Seriously. The only thing even close to being un-XC in the area are the rooty chutes to the cinder trail at Accotink...the ones that MORE closes at the parks request almost everytime they have maintenance, but that some asshat reopens every time so they can get in their 40 feet of downhill bliss.riderx said:
i think a lot of it has to do with who MORE's audience is and who the Ridemonkey forum's audience is.dogdude said:
because you used to be able to do fun stuff there...riderx said:
For me, the more technical the better, but I wouldn't expect to find it at Wakefield. From what I've seen, you just aren't going to get it with the lay of the land down there. I'm guessing there is about 100ft. of elevation change there.SDH said:
Sorry, I kinda got off-topic. I was talking about Accotink. I totally agree with the work/reward bit. I haven't been to the new Wakefield, so can't comment one way or the other on the new trails.SDH said:
As far as I know, the park chooses what they want built and with what materials.vwmtnbiker said:
It's not MORE who ultimately determines what's okay and what's not...it's whatever authority happens to manage the particular piece of land, which in this case involves two different agencies, Fairfax County Park Authority for Wakefield (I'm guessing) and Virginia's Department of Forestry in the case of Conway. Were you aware that Conway isn't even a park? It's a state forest for which recreation is not the primary function although I speculate it's probably going to become a bigger component of the forest's use in the future. I think it just boils down to Fairfax Co. Park Authority said it was okay (at Wakefield) given the site plan presented to them by IMBA, VA Dept. of Forestry said it was not (at Conway). Besides, the use of dimensional lumber in each case has different contexts.vwmtnbiker said:
. The CAMBO folks are doing a great job with that site and they certainly have a big advantage out there with it being private land.
If you are creative, there are a bunch of lines at wakefield that can be pretty challenging if they were worked a little bit. There are plenty of places that off shoot the stream trail where trail features can be made and still be ridden when it is muddy b/c they are off the ground. Plenty of fallen trees to work with. The extreme elevation drop at the top of the powerlines can easily be used for bridge drops. Ya just need to be creative. Will it be whistler..... no but it could be a fun place to burn some steam off after work.riderx said:
That amuses me: you can't make piles of dirt and wooden structure here because some dudes made piles of dirt and wooden structures here a long time ago.BikeGeek said:
...out there by that power substation there used to be a fort, the tennis courts are built on what may have been the stables, and somewhere under the highway there are the remains of buildings, but the area is too historically precious for trails...meatboot said:
naaaaa, they'd get torn down before the became important.
thing is, the minute you build something like that, they take it down... about 2-3 years ago when there was a really big flood one spring, a bunch of trees came down across the creek trail. so i and a couple other people (whale?) made nice little ramps over them. gone within a week. not only were the twigs removed from the ramp we built up over the trees, but they were taken *away*. as in there was no evidence they had ever been there.SDH said:
i'm pretty sure that stuff was taken out because it "interfered" with the XC course during the summer wednesday night races. those were the days before we dared to venture out into (well, knew where to find) more "technical" trail riding anyways and we were looking for new and harder challenges. we either didn't know where to find the right type of riding that suited us and i don't think in retrospect it was right to just throw together a pile of logs (at the time, i was pretty pissed though).kirstin said:
(like this afternoon, around 5:30ish)Well said!whale said:i'm pretty sure that stuff was taken out because it "interfered" with the XC course during the summer wednesday night races. those were the days before we dared to venture out into (well, knew where to find) more "technical" trail riding anyways and we were looking for new and harder challenges. we either didn't know where to find the right type of riding that suited us and i don't think in retrospect it was right to just throw together a pile of logs (at the time, i was pretty pissed though).
i think wakefield is a good place for getting that quick XC fix or to introduce a beginner to trails or to test out single-speeding for the first time or to do some night riding. you can't expect much elevation where this is NO elevation and technical riding where it really isn't technical. i never got much of a thrill from riding out there, it was more about getting some cardio going and to keep going going going (albeit most of the time around and around on the same trails). some of the creek drops and log obstacles were fun though and got me interested in riding more than just flat and wide trails without much elevation.
wakefield definitely needed some rework since riding through nasty dirty swamp water and mud pits shouldn't be anyone's idea of fun nor good for the trails. hopefully, some of the fun obstacles and more challenging things can still be a part of the trail network there because it's always good to give a beginner an opportunity to try out something different and more challenging but not impede them from just passing by it.
all this being said, i can't say that i'll be riding wakefield anytime soon because there are just more interesting "things" to ride in that area
I remember those trees, fun stuff. The park pulled those out because of some high school cross country race. That's the same year that sections of the singletrack at the Braddock Rd end of the creek trail became a 3 foot wide gravel "trail," also to accomodate the runners.kirstin said:
These decisions are usually made by the park and MORE just provides the labor. So what is fine at Fountainhead isn't necessarily fine at Wakefield. Personally I hate the sanitizing of the trail and think that when the park wants things "smoothed out" too much MORE should decline to do that work and offer to address real problems. Some park people are easy to work with, others really don't seem to understand our trail needs and it can be tough convincing them what we want to do.SDH said:
New Wakefield doesn't suck, it's just different. I went out there this weekend on my rigid SS and had a blast. That said, it's easy to see why the "big bike" crowd doesn't like it: log crossings are gone, fall-line trails that were rutted up and provided a bit of technical challenge to the park are gone, etc.dogdude said:
1. it's not so much that i don't like wakefield anymore, it's just not challenging at all, and i'm certainly not going to drive down from ss just to ride those trails.dogdude said:
kirstin said:
The people I've worked the trails (and county meetings) with don't always like the trails we're building either. A lot of the time we are forced by those in power (park authority, county, state, etc.) to make a choice between a trail that everyone can ride or no trail at all. It's a no brainer, of course we're going to build the trail. In the case of Wakefield, you have to look at the primary user group: beginners. The park isn't about to let a bunch of technical trails be built because you know as well as I do that some asshat with imaginary skills is going to try it, get hurt, and sue.
Well, the trail down from the park and ride is now a super highway, you could drive a jeep through most sections. This is from riders not knowing how to stay on the tight stuff and constantly riding when it's muddy. But, most other stuff has been improved, we've done a lot of work out there the last few years.dogdude said:
