Bikes in Wilderness Areas

[GeezerSteve]

Traditional uses of Wilderness include airplanes with engines. . . .

Bullshit. Grandfathered airstrips in WAs are a rare exceptions, only in a handful of WAs, the result of unfortunate dealmaking. Most WAs have no airstrips, of course.

[hatchgreenchile]

I think I go a lot faster downhill on my ski bindings than hikers or snowshoers. And even on flats, what you're saying is not true. I have a much greater speed advantage over hikers or snowshoers who are postholing. Kick and glide.

My point is put a snowshoer, hiker, horse and skinner on the same trail (in their appropriate season) and ask them to go 5 miles. They'll show up in a reasonably similar amount of time. Put someone on a bike and they'll crush the trail in a fraction of the time, with alot more gas in the tank, because of the mechanical advantages a bike can deliver.

[::: :::]

there is certainly a difference between "mechanized" and "mechanical advantage"

[jono]

Bullshit. Grandfathered airstrips in WAs are a rare exceptions, only in a handful of WAs, the result of unfortunate dealmaking. Most WAs have no airstrips, of course.

It's weird, you say "Bullshit" and then confirm what I said. Maybe your emotions are leading; should we start a thread for you and Stuckie in the bullfighting forum perhaps?

[jono]

My point is put a snowshoer, hiker, horse and skinner on the same trail (in their appropriate season) and ask them to go 5 miles. They'll show up in a reasonably similar amount of time. Put someone on a bike and they'll crush the trail in a fraction of the time, with alot more gas in the tank, because of the mechanical advantages a bike can deliver.

In point of fact you are incorrect about the speed traveled by bikes in this setting. I can go for a ride with a hiker and basically stay together. To use your example, if you send a snowshoer over a ridge top/multi-peak traverse when I'm on skies we'll never see each other after I rip skins the first time.

[hatchgreenchile]

In point of fact you are incorrect about the speed traveled by bikes in this setting. I can go for a ride with a hiker and basically stay together.

You're riding your bike at 1-3 mph?
Well, OK then.

[Viva]

Cattle grazing is also allowed in wilderness areas. Talk about destroying the experience! I've run into some fairly large herds, but usually I just come across huge shit fields (trail or no trail), some from previous years, or abandoned barbed wire fencing. How is a place "wilderness" when there exist commercial operations like this?

I would dispute the broad claim that bikes cause less damage than pedestrians and/or horsies. For most places/trails this may very well be the case, but there are exceptions. Where I live and run, the Santa Monica Mountains that run through Los Angeles, Mexico, pretty much any and every steep trail has been ground to powder by bicyclists scraping speed or skidding from excessive braking. Some of this is likely due to the nature of the dirt here, and some of it probably results from poor riding skill. I can barely negotiate some of those places now- absolutely no footing anymore. Along the Western States Trail, which sees a shit-fuck ton of runners and extensive equestrian use, but no bike activity, the trail is is brilliant shape. There are just my observations; yours may differ completely based on where you go.

All in all, I'm fine with bikes in wilderness areas. Such activity itself would neither add nor detract from my experience, just don't engineer jumps or ride there simply because there happens to be a sweet two-mile-long downhill that you go mach looney on.

[jono]

You're riding your bike at 1-3 mph?
Well, OK then.

That is a common average in that setting, yes. Maybe 4 mph sometimes. I don't go into the deep backcountry to rail berms and get air, there are other places for that and keeping those high maintenance trails close to population centers makes infinitely more sense. I ride backcountry trails for the views, the smell of the air and the solitude. And walking (even if I was willing to camp and crap there) isn't an option with my knees.

[adrenalated]

Trying to argue that bikes are the same speed as hikers is idiotic and won't help convince any non-mountain bikers of our cause.

I just checked my Strava from riding Searle Pass earlier this year. Searle is quite similar to a lot of trails in wilderness - built by and for hikers, rocky and steep in spots, switchbacks, high elevation, etc. Big long climb up, long descent down, 3100' of climbing over 19.5mi. I am in NO WAY a fast climber on a bike, although I'm reasonably fit. I averaged 2.7-4.8mph on all of my uphill segments. Downhill average was 7.5-10.1mph with a max of 28.2mph.

That's not even remotely close to the speeds that an average hiker moves, up or down.

And saying that climbers use more of a mechanized advantage than cyclists? Clearly you've never climbed.

Look I'm all for allowing mountain bikes in certain wilderness areas - and excluding them from others - but let's try to be at least semi-intelligent when arguing for access.

[kidwoo]

I would dispute the broad claim that bikes cause less damage than pedestrians and/or horsies. For most places/trails this may very well be the case, but there are exceptions. Where I live and run, the Santa Monica Mountains that run through Los Angeles, Mexico, pretty much any and every steep trail has been ground to powder by bicyclists scraping speed or skidding from excessive braking. Some of this is likely due to the nature of the dirt here, and some of it probably results from poor riding skill. I can barely negotiate some of those places now- absolutely no footing anymore. Along the Western States Trail, which sees a shit-fuck ton of runners and extensive equestrian use, but no bike activity, the trail is is brilliant shape. There are just my observations; yours may differ completely based on where you go.

Honestly, that's just steep grades in crappy/dry/unsupported dirt. Plenty of virtually never biked sections of trais (PCT, Western States up near my hood, loads of deep wilderness trails) are exactly the same.

Even bits of the Appalachian Trail, in far better dirt are an eroded mess.

Opening up some already eroded trails in WAs could also be an opportunity for some good will. IE: Dear bikers, fix/reroute this section with some volunteer hours and you can ride it.

[jono]

I would dispute the broad claim that bikes cause less damage than pedestrians and/or horsies. For most places/trails this may very well be the case, but there are exceptions. Where I live and run, the Santa Monica Mountains that run through Los Angeles, Mexico, pretty much any and every steep trail has been ground to powder by bicyclists scraping speed or skidding from excessive braking. Some of this is likely due to the nature of the dirt here, and some of it probably results from poor riding skill.

Agreed that there are exceptions, which is precisely why I like this bill for its directive to manage specific trails/locales rather than a broad ban.

It's likely that the issue in the trails you mention would be best alleviated by the addition of (or, better, simply leaving in place the natural) obstacles that cause people to slow down in stages rather than putting a long straight before a sharp turn etc. Not really the topic here, but it illustrates the differences that exist out there and the broad range of things that can be done to address them. In the case of a route in a WA the easy answer is just to close a trail to bikes if it can't be ridden without building braking bumps. The long term answer should be better than that, but in many cases it won't be and that's fine.

I wish I could find the study I read a couple years ago that looked at erosion on different trails--it should shock no one to see that water runoff is the chief cause, especially when the tread sinks below the surrounding ground. Horses and feet do that a lot, and so do excavators; I'm glad to see there's nothing in this bill to push for machine-built trails for that exact reason. Overall it's a surprisingly good proposal.

[RootSkier]

"Mechanized infantry":



JUST KIDDING. This is mechanized infantry:

[stuckathuntermtn]

I heard North Korea has skiing ninjas. Watch the fuck out, Japan!

[Danno]

My point is put a snowshoer, hiker, horse and skinner on the same trail (in their appropriate season) and ask them to go 5 miles. They'll show up in a reasonably similar amount of time. Put someone on a bike and they'll crush the trail in a fraction of the time, with alot more gas in the tank, because of the mechanical advantages a bike can deliver.

That simply isn't true. I do agree that the bike will be faster, although on a steep uphill that isn't true. But if you think a snowshoer will be anywhere close to the same time as someone on skis, that's nuts. If it's a climb up, ski down thing the difference will be dramatic, but even on rolling/flat terrain the difference will be pretty big.

But I'm certainly not arguing that bikes don't have a mechanical advantage. My point was simply that skis and ski bindings also provide a big advantage yet are allowed.

[jono]

Trying to argue that bikes are the same speed as hikers is idiotic and won't help convince any non-mountain bikers of our cause.

I just checked my Strava from riding Searle Pass earlier this year. Searle is quite similar to a lot of trails in wilderness - built by and for hikers, rocky and steep in spots, switchbacks, high elevation, etc. Big long climb up, long descent down, 3100' of climbing over 19.5mi. I am in NO WAY a fast climber on a bike, although I'm reasonably fit. I averaged 2.7-4.8mph on all of my uphill segments. Downhill average was 7.5-10.1mph with a max of 28.2mph.

That's not even remotely close to the speeds that an average hiker moves, up or down.

And saying that climbers use more of a mechanized advantage than cyclists? Clearly you've never climbed.

Look I'm all for allowing mountain bikes in certain wilderness areas - and excluding them from others - but let's try to be at least semi-intelligent when arguing for access.

I think you may be working from a different definition of mechanical advantage. It's not an advantage provided by mechanical tools, it has a specific definition in physics and it means an increase in force not speed. Bicycles always have a mechanical advantage of less than 1, even in first gear. Same story with oar-locks.

Congratulations on your Strava time; I'm pretty sure Strava doesn't work in the wilderness around me. This is entirely welcome.

[jono]

That photo of traditional use just turned 120! I thought it was interesting that those bikes weighed in at 32 pounds--I'm glad to have brakes, though.

[adrenalated]

I think you may be working from a different definition of mechanical advantage. It's not an advantage provides by mechanical tools, it has a specific definition in physics and it means an increase in force not speed. Bicycles always have a mechanical advantage of less than 1, even in first gear. Same story with oar-locks.

Congratulations on your Strava time; I'm pretty sure Strava doesn't work in the wilderness around me. This is entirely welcome.

My point is this: climbers (technical climbers) do not use any mechanical advantage. Aid climbers arguably do (because they pull on gear), but aid climbing is mostly a thing of the past. We use mechanical devices to save our ass in case we fuck up, not to make progress. There is zero mechanical advantage to climbers as the gear we use has absolutely no impact whatsoever on how much force is required or expended. If you're saying climbers as in hikers, well they're just walking, so no mechanical advantage there either.

Bikes, on the other hand, use mechanical devices to assist with movement.

Strava works anywhere that you can receive a GPS signal. No cell network required, it uploads later when you return to civilization. I use it mostly because it's an easy way to track mileage and climbing, I don't give a fuck about my time. It's usually slow.

You've spent the entire thread encouraging people to become educated about the issues, which I agree with. So it's rather surprising that you're willing to make claims about things you're unfamiliar with (climbing, Strava) that have no basis in fact.

[jono]

I know you Can use Strava without a data connection (I'd argue that won't make it work, but if your sarcasm meter is busted you might not get that either), just as I'm aware that devices providing a mechanical advantage are rare in climing. My original point was that they are the only example I can think of to which the term "mechanical advantage" can accurately be attributed to gear used in the backcountry. Bikes and oar-locks do not offer an increase in force in exchange for a proportional reduction in speed at the output, they do the opposite.

[jamal]

Turning the cranks once for two rotations of the wheel. How is that not mechanical advantage?


And yeah, speed drops quite a bit when you are on rugged and steep seldom used trails. Some friends did a 25mi loop last weekend and it took them 11 hours total. Almost would have been better off on foot but it looks like there were at least a few parts that were good to ride.

[jono]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_advantage

(paraphrased from any physics text) Mechanical advantage is a measure of the force amplification achieved by using a tool, mechanical device or machine system.

Amplifying speed reduces force and thus the mechanical advantage of a bicycle is always less than 1. That is the opposite of mechanical advantage as provided by a lever, which provides a lot of force for a small movement (MA>1). Read the wiki page if you want the full explanation.

To give this context, the Wilderness Act did not ban devices that allowed a human being to go a little faster (there's no need because you can only push just so tall of a gear ratio if you don't add power from some other source). It banned devices that could have allowed you, given enough time, to lift multiple tons of rock, ore or logs up over a cliff, for example. The fact is that actual mechanical advantage (MA>1) provides the possibility for essentially limitless force and therefore limitless changes to the landscape if allowed. Bikes and oar locks do no such thing.

[Empty Beer]

Along the Western States Trail, which sees a shit-fuck ton of runners and extensive equestrian use, but no bike activity, the trail is is brilliant shape. There are just my observations; yours may differ completely based on where you go.

Funny... 60+ miles of the Western States Trail between Granite Chief Wilderness and Foresthill in Tahoe NF is legal for pedestrians, horses, mountain bikes, dirt bikes.... (and e-bikes!). So maybe your observations are based on incorrect assumptions.

And guess what? The local equestrian nut jobs continue to lobby to get all wheels banned from "their" trail. Shocking, I know.

Western State Trail @ Pucker Point:


Some great dialogue in this thread. I hope all of you taking the time to write these comments in favor of the bill have also taken the time to write your Senator to support/co-sponsor/vote for the bill, or your Representative to introduce a companion bill in the House. :-)

[hatchgreenchile]

That simply isn't true. I do agree that the bike will be faster, although on a steep uphill that isn't true. But if you think a snowshoer will be anywhere close to the same time as someone on skis, that's nuts. If it's a climb up, ski down thing the difference will be dramatic, but even on rolling/flat terrain the difference will be pretty big.

But I'm certainly not arguing that bikes don't have a mechanical advantage. My point was simply that skis and ski bindings also provide a big advantage yet are allowed.

Hehe, I likely overstated snowshoes, likely based on my regular use of them for BC travel.

Of course skis float, and bindings allow you to get into a rhythm, but it's still hard as shit. How many people can put together a 10 mile ski tour in a day? Only thing you're tearing up with skis is powder, so it's not like there's an environmental concern.

Bikes are exponentially more efficient than any current way of traveling in wilderness (I am not counting someone who floats down a river). When Jamal talks about biking 25 miles in under 12 hours on "rugged & steep" terrain, that's something the vast, vast majority of hikers, horses and winter users aren't even going to dent, and that's the type of "mechanical advantage" that people will fight tooth and nail to keep out of wilderness.

[jono]

exponentially

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

When Jamal talks about biking 25 miles in under 12 hours on "rugged & steep" terrain, that's something the vast, vast majority of hikers, horses and winter users aren't even going to dent, and that's the type of "mechanical advantage" that people will fight tooth and nail to keep out of wilderness.

This confuses me: are you saying people are violently opposed to letting someone else push, carry and occasionally ride a conveyance that provides them with little more than ballast at ~2 mph through difficult terrain? Why would that be?

[Danno]

Hehe, I likely overstated snowshoes, likely based on my regular use of them for BC travel.

Of course skis float, and bindings allow you to get into a rhythm, but it's still hard as shit. How many people can put together a 10 mile ski tour in a day? Only thing you're tearing up with skis is powder, so it's not like there's an environmental concern.

Bikes are exponentially more efficient than any current way of traveling in wilderness (I am not counting someone who floats down a river). When Jamal talks about biking 25 miles in under 12 hours on "rugged & steep" terrain, that's something the vast, vast majority of hikers, horses and winter users aren't even going to dent, and that's the type of "mechanical advantage" that people will fight tooth and nail to keep out of wilderness.

bindings and skis do more than allow you to get into a rhythm. If you're not a xc skier, you may not be all that familiar with kick and glide. It's not all slow plodding with skins. Sure, in some places in deep snow there isn't a huge advantage. But in the right conditions, either snow conditions or because someone has packed the trail ahead of you, skis/bindings can provide a huge advantage. If you're a snowshoer, maybe you're not familiar with this, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

And yes, while it is true that environmental damage is almost nil, the point is not "environmental damage", the point is mechanical advantage as per the terms of the statute. And so I'll repeat, I do not understand why skis/bindings are allowed under the statute but bikes are not. Or, more accurately, I understand why, but it is not consistent or true to any principle other than "don't like bikes".

[Viva]

Funny... 60+ miles of the Western States Trail between Granite Chief Wilderness and Foresthill in Tahoe NF is legal for pedestrians, horses, mountain bikes, dirt bikes.... (and e-bikes!). So maybe your observations are based on incorrect assumptions.

Nope, just my observations, as already stated. I've never seen bikes on those trails. Never. But now that you mention it, I now recall motorcycles in the Deadwood area, like, twenty five years ago. We also had motorcycles doing safety sweeps for WS100 back in those days, too.