cerealkilla_ profile

Ruthless!........but so awesome and honest. These are the reviews we need.

This is sooooo awesome. When you hear about "a whole community being behind someone," it's because that person is a gem.

This guy is INCAPABLE of telling the truth. Lies about lies. The police deal with rats like this all the time, and they know one when they meet one. His new explanations are fooling nobody. I expect they'll push for charges if they think they have a chance of it sticking.

.....

Rest assured, there is no TT. This is pathological lying. Chances are he can't distinguish between reality and the things he makes up. I'm not sympathizing with him, even if he has a profound personality disorder, but this guy probably has no clue how to live an honest normal life.

Best article I have ever read in any bike magazine ever. Perfection.

Hilarious, because everyone is laughing at you, shit-for-brains.

HA, says Lucien la loser, about 3 months too late. Guess you can blame your delayed response on your primitive mind.

Never seen a more clear example of natural selection at work 🙂
But what a bunch of good sports. I'd love to have a pint with these guys.

I'm on the fence for the painkillers. What about ANTIHISTAMINES!!!….We're talking about something that most definitely can save a life. I used to tuck them into my handlebars when racing. Ended up giving them to a fellow racer one year when we hit a wasp nest (I went first, he got stung). Hard tablet forms in tinfoil last for a long time.

Posted by: LoamtoHome

Posted by: RAHrider

Posted by: LoamtoHome

Posted by: FLATCH

Posted by: LoamtoHome

Revelstoke and Nelson.... better than the Sea to Sky overall imo and less attitude.

This. And don’t forget Rossland.

Castlegar > Rossland for 1 day.

What trail you like that much in Castlegar? Last time I was there they didn't have much. Grandiflorum?

It's pretty hard to beat whiskey on the rocks, crown point and a bunch others. Also, 7 summits is a pretty legendary way to spend a day.

Grandiflorum and The Awakener are amazing trails.  I like the terrain and overall flow better than Rossland.

Merry Creek has some awesome riding, with Captain Kangaroo, Blood Merry, Crazy Merry.....you just need to love your climb.

As for Koots vs Coast, I've ridden both and I think it comes down to the weather at the time, and how you relate to people. Lots of great folks and douche-bags in both places. Come for a visit to either place with an attitude to make friends and have fun, and you can't go wrong.

I will say this though. Last time I rode in Nelson, I left my wallet on my bumper in the parking lot with all my cards, ID, and a wad of cash. Still there when I got back <3

Posted by: MaxRockatansky

That study is so flawed I don't even know where to begin...

The riders achieved the same intensity but on average the duration was 12 minutes shorter. So they did not get the same workout at all....

They should have compared the same duration of effort. Both 2 hour rides, similar wattage; how much further do you need to go to achieve the same amount of exercise...

That's only half of the problem here. The main thing is that these are two entirely different forms of technology, and they will be used in very different ways.

To suggest they provide similar workouts means under controlled circumstances they CAN provide similar workouts. However, in practice, things may be entirely different.

Personally, I don't think it matters. I don't really care how hard someone is working. The whole "cheater" argument is a dead horse, and quite honestly it never held value in meaningful discussions IMHO. There are far more important things to consider, such as recent lawsuits by hikers and horseback riders for permitting Ebike access to trail networks.

However, if we must go down this road I ask this.....will the expanded sale of ebikes for off-road use (in their current formats) lead to riders working harder or less hard on their rides? 

1) For certain, there will be some who will now get a better workout (than none at all) because they will get out and ride when injuries or limits may otherwise keep them home.  Awesome. This is great.

2) There will also be some that will legitimately push ebikes in a manner that they get as good (and sometimes even better) of a workout than on a MTB.  Okay.  

3) Then there are those that will stop pedaling very hard at all, because now they have an engine doing the work for them. Okay.  

Overall, I would suggest that the main marketing thrust of ebikes is focused at people that will likely end up in category #3, and in sum this will not in any way enhance the average (across all riders) fitness of the ridership. It will just give an easy way out for those that don't really like pedaling. 

Fine, who cares? I don't. Some will get fitter and some will get fatter.

It's not a matter of whether not not an ebike gives a comparable workout.....it's how they are used by different people.  And as goes for fitness so will go for trail access and trail impacts. If ebikes are brought forward responsibly with proactive engagement by those that promote them, and with a clear effort to contribute to harmonious trail management systems, all should be fine. However, if they are just pushed pushed pushed, with no consideration or efforts to understand potential impacts on existing trail traffic patterns, we will have more needless messes like we are seeing in Tahoe.

Not the shore, but just another indication of where this is leading: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/us-forest-service-sued-over-ebikes-in-tahoe-national-forest.html 

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: cerealkilla_

They don't even want to consider any limitation

It's not just a simple thing where it's all great (ebike marketers) or all evil (ebike haters).......it's actually an issue that deserves a bit of thought.....something many are reluctant to do.

How did you get not considering any limitations? I only saw them supporting class 1 ebikes. That point kind of contradicts your last one which I entirely agree with.

I was referring to the writer of the article, and their endorsement of ebikes.. (abeit one particular classification). I think we're splitting hairs here Syncro.

Call it what it is. The article was a straight-up Ebike promo. You take a place that is dying for rec-economy rebooting, and they'll praise anything that provides a glimmer of hope. They don't even want to consider any limitation, when their main focus is expanding economic activity. Of course the trail society there is supporting them....it means economic benefit. Just the same way that the majority of Albertans deny climate changes is real or that humans cause it. People will always favor technologies that put money in their pocket, and avoid engaging in any real discussion of meaningful issues when their bank accounts are involved.

That being said, the article is not without merit. There are some legitimate points about enabling greater access. However, there were also several entirely unsupported points of speculation such as reducing traffic to trailheads. Um no. There will actually be more traffic, just traffic with ebikes. If you expand the rec-economy, you increase the traffic. No magic solution there, and we all see it day to day with people pulling their ebikes off their trucks at our local trails. As for low-impacts?...compared to what? Any study that compares ebikes to MTBs is flawed if it is assumes they will be ridden in the same manner. You can't just run  over the same piece of ground a few time, and say "look! no difference!". You actually have to look at the application of the tool over time, and we just are not there yet. 

However, when it comes to impacts, what of ebikes compared to mining or forestry? That may seem like a stretch, but the fact is that people are more likely to take steps to preserve and protect the environment if they spend time in it.  Expanding the range of recreation tourism even a small amount, can expose people to views of areas that they may otherwise never see.

It's not just a simple thing where it's all great (ebike marketers) or all evil (ebike haters).......it's actually an issue that deserves a bit of thought.....something many are reluctant to do.

Posted by: Vikb

I've been riding 30+ years and it's always been downhill bikers yield to uphill bikers. Unless the trail is marked as directional. In that case the rider going in the signed direction has the right of way.

https://www.singletracks.com/blog/trail-advocacy/mountain-biking-basics-trail-etiquette/

If the trail is not signed at all entrances as directional it's a two way trail and you can't assume someone new to the trail network knows what direction the trail is usually ridden in. So there needs to be one universal set of right if way rules because the decision needs to be made to slow/stop very fast.

If the right of way rules are not universal than they are pretty much useless.

Doesn't matter if you invented the MTB. That "rule" is not written anywhere in regulation, policy, or law that matters. It is a convention (as you note clearly, etiquette). It is also a convention that people do not ride up descent trails as mentioned before. If you want to take the position that these unwritten rules matter, you can't pick and choose which ones suit your fancy. Take them all or take none. It is also convention  that nobody with half a salad goes up a descent and expects people to dodge them. I will also note again that Section 57 applications (official documents that trump some random american website) usually include directional orientations. Leave of Absence for example, downhill primary. In a document. Registered with the government. 

Hardly any trails are currently signed for directions, and as mentioned that requires a significant investment in capital. 

So yeah, there is no "rule". There is common sense that some seem to choose to ignore. 

What we clearly need is an actual rule.

Posted by: Vikb

Right of Way Rules exist. Bikes going downhill give way to bikes climbing. That's easy to figure out and universal. 

Um no. Please feel free to show us where that "rule" is formally stated. It is a general convention among bikes, and it has been followed by pedal-powered bikers over the last 30 years, with the application of this idea being limited pretty much to those trails that are two-way traffic. 

Having an ebike does not automatically grant a special privilege to turn what everyone has always descended into a special climb. As I mentioned before, most Section 57 applications have a directional orientation stated. It may not be clearly signed, but it only takes a teaspoon of common sense to separate descents from two-ways. Credit Line? Descent..... Bobsled? Descent..... Espresso? Descent......Nicoles? descent......Word of Mouth? 2-way....Wonderland.? 2-way.....Bridal Path? 2-way.

As for special ebike rules, when mountain bikes came along way back when, we did indeed have special rules for them and restrictions on where they may go. Same thing should apply to ebikes (I.e. Lord of the Squirrels). Again, we don't need to place strict limits or unreasonable and unfair boundaries around their use. Just reinforce the common sense that has helped keep the trail traffic running smooth for the past 3 decades. 

