Grumpy Old Schoolers

Very good points.

And I add then from a previous post of mine (one second as I find it )

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.

Back on Page 1 I mention:

RE Flip's comments:

I think there needs to be a differentiation too here between Technical and Flow as trail descriptors, versus Beginner and Intermediate 'rider skills required' descriptors.

It is possible to have beginner riders on “flow” trails doing “relatively well” versus a beginner rider on a “technical” trail having to “struggle” with bike control and reading the trail as noted above in blue.

So there is an element of both Trail Descriptors and Rider Descriptors :

You would not need the technical skills if the trail did not have technical features to require those rider skills. Is this a fair comment?

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.

Please inventory all of these historic tech moves that have been lost.

I'd like to see a factual post of legit tech moves and trails that have been lost.

Please inventory all of these historic tech moves that have been lost.

I'd like to see a factual post of legit tech moves and trails that have been lost.

Start with lower empress

Pretty much anything on lower oilcan

Walk in the clouds

MSL: are you asking for that here in the forum posts are to ask in a survey?

Please inventory all of these historic tech moves that have been lost.

I'd like to see a factual post of legit tech moves and trails that have been lost.

MSL: are you asking for that here in the forum posts are to ask in a survey?

On the forum.

i'm getting tired of these same old debates about the gnar. you want things to change? then get involved with the NSMBA and you have a chance to influence things. same old debate over and over again.

the NSMBA is not some big bad organization out to kill the gnar trails, they are a bunch of volunteers trying to lay the groundwork for a durable trail network on the shore.

and i would say it is a vocal minority. hike trails like Grannies, Upper Crip or Old Expresso and the trails are covered in small sticks and needles - evidence that these trails are seldom ridden. I am not saying this justifies losing them, however.

oh, and ya i am grumpy.

i'm getting tired of these same old debates about the gnar. you want things to change? then get involved with the NSMBA and you have a chance to influence things. same old debate over and over again.

the NSMBA is not some big bad organization out to kill the gnar trails, they are a bunch of volunteers trying to lay the groundwork for a durable trail network on the shore.

and i would say it is a vocal minority. hike trails like Grannies, Upper Crip or Old Expresso and the trails are covered in small sticks and needles - evidence that these trails are seldom ridden. I am not saying this justifies losing them, however.

oh, and ya i am grumpy.

Well said.

I am loving all the buff, but have to admit, after a week of riding a fair bit of 'gnar', it would be nice to have more. It is too bad those trails ruin the forest.

What I realized is that most of the improved trails that get all the hate, were not good gnar trails due to their lack of steep grade. They were just annoying (relative of course).

i'm getting tired of these same old debates about the gnar. you want things to change? then get involved with the NSMBA and you have a chance to influence things. same old debate over and over again.

the NSMBA is not some big bad organization out to kill the gnar trails, they are a bunch of volunteers trying to lay the groundwork for a durable trail network on the shore.

and i would say it is a vocal minority. hike trails like Grannies, Upper Crip or Old Expresso and the trails are covered in small sticks and needles - evidence that these trails are seldom ridden. I am not saying this justifies losing them, however.

oh, and ya i am grumpy.

I sent first a note on this topic to NSMBA and was/am seeking thoughts on this topic on the forum as an aside. I assume you read all of the thread so you are aware of that but still feel like commenting in a negative way. Please refrain from entering this thread unless you have something productive and positive to say on the topic. I never made in this thread any negative comments towards NSMBA. Oh and I've been riding Grannies, Upper Crippler over the last few weeks several times (along with my wife and friends) - sorry our tires aren't raking things out nicely but sticks aren't an issue to ride over unless they are large. Ragdoll has bigger stuff thrown on it daily and rarely do I have to remove anything.

my thesis is that the lack of true intermediate trails has led to a greater impact on more harder technical trails as intermediates will try out the harder stuff since there are no other options, and thereby impact it more by skidding, walking, braiding, etc. I'd like to believe that as that bell curve distribution of skill level trails evens out a bit more that we'd actually see less impact on the more natural technical trails as it will take that peak load off them and allow more riders to develop a skill set before attempting harder trails. But like I said, that's just my own idea….

RE Flip's comments:

Yes Flip, there are trails that are technical that are not blown out POS. I will not name them here, as they are unsanctioned.

I believe this is flips point, the unsanctioned technical trails that are not blown out POS are unsanctioned, not known to the general below intermediate level riding public so they are still 'sustainable' technical trails.

Once you have a large number of riders, the difficult trails will get braided and blown out due to intermediate riders thinking they're good enough to ride them, or boyfriends taking their not as skillful girlfriends on the ride since that is what they want to ride.

I think the NSMBA would like to maintain the technical nature of the network, the new flowy trails are addressing the lack of easy trails on the shore, the loss of structures is addressing the age of the structures and lack of the builders who know better to replace them since they know they will become a maintenance hassle.

Again, as has been said, join the NSMBA directorship to make a difference.

It is Official- this thread has gone full circle, and we are back where we started.

I am with thewwkayaker on this one.

This conversation keeps coming up since, clearly, it is evident a shared concern about trajectory and momentum of trail works.

How can thewwkayaker, or any of us else, "fight for the right for Gnar" without raising it the conversation?

The initial thread was completely fair and on side.

- Yes, everyone hear's the Volunteer call to Action- and by doing so a Director of Gnar volunteer would likely realize that it is untenable for the land manager's on those mountains, and so NSMBA does the best that they can do. I fully support NSMBA since most of us do not know the full constraints of time, money, effort, advocating, TAP relationship building/managing, trail day's or Twoonie planning- and the Directors also have careers and family's/relationships/friends too!

- Yes, everyone hear's other's concern for maintaining some trails that are "Not built for All."

How can we have a conversation about it- there was a great idea finding out if the "minority" is in fact a minority- I was prepared to put effort into that and help the community and set up the survey.

I will take from this thread the following good points raised: keep it on another mountain.

I think if the NSMBA could have, they would have, kept as much as they could. I do not think a Director of Gnar is realistic, I was tongue in cheek there but trying to illicit more positive chat on it.

Have a great day!

PS Gnar trails DO NOT NEED TO HAVE TO RUIN A FOREST- they are terrain determined trails- allow them to exist! How does Empress ruin the forest/ Boogie Man headwall / Dale's rock / ect understand the common denominator in them and understand that rider's make decisions based on their fear factor.

Well said.

I am loving all the buff, but have to admit, after a week of riding a fair bit of 'gnar', it would be nice to have more. It is too bad those trails ruin the forest.

Pretty much anything on lower oilcan

surely you jest.