Bruce Ridge ACT

[Rookie]

.....As an aside, I asked my friends on Facey what they want. All of that those who responded are the above-described "lycra crowd" (ranging from shitty newbies to consistent race winners) and they unanimously asked for *more* technical obstacles on the inner loop with a purpose, such as tight bends, off camber corners, step-ups and other challenges with slower B-lines. The only concern raised was that there were logs down for either a) no purpose, they were just there or b) short term measures to prevent erosion which have become long-term. The difficult rock gully on the calvary side was highlighted as something for more of, so it looks like we're all on the same team for the main part, it's just the specifics of where and how much that seem to be contentious.

Sounds great. The log roll overs around the place seem to be because people could not think of what to do OR didn't have the skills to build something better. What is with the lycra haters? Fragile egos?

 

[Klips]

Sounds great. The log roll overs around the place seem to be because people could not think of what to do OR didn't have the skills to build something better.

I think a lot of them were initially temporary measures, which then haven't been dealt with due to the PCS timetable for closing tracks for sustainability reasons etc. Given that I've only been involved with digging this year I can't really confirm either way.

I'd really like to see if PCS will allow us to bring some really big rocks in for one-off step-ups/downs and such. Kramer, has there been any luck on this front? Have we tried it before? After this morning's ride on cardiac there's definitely some gaps in my skill set like uphill corners into step-ups, so it would be cool to do it if we can.

Has anyone else noticed that there's a bunch of rooty switchbacks getting eroded out? Making things a lot of fun, it's a good challenge to pick a line that works on the day.

 

[Rookie]

Its interesting that hairpins/switchbacks are being used a bit at Majura presumably to artificially slow people.

When overly done:

1. It causes more erosion due to heavy breaking.

2. It ruins flow and does not make the most of the natural terrain and line that creates.

I don't think you need to intro stuff from elsewhere for Bruce. It is unique. Just don't be afraid to make the most of its natural tendency. Its loose over hard pack fast, but not steep. Flowy corners are what it is best at. Make it specialise at that. Not the stop/start no flow make up log roll overs and pointless switchbacks. The bits called Bruce Ridge Belco Bop, Bruce Ridge Techy Descent and Flow on Strava are a pretty good examples of what Bruce is good at. That loose sketchy off camber on the "techy" descent across the fire road is its natural challenge. It does not need removing, just some TLC to be sustainable. It is far from unsustainable, it just needs some maintenance from people who know what they are doing.

That is what makes it different to Stromlo and Stromlo different to Kowen and Kowen different to Tuggers.

PS Multiple lines are good. The B line NEEDS to be safer and slower.

 

[flagasinappropriate]

Any comment from the FoBR crew?

 

[Klips]

Any comment from the FoBR crew?

You are part of the FoBR crew as much as anyone, as outlined by Kramer. What do you think of it, or of mine now knowing that PCS has approved trails there?

 

[Bucket Master]

Sorry for the rant but...

Dodgy consultants writing dodgy reports and undertaking sham consultations... with only an environmental degree, a PhD and 15years planning (recreational, social and urban) experience to fall back on... doing little to actually provide people with legal sports to ride... (if you've ridden it they've likely had some role in building, planning or having it approved...) you know who you are...

Is Bruce Ridge the right place for Downhill Trails? no. Is it the appropriate place for jumps, northshore etc.? no. Are there more appropriate places for this to occur? Yes there are. Is work being done to rebuild those places (or make them legal to ride)? Yes there is. Do the wheels of government move slowly some times? Yes they do.

I love the work that FoBR are doing for with out them Bruce Ridge would not be a place you could legally ride your bicycle. Thanks Kramer, Geoff and a whole bunch of other folks, your work is not only helping people ride in Bruce Ridge but is opening the eyes of a lot of land managers and going a long way to improving access and gaining funding for more than just Bruce Ridge. If you cant see this then you are not looking hard enough

Bruce Ridge is primarily for Conservation with secondary uses of Education, Research and Recreation. Bikes and their riders are invited guests. If you don't like it, don't ride there.

 

[Klips]

But what about all the things that *I* want it to be? What about the other places which already do what *I* want, but are too far away/currently illegal/something else? What about the (somehow to be engaged, but completely anonymous and unconsidered [despite many open avenues of communication]) "broader community"?

 

[the broader community]

But what about all the things that *I* want it to be? What about the other places which already do what *I* want, but are too far away/currently illegal/something else? What about the (somehow to be engaged, but completely anonymous and unconsidered [despite many open avenues of communication]) "broader community"?

But what is the broader community that you appeal to and how will you know if has responded if it doesn't give you the response you desire?

 

[Ouch]

Sorry for the rant but...

<snip>

Here here Bucket, I think you have nicely expressed the importance of conservation values and how they should be applied to Bruce Ridge.

However, I think you have also misunderstood the reasons for many of the comments that I have read in this thread (although I recognise they are diverse and I haven't contributed to them until now - I only just stumbled across this thread). The real discussion should lie with how to create interesting and diverse tracks that have a variety of technical features while delivering on those conservation and sustainability values and recognising its location. The original intention was that there would be a simpler outer loop that would cater for everyone, with an inner network with more difficult technical features. What I'm seeing is much of the diverse inner network being shut down and what is left is increasingly looking like the outer loop. I should declare that I have been in evolved in FOBR since its inception (conservatively over 50 hours track building on the ridge over many years), but less so of late. I'd rather use my limited volunteering time for track building elsewhere that doesn't involve arguing about retaining technical features.

A couple of examples. The log that seems to be attracting so much attention on the new 'flow track'. A simple solution would have been to make it into a small flow jump - which personally I think would have been a nice addition. But instead and despite all the points made in this thread the decision was made to remove it. it's a small thing, but illustrates the broader concern that so many of the small interesting features are being removed. This has nothing to do with conservation, but all to do with the views of individuals. I've lost count of the number of these interesting features have been removed, leaving only a handful of them across the entire ridge.

A second is the top section of the 'DH' track. I don't like it being called that, because it isn't given it can easily be ridden on a hard tail. Despite the point being made many many times that the top section of the track is very sustainable and appropriate for the ridge (it's not dangerous and has been there for many years), it's marked for closure. The alternative that has been presented many times is to retrain the top section and link it onto the new 'flow' trail. All it require is a bit of work on the fire trail to deal with existing erosion (which will continue even if the track is closed unless addressed). This closes off the unsustainable middle section without the loss of one of the better trails on the ridge.

Let's have less of 'I'm right and you are wrong' and form more of a consensus on what is workable on the ridge that caters for a diversity of riders and suited to the location.

 

[No Skid Marks]

Is Bruce Ridge the right place for Downhill Trails? no Depends how you define DH. World Cup track, No, gravity track, Yes. Pretty safe to say you'll find that most origonal trails there that got people riding there in the first place were gravity orientated. and this is why people are putting forward an argument about watered down tame/uncharacteristic tracks being built there. BR is very appropriate for gravity tracks where possible. If not there, then un managed "Illegal" tracks pop up, possibly causing more environmental damage in more sensitive areas. Also helps keep people off motos if they have something that can give them a similar thrill. There's a bigger picture than Bruce. Yes BR should have a handful of pretty much just down tracks, that have an easy short accent track nearby. Yes they should have jumps and drops with B lines and other features to discourage people from riding up them. Yes they can be totally safe and environmentally sustainable. Yes they should be built at Bruce R so they are managed.. Is it the appropriate place for jumps, northshore etc.? no"North Shore no" I don't think there's any damp places that really need it. Fallen logs should be used for skinny stuff as has been done though. Jumps for sure. It's the nature of the sport. Are there more appropriate places for this to occur?Everywhere is apropriate if there's a hill, but as mentioned, there's many inappropriate places that people will build on if their needs for gravity, thrilling tracks aren't meant and this has much heavier consequences. This includes BR. Gravity tracks will be made there if not made legitimately. Unfortunate as this is. It's history proves this. Yes there are.

I love the work that FoBR are doing for with out them Bruce Ridge would not be a place you could legally ride your bicycle. Thanks Kramer, Geoff and a whole bunch of other folks, your work is not only helping people ride in Bruce Ridge but is opening the eyes of a lot of land managers and going a long way to improving access and gaining funding for more than just Bruce Ridge. If you cant see this then you are not looking hard enough I can see this. Having never ridden with either Kramer or Geoff it's not possible to evaluate what type of tracks they like and if that influences their input, so I and others offer our opinions and ideally shovel time. It does seem that both of them are trying their best to cater to everyone and are open to ideas.
Bruce Ridge is primarily for Conservation with secondary uses of Education, Research and Recreation. Bikes and their riders are invited guests. If you don't like it, don't ride there.

There's nothing wrong with people offering their opinions as you have. Just got to remember they may differ to others and keep an open mind.

 

[flagasinappropriate]

Sorry for the rant but...
Dodgy consultants writing dodgy reports and undertaking sham consultations... with only an environmental degree, a PhD and 15years planning (recreational, social and urban) experience to fall back on... doing little to actually provide people with legal sports to ride... (if you've ridden it they've likely had some role in building, planning or having it approved...) you know who you are...

Social studies phds etc are nice and all, but where are these consultants reports for the punters to consider?

 

[flagasinappropriate]

Nice one Ouch

The point that I refer to is where is the discussion. We all know that the trail plain was signed off long ago but now what should we expect, what can we do in the future?

I am really happy to see some discussion happening here now. Lets keep it going.

Here here Bucket, I think you have nicely expressed the importance of conservation values and how they should be applied to Bruce Ridge.

However, I think you have also misunderstood the reasons for many of the comments that I have read in this thread (although I recognise they are diverse and I haven't contributed to them until now - I only just stumbled across this thread). The real discussion should lie with how to create interesting and diverse tracks that have a variety of technical features while delivering on those conservation and sustainability values and recognising its location. The original intention was that there would be a simpler outer loop that would cater for everyone, with an inner network with more difficult technical features. What I'm seeing is much of the diverse inner network being shut down and what is left is increasingly looking like the outer loop. I should declare that I have been in evolved in FOBR since its inception (conservatively over 50 hours track building on the ridge over many years), but less so of late. I'd rather use my limited volunteering time for track building elsewhere that doesn't involve arguing about retaining technical features.

A couple of examples. The log that seems to be attracting so much attention on the new 'flow track'. A simple solution would have been to make it into a small flow jump - which personally I think would have been a nice addition. But instead and despite all the points made in this thread the decision was made to remove it. it's a small thing, but illustrates the broader concern that so many of the small interesting features are being removed. This has nothing to do with conservation, but all to do with the views of individuals. I've lost count of the number of these interesting features have been removed, leaving only a handful of them across the entire ridge.

A second is the top section of the 'DH' track. I don't like it being called that, because it isn't given it can easily be ridden on a hard tail. Despite the point being made many many times that the top section of the track is very sustainable and appropriate for the ridge (it's not dangerous and has been there for many years), it's marked for closure. The alternative that has been presented many times is to retrain the top section and link it onto the new 'flow' trail. All it require is a bit of work on the fire trail to deal with existing erosion (which will continue even if the track is closed unless addressed). This closes off the unsustainable middle section without the loss of one of the better trails on the ridge.

Let's have less of 'I'm right and you are wrong' and form more of a consensus on what is workable on the ridge that caters for a diversity of riders and suited to the location.

 

[flagasinappropriate]

There's nothing wrong with people offering their opinions as you have. Just got to remember they may differ to others and keep an open mind.

+1 I totally agree

 

[flagasinappropriate]

Only just saw this. The trail I was describing including number of corners etc is marked as "to be opened" on the agreed map: http://fobr.prophpbb.com/topic21.html given the low conservation value and the fact that the highest risk trail has been closed, I would *hope* that they could see the value of having a higher-risk trail, particularly in a spot with good access for emergency services should the need arise. I hadn't realised there's a fence down the bottom, above and below the road, but that could be worked around - maybe have a loop going up the side for push runs etc?

In terms of broader community consultation, how would you like this to be achieved? Current avenues used by FoBR are:

• Government (PCS)
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Farkin
• The Berm
• FoBR bulletin board
• Build days

I would suggest PCS put a sign up at the trailhead except that, as far as I know, no one ever sees the trailhead (I didn't know it existed in my first year riding there). I am keen to hear what other avenues you would like used.

As an aside, I asked my friends on Facey what they want. All of that those who responded are the above-described "lycra crowd" (ranging from shitty newbies to consistent race winners) and they unanimously asked for *more* technical obstacles on the inner loop with a purpose, such as tight bends, off camber corners, step-ups and other challenges with slower B-lines. The only concern raised was that there were logs down for either a) no purpose, they were just there or b) short term measures to prevent erosion which have become long-term. The difficult rock gully on the calvary side was highlighted as something for more of, so it looks like we're all on the same team for the main part, it's just the specifics of where and how much that seem to be contentious.

Any or all of these! The point is discussing the works and future plans not just the occasional notice of when working groups are scheduled.

Something that I've noticed here is that the discussion forum needs to inviting and contributors shouldn't feel that their comments will be shotdown by seasoned contributors. It doesn't matter if you have a phd, have been riding at BR since the last ice age, have put on 50hrs of trail building, part of the A-Team... whatever. What matters is we all love riding.

 

[Knopey]

FoBR's work* is tops. Bruce Ridge is tops. I think they're both tops. :cheer2:

* actually volunteering

p.s. Re. the supposed lack of discussing works - maybe go to a trail maintenance event and actually discuss, chat, & learn then. There have been many opportunities... If you haven't gotten along (I only did once which is pathetic really) then like what you get, or go elsewhere, or go along and help.

p.p.s. This thread gives the impression that heaps of technical features have been removed. That's just not the case - there never was that much and trails that have been closed have been replaced with new ones that, generally, have better flow anyway. Just because it's changed doesn't mean it's worse.

 

[Rookie]

Here here Bucket, I think you have nicely expressed the importance of conservation values and how they should be applied to Bruce Ridge.

However, I think you have also misunderstood the reasons for many of the comments that I have read in this thread (although I recognise they are diverse and I haven't contributed to them until now - I only just stumbled across this thread). The real discussion should lie with how to create interesting and diverse tracks that have a variety of technical features while delivering on those conservation and sustainability values and recognising its location. The original intention was that there would be a simpler outer loop that would cater for everyone, with an inner network with more difficult technical features. What I'm seeing is much of the diverse inner network being shut down and what is left is increasingly looking like the outer loop. I should declare that I have been in evolved in FOBR since its inception (conservatively over 50 hours track building on the ridge over many years), but less so of late. I'd rather use my limited volunteering time for track building elsewhere that doesn't involve arguing about retaining technical features.

A couple of examples. The log that seems to be attracting so much attention on the new 'flow track'. A simple solution would have been to make it into a small flow jump - which personally I think would have been a nice addition. But instead and despite all the points made in this thread the decision was made to remove it. it's a small thing, but illustrates the broader concern that so many of the small interesting features are being removed. This has nothing to do with conservation, but all to do with the views of individuals. I've lost count of the number of these interesting features have been removed, leaving only a handful of them across the entire ridge.

A second is the top section of the 'DH' track. I don't like it being called that, because it isn't given it can easily be ridden on a hard tail. Despite the point being made many many times that the top section of the track is very sustainable and appropriate for the ridge (it's not dangerous and has been there for many years), it's marked for closure. The alternative that has been presented many times is to retrain the top section and link it onto the new 'flow' trail. All it require is a bit of work on the fire trail to deal with existing erosion (which will continue even if the track is closed unless addressed). This closes off the unsustainable middle section without the loss of one of the better trails on the ridge.

Let's have less of 'I'm right and you are wrong' and form more of a consensus on what is workable on the ridge that caters for a diversity of riders and suited to the location.

Nice Summary

 

[No Skid Marks]

A second is the top section of the 'DH' track. I don't like it being called that, because it isn't given it can easily be ridden on a hard tail. Despite the point being made many many times that the top section of the track is very sustainable and appropriate for the ridge (it's not dangerous and has been there for many years), it's marked for closure. The alternative that has been presented many times is to retrain the top section and link it onto the new 'flow' trail. All it require is a bit of work on the fire trail to deal with existing erosion (which will continue even if the track is closed unless addressed). This closes off the unsustainable middle section without the loss of one of the better trails on the ridge.

I think(from earlier discussions on here) the reason they're shutting the middle section of this trail is for conservation reasons. Rare birds or plants there. and that's fair enough IMO.
However, as you've mentioned, that track with it's steepness was easily maintainable. Slightly angled logs with dirt on the high side so they can be rolled over, easily steer water of the track and act to slow riders also to avoid braking erosion. Make a angry looking obstacle at the start or a sign to ward off rookies. My point being, that track should be replicated elsewhere, ideally just beyond the ecological treasure area and still hopefully using the existing top and bottom bits.
I'm happy to do the work in my own time as the working bees are hard to get to for me. Happy to sign in or whatever and work with others.

 

[flagasinappropriate]

Still nothing from the FoBR crew.

Oh well, I was thinking over the weekend that there is an opportunity to have a discussion about what can be done at BR within the limitations of operating in a nature reserve.

As it was pointed out earlier, Bruce Ridge is primarily for Conservation with secondary uses of Education, Research and Recreation. The recent activities of the community has built on a trail network that we are now allowed to ride on and manage to maintain its sustainability.

To maintain BR’s sustainability, the #1 thing that needs to be managed now is soil erosion. I remember a while ago the mtb crew would chant that mtbing doesn’t cause and soil erosion – this is rubbish. Anyone who believes this needs to go look up the definition e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion. Some weeding and community engagement needs to be done too <cough>FoBR<cough>.

The #1 cause of eroding mtb trails is Mtbers. Rainfall is a distant second but there are no figures at Bruce or anywhere in Au to tell us how distant behind the effect of rainfall runoff is. Rainfall still matters though. In both cases, the greater the speed of the cyclist or the rainfall runoff, the greater the potential for the erosion of soil. The speed of a mtber (and runoff) is generally correlated by slope and length. The IMBA kind of get this by their use of the “fall line” term, but the term fails any real world usage as it can’t be measured. As you can easily measure both slope and length, it is easy enough to map where trails might start to erode and understand this. Going out there and observing the erosion over time will provide the essential verification.

Just before everyone interprets this as me arguing that we should slow down, I’m not. This thinking is essential in trail building and maintenance. You can’t have sustainable trails without this kind of thinking. BR needs this as my understanding of the focus is now about sustainable mtb trails.

Sometimes with this knowledge you just have to accept that some trails are going to erode more than what you’d want. Just look at Stromlo, the steepness of The Luge for example means it’s a constant maintenance battle. The trail builders there know and accept that for the style of trail. In other areas though, they have used rock armouring and really nice rollers to manage the speed of mtbers and rainfall runoff while keeping it fun.

But at BR, the trail maintenance challenge there is harder... there are more limitations as pointed out. To begin with there are no more new trails and there other unpublished reports that talk about other things. So I’m going to put it out there, where are the areas that people think the maintenance activities should focus on – is there scope for a planned approach? There are certainly areas that would benefit from armouring, rollers and other measures. There is room for some thinking about the new descent which is steep and a bit like The Luge in terms of its need for future maintenance.

Some discussion on this would be worthwhile.

 

[Icky]

It's probably worth noting that those two management objectives (1 to conserve the natural environment 2 to provide for public use of the area for recreation, education and research) can be achieved in unison, not necessarily in isolation. I would think this is about priority and compromise, maybe there are sections of Bruce that can only handle a certain amount of riders and should be "advanced/intermediate" rather than fully accessible.

As Flags points outs soil erosion is an unintended (by some riders anyway) consequence of mtbing. Technical Terrain Features (TTFs) are ideally suited to minimising the consequences of erosion and some actions identified as to how we (all riders) can contribute to reducing the impact of our activities would be great.

Since the maintenance is based on the hard work of volunteers rather than a govt contract, perhaps an information sheet (posted here, on CORC, the Berm and the Parkcare notice boards) detailing what activities are required, when and where would be a good incentive for people to chip in whenever they have a few spare minutes. E.g., - is it OK to make a drain out of a pool of standing water on the trail? Is it OK to pile rocks into the skidded out corners? Is it OK to pile dirt over fallen logs, move the logs, or put sticks around the logs? On face value, I'd say any help would be appreciated but who am I to know whether draining a puddle will contribute to sedimentation further down stream? whether reloctaing rocks is damaging the habitat for the kicking peacock spider or something, or moving logs will breach the POM or some EIS or EPBC decision and cause us all to be kicked out - don't know... I'd like to know... The worst case scenaio would be creating a sitatiuon where the Nature Reserve are treated like NSW National Parks or wilderness areas where the values are locked up and inaccessible.

Lets not make this another tragedy of commons.

As an aside: I personally see this discussion as a really helpful way for TAMS as the land manager and other contributors to have an understanding of the competing issues of the PUBLIC USERS of the reserve.

Can anyone tell me the status of the Euc plantation on North Lynham ridge? Scope for developing trails there perhaps to reduce the impact on an already compact reserve and network of trails?

 

[rynogee]

A well-designed trail system is supposed to contain a mix of trails of varying difficulty levels: this gives people options, reduces congestion and helps cut down on illicit trail building. Forcing everyone to ride trails that fail to challenge is the equivalent of trapping the general public in an elevator and forcing them to listen to Barry Manilow. It’s cruel and unusual punishment.

From: http://m.bikemag.com/news/web-monkey-speaks-unwarranted-trail-maintenance/

Hopefully the outcome isn't dumbed down at Majura..