However, we do not need a special rule for Ebikes when it comes to this issue. Any one (regardless of bike type) that wants to go up a trail that is primarily used for descents, should yield to the descending traffic. It is totally unreasonable, and potentially dangerous to expect downhill traffic on steep trails to be yield to those going against the flow. I see people making all sorts of inappropriate comparisons (Oh ebikes are like snowboards, oh ebikes are like paddle boards, everyone is just hating on us wah wah wah).....Okay, lets use those examples. Would you paddle your paddle board straight out through the break just because you can and expect people to bail off their wave? Would you boot-pack your snowboard straight up under the rollers just because you can? No. ......That is using ebikers OWN logic, and it seems to clearly indicate that riding up against the flow of downhill traffic and expecting others  to yield is non-sensical.

Signage is likely coming, but it takes time and it costs money. In the meantime, it would be nice if common sense prevailed.

Posted by: Vikb

Posted by: cerealkilla_

Most trails are built with a directional orientation, and this is usually listed in the Section 57 approval (i.e. downhill primary). I would suggest that the person riding the trail in the primary direction holds the right of way, regardless of their propulsion system.

Unless a trail is clearly marked [at every entry point] as being one-way or that right of way is based on a specific direction of travel than a rider has to assume it's a standard two-way trail and the climber has right of way. You can't have right of way be determined by local knowledge and not have that info on clear signage or it's just not workable. Whole purpose of the current right of way rules is that you know instantly who needs to stop or move over.

That would suggest that Ebikes get special privilege and special right of way over all other bikes, because they can climb up what everyone else descends. I would suggest that generally unwritten and informal standard needs to be revisited with the advent of Ebikes. 

I don't think you actually need local knowledge to know what is a descent and what is a climb. Signage would be helpful for sure, and that signage should be based on the current normal flow of traffic.  However, in absence of signage, what should be the norm?

Seeing that Ebikes (Class 1) have their own distinct category, they perhaps should have some distinct limits---nothing extreme or particularly oppressive or unfair--- but sensible limits to ensure safe and harmonious integration. If you're adding a motor (i.e. power)  to something, adding weight (20 lbs on average), then the rider needs to exercise responsible control over that power.  Yielding to other trail users following the primary flow of traffic makes sense, whether those users are MTBs or other Ebikes, and that "primary flow" may need to be defined a little more clearly and in some cases that may mean signage. 

I think this is an important area that should be hammered out. Everyone would probably be better off, and they could get on riding whatever they have between their legs, with one of the significant sticking points out of the way.

Most trails are built with a directional orientation, and this is usually listed in the Section 57 approval (i.e. downhill primary). I would suggest that the person riding the trail in the primary direction holds the right of way, regardless of their propulsion system.

People that ride ebikes up descents cannot expect others to move for them.....that would be looking for special treatment just for them as any other rider would almost certainly not be riding in that direction. If they want to be classified or treated as a MTB, then they should ride like one at least in terms of the direction they ride the trails.  It seems that most people here agree on that point. It's unfortunate that some irresponsible individuals are promoting ebikes by riding them up descents. My main concern from the start was not the technology, but the application. 

As a person with zero desire to ride ebikes, and who has generally been pretty crusty about them being given open range, I can cite two excellent examples of ebikes on the trails recently. Last week, I caught up with a group on a climb. One was a woman I hadn't seen on the trails in years. Like a proud vegan she had to inform me that her new bike was an ebike. I said nice paint job. Main thing I noticed was that it was quiet. Second thing was that she was riding with a group of other MTBs at a fine pace. It is possible. Knowing this person, I realize there is no way she would have been out if not for the motor assist. Good on her.

Second example, Search and Rescue had two early responders attend a critical incident tonight by Ebike. It was a very difficult access point, with no other real way of getting in with their packs. The Ebikes were perfect for it. 

These are good examples. I remain in favor of responsible integration.

Fair enough Tashi - you raise a point too that often people's knowledge of bears is based on specific contexts or conditions, and we have to be aware of the origins of the advice they provide.

Side note, funny story.

I was on my way down a steep mountain after a day of work in forestry, ambling along with my buddy Matt. He's a big lad, about 6-4 and a solid 240. He was just behind me as we were stepping down over logs, when I heard a hissing sound and Mattie yelling "oh sht oh sht, ruuuuunnnnn!" I looked back to seem him struggling to unbuckle his bag and assumed he had hit a wasp nest, and then realize he had dislodged the cap from his pepper spray canister on his waist strap. It sprayed right up his back, fortunately mostly missing his head.

Needless to say he had a sharply burning red patch forming on his back. It was dry out there, but we found a small creek (or rivulet), and I watched with great delight as Mattie tried to somehow cram all 240 of his burning backside into that tiny trickle of water. It was like watching a bear scratching its butt on a tree.  We both were laughing, but I had the best chuckle as he spent half an hour wallowing in that little thread of water to alleviate the burning and prevent serious irritation.

This was before the age of ubiquitous cell-phone cameras, so I had to simply take a mental image for my amusement. Probably best, as Matt could grind me to fine powder with one hand...even if he was really too gentle to contemplate it.