A modest proposal: Trail Rating System

[neduro]

Originally Posted by HellSickle

Northern Colorado Trail Riders agonized a long time over this one. What is fast to a new person, is a crawl to a very experienced person. Where one person might struggle with deep sand, they may excel in rock gardens.

Good input!

For Dualsporting, I think there has to be a component of exposure added. We're not just going on a loop from the truck, after all, not that there's anything wrong with that as it's how I spend most of my time.

The point about different difficulty on different bikes is valid. I think the rating system has to refer only to the terrain, so that it's left to the individual to say "I'll ride up to an XX on my GS, but an XX+1 or 2 on my DR-Z".

[Renazco]

This is great Ned

[Wombat_XJ]

This is a great idea. Like what was said before, the 4x4 community has a rating system(s) and they focus on what equipment you need to get through; ie. nothing, 33"s and lockers, to rock buggy and winch required!!

The variety of our bikes is about as great. What's a walkover for an enduro or hard core bike (don't know which one, I'm newb), would be a wreck for a Strom or somesuch more street oriented bike. The rating should take into account a middle ground bike then go from there. The suggestions given are very good.

[Lone Rider]

We started off road 4x4 trail rating systems many years ago. Those systems would be the most applicable to 'trail riding' than any other I know.

Also, to remember, rating are usually weather sensitive. A simple 2 can become a 5 in the rain...etc, etc...
I would be happy to help, if possible.

[JMartin]

Originally Posted by neduro

...I think there has to be a component of exposure added. ...

Agreed. Exposure could include risks from animals, e.g. bears, theives or other unsavory characters (ADV inmates excluded), and weather.

Jay

[JMartin]

Originally Posted by neduro

...Class I thru VII could be brought over from climbing...Class I - Requires 1-2 hours...

I'm questioning the usefulness of our estimating times in the rating. This is obviously critical information for a climber. But if I see a trail is xx miles and has such and such a rating, can't I just estimate in my head how long it's going to take me? As a slow rider, I know guys who routinely ride 50 miles of single track in half the time it takes me.

Originally Posted by neduro

Grades are tougher. But, a proposal is:
Grade A is graded dirt road
B is easy jeep road
C is moderate
D is occasionally technical
E is continuously...

I would argue to keep difficulty separate from frequency. It is important for the rating system to clearly inform about the most difficult section even if the rest of the trail is a breeze. It would also be helpful to know how frequently I'm going to encounter tough stuff. I think the latter is related to one's personal endurance. It's one thing to tackle a single rough spot, rest, and catch one's breath. It could be life threatening for someone not in that great of shape to spend 6 hours working their hardest.

Originally Posted by neduro

...navigation is a non issue...

Excellent, I'd forgotten about that factor. Maybe it ties back to exposure. How easy is it to get lost and end up spending the night out or running out of gas?

Originally Posted by neduro

...If it requires either a committed move (like a ledge)...

I like this and wonder if it ties to Recovery. I don't have a GS, but I can imagine one getting into places where a fully-loaded GS has no choice but to keep going; turning around is not an option. In my mind recovery also has to do with picking a bike up. It's one thing to pick up my 250 on a narrow sidehill. It could be quite another with that GS.


It's pretty early in the thread to start summarizing, but here goes. Things riders want to know:

• How tough is the worst section (I personally would like this further broken down: grade, water crossing, ledge, sand, boulders,...).
• How frequent are the challenges.
• Recovery issues
• Navigation
• Exposure

Great thread!

Jay

[neduro]

Originally Posted by Wombat_XJ

This is a great idea. Like what was said before, the 4x4 community has a rating system(s) and they focus on what equipment you need to get through; ie. nothing, 33"s and lockers, to rock buggy and winch required!!

The problem is that the right rider can get a big bike almost anywhere, and the wrong rider can't buy his way through a trail no matter what bike he's on.

As I see it, the system has to be absolutely focused on the terrain. The rider determines "I can ride that grade on this bike, and a higher grade on a smaller bike, and an even higher grade on a borrowed smaller bike".

Also, I think we have a lot of cool loops that never rate particularly high on the difficulty scale, but are epic because of their location and, for lack of a better term, exposure. Our rating system should take that into account, so that a low difficulty rating doesn't equal lame and don't bother to an experienced rider.

The process I see us going through: Let's hash around a system a while more, then start posting pictures and discussing classification.

[neduro]

Originally Posted by JMartin

Agreed. Exposure could include risks from animals, e.g. bears, theives or other unsavory characters (ADV inmates excluded), and weather.

You northeasterners have thugs and bears on the trails? Jeebus, no wonder the trails are all closed...

When I say exposure, I guess I'm talking about a few things. First is the difficulty of following the track. There are places I know where 90% of the roads on the ground dead end, and it takes a real trick to get through without running out of gas.

So, the same route could be different in exposure based on whether it has 100 dead-end intersections that are unmarked, or not.

Second is proximity to services, gas, help, etc. That same route in Baja or Morocco, rates higher than in Sussex County.

Third, it's how tolerant of shit going wrong the route is.

Where I'm going is that "Angola, it's not like they said" pretty much caps the chart on this variable. Even if the riding had been easy (which it doesn't look like it was), it gets a 12 on a 10 point scale for exposure. Does that make sense? I don't see anything in the ConUS that rates higher than about a 6 on that same 10 point scale- you just aren't ever that far from help, and there are not many military governments here.

[neduro]

Originally Posted by JMartin

I'm questioning the usefulness of our estimating times in the rating.

Good point.

Originally Posted by JMartin

I would argue to keep difficulty separate from frequency.

Ties back to the first point here.

The prototypical example of this issue (sorry, it's a dirtbikey example) is a trail we have in Utah called the "Five Miles of Hell". Nevermind that it's 7 miles and more like heaven, so they named it wrong on both counts, I guess they got "of" right, the point is that it has basically one level of difficulty consistently throughout. Many riders can do 1/2 a mile of that stuff, but they aren't efficient at it, use too much energy, overheat, and the remainder of the trail becomes a death march.

So, I think there's a useful distinction between "there's this one b*tch of a hill in the middle" and "the whole thing is just like that hill". That circles back to the issue of pace.

I think climbers rate both a crux and the climb as a whole. So, a climb can be 5.9 with a 5.10 crux somewhere, vs another climb is all 5.10. That might be a useful distinction...

[scarysharkface]

I agree that a brief description would be very useful. I might enjoy riding the first 5 easy miles of a trail that gets ugly after mile 5.5, for instance.

John

[AntWare]

Originally Posted by Wayne Weber

I'll think about it more. I just tell everyone "it ain't too bad".

I think the system we use now works well.

If 5 of us go riding with Ned and 3 or less require hospital treatment, it's a successful weekend and only ranks as moderate

[rufus]

I have seen expert MX racers who turned into 1st gear squids when they see 2 rocks. I have seen A enduro riders who feared anything past 3rd gear. Any ratings system would have to include not only a difficulty rating but also TRAIL DESCRIPTION. Rocks, deep sand , switchbacks, miles of 1st gear , miles of top gear, sidehills, etc....Don't overengineer it by assigning a number or letter to the trail description. The trail description needs to be written words describing the trail. Without this i believe any ratings system would be too subjective to be meaningful. But i do think a ratings system is a great idea.

[D-man]

Having recently ridden the western section of the TAT we were talking along the trial and this very subject came up.

We thought a sectional approach would be most beneficial. There are many sections of the TAT that very significantly from day to day, state to state and even mile to mile.

We were thinking that a common point of reference could be very helpful. Since many have done the TAT, different sections could be rated with a system and a basic description. Then all other trips could be referenced to it.

Like you could say the section between Moab and Green river is a difficulty 7 (1-10) with one really deep sand hill climb and lots of rough rock ledges. This is just an example.

If everyone that has done it agreed that was correct. Then we have a system.


D-man

[ralee26]

being new to trail riding or just dirt riding in general, I think that the bike aspect of the rating is irrelevant, it is the responsibility of the rider to know their own abilities on their bike. In trying to find trails to ride the things that I would like to know the most are: mileage, terrain, type, and some inclination of difficulty.

for me personally a long stretch of switch back deep gravel road is harder on me than a rocky craggy loose dirt muddy dbl track.
Maybe that could be denoted as: (20e LGrd) 20 miles easy Loose gravel road,
(20m DTdb) 20 miles moderate double track.
Its up to me to know i have a harder time with gravel a map can tell me it has switch backs, as well as it is up to me to know that its been raining and that a dirt road will have mud.
Again I'm just a noob so what do I know,

[JMartin]

Hi,

I agree that narrative descriptions are great. Having an agreed upon "language" or rating system to go along with narrative could make it less subjective.

Sections
Any section without a bailout point should be covered by a single rating that describes the worst of it. Any section with bailout points would benifit from ratings for each sub-section.

Three draft factors: terrain, width, navigability.

Terrain
T6--Requires supplemental assistance, e.g. block and tackle or extra help to steady or lift the bike into a boat.
T5--Difficult, expert off-road skills required
T4--Medium, average off-road skills required
T3--Mild, doable by someone new to dirt riding
T2--Firm, graded dirt (potentially slippery when wet)
T1--Pavement

Width
W3--Extreme, e.g. single track too narrow for a GS with boxes
W2--Medium, need to pay attention
W1--Unrestricted

Navigability
N5--Extreme likelihood of getting lost without a guide; spotty GPS coverage
N4--Confusing even with GPS
N3--Fine with GPS or maps
N2--Fine with written directions
N1--No brainer

Jay