Mtn Biking vs. XC skiing 4k's.

The thread about mountain biking a piece of the trail got me thinking. If mountain biking a piece of the trail disqualifies that hike from being an official 4ker, why doesn't cross country skiing a piece of the trail also disqualify the peak? (Correct me if I'm wrong, if it does. This would mean that I would have to cross Hale off my winter list as we skied in on Zealand Road. [Nice ski, btw.])

I assume the reasoning is that a bicycle gives the climber an unfair advantage. In my case, I would argue that cycling a part of the trail would be a disadvantage. I'm terrible on a bike and would be white knuckled, nervous and straining to keep the thing upright. But, I am super-comfortable on my xc skis. I'd be thrilled to glide all the way in the Wilderness trail. I realized this is the opposite of most people, but it begs the question: why can I ski but not bike?

My guess is that you've got to draw the line somewhere. A bike is a mechanical advantage, gears wheels etc. Skis just create a different way of walking. If skis weren't allowed, then we'd have to say no to snowshoes. If sliding downhill weren't allowed, then butt sliding or sledding would have to go.

All I know is that I paid a price to haul my downhill skis and boots up the Tecumseh trail last October(on snow shoes), but to be able to ski down Waterville's slopes in 2 feet of untracked snow was priceless. And.....it only took 15 minutes. Cheating-maybe, allowed-yes, fun-you bet.

Took a little bit of searching but I finally found this previous thread.
Skiing 4K's

And the FTFC rules
4K Rules

Skis are legal. There is one NH 4K that I have only skied--never hiked. Owl's Head.

Doug

DougPaul said:

Skis are legal. There is one NH 4K that I have only skied--never hiked. Owl's Head.

Doug

Click to expand...

Yes, but to TrailBiscuit's question...why?

I don't own a bike and have skied a bunch of the peaks, but I guess I am curious what difference is, too. Is it the "wheels"?

From the FTFC "guidelines" about bikes.

The increased popularity of mountain bikes makes it necessary to come up with some sort of policy. Please remember that this is a club for hikers; not that we object to trail bikes per se, but we want to preserve the tradition of climbing on foot, not on bikes.

Dosen't exactly explain why, but again, they had to draw the line somewhere and it works for me.

As Quietman said earlier, a bike gives mechanical advantage b/c of it's gears (even a single speed has mechanical advantage b/c of the differential in chain ring size between the front and rear).

Skis only offer traction aid (wax or waxless scales) like crampons, snowshoes, or good treads on your boots.

What I always wonder is what does it really mean to ski a peak? Sure, I've skied lots of peaks. Do I ski all the way to and from the summit on them? Not usually, but I still say I skied a peak if I got most of the way to and from with the boards strapped on.

I only know one person who has skied the 48, but I suspect there are others. Maybe he'll chime in with his thoughts. There are many stretches of even the easiest routes to each peak that I know I can't ski, but then again, he's a much better skier than I am.

food for thought...

spencer

I guess we could debate the "mechanics" all day, but the gear analogy makes sense. I think another reason is are bikes even allowed on many of the trails? If they aren't (due to the tearing up of the trails it potentially causes) then it is easy to put in a rule forbidding them for 'peakbagging'.

As for skiing all the peaks, I know el-bagr has done them all. I know my limitations...and this is not something I will complete. However, there are a few peaks (Waumbek, Hale, Marcy that I can immediately think of) that you can ski all the way to the top. More often than not, though, I am like you were I will have the crampons on and the skis strapped to my pack for a bit.

It is arbitrary. I guess I'm fine with that...it's their club.
I don't really buy the gears as a mechanical advantage vs. skis. A finely waxed pair of skis can give you a significant speed advantage. Probably not as much as a bike, but it's still significant.

trailbiscuit said:

It is arbitrary. I guess I'm fine with that...it's their club.
I don't really buy the gears as a mechanical advantage vs. skis. A finely waxed pair of skis can give you a significant speed advantage. Probably not as much as a bike, but it's still significant.

Click to expand...

Part of it is historical. Mountain biking was not a popular sport when peakbagging started. Adequate bikes probably did not even exist at the time. Skis did.

And from what I've read, it's not really a matter of speed, it's a matter of mechanical advantage.

trailbiscuit said:

I don't really buy the gears as a mechanical advantage vs. skis. A finely waxed pair of skis can give you a significant speed advantage. Probably not as much as a bike, but it's still significant.

Click to expand...

As someone who does a lot of both...Up to 600 miles skiing/year, and 5,000 miles on a bike, I really have to disagree.

If you are talking about the (usually) small part of steep climbing, there isn't too much difference, however if you compare them on long relatively flat approach, the bike wins hands down. I could ride 10 miles on an old railroad bed in a small fraction of the time that I could ski it.

On climbing, once a certain steepness is reached, a bicycle is simply dead weight, and it is faster without one

Pete_Hickey said:

I could ride 10 miles on an old railroad bed in a small fraction of the time that I could ski it.

Click to expand...

You're right here. I retract my previous statement. (The heat must be getting to me.)
But, I will argue that skis are a definite "mechanical" advantage over walking. You could argue the same for snowshoes, but that feels like really splitting hairs. At that point, you should have to hike them all barefoot and naked. (Yup, blame the heat.)

Again, just curious as to why the distinction.

trailbiscuit said:

But, I will argue that skis are a definite "mechanical" advantage over walking.

Click to expand...

Not always--I have certainly taken my skis off and walked certain parts of some backcountry tours...

You could argue the same for snowshoes, but that feels like really splitting hairs. At that point, you should have to hike them all barefoot and naked. (Yup, blame the heat.)

Click to expand...

I'll leave that stuff to the purists.

Again, just curious as to why the distinction.

Click to expand...

As others have already noted, tradition (ie that which was in common use at the time at which the rulemakers made the rules). http://www.amc4000footer.org/faq.htm#rules1

Doug

I am not entirely sure it is fair to compare winter travel and summer travel. In warm weather, it is fairly easy to distinguish walking and biking as two different endeavors. Drawing a line between the two seems quite logical to me.

In winter, skis and snowshoes are just two solutions to the otherwise unsafe and insane proposition of walking through deep snow. They are, in the realm of peakbagging, extensions of walking and not seperate sports.

That said, I think people can too easily confuse the AMC peakbagging game with all-purpose hiking and mountain exploring.

It is partly esthetics, just like disallowing snowmobile use on roads you can drive in the summer. If you would rather not share a trail with snowmobiles/mtn bikes, why reward those who do it?

On steep trails, there is no doubt that mtn bikes cause far more erosion than hikers. The tire leaves a linear track which then provides a channel for water. My mother gave up trying to maintain the Blueberry Mtn Trail because she was unable to put in a water bar sturdy enough to resist a mtn bike hitting it full tilt downhill.

As the AMC says, there is nothing preventing mtn bikers from issuing their own club patches to anyone who bikes as far as is legal. I believe it is still legal to mtn bike the Hancock Loop Trail, and I even met a couple of Europeans trying it (who gave up at loop junction).