Comparing off-road sites

It sometimes seems difficult to get a feel for what the different off-
road sites are like. Even when there are lots of photographs, they tend
to be short on context.

And there seems to be a fascination with mud.

I spent a lifetime farming on heavy clay. I don't like mud. I don't
think it's fun.

But what would I hope for in a description of a site? Well, start with
some idea of the size, area and lengths of any routes. And, OK, you have
to satisfy the mud-freaks, but don't forget the rest of us. What's the
balance between routes you drive on the surface and routes where you
have to drive in the surface? Similarly with wading. I realise depths
vary with weather, but is the ground underneath firm?

On the day, if you have marked routes, how do you mark the alternatives?
Do you have a map. Have you tested the wading depths needed, so you can
at least warn of the difficult places? Any places that an LWB vehicle
maybe ought to avoid?

I suppose that, in the end, I'm thinking of something not unlike the way
that ski runs are graded. Although, what I've seen, there are often ways
of providing less extreme options on a route. Maps and signposts again.

Anyone got any thoughts from the organisers side of the fence. I have a
feeling that providing this sort of info might conjure up liability
issues.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."

On 2006-05-14, "David G. Bell" <[email protected]> wrote:

> And there seems to be a fascination with mud.

I waffled on about this previously, I'd like to see trench crossing,
log crossing, axle-twister runs, steps to climb, rocky paths of
different grades, side-slopes with a bank to help catch you if you
take it too far, etc etc.

Mud pits are boring and unimaginative and take little skill to
negotiate, but that's all we seem to get. They're easy to make and
you don't have to worry about safety too much I suppose, which is
probably why.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Sunday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Ian Rawlings" wrote:

> On 2006-05-14, "David G. Bell" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And there seems to be a fascination with mud.
>
> I waffled on about this previously, I'd like to see trench crossing,
> log crossing, axle-twister runs, steps to climb, rocky paths of
> different grades, side-slopes with a bank to help catch you if you
> take it too far, etc etc.
>
> Mud pits are boring and unimaginative and take little skill to
> negotiate, but that's all we seem to get. They're easy to make and
> you don't have to worry about safety too much I suppose, which is
> probably why.

It may also be funny for the audience when somebody gets stuck.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."

On or around Sun, 14 May 2006 15:11:13 +0100 (BST), [email protected]
("David G. Bell") enlightened us thusly:

>On Sunday, in article
> <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "Ian Rawlings" wrote:
>
>> On 2006-05-14, "David G. Bell" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > And there seems to be a fascination with mud.
>>
>> I waffled on about this previously, I'd like to see trench crossing,
>> log crossing, axle-twister runs, steps to climb, rocky paths of
>> different grades, side-slopes with a bank to help catch you if you
>> take it too far, etc etc.
>>
>> Mud pits are boring and unimaginative and take little skill to
>> negotiate, but that's all we seem to get. They're easy to make and
>> you don't have to worry about safety too much I suppose, which is
>> probably why.
>
>It may also be funny for the audience when somebody gets stuck.

yeah, allows of plenty of photo opportunites.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Brevis esse laboro, Obscurus fio" (it is when I struggle to be
brief that I become obscure) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Ars Poetica, 25

Austin Shackles wrote:

|||| Mud pits are boring and unimaginative and take little skill to
|||| negotiate, but that's all we seem to get. They're easy to make and
|||| you don't have to worry about safety too much I suppose, which is
|||| probably why.
|||
||| It may also be funny for the audience when somebody gets stuck.
||
|| yeah, allows of plenty of photo opportunites.

Hi Graham.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

On or around Sun, 14 May 2006 19:11:57 +0100, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>|||| Mud pits are boring and unimaginative and take little skill to
>|||| negotiate, but that's all we seem to get. They're easy to make and
>|||| you don't have to worry about safety too much I suppose, which is
>|||| probably why.
>|||
>||| It may also be funny for the audience when somebody gets stuck.
>||
>|| yeah, allows of plenty of photo opportunites.
>
>Hi Graham.

<snigger>

well, there were several of me with the 109 perched on that hump at K-quads.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"You praise the firm restraint with which they write -_
I'm with you there, of course: They use the snaffle and the bit
alright, but where's the bloody horse? - Roy Campbell (1902-1957)

Austin Shackles wrote:

||||||| Mud pits are boring and unimaginative and take little skill to
||||||| negotiate, but that's all we seem to get. They're easy to make
||||||
|||||| It may also be funny for the audience when somebody gets stuck.
|||||
||||| yeah, allows of plenty of photo opportunites.
|||
||| Hi Graham.
||
|| <snigger>
||
|| well, there were several of me with the 109 perched on that hump at
|| K-quads. --

Yeah, yeah, and me in the Mariana Trench of mudholes on the way out.

If you've done it, you've earned the right to comment on others' misfortunes
IMO.


--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

Richard Brookman wrote:

> Yeah, yeah, and me in the Mariana Trench of mudholes on the way out.
'twas but a minor puddle.

Steve

"David G. Bell" <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny
about:
> It sometimes seems difficult to get a feel for what the different off-
> road sites are like. Even when there are lots of photographs, they
> tend to be short on context.
>
> And there seems to be a fascination with mud.
>
> I spent a lifetime farming on heavy clay. I don't like mud. I don't
> think it's fun.
>
> But what would I hope for in a description of a site? Well, start with
> some idea of the size, area and lengths of any routes. And, OK, you
> have to satisfy the mud-freaks, but don't forget the rest of us.
> What's the balance between routes you drive on the surface and routes
> where you have to drive in the surface? Similarly with wading. I
> realise depths vary with weather, but is the ground underneath firm?
>
> On the day, if you have marked routes, how do you mark the
> alternatives? Do you have a map. Have you tested the wading depths
> needed, so you can at least warn of the difficult places? Any places
> that an LWB vehicle maybe ought to avoid?
>
> I suppose that, in the end, I'm thinking of something not unlike the
> way that ski runs are graded. Although, what I've seen, there are
> often ways of providing less extreme options on a route. Maps and
> signposts again.
>
> Anyone got any thoughts from the organisers side of the fence. I have
> a feeling that providing this sort of info might conjure up liability
> issues.

I have had two fantastic days out on Cannock Chase which was run by
Overlander Training, they are allowed a number of days by the forresty
commision and had sole access but for Emergency services training (I've yet
to blag that course :-( ) or general forrestry stuff.

The courses weren't cheap as off road goes , I recall £60 for the first
session and £40 for the second. The First session was 9.00 start, in to
training, and I mean training in your own vehicle on hill climbs, failed
hill climbs and recovery from failed hill climbs. They it was a full on day
of driving around being guided where needs be, advised of tree stumps where
the need arose and such like.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/projectpercy/cannock/

The second occasion was evening / night drive for veterans and also by
chance included a stop for coffee at the top of a hill to watch three
firework companies conduct a display to impress potential customers which
went on for a good hour or so. This was several hours of driving across
different tracks, crossing logs, Hill climbs and decents, cross axle
opportunities ect.

There was little in the way of mud on either session.

I guess I'm trying to say that you get what you pay for.

The alternative £30 to thrape around a mud pit gets tiring and also
dangerous on occasions in my opinion where you have all and sundry turning
up in anything that'll fire up and demonstrate any remote movement
capability. I find these events a little unnerving. (not to be mistaken with
our unofficial meets which is really just an excuse to take the **** in the
flesh)

I found the alternative to the likes of the days on the Chase are the use of
Green lanes, but thats not off roading really.

A grading system would be good but you would need consistancy. I've seen
greenlanes said to be tame by one person which appeared to me to be pushing
ones luck even disregarding the weather.

Lee D

"Lee_D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "David G. Bell" <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny
> about:
>> It sometimes seems difficult to get a feel for what the different off-
>> road sites are like. Even when there are lots of photographs, they
>> tend to be short on context.
>>
>> And there seems to be a fascination with mud.
>>
>> I spent a lifetime farming on heavy clay. I don't like mud. I don't
>> think it's fun.
>>
>> But what would I hope for in a description of a site? Well, start with
>> some idea of the size, area and lengths of any routes. And, OK, you
>> have to satisfy the mud-freaks, but don't forget the rest of us.
>> What's the balance between routes you drive on the surface and routes
>> where you have to drive in the surface? Similarly with wading. I
>> realise depths vary with weather, but is the ground underneath firm?
>>
>> On the day, if you have marked routes, how do you mark the
>> alternatives? Do you have a map. Have you tested the wading depths
>> needed, so you can at least warn of the difficult places? Any places
>> that an LWB vehicle maybe ought to avoid?
>>
>> I suppose that, in the end, I'm thinking of something not unlike the
>> way that ski runs are graded. Although, what I've seen, there are
>> often ways of providing less extreme options on a route. Maps and
>> signposts again.
>>
>> Anyone got any thoughts from the organisers side of the fence. I have
>> a feeling that providing this sort of info might conjure up liability
>> issues.
>

I went to Tong in Bradford yesterday for one of their bi-monthly pay and
play days and I have to say that the site is very good indeed. Routes are
graded blue (easy) red (harder) and black (difficult), the site is built on
a wooded hillside which means a good variety of terrain. There are loads of
axle twisters, climbs, descents and rutted tracks along with mud and water
aplenty but natural as opposed to man made bomb holes. It is £50 for the day
which is a lot admittedly but it really does push you ( I had to winch twice
due to slippery tree routes on narrow bands rendering traction near
impossible!). The only problem is that the nature of pay and play means that
you always get a good crop of idiots who just drive too damn fast, there are
so many people who buy LandRovers and other 4x4's and have no idea how to
drive off-road yet they think that they are better than you when they crash
down a track at 20 mph+ bouncing all over the place and probably destroying
their suspension and tyres in the process!!

Nevertheless a great site (which can be hired for club events incidentally)
and I will be going next time!

Andy

1989 V8 90 CSW