Red, White, Black whats the diff???

Moteymoney

Could someone tell me the difference between the route types??? new to this cheers

ravey1981

Are you talking about trail centres here?

If so routes are graded on their difficulty, which takes into account length, height gain, techicallity etc

The scale usually goes Green, Blue, Red, Black

To a beginner reds can be ridden with no problem, blacks can have some "features" such as small drop-offs but with a bit of care can still be ridden by a beginner.

Anonymous

[rant]ARGH. Ignore ravey. Blacks are for experienced riders who know what they're up against. This is a pet peve of mine.

Far too many trail centres are having to remove features from black graded trails because newcomers are having a go at them and hurting themselves very badly.
Seriosuly the warning signs are there for a reason.
And ravey, you go to chatel and see if you agree that black routes have "small drop-offs but with a bit of care can still be ridden by a beginner"
[/rant]

right, anyway.
greens (in the UK) tend to be routes that are suitable for a family to ride along
Blues (in the UK) are routes that are a little bit trickier than greens, with possibly more climbing and physical exertion involved. They might have a looser or rougher surface as well.
reds are trail centre bread&butter. They are mountain biking trails and can include anything from berms (banked corners) moderate drops, some very steep bits, and depending on where in the UK it is, a hell of a lot of climbing. They will be physically challenging for anyone not accustomed to mountain biking, and may well be beyond people's depth.
Black, is where anything goes. Can be extremely long with very severe climbs, and may also include freeride features like wallrides or large jumps, extremely slippery surfaces, properly big drop-offs and so on. Basically, they could be anything at all, but are meant to be a test for even the most experienced.

The exact challenge varies from one trail centre to the next.
For example, Innerleithen Red Route has features that would put certain trail centres' "black" routes to shame, and includes drops of 3 feet, or more. Some of the drops are not "rollable" either, meaning you have to commit, and launch off them.

glauciaregina9

IMBA publish this, which gives an approximation of what to expect:
http://www.imba.org.uk/WhereToRide/TrailGrades.html

However, there doesn't seem to be any real consistency with trail grading in the UK.

I get the impression a lot of trail centres err on the side of caution so as not to raise peoples expectations of what they'll be able to ride.

From my experience (UK only), if you're fit and confident, and have a decent well-maintained bike, then I don't see why you shouldn't be able to ride any grade of trail.

The only thing limiting you on the gnarlier or more technical stuff will be your nerve and your ability :-)

ravey1981

yeehaamcgee wrote:

[rant] snip...
And ravey, you go to chatel and see if you agree that black routes have "small drop-offs but with a bit of care can still be ridden by a beginner"

Since the OP is "new to this" It is fairly safe to assume that he isn't heading to the alps anytime soon. In the UK blacks are gererally rideable by anyone who is reasonably fit and has a little co-ordination. The "with a bit of care" part wasn't there by accident. I wasn't suggesting that a newbie should blindly launch him/her self down any trail...but at the same time there is nothing dangerous on a (UK) black, if as i said a bit of care is taken...

Anonymous

So, the big drops, the wallrides and so on in Glentress are fine are they?

Funny that, because the really big wallrides were closed when we were there because (apparently) some new riders has seriously hurt themselves, and were trying to claim damages.

albo

I can see where you are both coming from to be honest, and I agree with both of you (Somehow)

In the UK the grading is not very consistent, but be sure to remember that blacks are graded as black for a reason - There WILL be dangerous TTF's, although saying that - 99% of the time there will be a chicken run...

The Moral of the story is to always 'size-up' the feature, and always wear protection....

Oh, if you are new-ish TTF means Technical Trail Feature - Geeky? Get used to it! 8)

paully617

ravey1981 wrote:

Are you talking about trail centres here?

If so routes are graded on their difficulty, which takes into account length, height gain, techicallity etc

The scale usually goes Green, Blue, Red, Black

To a beginner reds can be ridden with no problem, blacks can have some "features" such as small drop-offs but with a bit of care can still be ridden by a beginner.

As an instructor, i would be a bit wary of saying that a red route can be ridden by a beginner with no problems.

The problem is that there isnt a standard for routes even though they are colour coded.

Prime example Sherwood pines kitchener trail (red) is a beginner capable route but Afan's whites level or Dalby forest (red routes) are in a different league altogether!!!

Black routes are for experienced riders and def not a good idea for a beginner.

darren555

paully617 wrote:

As an instructor, i would be a bit wary of saying that a red route can be ridden by a beginner with no problems.

I agree. I have been to Cannock on the FTD with people who found it a good challenge but weren't happy at all on the Monkey trail, and I can understand why. Both are Red graded though.
To a lot of beginners, off road is bridleways and towpaths and a trail centre can be an eye opener, but usually in a good way.

.blitz

The rule of thumb is that red is rollable.

Splottboy

Surely, It's up to British Cycling, CTC, ABCC, Forestry Comm/Standard to sort it out?

Why not get a National Standard so that EVERYONE knows what to expect???

Oh, I think I realise why this will NEVER happen:-

BC spending to much time money on the Track/Sky road team...
CTC organising courses for Leaders...
ABCC trying to overtale the CTC...
Forestry probably afraid to "Standardise" routes, not to upset Real Riders and maybe leave themselves open to Litigation if someone claims a Blue was a Red or something similar...

njee20

It has to be taken in an 'insular' context though.

If it was done nationally then every trail at Sherwood/Thetford would be green. However that could cause problems, as the black at Thetford is (obviously) harder than the blue. That's not to say that it's anything like as hard as a red at Afan, but it's a comparison to other trails in the same locale, which seems reasonable.

Really, it's about common sense, if you don't ride a trail centre no one 'grades' your route for you, but I would say that generally black routes are not for beginners, hence being black...

Chronicbint

They seem to manage with Ski runs and the grading, its generally in the right ball park. I have only been to Thetford so far, beginner, and did the red and black and now think everything is easy..... I'm sure I will get a fright when I head over to Afan and attempt a red.

There is really no way for an new comer to know if a particular trail is ridable or not as the grading system is no more than a very rough indicator.

Anonymous

How does grading work in rock climbing? Isn't it something like a collective decision among climbers or something?

.blitz

The grade is usually given by the first person to climb it, but it's very subjective.

jairaj

Chronicbint wrote:

They seem to manage with Ski runs and the grading, its generally in the right ball park.

With Skiing its a bit easier, there are no obstacles as such. They just base the grading upon how steep or narrow the piste is. This doesn't really translate to mountain biking.

With MTB the grading includes things like technical features, distance, amount of climbing. So depending on the exact combination of the above a trail could anything? It could be technically easy but have HUGE climbs that last forever so is graded red, others could be very sort in distance but are a bit harder to ride so could also be red.

Personally I think the grading colour should just be based on how hard the obstacles are to ride and also a figure for the distance of the trail eg: blue75 = easy trail 75km long or red12 = medium hard trail 12km long.

Bikerbaboon

jairaj wrote:

Chronicbint wrote:

They seem to manage with Ski runs and the grading, its generally in the right ball park.

With Skiing its a bit easier, there are no obstacles as such. They just base the grading upon how steep or narrow the piste is. This doesn't really translate to mountain biking.

With MTB the grading includes things like technical features, distance, amount of climbing. So depending on the exact combination of the above a trail could anything? It could be technically easy but have HUGE climbs that last forever so is graded red, others could be very sort in distance but are a bit harder to ride so could also be red.

Personally I think the grading colour should just be based on how hard the obstacles are to ride and also a figure for the distance of the trail eg: blue75 = easy trail 75km long or red12 = medium hard trail 12km long.

just to extend that idea... have a 17 red 200...... so its a 17km long trail thats technicaly hard with 200m of hight gain.

stiffee_rider

yeehaamcgee wrote:

How does grading work in rock climbing? Isn't it something like a collective decision among climbers or something?

First ascentionist will usually propose a grade, subsequent ascentionists can confirm or alter it. At the top end, this is very subjective; the grade proposed will often depend on factors like what the climber had for breakfast, whether or not the sun was out, the size of their ego and pending sponsorship deals. For established routes, grades are derived from a consensus - as you can imagine, this can be quite difficult to achieve, grade debates are notorious(ly boring) in climbing circles and can drag on for months - read the ukclimbing forums for long enough and you'll see.

To add my 2p to the thread - there does seem to be a lot of inconsistency in some trail centres. I don't agree with whoever reckoned there was nothing dangerous on a UK black, although I guess how dangerous you perceive stuff to be is a subjective thing - I can't think of much that will actually kill you (unless you were really unlucky) but there are plenty of places where a mistake could land you in hospital quite easily. Then you have places like Llandegla where the black is only a black in that it's harder than the red there - some of the red features like Lurch at Coed-y-Brenin are harder.

