cooperquinn profile

Graphene can do everything except make it out of the lab!

Where's a mechanical engineer when you need one?

"So I would imagine a 5-speed HammerSchmidt."

Wouldn't this need to be rather wide to accommodate some more planetary sets? 

something something Q factor [insert riding a horse joke here]

I'll also agree with you - this was (is?) innovative, and I bring it up whenever someone is crying for gearbox bikes. "oh, you want a gearbox? why aren't you running H-S, then?"

Thanks 'Drew - your friendly, local, trail association needs you, pretty much wherever you are. And there's about a million ways you can help, depending on your skillset and personal time. If you reach out with ideas, be prepared to give your comments, but also listen to the organization. Try and come prepared to contribute in some way, and to have a conversation. Odds are, they aren't short on ideas. They're short on capacity, funds, and volunteers to deliver on all the great ideas. 

And off the back of last night's AGM, a big thanks to all the past, current, and future NSMBA members, as well. We couldn't do what we do without each and every one of you. There was 32% more people at this year's meeting than last - thank you for being engaged, and caring about our communities trails.

And think about it this way - without changing standards, we wouldn't have cool upstart companies like OneUp and WolfTooth.

Re "testing", if you want to see how this plays out on  MUCH larger scale, check out the clusterf*ck that is the US Military's attempts at concurrency. CVN-798, the USS Gerald Ford, is BILLIONS deep, and the poster child for why its a bad idea. The F-35 program is a close second.

Well, just an easy example. Distribution hubs. 

But, yes. having a receipt printed there is always a bit of a blast from the past sounding.

"Possibly-planned-obsolescence". 

A couple of factors at play. 

1) Everything has a lifespan. And, given The Will of the Masses screaming for light weight, we're engineering weight over life. So while not necessarily 'planned obsolescence', things are only gonna last so long if you use 'em. See JVP's comment above, as well. 
2) Shrinking parts availability kinda sucks, but I'm really not sure if there's a realistic solution. I'm open to ideas. 
3) And, 100%. The cycle continues, and probably perfect bikes for weekend warrior casual riders.

And, I'd imagine, engineers and marketers learned something about how well internal gears will actually do in the real world.

SRAM and Shimano have never really been big on small parts AFAIK, excwpt major wear parts like chainrings and chains. And again, how far back do you want a company to continue to produce parts for products they don't make or sell anymore?

This is why your LBS (and my bench) have a parts graveyard - I wouldn't expect them to carry most small parts, the proliferation of SKUs is already an issue, made worse by the article's complaints.

Should we switch to an auto-industry model of distributors like LORDCO carrying stock, and delivering to Uncle Lou in an hour? That might work in major metropolitan areas with a network kf shops, but isn't gonna fly in small towns. And the auto industry scale is another thing entirely. But I digress.

But I also get the discussion that mountain biking is really f-ing expensive, no matter how it shakes out, and that trying to maintain your current aging machine is a challenge. But I mean, honestly, I'm not really sure what can be done about that. As you point out, its fairly unreasonable to expect manufacturers to continue to manufacture everything they ever have. Its unreasonable for anyone to stock eleventy-billion SKUs. And from an engineering standpoint, at some point you have to accept progress via change (which, yes, can be debatable. Boost, anyone?); a change that isn't going to be backwards compatible. At some point, you reach the limit of what can be accomplished by evolution, and have to go for revolution (see: USB-C, and ditching cables entirely. Which, if we're ever going to do, we need to move on from f-ing Bluetooth).

And are we willing to accept it? As much as people like to complain about new standards in comments on the internet, look at sales for your possibly unfortunate answer. I think its important to consider as well - does it matter? What's the environmental impact of buying a new bike every few years, vs taking transit to work instead of driving? And even that, in the face of industry, transportation pollution is a small piece of the pie. I'm totally onboard with "all the tiny steps matter", I feel deep self-loathing when I forget my coffee mug at home and have to grab a cup because I know it means I'm forgoing a lid, but I'd say thinking keeping your existing bike running for an additional 5 (or 10) years for 'environmental reasons' is broadly similar to thinking Vancouver doing away with drinking straws will fix the Pacific Garbage Patch.

Oh. And Apple didn't invent the tablet.

https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-visual-proof-of-just-how-badly-microsoft-blew-it-with-tablets-2013-5

Sincerely,

Grouchy millennial who doesn't like avocados, or lattes. And hasn't had enough coffee today, apparently.

