Does MUni impact the trail more than MTB?

I've seen some photos here of people doing the MUni on very-muddy
trails.
Around here that is a big no-no.

Please consider your impact on the trail.

Does a Municycle have more or less impact on the trail than regular
Mountain Bikes?

For downhill I would think MUni does not skid as much so we are better
for the trail in that regards.

In tight turns/switchbacks though, the single point interface with the
trail may mean you grind up a bit more dirt in tight jerky turns. The
MTBers might flow through tight turns a little easier.

I'm sure some areas of the country may not consider their impact on the
trail as much. (Widening trails, double-tracking, shortcuts, deepening
trails, erosion etc)

In higher alpine environments it takes years, if-ever, for a trail to
be grown over and repaired. Much of the damage caused by MTBs, Hikers
and horses tend to be almost permanent. Horses IMO seem to be the
worse.

I do admit I have never gone and volunteered for a trail maintenance
day. I may change that this next summer for trails I use a lot. It's
only right.

Your thoughts?


--
Bondo

Apply Directly to a Unicycle.


'w00tni|iciou$n3s$Rof1iwins'
(http://tinyurl.com/5fcdr2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bondo's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/15716
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/75402


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

The impact of riding in the mud varies greatly depending on the soil.
There are places in the Bay Area where the trails are essentially two
feet deep in redwood duff. The mud's too soft and loose to hold any
form; the trails easily repair themselves as the trees drop more litter.
There are also places where the soil is bay mud that sticks and cakes
onto everything; riding on those can definitely cause damage. (There
are two mitigating factors: one, those trails are basically impossible
to ride when they're wet, so people don't, and two, most of that land
also allows cattle grazing, which has so much more impact it's not even
worth worrying about.)

The environmental impact of trail use, in most environments, is
generally overstated by alarmsts wanting to keep bikes off trails. All
trail use has some impact, but almost all major trail damage occurs from
natural processes of rain and erosion that we don't control or effect.
An exception is an environment like Moab, where we can damage the
cryptobiotic soil that forms the basis for the local ecosystem.

IMBA and its local affiliates are good organizations to get involved
with, for trail maintenance and advocacy. They work to extend
opportunities for off-road cycling (and are working right now with the
national park service on opening up some trails in national parks), and
do a lot of work to keep our existing trails available and fun. Keep
singletrack single.


--
tholub
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tholub's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/804
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/75402


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Bondo;1167567 wrote:
I'm sure some areas of the country may not consider their impact on the
trail as much. (Widening trails, double-tracking, shortcuts, deepening
trails, erosion etc) IMBA has guidelines for how to "tread lightly" and
what to do/not do to make trail wear & tear worse. Off the top of my
head the major ones I can think of a
- Stay on official trails (don't make unauthorized trails)
- Don't cut corners or switchbacks
- Ride it, don't slide it (no skidding)
- Don't widen the trail around puddles. See a puddle? Go through it!

Like Tom said, there is the *actual* trail wear & tear we cyclists
cause, and then there's the exaggerated "damage" we do as reported by
people who want us out of the parks and public lands. This is always
especially humorous when it is pointed out by equestrians, who generally
do a lot more wear & tear due to the vastly heavier weight of their
vehicles. Also, I've yet to see a cyclist take a dump in the middle of
the trail.

I am a member of, and have, participated in trail work with my local
mountain bike group, which is an affiliate of IMBA. It's been a while,
but I have to avoid certain areas because clearing brush, when it may
contain poison oak, is very bad for me.

Certain trails in my area (Sierra Nevada Foothills) are closed during
wet weather due to their tendency to wear fast under tires. People are
supposed to stay off them during certain times of the winter. It's up to
us to be responsible trail users, even if our impact is minimal.


harper wrote:
Road damage is proportional to the 4th power of the axle load ... the
MUni will do 16 times the damage to the trail that the MTB does.

Is that trail, or road? I think that figure is related to hard
pavement, though we definitely put more weight down per square inch of
tire coverage. I would venture to say that our non-braking impact on
the trail is perhaps a little larger than that of a bike, especially
with our fat tires, that displace a lot of mud and leave wide
indentations behind.


--
johnfoss

John Foss
Email: "jfoss" at "unicycling.com" -- www.unicycling.com
-----------------------------------------------

"False facts are frequently formed from figures fabricated from fear
fired fiction." -- Harper
------------------------------------------------------------------------
johnfoss's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/832
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/75402


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

johnfoss;1167612 wrote:

Is that trail, or road? I think that figure is related to hard
pavement, though we definitely put more weight down per square inch of
tire coverage. I would venture to say that our non-braking impact on the
trail is perhaps a little larger than that of a bike, especially with
our fat tires, that displace a lot of mud and leave wide indentations
behind.



That is road or hard pavement.


--
harper

-Greg Harper

*jc is the only main man. there can be no other.*

"Natural logs are what you ride on a Mun'e'." - kevinalexandersmith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
harper's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/426
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/75402


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

johnfoss;1167612 wrote:

Is that trail, or road? I think that figure is related to hard
pavement, though we definitely put more weight down per square inch of
tire coverage.



If I'm not mistaken, the weight per square inch we put down is more or
less equivalent to the tire PSI. So since we run at lower pressures
than bikes, we actually put down less weight per square inch of tire
contact. In exchange, we have larger contact patches.


--
tholub
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tholub's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/804
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/75402


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

The trails in Chico's Upper Bidwell Park, where I do most of my riding,
close for at least three days after significant rainfall. I always
adhere to the trail signs, and have been known to get ****y at bikers I
see out when the trails are marked as closed. I've done trailwork with
the parks department, and it's a fun way to help out. We have a
recurring trail day the 1st Saturday of each month, and it's a nice way
to make a positive impression on a variety of trail users. Many of the
people who show up to help are hikers or equestrians, and it's good for
them to see cyclists helping out.


--
pkittle

*==========================
Peter Kittle * Chico, CA
"The Revolution is just a t-shirt away."
--Billy Bragg
==========================*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
pkittle's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/12111
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/75402


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

johnfoss;1167612 wrote:
we definitely put more weight down per square inch of tire coverage. I
would venture to say that our non-braking impact on the trail is perhaps
a little larger than that of a bike, especially with our fat tires, that
displace a lot of mud and leave wide indentations behind.


I don't agree with that. My (fairly typical) xc mountain bike had 1.9"
tyres running at about 40psi. My (fairly typical) muni has a 3" tyre
running at 18psi. Although the muni tyre is carrying the entire weight
of the cycle and rider on one tyre, a low pressure tyre with a big
contact patch will put less weight per square inch of contact than the
narrower, harder bike tyres.

Also, the fact that you have to ride smoothly on a unicycle in order to
keep balance I reckon means we probably do LESS damage than the average
bike.

But (apart from idiots locking back wheels all the time) a rolling
wheeled machine does FAR less damage than a horse rider, who seem to
think it's the cyclists that are the evil ones.

Rob


--
rob.northcott
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rob.northcott's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7436
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/75402


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

It is counter-productive to blame one type of trail user for damage more
than any other. Quantification attempts in this context, like harper,
are silly.

Use it? Help maintain it.


--
entropy

Shut up and ride.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
entropy's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5816
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/75402


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

entropy;1168806 wrote:
It is counter-productive to blame one type of trail user for damage more
than any other.


My post wasn't really intended to point blame, although it did come
across that way (horse riders are given a pretty free rein round here,
while cycle-legal trails are becoming more and more limited due to
perceived damage caused, which annoys me).


entropy;1168806 wrote:
Use it? Help maintain it.


Absolutely.


--
rob.northcott
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rob.northcott's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7436
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/75402


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

entropy;1168806 wrote:
Quantification attempts in this context, like harper, are silly.





And I for one, sir, intend to -remain- silly.


--
harper

-Greg Harper

*jc is the only main man. there can be no other.*

"Natural logs are what you ride on a Mun'e'." - kevinalexandersmith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
harper's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/426
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/75402


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com