Route Matrix

[ScottM]

If you haven't seen it yet, go here:

http://www.bikepacking.net/bikepacking-routes/

It's what I call the "Route Matrix."

I imagine that the ratings and numbers therein may cause some debate.  They are rough estimates at this point, and I would like to refine them with input from others.

So, please let me know your thoughts.

[ScottM]

For reference, here is the current version of it:

Name	Color	Distance	Climbing	Rideability*	Singletrack	Start	End
Arizona Trail		800 miles	100,000'	5-7	60%	Mexico border	Utah border
Colorado Trail		530 miles	60,000'	6-8	60%	Denver	Durango
Continental Divide Trail		3000+ miles	250,000'	4?	50%	Mexico border	Canada border
El Camino del Diablo		130 miles	7,000'	6-9	<1%	Ajo, AZ	Yuma, AZ
Grand Loop		360 miles	48,000'	6	8%	Grand Junction, CO	Grand Junction, CO
Grand Enchantment Trail		580 miles	80,000'	4-6	50%	Phoenix, AZ	Albuquerque, NM
Great Divide Route		2500 miles	140,000'	10	<1%	Banff	Mexico border
Kokopelli's Trail		144 miles	20,000'	8	5%	Moab, UT	Fruita, CO
Oregon 3 Rivers		400 miles	40,000'	9	70%	Eugene, OR	Eugene, OR
Trans Utah		600 miles	60,000'	7	40%	St. George	Moab

* - Rideability ranges from 1 to 10. 1 = leave the bike home. 10 = where's the challenge?

[hungry gnome]

The rating system seems to be backwards.  It is confusing the way it is.

 

[Stefan_G]

That is a fantastic page, Scott!  It's awesome in its simplicity, and yet it still has so much potential for links and other info to be added.  Thanks so much for starting this forum too.  It will be nice to get away from the MTBR slagging.

[REV]

here here I agree with stefan...

This will be a great resource.

[Slowerthensnot]

maybe a rating for suplys on route?

Towns, water, ?

[ScottM]

The rating system seems to be backwards.  It is confusing the way it is.

Anyone else agree? 

Should 10 = most rideable

or 1 = most rideable

?

[ScottM]

maybe a rating for suplys on route?

Towns, water, ?

Good idea.  Resupply / remoteness is a pretty good measure.  Perhaps water too.

[Stefan_G]

Anyone else agree? 

Should 10 = most rideable

or 1 = most rideable

?

I think 1 should be "most rideable".  Some guidebooks I've seen (e.g. Moab, Fruita) rate the technical difficulty on a 1-5 scale where 5 is super gnarly.  There really should be a 6 though, for mandatory hike-a-bike.  I guess you're not really trying to characterize the exact same thing though since your number is more of a fun-ness factor.

[ScottM]

I think 1 should be "most rideable".  Some guidebooks I've seen (e.g. Moab, Fruita) rate the technical difficulty on a 1-5 scale where 5 is super gnarly.  There really should be a 6 though, for mandatory hike-a-bike.  I guess you're not really trying to characterize the exact same thing though since your number is more of a fun-ness factor.

Depends on your definition of fun.  All rideable usually means dirt roads, and that's not really my idea of fun.

But, good point.  I'm thinking I should reverse it.

[Stefan_G]

Depends on your definition of fun. 

Totally!  My definition of fun probably starts out on your current scale somewhere near 5 or 6, but after a few days of minimal sleep, slips to 7 or 8... 

[ScottM]

I'm with you on that.  Even with sleep and a touring pace the "fun threshold" starts to slip a little after 3-4 days.  Without sleep it slips much quicker.

[dave54]

I tend to ignore trail ratings.  Even the best designed rating systems seem to be subjective and arbitrary over time. 

I consider myself a moderate rider.  I have a local trail near me I consider an easy piece of singletrack and I ride it for a break.  Yet other riders, self-described as skilled and expert, claim the same trail is highly technical and near unridable.  Another nearby trail section is hard for me.  I have yet to clean it, but I am routinely passed by junior high kids ascending effortlessly without breathing hard.  So it tends to be user-defined.  I appreciate the effort in determining a rating, but I am more interested in average grade, steepest grade, surface, and other descriptive attributes.

Any trail gets easier with familiarity. 

[ScottM]

I agree with you that ratings for day rides (short trails) can be pretty meaningless.  Difficulty is often not only subjective but also dependent on the author's skill level (and their perception of that level).

I wouldn't expect someone who hasn't done any of the routes currently in the matrix to get much from a particular rating.  I guess the intent is more of a relative rating.  At present I've done nearly all the routes on the matrix, so they are all coming from the same "author."  I'm not claiming to be an authority on trail difficulty, just pointing out that since they came from the same person, they can at least be trusted relative to each other.

Of course, the idea is that the route portion of bp.net will grow to far overshadow my bikepacking route knowledge, so your point is a very good one.  It's probably better to think about more objective measures.

[chrisx]

water is quite important!  distance betwen water holes? hard pack or sand trails?  are there cows standing in the ground water?

[ScottM]

water is quite important!  distance betwen water holes? hard pack or sand trails?  are there cows standing in the ground water?

A water index is a good idea.  The desert rides are certainly more challenging in this regard.  It's another one that's hard to quantify, though, and dependent on season and conditions.

[ElaineG]

Scott, thanks for a great tool for researching a trail! I vote for 1 being easiest, 10 hardest. Seems more intuitive.

In the interest of getting all the numbers into comparable terms, I just calculated the km to miles and meters to feet conversions for the TransAndalus. They are:
Distance: 1350 miles and  Climbing: 124,672 feet

Elaine