This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Since when did anyone think it is OK to cycle on the Cairngorm Plateau? I saw some bikers riding off the west side of the summit yesterday towards point 1141m and the Cas headwall. If this becomes commonplace (which I suspect it will) the rate of erosion will rise exponentially and the place will be a mess. Is nothing sacred FFS? There are tons of places to ride without ruining the more sensitive higher ground.
What next, quad bike tours to Ben Macdui?
What next, quad bike tours to Ben Macdui?
1
In reply to Niall B:
Do you have any evidence that biking causes any more erosion than walkers? Did these cyclists spoil your day in any way? I'm not trying to be confrontational, just curious.
Do you have any evidence that biking causes any more erosion than walkers? Did these cyclists spoil your day in any way? I'm not trying to be confrontational, just curious.
Post edited at 21:47
2
In reply to Niall B:
Not somewhere I'd ride myself but I don't think it will be that popular with mountain bikers, most don't venture outside trail centres. While not everyone uses Strava it provides a reasonable idea as to the popularity of routes, even those wilderness routes "promoted" in the magazines will see somewhere between 500 and 1000 times fewer rides than a trail centre course.
Not somewhere I'd ride myself but I don't think it will be that popular with mountain bikers, most don't venture outside trail centres. While not everyone uses Strava it provides a reasonable idea as to the popularity of routes, even those wilderness routes "promoted" in the magazines will see somewhere between 500 and 1000 times fewer rides than a trail centre course.
1
In reply to Niall B:
All our mountain activities have impacts. Why is yours acceptable and others not? And as pointed out above what evidence do you have that MTBs are more harmful than walkers especially as walkers massively outnumber bikers on the plateau?
All our mountain activities have impacts. Why is yours acceptable and others not? And as pointed out above what evidence do you have that MTBs are more harmful than walkers especially as walkers massively outnumber bikers on the plateau?
3
In reply to Monk:
Only empirical evidence but I think it would be difficult to sustain the argument that bikers cause less or no more erosion than walkers. The additional load of the bike, the smaller surface area of the tyre and the torque all combine to mean that a wheel dislodges more material than a boot. Not suggesting walkers and climber float about the surface or anything but I can't see mnt bikes on the high Cairngorms doing anything but damage.
No they didn't spoil my day, I had a great day thanks. I never expect solitude there and there was plenty space for us all (ski tourers/walkers /climbers and bikers to move about without running each other over). If, on the other hand I go back in a few years time and there is a trench of eroded gravel from the summit to the Cas headwall then I will feel a little let down somehow. That will start to ruin it for me.
Only empirical evidence but I think it would be difficult to sustain the argument that bikers cause less or no more erosion than walkers. The additional load of the bike, the smaller surface area of the tyre and the torque all combine to mean that a wheel dislodges more material than a boot. Not suggesting walkers and climber float about the surface or anything but I can't see mnt bikes on the high Cairngorms doing anything but damage.
No they didn't spoil my day, I had a great day thanks. I never expect solitude there and there was plenty space for us all (ski tourers/walkers /climbers and bikers to move about without running each other over). If, on the other hand I go back in a few years time and there is a trench of eroded gravel from the summit to the Cas headwall then I will feel a little let down somehow. That will start to ruin it for me.
1
1
In reply to DaveHK:
I think mountain bikes will damage the surface much more than walkers. The tyres will bite into the gravelly surface. I would discourage them.
I think mountain bikes will damage the surface much more than walkers. The tyres will bite into the gravelly surface. I would discourage them.
10
3
6
In reply to Niall B:
> Only empirical evidence but I think it would be difficult to sustain the argument that bikers cause less or no more erosion than walkers. The additional load of the bike, the smaller surface area of the tyre and the torque all combine to mean that a wheel dislodges more material than a boot. Not suggesting walkers and climber float about the surface or anything but I can't see mnt bikes on the high Cairngorms doing anything but damage.
what empirical evidence do you have as it seems to me the only evidence you have is circumstantial at best. I personally think you are talking crap BTW. People can ride where they want in Scotland
3
1
4
1
In reply to Niall B:
there seems to be very limited evidence
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479709003296
studies from the US seem to suggest not much difference between bikes and hikers, unless people start constructing trails etc, BUT, not the same environment.
there seems to be very limited evidence
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479709003296
studies from the US seem to suggest not much difference between bikes and hikers, unless people start constructing trails etc, BUT, not the same environment.
1
In reply to Niall B:
If you stick to the trail, on the way to Macdui, i don't think erosion would be any worse, just remember skids are for kids and ride responsibly.
I was gobsmacked to see some of the local riders out at Christmas, with a good dollop of snow and frozen conditions, wearing shorts, mentalists, not my cup of tea, but they were not doing any harm, other than enjoying themselves, they rode over the tops to Lochain, down the left flank, then back along the lower path, obviously committed to the cause.
PS. Do you winter climb in the corries, have you seen the damage done to the classic lines by tools and crampons?, stripped of vegetation, i don't think climbers should be preaching, we are not exactly squeeky clean when it comes to the environment.
If you stick to the trail, on the way to Macdui, i don't think erosion would be any worse, just remember skids are for kids and ride responsibly.
I was gobsmacked to see some of the local riders out at Christmas, with a good dollop of snow and frozen conditions, wearing shorts, mentalists, not my cup of tea, but they were not doing any harm, other than enjoying themselves, they rode over the tops to Lochain, down the left flank, then back along the lower path, obviously committed to the cause.
PS. Do you winter climb in the corries, have you seen the damage done to the classic lines by tools and crampons?, stripped of vegetation, i don't think climbers should be preaching, we are not exactly squeeky clean when it comes to the environment.
Post edited at 23:11
10
In reply to Dr.S at work:
In perfect conditions, i.e. a dry trail and nobody locking up the back wheel, that may be true, but when are conditions actually that perfect? In the real world, there's always someone who goes out in the wet, and I would say about 60% of the people I see riding are dragging the back wheel around every bend.
My opinion, based on years of biking and many hours of volunteer trail work filling in brake dips and repairing rutted corners, is that most mountain bikers aren't actually nearly as skilful as they think they are, and they cause far more damage than they realise.
I love biking and I support almost any extension to the trail network, but honestly there are places that I'm fine with not allowing bikes. I'm also fine accepting that, in reality, trails that are heavily used by mountain bikes do wear quicker than the same trails only used by hikers, and I'm willing to shake a shovel every so often at an organised trail maintenance day.
In perfect conditions, i.e. a dry trail and nobody locking up the back wheel, that may be true, but when are conditions actually that perfect? In the real world, there's always someone who goes out in the wet, and I would say about 60% of the people I see riding are dragging the back wheel around every bend.
My opinion, based on years of biking and many hours of volunteer trail work filling in brake dips and repairing rutted corners, is that most mountain bikers aren't actually nearly as skilful as they think they are, and they cause far more damage than they realise.
I love biking and I support almost any extension to the trail network, but honestly there are places that I'm fine with not allowing bikes. I'm also fine accepting that, in reality, trails that are heavily used by mountain bikes do wear quicker than the same trails only used by hikers, and I'm willing to shake a shovel every so often at an organised trail maintenance day.
7
In reply to Niall B:
I've heard of a plan that a downhill course is to be created into Loch Avon from the plateau, with the ski lift being used for access.
I hope the SNP oppose it.
I've heard of a plan that a downhill course is to be created into Loch Avon from the plateau, with the ski lift being used for access.
I hope the SNP oppose it.
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
I just meant there should be an atmosphere of disapproval. So that when evidence of damage appears, they will be more inclined to stop.
> How would you discourage them? Did you mean you personally?
I just meant there should be an atmosphere of disapproval. So that when evidence of damage appears, they will be more inclined to stop.
4
1
In reply to Niall B:
Cheers for the heads up - I'll add it to the list of places to ride, looks great.
And don't watch this, you'll explode, lol:
youtube.com/watch?v=xQ_IQS3VKjA&
Cheers for the heads up - I'll add it to the list of places to ride, looks great.
And don't watch this, you'll explode, lol:
youtube.com/watch?v=xQ_IQS3VKjA&
3
In reply to Niall B:
And I think your thin end of the wedge scaremongering concerns are somewhat overstated.
Snowdon is a good example of how things can be managed if it did end up with lots of riders on Cairngorm (which I suspect will not ever happen, given the tastes of modern bikers!),
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/snowdon-access-well-done-everyone
And I think your thin end of the wedge scaremongering concerns are somewhat overstated.
Snowdon is a good example of how things can be managed if it did end up with lots of riders on Cairngorm (which I suspect will not ever happen, given the tastes of modern bikers!),
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/snowdon-access-well-done-everyone
1
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
There certainly used to be a strong atmosphere of disapproval about this sort of thing (in the walking/climbing world). Has this changed? Or have views on damage caused by bikes changed? Or are there now different views in the walking world and in the exclusively biking world.
> I just meant there should be an atmosphere of disapproval.
There certainly used to be a strong atmosphere of disapproval about this sort of thing (in the walking/climbing world). Has this changed? Or have views on damage caused by bikes changed? Or are there now different views in the walking world and in the exclusively biking world.
3
In reply to ChrisJD:
The heart of that, from the link given, is that mountain bikers apply a voluntary ban on themselves in certain areas out of enlightened self interest
The cairngorm plateau is not directly comparable- it's 500 ft higher than the summit of snowdon, with a fragile surface which is not well placed to withstand the sort of erosion that bikes are likely to bring. Its also a SSSI, and that may have implications for access, don't know enough to be sure
If the bikers in the OP were heading west then north, they may have been outside the SSSI and heading towards the ski areas- and if they were in that part of the hill, its hard to make much of a case for environmental desecration!
The heart of that, from the link given, is that mountain bikers apply a voluntary ban on themselves in certain areas out of enlightened self interest
The cairngorm plateau is not directly comparable- it's 500 ft higher than the summit of snowdon, with a fragile surface which is not well placed to withstand the sort of erosion that bikes are likely to bring. Its also a SSSI, and that may have implications for access, don't know enough to be sure
If the bikers in the OP were heading west then north, they may have been outside the SSSI and heading towards the ski areas- and if they were in that part of the hill, its hard to make much of a case for environmental desecration!
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
Andy you are a breath of fresh air, common sense, and with a gentlemanly approach. I hope the other correspondents on here appreciate your vast experience, wisdom and pleasantness.
Andy you are a breath of fresh air, common sense, and with a gentlemanly approach. I hope the other correspondents on here appreciate your vast experience, wisdom and pleasantness.
4
In reply to Niall B:
Speaking as a mountaineer of over 40 years and a mountain biker of over 27 years' experience I'd say that:
1 - Mountain bikers did not create the massive scars that disfigure many British mountains and require costly repair, sometimes using helicopters. Those scars were made by millions of Vibram-soled boots.
2 - Under certain conditions a rolling bike tyre actually consolidates and improves a surface. It's only when cyclists insist on blasting through a soft boggy area thay they leave tracks, which attract far more opprobium than footprints because being linear they are more obvious.
Anyway, stop worrying about it; mountain biking is flatlining compared with road cycling and trail centres are filtering out all but the most determined riders, who are more likely to be those with the mountain experience needed to organise a big mountain trip.
Speaking as a mountaineer of over 40 years and a mountain biker of over 27 years' experience I'd say that:
1 - Mountain bikers did not create the massive scars that disfigure many British mountains and require costly repair, sometimes using helicopters. Those scars were made by millions of Vibram-soled boots.
2 - Under certain conditions a rolling bike tyre actually consolidates and improves a surface. It's only when cyclists insist on blasting through a soft boggy area thay they leave tracks, which attract far more opprobium than footprints because being linear they are more obvious.
Anyway, stop worrying about it; mountain biking is flatlining compared with road cycling and trail centres are filtering out all but the most determined riders, who are more likely to be those with the mountain experience needed to organise a big mountain trip.
Post edited at 10:18
2
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
So when are walkers going to stop using the Plateau then?
Looking at Google Maps - you can see the walkers tracks from Space !
(NB ... the detailed Google aerial photos are not taken from space, so excuse my inaccuracy for the sake of a punchline ).
> So that when evidence of damage appears, they will be more inclined to stop.
So when are walkers going to stop using the Plateau then?
Looking at Google Maps - you can see the walkers tracks from Space !
(NB ... the detailed Google aerial photos are not taken from space, so excuse my inaccuracy for the sake of a punchline ).
2
In reply to Niall B:
As I mentioned earlier, most mountain bikers don't go anywhere near a mountain, it's just too much hard work! There's a significant proportion who appear to have an aversion to pedalling uphill Do a search for "MTB uplift" - basically a minibus and trailer to get you and your bike to the top of the trail. In fact look at the first page of the singletrackworld thread linked to about Snowdon and there's "crosses fingers for uplift on the train". I suppose it's part of wanting the reward without putting in the effort that typifies the attitude in so many areas of life.
Do bikes cause more erosion than a walker? On an individual basis if you've a rider in wet conditions with thin tyres and poor technique then yes, at the other end of the scale a proficient rider on a fat bike in dry conditions and you wouldn't know they'd been there.
Snowdon and Cairngorm differ in one aspect: right of way - on Snowdon the only legal right of way is on the bridleways so all MTB traffic is (or should be) concentrated on those whereas on Cairngorm you can in theory ride anywhere so any damage (and I'm not naive enough to believe that there will be no damage) will be spread around but limited in its impact in any one area. Snowdon is also very much a honey pot south of the border as it's one of the few mountains with a legal right of way to the summit, looking on Strava there's been roughly 1100 individual trips up there. There's just one segment on Strava leading from Cairngorm summit with just 7 (seven) recorded rides. For comparison, the numbers riding Strava segments at trail centres is in the tens of thousands. Now not every cyclist uses Strava but it does give an indication of the relative usage.
As I mentioned earlier, most mountain bikers don't go anywhere near a mountain, it's just too much hard work! There's a significant proportion who appear to have an aversion to pedalling uphill Do a search for "MTB uplift" - basically a minibus and trailer to get you and your bike to the top of the trail. In fact look at the first page of the singletrackworld thread linked to about Snowdon and there's "crosses fingers for uplift on the train". I suppose it's part of wanting the reward without putting in the effort that typifies the attitude in so many areas of life.
Do bikes cause more erosion than a walker? On an individual basis if you've a rider in wet conditions with thin tyres and poor technique then yes, at the other end of the scale a proficient rider on a fat bike in dry conditions and you wouldn't know they'd been there.
Snowdon and Cairngorm differ in one aspect: right of way - on Snowdon the only legal right of way is on the bridleways so all MTB traffic is (or should be) concentrated on those whereas on Cairngorm you can in theory ride anywhere so any damage (and I'm not naive enough to believe that there will be no damage) will be spread around but limited in its impact in any one area. Snowdon is also very much a honey pot south of the border as it's one of the few mountains with a legal right of way to the summit, looking on Strava there's been roughly 1100 individual trips up there. There's just one segment on Strava leading from Cairngorm summit with just 7 (seven) recorded rides. For comparison, the numbers riding Strava segments at trail centres is in the tens of thousands. Now not every cyclist uses Strava but it does give an indication of the relative usage.
In reply to Niall B:
And to save a lot of time/effort going over same old stuff, lets stop this thread and just refer to this one instead:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=601105&v=1#x7912117
And to save a lot of time/effort going over same old stuff, lets stop this thread and just refer to this one instead:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=601105&v=1#x7912117
In reply to Niall B:
By way of contrast, here's the Strava Heatmap showing the frequency of cycling on Snowdon:
http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#14/-4.05512/53.07590/yellow/bike
...and here's the same map for running:
http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#14/-4.05512/53.07590/yellow/run
By way of contrast, here's the Strava Heatmap showing the frequency of cycling on Snowdon:
http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#14/-4.05512/53.07590/yellow/bike
...and here's the same map for running:
http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#14/-4.05512/53.07590/yellow/run
In reply to ChrisJD:
When the abomination of the road, car park and ski area is removed
The erosion problem from all users on this part of the plateau is mostly due to the easy (lazy) access and without draconian restrictions which just wouldn't be acceptable to most people in this country, the problem is not going to go away.
I suppose, realistically, the ski area is here to stay (even as a positive side effect of global warming now that there is a funicular as a summer attraction). I'd like to think that such development would never get the go ahead if proposed nowadays; there are more appropriate places.
> So when are walkers going to stop using the Plateau then?
When the abomination of the road, car park and ski area is removed
The erosion problem from all users on this part of the plateau is mostly due to the easy (lazy) access and without draconian restrictions which just wouldn't be acceptable to most people in this country, the problem is not going to go away.
I suppose, realistically, the ski area is here to stay (even as a positive side effect of global warming now that there is a funicular as a summer attraction). I'd like to think that such development would never get the go ahead if proposed nowadays; there are more appropriate places.
In reply to Robert Durran:
A "positive side effect of global warming" would be some warming. Bring it on. It's colder than 30 years ago.
> I suppose, realistically, the ski area is here to stay (even as a positive side effect of global warming now that there is a funicular as a summer attraction). I'd like to think that such development would never get the go ahead if proposed nowadays; there are more appropriate places.
A "positive side effect of global warming" would be some warming. Bring it on. It's colder than 30 years ago.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Yes it does seem a bit odd to have a go at a few MTBers about erosion/damage when the Ski area and funicular are there bringing walkers/people to the top with ease!
> When the abomination of the road, car park and ski area is removed
Yes it does seem a bit odd to have a go at a few MTBers about erosion/damage when the Ski area and funicular are there bringing walkers/people to the top with ease!
2
In reply to DaveHK:
The damage to the track is proportional to the 4th power of the pressure on it. Tyre at 35psi, walker at 150 lbs and 30sq inch sole give 35/5 to power 4, equals over 2000 times damage,
The damage to the track is proportional to the 4th power of the pressure on it. Tyre at 35psi, walker at 150 lbs and 30sq inch sole give 35/5 to power 4, equals over 2000 times damage,
1
In reply to IainL:
35psi is the tyre pressure not the ground pressure exerted by combined weight of rider and bike.
35psi is the tyre pressure not the ground pressure exerted by combined weight of rider and bike.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Not true. Walkers are not allowed out on to the mountain after going up on the train (and long may that last). The ski area is there and we can't change it.
> Yes it does seem a bit odd to have a go at a few MTBers about erosion/damage when the Ski area and funicular are there bringing walkers/people to the top with ease!
Not true. Walkers are not allowed out on to the mountain after going up on the train (and long may that last). The ski area is there and we can't change it.
2
In reply to ChrisJD:
If as many bikers used the tracks as walkers, it would be a gravel desert. We are learning that built paths are necessary. If bikers want to go on built paths, then I have no objection (on the assumption the path will withstand bikes).
> So when are walkers going to stop using the Plateau then?
> Looking at Google Maps - you can see the walkers tracks from Space !
If as many bikers used the tracks as walkers, it would be a gravel desert. We are learning that built paths are necessary. If bikers want to go on built paths, then I have no objection (on the assumption the path will withstand bikes).
2
1
In reply to IainL:
Where did you get that from?!
> The damage to the track is proportional to the 4th power of the pressure on it.
Where did you get that from?!
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
That's good to know!
And instead have a go at minor MTB use. mmm, a tad unfair me thinks.
> Not true. Walkers are not allowed out on to the mountain after going up on the train (and long may that last)
That's good to know!
> The ski area is there and we can't change it.
And instead have a go at minor MTB use. mmm, a tad unfair me thinks.
2
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
That will never happen, not even close up on Cairngorm
> If as many bikers used the tracks as walkers
That will never happen, not even close up on Cairngorm
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
Is that actually properly enforced still? Are bikers allowed out?
Anyway, the existence of the road and the carpark, even without funicular access, is enough to put pretty unsustainable pressure on that part of the plateau. I always thought that a real opportunity was missed when the funicular was built not to extend it all the way to Glenmore; as well as doing away with the the need to keep the road clear in winter, it could have meant that all climbers and walkers would have had to walk up the hill as a deterrent and the massive eyesore of the carpark could have been removed.
> Not true. Walkers are not allowed out on to the mountain after going up on the train (and long may that last).
Is that actually properly enforced still? Are bikers allowed out?
Anyway, the existence of the road and the carpark, even without funicular access, is enough to put pretty unsustainable pressure on that part of the plateau. I always thought that a real opportunity was missed when the funicular was built not to extend it all the way to Glenmore; as well as doing away with the the need to keep the road clear in winter, it could have meant that all climbers and walkers would have had to walk up the hill as a deterrent and the massive eyesore of the carpark could have been removed.
In reply to ChrisJD: !
Not really. Given that the ski area is not going away, it is sensible to look for ways to reduce pressure on the plateau from all users.
> And instead have a go at minor MTB use. mmm, a tad unfair me thinks.
Not really. Given that the ski area is not going away, it is sensible to look for ways to reduce pressure on the plateau from all users.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Well that is fair enough and couldnt agree more - as long as it is done fairly and proportionally and not solely to protect the self interest of user groups with the biggest voice.
Hence why I linked to the Snowdon biking example - this has been running for 20 years now.
> It is sensible to look for ways to reduce pressure on the plateau from all users.
Well that is fair enough and couldnt agree more - as long as it is done fairly and proportionally and not solely to protect the self interest of user groups with the biggest voice.
Hence why I linked to the Snowdon biking example - this has been running for 20 years now.
In reply to Niall B:
As someone who lives in the Cairngorms, walks, climbs, runs and has taken a fat bike over some of the cairngorm tops i really wish people like you would just enjoy your chosen activity instead of blasting others for doing something which you personally don't find interesting. From this thread it appears you still havn't divulged the evidence which you claim you have to back up your rant??
To put things into perspective I had cause to be out in the hills late last year after the floods we had on the eastern side, over the course of one night rivers had changed their course, tens of thousands of tones of river bank and sediment had been transported out to the north sea in one natural event. I'm not going to worry too much over two blokes on a Mtb on the Caringorm plateu. and as has been said above the paths which you can clearly see on google earth were all created by hill walkers, so lets ban them.......
As someone who lives in the Cairngorms, walks, climbs, runs and has taken a fat bike over some of the cairngorm tops i really wish people like you would just enjoy your chosen activity instead of blasting others for doing something which you personally don't find interesting. From this thread it appears you still havn't divulged the evidence which you claim you have to back up your rant??
To put things into perspective I had cause to be out in the hills late last year after the floods we had on the eastern side, over the course of one night rivers had changed their course, tens of thousands of tones of river bank and sediment had been transported out to the north sea in one natural event. I'm not going to worry too much over two blokes on a Mtb on the Caringorm plateu. and as has been said above the paths which you can clearly see on google earth were all created by hill walkers, so lets ban them.......
13
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Of course people can ride where they like, just as I can state that I don't like it because I think it will cause vastly more damage than other activities such as ski touring, climbing or walking.
I think 'atmosphere of disapproval' is a start to discouraging it.
Yup, empirical was the wrong word.
In a few years time we will all be able to see the rise in erosion caused by bikers. However by then it will be too late, the precedent will be set and there will be no going back, the place will be fecked.
Of course people can ride where they like, just as I can state that I don't like it because I think it will cause vastly more damage than other activities such as ski touring, climbing or walking.
I think 'atmosphere of disapproval' is a start to discouraging it.
Yup, empirical was the wrong word.
In a few years time we will all be able to see the rise in erosion caused by bikers. However by then it will be too late, the precedent will be set and there will be no going back, the place will be fecked.
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Well said.
ChrisJD: I would prefer no use to minor use. I don't really care if it is unfair to mnt bikers I care that the place is not totally ruined.
There are plenty of other places to ride which are not contentious. Go elsewhere instead.
Well said.
ChrisJD: I would prefer no use to minor use. I don't really care if it is unfair to mnt bikers I care that the place is not totally ruined.
There are plenty of other places to ride which are not contentious. Go elsewhere instead.
In reply to KMC:
Actually I do enjoy mnt biking but I would never do it on the high tops. Which was the point of the post.
Happy to blast anyone who needs it.
The question of evidence is a good one although perhaps the onus should be on the bikers to prove they don't exacerbate erosion rather than on me to prove they do? Anyway I am happy that mnt bikes/ bikers do cause erosion, and will see if there is any studies to support a view either way.
Actually I do enjoy mnt biking but I would never do it on the high tops. Which was the point of the post.
Happy to blast anyone who needs it.
The question of evidence is a good one although perhaps the onus should be on the bikers to prove they don't exacerbate erosion rather than on me to prove they do? Anyway I am happy that mnt bikes/ bikers do cause erosion, and will see if there is any studies to support a view either way.
1
In reply to Niall B:
I'm not sure that you will, it's too much like hard work for virtually all mountain bikers. Yes you'll get the occasional group trying it but in terms of absolute numbers it will be a small percentage of the numbers of winter climbers that head in to the Norries for instance. It (riding across the Cairngorm plateau) doesn't fit in with the sanitised version of mountain biking that most aspire to of flowing trails with interesting technical features that are designed and built to be ridden on a mountain bike. One such rider moaned about the (legal) route down Bowderdale in the Howgills because, and I am not joking, after 7Km of riding he had to open a gate!
I'd guess that numbers wise you might get a couple of dozen riders on the plateau a year. (Based on a completely arbitrary 10% of MTB riders using Strava and only 7 having logged a ride up there in the last three years or so)
I hope I'm not proven wrong.
I'm not sure that you will, it's too much like hard work for virtually all mountain bikers. Yes you'll get the occasional group trying it but in terms of absolute numbers it will be a small percentage of the numbers of winter climbers that head in to the Norries for instance. It (riding across the Cairngorm plateau) doesn't fit in with the sanitised version of mountain biking that most aspire to of flowing trails with interesting technical features that are designed and built to be ridden on a mountain bike. One such rider moaned about the (legal) route down Bowderdale in the Howgills because, and I am not joking, after 7Km of riding he had to open a gate!
I'd guess that numbers wise you might get a couple of dozen riders on the plateau a year. (Based on a completely arbitrary 10% of MTB riders using Strava and only 7 having logged a ride up there in the last three years or so)
I hope I'm not proven wrong.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Yes they were heading west then north and were outside all designated areas except National Scenic.
I think a case can be made. The area has been undoubtedly impacted by the volume of usage and there is no denying walking on the plateau has an impact. I just think biking on the plateau is a step too far. Ride down the Ptarmigan access road; it is already down to the subsoil but the plateau deserves more protection.
Yes they were heading west then north and were outside all designated areas except National Scenic.
I think a case can be made. The area has been undoubtedly impacted by the volume of usage and there is no denying walking on the plateau has an impact. I just think biking on the plateau is a step too far. Ride down the Ptarmigan access road; it is already down to the subsoil but the plateau deserves more protection.
In reply to Niall B:
Your arguments don't stack up!
If you actually wanted to protect the Plateau you claim to care about, then you'd be campaigning about restricting access by walkers/climbers/runners way ahead of any gripes about a minor use by bikers.
