Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    I can't ride 45!
    Reputation: jasonb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,141

    Some thoughts on Jeffco and freeride specific trail features

    Here is the problem: how do you balance good trail building techniques and appropriate control of public park resources with the need for new terrain for freeride oriented bikes and riders?

    And here is the thought: park managers could take applications for a limited number of grants which would be made available for building freeride features into existing trail systems. Interested parties would submit a proposal describing the trail feature, location, construction techniques, safety considerations, and other relevant information. Park managers, or another designated group, would evaluate proposals, choose the best proposal or proposals, make necessary modifications to the construction plan and then grant the use of public resources -- the park's land -- for the selected projects.

    Construction would be directed by a park manager and all other resources including laborers would be provided by the party backing the proposal. Features would be signed and marked -- clearly indentifying them as a Jeffco project. A trail feature might be small, say a log ride parallel to a trail. Maybe only one or two projects would be accepted in any given year and maybe only one or two parks would get this type of grant building treatment.

    I support park manager's efforts to keep our parks free of illicit trails, poorly constructed trails, and dangerous trail features. I also see a real desire for trails which accomodate newer riding styles and a willingness on the part of those riders to use their personal resources to build these trails and features. Builders of illicit trails on public land should be prosecuted, but those who want advanced trail features and are willing to professionally design and construct these features should have a legal and workable avenue for building those features within the management framework of our public parks.

    Perhaps there is a system in place in Jeffco which accomodates these needs and I am just ignorant of its existence. If not, having a grant system to provide a professionally controlled, planned, and managed mechanism to integrate newer trail features into our parks might help balance park managers' needs with the needs of park users.

    Am I crazy?

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,113
    Life is good in America...

    Micromanage anyone? You want more mayo on that micromanage?

    :frown2:

  3. #3
    a dad
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,261
    Personally, i am just bored with our trails in the area...everything is so groomed and not much out there poses a challenge (and i don't even consider myself a freerider)...i just wish something would happen otherwise i am gonna lose the passion i am afraid....

    just rode horsetooth again on sunday and that sure is fun with lots of technical stuff for a change..

    Cant wait for South St Vrain to dry out, thats one of my favorites...
    BBZ

    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    trail waggler
    Reputation: daveM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,425

    I hear 'ya, that's why I'm here...

    Rode lower SSV last Thurs., couple of little snow patches, but the good stuff was great!

  5. #5
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,362
    Quote Originally Posted by DamoNNomaD

    Micromanage anyone? You want more mayo on that micromanage?

    :frown2:

    So let's hear your ideas, eh? How about it? or are you just going to be an ass even more? (yes, we all know: you don't care what anyone else thinks.)

    Having the services micromanage in such a manner is the only way we're going to see harder technical trail lines built on city and county lands on the Front derange. Meaning legal stuff on city/county land. Sure, build all the hard crap you want on your own land, I'm all for that.

    But the only way it'll happen on legal land is by jumping through the hoops. Far more likely to happen in JeffCo or LarimCo than in BoCo, sadly.

    Dave: good to hear about SSV; can't wait! Up there is my favourite local riding.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  6. #6
    a dad
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,261
    Quote Originally Posted by daveM
    Rode lower SSV last Thurs., couple of little snow patches, but the good stuff was great!
    great to hear, might be my destination saturday.......
    BBZ

    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    crashes in parkinglot
    Reputation: EricTheRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,258
    I think it will be easier to "sell" technical riding (by that i mean slower speed) over drop and jump oriented riding.

    Another option would be a "challenge park" a short loop that is super technical, would mostly be used by bikers for developing technical skills, that way limiting the number of hikers as they would want to go to a specific place, also limits horse use as it wouldn't be safe for them. Bikers could session and average speeds would be low because of the technical nature of the trail so trail conflitc would be minimal.

    I'd love to see some elevated skinnies as an option for some trails however for most front range ride i'd be extatic if our trails were 10" wide rather than 4' wide.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gotdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,301

    Listen!

    jason,

    interesting thoughts... sounds like you could add something positive to our ranks.
    www.tcsmbc.org

    we're working hard --especially in jeffco-- to keep mtn biking vibrant and legal.

    come by waterton canyon this saturday and lend a hand on the trail, meet some good folks, eat free food, ride afterwards, and get questions answered about the organization.

    TCSMBC Trail Work Day - May 6th

    hope to see you there.

    terry
    -
    .And following our will and wind . . .
    . . .We'll ride the spiral to the end
    and may just go where no one's been.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dream4est's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,197
    although i would like to agree with jason , remember the history of freeriding and its birth was "out of wedlock" so to speak. the only reason we want to ride stunts is because vancouver, bc locals built pirate trails. an then the other western canadian comunities followed suit. the pirate trails became so prevalent that they are now mostly accepted social trails or fully legal. canadas freeride scene will always be alive because dedicated builders keep working WITHOUT PERMISSION.

    if you really want something you have be willing to take risks. jeffco is never going to allow full on freeride stunts/trails. the front range (and the rest of the western usa) needs to be taken by storm. they are our forests. we pay taxes. and some of us build jumps/freeride features/trails that are fully acceptable RIGHT NOW as far as quality trail building is concerned. if they wont take us seriously (like 4x4's in the 70's and 80's) we should build dozens of trails with features. and then ride them and keep our mouths shut.

    i can think of two dedicated shuttle runs that are stunt filled and five others that are just good dh runs. none are legal. they include some of the best trail riding in the state. others know of different runs.

    we can keep trying this the legal way but NO progress has been made in four years. a challenge park on top of north table? thats not acceptable. and i doubt it will even happen. we cant even get new legal trails to be built in order to lessen the impact on other multi-use trails. jeffco and govt agencies would rather pimp land off to make money and eliminate all forest access from county roads than to open up more terrain.

    just think of it this way. if keystone, vail and winter park start to really step it up, the front range hills will fill up with pirate trails anyway because riders will only be satisfied for three months a year or less. this phenomenon is already the reason that certain trails exist and people shuttle trails like apex. the need for a real trail in jeffco has existed for years. and since we dont have the backing of a real organization (imba blows compared to the sierra club) it is my opinion that we need to take back the forests and like cartman says do what we want.

    this is in no way an endorsement of illegal trails but just a dose of some reality. most of the legal xc trails we ride were illegal or social at some point.

    boulder city, nv is a great example of a progressive city that realizes recreation is its lifeline. they endorse dh trails at bootleg. but even they are under attack by the sierra club. one xc trail (swan mtn) has been closed to mtbers and another (boy scout) is close behind. if boulder city is losing the battle how can we expect to win in jeffco?

    if this counterpoint response bothers you too bad. it needs to be included here.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by billybobzia
    Personally, i am just bored with our trails in the area...everything is so groomed and not much out there poses a challenge (and i don't even consider myself a freerider)...i just wish something would happen otherwise i am gonna lose the passion i am afraid....

    .
    Two words: rigid singlespeed.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  11. #11
    Trail Sanitizer
    Reputation: Bulldozer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    463
    The building of any illegal trails will only serve to get them shut down along with other existing (legal) trails. IMBA isn't helping out directly but TCSMBC (an IMBA affiliate club) is. Building new trails where you see fit would serve to undermine the work of others that are trying to keep existing trails open while searching for places to build new ones.

    You say that Jeffco will never build a full-on free ride stunts/trails. Funny because I didn't know you were a member of the Jeffco OSAC. Assuming you are a member and I just don't know it, you must have missed the meetings where just such a trail has been discussed. Is it going to happen this year? Nope. Next year? Nope. Somewhere in the near future? We can only hope that the actions of a few good men and women will sway the OSAC into our favor and just such a trail will exist in Jeffco.

    If I had more time, I would pick apart many of the misleading and flat out wrong statements in your post. "if this counterpoint response bothers you too bad. it needs to be included here."

  12. #12
    Your bike sucks
    Reputation: Carl Mega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    711
    Oh man, where to begin...

    Yes, you are endorsing illegal trails. Build trails on restricted land and you will hurt mountain bike access - guaranteed. Get caught riding them and you will be fined. Get caught with a shovel and you are going to pay for the restoration and be very unhappy. Frankly, your sense of entitlement to build trails however and wherever you please is a myopic one - I can only speak from my experience but in JeffCo they spend quite a bit of planning and time to assess enviromental impact of having a trail and distrubing the land. Sometimes we have to defer our plans because of impact to plant and animal species. Are you sufficiently qualified to make these assessments in your quest to create terrain more suitiable to the bike you ride? Maybe you don't care.

    Yes, gov't agencies are slow to respond. But riddle me this, how long has freeride movement been mainstream enough to be considered as a unique and substantial user group? Since 1999-2000 maybe? In six years you want the same representation as groups that have been around since the beginning? Not realistic. It's not going to happen overnight like that. I know some people are going to blah me on this as say they've been freeriding since 95 or something but that's not relevant to the discussion of having a relatively new user group with unique needs and requirements. I've been working on a new park for 3 years..construction is in it's 5th year. Planning has been going on longer than that. Even with a full crew and volunteers, creating new trails takes time...you are asking for an immediate change mid-stream. I wish it would happen.

    How is Jeffco pimping land? My impression is they purchase new land at an amazing rate and keep it from development. Do you have any proof of your claims? Yep, we all pay taxes. Hunters, shooters, 4x4ers, motoguys, atv riders. All pay taxes. Guess what, as a mountainbiker YOU have access. You are arguing about the size of rocks and steepness of grade and acting like you are being denied a basic freedom. You have the same access as everyone else and better than most other user groups.

    I guess my point is that building illegal trails is not the way to be recognized. Organize and create represention. Get involved....make yourselves heard legally and inject compelling arguments - have a plan...work with managers and politicians. There are people doing this as we speak. Harder, technical trails, challenge loops and freeride areas need to exist..they will exist. I don't think they will completed on a timeline that will suit everyone. Guess we all can't be on dream4est time. Life's a *****.

    I no longer work for Jeffco so I represent no one except myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by dream4est
    if you really want something you have be willing to take risks. jeffco is never going to allow full on freeride stunts/trails. the front range (and the rest of the western usa) needs to be taken by storm. they are our forests. we pay taxes. and some of us build jumps/freeride features/trails that are fully acceptable RIGHT NOW as far as quality trail building is concerned. if they wont take us seriously (like 4x4's in the 70's and 80's) we should build dozens of trails with features. and then ride them and keep our mouths shut.

    we can keep trying this the legal way but NO progress has been made in four years. a challenge park on top of north table? thats not acceptable. and i doubt it will even happen. we cant even get new legal trails to be built in order to lessen the impact on other multi-use trails. jeffco and govt agencies would rather pimp land off to make money and eliminate all forest access from county roads than to open up more terrain.

    this is in no way an endorsement of illegal trails but just a dose of some reality. most of the legal xc trails we ride were illegal or social at some point.
    .

  13. #13
    Your bike sucks
    Reputation: Carl Mega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    711
    jasonb, I like your grant idea proposal. AFAIK, in Jeffco there is no such mechanism in place. I think it could work but my impression is that the county is reluctant to give up control of contruction. Back in the old days they got less than stellar trail built by a few contractors. For this to become reality, I think that one of the major mtb groups interfacing w/ Jeffco would have to strongly push this idea and Jeffco would require some of their staff to supervise construction/planning. Government moves at a snail's pace and everything debated ad nausem. You may be crazy but not about this.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Mega
    Oh man, where to begin...

    ...in your quest to create terrain more suitiable to the bike you ride?

    .
    Alot of truth in those words right there.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  15. #15
    I can't ride 45!
    Reputation: jasonb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,141
    First thanks to all for taking the time to think and respond . We all love bikes and trails and that passion will work to our advantage as we lobby for and build the terrain we wish to ride.

    Next let's give credit where credit is due -- to both land managers and the individuals working with organizations or in spontaneous groups to ensure access to great terrain. Many of you I have not met but I have ridden with Dreamforest once. I don't know him well but I do know that any time there is mention in this forum of development of new freeride and DH trails he is involved both as an advocate and a laborer. I respect that and wish I was that involved in the community -- thanks for your work.

    Jefferson County has done an amazing job and dedicated a large amount of county resources to purchasing and preserving land in the Front Range. Without the Denver Mountain Parks, MALT open space, federal public lands, and most importantly Jefferson County Open Space Parks every inch of the Front Range would have been consumed by development. I love this area -- it has a special blend of mountains and city and for having the vision and expending the effort to perserve that balance I give my thanks to Jefferson County and those, like Mega, who have been employed in the OS department.

    I know that the County did not achieve that balance magically and without organized outside voices representing the folk who want open space and want to ride great trails. I have not had much contact with TCSMBC and I would guess that most of us on the Jeffco trails have not done much advocacy or trail work lately but groups like TCSMBC provide the voice and labor to keep trails open even though the rest of us are too busy or preoccupied to donate the energy that they donate. My thanks goes out to those guys and gals as well.

    A few things we can all agree on to some degree:

    1) There is and has been a desire for more terrain and more advanced terrain.
    2) Mountain bikers have the organization and energy to build the terrain we desire.
    3) Without legal mechanisms to satisfy that demand for new trails and trail features illegal trails will be built.
    4) Illegal trail building will result in the loss of access.
    5) We would cooperate with and respect land manager decisions in the construction of legal trails on public lands.
    6) Legal trails incorporating freeride features on public lands will not in the next 5+ years be full-on freeride/DH to satisfy riders with elite and pro level skills.

    WIthin those constrains there is a sweet spot that satisfies most of our needs -- a public supplied, Park managed integration of advanced features into JOSPs. The grant method is just an idea of how to implement that integration in a controlled manner. Grant applications would give individuals direct input to envision a trail improvement and vocalize it directly to the park service. And if the individual or group has done its homework, possibly see the feature take shape in a legal form we can all benefit from. Maybe the top proposals could even be opened to an online public evaluation and vote.

    Can you imagine the energy and fun we would have as a group dreaming up trail features if we were invested in the idea that Jeffco would implement improvements. Perhaps some of those features would have been built illegally otherwise, and perhaps getting a new freeride feature -- their own idea or another groups idea -- would subvert other plans for illegal trails.

    I realize that there will always be a desire for advanced terrain that will not be satisfied by public land and trails. But that serves Dreamforest and others who can cater to that demand as a private business. Echo Mountain, Dreamforest's park in Empire, Keystone, Silverton, Winter Park and others can all make money serving a need that cannot be served by public resources.

    I think we could all win if we just find a plan we can all back. Lessening the desire for illegal trails on public lands, satisfying the need for well constructed advanced terrain features, and not placing the public lands in competition with private enterprises serving an elite market -- that balance seems, at least to me, to be on the right track.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hardtail05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonb
    . I have not had much contact with TCSMBC and I would guess that most of us on the Jeffco trails have not done much advocacy or trail work lately but groups like TCSMBC provide the voice and labor to keep trails open even though the rest of us are too busy or preoccupied to donate the energy that they donate. My thanks goes out to those guys and gals as well.

    .
    The people at TCS (I'm one of them) are also busy and preoccupied with our jobs, life, family... not to mention trying to get some riding in... as anyone else. It's something we do becouse we know the acces we have now can not be taken for granted. There are many aspects of advocacy aside from just trail work. Attending and even speaking at OSAC meetings is one of them. TCS could use the help of all metro area MT bikers before some of the people involved get burned out or stretched to thin. We do need the help of everyone, even if only to join as members. No one small group of people can shoulder a burden like this forever.

  17. #17
    Chillaxin 'n Chilcotin!
    Reputation: kristian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,443
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonb
    And here is the thought: park managers could take applications for a limited number of grants which would be made available for building freeride features into existing trail systems. Interested parties would submit a proposal describing the trail feature, location, construction techniques, safety considerations, and other relevant information. Park managers, or another designated group, would evaluate proposals, choose the best proposal or proposals, make necessary modifications to the construction plan and then grant the use of public resources -- the park's land -- for the selected projects.
    The problem there is the bureaucracy involved. In the Springs, we got permission to build a freeride park last year. The most active person involved was Tony (who is a certified project manager for hp so he's used to bureaucracy) but he faced a lot of challenges getting the city to approve the plans he put forth. In the end, he had to get an engineer to donate some time to develop schematics for all of the stunts so the city would sign off on them. The slowness of the whole project was a turn-off to a lot of volenteers dedicated to the building the park. I can understand the city's point wanting to make sure things are safe, but on the other hand, as a volenteer, I was frustrated.

    A year later, the plans have been approved and hopefully we will be able to start building soon so bureaucracy isn't a killer--it is really just a wet blanket.

  18. #18
    Now Uploading
    Reputation: mtbdirteater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,110

    Progress Report

    I work with Open Space staff, and report to them and the Open Space Advisory Committee. Below is a report I presented to them on 1/5/2006. I'm a bike user group rep on the Trails Use Task Force. The CDCC helped compile most of the statistical data that backed this report. And we need more of it, that's how you can help. The Director is receptive to the concept of a DH trail or trails in Open Space, but I was first tasked with "proving this was a valid use of OS parks". So that's what I'm doing. Want to help? There is an OSAC meeting the first Thurday of each month. Some of the staff, including the director is in attendance. This is a public meeting. I attend each one. The OSAC committee is appointed by the County Commisioners, they are not OS employees. They are an advisory committee created by the BCC, like one of the two committees I'm on, to funnel more public input into the descision making process. The director relies heavily on his staff, and takes the advice of the OSAC committee into account. All of this is influenced by public opinion. Yours. So my recommendation is to attend the meetings, and present your views and opinions to them. I can help you deliver it or organize it if you wish, that's one reason I'm there for, myself and the others on my committee interface the user groups with the staff and the OSAC committee, but you can speak to them yourself if you come and sign up to speak on the sheet before the meeting, even if there is no agenda item on your topic. Tomorrow's meeting is at 7:00pm as usual, I'll be there. If you think I can help you or you want me to, let me know, or show up on your own and wing it.

    We've made a lot of progress so far, and the report below was very well received. We still have some work to do though. We still need to convince some members on the OSAC committee that this is a valid use of OS parks before they can support it and recommend it to the director in a resolution that staff offered to help me draft. The director sees issues with this concept, but is not against it, and is interested in hearing and seeing more. I had a series of meetings with staff about this last year and will continue. Until we acheive our goal, which seems to be beneficial to all park users anyway. Want to help?


    This was the text of what I presented on 1/5/2006:





    Trails Use Task Force Conflict Solution Recommendation

    MEMO
    Department: Jefferson County Open Space

    To: OSAC Members, Open Space Staff

    From: Dave Cohen, Trails Use Task Force Biker Representative

    Subject: OSAC Study Session 01/05/2006

    Re: Speed differential and directional bicycle shuttle volume conflict issues outlined pursuant to park user feedback, including trails use studies.

    Date: 01/05/2006


    Current Use Studies, Data Collection and Observation/Monitoring:
    Survey results summary provided. This is direct user group input from the properties studied.

    Parks Studied: Apex, White Ranch and Mount Falcon. These parks were studied because they originate the majority of speed differential issues. These parks have road access both top and bottom of grade, which provides bicycle shuttle access and specific use opportunity. Regular use patterns of this type were confirmed during this study, as well as review of previous studies. Park user comments collected during this study indicate a general perception that use of multi-use trails includes the expectation that other users will be encountered during any park users experience. The type of individually perceived park experience is directly dependant upon the specific park and the type of park user interviewed. Two general views were expressed: Live with it, or solve it. Specifically, comments indicate that a solution would include provisions to improve all park users’ experience. The challenge was, and has been clear. Consider and compare the previous and current data to decipher the changing use patterns in the parks studied, study all alternatives, and present a solution proposal that benefits all park users and excludes none.

    How current park use affects each user group’s individual user experience in relation to other park users and park resources, and how this will change with the implementation of a solution, are obvious when comparing data from current use patterns.

    Assessment: Our studies, and our repetitive and extensive park use experience, indicate that mountain bikers are the largest user group within the parks studied. Use types and pattern breakdown indicates that the highest conflict park, Apex, has incurred a general use shift toward bicycle traffic, with an emphasis on downhill (directional) traffic. Comments indicate that this directly affects each park user’s perceived experience, affecting each user group in a drastically different way. While tolerable and expectant of multi-use in general, desire for a specific solution to these evolving use type traffic patterns is evident. In order of priority we recognize Apex, White Ranch and Mount Falcon as primary benefactors to this solution. To a lesser degree, studies indicate that over traffic during peak use periods at nearby Mathews/Winters park would also be affected due to the technical nature of that particular park’s trail system, and the similarity in riding discipline to the downhill activities present at the primary parks studied. Providing a proper outlet for what such a large percentage of current park users partake in, will have measurable impact upon use experience throughout the entire Open Space parks system. We also believe this solution to be more effective towards resolving park user conflict than previous implementations such as Mount Galbreth. This solution addresses the entire problem, not just one user group’s requests or complaints.

    Solution: We propose that the introduction of a directional (downhill) trail in the vicinity of the heaviest conflict area will provide the largest impact towards alleviating this evolved use conflict. The implementation of this solution will directly and drastically affect each park user group’s perceived experience in a manner that can be immediately and accurately recorded. We were unable to collect negative comment on this particular solution, because none was provided at the park user level.

    Example: Working diagram of template for solution provided.
    [SIZE=2]Just Passing Through: eatin' dirt & crappin' dust[/SIZE]

  19. #19
    Now Uploading
    Reputation: mtbdirteater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,110

    Report Data

    This is some of the report data that I submitted with the report above:

    CDCC Trail Use Study Summary, October 2005

    239 Total Trail users observed
    100 Total Hikers 42%
    91 Hikers 38% of Total Trail Users
    9 Trail Runners 4% of Total Trail Users
    5 Horse Back Riders 2%
    134 Total Mountain Bikers 56% of Total Trail Users
    39 Bikes with no rear suspension, 29% of MTB,16.5% of Total Trail Users
    54 Bikes with 1”-4” of suspension, 40% of MTB, 22.5% of Total Trail Users
    20 Bikes with 5”-6” of suspension, 15% of MTB, 8.5 % of Total Trail Users
    21 Bikes with 7” or more suspension, 16% of MTB 8.5 % of Total Trail Users

    Saturday, October 8, 2005 Apex Park 8:00 AM-1:30 PM
    76 Total
    34 Hikers 44.5%
    31 Hikers 41.5%
    3 Trail Runners 4%
    0 Horse Back Riders
    42 Mountain Bikers 55.5%
    8 Bikes with no rear suspension 10.5%
    25 Bikes with 1”-4” of suspension 33%
    9 Bikes with 5”-6” of suspension 12%

    Saturday, October 15, 2005 Mount Falcon* 9:00 AM-1:00 PM *Mount Falcon has hiker only trails in park
    55 Total
    29 Hikers 53%
    28 Hikers 51%
    1 Trail Runner 2%
    0 Horse Back Riders
    26 Mountain Bikers 47%
    10 Bikes with no rear suspension 18%
    15 Bikes with 1”-4” of suspension 27%
    1 Bikes with 5”-6” of suspension 2%

    Sunday, October 16, 2005 White Ranch 10:00 AM-2:00 PM
    68 Total
    11 Hikers 27.5%
    7 Hikers 17.5%
    4 Trail Runners 10%
    2 Horse Back Riders 3%
    40 Mountain Bikers 59%
    12 Bikes with no rear suspension 17.5%
    9 Bikes with 1”-4” of suspension 13.5%
    8 Bikes with 5”-6” of suspension 12%
    11 Bikes with 7” or more suspension 16%

    Sunday, October 23, 2005 Apex Park 10:00 AM-1:30 AM
    40 Total
    13 Hikers 27.5%
    7 Hikers 17.5%
    4 Trail Runners 10%
    3 Horse Back Riders 7.5%
    26 Mountain Bikers 65%
    9 Bikes with no rear suspension 22.5%
    5 Bikes with 1”-4” of suspension 12.5%
    2 Bikes with 5”-6” of suspension 5%
    10 Bikes with 7” or more suspension 25%

    Note: Bike type statistics provided, but definition of “downhiller” is more descriptive of how a rider rides than what type of bike he rides.
    [SIZE=2]Just Passing Through: eatin' dirt & crappin' dust[/SIZE]

  20. #20
    Freeride Fornicator
    Reputation: DjMcStank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    37
    Build it and they will come. Don't build it and the problems will pile up, trails will become dirts roads, hikers will set up booby traps, horses will attack and all hell will break loose. Somebody please let us build some freeride trails! The future of the world is at hand!

  21. #21
    a dad
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,261
    Quote Originally Posted by DjMcStank
    Build it and they will come. Don't build it and the problems will pile up, trails will become dirts roads, hikers will set up booby traps, horses will attack and all hell will break loose. Somebody please let us build some freeride trails! The future of the world is at hand!
    i agree 100%....i think we (the denver area) are so behind the times it kills me.... as far as the suggestion that i should get a rigid singlespeed, i just prefer launching my bike off stuff and using the technology available to push the envelope a little more..sure a rigid bike would make the ordinary seem more difficult but i am more of an adrenaline junky i guess, i like to be scared of the terrain, i think it makes me perform better....but thats not really what this post is about....its about creating challenging terrain for all...which the front range lacks...
    BBZ

    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    134

    Echo Mountain Park Freeride?

    Quote Originally Posted by jasonb
    Here is the problem: how do you balance good trail building techniques and appropriate control of public park resources with the need for new terrain for freeride oriented bikes and riders?
    I agree, here's a thought: http://www.echomtnpark.com/ + www.whistlergravitylogic.com

    Think about it...lift accessed, well designed, close to Denver, progressive minded resort (Colorado's first only terrain park).

    Realilistically, I just don't think that Jeffco, or any other county for that matter, will ever assume the liability of creating "freeride" terrain. If it is going to work (the building of modern challenging trails), then it will have to be built on private land in which an owner can waive liability through the same process that one would purchase a lift ticket.

    Thoughts? Seems like a win-win for both riders and the resort owners...
    Last edited by Jutt77; 05-11-2006 at 04:28 PM.

  23. #23
    Trail Sanitizer
    Reputation: Bulldozer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Jutt77
    I agree, here's a thought: http://www.echomtnpark.com/ + www.whistlergravitylogic.com

    Think about it...lift accessed, well designed, close to Denver, progressive minded resort (Colorado's first only terrain park).

    Realilistically, I just don't think that Jeffco, or any other county for that matter, will ever assume the liability of creating "freeride" terrain. If it is going to work (the building of modern challenging trails), then it will have to be built on private land in which an owner can waive liability through the same process that one would purchase a lift ticket.

    Thoughts? Seems like a win-win for both riders and the resort owners...
    This is certainly a solution. I know for a fact that Echo Mtn is interested in summer lift-accessed riding. The last that I knew they are working with the CDCC to help with those plans. However, I think the crux of some of the argument here is that the lands in Jeffco belong to all of its citizens. Building this type of trail is something that should be allowed. The feeling is, I believe, that residents shouldn't have to go to places like Echo Mtn when the Open Space committee should be allowing these types of trails to be open to the public for free. Or, I could just be way off base.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldozer
    This is certainly a solution. I know for a fact that Echo Mtn is interested in summer lift-accessed riding. The last that I knew they are working with the CDCC to help with those plans. However, I think the crux of some of the argument here is that the lands in Jeffco belong to all of its citizens. Building this type of trail is something that should be allowed. The feeling is, I believe, that residents shouldn't have to go to places like Echo Mtn when the Open Space committee should be allowing these types of trails to be open to the public for free. Or, I could just be way off base.
    I hear ya, I think we should have better more challenging trails provided by the Open Space management but realistically, considering the liability implications that come with this type of terrain, I don't think that Jeffco would accept that risk, plain and simple. Boulder Open Space won't even consider opening any type of a trail for riding (well, maybe a fire road or two) , much less anything technical. Also, there's too much bureaucratic red tape to go through to even get these open space committees to consider new trail systems. I think they are planning a park down in the Springs but it's taken a considerable amount of time and effort, not to mention political connections for them to even consider a bike park. Unfortunately, in this sue happy day and age, I believe this type of trail system will have to be privately managed to actually happen but I could be wrong.

    BTW - I sent an email to Echo Mtn and the GM, Doug Donavan, emailed me back and said they are planning for mountain biking in the near future. He also mentioned that he is opened for suggestions. The more people that contact them expressing interest and ideas, the better chance we have at realistic option for a bike park with suitable trails.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cameronm_99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    134
    My question would be why? They allow rock climbing if I'm not mistaken. Which, if done improperly is just as dangerous if not more so than MTBing. Second, what liablity? They aren't responsible for hikers or campers who get lost, hurt themselves, or die while out in the woods are they? No, the fact is, that outdoor activites, no matter how mundane they seem pose a certain level of risk. Although I admit that some sports, like MTBing, pose a greater level of risk than others. I would think that the risk is assumed by the user of the land not the managers of it. If you go hiking, fall, and break your ankle, that's your problem not the city, county or states. Its the risk you assume for your participation in that sport/activity. I've never heard of anyone sueing the land managers because they fell and hurt themselves while hiking on an open space trail. Why would we, as MTBers be any different? In my mind were not. If I, as a rider, decide to ride a freeride stunt, fall, and get seriously injured then that's on me, the individual. I know that there are a lot of sue happy people in this world. So, I can understand the aprehnsion on the part of the land managers. However, I don't see the difference between us and the other user groups. If the managers aren't responsible for their safety, why would they be responsible for ours? Could someone please enligthten me.

    Cameron
    [SIZE="4"]Go Big or Go Home[/SIZE]

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •