Forum menu
A lot of people have strong opinions about the trails at GT without understanding this sort of detail. So common to hear "its so boring and sanitised" vs "it's completely trashed, worse braking bumps than Morzine" in the space of a single day on a single section of trail.
Comes down a lot to what kind of trail it is.
IMO most (not all) of the red at GT is clearly designed to be a flow trail, and as such a 'sanitised' surface that allows you to carry speed into the various berms/jumps/drops is appropriate.
Certainly last time i was there (GT7) braking bumps were causing most of the field to totally ignore the entry to a couple of berms as it was faster (and gave less of a beating) to take an inside line to the centre of the berm and then scrub speed and turn tighter.
In an ideal world we'd have a 2nd (way-marked) red with a different character to appeal to people wanting things a bit rougher.
fifeandy - MemberCertainly last time i was there (GT7) braking bumps were causing most of the field to totally ignore the entry to a couple of berms as it was faster (and gave less of a beating) to take an inside line to the centre of the berm and then scrub speed and turn tighter.
When was this? The only places there were noteworthy braking bumps on this year's GT7 course, were on sections built for the GT7- not part of the red. They don't use much trailcentre at all for the Seven
(I solo'd it on the fatbike so I know where every bastard bump on the lap was 😉 )
One way to reduce the risk of unexpected line choices accelerating the speed that a trail wears out is to build trails so they're wider than they need to be.
Backing this up, it's what's done at Aston Hill. It's common to build or repair a trail and then cover half of it in brush again, leaving just a centre section clear.
Going the other way I saw a photo of the Afan valley the other day - having not ridden there for a few years it was great to see how 'natural' it's looking.
Pimpmaster Jazz - Member
One way to reduce the risk of unexpected line choices accelerating the speed that a trail wears out is to build trails so they're wider than they need to be.Backing this up, it's what's done at Aston Hill. It's common to build or repair a trail and then cover half of it in brush again, leaving just a centre section clear.
Going the other way I saw a photo of the Afan valley the other day - having not ridden there for a few years it was great to see how 'natural' it's looking.
It can be a good technique but if you build a trail twice as wide as it "needs" to be then it's going to take twice as long to build it! When the Trailfairies are doing maintenance work we usually can't leave a trail section closed at the end of a session, so sometimes we just won't have the manpower or time to employ resource intensive techniques such as this. 🙁
@Northwind - Magic Mushroom.
There were for sure worse bumps on the natural sections of the course, but clearly bad enough to upset the flow of the trail.
It can be a good technique but if you build a trail twice as wide as it "needs" to be then it's going to take twice as long to build it!
Very true. 🙁
fifeandy - Member@Northwind - Magic Mushroom.
Pff. Just going to have to disagree on that, there's no noteworthy braking bumps on magic mushroom, and the only thing on the section that can "give a beating" are the root plates that most folks choose to use the alt lines for (which is by design).
The trail isn't supposed to be smooth, and it's supposed to have different ways to approach it- naturally in the middle of an endurance race people will ride it differently to on a saturday afternoon, where magic mushroom is a 2 minute dash (I just rode it normally, roots and all, because I'm a terrible XC racer)
munrobiker - Member
I do stand by what I say, if it's an FC project or a council car park it's already been paid for and as a socialist I don't see why I should pay for state provided services.
What would Corbyn do I wonder? He'd insist all trail centres were publically owned and parking was state funded. No one would pay at the car park, we'd all have equal rights to a parking space and everyone would have to drive a Trabant. We'd also have state supplied mountain bikes, all the same.
Gisburn is pretty much the same, once we've finished the current bit of new trail (massively engineered, the whole length is bench cut and fully pitched under the gravel with sumps, drainage pipes and upside ditches dug well away from the trail it should survive an apocolypse or Gisburn riders and rain) we'll probably spend a year on big repair projects, rebuilding sections from the ground up, adding new features. We will get accused of sanitising it but at least it last a few more years.
I think you'll find most of the damage you see at glentress is made be various parts of my body and bike sliding along, down and sometimes across various features.
