Think it'll be too big though appreciate the offer (5'10", 312 inside leg). Figure I'm probably 54 or 56 cm frame at most.

Any idea of weight?

No worries. I was out on Tuesday as well at Buck Woods and there were a couple of lads there trying the PT as well. Ohe had a Kona FS and swapped for a few laps with his mate. You can see why I asked …

Get "Pumptrack Nation" from McCormack's site ($10 ebook / pdf). Whilst it's mostly about digging / building them, and for that he will always be a God in my eyes ;-), there is a useful section about riding. Worth it for the money IMO.

Alternatively get his book, Mastering Mountainbike Skills (II). Just out now and the guy has a gift for putting things into words.

Were you at Thackley / Buck Woods?

[potential weird co-incidence / stalker-like content]

I did a training day with Ed Oxley at Gisburn and we worked on this very thing Basically you need to do any/all of your braking before you start the burm, first part is the same as soaking up a riser the second part/exit of the burm is were you pump.

There are also different lines through burms that depend on where you enter it and where you exit it and also there are different points where you take a high line and a lower line. They need to be really looked at first, i did the course with some mates and we watched each other coming through them which was very helpful.

The other thing i should mention is your body positioning is very important too, you need to be more upright and lean the bike over so this makes the sidewasll nobbles on your tyre dig in where as if you rail it like you're on a motorbike you have less grip.

Hope that helps, i would recommend going on Ed's course, you would gain a lot from it, there was 7 of us and most were experienced riders but everyone came away with something that made us better at riding wherever we are

I think that's all fine for trail riding but not so relevant to PTs.

Trawl thru leelikesbikes.com, Lee McCormack is a bit of a god in PT terms and very good at explaining such things through words.

The idea of a berm being a roller in a different axis is a good one though, although it might be awkward to visualise / apply. Trying to explain, badly, on a PT there's a roller at each end of a berm(just like there's a straight between two rollers). Drive through your legs on the backside of the entry roller, aim to be driving most in the apex of the turn (or just hanging on ;-) and then go light on the face of the exit roller, but just leant over a bit.

Trust the berm, if it's well built it should carry you round without any real need to brake. Berms on a PT should be configured so your body can be aligned on the same plane as your bike, although it's leaning over. Christ – words fail me ;-) McCormack does good diagrams too! Whatever, riding berms on PTs is not about setting the edge of your tyres for traction.

Keep your head up and look through to the exit.

You can probably go a load faster through (good) berms than you imagine / feel comfortable at first. Good berms will work for you and keep you safe. At least until you cock it up a bit and are suddenly way fast and not in control (my fractured rib!).

Try practicing by pedalling into them fast, then driving with the legs and slingshotting out. If you get the feeling under speed you know what to aim for when pumping.

Sorry, I've built and ridden a few but explaining it is tricky.

McCormack is the answer ;-)

Also worth pumping your tyres hard and locking out / compression damping forks and shocks.

Being done by Phil Saxena (the smiley bloke in the last pic). I've talked to him recently and he's pretty pleased with how it's all shaping up (working on behalf of the local authority IIRC). I believe there might be a Phase 2 as well.

The note on those pics ("photos staged, trail not open yet") is pretty clear. Given most riders just do what the hell they want with little regard for construction, better to keep it QT and give everything chance to bed in, bind up and consolidate before it starts to take much traffic. Probably explains the general silence.

I know Phil is still up there at the moment with crew working on it. Looks good and will be interested to try it when finished / open.

I'll be there.

Anyone who fancies psoing for a photograher needs to bring a bike and riding kit. Met some guy who wants some practice snapping riders coming towards / past him at speed with his new lens. If there's some good ones they'll probably get used on the site.

Barrows would be good if anyone who is coing has one / the room to bring them. Otherwise we have a few on site.

Pump tracks are for Northern Monkeys

Yes?

Us "thin skiined" volunteer trail builders need to stick together ;-)

I saw Huw at the WC in Dalby and he was raving about the new stuff you'd both been involved with at Cannock, glad to hear it's going well.

Knacker is riding the Monkey this Sunday to see if he can steal any ideas for Stainburn ;-) All you need now is a pump track.

Edit: the first line is tongue-in-cheek but I have come across people that feel volunteer trailbuilding groups are elitist / closed / something "other". All I can say is, predominantly based on my experience of SingletrAction, that that couldn't be farther from the truth. I don't know if the perception is common and puts people off participating but it's crazy. We welcome anyone and everyone daft enough to have a go.

The only thing we're a touch chippy about is what has been mentioned above, folks jumping straight in with both boots about designs and building. People need to get to know each other a bit before going all "clever bugger" ;-)

There's a balance to be had between:

Building something out of the local materials in a cost effective way and expecting people to ride with "respect" for the construction's "weaknesses".

and

Building a trail of a nature that will withstand the riders / use / behaviour that it will receive.

I'd love the former to be the case but, IMO, it's probably unrealistic. People ride how they ride, better (if you can) to take that on board at the design and construction stages.

(Comments made in ignorance of any of the specifics of the Monkey Trail, not trying to apply perfect hindsight etc)

Only time will tell how a trail will turn out and even then it'll often continue to change with riding, weathering and erosion (albeit usually slower than during the first bedding in period). The bedding in period is another balance (or happenstance) of construction, use and weather. I bet it'll be generally fine and what isn't will be sorted. Trails evolve, vary and morph over time, it's just something to be expected and embraced (because it's unavoidable, unless you want black top ;-). It's only the degree of change and a large dose of subjectivity that determines whether it's a "success" or "failure".

However, diggers always prefer to hear nice things about their trails. That's how it should be, better to encourage and keep people enthused (for the repair work!) than wear them down under criticism and negativity. There's a way of engaging and providing constructive feedback. And of course there's the other chestnut, it'd be great to see all those with such keen and perceptive talents at digs to help rectify issues.

8-)
Tim, SingletrAction

Furthermore, for a route that takes you out beyond the more populated areas, I saw no "Escape" signage, surely a given on such Red graded route?

I don't want a fatality or serious accident any more than you do, but it seems to me there are some glaring omissions here that could be exploited in a court of law.
This would not be a good development either for Cannock Chase nor every other Forestry Commission mountain bike area, so I'd be keen to see these loop holes closed thus preventing a legal precedent being established.

Sad to say, but this has been the only red graded trail where I mistrusted the trail builders / designers & so I took it easier than normal; contrast that to somewhere like Penmachno where you get a real sense of the designer's intentions and so it flows, ever faster & so seemlessly.

I was kind of listening to you before, just doesn't seem worth the effort now.

The point I was making is that it seemed to me that the course designer seemed to have taken the best bits of other trails and transplanted them on the Brum hillside. The switch-backs leave a lot to be desired.

I hope it works out for you, but I wonder if anyone has taken the time to tell the Highways Agency that you're expecting thousands of riders across that busy main road. If not, may I suggest you take some legal advice as there seems to be a shortcoming in the business plan where "Duty of Care" is concerned, it seems to me.

If it's been three years in the making then there's no excuse for there not to be better signage both for the riders and the motorists & this is something that needs your urgent attention.

Wow, are you really as sanctimonious and high-handed as that makes you sound?

Congratulations to the people who took the time and made the effort to create something. Whatever it is, it has to be be far, far better than the nothing that is likely to have existed otherwise.

Presumably you can legally push a bike up this section as explained in the route book I used.

Do a forum search for all the kerfuffle about a pushing on a footpath around Bradford. Consensus from the RoW officers at Local Authority there was that you can't push a bike on a fp. So getting it upgraded to BW will protect / establish you a right of access. Guidebook means sweet FA in such situations.

Better to protect and improve what limited rights we have than leave them exposed / vulnerable to being extinguished.

Send it to Mark, Chips, Benji or Matt and I bet they'll put it on the front page for you. More likely to generate greater support if you do.

We've put it on front page of SingletrAction: http://www.singletraction.co.uk/index.php But we don't get a huge amount of traffic.

I suspect Bikeradar, bikemagic etc etc would also probably do the same for you (if you haven't tried them already). Maybe CTC and IMBA?

Will fill it in tonight. Good luck 8-)

I think people are mostly saying they're happy to pay, not that they think they should have to.

Sorry, I'm probably coming across as a pedant but the key difference is compunction (i.e. parking charges) or voluntary contribution. At FE sites you're not talking about voluntary charges, you're talking about being compuned (??) to pay a fee.

I agree that most people seem happy to contribute (rather than "pay" which implies having to give the money) on the assumption that it's going into the trail. As I've said, I don't think that usually occurs on FE sites.

In any case that acceptance is based on the fact that they think there is something to pay for in the first place. I don't think there is because it's already come out of taxes etc.

Hey, if anyone really wants to pay for the joy of having a trail then SingletrAction would be more than happy to receive your cash ;-) I've just had to buy £250 of aggregate to surface the Descent Line Extension (well, not me the club) And we've not got a parking meter (and it's on FE managed land.

My, what a mass of contradictions I am ;-)

to ride slick, purpose built trails

LOL, I prefer a few lumps and bumps myself otherwise you might as well be on a road bike ;-)

There's a big difference between riding a public bridleway and riding purpose built mtb trails at an FC centre.

Trail centres might be on 'public' land but generally they are not routes A-B. They are leisure facilities built purely for the enjoyment of mountain bikers so a contribution seems fair enough really.

I figured you might feel that way, hence the examples. Why and exactly what is the "big difference"?

Public land is public land. Managed by whatever authority through taxpayer funds eg. Council tax to local authority, budget for up keep of BW's etc. Tax dollars to central Govt which some goes to FE whilst rest of operational costs etc comes out of revenue (see point before about it being ours and that there's no major CAPEX as it's public property). The landowner / manager isn't a significant difference between the scenarios to make them incomparable, in my mind.

Not sure why the route is a distinction either. Public ROW are maintained for all sorts of reasons and I'd hazard a guess that the majority of ROW exist nowadays for enjoyment (whether in a circle or straight line). There's little droving and yomping to get from the country to market in town etc ;-) What I mean is, they're no longer essential transport infrastructure that the LA should maintain, most of it really is for health, leisure and enjoyment (much like MTB trails).

A point of detail – trails are rarely (on FE land) ever "purely for MTBers" either. Standard FE policy for trails is to encourage their use by only MTB but they won't (possibly can't) deny access to walkers etc. They're built because there's a mandate on FC from Govt to do so.

If they're a Govt / publicly owned and funded body how come we have to pay again for something we're already paying for? We're already contributing through our taxes etc.

Again, I find the acceptance that you have to pay to enjoy yourself a bit wrong. I also find the assumption that paying a car parking toll in some way (at FE centres) directly contributes to trail maintenance and upkeep, or even off setting the CAPEX wrong as well.

IIRC the vast majority of funding for the 7 Stanes came from Opportunity 1 funding. That all comes from Europe. Where do they get their cash from? Taxes! So you see, car parking income isn't off setting CAPEX for initial development (usually the major expenditure).

Hey ho, not looking to have fight, just interested in why people think, automatically it seems, that you always have to pay.

Oh, and the class war bollox is just that, bollox ;-)

skanky mini conifers

LOL

Yeah, the only difference with FC is that the trees are bigger ;-)

Remember, the car park fees contribute towards the upkeep of the t[r]ails!

Not necessarily. Certainly not at Dalby (as someone mentioned). I doubt it's the case in the majority of FE sites. They tend to avoid ring fencing income to specific activities. Much easier if it goes in one big, amorphous pot for them to decide what to do with.

Whilst some form of contribution at some places is probably fine and if it goes towards upkeep and maintenance then great. HOwever, FE/C is a Gvt quango already paid for in large part by tax payer dollars and revenue, mostly from timber (that revenue is ours already as we're paying for the organisation).

They have a mandate placed on them by Govt to achieve certain goals through manangement of the Crown Estate and any other sites they look after.

I find the (blind?) assumption that we should all pay a bit strange really. It's an outdoor activity on (usually) public land, how come it's so automatic that we should suddenly pay? I always liked the fact that most stuff in the hills is/was free (ish). Does this assumption extend to people when they're out walking? How come it doesn't extend to tolls on bridleways etc as they're also riding a taxpayer maintained bit of infrastructure?

I just find (what appears from reading some of the posts above) the assumption of pay it, you can afford it (it's nothing to you rich boy – how very "class war" ;-) ) and it goes into the trails all a bit blinkered. Some folks seem to accept that we should pay for anything and everything and I don't.

Hey ho.

8-)

I'm off, i've had enough of this and i've got work to do.

The new trails are ace. Fact. That is the important thing.

Too right :-)

I gave a talk to the last IMBA conference about the difficulties faced by [volunteer] trail builders. In no particular order:

1. FE (whoops ;-)
2. MTBers

The room went quiet, LOL.

Just look at this discussion, the one about folks riding Drumlarig (sp?) etc etc. No wonder we struggle to get anywhere and seem to achieve so little given the size, income and frequency of MTBing.

Funk 'em ;-)

Sensible, fact based, logical arguments – all wasted on tHora. The man who is a legend in his own lunchtime.

Next you'll either do something daft like try and buy stuff off him or, worse still, waste your breath and time offering him advice.

;-)

there are proposals for a red-grade trail and a skills area adjacent to this site.

Out of tHora's league ;-P

Got this in late 2008 from FE:

… As you say how long is a piece of string, but given a trail width of average 1.0m (that would develop down too a line of 500mm in a couple of years) and the contractor has to supply all the stone you start at £15/m. A bit less if he can win material on site and amore if the site is remote, wet or poor access. Don't forget site prep costs such as felling and clearing and of course signage, but that figure should include normal drainage.

Think it includes mobilisation and site set up but as he says, not preliminaries. However, it sounds like you might not have many.

To make things affordable I would do a combined strategy of fully armoured where necessary, sirt where possible, colunteer built in places and utilise existing (if they do) to save on metreage.

Don't think that rate includes for fancy stuff like walking diggers etc.

Hora – to save this discussion going round in another circle you'd probably be better reading the rest of the thread. Not that the answer will be all that clear.

user groups

If there was ever a group of users without a proper, formal "group" I reckon it's MTBers.

I believe BradMet are promoting a permissive bridleway alternative route in the area in an attempt to pour oil on troubled waters. What the ultimate aim is I don't know.

Quite often trail centres improve over time. I went to Lee Quarry after the first build phase and enjoyed bits but wasn't blown away overall (except on top!). I've heard from the same guys who went at the time that the subsequent build phases have improved it significantly. Would there have been any point in lambasting it after Phase 1? Not IMO.

It is incredibly easy to find fault, especially when enjoyment is such a personal and subjective experience. Especially so if you only know a little bit about what's behind a project (honestly, they're like icebergs ;-)

I've ridden both Gis' and Lee Quarry and seen the pro's and con's in each. IMO it's better to be doing something, even if some bits are done "wrong"/"badly" (so long as you're learning at the same time), than not be doing anything significant at all.

If that appears to be faint praise then it shouldn't be taken as such. I appluad all the folks behind both projects for giving a sh1t and having a damn good stab at it. So what if there's a few bits of contention? It's a learning process. Taken as a whole, and seeing the rammed car park on a cold, wet, sh1tty Sunday morning I think it's safe to assume there's an awful lot of people that think Gis' is worth the effort. I suspect Lee is just the same. Still, there are always people who will know that really some places are sh1t, despite their apparent appeal. Funny, eh ;-)

I don't even bother asking whether the critics know anything about or have done any trail building before. No one ever admits ignorance. It's always "I was out digging my local trails last weekend" but there's never any chance or enough detail to cast a critical eye over their efforts ;-)

Peace & Love & Best Wishes

Tim (SingletrAction)

Gritty – not sure if we can help but you're welcome to ask for help on the SingletrAction.org.uk website.

Been shoutted at a few times myself, never much fun ;-)

Byways and Bridleways Trust probably a good port of call.

Tim aka Cheeeky Monkey aka SingletrAction Chair.

I'm with Barca on this one, put it better than I did.

Even if it did take only two hours it takes many years to get to that level.

Doesn't really compute. It's typically the rate per hour which reflects the "years to get to that level", not the number of hours (which, the more skilled you are, should be less).

Besides, as the great CLassifieds Debates have taught us, isn't something only worth what people are prepared to pay for it?

Dunno about the pricing but CRC was knocking out some WTB Weirwolfs. Quite like them as a front tyre over my previous favourite Bonty Big Earls.

SB – you have my sympathies. Some of the responses and attitiudes on this thread are almost unbelievable. And even if your offer wasn't perfectly worded so what? Jesus people, get over yourselves.

And M_F – your business analogy is a bit poor. Maybe you should concentrate on educating/managing your punters so they pay fair prices for the amount of work you do rather than dicking one and using the profit there to offset the expense of servicing the fussy one.

Bit surprised you haven't made a conection between the fact some people (in your opinion) don't value design work and the fact you don't actually charge them for the real cost of dealing with them.

Super tech challenge – go to Stainburn, long XC trail – go to Dalby. Both good, both different, each to their own and all that 8-)

Haven't been up but quite a bit of Stainburn is in woods so it should be sheltered. There has been snow in Leeds recently but temps have risen and a lot has melted off. More will lie at Stainburn given it's out in the country / higher / colder. I think I would chance it.

Boulder trail is fully armoured construction (in theory, there are some muddy parts) and whilst I appreciate it's always nice in the sun the place is rideable year round. Some people find it slippy / greasy but not so bad IMO.

Go and hate it and you can easily salvage a ride by taking up Rob's suggestion of Scar House (providing you're out earlier in the day).

"Big" sussers can be more hindrance than help on the Double Black (although lovely for the Descent Line). Shorter travel FS or LT HT are probably ideal. All intended to be rideable on a HT, rock whatever you want though as we've seen all sorts there. It won't be the bike that holds you back ;-)

Usually people around throughout the day as well. Pads and a bash ring can help reduce the fear factor and big ring grinding common on the trails.

Norwood (other side form the car park) is worth a look and there's a rough map somewhere in the Stainburn section of the SingletrAction.org.uk forum (main site has been down with server problems recently, forum still OK though). Ask on there for more locals advice although you've had a few respond here. Norwood is likely to be much muddier and the trails more "old skool" following felling work and resulting disturbance.

"Pay to ride" has pros and cons – it's not really what MTBing's about for most people, but on the other hand it gives you a bargaining chip (income from a lease),

But why take on a lease? The FE are tasked by Govt to manage the Public Forest Estate. They are a semi-commercial company with expertise and resources that should be able to manage a few MTB trails in a wood. Why try and push anymore than is necessary onto a voluntary group? WHy do a group of volunteers need to front up cash as a bargaining chip, I'm not denying commercial realities, trails have some costs, but why is it always that volunteers / users have to be the cash cows?

makes you get organised rather than being a load of faceless voices on forums, and puts off the flakey types who don't want to look after or improve the place.

I disagree, the ability or willingness to pay some money does not guarantee or accurately reflect the desire, commitment or effort people will put in. The only reason to charge fees for a trail building club is the generation of funds to support the most practical elements of construction (tools and hardcore) and cover the minimum of legal requirements e.g. insurance (although if you're helping FE meet some of their Govt imposed targets there seems a good argument for them to foot that bill ;-)

Hell, what about the value of the volunteers time? We haven't added it up for a while but I imagine SingeltrAction's efforts over the years will be wellinto the 10s of thousands if not 100s.

What CTC offer, besides the clout of a national organisation,

I know Ian Warby and have dealt with him a bit. He seems a good bloke with MTB and its interests at heart. But, whilst I'm prepared to be honest about IMBA UK I'll also be the same about CTC. What real clout have they got with FE about trailbuilding? Also, this sort of set up seems more typical of what IMBA (should?) be doing, I didn't realise it was such a strong area for CTC. A whole other argument though possibly.

is basically taking care of the admin side for you, so there's less time spent hassling people for membership renewals, etc. If you're prepared to deal with this yourself, you could form your own club,

If we've managed it can't be that hard ;-)

work out your own lease with the FC and get insurance/accreditation through British Cycling instead, giving a rock bottom membership cost along the lines of what Cheeky's talking about.

Not really. I am not advocating anyone lease the land and take on all the responsibilities. As above, that's FE's job. When they've tried to get us to siogn leases (I've seen them for "our" sites and others have asked me about them) I've always strongly resisted. What volunteer wants to sign up to the liability involved? What volunteer is suitable?

It's also FE's job to promote recreation, health and use of the Public Forest Estate for the population. A volunteer group stepping up, putting their own time and effort in for free and helping them deliver on their performance indicators should be supported and engaged with, not made to do everything themselves.

God I'm in a ranty mood today 8-)

The FC develop the major trail centres like the Stanes, the Welsh ones, Dalby, etc and you get decent singletrack, trail features, etc. Generally they focus spending on these and derive revenue from MTB activities at these – ity makes economic sense for them. The rest of the forests/woodland is pot luck – I live near Wharncliffe and you find your own trails there and they change according to felling, weather conditions, etc. The FC has never spent any money on Wharncliffe for bikers beyond some signposting and they probably never will. I still love biking there though and you're free to go pretty much where you like (so far).

LOL

The local guys, under the SingeltrAction banner, tried for several years to develop things at Wharncliffe. However, not even the support of World class DH legend and local Dr Peat was enough. Consensus on the ground with the guys who really pushed it was the problems were the Beat Forester not being interested (or made to be interested) and the support from Sherwood's Rec' Ranger (Chris Bray). Fair play he had the Pines to do but then again we didn't really need him to be very involved as we've built the odd bit of trail before ;-)

There are still riders in Sheffield trying to make things happen (see recent Bikeradar article). IMO it is a crime proper development at Wharncliffe hasn't happened as it fits beautifully with all sorts of needs and desires. Sadly it seems to be an all too often encountered situation where FE can't or won't engage and would rather stick their head in the sand and not respond than come out with some straigh-talking honesty. Better to know clearly where you stand and why IMO.

NB: I think FE have done some great stuff and will acknowledge it where I see it (Dalby, Stainburn etc) but there's no point ignoring the bad stuff because that's what makes the biggest and longest lasting impression.

Gutting because some of the Sheffield locals put in huge amounts of time, effort and their own money to try and make it work. That FE have squandered all that is disgraceful.

I think FE often fail to appreciate and understand volunteers. We may well not appreciate them but at least they're paid and have a job description that includes dealing with us. The ball is firmly in their court / within their control to educate us. Volunteer groups can be great at informally policing and carrrying out much higher levels of supervision and maintenance than FE can for little to no cost. They also provide a route for engagement and education. But, if they don't give volunteers something (like trail projects to work on and I don't mean filling potholes and tidying up) then they'll loose all the engagement and goodwill and you'll just have loads of people doing their own stuff.

Best to talk to FE about it although if they have started I suspect you might struggle to change anything (especially now a contractor is on site). However, as others have said, quite often a lot of people in FE know very little about MTBing and even less about any loose groups of riders looking for something a bit challenging. Get in touch and talk to them and you might stand a chance of saving something (by re-routing existing work) or if there's a next phase. Just hit the Forestry wwww and start ringing until you get to the right person. A beat forester is good but there might also be members of the area's recreation team involved. Dealing with either can be a mixed experience.

Just because it's a working forest doesn't mean trails and other facilities cannot or should not be preserved / treated as temporary. Anecdotal comment to me from a beat forester active in MTBing indicated income for "an area that might well include where you are" from recreation (so a lot of stuff, not just MTB) exceeded income from forestry operations for the first time last year. They're a Govt quango desparate to break even (never mind make a profit), so IMO cash talks.

I find this focus (and frankly hiding behind) H&S issues cobblers. MTB is an activity which posses an unavoidable, inherent element of risk. Most "MTBers" accept this and would not have a leg to stand on in court (IMO). It is very similar to a case regarding climbing on LA land decades ago. FE are only liable if what they have built is unsafe or unsuitable. Just because something is hard and someone might fall off is irrelevant, so long as some obvious precautions are taken (signage, information, grading). They would only be truly liable if what they built (or allowed to be built) caused the accident through its failure i.e. (extreme example) rider gets to top of northshore, structure collapses because it's not bolted together properly, rider injured, sue FE.

I'm no lawyer and that's just my opinion (albeit with some experience in H&S, building trails, dealing with FE).

FE will always try and build stuff that is inclusive to the widest possible user group (quite rightly, really). Pouring lots of money just into specialist, technical trails is hard to justify for the number of people likely to use (compared to how many might get into cycling from easier stuff) and the amount of revenue it might generate (families are far bigger cash-cows than "proper" MTBers, IMO). But that's not to say you can't use whatever they put in as a backbone for further, more interesting development.

Remember, FE managed land is generally free access. So long as you don't "build" a trail then you can ride where you like. Oh, and the majority of sites they manage are part of the Public Estate i.e. the nations i.e. ours.

I'm ranting. If you actually want some specific advice or help (maybe, but we're quite busy) email me timsellors[at]googlemail[dot]com.

Tim, SingletrAction

Someone's already pointed out the alternative models that could be used on the original, linked thread. If you want another example then you could look at http://singletraction.org.uk

£15 p/a membership, disappears into the club funds which either gets hoarded (because we're tight as a gnat's chuff) or occassionally spent on the only real trail essentials – tools and hardcore. Cheapest way to develop a trail is with those two as the only costs and everything else done with the blood, sweat and tears of volunteers.

FE currently provide our third party insurance (provided by one of the older insurers – don't think you can get that anymore). Insurance only covers for joe public being injured during / as a direct result of building.

We're affiliated to IMBA but (with no disrespect to the organisation) means nothing. Read the guidance readily available on the www about trailbuilding (IMBA and IMBA UK) plus leelikebikes.com, go out build some stuff slowly, you'll get the hang of it. Trail building isn't rocket science or a spectacular dark art. It's just hard, physical graft and a bit of insight.

FC can be very, very hard to deal with. All depends on personality and the level of involvement the key individuals have i.e. a MTBing forest manager. If you've got one of thsoe I'd advise chaining them to a tree and never letting go ;-)

All I'm trying to say is it doesn't have to be complicated or expensive (but it will be hard work ;-)

Paying to ride a bike on the public forest estate is anathema to me. The cavalier attitude that some people have to the concept of paying and the way they're prepared to just roll over and take it staggers me. But hey ho, different strokes for different folks ;-)

Best of luck anyhow. If you want to talk to me about it feel free to email.

timsellors[at]googlemail[dot]com

Cheers

Tim, Chair, SingletrAction

You can crimp the driveside chain stay yourself to give more clearance if it will help. IIRC Brant "authorised" this when people were talking about problems with the suck / jammage on 456s and Summer Seasons.

Mate has done it on his 456, not snapped yet. I had worst jammage ever on my Summer Season. Admittedly it had fag paper clearance between the 36T and chainstay on a double and bash set up, improved only slightly by an extra HT2 spacer on drive side. Was about to crimp it but then got an Alpine at a steal and sold it on to a mate (told him all about it and scratches were there to see).

No suck or jammage on the Alpine.

NB: I may have taken Brant's name in vain and may have mis-represented what I recall was the advice at the time. If you want to do it and want to be sure I suggest you check with him or On One. It did involve crushing the chainstay with a G clamp ;-)

Water not such an issue in UK. We've had no supply at either site and have just built them and left to bed in. All the rain over here tends to take care of it.

You sound like you've thought about it so what the hell, try and improve it. Better that than leaving something woeful in place.

used the soil dug out to build up the berms etc as easier/cheaper/quicker than importing lots of soil.

Absolutely. But, if you go too far and the drainage isn't right then you're just building puddles ;-)

It's so bloody trite but it is a great saying: "it's not about the bike …"

8-)