PSSOR Rating - route difficulty classification
 

Skiers, rock climbers, white water rafters - they all use commononly understood and agreed upon rating systems. If you tell a skier that a particular slope is rated Black Diamond, they quickly know whether it is for them or not.

In our own discussions on routes, I never really see any of us use any rating system to depict neither the route's difficulty, nor the rider skill level - making it challenging for others to get the real sense of how well a particular route matches a particular rider. I've recently come across the PSSOR-rating system, which I find is very good - and one which I wish more of us would adopt.

Simply put, POSSR rates both non paved routes difficulty levels, and rider skill levels, into the following five categories (source of images: Adventure Rider Radio):

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...g?format=1500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...g?format=1500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...g?format=1500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...g?format=1500w


My two cents:
It is my opinion that a rider can both benefit from, and enjoy, riding one or two levels beyond the levels they are transitioning into - far beyond their current skill level! This however presupposes:

• That the most difficult stretches are very short (i.e. no more than a couple of hundred meters)
• That there are only a few very difficult stretches in total - spaced far appart
• That the exeedingly difficult bits only constitutes less than 1% of the entire distance travelled for the enitire trip
• That one has the assistance of at least one other fellow rider with a higher proficiency level than ones own
• "Ride your own ride" - taking things at your own pace, not feeling obliged or pressured to keep up with others, or do things which other do but you yourself neither enjoy nor feels ready for
• Riding with people that not only gets it, but that takes enjoyment from being in it together - regardless on where on the totem pole each and everyone finds themselves relative to their fellow team members - like a true team should!

I think a good way for improving as a rider, is to ride mostly within one's current skill level (you can allways improve further), but at the same time allocate a signicant ammount of time to the next level that one is transitioning into - if one wants to advance faster. At the same time, one should also allocate a small ammount of time and distance to even the next level after that - the level that puts one self far beyond one's current skill level.

Riding beyond one's own skill level is scary, exhausting and poses a lot of risk to both man and machine. This increases expontentially the further one moves up the ladder. At the same time, it can be both very exhilarating and rewarding in all sorts of ways - educational being one.

Consequently, in order to make for both an enjoyable trip, and one that advances ones skills - one should conscider both the individual riding days, as well as the trip in its totality. In other words, when planning the mix of difficulty levels, one has to conscider conserving both body, soul and machine - as well as the enjoyment of it all.

When riding outside one's current skill level, one needs more time to traverse the same ammount of terrain, and to rest up. This increases exponentially the further one gets away from one's current skill level. A good approach then, is to make the exeedingly difficult stretches shorter and more spaced out - and more so the further you get away from one's current skill level. At the same time, one should balance things out by making the riding days shorter, and by blending in an increased ammount of "easy riding". On top of that one should add more frequent and longer rests (applied to both riding days and rest days alike).


Example (my opinion): A sensible challenge for a rider currently at level 1*
Presupposing a typical ridng day of 200-400 kms/day, or 3-8 hours:

• 50% tarmac or very good graded gravel roads
• 30% level 1 (within current off road skill level)
• 15-20% level 2 (transitioning skill level) - I.e. with no more than 50 kms in total any given day
• 1-5% level 3 (far outside current skill level) - I.e. with no more than 10 kms in total any given day, and with spaced out stretches no longer than a few kms each
• >1% level 4 (very far outside current skill level) - I.e. with stretches less than a few hundred meters each, and not more than 1 km in total
• 0% level 5 (extremely far outside current skill level) - I.e. less than 10 meters on any given day.

*One will also have to conscider other factors such as being able to get out if the rider gets injured or the bike breaks down, as well as access to medical treatment, etc.



Please discuss!


So, when evaluating my comments - I currently conscider myself a level 3 rider, even though I have done my share of level 5 and have 30 years riding experience. My opinion is therefore one of an intermediate rider only, not an expert. I have only recently conscidered committing myself to become somewhat proficient at level 4 and get some proper professional training - time will show - at 46 I feel as I am getting old.

You may be over thinking this.

My system of Moroccan piste (track) grading is based on the colours of the French ski slope ratings. Bear in mind that Moroccan pistes by their very nature are dual track (i.e. wide enough for small trucks).

Green (total novice): An unsealed track with a consistent surface material that has been mechanically graded.

Blue (non-technical): Track surfaces vary according to the local rocks and soil. Apart from short stretches, nothing too difficult for a typical entry-level rider who has not undertaken offroad training.

Red (technical): Shouldn't be attempted unless the rider has undertaken offroad skills training or is accompanied by experienced riders who will help if necessary. Might need to remove luggage to get over some obstacles.

Black (expert): Unless you are at expert level, don't tackle this alone or with luggage.

But pistes are never the same rating from start to finish, so the grade i give it depends how I feel after doing the route. Most of the routes I've done several times, so I am aware that pistes change over time, and a blue piste in good weather can become a black piste in bad weather. And even when the bad weather is over it sometimes takes a couple of weeks for the locals to clear or repair the trashed sections. So the grades can only be a very rough approximation.

Some days I am fine doing a difficult piste, other days I might turn back. But youth (and balls) have something to do with it as well. The video below is of my son-in-law who had passed his motorbike test a few years earlier but hadn't ridden since. This was his very first bike tour, his very first piste and his very first water crossing. Most of my riding mates would have sensibly turned back...

(I did walk it first to check for rocks and stayed midstream in case of problems.)

That river crossing must have raised your pulse a few beats - and you make it look so easy! That ammount of rusing water on the front wheel is very difficult. I got to do a lot of crossings on Iceland with fairly deep and fast water, but nothing this fast. The greatest challenge there was rolling rock bed of all grades, as well as the crossings having many different depths. Walking across is allways the right thing to do, especially if crossing where the river bends (should be avoided as the water is allways faster and deeper on the outside of the bend than on the inside, and the bottom surface will usually vary a lot more).

----
I still think adopting a rating of both biker and terrain is a good idea - and conscidering the magnitude of the various mixes across a day and the trip as a whole. A beginner with a bit of help can get their bike through the toughest of terrain for a few meters, but not for 10s of kilometers.

This riding off tarmac is abstract unless you have done a bunch of varied stuff before. You can watch all the youtube movies you want, but they never do the terrain or ride any justice - what looks rough on screen is far more rough in real life. A road surface that looks a bit uneven on screen is much worse IRL Also, there are infinite variations of rock shapes and sizes, sand, mud, gravel, snow, ice, gradients, ruts, twist and turns, widt of track, flowing water.... and the mix of all of the above... and the length of it. I therefore still think that this stuff is very much relevant.

Also - the choice of bike matters a lot. In the following, me (blue bike, red jacket) and two friends tackling are playing arround in Morocco... with 12 hp, 10" wheels and 8" ground clearance. We also used very street biased tyres (they had to last to Guinea Bissau, and the lack of power meant that knobbies couldn't be utilized to full effect without burning more spare clutches than we were carrying). With my Adventure bike or Enduro bike, this would have been a cake walk - but on these bikes, both riders and bikes were pushed to the max of what it could endure over time (you can forget much of what offroad riding teqhniques you know when going offroad in a shopping trolley). 100m patches, that for a team of dual sports to cross would take seconds, could take us 30 minutes. But taking it slow, having perseverance, and muscling it - mostly everything is manageable. What I would here would put at level 2 or 3 for a dual sport, was at level 5 for these bikes.

I think some of you will enjoy these videos,

Enjoy (saved the best for last):







Offcourse the best stuff never gets captured on video - the return from the beach was a nightmare... very deep and narrow ruts (far far deeper than our ground clearance and in many places narrower than the bike), seaweed, quick sand and near death experiences from being centimeters away from being run over from behind by racing SUV's loosing control.

Brill videos !!!!

I allways try to cross a river going down stream at an angle !:scooter:

It was my novice son-in-law on the bike, not me.

Here's one where I almost came a cropper. Severe storms and I had already done 50 or so smallish river crossings that day, crossing the same normally dry rivers over and over and over again. So I was too blasé.

What I should have done is to cross going slightly upstream.

Fast forward to 1:40

I also prefer crossing at an upward vs downward angle. I believe I retain better traction and more control, especially on the rear. Also, I see whatever comes floating. A finger on the kill switch in case I dunk it.