Originally Posted by Akak
Mountain bike trails, however, seem to have less variation than ski slopes or rivers. Maybe a rating system would work better there. The difficulty, though, is in judging exactly what makes a trail hard. For a roadie, hopping on an MTB for the first time, a trail that's "tough" because it has long, non-technical climbs might be very easy for him. That same trail, however, to an overweight freerider who doesn't climb much would be very tough. A technical trail would be very hard for the roadie but a piece of cake for the freerider.
hey Arak,
i agree that rating systems can be abused or misleading. in my description above i forgot to note that the rating is "under optional conditions" meaning good lighting, DRY conditions, the trail is not burried under leaves as in fall, etc.
as to your second comment about a trail with long climbs being tough, the Technical S-Scale does not address this at all.
BUT the S-Scale would imform a roadie that anything above an S-0 is going to be "hard" and will allow a Freerider to find an appropriately difficult trail to be challenging, rather than a rough description "wow, man that trail is sick. soooo difficult" and then he rides to find out it has 2 big climbs but is technically easy.
as a Freerider, i pretty much have to basically ignore any comments as to the difficulty of a trail as most of what i ride is considered by "average people" to be unrideable. e.g. countless times i have had the following experience: i meet a hiker or a normal XC rider on a trail and he recommends i turn around b/c the trail is "unrideable". i continue and find it perfect or often "easier" than what i would like to ride. here a comparative rating standard would be VERY helpful!!