Trail Rating definitions

[headhunter]

Mike,

You're getting right to the heart of the issue about these systems with this statement:

Everyone has their special fear on the trails.

In order to get the full range properly represented, it seems that the range of a system needs to be defined by both people who are just getting started, as well as, those who run the most difficult trails. We're looking for the same types of information. Upon giving it some more thought, I believe that it can still be done on a scale from 1 - 10. 1 - 3 could be Easy ([COLOR="Green"]Green Circle[/COLOR]); 4 - 6 could be Difficult ([COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Blue Square[/COLOR]); 7 - 8 could be More Difficult (Black Diamond); 9 - 10 could be Extremely Difficult (Double Black Diamond).

I'm under the impression that the number of people who truly run the most difficult trails are a very small percentage of the overall number of people who go wheeling. Likewise, the number of people who are out running graded roads is probably the overwhelming majority.

That's what I believe leads to a 1 - 10 system like the one that I pasted above where the "10" just lumps "everything else" beyond a "9" in. The entire range is not equitably represented throughout whole system.

What I do like about the way that this system defines things is that difficulty is based on things that you can measure or clearly identify. Rocks, shelves, holes, water crossings, hills and off-camber terrain are described using inches and degrees to determine how high, deep, steep or off-camber something is. In addition to that, you can easily identify soft sand, mud or snow on a trail as elements that increase difficulty above and beyond the things that you can measure. (Although it could be argued that even these elements can be measured in depth. 1 inch of snow is different than 20 inches of snow.)

So, we need to break things down into the basic components or elements that make up difficulty. This will help answer your question, which is the bottom line in our quest for the best system:

So let me ask this, what does everyone want to know about a trail before you are willing to attempt it?

From my vantage point as a less experienced wheeler, it seems that there are 2 things that determine how difficult a trail will be for an individual to run - skill and hardware.

There are some trails that the finest skill won't make them "reasonable" to run without certain upgraded hardware, because you'd just risk breaking too much hardware.

On the other hand, you can upgrade a rig's hardware to the point where it may allow you to run something more difficult without acquiring the skill necessary to get through it in a lesser built rig and get away with it. I'm not advocating doing this, but just pointing out that it's sometimes possible to "buy" your way across a tougher trail.

I haven't thought completely through it in my mind, but I think that it would allow us to create a system if we started with a stock rig and worked through what that rig could do with beginner, intermediate and advanced levels of skill. Then we could take some basic levels of building a rig and apply the same beginner, intermediate and advanced levels of skill for those rigs' capabilities.

Defining how built a rig is could start with tire size and assume a certain capability based on the rig being properly built for that tire size. Obviously, this would need to be somewhat simplified along the way to keep from getting too complicated.

As a quick stab in the dark it seems that 29" - 32" tires would be where we start. Then 33" - 36" tires might be the next category up. 37" - 40" might be another step up. 41+' might be the top end, without going all the way to a "monster truck," which is too big to be practical for anything outside of an arena with a specially built track.

It may also make sense that we tie certain levels of hardware with certain levels of skill as we raise the level of difficulty on the trail.

This is one way to develop a system, I'm sure that there are others.

Let me finish this post by taking a shot at answering your question about what I want to know about a trail before I'm willing to attempt it.

I want to know how big the rocks are and how deep the water or mud is. Since I don't have rock sliders and corners on my Jeep, I'll be considering that my rockers are 20" high when sitting in my driveway. I'll also give thought to the fact that I'm on 29" tires, which gives me less clearance for my stock differentials without armor on them.

How steep, loose or uneven something is will be another thing that is important to me. I don't have lockers, so this will determine whether I'm just going to spin my tires trying to get over something. This is where a higher level of skill will help to successfully negotiate a tougher trail.

At my level, that's what's most important to me now. I'm sure that this will change as I grow in my ability and experience.

I'd be interested in hearing what others think would be needed to create a good system that would make doing research on trails less annoying.

Christian

[igofshn]

John Bull is not a difficult trail. If you think it is, stay away from the real difficult trails.

[dirtman13]

John Bull is not a difficult trail. If you think it is, stay away from the real difficult trails.

John Bull may not be difficult to you but a stock jeep, with no lockers, no lift on 30" tires might find it difficult. Especially if your new to wheeling.

[Mitch]

That was where my comment about trail ratings being subjective came from. For a lot of people John Bull is a difficult trail hence the Black Diamond rating. But if you tell someone in the group that it is easy and not a big deal then we create a problem with new members who are now being miss led. There was some heartburn from a few over Cleghorn at night as a beginners run. I've run Cleghorn a bunch of times west to east but I'm still comfy doing the other direction or at night. People that know me know that I as well as my Jeep are very capable, But there still are plenty of uncomfortable things out there for me that others don't even blink an eye at. Hence subjective.

Mitch

[Mike]

I think that you are on to something Christain, but I have to agree with Mitch in that the subjectivity is tough to get past.

It is almost an mind-numbing task to think of a way to rate all of the possible features of a trail into categories.

The broader brush of the three categories makes it easier but burry for finding out what if your fear is on the a particular trail. To accommodate the various modifications of the vehicles, your 10 point scale adds some benefit.

Roger Mitchell has written several books and he uses a 1 to 6 scale that is based on the challenge of particular obstacles. For example, the Gatekeeper at Calico is a class 6, but most of the rest of the features on Doran and Odessa are class 4 or maybe a 5 in places. He uses this to describe the pitches of hills as well. It is an interesting method, but I have had trouble using it to gauge trails.

But I only mention the Mitchell scale because it is site/area specific instead of rating the full trail. That has some value to me.

My wife's fear (and one of mine as well) is a roll, especially a multi-flip roll. It's a little disturbing to hear her say that she is okay with a 'flop'! How does one rate a trail's 'roll-ability'?

[Mitch]

Mike,

I still remember the first time you led us up Pontiac! I knew exactly what to expect....crawled right through the rocks...everything was perfect! Then as we left the top to complete the "loop", we got around the corner....and I can still hear you say "OH SHIT MITCH, I FORGOT ABOUT THIS PART, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS, I'M SO SORRY! That little skinny section of shelf road scared the crap out of me! I still laugh about it today. When I was there a couple of weeks ago with Brian Nash, I had them drive it to see the whole loop and I walked back down a half mile to the split and met them there. Way to damn funny! They didn't blink an eye, and I wouldn't walk it.

Mitch

[RAT]

Screw the rating system. If in doubt, close your eyes and go for it! What?

[headhunter]

I think that you are on to something Christain, but I have to agree with Mitch in that the subjectivity is tough to get past.

It is almost an mind-numbing task to think of a way to rate all of the possible features of a trail into categories.

The broader brush of the three categories makes it easier but burry for finding out what if your fear is on the a particular trail. To accommodate the various modifications of the vehicles, your 10 point scale adds some benefit.

Roger Mitchell has written several books and he uses a 1 to 6 scale that is based on the challenge of particular obstacles. For example, the Gatekeeper at Calico is a class 6, but most of the rest of the features on Doran and Odessa are class 4 or maybe a 5 in places. He uses this to describe the pitches of hills as well. It is an interesting method, but I have had trouble using it to gauge trails.

But I only mention the Mitchell scale because it is site/area specific instead of rating the full trail. That has some value to me.

My wife's fear (and one of mine as well) is a roll, especially a multi-flip roll. It's a little disturbing to hear her say that she is okay with a 'flop'! How does one rate a trail's 'roll-ability'?

Mike,

I think that the rating system is only half of the equation.

I think that the rating system helps group trails together in "bands of difficulty."

A narrative description describing the specific challenges on a trail is the other half of the equation. This is what helps with the subjective part.

That's the way that most books are written. They assign a rating to a trail and then talk about the specifics in the text and include pictures to help with a better understanding.

I'd like to see an online version of this where people can contribute comments and pictures about a trail from their own perspective. The comments can help adjust the main description when many people make the same comment. That also helps when a trail changes to being more or less difficult. That's the benefit of an online version. It can be constantly updated.

Christian

[dirtman13]

How does one rate a trail's 'roll-ability'?

By following me.

[dirtman13]

Mike,

I think that the rating system is only half of the equation.

I think that the rating system helps group trails together in "bands of difficulty."

A narrative description describing the specific challenges on a trail is the other half of the equation. This is what helps with the subjective part.

That's the way that most books are written. They assign a rating to a trail and then talk about the specifics in the text and include pictures to help with a better understanding.

I'd like to see an online version of this where people can contribute comments and pictures about a trail from their own perspective. The comments can help adjust the main description when many people make the same comment. That also helps when a trail changes to being more or less difficult. That's the benefit of an online version. It can be constantly updated.

Christian

Christian,

Not sure if you are aware of Dirtopia but it has some of the features you are looking for. http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/Main_Page

[Materdaddy]

By following me.

That's not a good scale... I saw you flop on an easy section of Dishpan... and yes, it was an easy section! :devil:

[Mitch]

Wow Mat,

You only saw Chuck flop once? I know that Chuck scraped the top of his gas can on the fire road section of Cleghorn, but he will say that it wasn't a flop cause he drove out of it! Same as Sawtooth Canyon, and, and, and......

Follow Chuck.....Well, OK! Gotta love you man!



Mitch

[Dezertdog]

By following me.

Now that's an accurate roll meter for a trail!! LOL:bonk::haha:

Scott

[OU812]

I support a trail rating system that is not based on the difficulty a driver would have. A more accurate system is the ones that site the depth of water crossings and the size of rocks on the trail.

Trail ratings are nice and I have looked for them before while planning a trip. But there is something exciting about turning down a trail and not knowing. You might struggle and need to turn back. But then you can come back when you are more prepared and conquer it.

[Old Fart]

I'll jump in here just for kicks

Bear in mind that the USFS "3 tier" rating system (which is an International standard, Greg, Doug and I didn't make it up after a night with Jose Cuervo) is driven by the "L" word - Liability (get your mind out of the gutter Kurt!)

We're looking for the "recreating public" to have a "go/no go" guage when they approach the entrance of say, John Bull, in say...their bone stock AWD mini van, that the sales puke swore on a stack of all that's holy was a "real off road vehicle (BTST, didn't get a t-shirt).

We're NOT trying to offer a detailed description of what exactly the trail is going to encompass - and anyone that thinks it's even possible to maintain signage at that level needs to seriously check into some rehab

Your best source for detailed, up to date information on what trail difficulties are is what you're looking at right now - the 'Net.