|   Seems kinda silly... | Mr. Wonderful
Sep 7, 2003 11:33 PM | | As I read the varied posts to this forum, many seem to concern trail access, the lack thereof, and the fear of even less in the future. Why then is it that as I tread the trails, I see so much wanton damage caused by bike tires? You must realize that this damage severely damages the collective reputation of "mountain" bikers.
Just one example that always brings a smirk to my otherwise pleasant countenance. Why is it that so many "mountian" bikers fear the water? I've seen so many little puddles turned into track-wide mud bogs where bikers steer wide to avoid the water and collectively create a huge mess. What's up with that?
Who hasn't seen a water bar rendered useless (or worse) by the actions of bikers as they steer wide to avoid a little bump. For a bunch of hard-core "mountain" bikers, you seem to go to a lot of trouble to avoid a bump in the trail. Of course with enough of those intrepid souls negating the protective function of the water bars, the trails and the areas near the trails are damaged. Money which might otherwise be spent to expand and improve trails is instead spent to clean up the mess. |
| re: Seems kinda silly... | dave54
Sep 8, 2003 8:15 AM | | "As I read the varied posts to this forum, many seem to concern trail access, the lack thereof, and the fear of even less in the future. Why then is it that as I tread the trails, I see so much wanton damage caused by lug-soled boots? You must realize that this damage severely damages the collective reputation of "hikers".
Just one example that always brings a smirk to my otherwise pleasant countenance. Why is it that so many "hikers" fear the water? I've seen so many little puddles turned into wide mud bogs where hikers step wide to avoid the water and collectively create a huge mess. What's up with that?
Who hasn't seen a water bar rendered useless (or worse) by the actions of hikers as they step wide to avoid a little bump. For a bunch of hard-core hikers, you seem to go to a lot of trouble to avoid a bump in the trail. Of course with enough of those intrepid souls negating the protective function of the water bars, the trails and the areas near the trails are damaged. Money which might otherwise be spent to expand and improve trails is instead spent to clean up the mess."
Those who live in glass houses... |
| Glass Houses and antiquated building techniques | Ken in KC.
Sep 8, 2003 12:04 PM | | Skirting water bars?
The problem isn't with one user group or another on your trail. It's the fact that you're using outdated trail design and management techniques to band aid a problem area.
Water bars aren't effective in controlling erosion on a trail. True, water diverts around the placed obstacle, but it then runs off directly around the bar. The "tracks" you see skirting the water bar could show signs of tires or lugged soled shoes, but it was originally made by water.
Then there's the venturi effect of water cascading over the water bar, and eroding the supporting soil underneath.
It seems to me that your trail is a problem, not the trail user. Your maintenance techniques are also suspect, since you believe that water bars provide some sort of protective function, when they are at best, a stop gap solution to a problem.
I highly suggest that you attend an IMBA trail building and design school. They are a fantastic resource for hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians to learn the science of trail design and trail building. You'll learn how to design and develop sustainable, natural trails that will provide years of maintenance free enjoyment for all trail users.
You can check them out at http://www.imba.com/tcc/index.html
Enjoy your hike,
Ken |
| Venerated trails built by professionals and used for decades... | Mr. Wonderful
Sep 8, 2003 8:01 PM | | Unlike pin-head Dave54's reply, I appreciated Ken's constructive suggestion:
"I highly suggest that you attend an IMBA trail building and design school. They are a fantastic resource for hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians to learn the science of trail design and trail building. You'll learn how to design and develop sustainable, natural trails that will provide years of maintenance free enjoyment for all trail users."
We can all learn a thing or two. Advances in design and building technique may be appropriate, but I know many trails in use for several decades or more on which water bars have lasted and worked well.
You're demonstrably wrong to imply that mile-for-mile, user-for-user, pedestrians impart anywhere near the wear on trails as do aggresive bike tires. I don't need to cite the user statistics, nor present the photos of damaged areas. If the damage was apparent only to me, you wouldn't have this forum.
In my conversations, I'm suggesting user fees commensurate with the amount of additional damage done by the various modes of transportation. It seems to work reasonably well on the highway system where heavy vehicles pay additional taxes and fees.
Education of users could be part of licensure/fee collection, but that process will likely take many years to have an impact. |
| It isn't always cyclists... | JmZ
Sep 8, 2003 9:08 PM | | I've ridden many trails, I've hiked others.
The worst erosion I have seen was in an Ohio State park. No bikes allowed, not a single bike tire track in sight. It was a 'pure' hiking trail.
It was also torn up to pure crap. Rutted and excessively wide, trail off shoots. It was an absolute mess.
The reason the forum exists is to fight for trail access. It doesn't have to do with what damage bikes do or do not cause. I DO need you to cite user statistics and scientific studies for you to convince me that a bike tire does more damage than a lugged hiking boot.
For each reason that I've heard why a bike tire causes more damage than a boot print, I've heard a counter agrument. So until I see the studies that prove it one way or the other, I'm inclined not to believe it.
The biggest impact that hiking, mountain biking, riding a horse or power sauntering(tm) has on a trail is that another user is on that trail. If there are local hikers in far greater numbers than mountain bikers, guess who has the greater impact.
JmZ |
| Case Studies? | Ken in KC.
Sep 9, 2003 6:41 AM | | Sure, I can provide them, but the honus is on you to provide them too. So, show your case studies that clearly point to mountain bike tires causing more trail impact than lug soled hiking boots or tennis shoes.
The link to my scientific studies are attached below, but I'll paraphrase the study, since it is truly a scientific study, and therefor rather dry:
Mountain biking and hiking have similar impact. Not identical, but similar. The resultant impact on the trail system is the same, but in different ways. hikers have more impact on the trails than mountain bikers when they are going down the hill, and mountain bikers have more impact on the trails when the trail is uphill. When the trail is flat, hikers and mountain bikers have the same impact.
Feel free to review for yourself:
http://www.imba.com/resources/science/cessford.html
Here's another:
http://www.imba.com/resources/science/goeft_alder.html
Now, about your case studies indicating that biking causes more impact than hiking? Since you asked for science, let's keep this disccussion in that realm. No opinions or perceptions. Opinions and perceptions can be skewed.
Take the following picture as an example. I know that a majority of hikers are responsible and concerned about the impact that they have on the trail, just as a majority of mountain bikers are. The following picture is a hiking trail. No bikes, equestrians or motorized vehicles are allowed on this "trail". It paints a very bleak pictures of the a percieved lack of responsibility of hikers. You and I both know that this is a terrible example of what hiking really represents, but taken at face value, it looks terrible.
So, you case studies? |
| Perception or Facts? | Ken in KC.
Sep 9, 2003 6:45 AM | | |
| Looks like Bozeman | Mr. Wonderful
Sep 10, 2003 6:22 PM | | Just wondering if my guess is correct. |
| Could be... | Ken in KC.
Sep 11, 2003 11:13 AM | | I keep it around to prove a point. I don't know where it is and actually, I don't care. I do know that most hiking trails aren't like this, as most bike trails aren't as web sites like wheeled locusts, etc. present them to be.
So, about those case studies;-)......
Ken |
| more Case Studies | dave54
Sep 9, 2003 8:04 AM | | Last year I did a query through the National Agriculture Library for papers on trail erosion from different users. I got back 120 hits on the topic. I did not review all the papers, but read the abstract or summary on about 20 of them. Nineteen out of the twenty repeated what your links above stated -- bikes cause no more soil or watershed impacts overall than hikers. These were all conducted according to standard protocols and peer-reviewed. Personal conversations with Forest Service soil scientists and transportation engineers reveal the same impressions -- bikes are not a problem themselves, heavy use without proper maintenance is a problem, regardless of user.
Anybody can come up with an isolated anecdotal photo of resource damage by boots or tires and claim it as 'proof' of their claims. Science says you cannot point fingers at one and not the other. |
| That's some pretty sad denial | Fergie
Sep 10, 2003 11:06 AM | | Mr. Wonderful makes some really good points, and all we can do is whine about hikers? That has nothing to do with the very good point that he is making. MOUNTAIN BIKERS RIDE AROUND SMALL OBSTICLES! It is a problem. Face that basic fact. As a group, WE DAMAGE TRAILS. We fix them as well, but we have a real impact. The folks at sites like wheeled locusts are loony, but the pictures they show don't lie.
It doesn't matter that other user groups do damage also. I don't need some scientific paper to tell me who does more damage, I can use my own eyes, and the truth is that bikers do more damage then hikers on almost every trail where they ride often. It's not about boots vs knobbies, it is the person that moves them. Mountain bike riders don't have to have more impact, but for lack of knowledge and/or effort they do.
Mountain bikers don't automatically ride around puddles, small logs, ANY drainage feature, and skid every time a trail gets steep. These habits/actions could be changed, but step 1 is admitting there is a problem. Why is that such a big problem in the mountain bike community? We have to take responsibility for our actions, and educate other riders, not point fingers and dodge blame. |
| Huh? | JmZ
Sep 10, 2003 6:13 PM | | Um, the picture may not lie, but the captions sure as heck can.
For some a picture of a rutted out area is the perfect picture that is to be used against a mountain biker, never mind a tire never touched the surface and only water did the damage.
When discussing an emotional issue like this, there will be ancedotal informaion on both sides. I think that's what most of the people here were going after. Regardless of how little, or how much damage a bike tire does, it is still going to be too much, even if it is far less than ANY other user group. Why, simply because it's a bike tire. If we are fighting for access we are against the perception more than the reality. That's why we MUST defend against it. That's why I need proof that a bike tire does more damage in order for me to believe it.
I'm not saying that a tire has no impact, nor a hiking boot. Everything that is out on a trail has an impact. Everything, including the deer, the wind and water, the hikers, the horseback riders, and the mountain bikers. We are not comparing against earth movers, motorcycles or other things should not be used on the same trail, just the relevant user groups.
Why are we singled out? The claims that a mountain bike tire doing more damage MUST be substantiated by those who protest against us. Why? Simply because if they can't, then it's whining. It's exclusion based on prejudice and a sense of smug superiority, not anything with factual basis.
We should, and do, educate our riders to have less impact.
It doesn't mean we are having a greater impact than someone else, but that we can do better. I don't see signs at the local parks telling the hikers to pack out their litter, to stay on trail, or to walk lightly. Yet similar thoughts are common among bikers. We shouldn't shirk any responsibility, but we shouldn't accept unwarranted critism either. We don't lump all hikers together because some kids throw a party in the woods and scream 'durn hikers!' but see one biker lock up a wheel and he's the same as every other biker out there, why the double standard?
"Mountain bikers don't automatically ride around puddles, small logs, ANY drainage feature, and skid every time a trail gets steep."
Isn't that the way I'm supposed to ride? Not automatically attempting to widen or tear up the trail. I thought the idea was to roll over/through most of this stuff.
We can do better, we should do better, we will do better. But I won't accept that just because some hiker tells me that my bike is an environmental destruction machine that the bike actually is one.
Side note: I've been on at least a half dozen trail maint events this summer. Not one was due to damage a bike created. Litter pick up from autos, litter from hikers, storm damage, and trail creation, but not to fix damage caused from a bike.
JmZ |
| Let's be fair... | Ken in KC.
Sep 11, 2003 8:32 AM | | Mr. Wonderful made some broad generalizations and presented perception as fact. I'm not throwing stones at him, but that is in fact, what he did.
No one will argue that there are irresponsible mountain bikers. As a cross section of society, there has to be. It is statistically impossible that 100% of mountain bikers are responsible and follow proper trail protocols. It's statistically impossible that any trail user group is 100% responsible. Anyone who spends any time at all on singletrack can cite instances of irresponsible behavior among all user groups.
That is not the point. The point is specifically this: It's unfair and unreasonable to single out mountain bikers as being the user group responsible for erosion and trail damage. There is plenty of scientific documentation that indicates mountain bikers have a similar impact to hiking (the impact on the trail is the same, but hikers and mountain bikers impact the trails in different ways) and are far less impactful than horses. If a trail shows signs of erosion and damage, the problem is the trail and trail design, not the user. This is of course, assuming that every user group is acting responsibly.
Of course we have to take responsibility for our actions. I don't think Dave, Jim or I ever suggested anything to the contrary. I think what we are suggesting is that rather than citing opinions and perceptions regarding trail impacts by user groups, that science clearly indicates that mountain bikers don't cause any more problems than any other group.
As a group, we don't damage trails. As a group we impact trails. As individuals riding irresponsibly, we damage trails. Hikers and equestrians, as two separate groups, impact the trails. Hikers and equestrians acting irresponsibly as individuals, damage the trails.
All users will agree that trails are a valuable resource that we should protect. All users are correct. A large majority of individuals take a responsible approach toward using the trail responsibly. A small minority don't.
Ken |
| Let's be fair... | Mr. Wonderful
Sep 11, 2003 6:28 PM | | Ken, if I may address you informally, I see and appreciate your passion for precision and accuracy. You're probably an extraordinarily conscientious rider, and of course I wasn't indicting you or anyone else personally.
Since you're a stickler for precision in your jargon, I'll work within you lexical parameters. I'll accept your contention that most of the impact results from irresponsible members of any trail user group. I'll contend further that when, for example, a walker acts in an irresponsible manner (e.g. stepping around an obstacle) the amount of soil displaced is likely to be less than if a cyclist did the very same thing.
This greater impact (due to irresponsible actions) is a result of aspects inherent to cycling such as greater mass and velocity. The combination of these factors, among others, will invariably result in greater impact upon any surface, trail or otherwise. Argue the semantics all you wish, but I was wakeful all through several iterations of physics.
Ultimately you're correct in stating that all users impact trails. Thats a generalization I can live with. However, (and I know you hate it when I do this) it sure "looks" bad from the Tetons, to Winter Park, to Fort Custer, when tire tracks obscure all the damage done by the other user groups. |
| You Give Me To Much Credit... | Ken in KC.
Sep 12, 2003 6:07 AM | | "your passion for precision and accuracy."
Nope, it's just easier when we discuss emotional issues (like trail damage, finger pointing among user groups, etc.) to stay in the realm of science, vs. emotion. When people get emotional regarding a subject, the discussion tends to break down quickly in to personal insults, thereby effectively killing the discussion.
"I'll contend further that when, for example, a walker acts in an irresponsible manner (e.g. stepping around an obstacle) the amount of soil displaced is likely to be less than if a cyclist did the very same thing. "
I think this really depends on the trail, the soil condition, and whether the trail user is going up or down the hill. For example, when a hiker descends, they do so with their heels. If they are off the trail, and dig their heels in, they dislodge more soil, etc. A biker on the other hand, impacts the soil most when they ascend. They lean forward, their rear tire can spin, or, assuming that they're off the trail, they can't make it, hop off the bike and dislodge soil. According to the studies that I've read, the impacts, for all intents and purposes are the same.
"This greater impact (due to irresponsible actions) is a result of aspects inherent to cycling such as greater mass and velocity. "
Velocity has very little bearing on impact. In fact, as the speed of a bike increases, it impacts the trail less. Mass is kind of nebulous as well (how's that for a gross generalization;-). If a 150 pound rider witha 20 pound bike is on the trail, their mass vs. surface areas, etc. etc. etc. Well this could digress in to some real physics blather, so I'll keep the example simple:
Assuming a 150 pound rider on a 20 pound bike, vs a 170 pound hiker. Assuming that surface areas: A hikers footprint distributes their weight over a greater surface area, assuming that they place their foot down flat on each step. Since most hikers lead with their heel, the surface area is much less than what most people think. A bike, with a smaller contact or surface area, doesn't impact the trail with every step. Of course, that doesn't consider the knobs on a wet trail, nor does it consider the lugs. I love physics, but I haven't figured out complex physics equations since university. I don't really need to. There are plenty of smart people to do that for me.
I agree that it looks bad when bike tires are clearly present in sections or areas where it's obvious that the riders weren't being responsible. On the other hand, I just finished a ride the other day, and saw footprints and horseprints imbedded deep in the trail. Obviously, there were some other trail users that weren't acting properly. I don't blame all horse riders and hikers for the actions of a few. I blame the misinformed, the ignorant, and worst of all, the appathetic trail using individuals.
It's critically important, IMO to consider the trails that we hike, run, bike or walk when we enjoy them. That's for all trail users, not just one group over or vs. another. There is strength in numbers. If all trail user groups would work together, the trails would be better for it.
There are trails that should be for specific user groups. There are trails that should be multi-use. Each trail should be evaluated indivually based on soil, elevation terrain, etc. and not based on legislation, politics and the quagmire of government.
Sorry, got up on a soapbox there.
Ken |
| Offer in compromise | Mr. Wonderful
Sep 12, 2003 5:59 PM | | "Assuming a 150 pound rider on a 20 pound bike, vs a 170 pound hiker"
That doesn't sound like a fight the IBF would sanction, even in Nevada.
But seriously, I was assuming the same 170 pound user on a bicycle vs on shoes. If all (or even most) of you mountain bike users (and to be entirely honest, I use one too) will each lose that 20 pounds, I'll crawl the length of any trail you name in a pink bunny suit.
And as for the irrelevancy of velocity to impact, Force = mass X what? |
| Offer in compromise | mcseforsale
Sep 16, 2003 10:11 AM | | "Force = mass X what".
Does this really apply to a rotating mass that is riding along the plane at issue here? I thought this (force=massXvelocity) was the force of an impact blow. If that's the case, what relevance does it have in this instance? Perhaps using some of the rotational drag tables that someone brought up in the Save Some Weight forum would be more appropriate to this.
Thanks
AJ
mcseforsale@yahoo.com |
| I meant exactly what I said... | Mr
Sep 16, 2003 1:53 PM | | I'm not familiar with the tables you cite, but perhaps I'll take a look. I question your premise, however, because it seems as though you're referencing an ideal (a hard object with minimal plasticity) wheel rolling on an ideal plane (a uniformly level and unyielding surface) traveling in one direction only without turning. Maybe on the trails you ride, but not in this part of the universe.
Anyone familiar with rubber-tired rolling stock on dirt knows that much of the power required for locomotion is consumed by uphill travel even though the surface appears to be "level". As the tire travels along the surface, the soil is displaced, and the surface deformed slightly in wave-like fashion. The result is a very small "hill" continuously pushed ahead of the tire. The slope and magnitude of this hill depends upon properties of the soil and the tire, of course. For this reason, the concept of an ideal wheel rolling along an ideal plane doesn't apply well to mountain bikes on dirt trails.
But even if we ignore all that, the fact that the direction of travel is not constant means that forces will be applied to the soil in a direction other than the direction in which the wheel is pointed. (read: skidding).
|
| Get to the point for god sake!! | K.J.
Sep 16, 2003 4:22 PM | | So after all this commentary your point Mr. Wonderful is? What conclusions, solutions, and/or concepts are you trying to convey? Just spit it out, man!! Your divisiveness is omnipresent in all your posts. So far, you have not said anything that's been said a million billion times before. If you're trying to inform us that "(trail) damage severely damages the collective reputation of "mountain" bikers", you're preaching to the choir, dude. You sound like nothing more than an instigator hiding behind some cute moniker; so prove me wrong. Get to the point and do not patronize us. Again, what conclusions, solutions, and/or concepts are you trying to convey?
Getting back to your original post. If mountain bikes are permitted on those particular trails you write of, why seem so surprised to see a tire mark here or there or even some damage? I'm sure you've rationalized that the greatest benefits for having established multi-use trails are to help contain any resulting damage my moving bodies (human and non-human) and to help prevent the wonton construction of illegal trails. Would you rather see that same tire mark or damage on pristine terra firma or on established trails where damage can be contained, controlled, and monitored? Maintaining one legal multi-use trail is a lot more cost effective and a hell-uva lot easier than remediating and patrolling illegal ones. Like it or not Mr. Wonderful, mountain biking is here to stay and you should be happy that those trails are getting used and damage is being confined to those legal multi-use trails.
So I'm begging you, what's your point? If its money and/or lack of trail maintenance and trail etiquette you're concerned with then lobby your local trail managers to increase user fees for more repairs and education programs. Your rants on this message board will get you no closer to whatever agenda you're pushing.
Regards,
Kyle R. Johnson - Alaskan mountain biker |
| Alaska!?! | Mr. Wonderful
Sep 16, 2003 7:15 PM | | No kidding, Alaska?!? Because my mother-in-law's best friend went to Alaska just last year. Or was it the year before last...I can't remember...I'll have to ask her. I'll ask my mother-in-law, that is. So anyway, she (her friend) said that the mosquitos there weren't really that bad, and that the skiing at Alyeska was pleasant. I always imagined that skiing with all those mosquitos flying around and splattering on your goggles would be horrible. I've never tried to wipe bugs while wearing ski gloves, but it must be messy. They say that DEET is really the only effective mosquito repellent, but few ski shops around here sell the stuff. Of course we're not actually in Alaska, like you are. It must be quite exciting for you. |
| Alaska!?! | K.J.
Sep 17, 2003 4:56 PM | | Because I'm a gentlemen and a sport, I'll ignore your first response.
Please, explain your position on the subject, Sir? What's so difficult about that. What pragmatic solutions or concepts, for or against, have you added to the conversation of mountain bike trail access? Let's not tap dance around the greater issue at hand. The observations and the sardonic tones with which you write and branding us as "a bunch of hard-core "mountain" bikers" must naturally lead you to some position on this matter or why would you have come here in the first place? If you're for equal and reasonable treatment for all of us and your simply warning us out of the goodness of you soul, then I must deeply and sincerely apologize and mean no disrespect. So, it's sink or swim time buddy.It's up to you. You still have a chance of gaining some of respect if you can bring some valid philosophical arguments to the table. I have an open mind. In the end, you may or may not teach me something, but at least you will have uncloaked yourself.and that above all else I will respect. If you avoid the question again, you will only be confirming what you truely are and what your hidden agenda really is.
All right, enough of that. I'll give you something real to bite on if you're game enough. Here is my broad position on this particular subject.I'm throwing it all out to the universe for you to comment on. But first let me be clear about a few things. I'm in no position nor do I have the right to judge an individual's action unless it is clear to me what they are doing is malevolent and evil. I don't make rash generalizations nor do I place people in categories unless it is clear to me what they are doing is malevolent and evil. I'm a reasonable, unselfish, conscientious, family man who tries very hard to underpin and balance my beliefs with logic and the realities that surround me. I'm a defender of the environment, but only from a pragmatic view. Unfortunately, I have little taste for extremism. I'm not above insults, revenge or lambasting, but only if they are deserving. I don't mince words and I will call you to the floor if necessary. I will admit, without hesitation, when I'm wrong and I don't joke around with my convictions. I am black and I am white.there are no shades of gray when it comes to my opinions. I love mountain biking.
With that being said, I'm not in denial about trail damage, but as a realist I expect it.don't confuse this with indifference. I don't know about you, but I live in the real world where zero tolerance is only a concept, albeit a nice one, that cannot be practically applied. This issue is certainly a problem, but realistically how big of a problem can it be? It's small compared to what will happen if particular user groups are denied access and forced to go underground. Personally, I will NOT get off the trails because of baseless, hate driven, half baked, one-dimensional rulings. I'm willing to suffer any and all consequences to exercise my right to "reasonable" trail access.but you're gonna have to catch me first and then pry my cold dead hands off my Litespeed. Like others on the message board, I've come to the conclusion that when restricting the rights of one group you ultimately, down the road limit the rights of your own...revenge can be a powerful motivator. You can't universally get rid of trail damage especially when population centers along with usage continues to expand and grow exponentially, but you can certainly and effectively confine it and manage it by guaranteeing "reasonable" trail access to ALL. I believe in equal treatment among all user groups where it makes sense. Honestly, of all the trail damage you've witnessed in your lifetime, regardless of origin, has it ever precluded you from finishing your journeys? Yeah, perfect behavior and perfectly manicured trails without damage would be great, but (I hate to harsh your buzz) that just isn't realistically going to happen.never. That level of idealism is as naive as suggesting the world will be living in peace and harmony next year.