> Well said.
> ChrisJD: I would prefer no use to minor use. I don't really care if it is unfair to mnt bikers I care that the place is not totally ruined.
Your arguments don't stack up!
If you actually wanted to protect the Plateau you claim to care about, then you'd be campaigning about restricting access by walkers/climbers/runners way ahead of any gripes about a minor use by bikers.
Post edited at 13:43
1
In reply to Niall B:
The place will be fecked? Absolute twaddle.
Here again is the Strava heatmap of a small area of the Cairngorms at the greatest magification.
First the cyclists: http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#15/-3.67592/57.10634/yellow/bike
Now the runners: http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#15/-3.67592/57.10634/yellow/run
Who do you think is eroding all those routes all over the mountains?
In any case, as pointed out above, how much damage do you think a decent storm with heavy rains does to the mountains?
The place will be fecked? Absolute twaddle.
Here again is the Strava heatmap of a small area of the Cairngorms at the greatest magification.
First the cyclists: http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#15/-3.67592/57.10634/yellow/bike
Now the runners: http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#15/-3.67592/57.10634/yellow/run
Who do you think is eroding all those routes all over the mountains?
In any case, as pointed out above, how much damage do you think a decent storm with heavy rains does to the mountains?
In reply to Rigid Raider:
I don't think the fact that there are far more walkers/runners than bikers is a valid reason for ignoring the fact that an individual bike does more damage (If this is in fact the case). Would it be ok for me to drive a tractor across the plateau on the grounds that it is a one off? And I am not saying that walkers/runners are not a problem.
What an absurd and daft comment! What about the damage done by glaciers during the last ice age? It's been raining (and snowing and freezing and been extremely windy) very regularly in the Cairngorms ever since the glaciers retreated, and an environment stable in the medium to long term under those conditions has evolved and been stable for thousands and thousands of years. It has only been seriously threatened by the easy access facilitated by the skiing development in the last fifty years or so.
> Who do you think is eroding all those routes all over the mountains?
I don't think the fact that there are far more walkers/runners than bikers is a valid reason for ignoring the fact that an individual bike does more damage (If this is in fact the case). Would it be ok for me to drive a tractor across the plateau on the grounds that it is a one off? And I am not saying that walkers/runners are not a problem.
> In any case, as pointed out above, how much damage do you think a decent storm with heavy rains does to the mountains?
What an absurd and daft comment! What about the damage done by glaciers during the last ice age? It's been raining (and snowing and freezing and been extremely windy) very regularly in the Cairngorms ever since the glaciers retreated, and an environment stable in the medium to long term under those conditions has evolved and been stable for thousands and thousands of years. It has only been seriously threatened by the easy access facilitated by the skiing development in the last fifty years or so.
1
In reply to DaveHK:
I would indirectly by only allowing access by car beyond Glenmore if you have either bought a ski pass or a return ticket for the funicular as well as by strictly enforcing the ban on leaving the top station. Walkers and climbers would then only walk up if they really wanted to visit the plateau or to climb in the Northern Corries rather than just have an short/easy day.
> Would you accept restrictions on walkers access to the plateau?
I would indirectly by only allowing access by car beyond Glenmore if you have either bought a ski pass or a return ticket for the funicular as well as by strictly enforcing the ban on leaving the top station. Walkers and climbers would then only walk up if they really wanted to visit the plateau or to climb in the Northern Corries rather than just have an short/easy day.
In reply to Niall B:
Damage is caused by mountain bike tyres when cyclists ride though soft terrain leaving ruts, which channel water or when they skid, taking off the fragile grass that holds everything together. In the UK mountain environment this often happens in poorly-drained hollows so peat gets washed out and pools in the bottom. Most of the Caringorm plateau is well-weathered rock and gravel and I doubt if a mountain bike or even a tractor would make much of an impression . As to the impact on wildlife, how much damage will the brief and silent passage of a walker or cyclist do? I've seen all kinds of wildlife just yards from the ski runs at Aviemore, apparently not bothered by skiers whizzing past.
Damage is caused by mountain bike tyres when cyclists ride though soft terrain leaving ruts, which channel water or when they skid, taking off the fragile grass that holds everything together. In the UK mountain environment this often happens in poorly-drained hollows so peat gets washed out and pools in the bottom. Most of the Caringorm plateau is well-weathered rock and gravel and I doubt if a mountain bike or even a tractor would make much of an impression . As to the impact on wildlife, how much damage will the brief and silent passage of a walker or cyclist do? I've seen all kinds of wildlife just yards from the ski runs at Aviemore, apparently not bothered by skiers whizzing past.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Of course its valid that there are more walkers/runners/0n-foot users. The damage caused by a bike is in the same ball park as on-foot users (it 'looks' different for sure, which leads to a perceived problem by on-foot users) - all the evidence/research I've seen has been unable to point the finger at one or the other as being worse, which suggests to me they must be similar .
Mountain bikes are NOT in the same league as a tractor, dirt bike or 4x4. Using a tractor example is unfair.
> I don't think the fact that there are far more walkers/runners than bikers is a valid reason for ignoring the fact that an individual bike does more damage (If this is in fact the case). Would it be ok for me to drive a tractor across the plateau on the grounds that it is a one off? And I am not saying that walkers/runners are not a problem.
Of course its valid that there are more walkers/runners/0n-foot users. The damage caused by a bike is in the same ball park as on-foot users (it 'looks' different for sure, which leads to a perceived problem by on-foot users) - all the evidence/research I've seen has been unable to point the finger at one or the other as being worse, which suggests to me they must be similar .
Mountain bikes are NOT in the same league as a tractor, dirt bike or 4x4. Using a tractor example is unfair.
In reply to Rigid Raider:
Nonsense. The Plateau is an extremely fragile environment especially when wet; the gravelly surface becomes remarkably soft and plants are easily damaged. Yes, there are rocky, bouldery areas but bikers are hardly likely to seek them out (walkers perhaps should).
> Most of the Caringorm plateau is well-weathered rock and gravel and I doubt if a mountain bike or even a tractor would make much of an impression .
Nonsense. The Plateau is an extremely fragile environment especially when wet; the gravelly surface becomes remarkably soft and plants are easily damaged. Yes, there are rocky, bouldery areas but bikers are hardly likely to seek them out (walkers perhaps should).
1
In reply to ChrisJD:
It is only unfair if bikes are not, as you claim, significantly more damaging than a pedestrian. Certainly when bikes in the hills first became an issue perhaps twenty or more years ago, they were perceived as significantly more damaging (greater pressure, skidding) and their use off hard paths was generally frowned upon. If you are right and the evidence says they are no more damaging, then I agree that it is hard to make a case against bikes apart from through prejudice.
> Mountain bikes are NOT in the same league as a tractor, dirt bike or 4x4. Using a tractor example is unfair.
It is only unfair if bikes are not, as you claim, significantly more damaging than a pedestrian. Certainly when bikes in the hills first became an issue perhaps twenty or more years ago, they were perceived as significantly more damaging (greater pressure, skidding) and their use off hard paths was generally frowned upon. If you are right and the evidence says they are no more damaging, then I agree that it is hard to make a case against bikes apart from through prejudice.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Seems a good approach if there is actually a need to reduce overall access to protect the plateau - is this the case, or do you just want less people up there to make if nicer for the few who put the effort in? .
Perhaps get rid of the train on Snowdon as well Although would this lead to more people to walking up/down (especially via PenyPass), thereby causing more erosion....?
> I would indirectly by only allowing access by car beyond Glenmore if you have either bought a ski pass or a return ticket for the funicular as well as by strictly enforcing the ban on leaving the top station. Walkers and climbers would then only walk up if they really wanted to visit the plateau or to climb in the Northern Corries rather than just have an short/easy day.
Seems a good approach if there is actually a need to reduce overall access to protect the plateau - is this the case, or do you just want less people up there to make if nicer for the few who put the effort in? .
Perhaps get rid of the train on Snowdon as well Although would this lead to more people to walking up/down (especially via PenyPass), thereby causing more erosion....?
In reply to ChrisJD:
There is very considerable damage to the surface of the plateau all round Cairngorm and the Northern Corries and thinning out across the palteau from there. There are also far, far more people than any where else in the Cairngorms. Significantly fewer people would obviously protect the plateau (and incidentally make it nicer for those bothered to walk up).
> Seems a good approach if there is actually a need to reduce overall access to protect the plateau - is this the case, or do you just want less people up there to make if nicer for the few who put the effort in? .
There is very considerable damage to the surface of the plateau all round Cairngorm and the Northern Corries and thinning out across the palteau from there. There are also far, far more people than any where else in the Cairngorms. Significantly fewer people would obviously protect the plateau (and incidentally make it nicer for those bothered to walk up).
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
This might be interesting for you and others (direct link to pdf download):
"What does responsible access in the uplands mean conceptually and in practice for mountain bikers and land managers in the Cairngorms National Park?"
http://www.dmbins.com/system/resources/BAhbBlsHOgZmSSJIMjAxNC8wNi8yNi8wOS80...
Section 2.1.2 discusses evidence of relative damage.
This might be interesting for you and others (direct link to pdf download):
"What does responsible access in the uplands mean conceptually and in practice for mountain bikers and land managers in the Cairngorms National Park?"
http://www.dmbins.com/system/resources/BAhbBlsHOgZmSSJIMjAxNC8wNi8yNi8wOS80...
Section 2.1.2 discusses evidence of relative damage.
In reply to Robert Durran:
That's fair as it is for all users.
> I would indirectly by only allowing access by car beyond Glenmore...
That's fair as it is for all users.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Says who and what kind of damage?
> There is very considerable damage to the surface of the plateau all round Cairngorm and the Northern Corries and thinning out across the palteau from there.
Says who and what kind of damage?
In reply to Rigid Raider:
Anyone who has been there with their eyes open. Massive scarring and denudation of the fragile vegetation. Have you ever actually been there? And if you have, have you ever, say, been on the Ben A'Bhuird plateau and noticed any difference?
> Says who and what kind of damage?
Anyone who has been there with their eyes open. Massive scarring and denudation of the fragile vegetation. Have you ever actually been there? And if you have, have you ever, say, been on the Ben A'Bhuird plateau and noticed any difference?
Post edited at 16:53
In reply to ChrisJD:
Thanks. Certainly inconclusive, which possibly suggests there is not a massive difference between bikes and pedestrians.
> This might be interesting for you and others (direct link to pdf download):
Thanks. Certainly inconclusive, which possibly suggests there is not a massive difference between bikes and pedestrians.
In reply to DaveHK:
I think you can make a case for differential access on the plateau. Walkers and skiers OK, bikes not. I understand that this might not be seen as 'fair' but my preference would be for access use/activity to be acceptable by the majority according to relative level of impact.
I think you can make a case for differential access on the plateau. Walkers and skiers OK, bikes not. I understand that this might not be seen as 'fair' but my preference would be for access use/activity to be acceptable by the majority according to relative level of impact.
In reply to Niall B:
Make that case then because thus far, you and everyone else who has tried has failed to present conclusive evidence. Until you do that it's not a case, just a case of prejudice against another activity.
I'll rephrase my question to you. Given that pretty much all the damage caused on the plateau so far has been caused by walkers would you accept limits being placed on walkers access?
> I think you can make a case for differential access on the plateau.
Make that case then because thus far, you and everyone else who has tried has failed to present conclusive evidence. Until you do that it's not a case, just a case of prejudice against another activity.
I'll rephrase my question to you. Given that pretty much all the damage caused on the plateau so far has been caused by walkers would you accept limits being placed on walkers access?
Post edited at 17:50
1
In reply to Rigid Raider:
"Most of the Caringorm plateau is well-weathered rock and gravel and I doubt if a mountain bike or even a tractor would make much of an impression."
We better agree to disagree about this. It would be different from peaty ground that is for sure however a bike would defo make an impression on the saturated gravel and moss which partly comprise the plateau.
"Most of the Caringorm plateau is well-weathered rock and gravel and I doubt if a mountain bike or even a tractor would make much of an impression."
We better agree to disagree about this. It would be different from peaty ground that is for sure however a bike would defo make an impression on the saturated gravel and moss which partly comprise the plateau.
In reply to DaveHK:
"Make that case then because thus far, you and everyone else who has tried has failed to present conclusive evidence. Until you do that it's not a case, just a case of prejudice against another activity."
I'll accept prejudice against another activity in a specified location.
The case simply is that bikers will cause significantly more erosion than walkers and climbers and therefore bikers should be discouraged in the same way that quad bikers should be discouraged. For me mnt biking on the plateau crosses a line.
Anyway as I have said before, we will be able to see the erosion very clearly if mnt biking off the summit of cairngorm becomes popular. I appreciate it is not at the moment but it wouldn't take much for it to boom. Ride up the funicular and down on the bike anyone? You can see that coming miles away, just as soon as Natural Retreats allow everyone to roam about freely from the top station in summer. The guided walks are the obvious stepping stone to that.
"I'll rephrase my question to you. Given that pretty much all the damage caused on the plateau so far has been caused by walkers would you accept limits being placed on walkers access?"
Yes. If it meant no bikes on the plateau.
"Make that case then because thus far, you and everyone else who has tried has failed to present conclusive evidence. Until you do that it's not a case, just a case of prejudice against another activity."
I'll accept prejudice against another activity in a specified location.
The case simply is that bikers will cause significantly more erosion than walkers and climbers and therefore bikers should be discouraged in the same way that quad bikers should be discouraged. For me mnt biking on the plateau crosses a line.
Anyway as I have said before, we will be able to see the erosion very clearly if mnt biking off the summit of cairngorm becomes popular. I appreciate it is not at the moment but it wouldn't take much for it to boom. Ride up the funicular and down on the bike anyone? You can see that coming miles away, just as soon as Natural Retreats allow everyone to roam about freely from the top station in summer. The guided walks are the obvious stepping stone to that.
"I'll rephrase my question to you. Given that pretty much all the damage caused on the plateau so far has been caused by walkers would you accept limits being placed on walkers access?"
Yes. If it meant no bikes on the plateau.
In reply to Niall B:
So are Natural Retreats (I presume this is the company that operates either the funicular or the restaurant at the summit area) going to start offering to transport mountain bikers to the summit?
If not then as I and others have repeatedly said it's too much like hard work for the vast majority of mountain bikers so the occasional group will make the effort but they will be isolated events.
The "solution" is to prevent NR from offering such a service by making it part of their license.
So are Natural Retreats (I presume this is the company that operates either the funicular or the restaurant at the summit area) going to start offering to transport mountain bikers to the summit?
If not then as I and others have repeatedly said it's too much like hard work for the vast majority of mountain bikers so the occasional group will make the effort but they will be isolated events.
The "solution" is to prevent NR from offering such a service by making it part of their license.
In reply to Niall B:
You would have a strong case if that actually happened and Cairngorm effectively became a downhill mountain biking venue. At the moment you don't, but yes, it is important to resist any move to relax access from the top station. Otherwise you only have a case if you can prove that bikes cause significantly more damage than walkers. I too don't like the idea of bikes on the plateau, but I'm struggling to justify it!
> Ride up the funicular and down on the bike anyone? You can see that coming miles away, just as soon as Natural Retreats allow everyone to roam about freely from the top station in summer.
You would have a strong case if that actually happened and Cairngorm effectively became a downhill mountain biking venue. At the moment you don't, but yes, it is important to resist any move to relax access from the top station. Otherwise you only have a case if you can prove that bikes cause significantly more damage than walkers. I too don't like the idea of bikes on the plateau, but I'm struggling to justify it!
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
That's a ridiculously damming and patronising post! Every mountain has a different type and extent of vegetation depending on soil cover, orientation, altitude, location and so on. I've spent plenty of time trogging around on Scottish hills including the Cairngorms in all seasons and I'e never looked around and thought: "Gosh this mountain is badly denuded compared with that one over there - maybe millions of human feet did that?"
Yes there is a straight path from the ski station to the summit but that's marked out and I'll bet most walkers stay within the markers.
That's a ridiculously damming and patronising post! Every mountain has a different type and extent of vegetation depending on soil cover, orientation, altitude, location and so on. I've spent plenty of time trogging around on Scottish hills including the Cairngorms in all seasons and I'e never looked around and thought: "Gosh this mountain is badly denuded compared with that one over there - maybe millions of human feet did that?"
Yes there is a straight path from the ski station to the summit but that's marked out and I'll bet most walkers stay within the markers.
Post edited at 19:26
In reply to Niall B:
"significantly more erosion than walkers and climbers "
Sorry, that simply has not been proven to date - see my pdf link as an example (Robert took the time to read).
If just don't want bikes up there, then fine. But don't use unproven assertions to support your position (e.g "and therefore...").
> The case simply is that bikers will cause significantly more erosion than walkers and climbers and therefore bikers should be discouraged in the same way that quad bikers should be discouraged. For me mnt biking on the plateau crosses a line.
"significantly more erosion than walkers and climbers "
Sorry, that simply has not been proven to date - see my pdf link as an example (Robert took the time to read).
If just don't want bikes up there, then fine. But don't use unproven assertions to support your position (e.g "and therefore...").
1
In reply to Rigid Raider:
Well you havn't looked or thought very hard then!
> I've spent plenty of time trogging around on Scottish hills including the Cairngorms in all seasons and I'e never looked around and thought: "Gosh this mountain is badly denuded compared with that one over there - maybe millions of human feet did that?"
Well you havn't looked or thought very hard then!
In reply to Robert Durran:
Standard road and gravel runway damage assessment equation. Why trucks do much more damage to roads than cars.
Standard road and gravel runway damage assessment equation. Why trucks do much more damage to roads than cars.
In reply to Niall B:
Given that you've admitted you're prejudiced against MTBs and that you've failed to come up with any evidence to support your assertions there isn't really anything to agree or disagree on.
You can hold what views you like and make statements like 'The case simply is that bikers will cause significantly more erosion than walkers and climbers' but in the absence of evidence you're not going to convince many people.
> We are not going to agree on this one are we?
Given that you've admitted you're prejudiced against MTBs and that you've failed to come up with any evidence to support your assertions there isn't really anything to agree or disagree on.
You can hold what views you like and make statements like 'The case simply is that bikers will cause significantly more erosion than walkers and climbers' but in the absence of evidence you're not going to convince many people.
1
In reply to Bob:
The tyre pressure transmits the bike and rider weight to the ground through the tyre foot print. Also, there are two wheels against one foot at a time, so you could double the damage. Thes numbers are a gross indication, and you can assume a bike causes 3 orders of more damage than a hiker. Aberdeen Uni did a test on Bennachie in the eighties comparing hill running shoes with bikes. Shoe damage to the heather was almost invisible. Bike damage was very obvious.
The tyre pressure transmits the bike and rider weight to the ground through the tyre foot print. Also, there are two wheels against one foot at a time, so you could double the damage. Thes numbers are a gross indication, and you can assume a bike causes 3 orders of more damage than a hiker. Aberdeen Uni did a test on Bennachie in the eighties comparing hill running shoes with bikes. Shoe damage to the heather was almost invisible. Bike damage was very obvious.
In reply to IainL:
Is that with a side order of skepticism?
So what are the units of damage?
And I fall into the heather (usually superman style over the bars), I don't ride across it.
Got a reference to this 80s research? 35 years old!
> 3 orders of more damage than a hiker
Is that with a side order of skepticism?
So what are the units of damage?
And I fall into the heather (usually superman style over the bars), I don't ride across it.
Got a reference to this 80s research? 35 years old!
1
In reply to IainL:
Could you provide a link to the fourth power thing - couldn't find anything.
But we're not comparing two types of wheeled vehicles.
Anyway, your post of 11.55 came up with a clearly ludicrous factor of 2000 via a misunderstanding which resulted in you using a ratio of two quantities measuring different things, so I am naturally sceptical!
> Standard road and gravel runway damage assessment equation.
Could you provide a link to the fourth power thing - couldn't find anything.
> Why trucks do much more damage to roads than cars.
But we're not comparing two types of wheeled vehicles.
Anyway, your post of 11.55 came up with a clearly ludicrous factor of 2000 via a misunderstanding which resulted in you using a ratio of two quantities measuring different things, so I am naturally sceptical!
In reply to IainL:
Tyre pressure is what inflates the tyre, I think you mean ground pressure.
And if there are two tyres then the ground pressure is halved not doubled as the mass is supported bey a greater contact area. In addition modern bike tyres have much greater volume and therefore contact area so the ground pressure would be lower still. The ground pressure exerted by fat bikes is actually less than that of a footprint - they were originally inented to float on snow.
Tyre pressure is what inflates the tyre, I think you mean ground pressure.
And if there are two tyres then the ground pressure is halved not doubled as the mass is supported bey a greater contact area. In addition modern bike tyres have much greater volume and therefore contact area so the ground pressure would be lower still. The ground pressure exerted by fat bikes is actually less than that of a footprint - they were originally inented to float on snow.
1
In reply to IainL:
No it doesn't. The tyre does. The pressure just maintains the tyre's shape. This is why your earlier claim that tyre pressure and contact pressure between the tyre and the ground are equivalent was wrong.
.
Eh? Two wheels means the weight is always spread. If anything the damage is halved.
What numbers?
What does this mean? Three orders of magnitude? A thousand times more?
> The tyre pressure transmits the bike and rider weight to the ground through the tyre foot print.
No it doesn't. The tyre does. The pressure just maintains the tyre's shape. This is why your earlier claim that tyre pressure and contact pressure between the tyre and the ground are equivalent was wrong.
.
> Also, there are two wheels against one foot at a time, so you could double the damage.
Eh? Two wheels means the weight is always spread. If anything the damage is halved.
> These numbers are a gross indication.
What numbers?
> You can assume a bike causes 3 orders of more damage than a hiker.
What does this mean? Three orders of magnitude? A thousand times more?
In reply to IainL:
I actually don't know whether a bike causes more damage than a walker or vice versa, but obviously poor pseudo-science like this does your cause no good at all. At least the OP openly admitted his prejudice against bikers. It's a complex issue. If you ignore subsequent water erosion, then walking may be particularly bad due the the very high impact forces in the booted heal strike. In contrast a well ridden bike has very little 'impact' on the rider or the environment. Think about footprints on wet sand on a beach. They typically leave quite a lot more sand displacement than a bike track. At least they do at Formby. Whether than translates to damage on the plateau I don't know, but it does pretty much debunk the simple pressure argument against bikes.
> The tyre pressure transmits the bike and rider weight to the ground through the tyre foot print. Also, there are two wheels against one foot at a time, so you could double the damage. Thes numbers are a gross indication, and you can assume a bike causes 3 orders ...
I actually don't know whether a bike causes more damage than a walker or vice versa, but obviously poor pseudo-science like this does your cause no good at all. At least the OP openly admitted his prejudice against bikers. It's a complex issue. If you ignore subsequent water erosion, then walking may be particularly bad due the the very high impact forces in the booted heal strike. In contrast a well ridden bike has very little 'impact' on the rider or the environment. Think about footprints on wet sand on a beach. They typically leave quite a lot more sand displacement than a bike track. At least they do at Formby. Whether than translates to damage on the plateau I don't know, but it does pretty much debunk the simple pressure argument against bikes.
1
In reply to Robert Durran (well the thread really):
We do some damage any time we pass over an area of vegetation whether that's on foot, bike or ski or whatever. In isolation that damage will recover in time, the length of time will depend on lots of factors: temperature; altitude; ground conditions; etc. If it's just one individual then there is unlikely to be much lasting damage.
If instead of an isolated incident one person passes over the area every day or many people pass over the area then the vegetation doesn't have time to recover so eventually dies back and the bare earth is exposed and erosion can begin.
When we had a dog I'd walk him up the lane every morning, he'd wander around on the way up but on the way back he'd stick to the grass on one side of the lane. Within a year one dog walking over the same line just once a day had created a visible path - the grass was still there but it was stunted and there was a definite path.
Saying bikes cause more erosion than footfall is very simplistic as there's a huge range of tyre sizes and pressures to consider then there's riding style and competence: If I skidded to a halt I'd cause more damage in those couple of metres by shearing the surface vegetation than in a day of pootling about. Given large numbers of bikes then I'd be in agreement with the OP but as has been shown (by indirect means) there are very few bikers up on the plateau even compared with runners and that's unlikely to increase unless something (such as the funicular providing an uplift service) changes.
We do some damage any time we pass over an area of vegetation whether that's on foot, bike or ski or whatever. In isolation that damage will recover in time, the length of time will depend on lots of factors: temperature; altitude; ground conditions; etc. If it's just one individual then there is unlikely to be much lasting damage.
If instead of an isolated incident one person passes over the area every day or many people pass over the area then the vegetation doesn't have time to recover so eventually dies back and the bare earth is exposed and erosion can begin.
When we had a dog I'd walk him up the lane every morning, he'd wander around on the way up but on the way back he'd stick to the grass on one side of the lane. Within a year one dog walking over the same line just once a day had created a visible path - the grass was still there but it was stunted and there was a definite path.
Saying bikes cause more erosion than footfall is very simplistic as there's a huge range of tyre sizes and pressures to consider then there's riding style and competence: If I skidded to a halt I'd cause more damage in those couple of metres by shearing the surface vegetation than in a day of pootling about. Given large numbers of bikes then I'd be in agreement with the OP but as has been shown (by indirect means) there are very few bikers up on the plateau even compared with runners and that's unlikely to increase unless something (such as the funicular providing an uplift service) changes.
1
In reply to Niall B:
As I wrote earlier, a bicycle tyre leaves a linear trace, which the human eye picks out more readily then a confused mass of footprints. However I'd be willing to bet that on a firm surface a rolling tyre does less damage than a grinding heel and sole and I've ridden in mountain bike events where the passage of several hundred tyres has actually compacted and improved the track, usually on drying mud. Different surfaces and conditions produce different effects.
As I wrote earlier, a bicycle tyre leaves a linear trace, which the human eye picks out more readily then a confused mass of footprints. However I'd be willing to bet that on a firm surface a rolling tyre does less damage than a grinding heel and sole and I've ridden in mountain bike events where the passage of several hundred tyres has actually compacted and improved the track, usually on drying mud. Different surfaces and conditions produce different effects.
In reply to IainL:
My mtb tyres run at 40psi, whereas my car's are just 30psi. Which would you rather be run over by?
> The tyre pressure transmits the bike and rider weight to the ground through the tyre foot print
My mtb tyres run at 40psi, whereas my car's are just 30psi. Which would you rather be run over by?
1
In reply to Turdus torquatus:
Even better: I can change the pressure in my tyres anywhere between 20 & 40 psi so does that mean my weight changes? If so then I'll get some that will run at 10psi and I'll have lost 6 stone in weight!!
We've a bridleway/BOAT that runs past the house and much as I personally dislike trails bikes and 4x4s in the countryside we get the occasional group of (middle to old aged) trails bikers coming along and smoothing out the divots caused by the horse riders (who I've no problem with). If I was a Daily Mail ready I'd be apoplectic at both the damage and the means of repair!
Even better: I can change the pressure in my tyres anywhere between 20 & 40 psi so does that mean my weight changes? If so then I'll get some that will run at 10psi and I'll have lost 6 stone in weight!!
We've a bridleway/BOAT that runs past the house and much as I personally dislike trails bikes and 4x4s in the countryside we get the occasional group of (middle to old aged) trails bikers coming along and smoothing out the divots caused by the horse riders (who I've no problem with). If I was a Daily Mail ready I'd be apoplectic at both the damage and the means of repair!
In reply to Bob:
Maybe you could get some totally rigid tyres made out of metal and and pump all the air out to create a vacuum at 0 psi. You and your bike would be weightless and you would do no damage at all. As a bonus, you'd literally fly along.
I can't believe this thread. Me siding with the bikers? I hate the bastards (pure prejudice). What is the world coming to? Hopefully some conclusive evidence that they are trashing the place will come along soon
> Even better: I can change the pressure in my tyres anywhere between 20 & 40 psi so does that mean my weight changes? If so then I'll get some that will run at 10psi and I'll have lost 6 stone in weight!!
Maybe you could get some totally rigid tyres made out of metal and and pump all the air out to create a vacuum at 0 psi. You and your bike would be weightless and you would do no damage at all. As a bonus, you'd literally fly along.
I can't believe this thread. Me siding with the bikers? I hate the bastards (pure prejudice). What is the world coming to? Hopefully some conclusive evidence that they are trashing the place will come along soon
1
In reply to
There were bike tracks on Derry Cairngorm when I was last up there. Why would anyone bother? Surely a load of carrying?
There were bike tracks on Derry Cairngorm when I was last up there. Why would anyone bother? Surely a load of carrying?
In reply to Niall B:
I used to train my horses on a 10 mile circular route around the Manchester area. The path was shared by cyclists, walkers, runners, even kids on mopeds. Throughout winter the path would just become a muddy rutted quagmire in certain areas but as soon as spring popped along, it would revert back to its normal dry, pleasant looking, hard packed surface. Looked the same as the previous summer, no maintenance required, all good and everybody getting on just fine.
From what I could see, we were all guilty of destruction but then when conditions were right, we could all applaud ourselves for compacting the surface back down again.
Not applicable to all terrain I know.
I used to train my horses on a 10 mile circular route around the Manchester area. The path was shared by cyclists, walkers, runners, even kids on mopeds. Throughout winter the path would just become a muddy rutted quagmire in certain areas but as soon as spring popped along, it would revert back to its normal dry, pleasant looking, hard packed surface. Looked the same as the previous summer, no maintenance required, all good and everybody getting on just fine.
From what I could see, we were all guilty of destruction but then when conditions were right, we could all applaud ourselves for compacting the surface back down again.
Not applicable to all terrain I know.
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Robert - you've been great.
Yes hopefully evidence will emerge that MTBers are in fact the spawn of the devil (which you know to be true) and normal service can resume ;-0
Robert - you've been great.
Yes hopefully evidence will emerge that MTBers are in fact the spawn of the devil (which you know to be true) and normal service can resume ;-0
In reply to IainL:
You must walk funny. Most people I know don't put their boot down flat on the ground, but heel first. The point pressure from a walking boot when used normally is actually significantly higher than that from a mountain bike tyre.
I'm not about to suggest that means a boot does more damage - it's different, with the point impact of boots causing a different sort of erosion from the linear damage caused by tyres.
Of course Niall's comment which also mentions increased load and torque is even more silly - I presume he also wants to ban fat biffers and those carrying large packs, and doesn't understand gearing which means that a bike has less torque at the tyre than a walker does at their boot.
> The damage to the track is proportional to the 4th power of the pressure on it. Tyre at 35psi, walker at 150 lbs and 30sq inch sole give 35/5 to power 4, equals over 2000 times damage,
You must walk funny. Most people I know don't put their boot down flat on the ground, but heel first. The point pressure from a walking boot when used normally is actually significantly higher than that from a mountain bike tyre.
I'm not about to suggest that means a boot does more damage - it's different, with the point impact of boots causing a different sort of erosion from the linear damage caused by tyres.
Of course Niall's comment which also mentions increased load and torque is even more silly - I presume he also wants to ban fat biffers and those carrying large packs, and doesn't understand gearing which means that a bike has less torque at the tyre than a walker does at their boot.
Post edited at 16:42
1
In reply to aracer:
Have we covered dogs and horses yet and their points of contact and likelihood of being on the mountains?
Have we covered dogs and horses yet and their points of contact and likelihood of being on the mountains?
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
No, but I reckon the bloody reindeer are just as bad as the bikers.
> Have we covered dogs and horses yet and their points of contact and likelihood of being on the mountains?
No, but I reckon the bloody reindeer are just as bad as the bikers.
3
In reply to Niall B: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/drop-your-tyre-pressure-were-destro...
Good to see a spirit of tolerance all round....
Good to see a spirit of tolerance all round....
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
A couple of us have mentioned horses and it's slipped under the radar.....don't worry, we're due a horse bashing thread soon
A couple of us have mentioned horses and it's slipped under the radar.....don't worry, we're due a horse bashing thread soon
In reply to wbo:
I just read the whole thread on STW - seemed reasonable and on the whole supportive of the overall tone/consensus of the UKC thread.
I think this sums it up nicely (ignore the writing errors, you get the gist):
"If the Cairngorm plateau does need protected then fair enough, but the best way to protect is to reduce usage be all users not just pick on one very small group whose method of enjoying the hills you disagree with."
> Good to see a spirit of tolerance all round....
I just read the whole thread on STW - seemed reasonable and on the whole supportive of the overall tone/consensus of the UKC thread.
I think this sums it up nicely (ignore the writing errors, you get the gist):
"If the Cairngorm plateau does need protected then fair enough, but the best way to protect is to reduce usage be all users not just pick on one very small group whose method of enjoying the hills you disagree with."
3
In reply to aultguish:
... and a dog poo thread. Please let's have the conversation about bags hanging from trees. I quite enjoy that.
... and a dog poo thread. Please let's have the conversation about bags hanging from trees. I quite enjoy that.
1
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
Well if it's poo you're after, don't forget about horse owners not picking up after their horse.......I always pick up but the black bin bag is just too heavy to throw up into the trees
Well if it's poo you're after, don't forget about horse owners not picking up after their horse.......I always pick up but the black bin bag is just too heavy to throw up into the trees
1
In reply to Niall B:
>The additional load of the bike, the smaller surface area of the tyre and the torque all combine to mean that a wheel dislodges more material than a boot.
Torque was also the wrong word I think. Torque is a twisting/rotational force. Although the wheel is rotating my understanding is that the forces its applying to the ground are pressure and friction, not twisting/torque... unless these evil-doers are sitting still twiddling their handlebars from side to side.
>The additional load of the bike, the smaller surface area of the tyre and the torque all combine to mean that a wheel dislodges more material than a boot.
> Yup, empirical was the wrong word.
Torque was also the wrong word I think. Torque is a twisting/rotational force. Although the wheel is rotating my understanding is that the forces its applying to the ground are pressure and friction, not twisting/torque... unless these evil-doers are sitting still twiddling their handlebars from side to side.
In reply to Niall B:
Interesting to read through all the points put forward. As someone who has ridden and written about riding on the plateau, I was hoping that the argument against bikers presence up there would amount to more than pseudo science based on a predisposition against a particular user group. I think the original poster is catastrophising somewhat when writing of an exponential rise in erosion.
I suspect that for most cyclists, the area is never one that is going to attract them en masse. Based upon my own trips up there, I have only once met other cyclists. If they were going to come, they would probably be there already. The approach from any side of the plateau is tough and is simply too demanding for most. The technical nature of some of the riding is beyond the average mountain biker. I come from a hillwalking background and view my bike as an extension of that activity. I've walked and ridden an awful lot of Munros over the years and bikers are definitely the minority user group.
In terms of path usage, there is no great desire to go off trail and create new paths in the high mountain environment. Given the choice of a flowing singletrack path or having to grunt and manhandle my way over a boulder field, I'll always stick to the path. If there is mud, I'll ride through it instead of round it. The same cannot always be said for other user groups but I feel no compulsion to point a finger of blame at them and call for their access rights to be restricted.
For those who don't like our presence on the mountain, I'm sorry that you feel that way but such is life. I'll still give you a cheery smile and hello even if you feel the need to vent your spleen.
Interesting to read through all the points put forward. As someone who has ridden and written about riding on the plateau, I was hoping that the argument against bikers presence up there would amount to more than pseudo science based on a predisposition against a particular user group. I think the original poster is catastrophising somewhat when writing of an exponential rise in erosion.
I suspect that for most cyclists, the area is never one that is going to attract them en masse. Based upon my own trips up there, I have only once met other cyclists. If they were going to come, they would probably be there already. The approach from any side of the plateau is tough and is simply too demanding for most. The technical nature of some of the riding is beyond the average mountain biker. I come from a hillwalking background and view my bike as an extension of that activity. I've walked and ridden an awful lot of Munros over the years and bikers are definitely the minority user group.
In terms of path usage, there is no great desire to go off trail and create new paths in the high mountain environment. Given the choice of a flowing singletrack path or having to grunt and manhandle my way over a boulder field, I'll always stick to the path. If there is mud, I'll ride through it instead of round it. The same cannot always be said for other user groups but I feel no compulsion to point a finger of blame at them and call for their access rights to be restricted.
For those who don't like our presence on the mountain, I'm sorry that you feel that way but such is life. I'll still give you a cheery smile and hello even if you feel the need to vent your spleen.
7
In reply to Sanny:
Good post. I've seen one biker in the Cairngorms, that was on the Moine Mhor tracks. The tragedy is those tracks were put there in the first place but it's good to see them being put to use by folk biking.
Good post. I've seen one biker in the Cairngorms, that was on the Moine Mhor tracks. The tragedy is those tracks were put there in the first place but it's good to see them being put to use by folk biking.
1
In reply to Niall B:
Since this has been brought to my attention a few times over the last few days and it is something I feel very passionate about here’s my two cents.
I think that there is a certain element of education and common sense that needs to be brought to all sides of this argument.
Yes you will see mountain bikers up in the hills as they too are going to be enjoying the landscape and the scenery.
However the amount of impact is going to be similar if minimal as most mountain bikers will stick to paths and follow designated trail. Mountain bikes these days are far more capable than they have ever been before allowing people to explore further afield into places you may one have only been able to access via walking/climbing/ski touring.
Also as far as I’m aware you are not allowed to just go wander around with access to the funicular the cause of the Plateau and it’s heavy usage is the ease of access via the hill paths. The effect Mountain biking has on properly built footpaths, and rocky outcrops is minimal and too a certain degree it would be nice to have a say when path builders who are establishing multi use trails to notice this, so that when they are ridden by bicycle that there is even less impact.
I was up on Cairngorm recently and the water erosion to the trail off Cairngorm was far higher than any mountain biker could achieve. The path now is pretty much non existent.
Also as a mountain biker I have to say that we also have to be courteous to other trail users. Respect the conditions that are present up on the hills. Not riding the trails whilst wet (it’s not very nice anyway) and there for creating more impact than necessary. Also to be aware of the wildlife that is present - to chose the season’s carefully and to respect the ground nesting birds especially when mating. This is another prime example as to why to stick to the trails as less impact is created and also minimal disturbance is caused.
There is evidence and you could quite happily condemn most mountain activities if you saw fit but that gets you no where and people need educated.A chance converse about these subjects to help look after our landscape.
I spend a lot of time in the hills biking and I must say that the reception is more than welcoming and for that I’m happy to get the chance to experience that with the other folk that are out there. Thus all I can say is that the debate is there but as people we all should be able to care for our environment and be able to enjoy it with respect.
Based in Aviemore
Since this has been brought to my attention a few times over the last few days and it is something I feel very passionate about here’s my two cents.
I think that there is a certain element of education and common sense that needs to be brought to all sides of this argument.
Yes you will see mountain bikers up in the hills as they too are going to be enjoying the landscape and the scenery.
However the amount of impact is going to be similar if minimal as most mountain bikers will stick to paths and follow designated trail. Mountain bikes these days are far more capable than they have ever been before allowing people to explore further afield into places you may one have only been able to access via walking/climbing/ski touring.
Also as far as I’m aware you are not allowed to just go wander around with access to the funicular the cause of the Plateau and it’s heavy usage is the ease of access via the hill paths. The effect Mountain biking has on properly built footpaths, and rocky outcrops is minimal and too a certain degree it would be nice to have a say when path builders who are establishing multi use trails to notice this, so that when they are ridden by bicycle that there is even less impact.
I was up on Cairngorm recently and the water erosion to the trail off Cairngorm was far higher than any mountain biker could achieve. The path now is pretty much non existent.
Also as a mountain biker I have to say that we also have to be courteous to other trail users. Respect the conditions that are present up on the hills. Not riding the trails whilst wet (it’s not very nice anyway) and there for creating more impact than necessary. Also to be aware of the wildlife that is present - to chose the season’s carefully and to respect the ground nesting birds especially when mating. This is another prime example as to why to stick to the trails as less impact is created and also minimal disturbance is caused.
There is evidence and you could quite happily condemn most mountain activities if you saw fit but that gets you no where and people need educated.A chance converse about these subjects to help look after our landscape.
I spend a lot of time in the hills biking and I must say that the reception is more than welcoming and for that I’m happy to get the chance to experience that with the other folk that are out there. Thus all I can say is that the debate is there but as people we all should be able to care for our environment and be able to enjoy it with respect.
Based in Aviemore
3
In reply to Niall B:
Cycling over the Cairngorm plateau is never going to be a popular pastime as it is quite an effort to get up there. There is a fair amount of erosion around the Northen Corries which has been caused by walkers. I doubt a few bikes is going to add noticeably to that.
In January I was quite surprised (and impressed) to see tyre tracks down the Fiacaill Coire Chais (at the 1141m cairn) down towards the carpark. That's some terrain to be descending in winter conditions!
Cycling over the Cairngorm plateau is never going to be a popular pastime as it is quite an effort to get up there. There is a fair amount of erosion around the Northen Corries which has been caused by walkers. I doubt a few bikes is going to add noticeably to that.
In January I was quite surprised (and impressed) to see tyre tracks down the Fiacaill Coire Chais (at the 1141m cairn) down towards the carpark. That's some terrain to be descending in winter conditions!
In reply to Nash Masson:
Well said Nash
Well said Nash. I think your last paragraph encapsulates the whole debate.
Speaking as a mountaineer (who climbs in the Northern Cairngorms) and as a mountain biker, who bikes in the Gorms.
Well said Nash
> I spend a lot of time in the hills biking and I must say that the reception is more than welcoming and for that I’m happy to get the chance to experience that with the other folk that are out there. Thus all I can say is that the debate is there but as people we all should be able to care for our environment and be able to enjoy it with respect.
> Based in Aviemore
Well said Nash. I think your last paragraph encapsulates the whole debate.
Speaking as a mountaineer (who climbs in the Northern Cairngorms) and as a mountain biker, who bikes in the Gorms.
1
In reply to Andy Nisbet: I wouldn't discourage them plus you should maybe try discourage those winter climbers that climb on classic rock routes as soon as the first snowflakes fall .
In reply to Niall B:
So far this year I've been up and down the following grizedale pike skiddaw blencathra high spy maiden moor barrow fell 4times plus many more . Yes I live in the lakes and no I don't just ride at trail centres they are called mountain bikes not trail centre bikes so yes I ride them up and down the mountains of where I live.
Just to let you know again they are called mountain bikes
So far this year I've been up and down the following grizedale pike skiddaw blencathra high spy maiden moor barrow fell 4times plus many more . Yes I live in the lakes and no I don't just ride at trail centres they are called mountain bikes not trail centre bikes so yes I ride them up and down the mountains of where I live.
Just to let you know again they are called mountain bikes
1
1
In reply to neil0968:
Over the last few years I've been on something of a 'munros by bike' campaign. I've done lots of the obvious candidates and quite a few of the less obvious ones.
In what amounts to over 50 days on the bike in the high hills of Scotland I've only met one walker who commented negatively. A bit of investigation revealed that she thought the access rules were the same as England and that we were riding illegally on a foot path.
> Oh here we go yet another walker moaning about mountain bikers
Over the last few years I've been on something of a 'munros by bike' campaign. I've done lots of the obvious candidates and quite a few of the less obvious ones.
In what amounts to over 50 days on the bike in the high hills of Scotland I've only met one walker who commented negatively. A bit of investigation revealed that she thought the access rules were the same as England and that we were riding illegally on a foot path.
1
In reply to Monk:
I did an MSc on this back in the early 90's - with statistically inconclusive results. Surely there must have been other studies since
I did an MSc on this back in the early 90's - with statistically inconclusive results. Surely there must have been other studies since
In reply to Niall B:
Quite a lot of waffle on here by folk who could tell you the square root of a jam jar but couldn't effing open it. I both walk and bike in the mountains. I respect the hills and everyone on them, i dont ride like a nob or tut at walkers widening erosion by avoiding puddles or poking millions of wee holes in the soil with their poles. The trails are there and getting used, thank god, via boots/tires or hooves. Chill out and be gratefull you are physically capable of doing so. And lastly when im passing you at high speed with a huge grin across my face decending a path, dont lecture me or i'll crack your jaw.
Quite a lot of waffle on here by folk who could tell you the square root of a jam jar but couldn't effing open it. I both walk and bike in the mountains. I respect the hills and everyone on them, i dont ride like a nob or tut at walkers widening erosion by avoiding puddles or poking millions of wee holes in the soil with their poles. The trails are there and getting used, thank god, via boots/tires or hooves. Chill out and be gratefull you are physically capable of doing so. And lastly when im passing you at high speed with a huge grin across my face decending a path, dont lecture me or i'll crack your jaw.
2
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...