Grade Red

ddraver

AMcK wrote:

It may oversell the trail to the likes of most on this forum - it's obviously not a red grade in the same way that The Wall is, for example. But Afan is aimed at a different, more specialised crowd, as well as the usual terrain, gradient, technical aspects, length to consider. Our universal grading system should take that into account too, perhaps (which would downgrade Bedgebury, but elevate it above the family pootle). I doubt there is a system that will work for absolutely everyone.

The trouble is it works both ways - That Dad and 8 yr old son that bluff their way down the black at Bedgebury on their commuter/Wolf bike (and I admit I ve never been there), will now think that they can do the black at Kirroughtree or Ae - I don't think they can....

I think BC has it easier as the terrain is actually pretty similar throughout the state (Geologically, Canada is really boring). Britain is unique in the world for having such different terrain in such a small place, hence why we re so geologically interesting [/geogeek]

This does make it harder to apply a singel grading system - especially one with only 4 grades

Anonymous

I've actually seen a guy try and take his roughly 4/5-year old son on the Tarw at Coed y Brenin, whilst proclaiming,
"come on, son, it's only a red trail, like that one we rode last time, it won't be this hard all the way".

No idea where he was from, but he had what I consider to be a southern English manner of speaking. He seemed quite indignant when I told him that it was not a very bright idea, although his terrified son looked pleased.
They were on 7-sisters, the first section that leaves the car park.

ddraver

^well exactly...

Good Trail building to put a "taster" at the start so you can back out if neccessary too.

pumpkinhead456

Interesting reading this! I done the Innerleithen red xc a few weeks back and would consider it to be graded perfectly, I also done the Fort Will World Champ red xc last weekend and again it was graded well. The red xc from the top of the gondola was blooming scary, but then it was blowing a gale and pouring down, so I was thankful to survive more than anyhting. On a better day it would still be a tough red.
Laggan Wolftrax red was fast and flowing but still graded well, and my local haunt Glentress is again graded consistently.
As most of the above are owned by the Forestry Commision, then there is consistency between them. It means for most of the Scottish centres you can be confident of what to expect for the grading, and ride the trail accordingly. I think a certain degree of consistency has helped me progress in to a proficient rider by tackling the next stages when I felt comfortable to do so, and I would be pretty disappointed by a few centres down south at the sound of things. I would agree with previous posts tho, if I was going to travel a distance I wuold do my homework first.
Anyhoo, the most important thing is to get out and ride. So I will see you at Glentress on Saturday, half 9 sharp 8)

njee20

Basically they need 2 grading systems, a local one, and a national one.

It makes sense that Thetford has green/blue/black, because each is successively harder, it's a comparison within the location, so families know that the black is more of a challenge than t'others. However... they'd all be green compared to any of the Laggan trails (for example), but if they were all green you'd get people doing the black who really weren't up for any more than a pootle along a flat forest track, and people who did want the (comparatively) harder trail would have no clue as to which that is.

Without wishing to replicate Skaffen's ridiculously complex numbering system (which I couldn't really fathom) perhaps national standards could be numbered, higher number = harder comparatively than other trails of that number elsewhere.

Thetford black: Black1
Whites: Blue3
W2: Black2
Laggan black: Black5

Or something. I think I've confused myself.

bails87

Or just call some stuff a 'mountain bike trail' and other stuff a 'leisure circuit'.

Then grade the MTB ones, and just give a distance for the leisure ones, seeing as there's nothing technical on them.

Anonymous

bails87 wrote:

Or just call some stuff a 'mountain bike trail' and other stuff a 'leisure circuit'.

Then grade the MTB ones, and just give a distance for the leisure ones, seeing as there's nothing technical on them.

NO!
Because then we'd have another weird subforum, in addition to MTB, Road, Commuting (seriously, WTF?) we'd have "Leisureing"
And there would be monthly "leisureing" magazines.



Another thought, do we really NEED grading at all? Or should we just have something to warn people that a trail is particularly extreme?
Currently, if you can't ride a red (at any center, be it Scottish, Welsh, or southern), then you shouldn't really be mountain biking yet.
Can common sense alone be allowed to dictate?

Northwind

I always liked the idea of keywords or other short descriptors, to give a really concise summary of a trail... So you could have something like

Drumlanrig red: rooty/singletrack
Glentress red: fast/jumps

Obviously still open to interpretation, but since a lot of the problem of grading is down to varying skillsets it could help. (ie, I'm good at techy stuff but relatively poor in the air, so a red trail with loads of jumps that all the 10-year-olds fly down gives me more bother than steep evil piles of rocks that most people would push down)

You could add length and total climb too. The idea of grading for length just doesn't make sense to me since length and climb are so easy to understand anyway. So you end up with something like:
Balblair black: bedrock, slow, technical. 7 miles, 600m climb.

The "expected time" that some places use seems like a good idea on paper but isn't always all that helpful.

Anonymous

There's not a lot of jumps at Glentress Red though, apart from spooky woods.
There is a lot of rooty rutted singletrack though.

But, thinking again about the common sesne idea, it may be the right way to go.
Around here (and probably elsewhere, but I'm not familiar with them), we have loads of access to the cycling netwrok, and route No.5 passes through most villages.
The entire route is hundreds of miles long, but there's not a single sign anywhere saying that it's not suitable for people who are new to cycling, since their own common sense dictates that they're not going to ride the whole damned thing from North to South.

Northwind

yeehaamcgee wrote:

There's not a lot of jumps at Glentress Red though, apart from spooky woods.
There is a lot of rooty rutted singletrack though.

But, thinking again about the common sesne idea, it may be the right way to go.

Aye, that was a bit off the cuff (though tbh there's not that many roots on the main red. Maybe it should be jumps and berms/going too fast/braking bumps/skidding)

I no longer have any faith in common sense. People are, on average, mongos.

<edit- as I speak, a student is trying to get into my office by pushing her way through a glass panel, and is getting angry because nobody will let her in. What a spaz.>

<double edit- the forum doesn't like "m0ngos." Shame, that's a great word>

njee20

Can common sense alone be allowed to dictate?

But surely people go to trail centres because it takes the thinking out of riding, and part of that is knowing in advance (roughly) what a trail is like.

Yes people could exercise common sense, but if they turned up at a trail centre and there was Trail 1, 2 and 3, all of differing difficulty, with different obstacles but not really quantified in a comparative way, all have some roots and rocks how would they know which was which? At least by introducing grading people know straight off that the black is the biggest challenge whilst the green is the easiest. But yes, people definitely need to realise that because they once rode a black it doesn't mean they can ride any black.

AMcK

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Can common sense alone be allowed to dictate?

If only.

Sadly, we live in a "you should have told me" age of deferred responsibility where someone will sue for not being told their coffee would be hot when they spill it on themselves. So everything has to be plastered with H&S, and warnings etc.

And your dad and his son story suggests it can't be applied alone - the only one with any modicum of common sense was you.

Common sense dictates I should get on with some work. I'm suing this thread for being too interesting.

njee20

But that's fine in the 'real world', there aren't warnings on every precarious path that may be ridden by cyclists, but that's not what a trail centre is marketed as.

The skiing analogy is a good one, the gradings are a comparator that allows people to assess which routes are most appropriate for them in a centre designed for a purpose.

It's not about common sense, you don't know until you've been down something what it's like. Ditto non-trail centre trails, and there common sense rules. However, that's part of the point of trail centres, and as such you need some sort of grading, so people know what they're getting themselves in for.

Common sense/H&S etc aren't really relevant.

Anonymous

Is it the point of trail centers though?
They started out as a place to really test the mettle of riders, and a place for largely unbroken technical terrain - as opposed to natural trails where there was some considerable bike/hike.
Maybe it's the whole ethos of making them, or pretending they are, suitable for everyone that has to go.

njee20

Really?

I'd not have said they were ever like that. IMO just like a ski resort; a place with an accepted focal point where people can meet/congregate and ride marked trails in the local environment without having to worry about navigating, stiles, fences, sudden 20 foot vertical drops, and so on!

Wasn't CyB the first 'proper' trail centre? I'd not say it's ever been about being the most mental trails possible, they're designed to be rideable first and foremost!

AMcK

njee20 - I don't think we're really disagreeing though, are we?

Every precarious path or bridleway that could be cycled, isn't a dedicated trail centre that is owned, or managed, or marketed by an organisation that is open to litigation without an appropriate level of grading, description of the riding conditions etc.

So while it would be nice that common sense could be applied, and responsibility for the decision taken, it can't be solely relied upon. Which isn't too far from your response, right?

yeehaa - and your comment brings us neatly back round to the appropriate grading across various routes/trail centres.

njee20

Ah I see, I misunderstood your point, I thought you were saying that we couldn't remove the gradings from trails because of H&S gone mad and a lack of common sense, whereas IMO it's more that they're an intrinsic part of what a trail centre is.

supersonic

Or get rid of grades and just read up about the trails beforehand.

paul.skibum

Northwind wrote:

I always liked the idea of keywords or other short descriptors, to give a really concise summary of a trail... So you could have something like

Drumlanrig red: rooty/singletrack
Glentress red: fast/jumps

Obviously still open to interpretation, but since a lot of the problem of grading is down to varying skillsets it could help. (ie, I'm good at techy stuff but relatively poor in the air, so a red trail with loads of jumps that all the 10-year-olds fly down gives me more bother than steep evil piles of rocks that most people would push down)

You could add length and total climb too. The idea of grading for length just doesn't make sense to me since length and climb are so easy to understand anyway. So you end up with something like:
Balblair black: bedrock, slow, technical. 7 miles, 600m climb.

The "expected time" that some places use seems like a good idea on paper but isn't always all that helpful.

Good idea - we have a few blue's on our mountain and one - LTG is what I always describe as old school singletrack - all roots and drops and a few raised features - anyone who isnt a true mountain biker hates it and cant believe I prefer it to the motorway bmx bumps and berms runs. Descriptors next tot he colour would definitely give it a flavour - its also what all the trails designed by the local club in the valley have - little sign that says blue grade but then describes the trail - eg short steep climbs with fast loose descents some features.

bluechair84

It's possibly that the affect of Northwinds option would give us the same argument where someone would have the great idea of just turning those words into a single colour representative of the overall difficulty :shock:
I do like it, it would certainly help inform seasoned bikers, but i don't thinkt it would mean much to superdads who want to drag their kids out despite not being competant riders themselves. It's a double edged sword; you empower people to 'know' and its way over their heads. So you simplify it with bright colours and they are under informed.

Anonymous

njee20 wrote:

Wasn't CyB the first 'proper' trail centre? I'd not say it's ever been about being the most mental trails possible, they're designed to be rideable first and foremost!

I don't mean "mental", but it was certainly meant to be an entire loop of properly challenging riding for very keen mountain bikers. It was not a place for beginners to go and wobble around.
Remember that there's still people riding the same trails now, and claiming they found it tough going on modern AM machines - when it opened, rigids with crap brakes and crappier tyres were the order of the day.

supersonic

What consitutes a 'proper' trail centre? Overpriced cafe? ;-)

Shackster

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Remember that there's still people riding the same trails now, and claiming they found it tough going on modern AM machines - when it opened, rigids with crap brakes and crappier tyres were the order of the day.

Slightly off topic but -

I rode CYB in April on a mid 90's hardtail with V brakes and a pace fork with, at most, 50mm of travel. It was tough - some bits were f*****g scary - but just about rideable with my limited skills (though I did fall off a couple of times). In fact - the worst bit was the start section, which I believe is designed to put you off if you or your bike aren't up to it, as mentioned before on this thread (if it wasn't for the fact that my mates had effed off ahead then I might have thought better of it). Had a go on a mates Scott Spark the next day and I was completely sold on full suss as you can see from my sig!

angry_bird

supersonic wrote:

What consitutes a 'proper' trail centre? Overpriced cafe? ;-)

Personally I don't think trails should be graded by their hardest feature, they should be graded by how difficult/technical the overall ride is.

I think at the trailheads there should be some pictures of the trail though, showing some of the harder features/more interesting sections, just so people have an idea of what they will face, then at least they know what they're letting themselves in for.

As trail centres go I like the 7 Stanes, in particular Dalbeattie springs to mind, with a really comprehensive taster loop, obviouslt this isn't necesserily practical/possible at all trail centres. But something similar to what they've done at CyB at the start... if you can't ride that then turn back now and think about an easier trail sort of thing.

Richie63

Ha go away for a few hours and look what happens

Right

point one . There has been mentioned about reading up before hand .Well this is good if you can if you can't or circumstances dictate that you happen to be in the area and happen to have a day off work unexpectedly looked in a Good Mountain Bike Guide for the closest centre /riding location turned up and were charged a goodly wack for a over graded ride wouldn't you feel cheated... I was.

Point two . Why exactly would it be so hard to have some clarification across various centers surely people who run these places must get their grades from somewhere.Where and who grades the routes initially

Point Three . I'm glad the Peak District has managed to avoid the Trail center and we are served by some excellent guide books.

Point four. People love their world to be Convenient and trail centers cater for them fantastically and I wouldn't want them to go away. They are superb to meet your mates at select via their grading system a route that suits the group and let you have an enjoyable dat or two out.
For these reasons alone they should at least have some consistency so people from all areas have a common point of reference

supersonic

Point two: some just go for safety, so rate them garder than compared to others.

I just don't think you'll ever get an even standard of grading. What if a course is 95% easy fireroad, buth with an evil descent with a huge drop and no chicken run? This is blue, with a double black bit lol. So is that red overall?

Richie63

supersonic wrote:

Point two: some just go for safety, so rate them garder than compared to others.

I just don't think you'll ever get an even standard of grading. What if a course is 95% easy fireroad, buth with an evil descent with a huge drop and no chicken run? This is blue, with a double black bit lol. So is that red overall?

Isn't this the approach to the dh section at Wharncliffe

supersonic

Lol, was thinking about that haha!

Richie63

I've had a thought about the climbing grades thingy and in Australia they just had a sliding open ended scale from the last time I looked was from 1 to around 36 where there was no distinction about tech dificulty or danger.
Now based on trail centers I've ridden and albeit not that many I suggest the following to ponder

2 Bedgebuy

11 Dalby the race course
12 Grizedale northface
14 follow the Dog/ monkey ; red bull cyb
15 LLandegla normal
16 LLandegla With the new bit

19 Follow dog /Monkey with new black sections

26 Stainburn black route

Now this is based at riding these at speed and for seeing for a first time and I'm not saying these are any way correct just my opinion but alot of opinions and it should all settle out

Like the idea?

cooldad

As my original suggestion on injury level hasn't taken, how about four grades:
Yawn
Fun
Yeehaa (no relation to persons living or dead)
Scream like a girl