[Closed] XC courses - technicality level

The fact that she kept writing "commissaries" instead of "commissaires" made me want to pummel myself into unconsciousness...

Typo nazi'ing apart, form a personal POV I prefer less GNAR! courses as I am a) old and b)rubbish at tech stuff. It can be off putting for new or less confident riders too. I'd say there should be a significant difference in tech levels between a regional and a national.

/ramble.

So this brings us up to today, I am now sitting here after a weekend at the second round of the National Series at Newnham park. I have bruises all over my legs and I am still smiling. The course was immense. Brutal climbs and awesomely technical descents. It has fully restored my faith in XCO racing. Maddie and Jay Horton put hours into making a course that tested the best riders, they provided excellent B-lines which riders were able to take. I saw some crashes in practice and also tonnes of smiles. Maddie was constantly reassuring everyone that there was no harm in taking the B-lines, there’s no loss of face, no one will call you a loser and if you’re strong elsewhere you’ll make the time up. It was a real mountain bike course, one that prepares you for the higher levels of racing. I hope they got lots of good feedback and everyone enjoyed it.

Nice to hear this as being a local it's close to home, Maddie and Jay always put on excellent courses, and use the preceding months of local races to develop the courses for nationals rounds and try new features. But I have heard a fair few rumours of people complaining that the courses (well 'features') are getting too techy, but I'm with the OP on this one.

We need the courses to be tough, not just fitness wise but technically too, we need that level of development and there are always B lines, and in some cases C lines too so it's not like you're being forced to ride the difficult bits, if you're not confident enough yet then the easier lines are there, but I don't think racing should be brought down to the lowest common denominator. If you're moaning about losing time by taking a B or C line then you're not at the top of the field either way, your progression and improvement plan will need to include both skills and fitness improvements, to make the courses less technical just tips the balance more towards the fitness side things and not the actual bike riding.

Racing needs to be tough, it needs to be interesting, and it needs to be about more than just how hard and long you can pedal for, otherwise we might as well just stick everyone on a turbo and not bother.

Judging by the big fields of Junior and Youth riders (down here in the SW at least) it doesn't seemt o be putting anyone off at all, interesting and tricky courses make it more fun, more challenging and more even all round I think.

I've raced a few events both far & wide.

My 2c says: the stronger the field the more techy the races become. Lower down they are, less so. There are always alternative lines for the harder sections.

If it aint broke don't fix it.

XC racing needs to be composed of both tech & fitness, to echo amides to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator would turn XC into cross. I don't think anyone wants that.

If you find the course too techy, well, you know what you need to do & that's get out & practice! 😉

edit: mostly I ride the Gorrick stuff now & occasionally venture further afield - I think they have a great balance for what they are.

As long as the B or C lines cater for everyone, I don't see why the A lines can't be very hard and suit only those who have really put the work in. If I can't ride an A-line it's my fault for not putting enough practice into that type of feature. In xco, folk have lots of differing strengths - some have great fitness and can outclimb everyone, some have great skills. This gives some great mid-pack racing as it ebbs and flows between both camps. For those at the top, well they need to have the whole package, and indeed most do.

The reason we have felt the need to take out the sections is that there is a high probability of people crashing, this leaves us open to being sued. These events do not make much, if any, money and in our opinion it is just not worth the risk

How sad 🙄

As soon as I step on to my mountain bike I know I am taking a risk

This!

When did XC become XCO and what does the O stand for?

Not sure when it changed, but XCO means XC Olympic. It is just XC, but it's the only type of XC in the Olympics. XCM is XC Marathon racing.

Always seems to me, that marathon/long XC races like your 10UTBs and the like are the welcoming/accessible events but that XCO, your pointy XC racing, probably less so... And the courses should probably reflect that. But is that really right? Never done an XCO race.

What's classed as easy and what's classed as hard though?

I did one of the Nutcracker series races at Reeth 3 or 4 years back, and it was refreshingly more technical than I thought it would be, however by technical, it was what I would expect on a normal ride out, a few previous mtb races I had done tended to be grassy fields/dirt tracks.

Last year I did the 3 Peaks Cyclocross for the first time, that was more technical than any XC Mtb race I've ever done, and was great for that very reason.

