Rating vs Ranking ...

I think they would have to be careful about making it into a sort of "ranking".

That is the job of the system is to explain the difficulties involved in the terrain. It says nothing about the ENJOYMENT of the trail. That should be left to third parties ... not IMBA.

Yeah, I ride one trail that's rated (by WTF knows) as "Easiest", and it's pretty damn hard to say the least. Maybe they just slap on what ever sticker they happened to have in their pocket at the time.

ummm...yeah I agree...haha I don't even think it is feasible. Too many variables (people type variables) involved. He was simply acting what was in place. This is a popular system here and at ski resorts and works well.

Never rank enjoyment. What I may like you might hate haha

I'm not a big fan of rating systems. As a former competitive mogul skier and new whitewater kayaker, I've seen such gross variations in ratings that it almost makes them worthless. The only time I've found ratings useful are when used to compare relative difficulty under current conditions.

A single ski slope, for example, can range from ridiculously easy to incredibly hard depending on the surface conditions and mechanical grooming. Running a snowcat over my favorite bump run can change it from a "Black Diamond" knee buster to a "Green Circle" yawner. Mother Nature can dramatically change a rating in and instant. The run you skied effortlessly yesterday, under clear skies and soft snow, can be deadly when fogged in and frozen solid.

Whitewater river ratings can vary even more depending on water level. Unfortunately, a mistake judging the difficulty of a ww river can be deadly. Last fall, I paddled the Cartecay River in North Georgia at low flow. It was a very easy Class II. I paddled it again a week later after heavy rains and it became a VERY hard Class IV. The difference was exponential and I should NOT have paddled that river.

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 cool thread!

a trail rating system is a current topic here in Germany/Austria. the VertRiders, a group of Freeriders in Innsbruck Austria, namely one guy Willi Hofer who wrote a guide book, developed a singletrail rating system for extremely technical trails a few years ago, with levels 0-10, where most people would consider levels above 3 "unrideable".

now this system has been adapted and in cooperation with one of the two big MTB magazines, BIKE they're trying to make it a standard in the Alps/Europe.

the link (in German) is: https://www.singletrail-skala.de/. although the photos are a help even if you can't read German.

basically the idea is such:
* as opposed to a ski trail rating (Green/Blue/Black in NorthAmerica and Blue/Red/Black in Europe) where the rating covers "everything", the rating is only a rating of the TECHNICAL difficulty similar to a rock climbing rating (various systems like UIAA 1-11 but all basically same where approach, exposure, length, safety and existing placements are separately dealt with and not in the rating) the Single-Trail-Raing DOES NOT rate the exposure, danger, etc. or the extra aspects like length, time, heat, water, etc., but merely rates the TECHNICAL difficulty, levels S-0 to S-5, where a street, fireroad or doubletrail does not get a rating as it's not a singletrail!

* S-0 - flowing singletrail with no major obstacles
* S-1 - singletrail with root and rocks, but maximum steepnes 40% and no hairpin curves, no extemely loose gravel, no drops, etc.
* S-2 - singletrail with big rocks, sharp curves, many roots, loose gravel, stairs or small ledges, max steepnes 70%, many sharp curves
* S-3 - steep with major obstacles, big rocks and boulders, many exposed roots, big drops and ledges, steepness often over 70%, loose and eroded ground, sharp curves, steep off-camber sections, etc.
* S-4 - very steep with multiple major obstacles: very steep and blocked trail with very technical root and ledge sections; trials maneuvers such as hops and/or side-setting of rear wheels are necessary to clear obstacles or sharp corners
* S-5 - "unrideable": large drops in series, big drops with sharp curves, eroded, loose and exposed ground, VERY steep (cliffs), multiple obstacles, boulders, cliffs, etc.

this can be roughly translated to the Green/Blue/Black scheme:
S-0, S-1 = Green
S-2, S-3 = Blue
S-4, S-5 = Black

Note that traditional XC ends with S-2 after which a trail is no longer flowing
but here a BLACK is REALLY hard!!

the scale is also "open-ended" meaning that as riders improve and previously "unrideable" trails become rideable, the scale can be extended to handle it (i.e. S-6 could be added and a distinction between S-5 and S-6 made while existing S-0 through S-4 trails do not need to be changed)

the system is designed with the idea of being used in conjunction with a text description of the trail describing length, exposure, danger, aerobic challenge (uphill riding) with the S-rating describing the TECHNICAL difficulty of the SINGLETRAIL sections - with a general rating plus a section ratings: e.g. trail is S-2 with 3 short S-4 passages.

the scale is also bascially designed for technical trails and does not really attempt to rate jumps or stunts although it can be extended for basic skinnies, ladders, drops and such.

My personal note is that such a system on an International scale would be awesome as i could go to Moab or Whistler and get a description of "extreme" trails and use the scale as a reference what the person meant by "extreme" and thus find something rideable (for me drops over 3ft and cliffs are not good (heavy S-4/S-5), but "unrideable" technical trails with huge boulders, rock gardens and hairpin curves - S-3/border S-4 - is what i love!)

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!!

I like that proposed "S" system. Instead of trying to gauge rid difficulty, like a ski rating, it gauges obstacle type and size. That leaves it up to the rider to determine how difficult the trail is.

This rating, combined with the trail length, would make it easy for most riders to determine if they will enjoy a trail or not and maybe even estimate the time it would take the to ride it.

So a rider might be able to say "Well, I can handle the 15 mile S-1 at home so I think this new 8-mile S-3 would be OK." Or he might say "since the 10 mile S-2 at home kicks my butt, I doubt I'll do well on this 15 mile S-3."

I dig the "S" system, with only one nit to pick: The grade percentages are pretty steep! A 40% grade is very steep, and 70% is pretty rare unless you're riding down cliffs. Trails just don't stay trails at that grade.

Over what distance were you considering these grades? I notice that you have "no drops" with the 40% grade section. I know of many trails with very small drops (all < 1') but almost no sections at 40%.

Anyway, these ratings tied to obstacle type and trail condition are good. How do we evangelize?

yes and no... SOME trails are that steep and that difficult - and yes, some aggressive mountain bikers do ride down cliffs -- i personally don't consider what i do riding down cliffs, e.g. Red Bull Rampage, but many people DO consider what i ride as "riding down cliffs" (S3 and S4). it's actually part of the REASON for a scale: so people can effectively exchange info about "difficult" trails.

but yes, most "trails" that people think of fall into S-0 and S-1 and for the average XC mountain biker S-2 would be described as "very diffucult".

I understand that people ride crazy stuff. I just believe that 70% is obscene for the middle of the scale. Go and measure - do some trig - 70% slopes aren't out there on many trails at all.

I think part of the issue too is distance. A slope that at the top 5' or so is 70%+ but flattens out is not, imho, a 70% slope.

Again, it was a nit I was picking.

Austin trails:
Barton Creek Greebelt : S0 with some S1. Side trails up to S3
Emma Long: S3
Forest Ridge: S2, but closed these days
Walnut Creek: S0 and S1
Muleshoe: S0 with some S1
Flat Rock Ranch, 18mi loop: S1 with some S2 drops.

Emma Long was my favorite, and I need to find one like it out here...

well, i translated that really quickly and shortened the description up a lot... i think you're right that it's not referring to a CONTINUOUS 70% grade, but short sections of >70%... e.g. a really steep ramp or a huge drop or a 10ft rock face...

i contacted the "designers" of the scale yesterday and i will be doing the English translation in the next week or so. i will post the link when it is done, so you can read the full description along with example photos.

hey jo5iah,

i'd pretty much agree with your ratings of the Austin area trails, although many of them i haven't ridden in a LONG while. i was back home for XMas 2004 and got to ride Emma Long State Park again (my "home" trail when i was at UT). man what a cool trail! although "flat" i was REALLY impressed with how challenging the trail was, both technically and condition (i did 4 loops and i was pretty much toasted).

+ Madrone Trail (Canyon Lake) - mostly S0 with some S1 and maybe 2 sections of S2 (but really nicely built)
+ Hill Country State Park (Bandera) mostly S1, 2 trails S2 with S3 sections

jo5iah, if your location text is right and you're in the Seatle area, you should be able to find something similar = S3. No idea what the name, but in 2000 i rode a really challenging trail that was about a 30 minute drive from Seatle. last time i was out there (unfortunatley 2001) there was quite a technical Freeride scene... if you want, send me a PM and i will try and locate a friend of mine - last i know he was out in central Washington in Ellensburg but lived in Seattle a while and should know trails + riders... he was an expert XC racer who got burned out and started doing technical Freeriding before it was mainstream and "hype"... of course i haven't talked to him in like 3 or 4 years... but i can try his email...

Hi Nathank, Thanks. I look forward to your translation. Al K

Whitewater ratings vary with water level.

Trails can be rated for technical difficulty, for climbing difficulty, for consequences of an injury (including rescue rescources), and for anything else that experienced mtb'ers consider useful.

Joe Surkiewicz's "A Guide To The Classic Trails - Mid-Atlantic States - New York to West Virginia" does an excellent job of rating trails. To give an example of his At-A-Glance trail summary of one trail - Gambrill State Park in Maryland:
Length/Configuration: 6.5 mile loop
Aerobic Difficulty: Extreme, nearly 1,000 feet of climbing
Technical Difficulty: Prime hammerhead territory; very tough, with barely rideable rock gardens, tight single-track, and a shifty shale surface
Scenery: Mostly scraggly second-growth forest, a few overlooks with nice views from ridge
Special Comments: A mountain ride that's nirvana for bikers who thrive on slow, technical riding
Joe also identifies Seasons trail open, Services (as camping) available, Hazards (as steep downhills, hunting seasons), Rescue Index (as poor due to deep forest trails), and Land Status (as State Park).

Perhaps Joe's approach is better than a numerical rating system.

Note that the better the rider you are, the poorer the judge of trail difficulty you become.

i agree that trails can and should be rating by different criteria. the single trail scale rates ONLY the technical difficulty.

i agree that rating various aspects as your example from Joe is very good. but i do not think that the technical difficulty description is clear: "Prime hammerhead territory; very tough, with barely rideable rock gardens, tight single-track, and a shifty shale surface" --- what does "very tough" and "barely rideable rock gardens" mean? is that barely rideable for a novice rider with an unsuspended XC bike or barely rideable for an experienced freerider with with 8" of travel?

Joes description ALONG WITH an S-rating would be even more helpful. in this case it could be anything from S-1 to S-5 depending on your perespective (the Innsbruck Vertriders would only say something is "barely ridable" if it is S-5 --> meaning it is really steep, with multiple obstacles/drops in series and requires jumping or hopping to ride)

i totally disagree!

the better rider you are, the higher your personal "level" of what defines "unrideable" or "really difficult" becomes... or better put:

the better rider you are, the more your perspective differs from that of the "average" rider

--> exactly why a techincal rating is useful as words like "really hard" or "unrideable" or "very steep" are totally subjective!

just watch a trials event and a downhill event and then re-think the use of "unrideable"! ... riding over a car or down a "cliff"...

All your ideas are great but they take to much work. I'd rather ride and have the great unexpected thrills of not knowing what is coming next.

I think for XC trails only, difficulty should be a little easier to define. For example, the black trails at the mtb centers where I ride have nothing that could kill you (such as big drops or skinnies that require "circus acrobat" skills to negotiate) however, they require very advanced skills nevertheless. Even racers will walk some areas to avoid an unnecessary crash. The climbs can be killer too. There is no S3 type of terrain there.

So if I had to make up a system, I would certainly differentiate between XC, Freeride and DH, before talking about any level of difficulty. To mix XC with DH trails when discussing difficulty makes no sense to me.

I honestly think if this were ever to be feasible you would have to work with systems currently in place. You would be hard pressed to tell intrawest and other resorts to dump the green, blue, black and double black system.


When dealing with resorts + insurance this should never be allowed. There should never be surprises in that sense. In a regular trail world where insurance doesn't play a role, posting nothing makes sense. But for insurance purposes and encouraging beginners to ride, well advised postings work best. In whistler all trails on the mountain or otherwise are listed with the colour system + the distance and some even have how technical the climb will be (for example forplay is a double black climb and single black descent)...