I'm a constitutionalist American that believes that I have a right to live "unencumbered from government".that means special interest groups as well. I also believe that states should not usurp the US constitution by passing laws that are defiantly unconstitutional especially those that infringe on "reasonable" personal freedoms. Like it or not, mountain biking, hiking, trail running, pack animal use or any "reasonable" outdoor activity is at minimum protected under the US constitution with respect to established "fit for purpose" trails on state and federal land holdings. Therefore, to protect EVERYONES freedom (including yours Mr. Wonderful) to trail access, misguided, irrational, fascist, alarmist movements and attitudes like banning bikes on the established backcountry trails must be stopped dead. This is my position. Do you care to comment?
Kyle R. Johnson Alaskan mountain biker |
| Ridiculous pseudoanarchist rant | Mr. Wonderful
Sep 17, 2003 8:04 PM | | "but at least you will have uncloaked yourself.and that above all else I will respect. If you avoid the question again, you will only be confirming what you truely are and what your hidden agenda really is."
A man whose considerable wisdom I respect, Emerson, counsels against such forthcoming, so I'll have to demure.
I don't know if you're truely revealing yourself, or enjoying an alter-ego moment here. I can't remember being so incensed that I used the term "revenge" twice in one page. As a family man with people counting on you, I sincerely hope that your anger doesn't get you into too much trouble some day.
"Personally, I will NOT get off the trails because of baseless, hate driven, half baked, one-dimensional rulings. I'm willing to suffer any and all consequences to exercise my right to "reasonable" trail access.but you're gonna have to catch me first and then pry my cold dead hands off my Litespeed."
Jeez, so many things I could say about this one...why bother. It's the ones who TALK about the fight that you don't have to worry about.
Regardless of whether you've wallpapered your shack with free copies of the constitution, and moved to Alaska because Hayden Lake wasn't far "north" enough for you, peaceable people will prevail with reason and law. Those trails you're poaching belong to each of us and all of us without respect to where we happen to reside in this country. As with any public accommodation, reasonable terms of use apply to us all, and those who abuse should be penalized. |
| Thanks for answering my question | K.J.
Sep 18, 2003 10:09 AM | | "As with any public accommodation, reasonable terms of use apply to us all, and those who abuse should be penalized." - Mr. Wonderful
When I first inquired, why couldn't you affirm this position? We now have gotten to place where constructive dialog can occur at the local level of trail access. Nothing more can be accomplished here. So, go out and support trail access for ALL!! Let your position be known at your particular local, where ever that may be. I absolutely agree with your logic and I'm glad to know that after all of this commentary we stand on the same side of the fence. At least with respect to "reasonable" trail access for all users. I'm delighted to know that you don't categorically loath mountain bikers and you fundamentally agree with our right to access.
One last thing.be rest assured that I do not poach trails and break laws. I only ride on those trails that are designated multi-use by the city and/or state. I don't know why you assumed that, but I expect it was a primordial retort to this sensitive theme. I hold a deep reverence for law and order.
Regards,
Kyle R. Johnson Alaskan mountain biker |
| I meant exactly what I said...But didn't know what I was saying | mcseforsale
Sep 18, 2003 8:21 PM | | "I'm not familiar with the tables you cite, but perhaps I'll take a look. I question your premise, however, because it seems as though you're referencing an ideal (a hard object with minimal plasticity) wheel rolling on an ideal plane (a uniformly level and unyielding surface) traveling in one direction only without turning. Maybe on the trails you ride, but not in this part of the universe."
Oh, alright. I'll bite. Having spent some time mountain biking in and around for, oh, 13 years or so, I must say that most of the trails on our trail systems here are well built and worn in naturally. Seems that the trails that you cite in the above example are trails that aren't well built and shouldn't even suit any trail users if they are so fluid that:
"the soil is displaced, and the surface deformed slightly in wave-like fashion. The result is a very small "hill" continuously pushed ahead of the tire."
Seems that in the universe of these trails, the fluidiy only happens in one direction. The destructive one. If we are to approach these trails made of soot, or other types of dirt that have a high fluidity(don't even know what that means), then aren't we also to assume that what you are describing is a wake of sorts. In any fluid environment, that wake would be replaced by more fluid material as it is displaced. You can't have it any other way. How long do these tracks sit in this sand of yours? In your example, if this "hill" is measureable in any way, you'd have a severe problem.
So, if this "hill" is quantifyable, such that the "hill" is say, 1 cubic centimeter per foot of riding, then you would be pushing a "hill" of said material over 466 cubic centimeters after only riding for about 1400 ft. So, when you stop to take a sip of water after a mile, you'd be standing on a pile of dirt about 2 ft. tall.
Nope. You're right. THAT has never happened to me in my universe.
As well, using the calculation of impact force is not germane to this conversation. It just doesn't work. Even if you can prove that this imaginary tire force can exist within the constructs of that equation, you are sadly missing several elements, such as the elasticity of the soil, the elasticity of the rubber in the tire at a given pressure, the weight of the rider and any angles of approach that the differently angled blocks of tread reach when interacting with the soil. Also, you will have to identify what type of bicycle is being used as a full suspension bicycle can and will change these angles as the rider compresses the suspension. Also, you would have to measure all of the the tread block angles, their specific points and what deformation happens at any given angle for any given terrain for any given tire pressure for any given rubber durometer for any given..............
See, not so simple. Even to setup a simple reference model based on one type of tire and one type of soil with minimal ground personalities would take more time than I have this month.
So, as I see it you were: "referencing an ideal (a hard object with minimal plasticity) wheel rolling on an ideal plane (a uniformly level and unyielding surface) traveling in one direction only without turning".
This is the kind of stuff I get a kick out of. Pretty uninformed. That's not the way to measure it, I'm pretty sure.
So, let's take a horse (and I hate horses...good eatin' though). Seriosly. Take a horse with a rider that weights, oh I don't know, 1500 lbs. Place that horse on 2 posts with feet at the end of them made of unyielding steel/iron in a "U" shape, about as big in diameter as oh, I don't know, a softball. Now, let's talk about trail damage. Let's say that the contact patch that the horse is using (2 hoofs) of unyielding material (steel/iron) and do a comparison of weight to square inch of contact patch and the damage created. Do you think that the smallish contact patch generated by the bicycle and rider weighing 190ish pounds is relatively smaller (and thus more damaging) than the 1500 lb animal with a similar contact patch? I think not.
Also, the hoofs of the horse are unyielding where the tire of the MTB is not.
With that being said, you also reference "skidding". That's pretty lame. Any trail user skids. Hikers skid when going down hill. Horses REALLY skid going down hill. What's the point? The point is, that for every unskilled rider, there are several that know that skidding is unproductive and not appropriate for control. With that said, as bikers learn their skills, they skid less and less. On the other hand, you cannot stop a horse from skidding it's hind legs going down a hill. And most hikers slide down hills and won't stop because that's the only way to "walk" down most of the trails that I ride.
No hard feelings, but I just don't think you understand what you're talking about.
Save the trails (from littering hikers and horse shoes).
AJ
mcseforsale@yahoo.com |
| Sorry you didn't know what you were saying... | Mr. Wonderful
Sep 19, 2003 10:57 AM | | "Seems that in the universe of these trails, the fluidiy only happens in one direction. The destructive one. If we are to approach these trails made of soot, or other types of dirt that have a high fluidity(don't even know what that means)"
Sorry you don't know what the term fluidity means. I'm surprised you used it here, since I certainly didn't.
If you were to read through the whole thread of conversation, you'd see that the force was mentioned in relation to velocity. One writer questioned whether velocity was relevant to trail wear. Regardless of the surface properties, tire traction pattern, rubber durometer, mass of bike and/or rider, suspension configuration, or any other esoterica, the velocity of one object impacting another will always have relevance to the force applied.
Earlier, you questioned what constitutes an impact. Impact occurs when one mass contacts another. It doesn't have to leave a cloud of dust or a loud bang, just contact.
Why do you resort to attacking horses and hikers? Is your position so indefensible on its own merit? |
| Excellent! A Pink Bunny Suit... | Ken in KC.
Sep 19, 2003 6:22 AM | | F=MA, of course, but in this case, the generated downward force is actually gravity, at a rate of 32'/s, squared. |
| Case Studies? Johnny Come Lately | seenvic
Sep 19, 2003 6:33 AM | | I just read most of this thread. From the peanut gallery, Mr Wonderful claims that bikers cause more impact than hikers - yet offers only his own "insight". Ken offers a few case studies that equate MTB impact and hiking impacts as darn near equal. I have read all those studies and from my insight into the trails around here, I tend to agree with them.
I feel that the bottom line is that mountain bikers differ from hikers mostly in the social context. I believe the average MTBer tends to participate more often in our activity than the average hiker. We have to stay fit to enjoy our sport - riding once a month is not an option unless you are fit to begin with. We cover more ground each time we go out. We tend to go further into the woods than a hiker, or we tend to do more laps on a loop trail system than a hiker. So, for these reasons, perhaps we have more of an impact. I believe if the trail was designed/built correctly, this impact is minimal and does not outside the confines of good land stewardship. But I do believe that one hiker covering the same distance the same number of times as the MTBer on a well constructed trail will have a similiar impact. This is what the gist of the case studies say. The above comments about usage and distance covered are my opinions that are gleaned from personal experience.
If you ever want to convince someone (HOHA, Land Manager etc...) that it is not the bike causing the damage - do this:
Find a section of trail that has fall line sections and contour sections. First go to the fall line section and you will probably see any or all the following: gully erosion, roots everywhere, and tread up to 12' wide caused by users seeking the best line. Now, walk over to the same trail that is on the contour and you will probably see: a narrow trail still outsloped and draining properly. No roots, no gulley erosion and no wide tread. Then ask the person if the riders "carry" their bikes thru this section. In my opinion, if the bikes are passing thru the two sections the same number of times, than for bikes to be the problem, the sections would need to look similiar.
The fact is that the two sections are getting the same amount of user passes as one another. The conditions are no where near that same. Yet, the number of bike passes are identical. Conclusion: Bikes are not the issue. Something esle is the issue. The something else is water moving down the fall line trail but across the contour trail.
Bring us the case studies, not pictures of fall line trails open to bikes. Don't just love science? |
| As soon as I could... | Mr. Wonderful
Sep 19, 2003 11:20 AM | | Johnny-come-lately? I was tied up in traffic...my dog ate the keyboard...my alarm clock didn't go off...
You make an excellent point which I hadn't considered. Athletes tend to ride or run much more frequently than do the casual users. All the more reason to take better care of the trails. |
| This has to be flamebait | 3g
Sep 18, 2003 5:33 PM | | If you want to license something, how about a horse? Seems that they should be certified for lack of skittishness and ability to maintain control on varied terrain and with varied stimuli. That would be a start. We've actually had children severely injured by horses on our trail system....not by bikes. However, since equestrians have a bunch of political clout you will never bring that up, will you?
Where I am from mtn bikers do FAR more trail work (by thousands of hours) than ANY hiking group or all groups combined. Instead, they prefer to complain and futily attempt to limit accesss.
We do more damage, eh? On any trail system, within a mile of the trail head you are most likely to find litter left by hikers (if anyone riding a bike is a mountain biker then anyone walking is a hiker). So none of our back yards are clean, are they?
One last thing...don't hiking boots have an aggressive tread? Yep, they do. |
| re: Seems kinda silly... | 3g
Sep 18, 2003 5:37 PM | | BTW, you shouldn't be posting on company time at Buckman International. |
| Pathetic little wanker... | Mr. Wonderful
Sep 19, 2003 11:26 AM | | "BTW, you shouldn't be posting on company time at Buckman International."
Has someone out there been INVESTIGATING Mr. Wonderful? Did you learn that ALL BY YOURSELF?? I can tell by your use of that fancy web-lingo (BTW) that you must be so proficient with your computer that you can post with one hand while manipulating your sub-standard genetalia with the other. |
| Sticks and Stones..... | In Disbelief
Sep 19, 2003 1:01 PM | | Whoa!! Slow down Nelly! You seem to be getting upset Mr. Wonderful. That's so out of character for you. I heard a great line for situations just like this.....Arguing on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Even when you win you're still retarded. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...haah.haahahhah......haha...........ha.......OK its not that funny. |
| The error of my ways | Mr. Wonderful
Sep 22, 2003 6:28 AM | | You're right. My appologies. |
| The error of my ways | 3G
Oct 2, 2003 9:11 AM | | F#@k your appologies. Your HR manager didn't think they were funny either. ;)
Now you have been f@#ked twice, once by me and once by yourself.
Good luck with your investigation, skippy. |
| Please help me understand... | Ken in KC.
Oct 6, 2003 11:43 AM | | You actually tattled on this guy for posting on MTBR?
Please tell me that I'm wrong.
Ken
|
| understood | 3g
Oct 7, 2003 12:10 PM | | The world of the extreme greens operates in quite a different manner than that of ours. This "gentleman" is one of those and deserves the treatment he gives to others, in return.
He was pissed because I figured out who he was and I knew that he was baiting the board. I just turned his tactics back upon him.
I hate it when that happens. |
| In contrast, I found... | Ken in KC.
Oct 8, 2003 6:09 AM | | That his arguments and discussion points were an excellent opportunity to discuss the science of trails. In addition, we provided case studies regarding trail impact to support our contention, while he could not present any to support his.
You, on the other hand, tattle taled to his HR manager for posting on company time. By taking this approach with anyone that disagrees with your stance, you will never invite open dialogue on this board, and it will digress to a bunch of people posting around, patting themselves on the back while the real issues go wizzing by.
Please don't tattle on people because they are posting on company time. It's none of your business, quite frankly.
Feel free to contact my HR director and let him know that I've been surfing and that I disagree with your approach. Here is the contact information:
HR Director's email address: kminer(at)minertech.com
Ken |
| Us Vs Them | JmZ
Sep 19, 2003 12:31 PM | | After re-reading the first post in this thread.
The Us-Vs-Them bias is pretty blatant. Never once is it mentioned as a collective problem, but only as a "mountain" biker problem. Which Mr. Wonderful is apparently not part of 'that' community. There are no issues being raised, there are no specific examples being cited, there is no attempt at dialog.
Why the attack? What is Mr. Wonderful trying to accomplish?
"Just one example that always brings a smirk to my otherwise pleasant countenance. Why is it that so many "mountian" bikers fear the water? I've seen so many little puddles turned into track-wide mud bogs where bikers steer wide to avoid the water and collectively create a huge mess. What's up with that?"
And why the smirk, if it really displeases you, shouldn't that be a grimace instead?
It reminds me of the old leading question... Mr Wonderful have you stopped beating your wife yet? The framing of the question already makes the person answering guilty.
JmZ |
| |
