Results 1 to 69 of 69
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,344

    P.C. trails where etiquette rules are suspended

    What is it about the Mid-mountain south of Spiro, 24-7, and Happy Gilmore that makes downhill riders think they have the right of way? I don't get it. Almost everywhere else I ride, people are friendly and fine with stopping, or getting out of the way of uphill riders.

  2. #2
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    On MM, I'd say just tourists this time of year? Once the lifts start spinning all of those trails on the front side of PCMR are high on my avoid list.

    24-7, no idea. That's my hood and I've not had any problems with people not yielding this year. It's a pretty crowded area on weekend mornings with people finishing Flying Dog rides but I don't ride it then.

    HG, again, no idea.

    As an aside, I really wish Basin Rec (I've expressed this to Bob several times) would make some trails directional (even if on a swapping even/odd day basis). The crowds are only going to grow on the popular stuff and it'll let everyone have more fun and be safer at the same time.

    -Walt

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    556
    I'd LOVE to see some CW on odd days, CCW on even days, sort of stuff here and there.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,344
    I have been resistant to directional trails, but I'm beginning to change that position. The one thing, though, about directional trails. It still doesn't relieve bikers from the responsibility to behave around hikers and may even make it worse by making them think they don't have to be vigilant.

  5. #5
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    That is a good point. We implemented this on a popular trail in Boulder about 15 years ago when I lived there and I personally thought it worked really well. You still needed to be careful around blind corners - but not AS careful, because hikers don't go the opposite direction at 15mph (it's a fast/flowy Flying Dog style trail but a bit flatter). And it eliminated the problem areas where *both* riders could be pretty careful and still almost collide in some circumstances.

    I don't know that it *caused* any problematic behavior - though of course there were people that rode like jerks after the new rule, just like there were before.

    As an aside, either Sarah or I will be up on Flying Dog doing a rider (and hiker/runner/dog) count for Basin Rec on Saturday morning. If you see someone with a clipboard up at the top at the bench, say hi!

    -Walt

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,344
    What is the relationship between Basin Recreation and Mountain Trails...other than when I give MTF contributions they give me neat stuff to wear?. I've been in contact with Charlie at MTF, but it seems like the two organizations have overlap on the trails.

  7. #7
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    They maintain different trails/stuff. Basic Rec is:
    -Basically all of the parks in the basin outside of the city limits (so not City Park, but Trailside/Willow Creek/Matt Knoop/Parley's Lane, etc).
    -All of the bike paths/commuter trails (ie Millenium Trail, Poison Creek trail, etc)
    -Flying Dog, Road to WOS, Avenues/Moose Hollow, Arcylon, a few trails in Pinebrook, RTS/lower UOP, Rob's/Collins, Hunters, Bob's Basin, 24-7, Glenwild trails, Trailside Bike Park, Princess Di, probably a few others I forgot.

    Mountain Trails is the stuff inside the city limits and at PCMR (not Deer Valley AFAIK) and Round Valley which is city property.

    Both of them do both nordic ski/fatbike stuff in the winter and summer trail stuff. One is funded by taxes, one is funded by private donations. Both great organizations!

    Full disclosure: I am a "park and trail ambassador" for Basin Rec. That means if your dog poops and you don't pick it up, I can give you a brochure, basically. And help lost tourists.

    -Walt

  8. #8
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,414
    You should be allowed to taze poop bag offenders!
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

    Thrill Bikers Unite!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    358
    Reading about all this drama makes the area sound like North Korea. I stay away for the most part, but it's not that bad. The sole of summit county's mtb infrastructure is tipping rotten. Sail the sea of blue/green will make everyone mean. Blame the trail design and access, not everything needs to be politically correct/disability act frendly trail design. One big code complient tolet stall, all the crap festers in a septic tank. This destination resort need more hot n nasty compost toilets without wheelchair acess.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    358
    So, corporate interests make money enabiling shuttle vans and lift srvice, at the same time e-bkes are shut down. (I don't - e-bike) Sounds more like "Make America great again" shinanigans. I feel sorry for residence living in a land of destination trail design.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    358
    Locals standing around with clipboards, handing out pamplits to locals with dog shat violations and giving directions to lost visiters? WTF.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Turd View Post
    Locals standing around with clipboards, handing out pamplits to locals with dog shat violations and giving directions to lost visiters? WTF.
    Either you're sobering up, or I'm getting drunker because this post actually makes sense.

  13. #13
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    Turd is the undisputed champion of shutting down threads with Hunter S. Thompson style raving, no question.

    I don't have any pamphlets to hand out for that, though. Go in peace, friend.

    And yes, FWIW, MTF can't trail-design their way out of a wet paper bag. They manage to make things boring AND dangerous all at once, typically.

    -Walt

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post

    And yes, FWIW, MTF can't trail-design their way out of a wet paper bag. They manage to make things boring AND dangerous all at once, typically.

    -Walt
    Hey we agree!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    517
    I've never understood the philosophy of trail building in PC. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I just don't understand 180 degree 5' radius turns with sometimes a little bit of early and mid curve berm, but no end curve berm. And without the end berm, with our current trail makeup, it just becomes a big pile of moon dust and gravel at the end. I guess like Walt said, it makes the rides boring (if you ride it at the speed it was meant to be done at) or dangerous (if you push the limits and slide out at the end).

    Not sure how everyone else rides, but our setup is making it better for the people who like to put the inside foot on the ground and skid the rear around the turn. 3 points of contact is better than two when there is no flow line to maintain speed. So we are getting more brake bumps and turns are even getting looser. Which makes it crappier for riding these trails uphill.

    I've been to many other places in our great state and others to ride, and I know that we aren't the only location with these kind of crappy features. But other locales tend to have these in spots where a trail crossing is about to occur, etc, where they want us to scrub some speed, not every single turn. I think it is funny when my 6 and 9 year old even know what good turns are. After riding out at Steamboat last month, the most asked question is why doesn't home have turns like these.

    Rant concluded

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by BullSCit View Post
    I've never understood the philosophy of trail building in PC. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I just don't understand 180 degree 5' radius turns with sometimes a little bit of early and mid curve berm, but no end curve berm. And without the end berm, with our current trail makeup, it just becomes a big pile of moon dust and gravel at the end. I guess like Walt said, it makes the rides boring (if you ride it at the speed it was meant to be done at) or dangerous (if you push the limits and slide out at the end).

    Not sure how everyone else rides, but our setup is making it better for the people who like to put the inside foot on the ground and skid the rear around the turn. 3 points of contact is better than two when there is no flow line to maintain speed. So we are getting more brake bumps and turns are even getting looser. Which makes it crappier for riding these trails uphill.

    I've been to many other places in our great state and others to ride, and I know that we aren't the only location with these kind of crappy features. But other locales tend to have these in spots where a trail crossing is about to occur, etc, where they want us to scrub some speed, not every single turn. I think it is funny when my 6 and 9 year old even know what good turns are. After riding out at Steamboat last month, the most asked question is why doesn't home have turns like these.

    Rant concluded
    ^yep.

    I think a great example of good turns being incorporated into a trail is out at the High Star Ranch trails. They are doing a great job of managing speed going into turns, opening the radius, and using reverse grades....also making their trails more interesting by adding little technical sections and steeper grades as well.

    But not every turn has to be open radius with a big ol berm....off camber, tight, technical are all fun too...really its how the trail is built to manage speed going into a turn....speed management, think about that when your building a trail.

    All to common in PC is you have long, high speed, straight away sections that lead into a sharp 180 degree switchback. This will result in people having to get on the brakes hard in order to get the correct speed to make the turn, resulting in long stretches of brake bumps, erosion, moondust, etc.

    A prime example is descending the Moose Puddle(sucks) trail in Olympic Park, high speed straight away sections into horrible tight switch backs, the turns don't match the speed of the trail...Its a bummer cause those are all newly built trails that could've been made SO much better....ride that and then go out to High Star Ranch and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about....MTF should get in touch w Sagebrush for a trail building clinic.

  17. #17
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    Yes, the new UOP trails are a disaster, especially given the resources (they drove a bulldozer up there!) and situation (private land, do whatever you want!)

    I'm not sure MTF did those, though. Anyone know? They are not Basin Rec Trails (except RTS, which is pretty nicely routed and very fun for the beginner trail it is, and Iron Bill, which I personally find enjoyable and fairly safe). UOP might have done it all on their own?
    Regardless, what a waste.

    -Walt

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    358
    If you want to talk danger, check this out.
    P.C. trails where etiquette rules are suspended-img_20170704_162659832_hdr.jpg

    (Obligations in the Midwest) Trail was outlined with shish kabob skewers... Revenge of the bever.
    Regrettably, rocking this clunker for a 50mi road ride with a few miles of single track almost killed me.
    P.C. trails where etiquette rules are suspended-img_20170704_151304544_hdr.jpg
    Shamfulaly the most epic ride of the year. I want to go home and stop complaining about the golden goose that got slaughtered.
    Sometimes Rickety, not a turd

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post

    I'm not sure MTF did those, though. Anyone know?

    -Walt
    Pretty sure it wasn't MTF, but most of the recent trails they've built are similar in design as OP.

    I hiked up and talked to the guy who was cutting the trails in the excavator at OP a couple years ago while I was working an event there. He was basically an independent contractor hired by OP. What I gained from talking with him was OP already had a layout/master plan and he was just following orders. Wish I could remember who his company was.

    Its not like the trails are a total disaster, but what I have in my mind what they could've been...it kinda is. ha.

    On a side note glad to hear some of Basin Recs plans to revamp a few of the trails out at Bobs basin Area. That whole zone has tremendous potential, really nice grade for building trails. Ant Farm and Team Cuttthroat need some tlc. Dropout trail is fun and pretty similar to whats going on out at High Star Ranch. Would be awesome to get a trail a level above the stuff at Trailside and Arcylon.

    Im sure theres a crew of peeps out there who would be happy to put in a good sized jump trail for free if given the opportunity...just tell us where and give us a couple excavators ....I can draw something up, eh eh ?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    358
    I'll nod my head and smile if something happens with hand lopers/hand saw. Bob Athey eqivelent or homeless redneck prerequisite.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    556
    Some guys go full retard on "cleaning up trails". A buddy of mine made a trail 25yrs ago which was one of a kind. It got named "Moose Knuckle", and was discovered recently by new riders. I assume that in their quest to get quicker "PRs" on Strava, they've been going in there and cutting out all the logs, and removing rocks, etc, which gave the trail it's individual character. Now it's virtually ruined, and like another carpet smooth ride like the hundreds of other trails in the area.

    It is true that you can ride it a lot faster now, but that's not what the trail was built for. It was a "feature rich" trail which had character unlike any other in the area, and now it's fuxxored.

  22. #22
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    That's why I like John's. It's not "technical" but it's at least *different* than the other endless miles of brown carpet. It also works great for 2-way traffic, hikers, etc, because what feels "fast" on that trail is like 10mph.

    We need more stuff like that, IMO. It's possible to safely ride as fast as you want, it's fun, it's safe for hikers and kids and dogs, etc.

    -Walt

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    When it comes to building *new* trails, multi use trails need to be done away with completely.