Most of the braking bumps aren't in the way if you can ride properly, they're all caused by golf that can't ride properly and go in too fast on the wrong line and then grab a hamfist full of brake. Anyway regarding non paying at GT, or really boils ma piss. Andy Wardman is one of the nicest, hardest working blokes in mountain biking. He does a ton of work behind the scenes putting forward the case for new trails and by not paying for parking you're giving the FC plenty of ammunition to say no. It's also a slap in the face for the likes of Chris, Northwind and a handful of others who do far more than their share of work. Chapeau gentleman.
@northwind. Rooty bits are fine - as you say, they are like that by design. Also totally agree its a different trail on an XC hardtail 5hrs in compared to weekend warrior on his enduro sled.
I just kinda think that if there's an obvious high speed berm on the trail its 'broken' when the most efficient way round it is not to use it.
Not a complaint in any way, just an opinion/observation.
@steven, i can't ride properly, so that's probably part of my problem 😳
Got my pass for the FOD online for £24 for the year I know there are loads of fee parking in the FOD know a lot of them just think its worth the money for the pass in the pedalway as I think it is safer than some of the other places.
Odd that you only have to pay to park at places that already have a cafe and bike wash to make money off you.
Parking at Brechfa, for example, is free.
I do stand by what I say, if it's an FC project or a council car park it's already been paid for and as a socialist I don't see why I should pay for state provided services.
The FC funding from govt only amounts to about £20m. That's covers their statutory duties such as providing safe free public access (on foot, and not necessarily with cafes and toilets etc) and environmental stewardship such as protection of at risk habitats such as heathland and peat bogs and species of plants and animals, ancient monuments etc. The rest of the money they make to pay for their business is generated through trading income such as selling wood, cafe income and car park charges.
For the FC to exist as it is today and provide the range of other (non essential) things such as toilets and bike trails, play facilities, viewing platforms and the like it needs to pay for them somehow as they're not part of the fc's statutory remit. The govt isn't giving the FC money to pay for trails for bikes, why would they do that.
The FC has to charge for parking at trailcentres to cover the cost of running the centre and all the non core activity there. Not all the money from bikers gets spent on trails, it gets spent on running the whole of the centre just like cafe income gets spent across all the activities etc. At some centres its timber incomes and estates incomes from other parts of the business that are propping up the trailcentres. If more people paid at centres you'd find it would soon enough start to find its way into better facilities as there'd be more money to go round. It's easy to justify additional budget for more stuff if there's an upturn in income. Any additional trading income doesn't go back to the govt anymore but gets saved up to pay for investment in the business, generally meaning new cafes, bike trails etc
joshvegas - Member
I think you'll find most of the damage you see at glentress is made be various parts of my body and bike sliding along, down and sometimes across various features.
Well in that case I think your moral obligation to actually make it to a Trailfairies session is pretty absolute! 🙂
I wholeheartedly agree with Steven's comments about Andy Wardman - he's a top bloke. And it's always great to hear kind words said about the Trailfairies!
And it's worth pointing out that a lot of FC maintenance work is done by volunteers. I started in the summer at Hicks Lodge. The Ranger is responsible for that, which is the National Forest cycle centre, and another site. They contract in some of the big machinery type jobs, but a lot of the signage, brashing, drainage and trail maintenance is down to one paid bloke(who's also the car park attendant/traffic warden) and a team of volunteers.
Who are all heartily sick of ****ing ragwort!
I popped over to Hopton Wood the other week, would've gladly paid a couple of quid to ride the trails there. In comparison to FoD, the Verderer's trail has gone right off after they repaired huge sections awhile back, all testy sections were sanitised.
ChrisL - Member
joshvegas - Member
I think you'll find most of the damage you see at glentress is made be various parts of my body and bike sliding along, down and sometimes across various features.
Well in that case I think your moral obligation to actually make it to a Trailfairies session is pretty absolute!
Not wrong can i bring my own mattock?
joshvegas - Member
Not wrong can i bring my own mattock?
I have done so in the past and various 'fairies bring their own preferred trail tools so I doubt anyone will try and stop you. 🙂
Like most people I pay the parking fee's and don't really think about it. But access to the forest is a good thing, so is the exercise and recreation that comes with that access. I'd like to think that access should be free of charge. Here in Wales things like museum admission is foc, payed for from general taxation. FC parking, footpaths and mtb trails should be the same.
Taxi25
No one wants to pay any tax though do they!
Can we expect 100% of the general population to fund our trailcentre habits? If that was the case all we'd have is green trails and blues at a push to get fat kids and their parents off the couch.
Agreed, but reverse that. I haven't been to a museum in years, but I guess some of my tax goes towards them. Can the beard history lot really expect the general population to fund their museum hobby.
nairnster - MemberAgreed, but reverse that. I haven't been to a museum in years, but I guess some of my tax goes towards them. Can the beard history lot really expect the general population to fund their museum hobby.
No, that's why most of them (who dont charge for tickets already) ask for contributions to support them. 😐
Oh, and they will all charge for parking.
Tricky one this...the money doesn't actually go towards trail upkeep, it gets swallowed up in the big machine and is used for whatever, the trail budgets are not feathered directly by this car parking charge.
In a lot of cases, a huge portion of cost to build has been from funding raised for it so isn't directly out the FC pocket.
The cost in a lot of places is a rip-off for what is there...and people feel genuinely aggrieved by having to pay.
The trails are built and provided by other funding, the FC have failed to plan a cost-effective maintenance schedule and lump this in to help raise funds for the overall FC scheme.
Saying all that, I pay every time but I do it grudgingly as I know none of it is used for trail upkeep or development.
It also provides a slightly more accurate idea of car numbers so entirely possible to show big differences in suggested numbers and reality...
Access is free of charge...arrive in/on a non-motorised believe and you don't pay. You aren't paying to use the forest, the fee is to allow you to park your vehicle in a parking space at a car park...if you don't use the car park, you don't need to pay.
Dick
Absolutely.
What we also forget is these places aren't generally just trailcentres, they are all things to all people. I work for the FC so call me biased if you like but sitting on the fence as a biker and guy with a family if you can take your family to one of these places for a whole day and all of you ride the trails, use the toilets, use the environment to picnic in, play on the play equipment and walk the walking trails, run the parkrun etc all for between £5 and £12 per day I think that's pretty good value. It does cost a lot of money to run these places and the alternative is that they just don't exist and there are no trails. Then as the centre doesn't exist there's no mtb ranger on site/ nearby to organise volunteer programmes and the wild trails just dont have anyone to manage them as well.
I work as a volunteer at a FoC site that has trails.
The parking charge is £5 ,and according to the staff ,95% of people pay it. When i walk around the car park i just don't see that figure.The parking charges are not enforced unless the reg no comes up as a serial offender.
The majority of the trail building is done by volunteers with the FoC supplying some equipment and materials.
Its not just cycle trails that the volunteers work on but virtually everything else.
We are told all the time the Commission is short of money and car parking fees will rise year on year,currently £5.My centre has the funding for number plate recognition cameras for the parking and may come into place next year.
Access is free of charge...arrive in/on a non-motorised believe and you don't pay
You know thats such an amazingly good idea I can't believe I hadn't thought of it already. So good infact, I invite you to come and share the experience with me. I've taken the liberty of knocking together a brief itinerary.
According to google its 86mi to Glentress (my nearest FC trail centre) by bike.
So I figure if we leave around 1am, allowing for a couple of short breaks we should be there by 10am, cafe will be open and we can grab some breakfast.
Probably hit the trails around 10:30, and if we keep the pace up, we should be able to get a lap each of the red and blue in time for a late lunch around 1:15pm. Another quick lap of the red will take us to about 3:15pm, sadly no time to stop for cake as we've still got a bit of a trek home again. Guessing we'll be a bit tired on the way home, so may be a bit slower. Figure we can make it home by midnight including a brief stop at the chippy. ~200miles all in, should make for a good day.
When did socialism extend to 'everything state provided should be free access AND should provide transport to the people to get them there'?
I'd like to think that access should be free of charge. Here in Wales things like museum admission is foc, payed for from general taxation. FC parking, footpaths and mtb trails should be the same.
I'd like that too. But like the public sector as a whole, the FC is being cut to the bone and needs to show itself to be worthy of funds or even *gasp* generate a profit. Unfortunately paying for parking is an easy fund-raiser, just as it is for local councils in town centres. It's arguable that this is short-sighted and self-destructive, but then you could also argue that there should be better funding for public services so they don't have to rely on other ways of generating income.
If you can ride to your local centre, then brilliant. If you can't then you should probably factor in parking charges - if you're driving 80 miles to get there, it seems a bit of a moot point on top of spending X amount on fuel, not to mention the costs of running a car.
£9 is now what it costs to get rid of three bags of rubble at my local tip. A day at Grizedale is starting to look like better value all the time.
Some of the ideas in this thread have put me right off socialism.
And FWIW I buy an annual Hamsterley pass and when filling in the details they know that I come for the biking and not (at least admittedly) for the Gruffalo.
£9 is now what it costs to get rid of three bags of rubble at my local tip. A day at Grizedale is starting to look like better value all the time.
Bit hard getting the rubble there on a bike though...
Bit hard getting the rubble there on a bike though.
You misunderstand. I drive there, pay the parking, then tip the rubble into the braking bumps. 🙂
If only the money from parking went back in to the trails. This might happen at some centres but none near me.
the FC is being cut to the bone and needs to show itself to be worthy of funds or even *gasp* generate a profit
problem with that of course is the perverse situation that if an activity is shown to turn a profit, it is quickly privatised. half the accounts work of the FC is probably trying not to make a profit. 😈
scottfitz - MemberIf only the money from parking went back in to the trails. This might happen at some centres but none near me.
What if, the money from parking was used to... maintain sufficient parking so you could use the free-to-use trails. How would you get to the trail-fairy trails if there was no parking provided or the tiny car park was full to overflowing and blocking the road in?
Someone told me at Dalby only 50% pay which I was pretty shocked by, that's across all users.
At Dalby you pay at the toll as you drive in. Unless they go in a different way i'm not sure how they avoid paying.
INMHO £2 parking is a billy bargain to park and ride the Swinley trails.
If you can't afford that then you can park for free in Camberley and ride across Barossa to get there.
This is why I stay away from trail centre pish pay for parking and the people you encounter
But like the public sector as a whole, the FC is being cut to the bone and needs to show itself to be worthy of funds or even *gasp* generate a profit
From the FC website:
The Forestry Commission manages land for conservation, timber production, heritage and for you to enjoy. [b]We are a non profit–making organisation [/b]and money raised from car parking goes towards maintaining visitor centres, play areas, bike trails and other facilities.
But you are right about government funding being cut to the bone, however this makes the making money from the forest estate part all the more important.
Best way to fund trails is to donate to the mtb organisation which maintains them, if any.
A few quid yes, I always drop a £1 or so innte donation cairn at Peaslake / Walking Bottom and was a Friend when I lived locally. I've made the odd donation to QECP and would have no qualms about parking elsewhere for free and riding in. Made a donation to Lady Canning and will probably never ride there (4hrs away)
More than a few quid for parking no. £10 for Theptford ? No idea what the riding is like but I wouldn't bother to go at all. £15 a day in Alps gets me chairlifts all day. £25 at BPW gets me the uplift.
I prefer natural trails anyway and they are free to horseriders so why pay carparking charges for the odd red trail ?
Access is free of charge...arrive in/on a non-motorised believe and you don't pay. You aren't paying to use the forest, the fee is to allow you to park your vehicle in a parking space at a car park...if you don't use the car park, you don't need to pay.
Again, I don't mind paying for car parking, but where the payment is only required of people using the MTB trails (where walking trails are also provided and maintained) I pay begrudgingly. I do bits of trailfairying where and when I can, although this year has been a bit hectic to manage anything more than chucking logs out of my way whilst on a ride.
philjunior - Member
Again, I don't mind paying for car parking, but where the payment is only required of people using the MTB trails (where walking trails are also provided and maintained) I pay begrudgingly.
I haven't encountered that before - where are car parking charges only levied for MTBers?
Many years ago somebody in the FCS tried something very cheeky with the Tweed Valley (Glentress/Innerleithen) annual permits. They were available with either MTB, horsey or walker friendly graphics. All were functionally the same (you didn't need an MTB one to use the car parks when MTBing) but the one with the MTB graphic cost 10 quid more than the others. I don't think that scheme lasted more than a year, though.