Western: Yankee Springs

[Bigtymer]

Yeah you're probably right, I only need a one by 9 0r 10. I haven't ridden in Michigan in two years, so I'm guessing from riding the Rockies out here in Colorado, I probably wont' need a granny in Michigan anymore.

[Bigtymer]

You really only need a 1x9 or a 1x10 in Michigan for a geared bike. The only place I have ever needed granny gear in Michigan is on the Redbridge section of the NCT trail. If you have more than one bike, I would make one into a 1x9 or 10.

I ride that section of NCT all the time with my single speed, no need for ANY gears in MI.

Ah-hem...... Only 1 gear needed

yeah singlespeeds don't work for me, especially when my climbs out west here go anywhere from 2.5 miles to 12 miles. Although, I haven't ridden the NCT in two years, so maybe when I go home this summer I will try one out. A SS on the Redbridge to Mesick section:)

[dirtjunkie]

There was a decent sized tree down about 2/3 up "Who's your daddy Hill", which is roughly 5 miles in, just after The Pines. This was late Wed (4/4/12) evening.

Otherwise the trail is great.

[McGurk]

I do not think the trail is great. Sure, there are sections that are fast and flow really well. But to me, other sections, deeper in the woods, are showing signs of significant abuse. Many sections display serious erosion and should have been re-routed years ago. These areas have deeply exposed roots and are increasingly dangerous. Some of the drops, while fun, have also become badly bowled out. I ride and race aggressively and have the scars and ER bills to prove it. Challenging trails are great, but land abuse is a different matter. Somebody needs to step in here and take better care of the trail system.

[mntn-biker]

I do not think the trail is great. Sure, there are sections that are fast and flow really well. But to me, other sections, deeper in the woods, are showing signs of significant abuse. Many sections display serious erosion and should have been re-routed years ago. These areas have deeply exposed roots and are increasingly dangerous. Some of the drops, while fun, have also become badly bowled out. I ride and race aggressively and have the scars and ER bills to prove it. Challenging trails are great, but land abuse is a different matter. Somebody needs to step in here and take better care of the trail system.

Certainly one of the last local trails here on this side of the state that are not "dumbed down"

[McGurk]

I'm not talking about dumbing anything down. Frankly that phrase gets tossed around pretty carelessly as if the issue was black and white. My hope is that people realize you can have challenging terrain without ripping the land in two. Yankee has been flat out abused for a long time and it is a poor reflection on the mountain bike community and plays to the stereotype that our activity is harmful to the environment.

[cramer]

I'm not talking about dumbing anything down. Frankly that phrase gets tossed around pretty carelessly as if the issue was black and white. My hope is that people realize you can have challenging terrain without ripping the land in two. Yankee has been flat out abused for a long time and it is a poor reflection on the mountain bike community and plays to the stereotype that our activity is harmful to the environment.

+1

There are better ways to make a trail challenging than letting it wash away.

Edit: For the record, I'm not bashing the TC. He's in a tough position because a bunch of people freak out any time a re-route is done to fix the wash outs. It's always somebody's favorite section.

[G.R.XC-MTNBKR]

I'm not talking about dumbing anything down. Frankly that phrase gets tossed around pretty carelessly as if the issue was black and white. My hope is that people realize you can have challenging terrain without ripping the land in two. Yankee has been flat out abused for a long time and it is a poor reflection on the mountain bike community and plays to the stereotype that our activity is harmful to the environment.

+1

There are better ways to make a trail challenging than letting it wash away.

Edit: For the record, I'm not bashing the TC. He's in a tough position because a bunch of people freak out any time a re-route is done to fix the wash outs. It's always somebody's favorite section.

True, but unless u replace an eroded, challenging, or technical section or whatever u wanna call it with something equally challenging it should not be done, or it is dumbing down the trail. But as soon as u make a new obstacle or technical reroute all the masses start crying its to difficult so bypasses need to be added in for them.

[irishpitbull]

The above poster is correct and speaks awesomeness.

[cramer]

True, but unless u replace an eroded, challenging, or technical section or whatever u wanna call it with something equally challenging it should not be done, or it is dumbing down the trail. But as soon as u make a new obstacle or technical reroute all the masses start crying its to difficult so bypasses need to be added in for them.

Not true, unless you believe the trail was originally built with 20 foot wide washed out root exposed eroded sections. Re-routes simply restore it to its original condition. The original condition was no erosion so therefore it is impossible to dumb down a trail by re-routing eroded sections.

Regarding bypasses, they are not built because of crying by the masses. The reason I know this is that they are built at the same time as the technical feature, before anyone has a chance to cry about it. The reason they are built is that if you don't build them, riders will "build" them by trying to ride around the obstacle. Either way, they WILL be there so it's considered better to build them correctly at the time of original construction.

Lastly, why do bypasses bother you anyway? They don't prevent you from enjoying the technical feature do they?

[G.R.XC-MTNBKR]

True, but unless u replace an eroded, challenging, or technical section or whatever u wanna call it with something equally challenging it should not be done, or it is dumbing down the trail. But as soon as u make a new obstacle or technical reroute all the masses start crying its to difficult so bypasses need to be added in for them.

Not true, unless you believe the trail was originally built with 20 foot wide washed out root exposed eroded sections. Re-routes simply restore it to its original condition. The original condition was no erosion so therefore it is impossible to dumb down a trail by re-routing eroded sections.

Regarding bypasses, they are not built because of crying by the masses. The reason I know this is that they are built at the same time as the technical feature, before anyone has a chance to cry about it. The reason they are built is that if you don't build them, riders will "build" them by trying to ride around the obstacle. Either way, they WILL be there so it's considered better to build them correctly at the time of original construction.

Lastly, why do bypasses bother you anyway? They don't prevent you from enjoying the technical feature do they?

Yes true. Regardless how the trail was originally built if a section becomes eroded and becomes an obstacle, or technical area that is what it then is. It adds character or a new challenge whether good or bad, the trail is constantly evolving if you take that away and create a flat section U HAVE TAKEN OUT A OBSTACLE OR DIFFICULT AREA=DUMBING DOWN THE TRAIL. I am all for trail sustainabilty but if you cant see it you are blind. Second, show me were it says I am bothered by bypasses. If you actually read my post I am saying that we need bypasses so all riders can use the trail and not complain about technical areas. Im done with you, you make it to easy.

[Bigtymer]

What technical? There's technical sections at yankee?

[cramer]

True, but unless u replace an eroded, challenging, or technical section or whatever u wanna call it with something equally challenging it should not be done, or it is dumbing down the trail. But as soon as u make a new obstacle or technical reroute all the masses start crying its to difficult so bypasses need to be added in for them.

Not true, unless you believe the trail was originally built with 20 foot wide washed out root exposed eroded sections. Re-routes simply restore it to its original condition. The original condition was no erosion so therefore it is impossible to dumb down a trail by re-routing eroded sections.

Regarding bypasses, they are not built because of crying by the masses. The reason I know this is that they are built at the same time as the technical feature, before anyone has a chance to cry about it. The reason they are built is that if you don't build them, riders will "build" them by trying to ride around the obstacle. Either way, they WILL be there so it's considered better to build them correctly at the time of original construction.

Lastly, why do bypasses bother you anyway? They don't prevent you from enjoying the technical feature do they?

Yes true. Regardless how the trail was originally built if a section becomes eroded and becomes an obstacle, or technical area that is what it then is. It adds character or a new challenge whether good or bad, the trail is constantly evolving if you take that away and create a flat section U HAVE TAKEN OUT A OBSTACLE OR DIFFICULT AREA=DUMBING DOWN THE TRAIL. I am all for trail sustainabilty but if you cant see it you are blind. Second, show me were it says I am bothered by bypasses. If you actually read my post I am saying that we need bypasses so all riders can use the trail and not complain about technical areas. Im done with you, you make it to easy.

So according to your logic the trail is evolving constantly yet you want to keep it the same by not doing re-routes. This seems a contradiction to me. The same as what? When it was built? 15 years ago? 10 years ago? 5 years ago? It was a great trail during that entire time, yet it's much different now than it was then. Many re-routes have been done which you say "dumb it down" yet there are more exposed roots and washouts now than there were 10 years ago so it's not getting any easier overall. Maybe the sections that got re-routed were made easier temporarily but for every re-route that gets done, two other areas get eroded and replace it.

[rvd]

I do not think the trail is great. Sure, there are sections that are fast and flow really well. But to me, other sections, deeper in the woods, are showing signs of significant abuse.

I have ridden Yankee only on two occasions last year, and liked the trail considerably. I am usually fine with mild drops, roots, and rocks, but one area just before the halfway / turnaround point in a pine forest, stuck with me as being in poor shape. It has tons of exposed roots that seem to be there due to erosion, not design. It is probably not important for the discussion that I didn't particularly like riding that section (the first time I lost it, but during the TT I made it through fine); what is important is that you can create similar features in a sustainable manner. No dumbing down is required to fix the problem.

[dirtjunkie]

Love it when the experts on trails complain openly .....but are nowhere to be seen when people are there with tools in hand to make the changes.

The soil at Yankee is loose. Erosion comes about quickly. Due to the trail being ridable so early un the year, when most others are too wet to ride, that's when it sees the most traffic. When tou show up on a Saturday mid to late summer and the parking lot is empty, it's due to the conditions....resulting in less traffic & erosion.

There is a reroute being implemented this weekend....it's already roughed in. I'm sure they'd love your help finishing it.

In the mean time.....I had a blast out there with a group of 20+ Wed night.....and the trail was great! Several of us saw the large meteor reported on the news....it was huge!