Grumpy Old Schoolers

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.

some wooden features have simply been lost to wear and tear over time and have not been replaced (nothing to do with current nsmba though really).

some spots got good due to eroision, but then they go past the good point to where they have to be replaced or re-routed. intersting side note, personally i feel erosion can be a positive force in forming a trail. this is very much a double edged sword though as often these section are on intermediate trails and as they become more eroded or challenging then the majority of riders (who have often helped create the erosion) will now braid that section and look for something easier. i can think of a few spots on fromme.

specfically though i can think of a few spots on tnt that were those crux type moves that required a high level of tech riding skills to be able to ride smoothly without getting hung up. had they gotten that way through some erosion? yes? but were they out of context with the rest of the trail? no.

i think we should be able to develop or maintain a balance between the fixing/paving and keeping some of the challenging sections.

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.

Did the note say "someone ought to do something about that"…or did you offer to be that someone? Because that's what it will take.

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.

Great little sections, but they are not complete or lengthy trails. Also, the difficulty factor has increased over the years on these sections due to erosion. Isn't erosion, along with safety, the main concerns from Land Managers?

It seems to me that the efforts to control erosion, is resulting in a reduction of exposed roots and rock, which is what the 'Gnarists' are concerned with. Both sides have a point, but the Managers carry the hammer.

PS All trails are terrain determined, with the common denominator that riders make decisions based on their personal fear factor.

I agree, the North Shore should crown a Czar of Gnar, who will sign proclamations on what trails should be old-school tech and what trails shouldn't.

Nice fully rigid with Mondraker forward geometry the Czar of Gnar knows how to synthesize old school, new school, tech and flow!

Good comments.
My replies:

My example of Empress: sure, a little section, determined clearly by terrain, the Terrain: Rock; Erosion: None. Same for Boogie Man Headwall. Same for Dale's Rockface. With those as examples Erosion is not an issue. There are many other 'lengthy sections' of similar 'natural terrain technical trails' are are not subject to as much, if any, erosion along their rock oriented trail layout. (Yes, there are spots that are not rock, yes I get Erosion is not a TTF). And if there are (and there is) areas in those unsanctioned trails that need a reroute due to a situation- then we already know what to do in that situation.

Your comment of Land Manager's I would agree with. So, if we cannot save Dale's Rockface then there is a dark future ahead for advanced technical trails. Land Manager's look at things far differently than a bike park operator.

Your comment of exposed roots and rock: yes, that I guess would be a fair statement, yet not the whole enchilada of the concern advanced riders are sensing. You can have technical without roots. You have naturally exposed rocks now

But I think we can all agree that advanced trails, either technical old school (as in my definition of it) or flow new school, are needed in the future. How we get there I do not know. The loss of Dale's Rockface and that whole situ seems pretty sad.

PS Great Picture!

Great little sections, but they are not complete or lengthy trails. Also, the difficulty factor has increased over the years on these sections due to erosion. Isn't erosion, along with safety, the main concerns from Land Managers?

It seems to me that the efforts to control erosion, is resulting in a reduction of exposed roots and rock, which is what the 'Gnarists' are concerned with. Both sides have a point, but the Managers carry the hammer.

One idea would be to count the amount of riders going down say Expresso and Ladies on any given Saturday?

In my experience, the problem with a stat like this is around what you decide to measure and what conclusions you decide to draw based on those measurements. So, we count the number of people riding Expresso tomorrow. What does that mean? People may claim that it must mean that flow has won, or that everybody must love the trail. While I think flow trails are more popular and people do enjoy the new trail, counting the number of riders alone is a poor way to prove these things, due to confirmation bias. Maybe people are riding the trail to see the new work, or because it's easy enough now for a larger rider base. At the end of the day, the only conclusion that you should draw from "x riders rode expresso yesterday" is that x riders rode expresso. That information sure may be useful in some situations, but I don't believe it is meaningful when trying to assess how riders feel.

my general preference is toward technical trails, but I rode expresso twice last week. If we used the rider count as an indicator, my preference would be missed. That begs the question: did I ride espresso twice last week because its so good, or due to a lack of options?

Equally, regarding the argument that "tech is there if you look for it", there is a big difference between riding a sanctioned trail vs a non-sanctioned trail, in terms of safety. This is strictly from experience, but I don't ride secret trails because I can't trust that a rider will happen to come by if I have a bad fall. This is why it is important to have a variety of trails, including some sanctioned tech trails, which is where OPs idea gets really intriguing. Additionally, riders on unsanctioned trails could never be counted, thus keeping their numbers out of the rider volume reports and throwing validity of the statistics off.

Being that the desired metric is of how people feel, I believe this is what should be measured, as directly as possible.

Hi Scotter,

I have a Survey Monkey gold survey account. We can put up a survey there for this issue. We can determine what the questions are.

I looked at the still posted MTB Cypress data last night, and though I capture some tangential data on the views of Fromme, and what minimum rider ability; Seymour, and what minimum rider ability; and likewise for Cypress; I do not differentiate from Technical Old School and Flow New School.

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.

If any of you have not done that survey, it is HERE

Hi Gord,

Thanks for looking into this. What do you think about getting then word out there for the survey? Of course the more replies, the better, and from riders of all types. We wouldn't want to narrow it to nsmb users, so we'd probably want the nsmba to publish a link on their site. If we were to get this going, I'd happily spend a few afternoons set up at the bottom of mtn highway and/or old buck to spread the word.

I guess the biggest question is: would it make sense for the survey to be written up by the nsmba? Keeping in mind that we want the survey to be objective, the questions need to be broad and the nsmba may benefit from being able to poll users about a variety of other topics. (Note: not trying to push it in that direction, just trying to be objective).

Just thinking out loud, I suppose…

Good comments Scotter on your recent posts.

We can only ask NSMBA and they can give us their response.

We could also broaden the survey concept to FVMBA and SORCA too

Then, we can get a more regional set of data.

B U T:

At the end of the day, the Land Manager's call the shots. The building/riding community cannot escape this IMO.

I am getting to the point of realizing this salient perception: A "Land Manager" would have a heart attack looking at Whistler Bike Park yet WBP exists!

But it is a different model with different legalities in play than that of a 'Land Manager for the Public'- Lee Lau feel free to comment.

Some could argue I am naive and point to Kamloops Bike Ranch - a city owned park- but I think that is more a reflection of the progressiveness of that particular Land Manager's attitude but I am assuming

The more I ponder this question of Gnar getting lost the more I am beginning to think that maybe its the model of land management overall in the context of the legals the land manager has to "operate within" for that terrain. But I am no lawyer…

Or maybe does it come down to the personal attitudes and biases of the Land Manager themselves personally without accountability to right, to whom are the Land Managers' accountable to? I have never voted for one in an election!

Am I becoming jaded? Is this what the NSMBA is up against with Dale's???- the personal attitudes of a Land Manager?

If so, then what would a survey matter?

Let me think on this a bit.

another option for preserving the gnar is to adopt available trails before they get TAP'd. Make the gnar sustainable. It shows LM's that riders are very keen to keep those trails and it removes the 'erosion' argument for closing them.

Did the note say "someone ought to do something about that"…or did you offer to be that someone? Because that's what it will take.

Thank you. Short version of my post.

Until some "old schoolers" step up to the plate and get involved in the process, these threads will continue to be absolutely and utterly pointless.

Seems that the old schoolers are too busy to actually do anything beyond whine on this forum. Guess actually doing something productive for the trail network would cut into their precious riding time?

Thank you. Short version of my post.

Until some "old schoolers" step up to the plate and get involved in the process, these threads will continue to be absolutely and utterly pointless.

Seems that the old schoolers are too busy to actually do anything beyond whine on this forum. Guess actually doing something productive for the trail network would cut into their precious riding time?

Tried stepping up… sent emails, offered my time, offered my tools.. Emails were not answered, calls not returned. Have since moved to the valley so the offer is no longer viable.

Thank you. Short version of my post.

Until some "old schoolers" step up to the plate and get involved in the process, these threads will continue to be absolutely and utterly pointless.

Seems that the old schoolers are too busy to actually do anything beyond whine on this forum. Guess actually doing something productive for the trail network would cut into their precious riding time?

The word "positive" seems to be difficult for the two of you to grasp. Reading skills are a little low too.

I asked if NSMBA would support having a new director/group to deal with maintaining old technical trails.

If such a position would be supported, and was defined appropriately, I would volunteer to run although I'd encourage others to do so as well. But there is no point in volunteering for an undefined position that currently has no support.

To Grumpy Builder and Tom - feel free to create your own thread to whine about old schoolers in, this thread is for positive feedback on the original posting for this thread.

I asked if NSMBA would support having a new director/group to deal with maintaining old technical trails.

If such a position would be supported, and was defined appropriately, I would volunteer to run although I'd encourage others to do so as well. But there is no point in volunteering for an undefined position that currently has no support.

To add to this point of the conversation:

I reflect on the Open House and the AGM of last year we need to keep in mind that there were years of catch up work for the NSMBA to do, on arguably, the more important trails for the community, the easier and intermediates; and the removal of dangerous rotting wood ect.

During these years they established their working relationships with the Land Managers.

During these years NSMBA had to figure out how to pay for the trails because our $40 does not go that far per member for the amount of trails (of us that are members of the NSMBA), or the $15 for a Trail Supporter sticker.

So all of this leads me to my final statement: The NSMBA is constrained by Time, Money, Bandwidth of Volunteers, and attitudes of Land Managers.

It is the Money and the Land Manager's which are the biggest unknowns in the concept of the Czar of Gnar. Without both of them in the mix in a positive sense then IMO it is a rough go. thewwkayaker has volunteered his time in the conversation but that is only one part of it. Then the Czar of Gnar will need to do trail assessments, meet with the land manager, schedule trail walks, find TAP money, prioritize within other NSMBA activities ect.

It is a big task for sure. Let us not underestimate the organizational impacts to this position within the NSMBA. But I do not speak for them. I am a Gamma Delta Iota- God Damn Independent. :rocker:

The word "positive" seems to be difficult for the two of you to grasp. Reading skills are a little low too.

I asked if NSMBA would support having a new director/group to deal with maintaining old technical trails.

If such a position would be supported, and was defined appropriately, I would volunteer to run although I'd encourage others to do so as well. But there is no point in volunteering for an undefined position that currently has no support.

To Grumpy Builder and Tom - feel free to create your own thread to whine about old schoolers in, this thread is for positive feedback on the original posting for this thread.

i'm going to jump on the other side of the fence here. instead of berating them for not being positive and accsuing them of being stupid or unable to read hwo about simply trying to reinforce your point with a positive attitude otherwise you may argue back and forth all day. somewhere, someone needs to put down the stick and say ok, i'm going to take a non-aggressive approach with this no matter how much shit flies my way.

be ghandi.