I think a bit of thought on the part of the centres would help - if a trail has few (if any) large TTFs, is it really a black? Perhaps it could be if it was some sort of 40km+ epic with some hideous climbs but if it's not, stick with grading it red. Maybe avoid giving it a grade until enough people have ridden it for a consensus to be found? Obviously, if you've built something full of 10' drop offs, some sort of warning would need to be in place but I don't think it would take long before a large enough volume of riders would have gone through for a clear(ish) picture to begin to emerge.

stumpyjon

Climbing has two grading systems, one grades the over route difficulty including length, exposure etc. The other system grades the hardest part of the route or crux. The trouble with mountain biking is one black route is black because it is very long and has lots of climbing, so a fit newbie may well be able to cope. Black number 2 might be a lot shorter but have some really nasty trail features.

I really would recommend most beginners tackle a red unless they've been specifically told it's OK (thinking of somewhere like Llandegla where the black could actually be blue / red elsewhere). Lee Quarry Red can scare the willies out of people and some of the berms really require you commit and go high or you'll fall off. Lee Quarry black scares me senslessly and I still can't ride the the rock pitched drop section at the start. Llandegla or the black loop on White's don't phase me at all and I've ridden pretty much all the black sections at Gisburn without issues.

I really think the grading of trails should be based around length and technical difficulty, over grading trails at places like Llandegla is actually quite dangerous. Many trail features can come at you quite quickly. To the OP, rule of thumb stick to the blues and greens to start with, then work up to the reds and then consider black. Use local knowledge or ask on here first.

Moteymoney

Guys, great response, really appreciate it. I have ridden a couple of runs in the forest of dean ie Sheeps Skull and Flat land. it doesnt really say what rating they arre appart from 1, 2, or 3 dots to indicate how steep they are. I have just got back into the sport after a 15 year gap and everything has changed. But its great.

where would you suggest going after doin the forest of dean runs, as I found those really good and within my capability, if not abit short, I roll a new Cube stereo 'The one' amazin how the bikes have changed also since my ridgid specialized stumpy i used to race XC. Cheers guys really appreciate ya input.

John Stevenson

Every sport has these problems. A friend of mine just came back from Yorkshire and nipped up a local F7b climb (whatever that means - my limit when I scrabbled inelegantly up rocks was HVS) to console himself for having been defeated by similarly graded climbs at Malham. Caving circles are full of endless arguments about whether a particular hole in the ground is grade 4 or grade 5. Etc etc.

Oxygen Thief

I think an important thing to remember is if you do a black and it's your first ever go, you won't enjoy it, because you won't ride it as it's meant to be ridden. Start red and then go black when you know what you're doing.

There should be some kind of consistency when grading trails in the UK. Even if it means bringing in new colour codes.

miss notax

Hmmm, some of the comments on here really annoy me - I accept that the grading is off the mark sometimes, but it also depends on your definition of a beginner!

Huge (probably sexist) generalisation but a lot of chaps who would call themselves a MTBing beginner actually have a lot of bike skills from zipping around on BMXs etc as kids etc, so they can tackle a red route as a beginner and find it all ok. I also know several ladies who would also describe themselves as a MTB beginners - myself included a few years ago - and would find reds WAY over their skill level..... The two are very different!

Anyway, I personally don't think it's a good thing to go making generalisations that 'beginners should be able to tackle a red route' etc - some features can be bloody hard and not to mention downright dangerous if you're not confident on a bike.

And yes, I started off on reds as a (totally!) complete beginner but with hindsight I wish I started on the blues and greens - it would have saved lots of tears half way up or down Cwncarn / Whites Level etc etc!!!

Rocketmagnet

The grading cant possibly be 100% as there is a great deal of personal opinion and the
odd trail that is only higher grade due to a single feature.

I have noticed most modern routes are significantly easier that the older ones.
So much so some old reds have simply been regraded as blacks.

Also it's not just the technical aspect that impacts upon the grading but physical effort
requirements be it pure distance or climbing. Someone may have good skills but be unfit for example.
So balancing these variables to determine a grading is pretty difficult.

Generally they are just a guideline but i suspect the modern higher grading is to
try and stop people doing stuff they should not tackle. Also i think its there to massage
peoples egos a bit and make them feel good....?

In addition to the colours mentioned above just to confuse the issue more there are
also PURPLE graded routes. Which tend to be either mixtures of grades or simply very long green/blues...