teeter

[halls]

After riding Battle Creek this weekend with my two boys i was wondering about a teeter on the upper loop ? There is this big old log just waiting for something.
Or maybe we just build a log crossing,ramp it up on both sides. Just a thought. Anyone else have thoughts on this? :geek:

[Dr. Guitar]

Please, no teeters or bridges at Battle Creek. Battle Creek is a great trail as it is. I know it for it's style of climbing, something that set's it apart from the other metro trails. Putting the same obsticles at all the trails around town makes them all seem the same. Cherrish what is unique about each trail.



My two cents.

[halls]

I have to agree with you. I'am not sure i'd would even use it. It just looked like the log needed something over it . Perhaps a few logs on each side of it. But that would be something i would leave up to the trail boss. I think Battle Creek is a gem. A great place to ride.

[fisherbikefreak]

I think a teeter would be kind of cool at BC -- as long as it's not like the leb teeter.

A teeter that doesn't totter would keep a seperation between leb and BC. The teeter can be built so it only hits the ground on one side and when you travel over it, the totter, you have to go off a medium drop (say 3-4 feet).

I doubt Ramsey County would except this for liability reasons, but I sure would be fun and original to our area.

[halls]

i agree the liability factor is big . The log i'am thinking of is close to the general recreation area on the upper loop. Maybe it should be built up on both sides or just left as is. I don't really want to see obstacles become Battle Creek. But a few more might be a good thing if done by Morc. :cool: