Oxford Falls: We need to be careful/respectful!

[S.]

Sorry S. You're wrong. Until pointed out otherwise all scientific research (no inverted commas needed, they are real scientific studies) indicate that MTB have the same impact as walkers. If you have "scientifc research" that conflicts please post. IMBA is a good place to start.

From my reading the impact rider vs walker is sustainable over all conditions. IE. Wet muddy conditions. Riders do the same amount of damage as walkers. Hot and dry, same deal.

Too easy.

From http://www.imba.com/resources/science/impact_summary.html:
Chiu and Kriwoken: No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear
In a study whose publication in Annals of Leisure Research is pending, two researchers at the University of Tasmania, Australia, conducted an experiment on an abandoned fire road to compare track ("track" is the term for trail in Australia) impacts from hiking and bicycling. For the study "Managing Recreational Mountain Biking in Wellington Park, Tasmania, Australia," (2) the authors had hikers and bicyclists pass test plots 400 times each, and measured the surface profile of the track before, during and after the passes. They compared flat and steep and wet and dry conditions. Chiu and Kriwoken found no significant difference in the trail wear caused by the two user groups. They did find significant impact from skidding tires, and they did find that impacts on wet trails were greater than on dry for both types of use.

Are you saying that mountain bikers, particularly on downhill tracks, don't skid or slide? That line alone also implies that skidding was not accounted for in the general body of their tests, and that thus we can fairly safely infer that their tests were conducted with riders NOT breaking traction.

Wilson and Seney suggested that precipitation will cause erosion even without human travel and this factor may significantly outweigh the effects of travel. Trail design, construction, and maintenance may be much more important factors in controlling erosion.

This indicates that given test plots may well be irrelevant to differently-constructed sections of track, under different riding conditions.

There is no mention in any of the IMBA research articles that I could see, of downhill/aggressive riding, or any specification of the riding types whatsoever (other than the mention of uphill sections which would obviously not be referring to DH riding). The fact that they don't make any effort to distinguish between specific ascending/descending (ie cross country vs downhill style riding) in any of the articles that I could see would tend to imply that it is XC-type riding. If you are now going to tell me that XC and DH riding have the same impact on trails, I will laugh at you. You only have to go to Mt Buller at the start and the end of the season to see a massive difference in trail conditions (and those trails have regular maintenance done to them!)... and braking bumps aren't caused by rain. Walking simply cannot create that kind of damage. Another example would be the Eildon DH course - over the course of a single race weekend it develops huge ruts, random holes in the ground in various corners, and there are piles of loose dust where there never used to be. I challenge any hiker(s) to recreate that kind of damage - it's just not going to happen.

So "sorry", but I'm not wrong at all. I appreciate your pro-mtb efforts very much, but I would also appreciate a more objective appraisal of the situation. If you're going to quote various studies, make sure they're completely relevant - in this case, they're not, as much as we all wish they were.

 

[Binaural]

I'm really not being negative Scratchy, but I am a realist when it comes to environmental management. My own experience of councils is that they are very cautious wrt environmental management issues and large, open-ended maintenance commitments are a hard sell. Trying to get a council to agree to assume responsibility for developing trails for us is likely to prove difficult, since mountain bikers are not a numerically large group with little political clout even at a local level.

Again, I am saying that the damage caused by bikers is of secondary importance to the annoyance we cause hikers. The art and science of building and maintaining trails is well understood and documented even without $400 (!) seminars, as is the minimal extra damage caused by bikers. However, the major political problem is that hikers and walkers have already created trails in and around most of the areas mountain bikers want to ride, and don’t want to share.

The key issue I see is not getting access rights to small lengths of bike specific trails, but the many thousands of kilometres of walking trails established by hikers and walkers. Negotiating shared access rights is the key, not getting council to build us new trails.

PS S., I think that Mt Buller is not the best example you could have used since you could argue that the chairlifts allow an unrealistically high throughput of bikes compared to the vast majority of other trails where getting back to the top fast is a lot harder. Likewise Thredbo, my arms nearly fell off when I rode there last.

 

[S.]

PS S., I think that Mt Buller is not the best example you could have used since you could argue that the chairlifts allow an unrealistically high throughput of bikes compared to the vast majority of other trails where getting back to the top fast is a lot harder. Likewise Thredbo, my arms nearly fell off when I rode there last.

That's true, but that just shows a much more accelerated rate of trail damage and IMO is useful for predicting long-term effects on other trails. It should also be noted that Buller has 8 months of the year to "recover" where it's not being ridden at all (although it is covered in snow for a few months, I don't know what effect that would have, may even increase erosion due to meltage runoff), and that the trails there are built specifically with erosion minimisation in mind (check the rock armoring in the heavy braking sections, it's crazy) and that regular maintenance is done. Same at Thredbo, the whole place is designed according to IMBA guidelines and they pay people to actually maintain it properly, but it's still the roughest, most rutted out place I've ever ridden.

The reason I used Buller and Eildon as examples was because they're a clear demonstration of what will happen after X number of riders have come down. At those places you might get 5000 runs down each track in a week whereas other locations might take 6 months to have that number of runs down them - but the damage done by that number of runs is, in my estimation, going to be pretty similar regardless of the timeframe over which they occurred (within reason of course).

 

[scratchy]

So "sorry", but I'm not wrong at all. I appreciate your pro-mtb efforts very much, but I would also appreciate a more objective appraisal of the situation. If you're going to quote various studies, make sure they're completely relevant - in this case, they're not, as much as we all wish they were.

Sure you're not all wrong but you definately ain't allright.

It could be argued that if it is steep enough for a bike to skid, it is probably steep enough for walkers to slide around or make indents into the terrain for traction.

Until provided otherwise the sources quoted from IMBA are the only scientific research on this topic. Yeah I can think of variables as well, including what sort of shoes the walkers are wearing. I can't give an "objective appraisal of the situation" because I'm writing from another state and haven't ridden there. My point of the orignal post, back when it was On Topic was to point out to people who want to actually contribute to this tribe called MTBing and work with councils was that this was a good source to quote and work from.

You've proven it's worth perfectly S. despite what you "think" there is not documented evidence to support what you think. Yeah I'm a realist and I know skidding does damage and DH bikes reak havoc, but if you put walkers on the same terrain slope, the document evidence states they will impact it as much. Until there is a study that says otherwise, that's it folks.

Which of coarse is an arguement for better trail design.

 

[wombat]

It could be argued that if it is steep enough for a bike to skid, it is probably steep enough for walkers to slide around or make indents into the terrain for traction.

But downhillers won't only skid on steep sections, they'll skid or "drift" (I'm using "skid" to imply a loss of traction) through relatively flat corners because they're carrying much more speed than a walker ever would; speed is at the heart of the skidding issue, and you don't need a ridiculously steep slope to go fast.

I hope you don't think I'm just trying to get one up here, it's just that I do agree with S. so far as quoting "facts" that aren't really correct probably isn't a good idea. I too have read the studies (this was my topic for a senior school assignment), and as much as we might want to we can't pretend that downhilling is the same (impact wise) as cross country riding. It's always going to be harder on the environment due to more agressive riding styles, and more agressive tracks. It's a shame, but it's the way it is.

 

[Refreshinglygood]

The point is

Ok fella's, lets stick to the point. The area is at risk because of missuse, overuse, unsutainable use, lack of understanding from other users, (add your perspective here) etc.

We had a period in the Glenrocktrailalliance history where we would argue about silly "facts" as you all put them. We let ego get in the way, and we spent a great deal of time wasting time. Get over all this stuff. MTB causes damage to the environment, More damage than is acceptable under some conditions, and less damage than is expected in others.

There is no such thing as scientific fact or proof, only research that suggests things under certain conditions.

Get on with protecting the trails, put the ego's away, doesn't matter who is wrong or who is right if there are no trails to ride.

 

[scratchy]

Ok fella's, lets stick to the point....

There is no such thing as scientific fact or proof, only research that suggests things under certain conditions....

Get on with protecting the trails, put the ego's away, doesn't matter who is wrong or who is right if there are no trails to ride.

Your right Refresh/ thanks for picking me up on the oxymoron.

I don't know Oxford Falls, I was just lending my experience through Advocacy work in SA. So not in reference to Oxford falls but my observations are:

1 People misinterpret the impact of DH bikes, it is more a function of trail design.
2 Long travel (4-6") front and rear Hydro XC/trail rider bikes are becoming more common. If you fast forward 2 years (the time it would take to get through council) what will be the difference between most DH bikes to XC bikes? Both will be semi active long travel bike with hydro discs.
3 Looking to events such as 24 hour enduros, it is hard to argue that XC bikes impact far less than DH bikes.
4 Taking the Enduro event example one step further, it's 20kms long. A DH coarse is only 2kms long (just examples here, ppl). Which one has a greater environmental impact? The XC coarse that is 10x longer or the DH coarse that concentrates it's impacts?
5 Trail design! Ride a trail that has been built to IMBA guidelines.
6 If you hope to get anywhere with councils, drop the DH line with them pretty quick. They perceive DH as EXTREME, the insurance underwriter will consider DH as EXTREME and won't conver them or use it as an excuse to jack up the premiums. If you want to get anywhere with councils, get them first to accept the concept of moderate tracks (regardless of what the reality of them may be), when they realise they aren't that bad and the local riding community has proven itself to be a mature specialist interest group they can work with, you then might have a chance to get the DH trails you want.

That's all from me, I hope that's helped someone!

 

[Dumbellina]

Calm down lads and lasses.

A couple of things.

(1) Read my paper on legal aspects of MTB access on the MTB Australia website. (http://www.mtba.asn.au/trails/docs/sport and the law_a mtb pov.pdf) Ultimately it comes down to how we negotiate with the land managers, not purely a legal right to access or be denied.

(2) Oxford Falls is owned by Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) as private land (just like your backyard if you have one). They have an agreement with Warringah Council that the land remain open for recreational use - including MTB. The LALC gets pissed off that Aboriginal heritage does get destroyed up there (how many riders have actually seen it up there?) and are concerned by the public liability issues. Council does not manage the land but are an important player.

(3) Neighbours groups piss politicians and councils off. They can spot an NIMBY a mile away. As a user group we must prove that keeping it open is to everyone's benefit and closing it only serves the interests of a narrow range of people.

(4) Nature conservation - sure it has outstanding natural and cultural beauty but remember that before the LALC was granted the land the government said that it was not required for an essential public purpose, including nature conservation.

 

[scratchy]

Thanks for that link, it looks like interesting reading. Just to clarify before I delve too far into it. How transferable is the law from state to state? I assume this report was written based on NSW law.

 

[Dumbellina]

Thanks for that link, it looks like interesting reading. Just to clarify before I delve too far into it. How transferable is the law from state to state? I assume this report was written based on NSW law.

The paper is entirely NSW law. In terms of Cth law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 may operate in a limited number of cases - World Heritage (eg Blue Mtns), Ramsar (some coastal wetlands), Threatened Species, Heritage.

The transferrability of laws - civil liability laws are fairly consistent across the board (they were a response to the public liability crisis by all governments). Not sure about conservation, planning and conservation reserve laws in other states.

 

[S.]

You've proven it's worth perfectly S. despite what you "think" there is not documented evidence to support what you think. Yeah I'm a realist and I know skidding does damage and DH bikes reak havoc, but if you put walkers on the same terrain slope, the document evidence states they will impact it as much. Until there is a study that says otherwise, that's it folks.

Which of coarse is an arguement for better trail design.

There is no documented evidence to support what you think either, unless you call over-generalised statements such as those by IMBA "evidence" - as I said before, XC bikes and DH bikes are ridden in vastly different manners. The document doesn't state that walkers WILL impact it as much, they stated that UNDER THE TESTED CONDITIONS which includes riding style as a HUGE variable that they've held relatively constant, the impact will be roughly the same. It seems to me that you're trying to say that what holds for XC bikes ridden along trails must also be held true for DH bikes flying down steep courses (which, being solely downhill, also have a potential for greater continuous water runoff than undulating singletrack), constantly on or past the limits of traction. Is that what you're saying, or is it not? Because if that IS what you're saying, you're extremely ignorant of the differences in riding styles (and I don't believe you are). If not, then you have to accept that studies that don't take into account DH riding are highly likely to be inaccurate to some degree in this context.

As far as skidding goes, what Wombat said is pretty much correct. Skidding is what happens due to heavy braking, tight corners or slippery surfaces (mud etc) combined with high (relative) speeds, in addition to steep sections. DH tracks have this in abundance, I can't say I've ridden all that much XC-type singletrack which contained much of that kind of thing, nor are XC bikes really all that prone to hard braking, due to the more front-biased weight distribution.

1 People misinterpret the impact of DH bikes, it is more a function of trail design.
2 Long travel (4-6") front and rear Hydro XC/trail rider bikes are becoming more common. If you fast forward 2 years (the time it would take to get through council) what will be the difference between most DH bikes to XC bikes? Both will be semi active long travel bike with hydro discs.
3 Looking to events such as 24 hour enduros, it is hard to argue that XC bikes impact far less than DH bikes.
4 Taking the Enduro event example one step further, it's 20kms long. A DH coarse is only 2kms long (just examples here, ppl). Which one has a greater environmental impact? The XC coarse that is 10x longer or the DH coarse that concentrates it's impacts?
5 Trail design! Ride a trail that has been built to IMBA guidelines.
6 If you hope to get anywhere with councils, drop the DH line with them pretty quick. They perceive DH as EXTREME, the insurance underwriter will consider DH as EXTREME and won't conver them or use it as an excuse to jack up the premiums. If you want to get anywhere with councils, get them first to accept the concept of moderate tracks (regardless of what the reality of them may be), when they realise they aren't that bad and the local riding community has proven itself to be a mature specialist interest group they can work with, you then might have a chance to get the DH trails you want.

That's all from me, I hope that's helped someone!

1. Yeah trail design is a HUGE part of it, but the whole idea/mentality of DH riding is to go as fast as possible down each and every given section. XC riding isn't really the same IME, even at the elite levels they're not sliding sideways around corners at 50km/h.
2. Having longer travel and better brakes doesn't make it the same thing - there's a reason why DH racers aren't riding long travel XC rigs. They don't hold up to the abuse that a DH bike cops, often don't have quite the same tyre clearance (who uses a 2.8" tyre on their XC bike? Anyone?), and the geometry isn't the same. Try riding a DH racebike uphill, even the best pedalling ones just don't climb. A 6" travel XC bike will climb however, but the flipside is that it will never be as fast/aggressive on the descents. The end result is that the DH bike is going to be going faster and taking bigger hits, landing/cornering sideways, yadda yadda. You get the picture.
3. Not really, those events have several hundred competitors riding nonstop for 24 hours. Try that on any DH course, it'll be nearly unrideable by the end of it. Even 3-day race weekends only give you about 10 hours practice/riding time in total, and only a relatively small percentage of that time is actually on the bike, most of it is getting up to the top again. DH events also don't get the same turnout (or generally anywhere close to it).
4. I think you're thinking the wrong way round there - as you said before, this is about riding not trail construction, so assuming the track construction isn't an issue then we're back down to the length. How many laps does your average enduro rider do during the race, ie how many times does he ride over each patch of ground? Then compare that to how many runs a DHer will do over the same period of time. Take into account the fact that you simply can't ride XC flat out all the time, on the limit of traction, and that half of it is uphill anyway (much slower, no skidding), whereas DH is the complete opposite, and what do you get?
5. Completely agree here. Trail design is critical to sustainability.
6. Agree again, but on the other hand you have to make them aware of what you actually want - you don't want to end up with some shithole like the Buxton MTB Park, or the Burwood thing. Things like that come from poor communication and lack of direct honesty with the council. Councils have shown that they are more than willing to provide stuff that in theory is relatively dangerous (skateparks etc) as long as it doesn't pose any unforseen dangers (northshore bridges falling to bits, impaling yourself on a stump etc) or become unsustainable.


BTW Scratchy, in case I sound really narky in my posts in this thread - I'm not trying to shit on your ideas or anything, I want to keep mtb trails open too. All I'm trying to do is provide reasonable input on what is the best method for helping to do that - my arguments are directed at your arguments, not at you personally

 

[Refreshinglygood]

what was the point of this thread again

wasn't it to discuss ways to lobby to keep the place open to riders?

if so it doesn't matter wh is right about this, you two have let your ego's take over.

 

[S.]

wasn't it to discuss ways to lobby to keep the place open to riders?

if so it doesn't matter wh is right about this, you two have let your ego's take over.

Relax mate, this is simply the finer points... it's still completely relevant. I don't think either of us really care who is right, it's more what is right and why - you should be able to see how this is directly related to lobbying for Oxford Falls to remain open.

 

[Dhfactory]

everyone one on this site will be dead before you have no places to ride, it's no big deal.

-Sean

 

[Techno Destructo]

everyone one on this site will be dead before you have no places to ride, it's no big deal.

-Sean

Wow. Dumbest post in this thread by a mile.

It's people like YOU, who don't give a fuck and think only of yourself, who get mountain biking BANNED from areas. I don't know where you ride, but can you do it as far away from my riding areas as possible? I'd like to preserve the trail access where I am.


No wonder mountain bikers get a bad rep, when we've got people like Sean in our sport...

 

[sammydog]

As refreshinglygood has said, we (www.glenrocktrailalliance.tk) are negotiating trail access with the NPWS at the moment.

We've just had a group cut a new trail and build some jumps out of trees (there is pics on our site). Now we can't confirm or deny that it was mtb's, mini-motos, or another group (although the first two are the most likely), but weve gone into damagfe control with the NPWS and this is their most recent response.

Sad to see such destruction - if only I knew who they were we could put a stop to it. Its not as if there arent enough trails there already! This is one of the biggest fears of a land manager of course - that it doesnt matter if a trail exists to cater for an activity such as bike riding or not- people like this will always go ahead and create new ones.

Now its hard to lobby for continued access when the land manager has this opinion of mountainbikes. As far as parks are concerned, even if we get dedicated trails (and organised maintenance) there is going to be an element that still go in and construct new trails and alter new ones for themselves.

Fortunately we now have state members starting to contact us to help with our fight, but we need to change our image and this strts with riders respecting where they ride. If you want to build shit, build it on your own land, not on Council/National Parks/State Forest/or Aboriginal Land Council land. Respect where you ride and other users and our perceived image will change for the better

Personally, I think the argument about who causes more damage (XC/DH/walkers) is academic and doesn't do a hell of a lot in getting legitimate and legal access to trails. It doesn't matter who or what the trail is for, it will have an impact. How much of an impact depends upon who is looking at it. Weve found the trail type hasn't been as much of a concern to the NPWS as much as the shear number of them and the amount of continual works and change that seem to occur. Add into this people creating multiple lines to get around sections they can't ride (this happens up here in the XC and DH trails) and you have on pissed off land manager.

We also need to move beyond the us and them (walkers or any other user group) and focus on our own issues. there is no need for us to get access at the expense of other user groups. But thats another discussion for another time.

 

[Refreshinglygood]

well said

well said Sammy.

 

[Refreshinglygood]

it's more what is right and why.

Well thanks for that qualification S.

Although I'm not sure I know what you mean by what is right, you are both arguing a particular point, and you are both suggesting that your point is right.

Which I suppose is the reason why I suggested that the ego's are taking over.

No offence meant by this comment S, I was not trying to start a fight so there is no reason for me to not be relaxed.

Please don't get caught up in the argumnet stuff it's a waste of time, and the point gets lost in the effort to prove a point more correct than another.

So to continue the discussion, what are the idea's to lobby against the "potential" (I use this term very losely) threat to the trails?

 

[Dumbellina]

In respect of Oxford Falls all major modes of MTB are present - XC, DH and freeride.

They are generally done on different trails and areas. The prevailing geomorphology is sandstone, with large exposures with ledges and cliff lines, and sandy soils. Its an eroding landscapes as water and native vegetation attack the sandstone and erode it on weak points such as joins or variations in the sandstone structure. In these conditions the soil is thin and highly erodible.

DH trails tend to follow the major exposures so a lot of riding is done on the sandstone - which has few erosion problems. The problem is where the trail goes over the shallow soil and damage to native vegetation, and the trail's slope and level of use (all users) mean that the trail erodes (and the noisy NIMBYs blame MTB). Because the XC trails tend to cover more of the soil covered terrain, there is erosional damage caused by bike users.

I agree that DH does more damage - heavier, faster, harder braking on steeper slopes - however at Oxford Falls very few XC bikes even try the DH trails. (Though a few DH riders try the XC trails - "...get out of my way...")

So for Oxford Falls the solution is to design, build and maintain trails according to IMBA standards. This might include using North Shore type construction to avoid damage (that was what North Shore was intended for - to allow riding on otherwise unrideable terrain).

Look at the existing relationship between Warringah Council (same Council) and riders at nearby Manly Dam. Theres an excellent 12 km loop around the dam that's challenging, popular and has few environmental impacts - conflicts with other users and neighbours needs sorting out (who puts grass clippings on the trail!).

BTW whats the story with Burwood Council - besides being pains in the arse about cycling (I live nearby and ride through the Council area daily).