Nothing at all!
Look at the other post where we were called wrong on using the word flow
And then I see your's shortly after, and I cross posted, showing that the use of flow in my context was the same as your's too.
Cheers
Gotcha ;)
Nothing at all!
Look at the other post where we were called wrong on using the word flow
And then I see your's shortly after, and I cross posted, showing that the use of flow in my context was the same as your's too.
Cheers
Gotcha ;)
I think a good place to start would be to gather some statistics about the number of riders that feel this way.
I'm not claiming that the old schoolers arent in a minority, but shouldn't we find out to what extent? This would help the nsmba prioritize effort and expenses.
The best way to do this?
One idea would be to count the amount of riders going down say Expresso and Ladies on any given Saturday?
And let's tie in the thread's initial focus too should the NSMBA consider a "Director of Gnar". First job- Deal with Dale's.
This is really the issue: what could a Director of Gnar do in the case of how Dale's rock was handled? Probably not much at all.
What's wrong with Dale's? I rode it the other night. It's quite a blast! That second rock face though… yes - that is a bit more challenging than the rest of the (already quite challenging) trail. I personally wouldn't mind seeing an (optional) ride around for that section.
What's wrong with Dale's? I rode it the other night. It's quite a blast! That second rock face though… yes - that is a bit more challenging than the rest of the (already quite challenging) trail. I personally wouldn't mind seeing an (optional) ride around for that section.
there is a ride around. The issue is Metro wanting to close down the rock.
:canada:
there is a ride around. The issue is Metro wanting to close down the rock.
Oh I must have missed that. Definitely keep the rock though! If you want to ride it, then that should be up to you. I might not always ride stuff like that myself, but I can appreciate that others would want to.
Frumpy Middle Schoolers.
True Old School is loam lines and a few little basic bridges. The original trails are still out there untouched and in fine shape.
Hmmm, I'm wondering whether anyone, anywhere has any metrics on just how popular any of the North Shore trails are compared to other Wet Coast destinations such as Squamish or Whistler.
With the relatively larger number of trails spread across Cypress, Fromme, Seymour, LCSR and SFU, the relatively easy access and the large population, is the "number riders per km of trail" higher, lower or similar to those other places?
The reason I ask, is that Whistler and Squamish (IMHO) both have a bigger variety of trails than the NS.
They have trails I consider 'tech' which aren't eroded pieces of shit and their builders don't seem to need several metric tonnes of gold for each 100 meter of trail…
Just thought I'd throw that out there…
Hmmm, I'm wondering whether anyone, anywhere has any metrics on just how popular any of the North Shore trails are compared to other Wet Coast destinations such as Squamish or Whistler.
With the relatively larger number of trails spread across Cypress, Fromme, Seymour, LCSR and SFU, the relatively easy access and the large population, is the "number riders per km of trail" higher, lower or similar to those other places?The reason I ask, is that Whistler and Squamish (IMHO) both have a bigger variety of trails than the NS.
They have trails I consider 'tech' which aren't eroded pieces of shit and their builders don't seem to need several metric tonnes of gold for each 100 meter of trail…
Just thought I'd throw that out there…
It seems pretty difficult to get a new trail built in Van whereas other places appear to have new trails popping up all the time. As a result, NS trails get ridden into the ground whereas elsewhere focus shifts to the new hot trails each year and the old trails get a break. Because we're stuck with what we've got, trails need to be built to last. If trails elsewhere had the amount of sustained traffic over their lifespan that trails on the shore have, they'd need a bunch of gold and armouring too.
RE Dales Rock: yea, that is the story. Not our decision to keep it or not, it is the Land Manager's. There is a back story there too likely that we are not aware of.
RE True Old School = "loam" : I will not debate that, but given the Shore's reality, there are no "sanctioned loamers" so with that- let us not consider loam as an aspect of the definition of Old School IMO.
RE Overall Data Capture of trails in the region: good idea, tech without gold good comment yes, I guess it does come down to rider numbers and if a trail can withstand them. This is why Fromme, Seymour are ridden so much I think. So I will think some more on this concept. It is a good day for ideas.
But back to the original concept of Old School and what that is, and the interest in those trails, and if there should be a Director of Gnar at the NSMBA any more comments on defining Old School New School Tech, or Flow?
Talk less, Say More.
I would venture a guess that it's the sometime removal or simplification of somewhat iconic features or moves that gets the "vocal minority" up in arms. The Dale's debate is rather interesting as a justification can be made in the need for a ride around for the rock face. The potential downfall here though is that this could increase traffic on the trail from riders that may not quite have the skill set yet for the rest of the trail which would lead to increased wear and tear on the whole trail.
How do I put this nicely….if the TAPping of dales wasn't so widely publicized,there probably wouldn't be as much new interest in it or a marked increase in traffic.
Pastor of Muppets
But back to the original concept of Old School and what that is, and the interest in those trails, and if there should be a Director of Gnar at the NSMBA any more comments on defining Old School New School Tech, or Flow?
It's all situational based the entry time of the rider, the bike technology available to them at the time, their riding partners, etc. What's "Old School" lovin to one person may just be rubble to another.
I would put forth that "Old School" is defined by the need to have a bike handling skill set that includes the ability to do trials type moves without losing a significant amount of riding momentum like the ability to tail whip around a corner or bunny-hop over a log in the middle of the trail. That's something that doesn't exist on trails like Bobsled for example.
…and trails are being changed to reflect that denominator. hence the "dumbing down" comments and grumpy old farts.
Pastor of Muppets
…and trails are being changed to reflect that denominator. hence the "dumbing down" comments and grumpy old farts.
and the rise of non sanctioned"oh no" trails that will remain….shhhhhh
The raw, primitive, unrefined trails that see little to no maintenance are the kinds of trails that really build skill. What kind of skills do you learn riding a trail that was made by a machine, groomed to perfection and void of any rocks, roots or other obstacles that could send you careening over the handlebars?
Mostly good comments on here and much of what I was hoping - ideas and positive propositions. A few people continue to put in a bit of negative spin but overall easy to ignore so far.
The original "old school" was hiking trails or a few original lines that had a few pieces of wood nailed to let you get over a big log or let you ride up on a log for a bit to move past a bog area or other.
The new "old school" (middle school) found that more bridge work was needed to get over bad areas but wide bridges lots the technical challenge so they became elevated, skinny, and eventually engineering marvels at times. This also opened up more fall line trails with challenging lines to follow and large drops (hucks as we called them)
The next new school was born from whistler bike park brought in walls, gap jumps and the need for speed.
So what is technical? It's where the rider must think about how to complete a section of a trail. The greater the technical the more concentration required. It's a misconception to think that steep loose chundery chutes are what technical riding is. Certainly they do require some thought processing but they have never been something I found appealing (although a good skill to have if you travel around BC and other areas). Structures that are on the ground are to some enjoyable and do provide a great set of skills that can be applied to general technical riding (if you can hold a line on a series of skinnies you can hold a line through a crazy root/rock garden). Steep requires some concentration and add in things that prevent it from being just straight down and the concentration goes way up. If you ride Comfortably Numb in Whistler you will realize that tech can be applied to climbs as well. Of course you need a good engine (legs,lungs) for that.
Re: what gets the vocal minority upset - although a feature that has been removed might spark an emotional response I think (and at least from my personal point of view) it's the modification of an entire trail from a constantly technical challenging trail to a trail that requires little rider concentration (ignoring the aspect of speed) that is the concern. If new trails had been constructed that were of the new school variety I suspect there would have been no vocal minority. Yes I know the "no new trails" policy however I also know that the district promised a "no loss of trails" as well. Trails have been given up (mostly old rarely ridden trails but never the less trails which could have been rebuilt). But this is outside of the point of this thread - just a comment on why the old schoolers cry foul.
Re: do we need a director of Gnar - my thought was that this might give old schoolers someone in nsmba whose purpose is to support their needs thus a clearer vision of what trails will remain as technical trails, a voice in nsmba on their needs, etc. So from my (current) point of view it seems like a good idea but I could be wrong.
A definition of what is technical, what are the needs of this minority group, how big is the group, what can be kept and what must change are all good questions that need answers. Even if the nsmba agrees on the basic idea of such a group much needs to be defined before anything can be done. Best to give it a positive try rather than throw in the towel.
Forum jump: