 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
On the whole the Red Route avoids the gratuitous technical sections you find on some other trails.
This bizarre statement is on the British Cycling Review of Dalby Forest Red Route on [url= http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/recreation/article/wtr-recreation-yorks-Dalby-Forest-Red-Route-0 ]Keep MTB rolling[/url]
I'm flabbergasted. How can a technical section on a mountain bike route be gratuitous. That's the whole point of mountain biking. If it's not technical then it's not mountain biking.
Surely Mountain Biking requires only 2 things
1. A mountain
2. A bike
😕
That's the whole point of mountain biking.
Are you speaking for everyone there ?
If it's not technical then it's not mountain biking.
Yes it is.
No it is not it is mincerbiking 😉
presumably trail centre folk [ or the revuewers] want fast manicured paths to zip down quickly???
I think it refers to trail centres who think sticking a jumble of rocks into a stretch of singletrack without thought or context is an inherent improvement.
British cycling for you. You ever been to any of their XC races?!
Some people do. I guess that the point is that trail centres have to cater for everyone, including people who aren't really 'mountain bikers' and probably just like to go for a spin on their mtbs on terrain that doesn't terrify them.
If it's not technical then it's not mountain biking.
Who put you in charge? Some people like technical, some people like rolling. Some people like to walk up mountains, others aren't happy unless they're roped up and clinging on by their fingernails.
There would be more validity in arguing that if it's not a mountain then it's not mountain biking. That's us in the UK knackered then.
I think they explain it pretty well in the full piece. they describe the whole route as being good rather than throwing in some extra obstacles to up the grading. To be honest I really can't see how anyone could fail to grasp their meaning.
It's hard to imagine 'gratuitous' technical sections on a red run.
Having black graded features as optional extras on a green or blue might be gratuitous, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Who put you in charge? Some people like technical, some people like rolling. Some people like to walk up mountains, others aren't happy unless they're roped up and clinging on by their fingernails.
You'd expect a certain number of technical features on a red route. I think everyone would be pissed off to ride a route graded red and find it was for distance only.
It's a really rubbish phrase... But I can sort of see what they mean.
I find trail centres a bit "by numbers" sometimes. "Here's the smooth bit, now it's rocky, now we need drops" it can feel a bit forced. Rather than just using what's there it looks and feels enhanced, I guess you could argue that was gratuitous.....
I think it's just that. See the Stickler rock* garden at Swinley for a perfect example.
More to the point, that review bears no resemblance to Dalby at all!
It's long - yup
It's featureless for long sections - (I think that's what your quotes getting at)
But:
It gains height painfully, then meanders through not quite flat sections that sap speed (and in some palces the will to even pedal), then plumets you back down the valley. Not sure what the reviewer does like, but I'd take 5 minute decents over Dalby's plumets any day!
It's not that well maintained either, I'm not complaining, I prefer a bit of rough, but I wasn't a fan of the trails whether they were smooth or worn in. I just didn't get it, compared to trails like Swinley (which is flatter) or GT (which has a bigger set of hills) which both flowed better.
*note, singular, rock
I think it refers to trail centres who think sticking a jumble of rocks into a stretch of singletrack without thought or context is an inherent improvement.
Agreed. Many blues are more fun than the red/blacks as they tend to be more swoopy and let you (attempt to) carry speed. The rock gardens for the sake of it seem to be more a test of if you've bought enough travel or not, judging by how most people ride them.
I think they mean unnecessarily technical sections that add no value other than difficulty. If they do, I agree those bits are pointless if your gonna have gnaar at least make it fun.
The rock gardens for the sake of it seem to be more a test of if you've bought enough travel or not, judging by how most people ride them.
IME they are sanatised pieces of pretend rockiness [ degla for example] that are built to be ridden so you dont need travel [ or much] skill
That said i have ridden very few trail centres.
I've not ridden there but sometimes you ride a nontechnical blasty type trail then all of a sudden there's a tech feature, then back to nontechnical blasty. That I'd call gratuitous, breaks with the character of the trail.
Have you informed The Campaign for Real Trails?
CART take this kind of nonsense very seriously indeed.
We recently held a one man protest at Llandegla where I singlehandedly moaned for five minutes at the price of parking, pushed a small child off his balance bike and placed a handfull of really quite large pebbles at the top of the climb.
It's the only language these bastards understand.
[b]The rock gardens for the sake of it seem to be more a test of if you've bought enough travel or not, judging by how most people ride them.[/b]IME they are sanatised pieces of pretend rockiness [ degla for example] that are built to be ridden so you dont need travel [ or much] skill
I blame Rowan Sorrell. 🙂
Heard a fair few people rate Rimdinger as their favourite bit of bpw.
To my thinking it's akin to a theme park ride, all it requires of you is to hold on to the bars. [b]That's[/b] a gratuitous section.
As a
Ways, ymmv.
That's the whole point of mountain biking. If it's not technical then it's not mountain biking.
Ooooohhh yer so rad to the gnar...
I would expect a "Gratuitous" technical section to be largely like any other technical trail, but with lots of pornography scattered throughout the undergrowth to either side...
The challenge of riding such a trail is increased as you struggle not to allow your attention to be dragged away by pictures of lady parts in your peripheral vision...
It is a UCI/BC endorsed and graded trail feature, they were going to have it for the Olympic XC course but the IOC got a bit funny about it...
They mean that they look like boobs.
Gratuitous = [i]adj.[/i] done without good reason; uncalled for
A gratuitous technical section is 50-100m of totally artificial tricky bit every 5km to justify the "grade". You can be genuinely technically challenging without being artificial or out of character with the rest of the route.
That's the whole point of mountain biking. If it's not technical then it's not mountain biking.
It's not now really is it. While it's great fun it's not what makes mountain biking.
[quote=MSP ]I think they explain it pretty well in the full piece. they describe the whole route as being good rather than throwing in some extra obstacles to up the grading. To be honest I really can't see how anyone could fail to grasp their meaning.
Not been here long?
Who put all them gratuitous bits in the Peak then?
But that's the point.if the trail wasn't built for cycling the technical bits aren't gratuitous are they. They are caused by erosion, the bed Rock and or features built for other purposes.