    From here on out can we please just build purpose built trails for either hiking or biking only. And for biking only trails make climb only and descend only routes(directional). Then we can avoid all this conflict out on the trails.

    And yes I'm perfectly fine with having half the amount of trails if they were awesome purpose built mountain bike trails, rather then having everything "boring, safe" multi use.


    multi use...


    purpose built...

    it just makes sense

  24. #24
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    I think trails like John's make great use of terrain and can work fine multi-use. You just have to do away with all this straight/flat/boring stuff and put in a lot of turns and leave the roots and rocks and let things erode a bit without "fixing" them.

    Go ride some trails in New England - you can ride as fast as you want, and never endanger anyone - because as fast as you want is 10-12mph (that's top speed, not average!) Then look at something like Spiro or Jennys or any number of the other awful PCMR trails - you can hit 30mph if you want to, and it's not even fun (IMO). Dangerous and boring.

    IMO the solution is to make the trails really twisty and much more more difficult in general. It is VERY hard to deny hikers access to a trail politically and practically, so the purpose built/directional bike trails tend to just be at the resorts, and realistically that's probably where they will stay. Plenty to shred at DV and Canyons.

    -Walt

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Flash29r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    362
    I had a place I loved to ride in my home town called Rocky Ridge Park. It was aptly named given every trail had rocks, nothing was groomed aside from water breaks necessary to keep erosion down. Rarely were tree falls removed, they just became another obstacle to get over. This was a place I learned all my technical riding and I did so on a hard tail XC bike.
    While I like riding out here I will say I rode more technical stuff back in my home town. I am not referring to bike park stuff with drops and gap jumps, just way more technical XC riding. Some of the trails in PC are way to wide open imo. I don't have an answer to PC trails, just seems to be the nature of the area.
    Shops do imo need to tell new riders about trail etiquette, there is a definitive lack of that here and is getting worse.
    '18 Scalpel Si Carbon 2 Eagle
    '12 Flash 29r C3 with a few mods
    '10 Synapse 5 Carbon with a few mods as well..

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    That's why I like John's. It's not "technical" but it's at least *different* than the other endless miles of brown carpet. It also works great for 2-way traffic, hikers, etc, because what feels "fast" on that trail is like 10mph.

    We need more stuff like that, IMO. It's possible to safely ride as fast as you want, it's fun, it's safe for hikers and kids and dogs, etc.

    -Walt
    Yeah, I'd guess the majority of my rides up to the ridge start on Sweeny's-John's. Love that section.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,344
    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post
    When it comes to building *new* trails, multi use trails need to be done away with completely.

    From here on out can we please just build purpose built trails for either hiking or biking only. And for biking only trails make climb only and descend only routes(directional). Then we can avoid all this conflict out on the trails.

    And yes I'm perfectly fine with having half the amount of trails if they were awesome purpose built mountain bike trails, rather then having everything "boring, safe" multi use.
    Yep

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I think trails like John's make great use of terrain and can work fine multi-use. You just have to do away with all this straight/flat/boring stuff and put in a lot of turns and leave the roots and rocks and let things erode a bit without "fixing" them.

    Go ride some trails in New England - you can ride as fast as you want, and never endanger anyone - because as fast as you want is 10-12mph (that's top speed, not average!) Then look at something like Spiro or Jennys or any number of the other awful PCMR trails - you can hit 30mph if you want to, and it's not even fun (IMO). Dangerous and boring.

    IMO the solution is to make the trails really twisty and much more more difficult in general. It is VERY hard to deny hikers access to a trail politically and practically, so the purpose built/directional bike trails tend to just be at the resorts, and realistically that's probably where they will stay. Plenty to shred at DV and Canyons.

    -Walt
    That's it in my eye but would also need to be careful with network connections to make it more sustainable.
    Tone down the connector acsesability and kick up the effort required for the ride/foot traffic without turning into an overgrown GWT/ Brink grunt.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    517
    I finally got the extreme pleasure to ride the High Star Ranch trails this weekend. And all I have to say is WOW! What an incredible trail network (even though it is only 16 miles so far). But really cool what they did with that terrain, and unlike most PC trails I ride now that have a good turn or two, the downhill only trails were almost 100% good. So nice to be riding the higher down trails in the trees and not have to worry about someone coming up behind each turn. And even better not having to worry about someone flying down the trails that my kids are in front climbing. But just like everywhere in PC, they really need some moisture.

    It seems the current method is to build new connector trails and just adding more trail density to an already developed trail system. I know in Round Valley, there is typically one to two new trails a year built. Some open new areas up (Ramble-On and TM), but I think it would be best to stop connectors. As all this does is increase trail intersections and rider density. I'm not sure how much more new unbuilt land is available, but sure would be good to let Sagebrush have a nice parcel of land and let them build the next great PC trail system.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I think trails like John's make great use of terrain and can work fine multi-use. You just have to do away with all this straight/flat/boring stuff and put in a lot of turns and leave the roots and rocks and let things erode a bit without "fixing" them.

    Go ride some trails in New England - you can ride as fast as you want, and never endanger anyone - because as fast as you want is 10-12mph (that's top speed, not average!) Then look at something like Spiro or Jennys or any number of the other awful PCMR trails - you can hit 30mph if you want to, and it's not even fun (IMO). Dangerous and boring.

    IMO the solution is to make the trails really twisty and much more more difficult in general. It is VERY hard to deny hikers access to a trail politically and practically, so the purpose built/directional bike trails tend to just be at the resorts, and realistically that's probably where they will stay. Plenty to shred at DV and Canyons.

    -Walt
    Sometimes your logic is just really weird. More and more bike only trails are popping up everywhere and thats a great thing. Also I would like to see more hiking only trails. Its a win/win situation... its not about excluding hikers from trails but its more about giving them their own trails and bikers their own trails. That is the direction trail building should be moving towards. The end product will be better and safer trails for everyone.

    To each their own, but I think its important to have a good variety of trails. Making *EVERY* trail super tight and twisty to control speeds to a max of 10mph would be super lame.

    You really limit yourself in the types of trails you can build when designing for multi use purposes. Designing directional, purpose built trails, for a specific user group, really allows you to build basically anything and have the trail be safe.

    Slow technical, high speed scary fast are all fun.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by BullSCit View Post
    I finally got the extreme pleasure to ride the High Star Ranch trails this weekend. And all I have to say is WOW! What an incredible trail network (even though it is only 16 miles so far). But really cool what they did with that terrain, and unlike most PC trails I ride now that have a good turn or two, the downhill only trails were almost 100% good. So nice to be riding the higher down trails in the trees and not have to worry about someone coming up behind each turn. And even better not having to worry about someone flying down the trails that my kids are in front climbing. But just like everywhere in PC, they really need some moisture.

    It seems the current method is to build new connector trails and just adding more trail density to an already developed trail system. I know in Round Valley, there is typically one to two new trails a year built. Some open new areas up (Ramble-On and TM), but I think it would be best to stop connectors. As all this does is increase trail intersections and rider density. I'm not sure how much more new unbuilt land is available, but sure would be good to let Sagebrush have a nice parcel of land and let them build the next great PC trail system.
    ^nice, agree 100% ....cant wait to get out there and see what they build for the black trails...hope theres some good steep pucker sections! a few jumps would be rad too!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    556
    if they added 50 windy MTB trails it would still be a small fraction of what's out there, correcting the current ridiculous imbalance a good bit.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Then look at something like Spiro or Jennys or any number of the other awful PCMR trails - you can hit 30mph if you want to, and it's not even fun (IMO). Dangerous and boring.

    -Walt
    The reason Spiro is dangerous is because its a multi use trail, not because you hit 30mph.

    Spiro is arguably the most popular descending trail in PC. It should be designated as a downhill/bike only trail.

    I like Spiro mainly because of the high speeds you carry on it, there are a couple of sections that could use some work though. But I dont think its an awful trail at all. If designated as a dh only they could really turn that trail into something awesome by adding features and opening up a few of the problem switchbacks.

    Mojave is another trail that I think is fun mainly because you just get going so fast on it, and there are some fun swoopy turns.

    Jennys should be uphill only. Wouldn't bother me to see Johns uphill only too. Climbing Johns is fun and interesting, but the descent doesn't do it for me, maybe it the trail was 20degrees steeper like Empire.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahJohn View Post
    if they added 50 windy MTB trails it would still be a small fraction of what's out there, correcting the current ridiculous imbalance a good bit.
    I think we agree...would rather see PC's existing network/trails improved, revamped then the addition of more mind numbing single track.

    New trails/networks should follow suit of what Sagebrush/High Star Ranch is doing. You could also incorporate hiking only trails so hikers dont feel like they are being excluded.

  35. #35
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    I guess I don't get the interest in high speeds. I like to test traction/cornering speed, so trails where I'm just bombing in a straight line aren't fun for me - too much elevation loss too fast, just holding on/along for the ride - might as well ride down Guardsman.

    But that's just preference. I agree that for 30mph Spiro type trails, you need to segregate users, probably. I'd prefer slower more technical/twisty stuff because I like to descend for more than 5 minutes after climbing for 40, but that's just me.

    It sounds like I'll have to actually get in a car sooner or later (so...hard...to...motivate) and go check out High Star!

    I think we can all agree that the MUT network in PC (especially the MM area above PCMR) is not very fun AND not very safe. More turns and leaving a few fallen trees in place (with some work done to make them rideable) would go a long way toward dealing with both problems, if a full reroute (not going to happen) isn't on the table. Convincing MTF to do something like that is the tricky bit. They are motivated to just add miles at all costs, as far as I can tell.

    -Walt

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I guess I don't get the interest in high speeds...

    -Walt
    you lost me right there.


    basically this is everything that is good...
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyw...b9GXD0lakYf6WA

    but yeah check out high star, I think you'll be impressed.

  37. #37
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    Fair enough. To me there's no advantage to going 30mph, because it means my descent is over too quick, and I just sit there. Plus if I want that I go to the resorts, no way am I spending 45 minutes riding up to get 4 or 5 going down.

    I like *subjectively* high speeds, of course. But if a trail can just barely be ridden at 10mph, that's awesome, because it *feels* fast as you almost lose traction in every corner and dodge tight trees, but you get 3x the descending time. You also don't get hurt as bad if you biff it.

    But to each their own. If your thing is to hang on tight and just fly down, that's your thing. We won't ever see eye to eye on what a "good" trail is in that case. Luckily there is a ton of that available at DV and to a lesser extent at Canyons.

    -Walt

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    556
    This is not completely true either. If it was multi-use and the max bike speed was limited to 10mph it'd be far less dangerous. And if it was bike ONLY as it is currently, it'd be more dangerous with 30mph speeds than if it was re-routed to limit it to 15mph.

    The issue is not danger to self, the issue it danger TO OTHERS. If you want to go 30mph and break yourself up I really don't care about that. But if someone is riding without regard for "innocents" who happen to be in the path of possible destruction, that's another situation entirely (IE: Slyfox).

    It's "dangerous" because too many bikers overdrive their vision on the trail. Good bikers "expect" an obstacle around every corner (and ride slow "enough" to stop JIC), while shitty bikers are surprised by the same obstacles.

    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post
    The reason Spiro is dangerous is because its a multi use trail, not because you hit 30mph.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahJohn View Post
    This is not completely true either. If it was multi-use and the max bike speed was limited to 10mph it'd be far less dangerous. And if it was bike ONLY as it is currently, it'd be more dangerous with 30mph speeds than if it was re-routed to limit it to 15mph.

    The issue is not danger to self, the issue it danger TO OTHERS. If you want to go 30mph and break yourself up I really don't care about that. But if someone is riding without regard for "innocents" who happen to be in the path of possible destruction, that's another situation entirely (IE: Slyfox).

    It's "dangerous" because too many bikers overdrive their vision on the trail. Good bikers "expect" an obstacle around every corner (and ride slow "enough" to stop JIC), while shitty bikers are surprised by the same obstacles.
    The moments you hit high speeds on trails are at the straight away sections with good line of sight far ahead, and there is virtually zero chance you're going to hit anyone because both uphill and downhill traffic can see each other well in advance....The worst, most dangerous sections, are the tight blind corners where you can't see ahead, the exact trails you think are safer...hitting someone at 10mph can still do serious damage especially if its a kid.... Anyways these are all examples of why multi use trails are a bad idea...if building a multi use trail is a must at least make it odd/even days.

    The safest, best trails are going to be purpose built for biking only or hiking only and thats what we should be advocating for. That is the big picture and will resolve all conflict.

    In the case of Spiro given its nature and surrounding trails as being designated uphill only, its time it be designated as downhill bike only. Put some rock gardens in, berms, jumps etc. make it a real downhill flow, technical trail.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    I think maybe my fundamental difference with you guys (Walt and UtahJohn) is, you guys want to control how people ride trails... I want to see trails built that people can ride however they want.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    556
    I'm not necessarily referring to hitting someone else. You are saying you are just as safe if you crash at 30mph than at 10mph? If there were 100 crashes measured, the injuries would be evenly split between them?

    Unfortunately most of the guys going 30mph can't afford to pay for the injuries to someone else if they hit them either...... so I guess that should factor into it too right? Irresponsibility carries over to all parts of their lives, until they grow out of it

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahJohn View Post
    I'm not necessarily referring to hitting someone else. You are saying you are just as safe if you crash at 30mph than at 10mph? If there were 100 crashes measured, the injuries would be evenly split between them?

    Unfortunately most of the guys going 30mph can't afford to pay for the injuries to someone else if they hit them either...... so I guess that should factor into it too right? Irresponsibility carries over to all parts of their lives, until they grow out of it
    I think you should stop worrying about how others ride(scapegoating) and ride at the speed YOU are comfortable with.

    Falling at 30mph or 10mph could have much different consequences depending on exposure, how you fall, what you hit etc....Its not like a crash dummy test in a controlled environment.

    I had a lady I work with crashed her bike and broke her back on a paved bike trail doing 15mph. Some of my worst crashes have been on slow moving technical terrain moving less then 10mph. Are you saying we should get rid of all the technical stuff too because its dangerous? Are we really advocating for everyone to ride less then 10mph and be wrapped up in bubble wrap?

  43. #43
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    Not at all, I'm advocating for more *difficult* trails, because they are both safer (for everyone) and more fun. Go as fast as you want on John's! Everyone can still share the trail, everyone can have fun, win/win.

    30mph bomber trails should indeed be bike-only/one way. And they are mostly going to be confined to the resorts, in reality.

    -Walt

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Not at all, I'm advocating for more *difficult* trails, because they are both safer (for everyone) and more fun. Go as fast as you want on John's! Everyone can still share the trail, everyone can have fun, win/win.

    30mph bomber trails should indeed be bike-only/one way. And they are mostly going to be confined to the resorts, in reality.

    -Walt
    I get what your saying with Johns and I think that could be a good example/solution of how to slow the speed of bike traffic on existing trails that must absolutely stay multi use, like the bottom of LCC trail for example...but on other existing multi use trails other solutions like leaving the trail alone and simply going to an odd/even schedule or bike only might be a better solution.

    When it comes to building *new* trails you are still advocating for multi use trails and by doing so you are limiting yourself in the types and styles of trail you can build.

    Instead with purpose built trails the sky is the limit, you can build whatever you want and it will be safe and free of conflict FOREVER!...I dont think they should be confined to the resorts, what about people who dont have access to a resort or care to ride in one?

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    556
    Dmar, I'm simply saying that good trail designs minimize the negative impact of the irresponsible folks. Nobody is complaining about the good guys.

    But that being said, the fact that I DO worry about how others ride is part of why I am alive right now.

    I do ride too fast sometimes, but it never ever endangers anyone but me when I do it. That is not true for a lot of folks riding around here, which is what my entire point is based on.

  46. #46
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    Nobody will go for bike-only conversion of any existing MUT. Full stop. If you think otherwise you've never been to a city council or open space board meeting. There is literally zero chance. Alternate days, maybe. I think going to directional first would be the start, but even that gets a ton of pushback around here.

    New construction, doable. Arcylon, Bob's, Trailside are all recent examples.

    I'm unclear on what "not having access to the resorts" means. Vail and DV won't stop you from riding their trails, lift ticket or no. You just have to ride up. So inherently, anyone with the willingness to ride up to the top of the Canyons can then bomb down Insurgent or Boot Camp or the DH course or whatever they want.

    I mean, I get your point. In some magical fairyland, mountain bikes wouldn't have to share the trails at all. But in reality we're a minority user group and we mostly take what we can get. Making demands (and then not showing up to meetings, for the Toll Canyon one last year I offered *FREE BEER* to anyone who would come and got zero takers - I was the only mountain bike advocate there) is not a viable strategy.

    By most reasonable standards there is a TON of bike specific directional riding in Park City. A ton. What we *don't* have is well constructed MUT, and that's where the effort should go (refocus on reroutes/fixing existing trails rather than just blindly building more), IMO.

    -Walt

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I'm unclear on what "not having access to the resorts" means.

    -Walt
    Must've been a while since you been outside of Summit County?

    Not everyone lives next to a resort. Not only talking about Park City trails. Thats why I think it would be great to have more bike only trail networks outside the resorts.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Making demands (and then not showing up to meetings, for the Toll Canyon one last year I offered *FREE BEER* to anyone who would come and got zero takers - I was the only mountain bike advocate there) is not a viable strategy.

    -Walt
    Totally agree. Would be nice for these types of meetings to be promoted more within the bike community. Seems more often then not they are kept hush hush to keep bikers away.

    How much did Basin Rec go out of their way to get mountain bikers to show up? I dont know that posting on mtbr offering free beer is the most effective method.

    What about partnering up with the local bike shops to get a commitment on certain dates and posting up a calendar marking the important meetings where bikers should have a presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    "Nobody will go for bike-only conversion of any existing MUT. Full stop. If you think otherwise you've never been to a city council or open space board meeting. There is literally zero chance. "
    -Walt
    ^That is a big problem....I think when bikers are faced with this kind of mentality at meetings why would they show up? When nobody is listening to the types of trails bikers want its kind of pointless to show up when theres zero chance...id rather be riding my bike.

  49. #49
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post
    Must've been a while since you been outside of Summit County?

    Not everyone lives next to a resort. Not only talking about Park City trails. Thats why I think it would be great to have more bike only trail networks outside the resorts.
    Um, because we're talking specifically about Park City and Park City trails?

    I'm unclear on where you're going with this. If you want to talk about trails outside of PC/Summit, maybe start a new thread?

    -Walt

  50. #50
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    The Toll Canyon meeting was in the Park Record, it was in the Basin Rec emails (if you subscribe), it was posted at the Ritchins building, etc.

    Basin Rec is not responsible for reaching out specifically to any user group. If they did, they would quickly be accused of favoritism.

    You can actually get stuff to happen in terms of trail redesign and new trail construction - but it takes time. If you're not planning on 5+ years of commitment, your voice doesn't matter much, unfortunately.

    -Walt

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    The Toll Canyon meeting was in the Park Record, it was in the Basin Rec emails (if you subscribe), it was posted at the Ritchins building, etc.

    Basin Rec is not responsible for reaching out specifically to any user group. If they did, they would quickly be accused of favoritism.

    You can actually get stuff to happen in terms of trail redesign and new trail construction - but it takes time. If you're not planning on 5+ years of commitment, your voice doesn't matter much, unfortunately.

    -Walt
    I guess I was referring more towards you on that, I remember you saying you were an ambassador for Basin Rec? Not sure what the rules of engagement are for recruiting folks to show up at meetings...but you obviously want more bikers to show up and offered free beer. Why not go into the local shops and try to get a commitment from those guys to show up? Have you tried other methods to get more bikers to show up?

    Mountain bikers aren't going to act until its shoved in their face, it really needs to be apparent why they need to be involved and it needs to be posted up in shops, at trailheads, brewpubs etc. where mountain bikers can see it.

    I think getting involved with shops, printing flyers for the meetings, and handing them out to customers or at trailheads would be super effective in recruiting more bikers to show up.

  52. #52
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    I'm not really in a position to recruit anyone for meetings as a Basin Rec representative. Not my job, probably also not appropriate if I was claiming to act on behalf of Basin Rec, since my "job" is just to report problems and help direct people and sometimes throw colored chalk on kids and such.

    I show up for meetings and pass on info about them when it comes up, and I bend Basin Rec's ear about trail design when I get the chance. If someone wants to start a trail organization to advocate for bike specific trails, that's great. I'll support it. But I'm not going to spend a ton of time on something like that, especially when I think the existing resort trails are plenty for that sort of riding.

    -Walt

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    517
    Wow, lots of good discussion going on here. But like most discussion now-a-days, people have already determined how they feel, and it doesn't really do much to argue on the internet about this. Walt makes some great points regarding MTBers lack of attendance in meetings to discuss important trail decisions that impact us all. I know I have been usually guilty of the idea that there are enough other bikers in PC, so someone else will take care of it. My kids are young, and our family rides the crap out of our trails. We're getting into trail building / maintenance days and maybe they need to see the other side of the process on how funds and land are appropriated for us to greedily milk every once of speed and fun from our trails. But I'm not a FBer and don't go to bike shops too often, so usually when I hear about these kind of meetings, it is too late. I appreciate in the past that Walt has put up notices, but I don't check MTBR that often either.

    But I think I am more with dmar in the thinking that we need more purpose built trails. I think when people get to check out High Star, they will see the wisdom in this. I know when I ride by myself, I'm not too worried about someone coming around the corner hot, but when my daughter is on point, it freaks the f out of me.
    So nice being able to put the brain on cruise control in situations like this. But I believe not all good designed high speed DH trails are steep. I personally like good flow trails with some chunk in them. The High Star trails meet that for me. Other PC trails that are flowy but not necessarily chunky that are fun for me are parts of Mojave, Flying Dog CCW, Rusty Shovel (towards the bottom), No Where Elks, TM and Somewhere Elks. I love riding in Moab, Hurricane, Fruita, as these are the trails that me and my bike are built for. The kind that you can carry your speed and still need to pedal to milk out a couple extra MPH, and barely need to use your brakes. I really am not the biggest fan of trails that have you on your brakes the entire time, because the engineer in me knows that all that work of me grinding up the hill is being dissipated in my brake system for no appreciable gain. I love to pump on features, jump off rocks, etc. I think there are a lot of trails in PC that have a good couple turns/sections in them, but it would be nice to have more consistent quality.

    Like all have argued, we definitely have enough of what we currently have (interstates with exit ramps followed by another interstate with more exit ramps). So how do we get our opinion out? I know when Basin Rec changed the wooden features part of the Trailside park, I wrote back and forth with someone there, asking why they did what they did. And it came down to that some manager wanted that section that used to be pretty heavily utilized to be more like what the Mr. Muchrocks trail is like. Now you go up there and it is pretty much a ghost town. No skinnies, no teeter-totters, nothing that is any fun, unless you like rolling over rocks cemented into the ground or really wide wooden features with little risk or reward. Maybe they put out an offer for the public to give their opinions on this, but I never saw this, nor did the person ever say that in our email correspondence. So it just came down to one person thinking something was better. So how to we convince Basin Rec and Mountain Trails and all other entities that are building trails in our area to be open to different ways? If anyone has any ideas, I would like to be a part of it. I believe we are the silent majority, and there just really isn't an effective way for our voices to be heard.

    What I wonder at the end of a new trail build is do the designers high five each other, thinking that this is the greatest trail ever built?

  54. #54
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,345
    From a general (not PC specific) advocacy perspective, these statements jump out at me:

    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post
    ^That is a big problem....I think when bikers are faced with this kind of mentality at meetings why would they show up? When nobody is listening to the types of trails bikers want its kind of pointless to show up when theres zero chance...id rather be riding my bike.
    and:

    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post
    Mountain bikers aren't going to act until its shoved in their face, it really needs to be apparent why they need to be involved and it needs to be posted up in shops, at trailheads, brewpubs etc. where mountain bikers can see it.
    Attendance is important when there is a public/political process to creating or expanding the infrastructure. Competing interests understand the process, and they show up and make sure they're heard. We're getting better at it, but the MTB community at large still has a long way to go to catch up with them. I'm all for expanding the reach of advocacy efforts, but riders have to understand that showing up and joining the conversation is valuable even if they don't walk away with miles of new bike-only directional trail.

  55. #55
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    I think really the main culprit is MTF. Basin Rec, in general, does a good job designing XC trails and will at least consider building freeride/directional stuff (and have). They could do better, of course, but overall, when you think of Basin rec trails (ie Flying Dog/Glenwild, Arcylon, Iron Bill, Hunters, Trailside) they are mostly pretty fun and flowy. Safety is a different question and I'm still an advocate for Flying Dog to be directional as it gets more and more crowded.

    MTF, on the other hand, is the org responsible for building and maintaining most of the stuff that we are all bitching about (MM, Spiro, Jenny's, WOW, etc). That's all Vail Resorts managed land, basically, so there are really 2 layers of bureacracy you'd have to go through.

    The first step would probably be to get really involved with MTF and bend Charlie's ear to leave more deadfall (or reroute around it as it comes down) at the very least, or better yet to actively spend money/time on rerouting trails to be more flowy. No idea if that would work, MTF is very much into a sort of hiking-on-two-wheels style of mountain bike trail (which is fine) but that would be the place to start.

    -Walt

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Attendance is important when there is a public/political process to creating or expanding the infrastructure. Competing interests understand the process, and they show up and make sure they're heard. We're getting better at it, but the MTB community at large still has a long way to go to catch up with them. I'm all for expanding the reach of advocacy efforts, but riders have to understand that showing up and joining the conversation is valuable even if they don't walk away with miles of new bike-only directional trail.
    Totally agree...but telling people there is zero chance, and it takes 5 years of attending meetings before your voice is heard is not how you get mountain bikers psyched to show up to meetings.

    Explaining to mountain bikers that there is a chance and your voice will be heard is how you encourage people to show up.

    ...and as BullSCit mentioned time we here about these meetings they're over with. You can say, oh yeah, go here, or sign up for this, and you'll find out about the meetings...but thats not going to work with the mountain bike community...I mean how would mtbr's even know how or where to go unless someone was already directing them, its too many hoops to go through in order to find out about these meetings...Thats what i mean is these meeting need to be shoved in our faces, bike shops, trailheads, etc. and then you get those people telling other people etc ...the word spreads.
    Last edited by dmar123; 07-13-2017 at 01:30 PM.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    It is VERY hard to deny hikers access to a trail politically and practically, so the purpose built/directional bike trails tend to just be at the resorts, and realistically that's probably where they will stay.
    -Walt
    bwaah, 90% of pc's trails are within a resort, so whats the problem? ....more purpose built, make pc great again ...sorry thread was getting boring

    It just pains me sometimes seeing hikers on PC's trails...I mean why would you? there are so many better places to hike. If I was an avid hiker PC's trail network would be the last place I would want to hike.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post
    bwaah, 90% of pc's trails are within a resort, so whats the problem? ....more purpose built, make pc great again ...sorry thread was getting boring

    It just pains me sometimes seeing hikers on PC's trails...I mean why would you? there are so many better places to hike. If I was an avid hiker PC's trail network would be the last place I would want to hike.
    Most of the hikers that you see at PCMR are hiking there because they are (usually) tourists staying at the resorts or in old town or they are (less frequently) residents of the neighborhood. They're hiking the MUT accessible from either their hotel or their home with their dog and their water bottle. If you really, really want to shred some gnar, go ride Fire Swamp or Insurgent or Canyons DH. 100% free of hiker tourists. Also 100% free of the poser bros with no skills who put the brake bumps on Spiro. Please keep your attitude in check when you ride there or we will lose more access.

