Cheater Lines

soundz

soundz

The Hat
Team MTBNJ Halter's
This is something that comes into my mind every once in a while but I thought I'd start a thread about it, since it kind of relates to the recent thread about trail sanitization.

What do you think about incorporating go-arounds into the trail design? Most of the places I've ridden out of state actually do this quite often so to me, NJ is unique in the aspect that less cheater lines exist (at least on purpose). Here's some pro's and con's I can think of:

Pros
- trails will not get widened (relatively speaking)
- nice if you want to go for a more relaxed ride
- could be more hiker friendly

Cons
- more work for trail maintainers
- may discourage people from trying the harder line
- an easier line may not be possible in certain locations
- can sometimes make trails confusing
- can make the trails look uglier
 
This works fine for logs and log piles and maybe some small rock sections but anything longer than a short section of trail will be overkill and won't work.

I don't see a .5mile cheater line up the side of a tough techy climb working very well
 
as said for log piles they do tend to work. what pisses me off is the cut throughs for certain loops, such as the "tiger woods" section there are hairpin climbs that always get cut out.
and some of the twisty sections at 6 mile these don't make see to me.
 
I would rather see a go around than the total removal/destruction or sanitation of obstacles, like I've seen recently at the 4 parks in my hood.
I don't understand the logic behind all that.
I say if you can't ride it, learn to ride it, walk it, or go around it.... and if all else fails there's the rail trails.
 
soundz - incorporating it makes sense to me.

6 mile has go-arounds on the canal side. not sure if they were built into the design but right past the sheds/barn when you pop back into the woods all the large log overs have go-arounds. the trail is staying nice and tight in that area. that could probably be because the plant growth is insane in the area, so it's tough to ride to the left or right anyway.

for the trails i ride mainly (chimney rock, sourlands, 6 mile) i don't see the trail getting wider at obstacles necessarily, but where i do see it getting wider is on turns that you can take at higher speeds, and at spots that are usually muddy. if there's a way to choke a trail for a muddy section so it doesn't get 10 feet wide, other than throwing a skinny over it or rerouting the trail, that would be a bigger help IMO.

maybe a sign that says "go through the mud slowly, not around it" at each spot :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Great thread Jimmy. I read a great article about this not too log ago and will try to dig it up. In the mean time I can add some info.

Trail flow and technical features can be monitored by trail design. If a trail allows riders to pick up speed and then a flow buster obstacle is in the middle of the trail, it is much easier for the any rider to go around. Trail flow needs to be transitioned. A few slight bends to slow riders down before the tight section, may help in some cases. I see random obstacles without chokes as a risk to trail widening. Often trail builders try to block go arounds with sticks, but the problem is rooted in the trail design. Also, lining a trail with sticks and logs, blocks water from sheeting off the trail and looks like shit . I ride a bike to escape riding between painted lines. These practices do not even solve the problem, as the next rider that comes along removes the sticks.

A and B lines are good options, but they need to be very short or the trail builder will need to get permission to build a new trail. In my opinion, the technical feature should be the B line not the A line. This is a safety guideline. The trail should naturally lead a rider into the easier line and the more technical feature should be a trail side feature option. One of my biggest disappointments is when people build jump lines and a second trail 100 ft long develops. This activity is borderline illegal trail building, and needs to stay out of public lands at this time.
 
Last edited:
Boon up at Jungle has a bunch, or rather there are Dave lines and normal people lines. Sometimes I don't want to die and take the normal people lines.
 
pixychick said:
Great thread Jimmy. I read a great article about this not too log ago and will try to dig it up. In the mean time I can add some info.

Trail flow and technical features can be monitored by trail design. If a trail allows riders to pick up speed and then a flow buster obstacle is in the middle of the trail, it is much easier for the any rider to go around. Trail flow needs to be transitioned. A few slight bends to slow riders down before the tight section, may help in some cases. I see random obstacles without chokes as a risk to trail widening. Often trail builders try to block go arounds with sticks, but the problem is rooted in the trail design. Also, lining a trail with sticks and logs, blocks water from sheeting off the trail and looks like shit . I ride a bike to escape riding between painted lines. These practices do not even solve the problem, as the next rider that comes along removes the sticks.

A and B lines are good options, but they need to be very short or the trail builder will need to get permission to build a new trail. In my opinion, the technical feature should be the B line not the A line. This is a safety guideline. The trail should naturally lead a rider into the easier line and the more technical feature should be a trail side feature option. One of my biggest disappointments is when people build jump lines and a second trail 100 ft long develops. This activity is borderline illegal trail building, and needs to stay out of public lands at this time.
Click to expand...
Ellen I see your point when designing new trails. How about cheater lines that pop up on existing trails? The trail behind Ryerson school and Skylands trail are just 2 examples of this. Do these lines now become the"A line"?

Also who determines if a "feature" needs a Cheater Line? Is it when 10%,50%,80% of the riders can't ride it? How about riders stop,dismount,walk over,remount and ride until they learn how to ride over it?
 
I don't think they are bad at all. I mean when I think back to when I started mtn. biking long ago, I always took the cheater lines around rock piles and downed trees. I didn't think it was possible to actually 'ride over' a log till I saw someone do it at South Mountain.
There are also days when you just want to ride and not go the extra step to try something that has to potential to end your ride that day.
 
loggerhead said:
I don't think they are bad at all. I mean when I think back to when I started mtn. biking long ago, I always took the cheater lines around rock piles and downed trees. I didn't think it was possible to actually 'ride over' a log till I saw someone do it at South Mountain.
There are also days when you just want to ride and not go the extra step to try something that has to potential to end your ride that day.
Click to expand...

Good point here. I think we all have those days when we are less daring, or recovering from an injury.

JohnnyPedals said:
Is it when 10%,50%,80% of the riders can't ride it? How about riders stop,dismount,walk over,remount and ride until they learn how to ride over it?
Click to expand...

I wish that this was something that could be enforced, like wearing helmets.
 
down south I'd say most of the trails with TTFs have go arounds, definately almost all the new stuff does for sure. Log overs can be tricky as far as what should have a go around, down here most don't unless it's real big. And it's defiantely a point of debate as far as the "go around for beginner vs suck up and ride it" debate. Common sense seems to occasionally come into play.
 
I wouldn't call myself an expert in trail building or maintenance, but i have no issues with what you might call cheater lines. Remember, these are multi use trails (at least all the ones i've been on in NJ). Not all horses, or hikers are cut out to hop over your gnarly trail feature.

For instance: @ Allaire, a huge destination for cyclists, and one of the NJ parks i'd say suits trail horse riders well as well. By the R/C airplane field, there is a large down tree, and a "cheater line" that goes around it. I see no issue with this. No inexperienced horse/rider is making it over that log...

Its an entirely different story if that trail is not designated for horses/hikers though...
 
Last edited:
JohnnyPedals said:
Ellen I see your point when designing new trails. How about cheater lines that pop up on existing trails? The trail behind Ryerson school and Skylands trail are just 2 examples of this. Do these lines now become the"A line"?

Also who determines if a "feature" needs a Cheater Line? Is it when 10%,50%,80% of the riders can't ride it? How about riders stop,dismount,walk over,remount and ride until they learn how to ride over it?
Click to expand...

I can not speak for the trail by Ryerson school, as Art and I did not build it, nor do we maintain it.

On Skylands, we made several attempts to discourage cheater lines, but after one or two attempts, we reevaluate the situation. If the new line is sound, we check our egos at the door and embrace the new line. The Blowhole just south of Skylands is a good example. I do not think anyone rides the original line. Although I could ride the old line, I feel it may have been too tedious or technical for the majority. My responsibility is to maintain the park for everyone. Case closed.

As Frank said, preventing people from riding around is not something that can be enforced, so your question is not worth thinking about. However, Finding a solution is worth a thought. I think IMBA has some good ideas in the Trail Solutions book that with a little creativity can be applied into most trail systems.
 
pixychick said:
Although I could ride the old line, I feel it may have been too tedious or technical for the majority. My responsibility is to maintain the park for everyone. Case closed.
Click to expand...
THIS ^ pretty much ends any debate. Public trail systems must work for everyone.

I'm not going to get hung up on whether or not the "A" line should be the easy one and the "B" line with a TTF should be slightly off. Just include the option.

A worthwhile discussion that has actually caused a bit of acrimony at my home park.
 
what a great opportunity to be good stewards of the trails

Ne
pixychick said:
I can not speak for the trail by Ryerson school, as Art and I did not build it, nor do we maintain it.

On Skylands, we made several attempts to discourage cheater lines, but after one or two attempts, we reevaluate the situation. If the new line is sound, we check our egos at the door and embrace the new line. The Blowhole just south of Skylands is a good example. I do not think anyone rides the original line. Although I could ride the old line, I feel it may have been too tedious or technical for the majority. My responsibility is to maintain the park for everyone. Case closed.

As Frank said, preventing people from riding around is not something that can be enforced, so your question is not worth thinking about. However, Finding a solution is worth a thought. I think IMBA has some good ideas in the Trail Solutions book that with a little creativity can be applied into most trail systems.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the sentiment but you did not go far enough. The only time you should create or alter a trail is when on tm with an approved group. We as mountain bikers need to enforce this ourselves. Say something if you see it happening. Every time we ride around an obstacle we create a new trail. This board should be yelling to the hills about not altering work that was thoughtfully planned.
When I see someone in the woods not wearing a helmet I do say something.

So my point is: ride the trail (or walk) as it's presented to you. Why should the tm crew have to check their egos ie hard work cause you can't check yours.
 
Tionegear said:
So my point is: ride the trail (or walk) as it's presented to you. Why should the tm crew have to check their egos ie hard work cause you can't check yours.
Click to expand...

The point is, there is no way to make that happen. If you can't enforce it, you have to accept the go arounds/short cuts/etc.
Trust me, it gets old having to close the same short cut over and over and over again.
 
loggerhead said:
I don't think they are bad at all. I mean when I think back to when I started mtn. biking long ago, I always took the cheater lines around rock piles and downed trees. I didn't think it was possible to actually 'ride over' a log till I saw someone do it at South Mountain.
There are also days when you just want to ride and not go the extra step to try something that has to potential to end your ride that day.
Click to expand...

I thought it wasn't until you started riding with me that you realized you could "ride over" logs !!! hahahaha

On another note - last weekend in RW it was a bummer to see the log that had a great rock and branch build up on both sides of it and was a nice challenge but definitely very very rideable at the beginning of yellow heading out from Pierson Ridge to have been cut last week - that had been built up nicely and there over a year or two if not more ! It was near the top of the ridge before you reached the look out (Ingelsteins Rock) as you went around a corner...there was no cheater line you just either made the log or didnt or walked over it...now its cut.
 
McKMtnBk said:
THIS ^ pretty much ends any debate. Public trail systems must work for everyone.

I'm not going to get hung up on whether or not the "A" line should be the easy one and the "B" line with a TTF should be slightly off. Just include the option.

A worthwhile discussion that has actually caused a bit of acrimony at my home park.
Click to expand...

That's an understatement.
"cut the log" ;)
 
IKnow_u_Rider said:
On another note - last weekend in RW it was a bummer to see the log that had a great rock and branch build up on both sides of it and was a nice challenge but definitely very very rideable at the beginning of yellow heading out from Pierson Ridge to have been cut last week - that had been built up nicely and there over a year or two if not more ! It was near the top of the ridge before you reached the look out (Ingelsteins Rock) as you went around a corner...there was no cheater line you just either made the log or didnt or walked over it...now its cut.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I think this is something we will all have to get used to since it seems the new TM policy is to take out challenging trail features and leave in newly created cheater lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom