless you just pave the trails (which looks like they are about trying to do), they all take maintenance. I would like to see a long term comparison of two trails, one that is steep and rutted and get re-routed every 5ish years, versus the flat turning current design. I would bet the impacts are similar.

    User groups: If I'm a hiker or horseback rider, I hate these designs. I am trying to get from point A to B, why do I want to engage in 50 switchback just to get to the bottom of a measly hill? These trails all feel like the security line at DIA, you feel like a rat in a maze. Who are these being built to satisfy? As far as I can tell nobody save for the singlespeeders and complete beginners.

    Environmental impact: Whomever is claiming these trail building designs are reducing environmental impact are completely wrong. Instead of one single ribbon down a slope you now have a 10 foot wide flat turning mess that consumes the entire hillside. If there was ever any critical habitat in the area you have just trampled all over it with these new alignments. The uber flat switchback design is a complete fail from the NEPA perspective.

    For this isolated small segment of trail this is really not a big deal. It's what it represents that is troubling to me. As long as they leave the fun trails alone I'm good with new trails being built that satisfy these requirements. That's not happening though. I'm really really concerned with how the trails are going to look around here in 5 years.

    Well said, I completely agree with this post. If anyone wants to tell BOCO to not ruin the next section of trail on the list, look up the facebook group "Donít Sanitize Walker Ranch". (I'm not behind this group but I like it) There is a link on their page to a BOCO website that is looking for feedback on what to do with Walker Ranch. 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. 95%+ of new trails around here are beginner "green" trails that quickly become boring. I don't want to see a "blue" trail like Walker sanitized to death. It's been around for how many decades and now it is unsustainable? Yes there are ways to improve it, but if that means the new trailwork would conform to these stupid made up guidelines that are being referenced, I say do not touch the trail.

  25. #25
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    There's definitely pros and cons to this kind of trail, IMO it is appropriate in some places and this might be one of them because it is so heavily used. I do think they went overboard on the switchbacks and I agree with Koko and Puddy for the most part. The definition of sustainable that drives that kind of trail design is not necessarily correct IRL, and shouldn't be the only kind of trail that is allowed to be built. There's a long list of other trail systems that don't fit the Boulder CO model that do just fine, such as Lunch Loops in GJ, Blackjack in BC, and many trails in Curt Gowdy State park just to name a few ones that are closeby.
    .




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

  26. #26
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,895
    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.

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

  28. #28
    Unpredictable
    Reputation: Ridnparadise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,105
    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.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,239
    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...

  30. #30
    Perpetually single track
    Reputation: ibmkidIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,170
    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.

  31. #31
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,469
    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.

  32. #32
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,105
    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
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,239
    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...

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,699
    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.

  35. #35
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,469
    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?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    823
    I frequently used to see a dude riding Hall on a unicycle. Did anyone consider his flow?

  37. #37
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,579
    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?

  38. #38
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,730
    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.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,231
    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.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    823
    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.

  41. #41
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,579
    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.

  42. #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.

  43. #43
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Puddy View Post
    <snip> 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.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    823
    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

  45. #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.

  46. #46
    Unpredictable
    Reputation: Ridnparadise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,105
    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.

  47. #47
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,579
    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.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    823
    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

  49. #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.

  50. #50
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,025
    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 1 of 2 12 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
  •