That section on BP is only "hiking only" on Trailforks, as far as I'm aware. FWIW, it would suck to ride, though. There are many hiking only trails on the Shore - there are almost zero biking only. 

Metro LSCR (as differentiated from Metro Parks) has traditionally done some maintenance on that section, and is the entity responsible for helicoptering in the new boardwalk sections this year. It is not actually on Metro Vancouver lands, its on CMHC.

And @grambo - thanks! Positive notes reinforcement in stuff like that is great.

And @syncro - yeah, I follow. And you're not wrong about opportunity. I just wanted to make the point that its not as easy as it may seem to some. There's often a lot of unseen heavy lifting and time involved in seemingly simple tasks.

There's.... a lot to unpack in this thread. 

But a couple of points stand out.

Yes, the NSMBA will be working on signage on CMHC ground. I lol'd a little bit at the reference to it being an "opportunity" - its going to take a very significant amount of work, so its less "opportunity" more "significant task" that will take volunteers, or money, or both. I'm hoping it'll maybe be done in 2019. We're currently talking to a couple of different people about taking on parts of the project, but there's a lot to it. Like, a lot a lot. Signage standards for all the land mangers on Seymour currently exist, and yes, they're all different. Don't expect that to change, really. DNV is re-doing signage on Fromme, in theory I'd assume they'll use the same standards for Seymour, but I wouldn't guarantee it. The LSCR does.... what the LSCR does. They also have signage standards - and especially with both the DNV and LSCR, the NSMBA is merely one point of input to the land manager on this, they can do what they want. RSTBC (who manages CMHC land on Seymour) looks to the NSMBA a bit more for this. Basically they're capacity limited managing everything from landslides on the Kettle Valley Railtrail to 4x4 trails to backcountry horse trails in Prince George, so signage gets put on the NSMBA, really. 

Currently, everything on Seymour is multi-use, and really its all multi-directional; so while it may not be the "best" idea to go hiking up Boogie Nights, there's nothing that says you can't. The point of additional signage will be to set user expectations more than anything. Most trail users will follow signs, but not all.

As with ALL trail interactions, remember you're an ambassador for mountain biking at all times. If you see someone hiking up the Piledriver, point out that it might not be a great idea, and get yelled at... take the high road, fill the other party in on facts (make sure you KNOW the facts, too) or just disengage. Brocklanders nailed it "Being nice and not condescending is for sure the best approach."

I'd love to live in a world where all trails are multi-use and multi-directional, where everyone is always aware there may be other trail users coming the other way. But that's unfortunately not the world we live in. Directional trails will be looked at as a potential tool to reduce user conflict and set user expectations during signage (remember when I said it was a bigger project than just puttin' some signs on 4x4 posts? Who sets the direction of trails? What users are allowed where? Has anyone measured the trails and all features/TTFs to ensure they conform to the signed difficulty rating?).

We will work to replace some of the kiosk maps, yes. Again, they're all on different land managers land, so its not incredibly simple. And it requires GIS, cartography, and graphic design skills as well as ensuring the legalese is up to snuff. RSTBC signage standards (for CMHC land) include the option for minimaps. We'll try to include these as much as possible, but its yet another time consuming task to add to the list. As I mentioned on Andrew's Black Friday article - we're generally not short on ideas. If something seems to make a ton of sense, but isn't happening, odds are there's a reason for it.

Its worth clarifying as well - mountain bikers weren't banned from CMHC lands, all recreational users were. Kudos to our community of trail users and recreationists for working together, engaging politicians, and getting sh*t to happen and convince CMHC this was not the best course of action! 

I like DanL's inclusion of the "legitimate". Given the asymmetry of user interaction  between foot traffic and bikers (ie, encountering a mountain biker is generally more disruptive to a hiker than the other way around), its on the mountain bike community to be extra nice. Access is a privilege, not a right. You can bet all your $$$ that hikers are emailing land managers more often than mountain bikers. Its my dead horse to floss - if you appreciate having mountain bike trails, or would like more mtb primary (or only) trails, those emails count. If you appreciate the work the NSMBA does, those emails count. There's all of the appropriate contacts you need here. I tend to only check in here when someone emails me or messages directly about a thread - but you're always welcome to shoot me a note and I can help direct your email/comments. cooper@nsmba.ca

Yep, DanL. 

If I could just get everyone to set a quick calendar reminder to write a quick note to all the land managers bi-annually..... that would be great. 

(seriously, though. Do it. If you need to know how, I'm happy to help.) 

Write that email! It doesn't have to be some giant novel - a short, respectful, coherent note goes a long way. And don't be afraid to just keep at 'em. 

And, yeah. I'm always happy to help people who want to get engaged do so. 

Its gonna be the horse I keep flossing.

A huge portion of the trails on the Shore (Lots of Seymour, most of Fromme, and a lot of Cypress) are managed (or, as the case may be, not managed) by municipalities. These decisions are very much made by politicians - for a recent example see the Trails Strategy adopted by DWV Council last year. That plan will have direct, tangible impacts (both good and "bad") on Cypress trails. How, you ask? Well, for one, mountain biking is now actually a 'recognized activity' on DWV trails - until this point it 'hasn't extisted', basically. Staff was questioned at a Council meeting about how much mountain biking was taking place - they pointed out they were unable to answer, because they couldn't measure it, because it didn't formally exist. That's now changed. So how trails and parks are managed does absolutely depend on what Council is asking of staff, budgets, and any potential new policy or bylaw. See also: Fromme Parking lot.

And I can guarantee the incoming councils across the Shore will be hearing from MTB detractors. And probably hearing from more detractors than people stoked on biking. If you ever want to help change that, shoot me an email! 

Major exceptions include, but are not limited to; CMHC portions of Seymour (managed by Rec Sites and Trails BC), BC Parks portion of Seymour, and trails in West Van, which are sometimes on British Pacific Properties land. And the LSCR is its own odd entity, that doesn't really answer to elected officials, per se. 

While the Shore is a different environment for many reasons, take a look at something like Mystic Squirrels - that was funded in large part by RMOW.

So to answer the question "Election Results - how will they impact the shore?", that's still TBD. But you can be asking [insert city here] Council that question, and expressing your opinions to them, as a voter.

I'm sure (?) Ned's will eventually see maintenance. I've got no idea when that will be - at this point it would be a HUGE project. Permits on Ned's are not something the NSMBA is asking for at this point. I also enjoy it in its current state, but lets be honest.... Its a bit of a mess. Its practically just a creekbed at this point, and in need of some serious love. Its great if you really hate your rims, or REALLY want to test their impact strength.

Would any work or potential upgrades (I'm aware this can be interpreted in many ways...) change the trail? Yep. But, it used to be a loamer, so I mean... trails change. It would be different from its original state, and its current state. And the iterations and gradations between the two.

I wouldn't...... necessarily say Metro is only interested in dumbing things down, but they do have a different idea of 'acceptable risk'. Its also a slightly odd situation - that side of Seymour (the 'Metro Van' portion) isn't managed by Metro Van Parks as you might initially expect, the LSCR is managed through Metro Water Operations - so while recreation happens on their lands... they don't really have a recreation mandate, per say.

IMO, its always worth emailing land managers, especially for potential safety issues like this, as long as you're doing it respectfully and with legitimate questions, comments, or concerns. You're also welcome to email me to discuss this or anything else. (cooper@nsmba.ca) I honestly don't check the forums here much, but someone pointed me at this thread.

Correct, Ned's is on Metro-LSCR land. (And I also quite enjoy it!) 

The NSMBA does not have permits to do work on Ned's (or CBC). 

You can (and should) email the LSCR with your thoughts and concerns: lscr@metrovancouver.org

For those wondering what Cam is on about here, its probably partly a Bike Squamish dumpster fire of a thread, but also this: http://frontlinesmtb.com/2016/12/23/ep-5-whats-in-a-name-offensive-trail-names-and-why-change-is-important/

I suggest (yet, people will comment anyway) listening before commenting.

This isn't about "Golden Boner".

Its about what @Tungsten is on about - regressive racist/sexist/otherwise bigoted naming. And the broader question of "Why are people so insistent on defending things like that?". 

Just because there's "history behind the name" or "its always been called that", doesn't really mean it should be - its 2018 and we're better than that. Much to the chagrin of many, mountain biking is no longer a fringe sport, for weirdos. It is, however, still dominated by white dudes. 

Simply renaming a trail like "Squaw Hollow" is simple, easy, and doesn't actually change the trail, beyond making the name not a racist slur. [insert something about "a rose by any other name" here]