Re: Trail damage/shock absorbers/suspension
On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 14:26:33 GMT, "L Hays" <email@example.com> wrote:
. ."Simon" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
... .> .> "Stephen Baker"
<email@example.com> wrote in message .> news:firstname.lastname@example.org
.> | Terri says: .> | .> | >I wonder if any studies have been done to correlate mountain bike .> |
>equipment shock absorbers and suspension with damage to terrain? .> | .> | I think you'll find that
the more shock absorption, the less damage. .You .> | might want to try a road-building website for
info on that, as I'm sure .> the .> | study has been done for cars at some point. .> | Either way,
you're just going to find that the more gonzo riders have .more .> | cush, and therefore do less
damage on the same line. Kinda ironic, no? .> | .> | Steve .> .> Up to a point I am sure that is
correct. .> .> However, if you look at north shore and all the trends to build these .masses .> of
wooden structures via cutting down local trees etc... They are built .> mainly by people with full
suspension bikes. Is this not trail damamage? .> .> I am not against this just wanted to point it
out. .> .> Simon .> .> .During our local IMBA trail maintenance school, we where told that the
.bridges and platforms were necessary to avoid removing trees, and creating .trails that could wash
out due to the dampness of the soil/air. I would .think the wooden structures are an asset and not a
detriment to the .surroundings. It's pretty dense and wooded in the area and the structures .weave
in an out of the natural obstacles.
But to be HONEST, there is more damage with those built than wothiut them.
.Lance . .Lance .
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande