cxagent

https://reliabilityanalyticstoolkit.appspot.com/L10_to_mtbf_conversion

I think people are the "random, unexpected failures". Especially those people who don't ride much but want to do a point-to-point riding tour.

2 hours ago, TheX said:

OK, once my wife is healthy enough for me to be back out there, I'll try it the right way.

Conformist. 

5 minutes ago, CBaron said:

Yes, but you're doing it wrong.

Most people go the other way. 

But since the City/PARD require that all trails go both ways - either way is OK.

CMC is having trouble logging on. So here is the official scoop on those jumps -

The jumps were approved and installed on an official work day. Someone has taken it on themselves to modify the first one by adding a kicker. That may still be happening (not confirmed by CMC or myself yet). There is more work planned on both jumps.

Both jumps were approved as "optional" since the rider can chose to ride/jump them or to bypass them since they are built off the side of the existing trail.

There is more info and even pictures on the Walnut Creek Mountain Biking Facebook page.

5 hours ago, Escapee said:

MTBF is arguably the same for humans+current gen equipment. I think L10 is remarkably different. Infant mortality is probably different too. Just a guess.

My experience is that some humans have an MTBF that is MUCH shorter than I want to ride. I don't ride with those humans very often. They generally don't like riding with me either.

And my bike will make many many many of my length rides before any failure. Of course - YMMV.

7 hours ago, AustinBike said:

Molly once told me "there's no f------ sag wagon" about 80 miles into our 100 mile SS ride. I asked her to leave me for dead at that point on the SWCT in the 95F+ heat. I miss riding with her.

Nothing like that motivational speech to get you back on your bike and moving.

Personally I like the approach of "Until you are dead - get back on your bike. You can rest when you really are dead."

Your description (including the name Outer Log Loops) is spot on. 

Give him a little while and I bet CMC will chime in with the official answer to your question about sanctioned or not. There have been many of both types at WC in the past.

On 2/21/2020 at 10:44 AM, TheX said:

... I would never try to convince anyone else to think the way I do.

WHAT?!?!? Well that's unAmerican! Or is it UnMojo? (I get so confused these days.)

12 minutes ago, TheX said:

Sounds like Mr. JB is damn lucky to have such an awesome riding partner.

Yes - the whole "Bug" family is a lot cooler than they sound.

On 2/21/2020 at 4:21 AM, AustinBike said:

June Bug brings up an interesting point about tours. I can see where ebikes could be an interesting option for tours, but if one person has a tech failure and their 45 pound bike slows down the whole group, I could see some real issues springing up. I wonder how they deal with that.

How about the tour where the 300 lb rider bonks on the 10 mile day. Nobody wants to tow him and his bike up any of the climbs. MTBF for some of these kind of riders is less than an hour.

I think the answer to the bonked rider and the dead ebike and the dead pedal bike is the same - sag wagons. I think sag wagons are required on any of these kind of tours.

On 2/18/2020 at 8:48 AM, HoneyBadger said:

The problem we have here is the roots work their way around and through the bedrock, there's no "pole dancing" them out by hand. They are locked in place. Digging them out by hand takes forever. Firstblood worked on one for nearly two hours last week. Although, we do use that "pole dancing" technique when we have a mini-x. 

I agree - there are some stumps I just cannot get out. But I still dig out the root ball on as many as I can.

Ligustrum (sp?) are very common and very shallow rooted until they get over 6" diameter. Above ~ 5 inch diameter we have to get City approval to remove. They ALWAYS approve removal of invasive species like ligustrum - but we still have to get tree by tree approval.

I'm glad you have it all worked out.

I posted this info to the Austin Mountain Biking Trail Conditions Facebook page. There was already a post saying the trails were fine.

On 2/7/2020 at 5:41 PM, gotdurt said:

 

BTW, I'm shocked at how much the trails have worn down in the year that I was out; 1/4 is about to turn a solid black (if it hasn't already), and most of the stumps I cut a couple of years ago are already showing 4-6" again... guess I'm due for another saw walk.

I for one appreciate all the volunteer trail work I can get. But please check with the Trail Steward for the trail.

All trails experience this 'wearing down'. Virgin dirt compresses a good bit as it is first ridden / hiked. The compressed dirt is what prevents grass and such from growing back so fast. Then there is the soil loss. Dry dirt on the trail turns to dust and blows away. Both dust and mud get picked up on tires or shoes and carried away. Both of these events happen on every trail. The softer the soil is the faster the 'wearing down' happens.

Both of these assume the trail is well designed and built. (Deception is well designed and built.) Then you get into issues about Austin/central Texas soils. Our clay soils are especially prone to being carried away as mud or dust. The trail tread will need to be built back up on a regular basis. Except for those places where the trail is solid rock.

If you cut stumps "at ground level", they will continue to "grow" as the ground around then recedes. A better solution is to remove the stump and root ball. Some stumps have such a long and hardy root that removing the root ball is not possible with hand tools. Those I dig as deep as I can and cut the stump *WELL* below ground level (at least 6 inches). My second best alternative is to build up the tread near the stump. Adding soil also gives me the chance to contour the tread to route water off the trail. 

My last resort is to cut the stump "at ground level".

It addresses many of the questions I see/hear - https://crankjoy.com/mountain-bike-etiquette-we-are-not-entitled/?fbclid=IwAR0xSWt8hLZUrqHFDUx5x2QqzdeEPJ9BjRWRWBubjRdMAQ66IrismwCRSHs

And no I did not write it. Or have any input on it.

3 hours ago, AustinBike said:

Is it a 9mm QR, if so yes, that would be great.

I suspect that is your problem. I can NEVER get a QR tight enough to last a whole ride without trouble on my SS. I finally noticed the creak would start after a hard climb on the SS. My thought is the mashing up the hill loosened the QR or something and it didn't stop until I readjusted and reclamped the rear wheel.

I finally changed to a solid axle to solve the problem.  You may have a different problem, but the QR was mine.

Yosmithy - Paul did a lot of work for the Austin MTB community. He was a great person who will be sorely missed.

I hope to make the ride but my schedule does look promising.

TAF - I want everyone to ride as much as they can. Somebody needs to get in the rides I'm not. Talking to folks you meet is also a good thing.

notyal - experience has told me that telling people there are game cameras in the area does not go well. It works better to not say anything and use the pictures to document the problem. BTW - that same experience is to never install just one game camera. It needs to be multiple cameras with overlapping fields of view. That way one cameral documents what happens with the other(s).

RidingAgain - Go for it. Show everyone what you can do with a local mtb magazine. My time and energy is already completely booked up so badly I have not had time to ride. And I have the belly to show for it.

I think everyone has seen my rants about cutting/altering/fixing/etc trails. I am trying to not create another rant. But this need to be discussed among those who are here and want to keep using these trails.

From my experience when I find and talk to these folks, they think they are doing good. They don't seem to understand what they are doing has a good chance of getting the trail closed. That would be PERMANENTLY closed to all users. Signs help a very little bit but they do help. After all - they think they are doing good so that sign does not apply to what they are doing. No matter how the sign is worded or what logo is shown - people ignore the signs.

Two things seem to help. One is a 'polite conversation' between other users (mtb, moto, etc) about what could result from exactly what they are doing. The more other users that tell them that same thing the better. It takes time and numbers to convince them "the good" they are doing is really bad. Would everyone please help with those polite conversations???

The other thing that helps is game cameras and public shaming. Some people may have seen a few years ago when I posted such pictures on Facebook. Someone identified the person (by name). The result was he were told by a number of his friends that what he was doing was a problem. That problem stopped. Fortunately, I have not had to do that in years. Identifying the person and a private conversation is usually all it takes to correct.

Unfortunately, the problems are getting worse again. We can blame it on whatever we want - e.g. more users, new users, uneducated users, entitled users, etc. Regardless of the cause, we need to correct it if we want to keep riding the trails. Even more unfortunate is the BCP staff just told me that they bought a bunch of new game cameras. I hope to catch and correct problems BEFORE the BCP staff does. So if you see game cameras on many local trails (not just CP), they may be mine or they may be the land manager. If we want to continue to use the trails, we should all be trying to play by "the rules".

Just so people know, I was walking some 'bandit trails' with BCP staff to see if we can make them "official trails". The situation with the BCP staff has improved that much. It would not take much damage to reverse the improved relationship. 

I like AustinBikes's suggestion above.

6 hours ago, The Tip said:

Looking at the pictures made me think of the ebike vs "real" bike discussions.

Is it a "real" mountain bike trail if it's built by machine?😉

 

Uh - Yes it is a "real" mountain bike trail if built by machines. Ever been to Angel Fire? Moab? Whistler?

Making signs with the ARR logo should be approved by ARR - and it may take a few days. I predict it would be approved.

Any of those signs are fine with me. We can argue forever about wording. Personally I like the wording of "Building / riding new trail will get the park closed. Stay on the existing trail!"

Professional 'sign makers' say to tell people what they should do, not what they should not do. They would say the sign should be "Stay on the trail" and nothing more. Their argument is that you cannot list EVERYTHING they should not do and you want to make a positive statement. There is some truth to both arguments. But they don't match my experience. It has to be specific, to the point and get people's' attention.

My opinion is to put all three logos on the sign. Maybe even add AMSA & CTTA. It shows that all relevant organizations are saying the same thing. But that is just my opinion.

My cell phone "open screen" (what is displayed when it is turned on without entering a password) shows ICE (In Case of Emergency) with my wife and another emergency contact with their cell phone numbers.

I always have my wallet with my drivers license in it.

Unless someone steals my wallet and cell phone when I am down and unconscious, I think I am covered.

OK I'll play.

Years ago I tried a lot of different tires. Things may be different now but this is what I found works for me. YMMV.

I LOVED the traction of the Nevegal. Even on cross sloped damp rocks like Elephant Butt or near the entrance to Thumper - Nevegals maintained traction. I put Nevegals on front and rear (29" is all I ride).

DeBlurBlur saw that at a race and told me that the rolling resistance was too high. He was right. Nevegals have a very high rolling resistance. That is part of how they maintain the great traction. He suggested (and was riding) Ardents. He said even if you want to maintain the traction on the front, switch to a lower resistance rear.

I kept the front Nevegal and changed to an Ardent rear. Huge improvement. I had the traction up front where it counts more and much lower rolling resistance.

Since then (8 years?) I have generally kept the front Nevegal and swapped the rear many many times. At times I tried different front tires, like Ardent on both. I generally come back to the Nevegal on front. I have not found anything that gives me a better grip when a slip could be a major problem.

There are some tires I won't even try. I ride heavy rocks. Where sharp pointy rocks like Cheese Grater are everywhere. I don't want to ride a tire that gets cut up in the sharp pointy rocks on trail I like to ride. Flat tires are one thing. Cut sidewalls that Stan's can't seal are a non-starter for me.

On the back, I have tried all kinds of tires other people have recommended. I could not tell much difference. I have even tried 'give away' tires. (Samples, raffles, and something somebody tried and didn't like). I have not found many rear tires I could not live with. Some I could tell small differences but nothing I could not live with. But coming from a motocross background might have something to do with my perception. When you are use to riding with the rear wheel spinning constantly and never really hooking up - a little slippage on the rear tire doesn't upset me much. And yes it has bit me when the rear tire let go on a slick cross slope and never caught traction again. Come to think of it, I think that tire is still on my rear wheel.

Lots of good advice in this thread. Especially the "braaap" part ;-).

Planning is key. Just like Honey Badger, rushing to build keeps getting me more work to redo what has been done. That should be pretty clear in any of the links I posted.

Since you mentioned 'sandy soil' - there some issues. First, sandy soil in central Texas is unusual. Either that is currently a 'low spot' (water drains to it) or it was in the past. If it is currently a low spot - run away now. It would take many truck loads of clay soil to mix with the sand to raise and harden the tread to make it a rideable trail. 

If the earth has moved so that is no longer a low spot, it might still be workable. Look for nearby clay rich soils that could be mixed into the sand. You are trying to move toward the upper middle of the soils pyramid (google it). Silt and loam will 'add themselves' with time and nature. You will have to add the clay. If you can't make a 'mud pie' that holds together while you roll it between your hands - the trail tread won't hold together either.

If it is really sandy soil - I have walked away from several potential trails. LCRA offered a great location inside of Muleshoe that I started laying out a trail. One day when it was too wet to ride I was flagging the first cut at a trail. When I tried to put my shovel into the dirt so I didn't have to hold it while I tied a flag - the sand would not hold it. I buried the entire head of the shovel into the 'dirt' but the shovel just fell over when I let go of the handle. I started poking around and found the entire hill top was nothing but loose sand. Even LCRA said they didn't think they could afford that many truckloads of clay to make that location into a trail.

And did anybody mention that keeping water off the trail is key???? That is the reason for many of the IMBA rules for trail building. For example, the half rule is to make water run across the trail instead of down the trail. Yes downhillers want fall line trails but it takes tons of work to keep a fall line trail from eroding away. Take a look at the Hill of Life if you want a good example. There are between 25 and 30 concrete water bars across the Hill of Life where the City of Austin has tried (unsuccessfully) to control the erosion of a fall line trail.