Never having done it and out of curiosity what are the main costs?

I can imagine time is a massive one but what are the major financial bits? Bogs? Timing?

TJ – even when he’s right (or not, I don’t know or care) he’s wrong.

Because FC say so, sadly. Forest is on the edge of their area (geographically), limited funds, resources, people, possibly inclination etc. I had to do a fair bit of work to convince them to let us “reclaim” the old trail. We can promote and map it on our site (or anywhere else I guess) but they don’t want it signed on the ground and it is what they call an “informal” trail.

Reclaim means no “proper” building like the Boulder Trails etc on same side as the car park. Reclaiming and clearing is, I guees, open to fair degree of interpretation. We’ll do whatever fits within our understanding of FC’s limitations to create a circuit that will be as durable as possible. Then people need to ride it as much as poss’ to bed it in (and some bits will naturally fail and need a bit more reclaiming / redirecting etc). Maybe there’ll be enough enthusiam and we’ll find ways to address FC’s concerns (at the time, c.2 years ago now) to change their position about formal trails in Norwood. As it stands it’s informal and in my mind that possibly ties in with the fact felling of the whole area can’t be too far off.

Not dissing FC, just relaying stuff as accurately/concisely as poss 8-)

However, this thread shouldn’t be about that it should be about Joe and Alex at ProRideGuides.

If it’s the same vid as I’ve already seen (work limits access at mo’) then their riding is truly amazing. I did the skills course on Saturday at Gisburn with them and they were also excellent coaches. Clear, thorough, engaging. Broke stuff down into easy components, drilled them and then put them together. The limiting factor was my ability and fitness but I had a great time nonetheless and if I can justs put a little bit of it into practice it’ll be a great improvement.

If you get the chance to do something with them I would jump at it. They give SingletrAction members a discount that pretty much equates to the annual subs, so you’re not loosing much there either ;-)

Plus they’ve been out and helped on digs, given us photos and included a credit for the trails in the film. Top guys 8-)

I’m after one as well so if it helps to bulk up numbers email me.

timsellors at googlemail dot com

Ta, that was what I was looking for 8-)

I find it ironic that you’re saying you bought a Cotic on the grounds of poor caftsmanship / QC / etc when a while ago they had a QC failure and sold / supplied a number of Hemlocks without a part that then led to the swingarms breaking.

Whereas Ragley have pulled a load of frames before they got to market because they were concerned about or failed QC procedures.

But hey, as shit rants go it’s a corker 8-)

PS: I have nothing against Cy or his stuff.

You don’t need 5/10’s despite what people tell you…

You’re right, you don’t need them but they are v.good 8-)

As for Point Ones – look lurvely etc but OMG, how much? Especially for something that’s likely to get clattered and battered.

AFAIK 853 wasn’t used to achieve a big weight saving but for an increased strength (something in an old BM review). To roll out some trite MTB phrase “it rides lighter than it feels”, speaking of a mk1 PA, not an 853 although as I understand it only major change was material and losing the dinky tube behind the HT. HOwever, it’s true and it rode very well.

I really liked mine but managed to get a Morning Glory to replace it with 8-)

Kona wah wahs (although Superstars are almost identical and cheaper, but I’;ve never used them).

Plus a pair of 5.10s and it’s all I feel I need 8-)

Dialled Prince Albert. Just does stuff, rides nice and is plenty durable without being bonkers heavy (or even just heavy, heavy).

They’ve been used for 4X in small sizes and umpteen people wander around on them all day. Lighter and a bit more roomy than an Alpine, if that’s important to you.

TBH you just sound like you want a “bike”. Using it for “everything” (as relates to what you might want to do) is probably more a mental attitude thing than a bike’s inherent versatility as a result of its design. IMO 8-)

Huge potential for factory getting number wrong in each place. They could do it, of course, but I would imagine it could easily add £20 to retail price.
I must admit I have never considered anti theft measures when designing a mountainbike frame. Perhaps I live in cloud cuckoo land though?

Surely if you are that worried, one of them tracker chip things down the seat tube is the best bet?

Surprised there’s such a big potential as I thought it was a bloke with a “stamp”. Bash it into the frame twice (or more) rather than once. I’m also surprised you think such extra work would cost c.£10 or £15 at the manufacturers. However, I don’t design / get bikes made so I’m suggesting without thought for or knowledge of the implications :-)

Imagine bikes with the number in a couple of places and legible. Any time someone flogs a frame they either put it on the ad or get asked. If number is recorded during original sale it starts to become a good and reliable way of tracing / demonstrating ownership.

Frame numbers are good because they don’t demand separate kit. Chips are only as effective as the number of scanners and the number of coppers using them. I suspect that’s very few.

It’s almost like a registration but as it’s the factory mark that’s already applied there’s little of the hassle of a proper registration system. Sure it’s got to be recorded at point of sale but that isn’t such a big thing. Alternatively the owner just keeps a record / photo.

I had 3 bikes nicked last year. Lots of bikes look the same, expecially once they’re stripped down. Plus, a dent or scratch might be unique and well know to the owner but I bet they’ve not got much proof apart from memory. Plus, if / when something similar is recovered X months later can it be remembered? Plus, what do coppers put through a database or whatever? My 2006, TNT, metallic blue and silver Turner 5 Spot with specifically upgraded RP23 (PUSH tune) was unique to me. I imagine to the average copper it’s just a blue and silver bike with bounce both ends, if that. If there’s a reliable number on it then plod can just bang it into whatever database they use, just like serial numbers on laptops etc. Sure, you can grind and disfigure one number with the reasonable excuse that it’s wear and tear, especially under the BB. But to do the same in two locations is a clear sign it’s probably dodgy.

Maybe as well, if it becomes easier to identify a bike by the number and harder to make such numbers unrecognisable, therefore, harder and less profitable to flog, maybe scrotes wouldn’t see them as such a lucrative thing to nick.

I’d never worried about locks, chains and alarms before but once someone has it away with a few grands worth of your stuff you start to wonder how to make it harder for the ***** and how it’d be easier to catch them.

8-)

Wouldn’t it be better if the frame number was in a couple of places on each frame and was somewhere more easily visible i.e. anywhere other than the of the BB?

I’ve just bought a Firefly from Spokeshirts and am amazed by how small it is, the price and power. Only just got it so no impressions of ride performance or longevity (though have no reason to think it would be any worse than his previous and others similarly priced lights).

TBH, for the price, it’s bonkers good value.

The cynic in me thinks it’s a tactic to take the momentum out of current campaigns.

It’s for an Alfine, so not either of those PP ;-) Cheers for the heads up though.

Thanks for recommendations so far, will check out SS.

mmmmm, you might want to rethink that imo.

No ta, I’ve thought about it relatively thoroughly already. I’ve been building and organising this stuff for years, hence my opinion ;-)

H&S is common sense, especially in volunteer builds where it’s mostly hand tools. I’m not sure what your “hot tattie” is but CDM is not it. Read the ACoP, it’s designed for the layman and the majority of underlying concepts are, again, common sense.

What does your average trail builder know about SSSIs? Not a lot, but then they don’t need to, what they need to know is how to talk to whoever does (typically Natural England) and then follow that advice.

What would “anyone” know about drainage of the different types of soil types?
What would “anyone” know about bench cuts and the best angles to achieve good trail drainage?
What would “anyone” know about different grades of gravels and compaction techniques?

Honestly? We’re not building high rise blocks or anything. It’s just stone paths in the woods (or somewhere). Yes, there are bits and pieces of expertise and experience but there’s plenty of easily accessible guidance (like the IMBA stuff). So long as you’ve read a little, got a modicum of common sense and physical ability then most stuff is within your grasp. Oh, and I’m assuming you’ve followed the golden rule of permission 8-)

Sure there’s some bad trails but they’ve been built by contractors, professionals, volunteers, all sorts. Volunteers tend to pick up on this fast because their rate of progress is slow and stuff, if it doesn’t work, usually gets identified quickly. Besides, it’s rarely so “bad” that you can’t do another 25% of work to make something good out of it.

I admit there are things that can catch the unprepared / unexperienced out but honestly, and I’ve been doing this for years, there’s no need for anyone to look at it and be scared off, particularly by some of the red herrings you’ve tossed out there 8-)

Hey, I’m just trying to encourage anyone to have a go and not be put off 8-)

Tootall: like I’ve said (a few times) I don’t know or have much of an opinion on whether the process was flawed at GT. I just thought your utter blind faith in public procurement processes was misplaced. Mleh, I’m saying the same thing again and again.

There’s some reading to be had here if you fancy it http://www.carronvalley.org.uk/

Indeed, if it works then go for it 8-)

My point was only that there are other viable alternatives than being led by Rangers (who by and large are lovely folks). I won’t deny it’s not hard work at times (I’ve been up to the woods twice this week after work to sort out for a delivery of aggregate) but it isn’t complicated.

More power to the elbow of anyone who does trail building off their own back 8-)

Oh dear, you had to ask. I feel a Carron Valley post coming on. Go for it HB ;-)

Conversely TooTall, do you have any proof that it is above board? All you seem to have said is that your recent public procurement process was all above board and respectable. Most people’s points otherwise were that the process can be applied in many ways (both good and bad).

Given several peoples experience with FC / FCS there’s some grounds for thinking they might, at least, be manipulative within the procurement process.

Whether this is the case for GT / the Hub, personally (as I have said) I don’t know but then (unless you’re involved in that actual process) then I suspect neither do you.

As for the standstill period, so what? There’s legal redress without that period which itself, I think, goes back to a case where the employer was seeking to protect their position, not the tenderer. I forget the details. The fact it exists doesn’t prove the application of a process is above doubt and just because legal redress is possible doesn’t mean people will go for it. There’s more factors in play for the average business than that. But that goes back to my point about life not being monochrome, which I’m not sure you see/agree.

Hey ho 8-)

But, though there’d be no Fairies without us lot there’d also be no Fairies without the FCS and the work of the Rangers so you can’t really seperate the two- they provide the tools, the direction, the raw materials and most importantly the adult supervision…

I’ve met a number of the fairies and applaud the work they’ve done at Glentress etc. But to add some balance, you don’t need Rangers, or for them to provide supervision, tools or materials to create a trail.

SingletrAction is the proof of that. Rangers etc can (and have) helped at times. FC has provided some materials at times. They have also “run” contractors when limited sections have been built by others. For all that we are grateful and credit where it is due. However, other than permission we have never *needed* FC to create a trail (other than to give us permission which is another matter).

For example, there hasn’t been a Ranger at a volunteer trail building day (and digging) since I can remember gogin to Stainburn (and I’ve been digging there for nearly seven years).

Sorry, off on a tangent there 8-) Just wanted to point out trail building isn’t rocket science and can be done by anyone.

Notice the last pic on that link is of a packaged Hope chainring but it says “chainrings, bashrings and rotors”.

Often thought that a bash would be something easy and useful for Hope to do given their experience in milling blocks of alu and then anodising them pretty colours.

Maybe one (Hope scale) day then ;-)

If I got a sh1t response from my MP (or their assistant) I’d be straight back to them pointing this out and asking for a proper answer.

I got a pretty full response from Greg Mulholland (Lib)and have copied it here:

http://singletraction.frankencrank.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3457&p=35512#p35512

(scroll down a little)

The reactionary, alarmist hyperbole from the initial opponents hasn’t helped TBH but there are enough issues elsewhere in the bill and proposals that it could still be booted out / substantially amended.

Fingers crossed ;-)

I am describing the actual tendering process I have been part of – weeks ago rather than longer. Utterly above board and transparent.

.. which, unless it was the the Hub procurement we’re talking about, is fairly irrelevant.

My point was that procurement can be as straight as a die, and it can be as bent as a 9 bob note. I am not saying whether the Hub one is either, but then I am also not saying that just because it was procured through this process it must be beyond question and incontrovertible (which is what I believe you said in an earlier post).

And for TJ’s benefit, the instructions (the WHAT!?!) they come with show both the chain tool/pin-removal method and the powerlink method

LOL

Legally, they cannot ‘help nice people out’ – all tenders have to be open competition, transparent and fair – because the taxpayer insists upon that sort of thing. What is good, legal and proper cannot be bent when it suits – it is even handed if nothing else.

LOL

I’ve had this discussion before but your are describing the principle, not the actual, tendering process.

I know first hand you can engineer a public procurement process to get whatever outcome you want. I imagine it can even be done in a way that would be legally defensible.

Systems are great but people are people. Outright faith in the absolute correctness of things is usally (IMO) misplaced. Life operates in shades, not monochrome ;-)

As for the Hub, after listening to Tracey’s (IIRC) IMBA workshop and the strong anti-FC opinions she held I am not surprised at the current outcome. Time and again they have shown you can rarely win by going toe-to-toe with them. It’s a real shame because they’re a far from perfect (you could argue even “good”) organisation. Ironic now that we’re all (ish) fighting for the “devil we know” in the face of the ConDem’s crappy proposals.

That’s not to deny that we haven’t got quite a few formal trails on “our” land that FC manage. However, I think it could have been so many more, so much better and ironically that might well have made the current Gvernment propossals even less likely to succeed.

Hey ho 8-)

Dialled Bikes Prince Albert.

Not entirely in keeping with some of your wish list but a good, reliable frame and fine ride.

Got a trailgator, never used a tagalong. Gator strikes me as being more versatile in a wider variety of situations and allows easy switching between letting the boy ride on his own and towing him when knackered / on the road etc.

Comfort and “leaning” probs sound like it’s not fitted properly. I had that issue, straightened the clamps / fittings and nipped up the bolts and it’s been fine.

In themselves significantly cheaper than a tagalong too, when you compare gator+bike to tag+bike. Think cheapest I found was Rutland Cycle’s ebay shop c.£40.

D’oh!

http://www.revelatedesigns.com/

I see there’s 32 and 36 hole hubs. Plannign to build / have one built into a 29er wheel, does it matter which one?

Ta

We mostly follow what Z-E has described there. However, we found that with the local gritstone rock as a trail base that something with a smaller maximum particle size was preferable, it filled gaps and “knitted” with the underlying surface better. Personally, I found a lot of the larger fraction pushed out and swept away to the edges.

We typically order 60 or 40 mm to dust, limestone. We often ask for extra dust but whether they really do and if it doesn’t separate out / stay stratified in the wagon / stockpile who knows.

Never bothered with the dust layer and wetting. Typically it wasn’t possible where we built (no nearby water) and just meant yet more stuff to barrow for ages. Seems to have worked OK.

Sure a brand new section of limestone surfaced trail looks a bit “yellow brick road” at first but it performs better, being naturally cementitious. I’d rather trails were durable (and therefore, on one measure, “sustainable”) in the longterm than get too precious about the materials origins and fit with local geology. Plus, after a short while the mud, leaf litter etc makes it indistinguishable from the rest of the forest.

By comparison the last contractor built section used rock crushed on site with an attachment to an excavator. This was then mixed with site won sandy clay. It was OK but we’re finding a couple of years later a lot of the fines are washing out and the trail is wearing heavily. This is probably a combination of the construction material and the hammering this section gets as it’s more open / faster / gets “DH’d” on.

Personally I’d go for what can be bought locally as hauling anything far is likely to increase the costs, probably a lot. However, you’re better placed to decide that than me ;-)

I’d be interested to know what the material you’re looking for is though so if you do find out please let me know. Imagine you could try the FC ranger in Scotland responsible for hte 7 Stanes? Forget his name but there’s always google. Was interviewed in MBR I think, Andy Hopkins??

However, don’t be surprised if it’s site won stuff as FC like that, saves a lot of cost. If it is it’s unlikely to be a BS grade etc.

TBH I think that UKC article (I haven’t read the whole thread) is absolutely spot on. Dealing with specifics and not hiding behind generalisations.

If only there was similar honesty and directness in MTBing I think it would be ultimately constructive (and refreshing).

Anyone remember the guy from up northeast who was Transition’s importer / ditributer for a while? An utter crook and failure as a business man (I know one (of the apparently many) young riders who paid him money to get a cheap frame under a “grass roots” programme who never saw a bike or their cash again). I don’t recall his activities getting much coverage in anythign other than forum posts.

Given the current drive towards transparency and the FC knowing this would get a lot of publicity, do you think those involved wanted to get this one right?

Frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if it has been gaffed. I think your faith in “transparency” as a driver for their performance is optimistic / misplaced.

IMO, it’s the people operating the process and their insight into what’s required that is the key thing. Good people do a good job whether they’ve got a spotlight on them or not. Average / bad / not experienced in what they’re trying to procure people will do an average job irrespective of the potential level of scrutiny. From my involvement with FC over the years I would say that, often not maliciously, that they fall into the latter group, especially when they have a go at something commercial / real world / not their core business.

Heck, as others have said, I don’t think they make that much cash at their core business of growing trees.

Never seen so many people attend meetings, in all their corporate gear and with umpteen branded vehicles.

Saying all that I’m not all that anti-FC, just troubled by some aspects.

And in case anybody doesn’t get it; FC manage the nations forests (i.e. our land), they do so with money out of the public purse which they then try and offset through revenue (but usually end up being subsidised by central Govt (one reason why their sale is likely by the Con-Dems). All the money to build trails has almost exclusively been from European or public grant schemes. Effectively it’s ours and we’ve already paid for it all, including some £9m (£9-chuffing-m???) glorified tea-shop / cafe.

Hey ho 8-)

It makes me chuckle a little bit some of the absolute faith, black and white, cut straight and dry type comments about procurement and tendering. Having been involved on both sides (procurer and contractor) for both private and public sector I feel confident to say that it can be as honest or as bent as the people involved want to make it.

I know contractors who employ people (several often, though not quite departments) who go through tenders and contracts identifying where the gaps and claims are going to be. They make a bid based on the final outturn price they expect from those gaps being realised (i.e. increasing the price they will charge the client). They’ll follow tenders and contracts to the letter such that if it doesn’t state the blindingly obvious then the client doesn’t get it for the tender price. I’ve known claims go in on as soon as the appointment letter has been recieved before anyone has even mobilised to site.

Then again I’ve received utterly crap tender invitations with unrealistic timescales, scopes of work, refusal to divulge information etc etc from plenty of clients. Neither is better than the other. I’ve also come across instances when the tender has been a necessary process for appearances sake but the contractor was pre-determined. On multi-million pound schemes as well.

It’s all a big game (with some high stakes). As for the Hub, mleh, it’s a kick in the ass for T&E but it is the sort of thing that happens, I suspect they’ve seent he writing on the wall for some time. Having seen Tracey at the IMBA conference and sat in her workshop it seemed clear she didn’t have much love for FC and I’ve heard many people that do work for or are involved with them say the same. She particularly picked up on the point I’ve heard others make about £9M spend on a centre when what is really needed (in some people’s opinions and that I agree) is a fair chunk of that scale of cash going into trails.

Hey ho, life’s rich tapestry and all that.

I’m working on something re: CTC which will be in the next issue, got bumped from current one due to lack of space. IMBA are next on the list :o)

Nice one Dave, I look forward to it 8-)

I hope, as well, that it’ll come at the organisations from both directions, if you know what I mean ;-)

I don’t know what the collective editorial view of IMBA is, but I think Dave regards them as a bit of a lame duck.

I don’t entirely disagree but better to talk about the organisations that are potentially the representatives of MTB than just not write about them?

MTB needs representation somehow and if part of that is highlighting how an organisation isn’t performing (and I’m not singling IMBA out here) then I think that, although not in a fluffy and cuddly way, is worth doing.

We need to talk about failures as well as successes. Mistakes and things not going so well are learning opportunities. Sometimes they’re even a spur to an organisation to sort itself out.

What I see now is loads of disparate volunteer groups working all over the place and no real unifying entity. It’s a pipe-dream, but it’s my dream ;-)

I reckon an article about IMBA in the UK, it’s current state and where / what it hopes to achieve would be topical (and given the interest in RoW from Dave’s article) might appeal to more people than might at first be thought.

Compare and contrast the pro’s and con’s of the three cycling related organisations; IMBA, CTC and BC.

No offence but MTB writers never particularly strike me as “journalists”. They write articles about kit and trips / rides and stuff but there’s not much topical or contentious content.

E.g. trailbuilder’s frustration with FC, state of IMBA (hands up how many mtb “journo’s” at their last (or previous) conferences / agm? None), access and RoW, etc.

There’s the odd bit but nothing much. Then again they aren’t newspapers, they’re some weird amorphous mess of advertising, fanmags, gear catalogues and press releases.

Passes the time on the toilet ;-)

I notice MBR have a stab at something inflammatory every so often (Warhead’s articles and more recently the “discussion pieces” in the back. Typically though they’re anecdotal / no names.

Does no one else think that this:

which gives me a double bed over the cab, a single rear bunk at the back … It’s got heating, running water, a shower, hob, grill, fridge etc

Is a little ironic when followed by this statement:

I can go away and be self sufficient

It’s probably just me and my [irrational?] hatred of caravans ;-P

Lee McCormack wrote about imagining a torch in your navel when cornering. Position your body so that the torch is “shining” along the line you want to take through the corner. I think, in reality, this is putting your hips and so rest of your body in the right position. Plus look through to where you want to go.

His site (www.leelikesbikes.com) and book (Mastering Mountaingbike Skills, version 2) are really good. I’ve usually found him really good at explaining how to do stuff.

AFAIK most people have a stronger cornering direction. Pump tracks are good for learning and practicing with the other foot forward (good for cornering technique full stop). Personally I tend to feel more comfortable with cranks level than outside down.

Just buy the dedicated braided kit from Hope (braided hose, fittings etc). Either direct or through one of their dealers.

I added up how much I’d spent on three bikes for the insurance claim after they got nicked. That’s depressing, especially when the claim ceiling is max-ed out and you’re not quite at 50% of the valuation :boo-goddamn-hoo: