Forum menu
The other month while trying to decide wether to go do GT's black or Inners red i asked on here for opinions.
Also factoring a recent ride round Hebdon Bridge with a lovely bloke from off here (quality xc ride) and the fact that Stainburns WBT is now black not double black, it is surely time we found a way of grading things ourselves.
First of all we need to separate distance from technical ability.
Is it time we graded stuff according to our various members? Can we be honest enough about our own abilites to sort this out?
Can i suggest stainburn as a guide?
Is Jedi a double double black?
Have i had one pint of Lanlord too many?
Is that even possible?
would anyone agree on [b]any[/b] classification?
Yes it is possible to have a pint of Landlord too many.
Go to bed, you're waffling.
I'm a white water kayaker, don't get me started on grading. I'm sure the climbing boys and girls will be on the same page, as will the skiers and boarders etc.
A grading is useful to give you an idea of what a man-made trail might be like but everything can't be shoe-horned into grades and it only tells you about the hardest part of the trail. Go out, ride stuff. You can either ride it or you can't. Have a look, decide for yourself. It doesn't really matter about the grade, you're only on a bike, it's got brakes, you can get off. What's the worst that can happen?
is there really a problem with the current system? it picks up the same concept from Skiing, where it seems to work - but people will refer to things as a hard blue or an easy black when they disagree a bit with the ratings.
Compare that to say rock climbing where there are at least 3 different systems used none of which seems to have global acceptance, and agreement.
I would agree that distance and technical skill could be separated so e.g. you might call a route a Red-10 to say its 10 km long which inevitably makes it harder that a Red-5. But then if the Red 5 is a bloody hard climb - some people will find that much "tougher" than a longer ride over more gentle terrain that might have more technical features. But you can read the distance from the map easily (and if the map is good - have an idea of climbing).
The other issue is that routes become easier the more you do them, but also the more you do similar routes. So e.g. it seems like an easy red if you have done it 10 times or 10 routes with similar design/construction. But if its your first time it might still be a genuine red - and for repeat "users" ratings are not that important.
Gradings are only really tools of the trail centres - and are as much a way of them covering themselves as anything (new guy tries a black and gets hurt its his own fault). Plenty of MTB riders manage without gradings when riding in the rest of the country.
I do think distance/exertion needs to be seperate from skill level, most of glentress black would be red if it wasn't so bloody long frinstance.
I ignore grading..it's terrain that requires riding, deal with it as it comes, most if not all uk trails are built with a good view of what is coming up.
I'd ride with more caution on graded trails which in my opinion makes it more dangerous in the way of hesitancy.....I've ridden natural stuff Blind(1st time)that would be graded double black if not higher..if i did it knowing it would be difficult i wouldn't of cleared as much as i did through lack of momentum.
Grading IMO is for those who are not confident and comes as a warning of potential technical features, with such a vast variation of abilities what's red for some is black for others, as much as double black isn't worthy of grading at all for some riders.
I think the uk grading system has it about right, given the general standard of riding over here.
I was thinking something along the lines of grading things via some of the people who post on here rather than changing the FC system.
This way when you ask about a trail, natural or otherwise you will get an idea of its technical difficulty/highlights from someone who views things like you do.
I'm only semi serious and i realise it would require us to be honest about our abilities...
[i]I would agree that distance and technical skill could be separated [/i]
I agree Red-10
They're location specific too, and that's fairly unavoidable.
Thetford's trails would all be graded green/blue if it was national, but people who turn up there don't give a rats about what it's like compared to a trail centre 500 miles away, they want to know which trail is most appropriate to bimble round with a tag-along and which is better for a fast singletrack blast.
Red-10, this is Gold leader, do you copy?
Sorry!
I can see the sense in splitting the distance and severity, maybe a letter and a number would work (but riding a D7 wouldn't sound very impressive).
As Sharki says, it's all there to be ridden (with the exception of bike parks). In nature, it's just there, you either ride it or you don't. All the man made stuff is designed to be ridden. I'm guessing it's not in anyone's interest to go to the time and expense of building a black that can only be ridden by the top 1% of mountain bikers. Just doesn't make sense, so I consider all trail centre stuff ridable. Calling stuff a double black makes people aviod stuff they've probably ridden in the peaks or similar without thinking.
A better system would be nice but I don't see it ever happening. How would Sherwood Pines or Thetford feel if you told them they couldn't have a black route as it's all a bit jay around there?
[i]Red-10, this is Gold leader, do you copy?[/i]
😆
I rate The Raven at Brechfa proper black. I rode as much as I dared and found myself in situations that scared me - good stuff to work up to.