    And Walt, FWIW, I have been somewhat active in my correspondence with Basin Rec about Toll Canyon, even though my schedule seldom lets me attend meetings.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    556
    LMAO @ "Poser Bros"

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirshredalot View Post
    Most of the hikers that you see at PCMR are hiking there because they are (usually) tourists staying at the resorts or in old town or they are (less frequently) residents of the neighborhood. They're hiking the MUT accessible from either their hotel or their home with their dog and their water bottle. If you really, really want to shred some gnar, go ride Fire Swamp or Insurgent or Canyons DH. 100% free of hiker tourists. Also 100% free of the poser bros with no skills who put the brake bumps on Spiro. Please keep your attitude in check when you ride there or we will lose more access.
    Haha ..."Poser bros on Spiro" reminds me of a 80's skate/punk song

    Don't worry my attitude is reserved only for internet forums.

    Yep I know where to go for the gnar...but also would be nice to get a couple of the more popular descending high speed flow trails directional as well.

    Does a trail have to be gnar to be directional?

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    556
    Off topic slightly, but some clowns have taken it upon themselves to start "cleaning up" the BST from the Church to the bridge. One of the only natural trails in that area left and it's being dumbed down..... As if there isn't enough smooth carpet to ride in Corner Canyon already, this disease is spreading elsewhere....

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahJohn View Post
    Off topic slightly, but some clowns have taken it upon themselves to start "cleaning up" the BST from the Church to the bridge. One of the only natural trails in that area left and it's being dumbed down..... As if there isn't enough smooth carpet to ride in Corner Canyon already, this disease is spreading elsewhere....
    Could be the City...they did this up in Dry Creek and some sections on the BST over to the Sled a few years ago....Im not sure why they feel the need to do this, seems like a waste of time as the sections they tried to dumb down are already getting chunky again...

    But the BST is mostly brown carpet anyways...Corner Canyon is fun, If it wasn't for Jacobs Ladder and the DH trail it would be pretty lame though, but they been doing tons of work there and its great to have a good network of trails in the slc valley. ...they put in a few jump trails that are fun for what they are but would be cool if they put in a couple more steep technical trails and not just connectors everywhere...and they are doing a pretty good job with designating trails as directional....who knows theres a lot of potential there still and they seem to be building all the time....too hot for me to ride there this time of year.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    556
    a buddy of mine rode it when some old guy was doing it by himself. Acted like he's God's gift to everyone, and everyone should be thanking him for his work. Definitely not a city employee

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahJohn View Post
    a buddy of mine rode it when some old guy was doing it by himself. Acted like he's God's gift to everyone, and everyone should be thanking him for his work. Definitely not a city employee
    prob on meth.

  65. #65
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,264
    BST is mostly maintained by the Bonneville Trail Organization, not SLC or SL county. I have no idea how/why they decide to maintain (or not) various parts of the trail.

    As an aside, WTF is the deal with SLC? There's no trail advocacy at all. There's space/potential for a solid hundred miles of trails in the foothills and it would cost peanuts to do. But nobody cares. WTF?

    -Walt

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    358
    https://www.facebook.com/Saltlakevalleytrailssociety/

    www.saltlakevalleytrailssociety.org

    http://utahmountainbiking.com/Forum2...1811&start=100


    It's cool that SLC doesn't have a bunch of sanctioned crap. More of a wild west trail system if you poke your head around and down a deer trail. PC popularity is a good thing for people who still actually ride SLC/Emigration.
    If you want to stay away from the hobnob go to the city for remote quiet.
    It's all about the heat.
    Last edited by Turd; 07-20-2017 at 08:12 PM. Reason: More

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by dmar123 View Post
    Haha ..."Poser bros on Spiro" reminds me of a 80's skate/punk song
    https://youtu.be/G-LC2pPtDKs
    Or
    https://youtu.be/c3nPWcxXpBw
    Last edited by Turd; 07-20-2017 at 08:33 PM. Reason: Flash back

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    644
    ha yeah DRI is awesome, listen to em at work all the time.

    some good peeps to contact about trail advocacy or to bend ears...
    Parks & Public Lands | Salt Lake City - The Official City Government Website

    Lots of private property and wilderness zones, really hard to build above the BST. There has been a lot going on in terms of getting jump parks sanctioned, I street, 9th s and 7th w jump park, and a few new trails here and there...most of the development has been happening in the corner canyon area, that zone has exploded over the last few years.

    but yeah WAFTA used to be one of the advocacy groups, now its SLVTS. They are getting stuff done and proposing a few trails, one of which is a trail in Parleys canyon. Think they also just cut a trail over by Ensign Peak.

    Would like to see more trails going up to Black Mountain from Dry Creek, think that would be a great zone for building a network with more vertical....Of course all the new trails should be directional

    Its so freaken hot in the summer though.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    358
    Guess you could cut up the south and west aspects and have dry trails for the spring migration. In mid summer, the trails would become hot and peasefull.
    If you did North and East aspect, or a combination with the hot. It would be a rutted mess.

    (Thanks to the moderater for not running the Utah forum like a Home Owners Association)
    Last edited by Turd; 07-21-2017 at 08:08 PM. Reason: Finish thought

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 11:18 AM
  2. Replies: 91
    Last Post: 05-14-2013, 07:13 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2013, 12:45 PM
  4. Rules? Rules? Who needs rules?
    By teamdicky in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-25-2013, 12:53 PM
  5. Sharing the trails, etiquette rules
    By wrg in forum Commuting
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-02-2011, 07:29 AM

Members who have read this thread: 1

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.