Could do with attracting more riders xc orientated to what its aimed at right??

It's aimed at people who want a technical challenge. I don't think that restricts it to XC riders. I call it super-tech XC but, as I mentioned before, the lines are blurred between any arbitary, marketing led (?) definition of riding type.

I've seen DH mincers (and rippers) in the woods / on the trails as well as fully lycra'd HT riders launching off the Boulder Drop on the Descent Line. It's a funny old world ;-)

You're a bit far from Leeds, never mind ;-)

Our tracks have been in areas about 20 x 20 m (ish), maybe a bit less. Really hard to judge in my mind's eye.

The one a Stainburn is built completely from site won material. The one at Thackley used about 100 tonnes of reclaimed top/sub soil and maybe 12 tonnes of single size 60 or 80mm dia limestone as the drainage media (plus some terram wrap). We also laid out the one STW did for their weekender feature a while back. No one was free to help dig though unfortunately and I think it's all been trashed by the Moto's.

Drainage is where it's worth putting some effort (which possibly means spending money as well) IMO. Digging a deep enough trench by hand can be knackering, a mini digger will do it in the blink of an eye. Similarly some mechanised barrow or dumper can make shifting the drainage media (or soil) a much less back breaking experience. We paid about £250 to hire a mini-digger, driver, 1 tonne self loading skip dumper and fuel for a day. You could probably get more for less but our guy knew what we wanted doing so was considered money well spent.

The easier you make the donkey work aspect of the build the more energy you'll have for the technical bit (getting berms to link, rollers properly spaced etc. IMO that gives you a much better chance of getting a good track, pretty much right, pretty quickly.

Hey Ho. All depends what you've gor on site / nearby, how much cash, how many bodies and what time.

Good luck and feel free to email if you want any other advice (timsellors[at]googlemail[dot]com).

If you come out of the carpark and turn left and ride up the road about 300 yards where the treeline stops there's a DH of sorts running down the hill.

I see lots of people doing that and it really puzzles me. The trail they're turning onto is the Descent Line. There's a lovely gentle (by Stainburn standards) climb from the car park on purpose built trail i.e. the Red Loop. Get to the top of that and you can either go back down the red to the car park (with a choice of two lines; bermed or skinny) by following the trail round to the right at its high point or go left and you're there where the DL trail starts almost at the road.

I guess the road ride is a touch easier (especially on a "big" bike) but the traffic / drivers are a bit mental and the alternative just seems much more fun. Hey ho.

Stainburn was built to be rideable on a HT, there are no purpose built DH trails. Saying that there have always been people that come, ride and seem to have fun on "big" bikes. Some of the trails blur the line a little but FC's official stance is no DH tracks. Yes, we've tried to talk to them about it. No we haven't got anywhere. No, there's too much else to be sorted to bother going back on that issue for the foreseeable future.

But saying that a wise man knows there are a few good, steep dirt tracks to be had in the woods. I'm not postingthem up here though ;-)

The plonkers that keep riding through the badger sett on Norwood side and carving a trail there though are doing themselves no favours. So long as it doesn't come back on or jeopardise anything SingletrAction is doing then that's one thing. We've told FC it's nothing to do with us and TBH support them in their efforts to curtail it. Disturbance to a protected species is pretty daft and a surefire way to alienate a land manager.

My gut feeling (and I know it's been discussed elsewhere on the forum before) is that "big" bikes probably cause greater erosion but TBH as long as a few of the riders come back and help on the digs then that's just the life of a trail for you. I can never tell who rides what as we're all too busy with shovels ;-)

Given the place is designed to be ridden up as well as down then I think "big" bikes are getting a poor return out of what is, really, a pretty small wood / set of trails. Being able to ride the Boulder Trail in something close to "one go" is something I'm still working on. But again, each to their own 8-)

The Pyjama suits are just WRONG though ;-)

I've built two (with other people and on public land – FE managed and Bradford MBC).

Started with McCormack's book and just took it from there. Haven't found much that you could disagree with him on TBH, it really is the "bible" for PT building. Until you get a feel for it I would go as simple as possible, building and re-building sections that just don't quite work is knackering and a bit demoralising.

Like the man says drainage is really important. Importing soil and building up can be a really good idea in some circumstances.

Plant (mini-digger / bobcat / power barrow) is great but depends on a lot of factors.

Shaping is OK work to do by hand with limited people. If you 've got to shift much muck then plant can really save time and effort.

Where are you? I could be tempted to pitch in for access rights to somewhere else local?

Yip, 07 March at the top car park ("Norwood Edge Car Park) just off the B6451, Pateley Road. Official start time is 10:00 but there's often people there around 09:00 and onwards.

We'll be working on the Extension to the Descent Line again. No special tools required although if you have something that you think will move big boulders feel free to bring it along. Steel toes cap / decent boots are worthwhile, as are gloves and bait+brew.

March's DD is a bit special because we're going to have the club AGM at 14:00 in the Chapel just below the woods. Nothing stopping anyone coming along though.

Digs are informal, open house affairs. It's not a niche of elite trailbuilders / technical riding gods or anything. Strictly speaking you should be a paid up member to attend a dig day BUT we accept people often want to come down and see what it's all about before joining. Yes, we appreciate the irony of being one of the few who put something tangible back in the trails but having to pay for the privilege. Funds have to be raised somehow and people have to be members to be covered by the insurance FE insist we hold if working in the wood 8-)

Swing on by to http://www.singletraction.org.uk or the forum http://singletraction.frankencrank.com/phpBB3/index.php if you want to know more.

I like it but am with the naysayers about it's performance as a technical biking top (when I'm wearing it). Doesn't shift the moisture that well, subsequently making it cold wet and uncomfortable. Don't get the same experience with synthetics.

Best thing I've got is a Groundeffect heatwave top (Submerino http://www.groundeffect.co.nz/product-detail-SUB-WIN.htm) that's a bit of merino mixed with a bit of synthetic:

"A bi-component knit combining 62% Merino wool and 38% Polyester. This hi-performance thermal bodywear utilises the unrivalled properties of superfine 18.5 micron merino against your skin to wick away sweat, while the polyester provides a durable, non-pill outer. Light 'n' tasty at just 190gm/m2 and machine washable."

So I'm confused, where should my loyalties lie?

If Ton's a Clydesdale then I always thought GE stuff was sized pretty large (defo' their shorts).

Anyhoo, all this dogmatism about base layers. Internet-warrior-tastic.

wish it was longer though..

LOL

The answer to that is in the thread above ;-)

Just a bit ;-)

http://www.singletrackworld.com/blogs/2010/02/bikes-bikes-everywhere-but-not-a-single-one-ridden/

Good man.

People often there from 9 or a little after. "Official" kick off is 10 am, meeting at the Norwood Edge car park on the B6451 (Pateley Bridge Road) or just down at the dig (section is on the Boulder Trail side, in the clear fell, beyond the end of the Descent Line).

Keep an eye on the SingletrAction.org.uk for updates, particularly in the forum section for Stainburn.

Aye, fancy some do ya?

;-)

Brilliant effort from everyone that turned up and big clap on the back for Jase / Mugboo for trying (and suceeding) to roust up more volunteers.

The extra numbers meant some hefty rockery got shifted and the ensuing trail sections should be true Stainburn boulder-fests. Big bertha continues to prove invaluable (an Heath-Robinson contraption comprising mainly 9 foot of scaffold bar) at shifting boulders. Knackers straps also made life a lot easier (OK, so "easier" is relative). Who would have though something so simple could make such a difference.

Full respect to all the new guys that came out in distinctly average weather and worked their socks off. Hope to see you all again in March.

And big thanks to Tom as well for hte exposure in the STW blog:

http://www.singletrackworld.com/blogs/2010/02/bikes-bikes-everywhere-but-not-a-single-one-ridden/

Will post up my pics and put a write up on the site soon.

I've a HL, 2006 with Pikes. Was toying with putting an old pair of talas 36 (the early, 150mm jobs) on it. Anyone got a strong feeling about the effect on handling etc this might have (or done it themselves). Just it was designed for 125 Fox (IIRC) and so many w@nk on about the wonderful handling and the necessity of sticking to DT's original plan.

Apologies for the slight hijack 8-)

I have one of the airtowers though don't know which one, think it was supposed to be about £70 (bought secondhand to replace a Topeak Joe Blow Sport).

It's fine but I find the head a little temperamental at sealing on presta calves (don't know about schraeder, don't use them).

You can't pick it up by the handle (obvious place to grab) as it doesn't "lockk down" like the Joe Blow did (by looping the hose over the top of the handle).

Minor stuff TBH.

I bought my Alpine secondhand so didn't know about the shims. Send Mike a sweet email and I bet he'll sort you out if you really want them.

IIRC a perfectly effective bodge is to use one of each of the multi-band shims that Shimano (at least triple FMs) come with. Worked for me.

Never had a problem with using triple FMs anyway. The new double ones just seem a bit limiting, but then I'm a bit of a serial builder / parts swapper ;-)

Personally I prefer a rake and macleod / tamper for working rollers and berms on pump tracks in very sandy, gravelly sub-soil.

Azasdas or Chillington hoes can be very effective in more soily material. Moreso imo than a grubbing mattock.

Long handled, swan neck shovels are also good. Long handles can save a load of effort and back-ache. They're probably the most similar thing to that snow shovel. You can get swan-necks in round point and square.

Like Mugboo says, once you know the general script about the woods, what can and can't be done and who to talk to about it (we have someone with the grandiose title "Head of Trail Design" or "Knacker" as we call him ;-) then you would be welcome to do a bit of mid-week stuff.

Forestry Commission have some pretty firm views on what can be done where. If we do it wrong and/or in the wrong place they become unhappy. Unhappy land managers make life hard for volunteers ;-) So much of the "behind the scenes" work is trying to get a consensus with them. It's a relief to shovel and roll rocks on a dig sometimes. Anyway, hence we don't send anyone off into the woods with a vague "oh just dig something there". No reflection on anyone else's skills, abilities or intentions 8-)

Brilliant that you're prepared to do something in your off time though. Might be more chance to meet up whent he evenings get longer and I can swing by after work.

Some plonker took one down the Boulder Trail at Stainburn. Got as far as the Slab. Not sure how they managed to turn it round but I've not seen another one in a long, long time.

Taking one down the DL at Stainburn is probably possible. Daft. But possible.

Good man.

Decent boots and work gloves are well worth it as well as enough clothing to keep you warm and dry-ish if we're in the open and it mizzles. A brew and some bait help keep body and soul together.

There's no foul if you dig for half a day and then ride if your time and opportunities are limited. Better something (anything!) than nothing.

"Main Car Park" is the Norwood Edge one (with a standard FC style light and dark green signboard). It's off the B6451 Pateley Bridge Road about 1 km north after you've crossed the Lindley Wood Reservoir. Few miles before the Sunn Inn. Car park is here:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=420967&y=450905&z=120&sv=420967,450905&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=846&ax=420967&ay=450905&lm=0

I think there's some good advice in here:

http://www.leelikesbikes.com/effect-of-suspension-damping-on-hopping-and-jumping.html

Ignore the title and read it through. Links in the replies take you to useful stuff as well.

Does no-one else think there's a load of stock to clear before the warehouse move at On One and this story is likley to have some, maybe a lot of marketing hyperbole in it?

I generally like OnOne and Brant's (now no longer OnOne but the Ragley / Shedfire sites seem to have a similar flavour and feel) take on marketing and self promotion. I'm just surprised it all gets taken quite so seriously ;-)

+1 for an Implant, but the cost – oh lordy!

Never seen one in the UK and never come across anyone that's had / has one (not even here).

IIRC the OP is hardly the gnarliest either

ROFLMAO

But anyway, probably 14.5st and riding the stock spring, feels fine. Ride the firmest (purple?) of the three stock springs in Vanillas though.

Got 454 Airs and think they're the work of the devil / a PITA to set up / not very plush. But then, unlike the OP, I can't really be arsed fannying with forks as I suspectI lack the skills and insight.

Tell you what Hora, I'll swap you my Air 454s for your coils (so long as you've still got he medium spring) ;-P

Also, no disrespect to CM etc but the English scene isn't really relevant because success is largely dependant on local politics and the power of a small handful of individuals within FCS Management Board.

Agreed. Same power distribution in England, just different peeps.

I always get depressed reading that Carron Valley site, not least because I've had some similar experiences. Rode up their before Xmas with a mate living in Stirling, was a nice ride. Bloody cold mind ;-)

Badger, good luck with it. If you don't ask / try then you never know whether you'll get anything. Whilsts there's quite a bit of bleak realism in the responses you never know. FE being disorganised, chaotic and inconsistent can occasionally work to your advantage ;-)

Quite simple really. A lot of the people building and "designing" trails everywhere, not just Stanes, have no qualifications for doing so. It was only just recently that they became aware of CDM and the implications and are still learning.(possibly as the result of workplace accidents!!)

Hmmmm.

CDM regs apply to all operations, including their forestry stuff and FC have been building things for a long time. Only just aware – I'm sceptical. But even so what are they really "aware" of and why is it of such great concern?

Under the Regs you have to be competent (which is subtely but importantly different to "qualified"). Experience and track record are key to demonstrating competence. I think a large number of volunteers are capable of easily demonstrating both.

Besides that we're designing and building MTB trails, not road bridges, highways, nuclear reactors or the like. And as for liability and prosecution (and I've seen a bit of thrust on this from, IIRC, Colin Palmer) it's about time it was established MTB is an activity where riders accept a level of inherent risk (much as has been established in climbing). It is not to avoid responsibilty for sh1tely designed trails but it is to ensure that any numpty who rides outside their ability and safety zone who then comes a cropper cannot immediately hold liable the landowner / manager.

Hey ho, rant-tastic 8-)

Touche pal and I certainly don't need any lessons from you or anyone else on here as to whose land it is

Blimey, are you as p1ssed off as you sound? There was a smiley there fella.

Hey ho 8-)

I assume that the FC attitude is down to the potential liability of people hurting themselves and trying to claim? If so there must be some way round this or Laggan, Stanes etc would not be able to operate. Surely if they just allow the land to be used by a trail developer, or just hack clearings so people can do what they will, they would not be liable?

TBH (and there's been a thread about this a little while ago) no-one quite seems to know exactly why FE/FC are taking the position they are regarding development of trails. There's a lot of speculation.

Liability (or perception of it) and H&S seem to be big things to them. They seem to be running scared of CDM implications (which baffles me). I suspect one of the biggest things is money (as always) I think they're realising modern trails take quite a lot of inspection and subsequent maintenance. If they don't do this then I think liability claims against them are much easier to pursue.

Inspection and maintenance all takes cash and none was provided for this sort of work in most of the funding that was initially provided to build them. Now they're trying to work out how, several years in, to run and manage trail centres with the quite different user group than your typical MTBer. Certainly in Yorkshire we've been told, no more time, cash, people available to do the inspections that they consider to be required, hence no new development.

Like I said, dunno really, the above is a mish-mash of fact, experience and conjecture 8-)

You can email me (in profile) if you want to know more from a SingletrAction / Yorkshire perspective.

The FC's official position is "no new trails" (on their land that is)

Is it? I wasn't aware of that. We're certainly facing that position in N Yorks area but I wasn't aware it was national policy.

OP – I'd suggest you contact whoever is in charge of recreation within the FC region that your site lies within and/or the beat forester. Just call the local FC office to find them or on the www. It might be worth contacting Andy Hopkins (IIRC) the guy co-ordinating all the seven stanes for FC (I may have his name wrong but he's interviewed in the latest / recent MBR).

Karl Bartlett at IMBA might be worth contacting as well. He is current Chairman but also FC employee and previously involved in Seven Stanes.

Ian Warby is always a helpful bloke at CTC.

You may have a lot of convincing to do, despite it seeming very simple, straightforward and a brilliant idea to you. Good luck and hang in there.

Finally;

on their land that is

– no it bluddy isn't ;-P It's almost all Crown Estate, therefore the Nations and so ours. FC / FE are the quango and managers appointed by government to manage that estate on our behalf.

Don't.Get. Me. Started.

8-)

Flew with Thomsonn to France couple of weeks ago. Couldn't take boots as hand luggage and had to repack at check-in.

Give yourself another half hour & start by going into his room & taking away the bed clothes
Tell him you'll [or your wife] will stop doing it when he starts cooperating
I'd also remove or disable all TVs & game consoles etc. from his room until he behaved

Weeellll, you could try and start a war about it or you could try and find out why they're doing it (might not help if they're just bloody lazy ;-)) and deal with that.

Some kids respond to orders, threats, ultimatums, rewards etc. Some don't, if you've tried all that already maybe you need a different approach.

There's some american guy behind an approach called "collaborative problem solving". Whether it would work for you / sprog / situation dunno.

IIRC there's lots of info about it on a www called something like Think Kids. Google it.

Best of luck, they can be little buggers sometimes ;-)

I think he sold me my first decent set of lights (and he stuck sweets in, a Milky Bar Buttons IIRC – I think Wiggle nicked his idea ;-)

RIP

and try to improve the lot of the poor, weak and those in need.

Sainthood awaits then.

Alternatively, I have a rather deep distrust of anyone who feels it appropriate to guff on like that.

Hey ho, keep wasting the bandwidth.

I will attack cant and humbug where ever tehy come from

…. on an internet forum about push bikes.

Think sometimes you need a high rise stem / bars / big steerer stack to get some of Brant's frames to fit. Sure I recall him saying this somewhere when someone mentioned the "short" HT on frames he designed.

Kona Wah Wah.

Largish platform, thin, pins unscrew from the back so you can still get them out when they've snapped off.

£45-50ish

+1

There was never enough money for surafcing in bulk.

There was never enough enthusiasm and support from FE to make that a possibility. I only wish the volunteers who tried to develop Wharncliffe over the last few years could have got to the stage where money was the critical issue.

Tim (SingletrAction)

This just popped into my inbox from IMBA:

Trail Building and Management Agreements
Over the past decade IMBA volunteers and clubs have significantly helped develop trails across the UK. This has mostly been in an open spirit of partnership with land-managers, but increasingly many of our affiliated clubs are finding that the level of expectations land-managers have of them is growing and growing. Clubs are being requested to consider leasing areas for trails, have extensive insurance cover, health and safety policies etc.

This is a significant development and IMBA UK is aware of the difficulties this is causing some clubs, and the potential of this to impact on all volunteer activity related to mountain biking, from trail building to maintenance to patrolling.

We need your help to assess how best to respond to this challenge. Do you have direct experience of dealing with these requests? What solutions – if any – have you found? Do you have a management agreement or similar in place? Would you be willing to share it with IMBA UK? Do you feel comfortable with the levels of responsibility and potentially liability you are being asked to bear? What would you like to see in place to help you?

If we are to continue to have volunteer trail building it is clear that we have to understand what is being expected of us and what our best way of managing that expectation is.

Please let me have your thoughts – karl@imba.org.uk

Dick

I always struggle a little on the difference between FC / FE. TBH I treat the acronyms as interchangeable. Cold be my bad :-( AFAIK FC are the body / quango set up by Government and tasked with overall management of the Public Forest Estate (GB) and meeting Government's objectives. FE is a quasi-commercial operating arm of FC. They are both, ultimately Government bodies, IMO.

In short FC = policy, FE = operation.

I'm sure I deal with people from both but they seem interchangeable. Can't tell the little green buggers apart ;-)

I would happily hear / see some clarification or be corrected by someone who knows better (I looked it all up on the website once … snore!).

This document (consultation, now closed) is a convenient and (relatively) brief overview of the Public Forest Estate in England:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/eng-pfe-consultationdocument.pdf/$FILE/eng-pfe-consultationdocument.pdf

You need to read the intro and then informatives at the start of each section.

Oh, and lifted from the website:

Our mission and values
Our mission is to protect and expand Britain's forests and woodlands and increase their value to society and the environment.

We take the lead, on behalf of all three administrations, in the development and promotion of sustainable forest management. We deliver the distinct forestry policies of England, Scotland and Wales through specific objectives drawn from the country forestry strategies so our mission and values may be different in each.

But throughout, we aim to be an organisation that values:

teamwork – working as teams with colleagues and others to ensure that trees, woods and forests meet the needs of people in each part of Britain

professionalism – enjoying and taking pride in our work, achieving high standards of quality, efficiency and sustainability

respect – treating one another with consideration and trust, recognising each person's contribution

communication – being open, honest and straightforward with colleagues and others, as willing to listen as to tell

learning – always learning, from outside the Forestry Commission as well as from within

creativity – not being afraid to try new ways of doing things

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forestry.nsf/byunique/infd-6val65

Given IMBA have a Memoranda of Understanding with FC it could be hoped that some active discussion could be had to either clarify or resolve the situation. Still, it must be difficult for them as both Karl (Chairman) Paddy (Treasurer) are FC staff.

And from FC's homepage:

We are the government department responsible for the protection and expansion of Britain's forests and woodlands.

Just like your local authority is responsible for the protection and improvement of your area. Not lookingto be argumentative, just that I've heard similar arguments about FE before. I agree they're not beholden to every rag-tag punter who pipes up wanting a trail but when organised groups with track records and dedicated volunteers get treated the way many have described it makes you wonder (frustrated, angry, dissapointed etc etc).

8-)

Bitter? Hell yeah!

I used to think that this sort of comment only came from the unreasonable side of volunteer trailbuilders. The ones who thought it was a god given right and wouldn't follow OPS1 or build to a good standard or take any notice of FE.

After many years of experience in voluntary trail building I think it's a tragedy that it is now (IMO) the standard sort of response from dedicated, hard working, skilled and experienced volunteers. The sort of people who, with only a limited level of "official" support, could achieve a spectacular amount to the benefit of many people.

Gil's experience is also fairly typical of mine at Stainburn, which in turn is typical of (I'm sad to say) the more negative experiences of many of the posters.

FE/C seem to be keen to (pretty much) stop trail construction by volunteers in many places. They also seem to only want established trail builders to become maintenance crews (at the moment no ta). I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of volunteers.

They seem to be running sh1t scared of liability and CDM regulations. This gets on tits as I don't think they know what they're talking about in terms of the Reg's. But hey ho, what would I know?

I talked about the hurdles facing volunteers to the IMBA conference / AGM in the Lakes this year. If I had the write up hosted on net I'd link to it. Whatever, one of the two biggest blocks to volunteer work is (IMO) FE (and before anyone gets too aerated, the second was MTBers themselves ;-)

All our work is to IMBA (or higher)) standards, so that isn't an issue for us. TBH it seems to be purely down to FE's lack of enthusiasm. The reason for us not being allowed to do anything in Norwood (other than the aforementioned stick-clearing) was due to a "lack of time, money and resources" within FE. In my cynical moments I think that is just convenient logic, rather than the "real" reason. IMO there's a whole heap can be achieved without any real input or expenditure but hey ho, what do I know, I'm just a grunt ;-)

I could go on and on. If someone wants to organise something (with or without IMBA) I'd be up for it.

timsellors[at]googlemail[dot]com