I've been thinking some lately about what makes a trail "technical". I take the term to mean requiring some learned technique above and beyond just sitting on the seat and pedaling. In that sense, almost any singletrack where I would be technical to some degree or another. Trails are pretty tame where I live, but one still must deal with sudden ups and downs, twisty sections, sand pits, the occasional root. One at least needs to be able to weight shift on the bike, maybe lighten the front wheel to get over downed branches, apply the front brake on steep downhills, and don't those things qualify as "technical" skills?

I don't think you can define "technical" in a universal manner. New riders will see almost every trail as being "technical", and to more seasoned riders will see most of those same trails as just another trail. For example, to me "sudden ups and downs, twisty sections, sand pits, the occasional root" just sounds like a normal trail, but I accept your defining it as "technical" because I don't know much about your skill-level or experience. "Technical" is just too subjective of a term to have every rider of all skill-levels agree on just one definition.

And as already alluded to, the definition of technical will vary by location.

I think Stealthhammer has the right idea: it varies from rider to rider depending on their abilities. And I would also add age; I'm a lot more cautious than I was 20 years ago when I got my first rigid bike.

My own personal definition is based on the price of failure. When I approach a trail I have never ridden I'm more cautious than on trails I'm familiar with. I ask myself what sort of injuries and down time am I looking at if I make a mistake? A flat, buff, 2ft wide singletrack can be extremely technical for me if there is a sheer drop on one side (google images Portal Trail Moab). While a nasty singletrack rock garden that is bordered by soft brush might not be that technical (and I hate rock gardens, every rock seems to have broken bone written all over it).

I like to push myself, just not as far as I used to. Our bodies just don't heal from broke bones and soft tissue injuries as fast or as well as when we were young.

I think a general definition of technical, to be further qualified by area, would be that succesfully riding the trail requires the rider be able to consistently do the following where failure will most likely cause damage to the rider and or bicycle:

- track stand
- bunny hop
- manual
- change direction 180 degrees in very confined space
- move bike laterally or rotate bike without covering much distance
- control front and rear traction with front wheel either far above or below back wheel
- control front and rear traction in loose or unstable trail conditions due to rock, mud, sand, loose dirt, water, snow, ice
- move and maintain rider CG to almost anywhere on, over, beside, behind the bike
- negotiate significant vertical changes in the trails elevation due to rock, trees, roots, creeks, or other obstacles

The subjective part of the definition might be where each rider, (based on experience, age, attitude, ego, what they had for breakfast, the bike they are riding), defines for themselves (or the group they talk into going along on the "not so technical ride") what it means when you say:

- bunny hop - how high?
- manual - how long/how high/going uphill-downhill-level?
- front wheel either far above or below back wheel - how far is far?
- significant vertical changes - what is a significant change in feet and/or angle?

A geographic qualification might be:

in the Pacific NW: a technical ride would include the need to ride thru waist deep semi-frozen water with a loose mud bottom
in SoCal: a technical ride might include the requirement to ride single track thru knee high dry grass where you can't see the trails nor the rattlesnakes

I think this is getting out of hand.

some of the stuff in Tacoma's list I would call trials riding, not singletrack MTB.

This is a perfect example of what I said earlier regarding technical being just too subjective of a term to have every rider of all skill-levels agree on just one definition. I thought Tacoma's list was pretty accurate for single track riding but a bit incomplete for some of the skills that are required to navigate many of the more challenging single tracks I have ridden in different locations. For instance, being able to maintain your balance and navigate down a 6-8" wide path to traverse the full length of a 15-20' fallen log, or being able to descend a drop so steep that your rear wheel is lifted off the ground for most of the distance, or doing tail-whips to negotiate a very tight turn when bracketed by trees.

But that pretty much proves my point as well because each of us ride in different conditions and many of the skills that I developed when doing near vertical single tracks in the San Gabriel Mountain in SoCal, or skills that I developed negotiating some of the drop-offs and near vertical drops at Slickrock in Moab, UT, are completely useless here in Indy. The trails I ride here are actually more like what I rode in New Jersey and Maryland where you spend a lot of time navigating through wooded areas with only short burst climbs that are usually slick as hell and tight slick turns that immediately go up or down a few feet.

Either way though, I think that the more experience you get in the widest variety of terrian will change your own definition of "technical" over time.

I havent really had that much official MTB experience and havent done singletrack or anything like that, sad I know lol.

But when I used to go out with the bike club we went round Debdale Reservoir and that to me was "technical" as there were pretty big slippery puddles and the track was pretty winding round trees and very tight and had roots which had to be ridden either round or over as well as a couple of steep slopes to ride down.

Wouldnt be much for seasoned MTB riders but it took us a lot longer than we thought to ride round it and it was tiring, muddy and lots of fun

I know it when I see it. Technical is impossible to define, and impossible to compare. Are the rock gardens of the Front Range more or less technical than the smooth but steep hills of Slickrock? And how do they compare to the root-filled trails of the East Coast? (Personally, I struggle most on East Coast roots, but just because I suck on them doesn't necessarily mean they're the most technical...it just means I suck on them).

Technical:

Oh come on... I need to get my boots for this. Vertical descents are called drops.

I am not the best, by any means, and I've never seen a 6" wide trail or platform. But I don't doubt that some have seen it and can ride it. What I dispute is whether those things are a good general guideline for "technical."

I'd say if you see that...you can bank on the rest of the trail being technical too.

To continue the conversation about the subjective nature of "technical" and how it depends on locale, experience, attitude.

DESCENT OR DROP?

When I think "technical", I picture lots of big rocks and/or roots or really any obstacle(s) that requires some thought and skill (mostly balance and bike control) to ride (or walk) over/around/through.

If we're going to define "technical", maybe we need to define it in terms relative to the rider instead of actual features. Most any trail will seem technical to someone who is a new rider or has only ridden on the road.

TacomaSailor, in that second pic do you ride straight down (through the arrows) or does the trail zig-zag?
The bit up top looks like a drop to me, assuming you ride straight off where the arrow points. I would call any downhill part of any trail a descent.

anything that makes me cuss.

At the top arrow I could see tracks (the trail just 'kinda petered out) that went over the edge of the drop and other tracks that went around it as did I. Below the drop there was no trail but I rode down thru the rocks to where the bike is sitting.

The DESCENT shown in the top picture contained several more DROPS as big or bigger than in the lower picture. The stairs had several 150 degree switchbacks, complete with steps, that had 20' drops off the downhill side.

My experience and attitude classified this trail as SCARY TECHNICAL on that day but I am sure some of the SoCal riders I've seen flying around this area would just call them stairs and not a technical challenge.

If I bleed, it had to be technical.

lmao!

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

The epitome of technical . . . in anyone's book:

We had a fantastic 1.1 inch of rain in 30 minutes in the desert. What used to be a nearly MUP like trail after the city of Henderson, NV tamed it down is now rutted, full of rocks and drops and new adventures. But Sage Loop is a kick again! Its amazing what a rain can do for trails.

This weekend, I rode (and sometimes walked) the most technical trail I've ever ridden and thought of another definition (for me anyway): If I sweat more because I'm taking risks* and nervously pushing my skill limits than because of the aerobic/strength challenge, then it's probably technical.

*small ones, like "I might fall on those rocks", not "I might fall off a cliff and die". I'm pretty cautious and don't like heights.

Yeah, I've seen videos of some of those "fall off and die" trails. Those I put into another category altogether.

Correct. That is where MTBing crosses a line into thrillseeking. Significant threat of death should not be an element of 'technical.'.