Sun Valley 'Good Dirt' or Falcon Guide version stinks for elevation data!- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    381

    Sun Valley 'Good Dirt' or Falcon Guide version stinks for elevation data!

    Other aspects being good, I can't understand for the life of me why they would put the phrase: "Total Elevation Gain" and then instead of indicating total elevation gain that a rider would experience - simply subtract the high point and the starting elevation of the ride? Those two numbers are there and I think any 2 year old can subtract the two numbers on their own. What would be useful is total feet climbed.

    Useless! Change it!

    Also, the elevation profile images use four or maybe six points each and are also completely useless. I would rather not have them there than have them so useless. For a 10 mile ride, they should have at least 50 to 200 points, smoothed of course. Kind of like, perhaps, all the other mtn bike ride books I have!!! It makes you think the ride might resemble what is in the book... Which none of them do!

    (Does it make sense how I am describing it, for example, if you only had one point there would be a flat line for the whole ride, two points would allow for indicating the initial elev and final elev, three would add one inflection point inbetween, etc.)

    Otherwise the book is great and I'm glad it exists, but lets get some real info on elevation in there!!!

  2. #2
    TRAIL KUBUKI CORNDOGGER
    Reputation: TwistedCrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,979
    You got owned.




    Get your nose out of a book and point it down the trail.
    Nobody cares what kind of bike you ride.

  3. #3
    mtnjam
    Reputation: ryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    688
    Greg writes guides like that to keep people like you from riding the trails
    Just ride down there and jump off something for crying out loud...

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,924
    I agree with the OP but keep in mind Greg did most of those ride descriptions 12-15 years ago and no longer lives in the area. At that time GPS units suitable for biking were not available nor even decent altimeter watches. I did Fox Peak with him in 1999 or 2000 and he was rechecking that ride for accuracy with an altimeter but it was probably too much time and effort to redo all of the rides. As most of us with kids know, once you have one, free time goes out the door.

    I doubt he ever made much money on the Good Dirt versions or when Falcon bought the publishing rights. Guidebooks for most are a labor of love and some are better than others. They get you to the trailhead and a general idea of the ride and thus whether it might be more appealing to the reader that other rides in the area. Get one of the Adventure maps and figure out what the elevation gain is going to be yourself.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    464
    That silky smooth singletrack is taxing on the body.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    381
    Ha! I just rode from Elkhorn to Galena on mtn bike, did 3 trails at Galena and rode back.

    Looks like you guys are the bozos (with the exception of rockman who actually replied to the issues at hand)...


    So on a more serious note, you guys are against progress? Bike guide books should have elevation climbed.

    The 80s are over.

    Like I said, good book, someone should update elevation climbed. Its that simple.
    Last edited by LightMiner; 08-01-2010 at 10:00 PM.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    381
    Rockman - what I did was find versions of the rides I was interested in on connect.garmin and I found all the profiles I needed. Took a while, but allowed me to plan.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dir-T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,640
    Quote Originally Posted by LightMiner
    ? Bike guide books should have elevation climbed.
    .

    Why?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    381
    Why? Interesting question... Well, if a ride is 10 miles it might also be 6k in climbing or 0.5k. Allows you to plan. For example, right now I'm training for one of the 100 mile mtn bike races. Right now I'm looking for longer rides with less climbing to build endurance. That is why I rode to Galena and then did relatively flat rides there, for 3500 feet over the day. At other times I'll want shorter rides, maybe 10 miles instead of the 65 I did yesterday, that are super-steep, maybe 6k climbing, to build power. Maybe I'm looking for 15 miles and 10k of climbing. Depends on what I'm doing during the season. Knowing what each ride consists of helps you decide what you are going to get.

    I understand there is an adventurous side to this too, where you just want to go do 'something' and a trailhead is all you want. That is great too and just different. I've done that quite a bit and am not doing that now.

    Heck, I rode most of these rides in the 80s and early 90s when there was no guide. Remember that leather hiking book with the zipper? That had maybe 5 mountain bike rides in the back. I did most of the rides in the area back then with almost no info. We used the topo maps from climbing peaks around here to get to trailheads, and then just went wherever. Very rocky back then compared to now. Eventually that fluorescent green or orange/pink book came out, I think that pre-dated Good Dirt, or perhaps that was Good Dirt, that was so long ago I have no idea what the title was.


    About the current book - I'd say that for those graphs of elevation in the book (which probably weren't in Good Dirt at all) they should either be accurate or not there at all. If they weren't there and if there wasn't an entry for "Total Elevation Gain" at all, then that would be fine. But it has graphs that are not accurate. Things should be accurate, no? Should it say turn left when you should turn right just to make sure there is enough adventure in the ride? No, that makes no sense.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,924
    For me it's more a matter of how much effort I'm going to expend so I know how long the ride is going to take. I'm all for adventure and exploring but when I'm in SV I'm on vacation and have time constraints with family in tow, baby sitters, or camps for the kids with pickups and dropoffs to consider. It takes me 14 hours to get there from Arizona so every hour counts and wifey is going to be pissed if she doesn't get her ride in as well.

    The graphs do suck and cumulative elevation gain is now the norm for any guidebook although I've certainly seen worse examples. Cosmic Ray's for AZ for example. An excellent book I just spent a lot of time using is Zilly's "Kissing the Trail" for nw and central Oregon" but even his graphs are pretty simplistic.

    Greg published Good Dirt on his own and out of his own pocket. He personally handed me the 2nd edition at the brewpub in Haley and mentioned what a thankless pain in the ass it was. Maybe he made some money when Falcon picked it up but the only answer in this case would be to see if Falcon would be interested in improving what is now the 3rd edition. Perhaps throwing Greg a bone or paying someone and offering 2nd authorship to reride all of the rides with a GPS with the intent of providing making better graphs and elevation data would be an option?

    I contacted Falcon once when I had a bone to pick regarding the Flagstaff-Sedona guide they had published. The picture on the cover was from Cedar Breaks, Utah and for some reason that really ticked me off. The author emailed me back and explained how it was a simple mistake and they would rectify it when they printed the 2nd edition. Perhaps it's worth a try.

  11. #11
    Wandervans
    Reputation: smilycook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by LightMiner
    Why? Interesting question...
    Why don't you just ride a road bike? This has got to be the lamest post of the year!

    Maybe greg needs to add info on how many stinging nettle plants are in adams gulch or charts that show the average depth of the creeks you need to wade through. What about the chances of getting eaten by bears?
    Live to ride!
    18 Cannondale Jekyll Carbon
    16 Diamond Back DB8

    https://www.facebook.com/wandervans
    wandervans.com

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,924
    Quote Originally Posted by smilycook
    Why don't you just ride a road bike? This has got to be the lamest post of the year!

    Maybe greg needs to add info on how many stinging nettle plants are in adams gulch or charts that show the average depth of the creeks you need to wade through. What about the chances of getting eaten by bears?
    Why the hostility? The OP referred to the book as good other than the elevation data. After some baiting he provided the reason why he required more accurate info than provided in the guide. This forum is about information sharing, no? It comes free, so one should expect a bit of grumbling when you ask stupid questions or don't do a search.

    On the other hand, a guidebook or a map costs money and you should expect accurate information. Especially from a major publisher like Falcon. I don't see what the big deal is. Other than another opportunity to slag someone online with your anonymous keyboard.
    Last edited by rockman; 08-02-2010 at 04:48 PM.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.