New posts

bigger wooden structures?

March 10, 2014, 3:09 p.m.
Posts: 11680
Joined: Aug. 11, 2003

I think the answer, although the under lying reasons are complicated, is because Downhill, on the north shore, is almost dead. Large wooden structures are not allowed. It has been relegated to illegal trails on Seymour. You can choose to ride these but face the risk of being ticketed by Park Rangers for ilelgal activity - the only legit DH line on Seymour are the CBC, Pingu/Boogie lines which are slowly being gentrified - everything else is now accessed by pedaling up - and most of those who pedal dont want to ride the C-buster/Severed type lines on the little bikes used for pedalling. The paranoid politics associated with wood structures has basically killed wood. Even simple ladder bridges get the hair up on Landowners backs. Fromme has no full DH lines for big bikes - and Cypress, although currently the only place to ride big DH lines on the shore, is under attack from the powers that be and is slowly being gentrified as well.

You want wood to huck off? Head to squamish or the valley. But dont look for it around here.

I know it's beating a dead horse and going to fall on deaf ears, but two things that you are massively oversimplifying/ignoring:
1: Liability. Like it or not, we are users of the land, not owners, and if someone gets hurt, then there is a risk of legal action to cover losses, and no-one wants it to come to that.
2: Maintenance. The trails prior to a couple of years ago were in really rough shape, they are getting repaired, re-built to last with volunteer labour, which is limited. Fixing a drainage issue will always be more important than building a new stunt. To quote Mark Wood, since he put it best, 'You need to make the cake before you can ice it'.

Another point that you didn't consider is the audience, there aren't many people left who [HTML_REMOVED]i[HTML_REMOVED]want[HTML_REMOVED]/i[HTML_REMOVED] to ride big features any more. I've hiked up the Dentist on Eagle a fair bit lately, and it's in relatively good condition, everything is technically rideable, but the wood is super green just because no-one is riding it. I used to love that trail, now, I'd rather pedal and go on a big adventure, and I believe that I'm in the majority with that sentiment.

No one hates wood structures, riding has changed (for good or bad) and there just isn't a massive need or want of them any more.

March 10, 2014, 4:11 p.m.
Posts: 3
Joined: Sept. 27, 2005

I know it's beating a dead horse and going to fall on deaf ears, but two things that you are massively oversimplifying/ignoring:
1: Liability. Like it or not, we are users of the land, not owners, and if someone gets hurt, then there is a risk of legal action to cover losses, and no-one wants it to come to that.Whats the difference in liability if someone gets hurt riding a massive rock face, or if they get hurt hucking off a man-made drop/gapper. If the injury is not a result of the structure failing, but rather rider error then I fail to see a difference. Its very rare that someone is injured because of structural failure while riding on a trail.
2: Maintenance. The trails prior to a couple of years ago were in really rough shape, they are getting repaired, re-built to last with volunteer labour, which is limited. Fixing a drainage issue will always be more important than building a new stunt. To quote Mark Wood, since he put it best, 'You need to make the cake before you can ice it'. All aspects of trail building requires maintenance. Any trail, wood or not, if neglected will become unsafe. A huge bomb hole after a blind popper can have catastrophic results on your neck.

Another point that you didn't consider is the audience, there aren't many people left who [HTML_REMOVED]i[HTML_REMOVED]want[HTML_REMOVED]/i[HTML_REMOVED] to ride big features any more. I've hiked up the Dentist on Eagle a fair bit lately, and it's in relatively good condition, everything is technically rideable, but the wood is super green just because no-one is riding it. I used to love that trail, now, I'd rather pedal and go on a big adventure, and I believe that I'm in the majority with that sentiment. May I suggest that its partially because access to such features is now severely limited in this area? There is no progression of skills to the level of stunts seen on Dentist. Im over 40 and still looking for hucks…i may have stepped down a bit, but some of the recent work on the shore was right up my alley…

No one hates wood structures, riding has changed (for good or bad) and there just isn't a massive need or want of them any more.

The last bit you wrote may be true for your circle of friends, but there is still a younger crowd out there looking to huck. Go stand in a whistler line-up and look around you. The crowds there aren't getting any smaller. The shore is becoming an old-folks retirement home of trail riding.

This is an issue that will never be resolved - but the death of wood has been declared on the shore. I can accept it. hate it, but accept it.

I'm ignoring Smedley.

March 10, 2014, 5:09 p.m.
Posts: 582
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Wood is good, but this is the fundamental problem…

i'll disagree with that in a way as i'd say that the more dedicated builders will put a significant amount of time into maintenance, maybe even an equal amount in comparison with creating new things.

I'm not a human in real life, I just play one on the internet. 

March 10, 2014, 5:51 p.m.
Posts: 582
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Ironic you say that…

lol - so predictable. i knew you'd be eager to jump all over that and stab me with it.

such a joke.

anyways, in relation to the topic at hand i agree with dubprof and the op in that it's too bad that there's less desire for wooden structures and that type of riding these days. however, i also have to agree with the majority of what Woodro said in his previous post. what work gets done really comes down to what the land managers are acceptable with and the resources that are available - which includes people.

I'm not a human in real life, I just play one on the internet. 

March 10, 2014, 6:28 p.m.
Posts: 3
Joined: Sept. 27, 2005

By gentrifying, am sure you mean turning 4 foot trenches into decent trail?
Kinda like putting lipstick on a pig really, but we're doing our best with what we've got to work with.

Now onto gettin' some wood…

Wood is good, but this is the fundamental problem…

ps-Bake the Cake quote is Ewan, not me.

Count me in bud. Im rarin' to go. I know where theres lots of good stringers heh heh.

I'm ignoring Smedley.

March 10, 2014, 8:03 p.m.
Posts: 4
Joined: Jan. 11, 2013

The last bit you wrote may be true for your circle of friends, but there is still a younger crowd out there looking to huck. Go stand in a whistler line-up and look around you. The crowds there aren't getting any smaller. The shore is becoming an old-folks retirement home of trail riding.

This is an issue that will never be resolved - but the death of wood has been declared on the shore. I can accept it. hate it, but accept it.

Fade to black is the living proof to that. I might not be the youngest but am pretty new to shore and bike park riding. On the same note my 4 year old is all about the bridges. If I hike a trail with him without any woodwork he is far from happy ;)

March 10, 2014, 8:11 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Dec. 7, 2008

Ironic you say that…

Lol. +1

March 10, 2014, 8:21 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: April 28, 2013

This is the legacy that fell into our lap.

wow Woodorp, what would we do without you? It like the Shore wouldn't have existed if you weren't here.:ohthedrama::ohthedrama::ohthedrama::ohthedrama:

formally wernie

March 10, 2014, 9:01 p.m.
Posts: 17873
Joined: Oct. 28, 2003

Really wernie? What's with the hate? Are you denying there is historical construction that desperately needs work in the forest built by people who are no longer maintaining their work for one reason or another? There's nothing wrong with moving on in life, but slagging those who take over - not cool.

Nor is slagging the past builders woodsy. Everyone will move on eventually.

BTW, winter is over. Go ride a bike!!

March 10, 2014, 9:21 p.m.
Posts: 25
Joined: Aug. 6, 2004

Whats with all the personal attacks?

We all known each other in real life for almost a decade.

I try to keep out of posts that I know are going to end like this but damn guys
WTF. It is almost every other post now.

March 10, 2014, 9:48 p.m.
Posts: 3
Joined: Sept. 27, 2005

Really wernie? What's with the hate? Are you denying there is historical construction that desperately needs work in the forest built by people who are no longer maintaining their work for one reason or another? There's nothing wrong with moving on in life, but slagging those who take over - not cool.

Nor is slagging the past builders woodsy. Everyone will move on eventually.

BTW, winter is over. Go ride a bike!!

Never put the bike away…actually didnt even get out the snowboard this year. And dont waste the effort on Wernie…

I'm ignoring Smedley.

March 10, 2014, 10 p.m.
Posts: 582
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Whats with all the personal attacks?

We all known each other in real life for almost a decade.

I try to keep out of posts that I know are going to end like this but damn guys
WTF. It is almost every other post now.

well from my perspective i made a simple post about dedicated builders taking on maintenance work as well as the glory shot type of stuff. there was no hidden intention there, just a counter point to Woodro's coliseum pic/quote.

ive only met him in person one time at a trailhead and had about a 5min conversation with him. other than that i don't know much about the guy besides what i've heard from others or read about in relation to nsmba material. do i think he's done good things along with other members of the nsmba? for sure! i can honestly say i feel the organization is better off for his efforts. on the same hand i can also say i don't agree 100% with everyhting they've done - and there's no harm in that. however, i'm not gonna sit here and let him attack me with mistruths and and assumptions that are based on an incomplete perspective.

like heckler said, no-one stays involved forever. hell, even digger gave up on some things for a while. it's a cycle, some people come back and some people move on to other things and/or places.

I'm not a human in real life, I just play one on the internet. 

March 10, 2014, 11:44 p.m.
Posts: 209
Joined: May 29, 2003

i'll disagree with that in a way as i'd say that the more dedicated builders will put a significant amount of time into maintenance, maybe even an equal amount in comparison with creating new things.

As a counter-point to your counter-point, I'll disagree and I'd say that the less dedicated builders will hardly put any time into maintenance. There's even some people that rough in a loam line, ride it till "the masses" find it, and then move on.

Mark's post was trying to communicate a theme. Does adding a counter-point to the quote/picture he included actually add anything substantial to the conversation? Or does it come across as being that guy who chooses to always disagree with at least one thing that someone says?

The NSMBA spent the last 4 years creating a program to deal with the one of the most important issues facing our trail network, proper trail alignment and the ongoing and continued maintenance required to deal with erosion. It seems like there may now be the opportunity to look at supporting some more glamorous "extras", like fancy big jumps that require extra effort and ongoing diligence. Like Mark said, I don't think we want to build a bunch of wooden structures today if we're not confident we can continue to support them 5 or 10 years down the road.

March 11, 2014, 12:12 a.m.
Posts: 582
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

As a counter-point to your counter-point, I'll disagree and I'd say that the less dedicated builders will hardly put any time into maintenance. There's even some people that rough in a loam line, ride it till "the masses" find it, and then move on.

Mark's post was trying to communicate a theme. Does adding a counter-point to the quote/picture he included actually add anything substantial to the conversation? Or does it come across as being that guy who chooses to always disagree with at least one thing that someone says?

The NSMBA spent the last 4 years creating a program to deal with the one of the most important issues facing our trail network, proper trail alignment and the ongoing and continued maintenance required to deal with erosion. It seems like there may now be the opportunity to look at supporting some more glamorous "extras", like fancy big jumps that require extra effort and ongoing diligence. Like Mark said, I don't think we want to build a bunch of wooden structures today if we're not confident we can continue to support them 5 or 10 years down the road.

oh for sure i agree that not everyone who's put a hand into building has done maintenance - things like going out in rain to clear drains, walking the mtn to clear blowdown, rocking in stream beds, replacing structures they never built, fixing up eroded sections, etc. however, i did say the dedicated builders, the ones who have a true passion for it - that's what i was getting at. let's not throw then baby out with the bathwater. so in that light did it add to the coversation? before Woodro's retort it had at least had the potential too. so while your point is valid and something i agree with i don't see it as a counter point to what i was saying.

and as for being that guy, well was it necessary for Woodro to paint the picture that all builders of the past have been derelict in their dedication and just abandoned things for no good reason? i don't think so. people's lives change just like the riding scene. maybe consider that if we hadn't had guys building structures the mtb community wouldn't have evolved the way it did or maybe even not at all. as some people have left others have come in to try and pick up their place.

i realize you guys have spent time developing the program, but it's not like the pioneers of 20-30 years ago set out saying let's build trails we know are going to cause problems in the future. the entirety of riding on the shore has been a learning process that has finally come close to being realized.

I'm not a human in real life, I just play one on the internet. 

March 11, 2014, 9:34 a.m.
Posts: 11680
Joined: Aug. 11, 2003

The last bit you wrote may be true for your circle of friends, but there is still a younger crowd out there looking to huck. Go stand in a whistler line-up and look around you. The crowds there aren't getting any smaller. The shore is becoming an old-folks retirement home of trail riding.

This is an issue that will never be resolved - but the death of wood has been declared on the shore. I can accept it. hate it, but accept it.

It's true for the aggregate of all riders. Looking at the percentage who want stunts, it's a very small amount. Put in perspective: If 1% of riders wanted stunts, then 1% of trails should reflect that, and that isn't much trail. I think that larger wooden features are best left to the bike parks where they will be properly maintained, examined etc.

Forum jump: