The Highest of Standards...

So, last time around I was loving singletrail and lamenting the fact that whilst progress is being made to access around the country, much of it focuses on the existing fireroad networks. Not much has really changed to be honest – I love the skinny, still try to avoid the fireroad where possible and don’t seem to be hearing of much singletrail being made available to MTBs.

Locally, however, some new trails in a Parks managed area are set to be built as shared use singletrail and actually formalise a few trails local riders have been using for years anyway – a very positive step, even more so given it links reasonably well to other shared use networks controlled by different land managers in the surrounding area. Anyway, part of the discussion with regards to this formalisation amongst riders has been about keeping the existing alignments, not pandering to the underlying feeling that seems too often to come from the risk adverse land managers, that all shared use trails have to be green or easier blue IMBA standard trails – especially when several new trails are to be built in this area, thus allowing for a bit of diversity without impacting anyone’s ability to get around and through this parcel of land.

What I find really intriguing about this is that it is the way the community are referencing that the nature of the trail is just as important as the fact that we have access – the exact thing I was trying to get at last time. Now, flow is a much spoken word in the trailbuilding world at the moment, but it really is the best descriptor. Fireroad is built for its primary purpose; to get from A to B and provide access where there otherwise would not be any. And that is fine and understandable. However, as trails built these days are about fun and enjoyment, not solely for practical purposes, then it makes total sense that each trail should serve to put a smile on face as you travel along it – and the flow is what gives the trail this characteristic.

Most of the talk of flow at present is in regard to IMBA-style Flow Trails; the rolling, swooping trails that make as much use of gravity as possible to give you your singletrail thrills. Beginners can ride and enjoy them just as much as expert riders can – just with speed adjusted according to ability. However, tight, twisty and technical is a different but equally valid type of flow, too. The important thing is that the flow stays consistent along its course or transitions in a non-intrusive way. Not an open, smoothly bermed, gravity assisted set of corners suddenly changing into barely handlebar wide trees, slippy roots with 180 degrees turns.

So, if the flow comes from this consistency, then it follows that the consistency has to come from having some sort of base standard for the type of terrain that the trail is situated on. And when it comes to standards, IMBA have really set them for MTB trails – and are leading the way in general too, with many land managers adopting these techniques for all trail construction – be it for MTB, walking, shared use or any other that doesn’t require heavier duty, road style construction.
Now, although that sounds a lot like blowing our own MTB trumpet, have a think about the trails you ridden. And in particular, the two extremes of that spectrum; your favourite trails and the ones where one ride was more than enough. The fun ones, even if not built in these IMBA standard times, generally show the same techniques and theories that IMBA promote; the flow will have you heading from corner to corner without the need to get heavily onto the brakes or the pedals between each turn; give you enough room through the corner to turn smoothly without resorting to Danny Macaskill style manoeuvres at every change of direction; give you options to challenge yourself by letting your tyres leave the ground or need to be precisely placed to continue without dismounting; they allow you to be prepared for what is coming, even if you don’t know exactly; they are consistent to themselves. The ones you dislike are the ones that show the opposite traits – full of steep steps or water bars on inclines that have you on the brakes or chewing the stem, depending on the direction you approach from; those zig-zag corners that are so sharp its hard work to get your bike around, even when you get off and walk them; basically, trails where the builders (like or not, often walkers!) have tried to conquer the terrain rather than work with it.

Additionally, every time a trail built to IMBA standard is laid down, holds up and lasts, it is another nail in the coffin of the argument that certain trails aren’t suitable for MTB use or that it is too hard to build trails that can accommodate MTBs. If we show that the standards used do hold up, then we get down to the nitty gritty, fact based aspect of the real argument; should there be a trail there or not? After all, if the unsuitable aspect is due to erosion or other user impact, then we can hold up, once again, the standards we use and the examples we’ve already constructed that prove otherwise. If the unsuitability is due to Flora or Fauna impact, surely any trail user, regardless of chosen method of use, would contribute to this? If the problem is due to other perceived issues – rider speed, risk of collision, for example – then, again, the IMBA standards accommodate the use of chokes, grade reversals and such to limit these – something that other standards do not address, leaving the problem unsolved ; if this is not enough, it does at least provide the positive of being able to show the willingness to work with land managers based on evidence and fact, rather than just demanding access with no provision in overcoming any of the concerns that the land managers may have.

So, in terms of land access, what does this mean?

We have to keep fighting for appropriate access – not only singletrail, but the right singletrail. The singletrail that gives us great riding, but which also shows that MTBs are appropriate for use on the trails. And if we get the opportunity to build some new stuff, we have to do it in way that shows the practicality of the standards we so often refer to when lobbying for these opportunities; use the standards appropriately and we have trails that are sustainable, in terms of the trail itself and in terms of giving riders something fun, enjoyable and worth riding so as to stop some elements of our community from going and building their own inappropriate stuff elsewhere instead, which ultimately helps no-one.

And if we can build trails that keep us happy by being fun to ride on, whilst also keeping the land managers happy by reducing the problems they may have envisioned or previously encountered, then we open up more opportunities elsewhere for trail access and chip away at getting further trails green-lighted for MTB use. And that is what we all want.

VIVA LA SINGLETRAIL - Pictorial!

A few great shots from my friend Brian over in Colorado, taken at Fruita... Love That Singletrail!

VIVA LA SINGLETRAIL!

Fireroads can be really boring.

After various hold ups en-route to a recent ride, combined with the “exploratory” nature of the first section of the ride making for slow going, my riding buddy and I called it early and bailed down a familiar fireroad and back to the car. We’ve ridden this fireroad before and, in fairness, when ridden in our usual fashion, the high speed descent it provides is a welcome change to the long grind preceding it and is kind of fun in its own way.

But not on this night. Sure, it was riding bikes which is a far superior option to watching Saturday evening TV, there were several ‘Roos to say ‘Hi’ to, the creek was flowing and gurgling for the first time a long time after the first Autumnal rain; it was certainly better to be out on the bike than not riding. But after the excitement and a little drama with some of the navigational decisions we’d had to make on the way in, a bit of bush bashing along overgrown and somewhat forgotten trail giving way to pretty cool views over the lights of Adelaide, the fireroad descent left me feeling a bit numb. Especially as our intended descent was one of the prime singletrail descents from the hills to the plains. The ride just sort of fizzled away; it was a ‘boring’ finish, not one that that had you contemplating a quick climb back up the hill for another go.

So, singletrail is where it’s at for me. I’m sure many of you feel the same. There are times and places that firetrail or road linkages are needed; feedback from the Kona Dirty Weekend 24 hour held in the Adelaide Hills over Easter asked for a bit less singletrail, which makes sense when the sleep demons are attacking at 3am and you need a chance to eat and drink more easily than the singletrail allows, but outside of racing, let singletrail reign.

Yet, if we are not careful, we may very well end up with access to our parks and reserves only in the form of firetrails.

For various reasons, walkers are less opposed to bikes on firetrails than singletrail and Parks departments seem to follow this thinking, too. For Parks accountants, providing access within their budgetary constraints, it is a low cost option – no construction costs, with upkeep covered by fire management practices as is – which surely makes it attractive.

For walkers, it is a “safe bet” in the politics of trail access. The longer sightlines fireroads provide appear to make them a ‘safer’ option in many walkers’ eyes, who often quote ‘risk of collision’ as a major concern. Yet the direct nature of their routing and lack of Technical Trail Features (by their very nature) to prompt much in the way of speed control, means even the most inexperienced of riders can gather a lot of momentum very quickly. Conversely, the rises, falls, twists and turns of singletrail generally keep a rider’s speed more manageable, (even though you feel fast due to the enclosed nature of the trail) should other users be encountered.

With higher speeds surely resulting in greater drama should rider hit trail or – worse still – hit another trail user, surely the risk on firetrail must, in balance, equate to that perceived by other in regards to singletrail? With less technical challenge to keep rider’s interest in the trail, what will stop ‘boredom’ creeping in, leading to the use of non-designated trails in search of such challenge? Or worse yet, start building unauthorised trails to provide the challenge they seek?

When considered in this way, you start to wonder; Are we making headway with access to Parks? Or are we being set up to fail due to the lack of singletrail access being offered?

I know I welcome access to our Parks – absolutely, I do! – but I will continue to do what I can to get more singletrail onto the agenda, however many obstructions presented. I’d rather we had 10km of quality singletrail than 25kms of fireroad – though ideally I’d want more of both!

So, whilst I’ll ride this aforementioned ‘boring’ fireroad again at some point in the future, I reckon the few small sections of singletrail we scouted on our ride will win out more often than not. Whilst we may get some form of access to our Parks, we must keep on keeping on for the singletrail access we all want and not give up, however hard it may seem.

Viva La Singletrail!