Potential good news for Mt. Washington access. - Page 3

01-03-2005, 01:43 PM

Booker C. Bense wrote:

> _ Actually, it's not THAT steep, except for a few hundred yards
> at the very top. It's just incredibly sustained, 12% for 7+ miles[1]
> most of which is hard packed dirt. If you plot dist vs elevation
> you get a nearly straight line. I've both ridden up and run up it
> and in my experience riding up it is harder.
>
> _ It's not allowed to ride down it and it's only allowed to ride up
> it twice a year as part of an anuual race that has a lottery for
> entries and a very high entry fee. Descending it on skinny tires
> would be very unpleasant, it would be a blast with fat tires if
> you didn't have to worry about cars wandering all over the road
> with driver's watching the scenery. I think you'd have a hard
> time fighting "rational basis" ban on cyclists.

Mountain bikers ride fire roads like that all the time. The mountains of the
western US are riddled with them -- 4000' climbs at over 10%, sometimes over
15%. Rims get hot, but not enough to blow tires. So I don't see what the big
deal is. There are a bunch of roads around here with sustained grades like
that, but nothing that long -- 2-3 miles at most.

However, when you have such a road that's a magnet for cyclists, you have a
management problem. As mentioned, that particular road is privately owned, so
there may be liability concerns too. I say people ought to be free to crash if
they want to, but unfortunately US law and insurance doesn't work that way.

Matt O.

01-03-2005, 03:55 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Matt O'Toole <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>Booker C. Bense wrote:
>
>> _ Actually, it's not THAT steep, except for a few hundred yards
>> at the very top. It's just incredibly sustained, 12% for 7+ miles[1]
>> most of which is hard packed dirt. If you plot dist vs elevation
>> you get a nearly straight line. I've both ridden up and run up it
>> and in my experience riding up it is harder.
>>
>> _ It's not allowed to ride down it and it's only allowed to ride up
>> it twice a year as part of an anuual race that has a lottery for
>> entries and a very high entry fee. Descending it on skinny tires
>> would be very unpleasant, it would be a blast with fat tires if
>> you didn't have to worry about cars wandering all over the road
>> with driver's watching the scenery. I think you'd have a hard
>> time fighting "rational basis" ban on cyclists.
>
>Mountain bikers ride fire roads like that all the time. The mountains of the
>western US are riddled with them -- 4000' climbs at over 10%, sometimes over
>15%. Rims get hot, but not enough to blow tires. So I don't see what the big
>deal is. There are a bunch of roads around here with sustained grades like
>that, but nothing that long -- 2-3 miles at most.

_ I agree, for a reasonably competent mountain biker that road
would be no big deal at all. There are many many fire roads out
west that are significantly steeper with much worse road
conditions.

>
>However, when you have such a road that's a magnet for cyclists, you have a
>management problem. As mentioned, that particular road is privately owned, so
>there may be liability concerns too. I say people ought to be free to crash if
>they want to, but unfortunately US law and insurance doesn't work that way.

_ There's also the fact that it is surrounded by a protected
wilderness area that is illegal for mountain biking. I'm guessing
it would be up to the Auto road company to cover the cost of
enforcing that and I think they could make a pretty reasonable
"rational basis" on just that arguement alone, outside of any
safety issues.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQdnpfGTWTAjn5N/lAQEdAQP/aRN9eL70IRnRqYNKVz5IVLkBb8Io1Vvw
cPBDq9ihCai2tZMVpRhYluFh9fKZgeTcbxHRLv46ZY3OzLOk+h iuz3KvFqpQxmMK
TqCmW75wX00kIp35IbMcxyEWpRvFGAQV47X11HbF9WAkotS5n0 yn9SCRBws4SIGa
QSaO/tFPvc4=
=58Ah
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

01-03-2005, 03:55 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Matt O'Toole <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>Booker C. Bense wrote:
>
>> _ Actually, it's not THAT steep, except for a few hundred yards
>> at the very top. It's just incredibly sustained, 12% for 7+ miles[1]
>> most of which is hard packed dirt. If you plot dist vs elevation
>> you get a nearly straight line. I've both ridden up and run up it
>> and in my experience riding up it is harder.
>>
>> _ It's not allowed to ride down it and it's only allowed to ride up
>> it twice a year as part of an anuual race that has a lottery for
>> entries and a very high entry fee. Descending it on skinny tires
>> would be very unpleasant, it would be a blast with fat tires if
>> you didn't have to worry about cars wandering all over the road
>> with driver's watching the scenery. I think you'd have a hard
>> time fighting "rational basis" ban on cyclists.
>
>Mountain bikers ride fire roads like that all the time. The mountains of the
>western US are riddled with them -- 4000' climbs at over 10%, sometimes over
>15%. Rims get hot, but not enough to blow tires. So I don't see what the big
>deal is. There are a bunch of roads around here with sustained grades like
>that, but nothing that long -- 2-3 miles at most.

_ I agree, for a reasonably competent mountain biker that road
would be no big deal at all. There are many many fire roads out
west that are significantly steeper with much worse road
conditions.

>
>However, when you have such a road that's a magnet for cyclists, you have a
>management problem. As mentioned, that particular road is privately owned, so
>there may be liability concerns too. I say people ought to be free to crash if
>they want to, but unfortunately US law and insurance doesn't work that way.

_ There's also the fact that it is surrounded by a protected
wilderness area that is illegal for mountain biking. I'm guessing
it would be up to the Auto road company to cover the cost of
enforcing that and I think they could make a pretty reasonable
"rational basis" on just that arguement alone, outside of any
safety issues.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQdnpfGTWTAjn5N/lAQEdAQP/aRN9eL70IRnRqYNKVz5IVLkBb8Io1Vvw
cPBDq9ihCai2tZMVpRhYluFh9fKZgeTcbxHRLv46ZY3OzLOk+h iuz3KvFqpQxmMK
TqCmW75wX00kIp35IbMcxyEWpRvFGAQV47X11HbF9WAkotS5n0 yn9SCRBws4SIGa
QSaO/tFPvc4=
=58Ah
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

01-03-2005, 03:55 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Matt O'Toole <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>Booker C. Bense wrote:
>
>> _ Actually, it's not THAT steep, except for a few hundred yards
>> at the very top. It's just incredibly sustained, 12% for 7+ miles[1]
>> most of which is hard packed dirt. If you plot dist vs elevation
>> you get a nearly straight line. I've both ridden up and run up it
>> and in my experience riding up it is harder.
>>
>> _ It's not allowed to ride down it and it's only allowed to ride up
>> it twice a year as part of an anuual race that has a lottery for
>> entries and a very high entry fee. Descending it on skinny tires
>> would be very unpleasant, it would be a blast with fat tires if
>> you didn't have to worry about cars wandering all over the road
>> with driver's watching the scenery. I think you'd have a hard
>> time fighting "rational basis" ban on cyclists.
>
>Mountain bikers ride fire roads like that all the time. The mountains of the
>western US are riddled with them -- 4000' climbs at over 10%, sometimes over
>15%. Rims get hot, but not enough to blow tires. So I don't see what the big
>deal is. There are a bunch of roads around here with sustained grades like
>that, but nothing that long -- 2-3 miles at most.

_ I agree, for a reasonably competent mountain biker that road
would be no big deal at all. There are many many fire roads out
west that are significantly steeper with much worse road
conditions.

>
>However, when you have such a road that's a magnet for cyclists, you have a
>management problem. As mentioned, that particular road is privately owned, so
>there may be liability concerns too. I say people ought to be free to crash if
>they want to, but unfortunately US law and insurance doesn't work that way.

_ There's also the fact that it is surrounded by a protected
wilderness area that is illegal for mountain biking. I'm guessing
it would be up to the Auto road company to cover the cost of
enforcing that and I think they could make a pretty reasonable
"rational basis" on just that arguement alone, outside of any
safety issues.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQdnpfGTWTAjn5N/lAQEdAQP/aRN9eL70IRnRqYNKVz5IVLkBb8Io1Vvw
cPBDq9ihCai2tZMVpRhYluFh9fKZgeTcbxHRLv46ZY3OzLOk+h iuz3KvFqpQxmMK
TqCmW75wX00kIp35IbMcxyEWpRvFGAQV47X11HbF9WAkotS5n0 yn9SCRBws4SIGa
QSaO/tFPvc4=
=58Ah
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

01-03-2005, 03:55 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Matt O'Toole <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>Booker C. Bense wrote:
>
>> _ Actually, it's not THAT steep, except for a few hundred yards
>> at the very top. It's just incredibly sustained, 12% for 7+ miles[1]
>> most of which is hard packed dirt. If you plot dist vs elevation
>> you get a nearly straight line. I've both ridden up and run up it
>> and in my experience riding up it is harder.
>>
>> _ It's not allowed to ride down it and it's only allowed to ride up
>> it twice a year as part of an anuual race that has a lottery for
>> entries and a very high entry fee. Descending it on skinny tires
>> would be very unpleasant, it would be a blast with fat tires if
>> you didn't have to worry about cars wandering all over the road
>> with driver's watching the scenery. I think you'd have a hard
>> time fighting "rational basis" ban on cyclists.
>
>Mountain bikers ride fire roads like that all the time. The mountains of the
>western US are riddled with them -- 4000' climbs at over 10%, sometimes over
>15%. Rims get hot, but not enough to blow tires. So I don't see what the big
>deal is. There are a bunch of roads around here with sustained grades like
>that, but nothing that long -- 2-3 miles at most.

_ I agree, for a reasonably competent mountain biker that road
would be no big deal at all. There are many many fire roads out
west that are significantly steeper with much worse road
conditions.

>
>However, when you have such a road that's a magnet for cyclists, you have a
>management problem. As mentioned, that particular road is privately owned, so
>there may be liability concerns too. I say people ought to be free to crash if
>they want to, but unfortunately US law and insurance doesn't work that way.

_ There's also the fact that it is surrounded by a protected
wilderness area that is illegal for mountain biking. I'm guessing
it would be up to the Auto road company to cover the cost of
enforcing that and I think they could make a pretty reasonable
"rational basis" on just that arguement alone, outside of any
safety issues.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQdnpfGTWTAjn5N/lAQEdAQP/aRN9eL70IRnRqYNKVz5IVLkBb8Io1Vvw
cPBDq9ihCai2tZMVpRhYluFh9fKZgeTcbxHRLv46ZY3OzLOk+h iuz3KvFqpQxmMK
TqCmW75wX00kIp35IbMcxyEWpRvFGAQV47X11HbF9WAkotS5n0 yn9SCRBws4SIGa
QSaO/tFPvc4=
=58Ah
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

01-07-2005, 10:26 AM

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> Mountain bikers ride fire roads like that all the time.
The
> mountains of the western US are riddled with them -- 4000'
climbs at
> over 10%, sometimes over 15%. Rims get hot, but not
enough to blow
> tires. So I don't see what the big deal is. There are a
bunch of
> roads around here with sustained grades like that, but
nothing that
> long -- 2-3 miles at most.
>
A couple of questions:
1. Wouldn't mountain bike tires take more heat, just because
of their greater mass and volume?
2. On a mountain bike on a fire road, wouldn't one still be
going more slowly than on a road bike on a paved road?
Both would seem to contribute to a mountain bike tire being
less likely to blow off the rim.
However, I will defer to the mechanical engineers among the
group.

--
Mike Kruger
Too many people spend money they haven't earned
to buy things they don't want
to impress people they don't like. -Will Rogers

01-07-2005, 10:26 AM

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> Mountain bikers ride fire roads like that all the time.
The
> mountains of the western US are riddled with them -- 4000'
climbs at
> over 10%, sometimes over 15%. Rims get hot, but not
enough to blow
> tires. So I don't see what the big deal is. There are a
bunch of
> roads around here with sustained grades like that, but
nothing that
> long -- 2-3 miles at most.
>
A couple of questions:
1. Wouldn't mountain bike tires take more heat, just because
of their greater mass and volume?
2. On a mountain bike on a fire road, wouldn't one still be
going more slowly than on a road bike on a paved road?
Both would seem to contribute to a mountain bike tire being
less likely to blow off the rim.
However, I will defer to the mechanical engineers among the
group.

--
Mike Kruger
Too many people spend money they haven't earned
to buy things they don't want
to impress people they don't like. -Will Rogers

01-07-2005, 10:26 AM

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> Mountain bikers ride fire roads like that all the time.
The
> mountains of the western US are riddled with them -- 4000'
climbs at
> over 10%, sometimes over 15%. Rims get hot, but not
enough to blow
> tires. So I don't see what the big deal is. There are a
bunch of
> roads around here with sustained grades like that, but
nothing that
> long -- 2-3 miles at most.
>
A couple of questions:
1. Wouldn't mountain bike tires take more heat, just because
of their greater mass and volume?
2. On a mountain bike on a fire road, wouldn't one still be
going more slowly than on a road bike on a paved road?
Both would seem to contribute to a mountain bike tire being
less likely to blow off the rim.
However, I will defer to the mechanical engineers among the
group.

--
Mike Kruger
Too many people spend money they haven't earned
to buy things they don't want
to impress people they don't like. -Will Rogers

01-07-2005, 10:26 AM

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> Mountain bikers ride fire roads like that all the time.
The
> mountains of the western US are riddled with them -- 4000'
climbs at
> over 10%, sometimes over 15%. Rims get hot, but not
enough to blow
> tires. So I don't see what the big deal is. There are a
bunch of
> roads around here with sustained grades like that, but
nothing that
> long -- 2-3 miles at most.
>
A couple of questions:
1. Wouldn't mountain bike tires take more heat, just because
of their greater mass and volume?
2. On a mountain bike on a fire road, wouldn't one still be
going more slowly than on a road bike on a paved road?
Both would seem to contribute to a mountain bike tire being
less likely to blow off the rim.
However, I will defer to the mechanical engineers among the
group.

--
Mike Kruger
Too many people spend money they haven't earned
to buy things they don't want
to impress people they don't like. -Will Rogers

01-07-2005, 12:47 PM

Mike Kruger wrote:

> 1. Wouldn't mountain bike tires take more heat, just because
> of their greater mass and volume?

Rim mass and area makes more difference in dissipating heat than rubber and air
(which are not good conductors). However, most mountain bike rims are not too
different from road bike rims in this respect. The important factors are a
mountain bike tire's lower pressure, and maybe a fatter, more robust bead hook.

> 2. On a mountain bike on a fire road, wouldn't one still be
> going more slowly than on a road bike on a paved road?

The potential energy to be dissipated is the same either way. Though it's
counterintuitive, higher speeds actually produce lower rim temperatures, because
of increased airflow. The hottest my rims ever got was creeping down very steep
(>20%) grades.

Matt O.