I think XCO needs to be welcoming to all as you have to attract new folk and kids to racing. So the course, with B/C lines has to be ridable by all at any speed. But at expert/elite speeds and with the A lines, it needs to be very technically and physically challenging.

I only race local and regional races, and largely they achieve this imo. Except I wouldn't know what the fast boys and girls think - hopefully someone will be along to give a view from the pointy end.

I think there's an image that XC racers can't descend. The last race I did (SXC Laggan) would imply otherwise, and I don't remember there being B or C lines (or at least where there was a more straightforward line it was faster.). There were one or two quite technical bits, but there's nothing stopping you getting off the bike and running down it (like people did last time I raced before this around 16 years ago!).

I think the more people realise that it's not all about the climbing (obviously this matters a lot) then the more attractive it'll be for competitors. The organisers shouldn't worry about being sued, they should worry whether they are being negligent (and I think they would have to do something significantly bad to be negligent.). Some idiot will always think of suing regardless of grounds to do so.

XCO = XC olympic - standard xc racing rather than the eliminator, relay or endurance format.

Adam@BikeWorks - Member
It can be off putting for new or less confident riders

This is what my club mates are concerned at. Interestingly on FB comments regarding that blog, the lack of technciality is also given as a reason people dont bother with xc.

Yak,
As long as the B or C lines cater for everyone, I don't see why the A lines can't be very hard and suit only those who have really put the work in. If I can't ride an A-line it's my fault for not putting enough practice into that type of feature.

Agreed. I pretty much rode all the b-lines at Newnham, still enjoyed myself and it gave me the motivation to ride a bunch of stuff at home that i'd been avoiding/walking down in order to bolster my technical skills/confidence.

How about general technicality of courses outside of a/b lines? My feeling is if its rollable and can be take at a range of speeds its ok, even if it is technically demanding, fast peopel can ride it fast, slow people can go at the appropiate pacce

When did XC become XCO and what does the O stand for?

defines the course length, everything has to be "rideable" so differentiates against cross where parts of the course are designed not to be

Brownbacks pushed the boundaries but ran two courses, the main course varied and was rideable despite what the riders tried to prove. But is was harsh, steep climbs, singletrack with significant exposure, steep short off piste downhills and the usual tabletops doubles etc

numbers weren't brilliant (max about 140ish) and the "lungs and legs" brigade didn't like it. Looking at Nutcracker and others series these are the mainstay of the entries and so important for series viability. The good riders were fine with "roadies" like Dan Evans winning consistently simply because he could lead the field down as well as up.

In my view the technical aspects drove the core numbers down as well as time of year issues (overlapping the CX season). In addition the venue is a harsh place to race as falls hurt and a series based at a single venue can suffer is the catchment doesn't match the event.

There needs to be tech features in a course otherwise it's basically a summer CX race, saying that some of the winter CX races have more tech than some summer XC courses, or they seem that way on 32mm tyres and drop bars.

XC bikes are getting more and more capable too.

There's nothing wrong with a nice off-camber rooty section or a couple of decent drops, Cannock has both of these features on their XC courses.

Personally not being able to jump fo' $h!t, I'd rather take a B-line round a gap jump, but other than the Dyfi I've yet to see one on a course I've ridden (I cased that BTW as for some stupid reason I decided to take it on and not ride the B-Line). But there are massively capable riders out there who can ride these features and not just Roadie up the climbs and travesing bits, then tip-toe road anything tech.

An excellent example is a guy I had some very good head to heads with over the winter in the NWCX league, on one of the flat courses he annihilated me but on anything that was tech, twisty, off-camber, rooty course I beat him; the guy in question was a 21 minute 10 mile guy so you can see the advantage on the flat sweeping stuff.

I just read the blog properly

The answer is that there is nothing stopping Maxine Filby from organising her own XCO races that feature technical courses, or getting together with other like minded racers to create the series she desires

I think the problem is that the bulk of riders who make up the numbers are the "weekend warrior" types in fun/open, who broadly don't want super technical courses. Those who like the technical stuff don't come because XC races aren't technical enough, paradoxically.

I'm ok with it as evolution of the sport (although I don't like it as I'm shit at technical stuff), but it's an interesting dichotomy when it affects entry numbers.

Given the level of technicality on an international level and the progression of bikes and riding courses should be getting more technical.

Providing there are B lines I see no issue with this for xc races. Where courses are not realistically pre-rideable such as stage races clear signing, warnings etc. And B lines and marshals make good sense.

Ok, I'm the classic grumpy old git who sits at the back of the local vets field wondering how many times I'll be lapped.
I'm no spring chicken, I don't bounce anymore and my wife has threatened to take my bike away more times than I steal the kids chocolate at Easter.

I cant afford the time and money to travel all over the country to race, so I have no real knowledge of the courses outside Devon and Cornwall other than what I hear from fellow competitors.
I personally think we are spoilt down here in Devon, we have a very rapidly growing local race scene with several different organisers who have different styles of courses that they create using the local terrain. Some like it technical with A, B, C and even a D line, some like it fast with the odd B line thrown in if you are scared of riding over a 1 inch high log.

Personally, if you can ride a course on a Cross bike, then its a CycloCross course, not a XC Mountain bike course.

As the blogger stated Newnham Park was at the top end of technical, and rightly so. Its a NATIONAL standard event, the next step up is European and Worlds. Its not meant to be easy to ride the whole course on the A line. The same organisers ran a round in Cornwall a few years back. It was the same. I saw more grins and laughing and cheering at the end of the race than I've seen anywhere. Yes there were a few riders/coaches complain that it was too difficult, but they were the riders who then took the B line and complained that they lost too much time. There are two ways to solve that. Get faster on the non-tech bits, or learn to ride the difficult sections. Don't get off and walk an A line unless you are bleeding because you crashed riding into the section too fast.

Pre-Ride. Choose your line and stick to it. Don't complain because others are better than you. You know what to do about it.

Nobody is going to come and watch National standard Mountain bikers ride around a field (like we used to do in the 80's)with a firebell/vuvuzela,air horn. It needs to be a spectator sport also remember.

If our sport turns into one where every obstacle has to be assessed to make sure no one can be sued then it will die and no organiser will want put on a race.

My technical skills aren't great, but on a good day I can ride 95% of the A lines at most races I have been to. A month ago I couldn't ride most of the A lines at Newnham. I had an evening with the organisers and came away being able to ride nearly all of the course. Remember I'm a slow, 40 something rider. If I can do it then so should 95% of the field be able to. Its all about practice. I got home that evening and my wife couldn't shut me up. I was buzzing! I had some great results at Newnham because I had learnt where to save time.

That's what makes our sport fun. Not ploughing around a field all afternoon counting down laps wondering if you'll get lapped again.

As even the pro's have taken to droppers then make it open season with b lines. Some of the XC riders I know are some of the best technical riders. Nothing worse than a roadie course. There was a line from cairns where Julian absalon had been training with his brother as Road fitness wasn't enough these days

If our sport turns into one where every obstacle has to be assessed to make sure no one can be sued then it will die and no organiser will want put on a race.

all obstacles have to be assessed and appropriate mitigation applied, this usually means a well placed sign to indicate the difficulty level

built obstacles are an issue and BC adds hops to jump through here quite rightly. However if the built obstacle is part of a trail centre build then its easier

the BC commissaire "approves" the course in his walk around he checks that all obstacles are in the risk assessment and that the mitigation is appropriate and in place

coupled with a pre-race briefing "don't ignore the signs"

do it properly the risk of claim is low, the opportunity for claims comes from not doing it

the longer events that don't mark obstacles have a harder problem, IIRC one year mayhem had riders crossing a field that had a longitudinal depression across it obscured in long grass and a lot of riders came off on it as they were not warned and someone had to air ambulanced off

but they are still going so I expect no-one successfully sued (or I remembered incorrectly)

the BC commissaire "approves" the course in his walk around he checks that all obstacles are in the risk assessment and that the mitigation is appropriate and in place

As a BC Assistant Commissaire myself (not done enough events yet as I enjoy riding!) then I fully agree with you. What I meant was that if every single drop needs to be looked at to make sure that everyone can ride it without injury then its getting silly.

I always ensure all riders have pre-ridden and highlight any particular dangerous elements (even sharp loose corners) in the brief
The course organiser must have done a risk assessment and the commissaire needs to approve it (both in advance, and on the day), hopefully there is enough evidence that all mitigation has taken place to prevent a claim. I've seen risk assessments that highlight a barbed wire fence 10m away from the track just in case a spectator decides to cut a corner.

What we don't want is organisers scared to create any course that is remotely technical.

Now that's an A-line! (I presume...Cairns 2016 btw)

[img] [/img]

What I meant was that if every single drop needs to be looked at to make sure that everyone can ride it without injury then its getting silly

for the UK regional scene the "can the fat and slow organiser ride it" test should apply

for national level races the difficulty could and should go up for the relevant classes. They should be tougher than the regional feeder series

for Brownbacks what we saw was that riders upped their game and got their heads around the course, or didn't come back. Which meant that we saw the skill level increase but the numbers not.

for national level races the difficulty could and should go up for the relevant classes. They should be tougher than the regional feeder series

But does that mean that fun and open at a national race (or indeed any race series) should have a different course to elite?

But does that mean that fun and open at a national race (or indeed any race series) should have a different course to elite?

On the whole no I don't think so... the more technically tricky bits are catered for with B and C lines as easier options, and they already do less laps than the other categories which reduces the impact of any extended/steep climbs or fitness aspect, so in effect you already have a multi-tier race going on on the same physical course.

Difficult to pitch at all levels obviously, but from my chats with people over the years at local and national races, and those outside of racing who just ride casually most of the apprehension and worries about entering racing seem to come from the competition aspect and the 'other people' rather than the course itself.

I raced (vets) at Newnham last week and personally I thought it was a bit too much. Don't get me wrong, I loved the fact that I had to put myself massively out of my comfort zone to ride the A lines (and I still didnt ride 2 of them) but just the sheer amount of tech sections was a little too much in my opinion. Did we really need 9 technical sections with at least 4 of them losing up to 20 or 30 seconds if you took the B line?

On the flip side, I thought Pembrey had a good balance of tech sections (2 x triple arrows and 2 x double arrows) with the B lines costing a considerable amount of time but certainly not 8 mintes across the race.

Not easy being an organiser - XC racing has such a huge ability range that not everyone will like every course. Most venues and organiser crews can support one adult course, so compromise somewhere is inevitable. This is why series are important, you can then support a balance between the technical and less technical courses across the series.

Younger racers at the top end need to be stretched in races in the UK or we're going nowhere as a XC nation. Guess that's the point the author is making. IMO, this should be at the top of the considerations list when courses are planned, but of course this is not the only consideration.

It isn't right that unskilled riders can profit on dumbed-down courses just because they can smash sessions on the turbo, this isn't TTing.

It also isn't right that super-smooth lightning descenders can expect to win when they're not fit enough.

Personally, I don't like the idea of people picking and choosing which races to enter based purely on how well the course suits them. This is different from choosing races to target. How else do you expect to get better if you only stick to the races that fit your comfort zone?

As long as all the courses aren't dumbed-down, the author needs to take the rough with the smooth I reckon and figure out how to do better on a less technical course. Tactics!

and those outside of racing who just ride casually most of the apprehension and worries about entering racing seem to come from the competition aspect and the 'other people' rather than the course itself.

My experience is totally the opposite. At Newnham for example, I was awake for most of Saturday night because I was freaking out about the technicality of the course. I know for a fact that I wasn't the only one in this boat too....in fact, at least 4 people that I know of decided not to race at all

alishand - Member

Now that's an A-line! (I presume...Cairns 2016 btw)

Actually I think thats a great piece of course design, from the video I've seen its not an 'a-line' as such, there is an easier ans slightyl slower line to the far side but its not taped seperately. Multiple lines allowing people with daring/skils to geain a second or two without the contrasting b-line penalty is great in my book.

One thing I've not seen in the, admittedly limited, races I've being doing is a nice nadgery technical climb, seems like often the technical stuff is kept for the descents which is a shame.

One thing I've not seen in the, admittedly limited, races I've being doing is a nice nadgery technical climb, seems like often the technical stuff is kept for the descents which is a shame.

Agree with this...if taking the B lines at Newnham lost 8 minutes across the race, could this be made up on the climbs??? Absolutely not in my opinion! 1 or 2 minutes yes, 8 minutes? not a hope in hell

That Cairns drop looks more manageable from this angle, but I still wouldn't fancy it with my seat up...
[img] [/img]

To the topic at hand, as an occasional XC racer the likely technicality of the course is probably the biggest draw to me.

Not 'cos it's my strength but 'cos I want to have fun and I like courses that provide a bit of give-and-take with other riders.

Did one race last year which mainly involved riding round fields. It was nice to feel like I was back in the mid-1990s briefly - but I won't be rushing back.

🙂

At Newnham for example, I was awake for most of Saturday night because I was freaking out about the technicality of the course. I know for a fact that I wasn't the only one in this boat too

Forgive the question gazhurst as I don't know your racing experience, but is that because it was a step above the other races you've done, or because it was a step above the other [i]National [/i]rounds you've done?

in fact, at least 4 people that I know of decided not to race at all

That's a real shame, are they also regular Nationals racers or do you think perhaps they entered a Nationals round expecting it to be more like a local or regional*?

One thing I've not seen in the, admittedly limited, races I've being doing is a nice nadgery technical climb, seems like often the technical stuff is kept for the descents which is a shame.

With this I 100% agree, more tricky climbs would be a good thing. Although the balance is somewhat tipped compared to a techy descent, as if you jump off and run up a technical climb it can be quicker, the same is rarely if ever true for running down a technical descent.

* my perceptions here may be skewed as most of the racing I do these days is in the SW and that includes a fair few of Maddie and Jays creations so it's what I'm used to, and anyone who races frequently at Newnham will find they get experimented on with new sections in the regional/local series.

The problem with making them World Cup level, is most people don't have the time to get up to World Cup level and need to back in work on Monday in one piece, so there needs to be a balance. I think national level can be slightly below World Cup level to keep the weekend warriors on side, provided it isn't miles off a WC XCO course.

But I should never be a ride around a field, a la the last SITS I did, where I think I could have ridden the whole lap sitting down if I wanted.

or because it was a step above the other National rounds you've done?

This, in the case of Newnham. Jay and Maddie Horton have taken it upon themselves to further course development by making them more technical, such that they're a step above other national XC courses, and a leap ahead of regional XC ones. As said previously, I have no issue with this, but there's no way I'm going to go to Plymouth to lose 8 minutes because I'm crap/want to make sure I can go to work on Monday!

I could get better, or I could vote with my feet and not go. The latter is an easier solution, and the risk is that too many people do the same.

But I should never be a ride around a field, a la the last SITS I did, where I think I could have ridden the whole lap sitting down if I wanted.

Totally agree, and they're not, I've done one XC race ever like that (proper XC race I mean, not 24 hour stuff), in Wales, and it was utter shit. It's a myth perpetuated by the same people who don't race XC because it's not technical enough.

Forgive the question gazhurst as I don't know your racing experience, but is that because it was a step above the other races you've done, or because it was a step above the other National rounds you've done?

I've done a bit of racing but on this occasion, I'd say the technicality of the course above most other courses I've ridden and the potential of really hurting myself. The one thing that kept going around my head was this image of me bottoming out on Derrifords Drop and smashing my face to bits on my stem.

As it was, I raced most of the A lines (the 2 I didnt do were Cottage Carnage and the switchback one) without a single incident which was a victory for me.

In context, Hadleigh Farm doesn't bother me in the slightest...far from it, I can't get enough of the place.

Probably prefect proof that its all psychological

I suppose the problem with technical climbing is if someone screws it up they can bollocks the person behind them too- obviously can happen on a descent too but you tend not to be so packed.

(IMO pushing up a short technical climb to avoid a slower ridden climb should be punishable by death...)

I suppose judging b-line "penalties" is a very hard thing to do right, especially since course speeds vary due to weather... I've done a couple of races where the hardest line was actually slower in places, that was annoying...

gazhurst - Member

Agree with this...if taking the B lines at Newnham lost 8 minutes across the race, could this be made up on the climbs??? Absolutely not in my opinion! 1 or 2 minutes yes, 8 minutes? not a hope in hell

I'm of a similar opinion, 2 minutes a lap is impossible to claw back and I am good at climbing. Hence my earlier comment about keeping time penalties proportional. I'm not knocking fully sussed as I think overall the course was good and they put on a great event but I think possibly some of the splits could have been dropped without loosing much.

For me its compounded by the lack of practise times for saturday racers. I didnt have time to try out all the a/b lines before the race, primarily due to the massive queues of sunday racers looking at things. For example with Kong i decided I wasnt confidnet enough to ride the a-line, but I couldnt even get at the b-line as people were standing on it to watch a-line practise, I managed two half arsed attempts (couldnt even ride the line i wanted due to watchers) at the b-line crashed both times and ended up running it in the race. I think that there should be more practise time on Sat and that the first hour should be reserved for saturday racers if courses are going to get more technical.

njee20 - Member

But does that mean that fun and open at a national race (or indeed any race series) should have a different course to elite?

Definately not in my book, its a great way for peopel to get into the sport to ride a course and then watch the elites smash it as see what skill they have.

Agreed!

The one thing that kept going around my head was this image of me bottoming out on Derrifords Drop and smashing my face to bits on my stem.

We had several exposures to that particular feature at it's slipperiest during the winter series, utterly terrifying watching the tandem go down it on one round 😯

For me its compounded by the lack of practise times for saturday racers. I didnt have time to try out all the a/b lines before the race, primarily due to the massive queues of sunday racers looking at things. For example with Kong i decided I wasnt confidnet enough to ride the a-line, but I couldnt even get at the b-line as people were standing on it to watch a-line practise, I managed two half arsed attempts (couldnt even ride the line i wanted due to watchers) at the b-line crashed both times and ended up running it in the race. I think that there should be more practise time on Sat and that the first hour should be reserved for saturday racers if courses are going to get more technical.

I was there last year mate, I feel your pain. I 100% agree that the first practice period on Saturday should be reserved for those racing in the first race. Either that or open the course earlier!!!!!

We had several exposures to that particular feature at it's slipperiest during the winter series, utterly terrifying watching the tandem go down it on one round

On a tandem??? Shitabrick!!!!!!!!!!!!

yep, it was quite something to behold!

I suppose the problem with technical climbing is if someone screws it up they can bollocks the person behind them too- obviously can happen on a descent too but you tend not to be so packed.

(IMO pushing up a short technical climb to avoid a slower ridden climb should be punishable by death...)

I guess there isn't the same fear incentive on a climb to make someone pick a b-line climb either

On the plus side what I did take from the article is I don't need to get nervous about the a-lines in Dalby as they won't be in the course 😆

The thing about those complaining that the X minutes (I don't know for sure but I expect the time penalties are being over-estimated) per lap penalty is too much is that of course the technical challenge/bravery is an aspect of MTBing, and really you shouldn't be able to win (or make up the X minutes) in general on the B lines.

If you're losing sleep about it though, just take the B lines - certainly better that than not racing at all. If spectators are getting on them during practice, this does need sorting, but that's another matter.

The thing about those complaining that the X minutes (I don't know for sure but I expect the time penalties are being over-estimated) per lap penalty is too much is that of course the technical challenge/bravery is an aspect of MTBing, and really you shouldn't be able to win (or make up the X minutes) in general on the B lines

I'm not complaining about the time penalties in the sense of actually complaining. I knew I was never going to bother the sharp end of the race so it didn't really matter whether the B lines cost me 8 minutes or 8 seconds...what I thought was a bit much was just the sheer amount of tech sections. 2, 3 or 4 would have been perfect but 9 was a bit steep.

If you're losing sleep about it though, just take the B lines - certainly better that than not racing at all. If spectators are getting on them during practice, this does need sorting, but that's another matter.

Losing sleep over it is purely pschological and pretty irrational. Especially as I rode that particular A line without issue. If we don't push the boundaries then we'll never improve however if those boundaries didn't make us feel somewhat uncomfortable then we wouldn't be human....and EVERYONE has boundaries.

I have only done a handful of local XC races, so I have no knowledge of the courses at national level, but the lack of technical riding put me off carrying on with them.

Good sections of technical singletrack to really separate those with skills from the roadies on a MTB would be great, but jumps/drops with slower B lines are a step in the right direction.

Looks like Southern XC are taking note -

That one with the van in looking from the top and the woodwork on the lip looking up is massive.

Looks like Southern XC are taking note -

They've been doing so for some years, Newnham is still a massive step up. Wasing is fun!

Off to race dry & dusty newnham tomorrow evening. Bring on the tech...

I'm not the most technical rider but if I can ride 75% of the A Lines in the dark and rain as I did on the Friday at Newnham, then maybe I'm a better/braver rider than I thought.

See you there Jambo!! Yay Newnham dust!!

To be fair, I didn't go, I'm just reiterating what friends have said!

Wasn't really aiming this to be just about Newnham in the op, more about courses in general. Though I guess as newnham was the focus of that blog it's not surprising.

That southern xc course looks good though.

The thing about those complaining that the X minutes (I don't know for sure but I expect the time penalties are being over-estimated) per lap penalty is too much is that of course the technical challenge/bravery is an aspect of MTBing, and really you shouldn't be able to win (or make up the X minutes) in general on the B lines.

I kind of disagree with that, the top riders will be all riding the a-lines and smashing the fitness bits, that why they are top of the field. In midfield there will be some with better fitness and some with better technical prowess. For those fitter but less technically adept, they should be able to make up the time from the b-lines each lap. Remember making up that time is not 'free' time, every time you have to claw back 10s it hurts and makes the chances of winning an end of race sprint or whatever harder. For me that's the purpose of the a/b split, done well it actually challenges both types of rider while keeping the racing close.

I had an evening with the organisers and came away being able to ride nearly all of the course. Remember I'm a slow, 40 something rider. If I can do it then so should 95% of the field be able to. Its all about practice. I got home that evening and my wife couldn't shut me up. I was buzzing!

This makes me smile. Fantastic stuff - really well done! I wish we wrote a little more on the forum about these type of things.

This thread just went from theory to wtf. Guess it's the c line on the log drop for me on Sunday!

Wasing?

The B-line is the old a-line, and very easy. The A-line is rollable if you hug the right, but it's fairly hairy. You'll lose no time taking the B-line.

My take on it is it's mountain biking. If you want a cycling race where fitness is king then race cyclo cross or on the road. If you want a race that combines fitness and bike handling skills then race xc.

I remember a few years ago in response to the mountain mayhem course being a bit on the easier side they put in a mildly technical section. While fun to ride it gained no advantage over the b line.

If you're not good enough to ride the a line you should be punished by losing time.

If you want a cycling race where fitness is king then race cyclo cross or on the road. If you want a race that combines fitness and bike handling skills then race xc.

Why not include 20 foot road gaps and 10 foot drops to flat then? It's not binary, we're not talking about fields a la Mayhem, no one wants that, there is no right answer as some people will always want more, whilst others will be put off.

People will always have differnet opinions on courses and prefer the courses that suit their skill set. What I find slightly pathetic is that people with better technical skills than fitness belittle people who are the other way round. Both require significant amounts of dedication. XC was orginally an endurance sport.

Maybe the courses have nothing to do with the lack of numbers racing, maybe xc is just not as popular given the diveristy of other tyes of mtb. I'm uncertain whether the 'weekend warrior,' doing it for a laugh, enduro crowd would suddenly start racing xc if all the courses were as technical as Newnham, the climbs were still pretty sapping. Likewise I dont know if more of the cx crowd would race if courses were more like I remember from the nineties (like the gorricks are now), as a lot of them focus on road.

mountain mayhem course being a bit on the easier side

The Malverns / Mountain Mayhem course has always been easy from a technical view point.

Which is a byproduct of the volume of riders. Victim of its own success. All Mayhem venues have been technically very easy.

Why not include 20 foot road gaps and 10 foot drops to flat then?

Mystic Meg's BC XC national champs 2017 course prediction? -
[url= http://dirtmountainbike.com/videos/dean-tennant-goes-even-bigger-higher-calling-2.html ]here[/url] 😆

Why not include 20 foot road gaps and 10 foot drops to flat then?

Indeed why not. If anyone could ride them, I'd enjoy watching this whilst I took the B or C line, and it'd be something to aim for!

I havent raced XC in the last few years (since it got the O) but i always thought gorricks were about right; they were technical enough to make mid pack running a good day out on the bike - and not just a fitness test.

Flip side is that every tech feature you'd be stuck behind someone making a right dogs dinner out of it. i remember one race, someone going home in a ambulance as there was a small roller/ pump section.

and that's the crux of the issue; people are hospitalising themselves over what i thought was very easy wheels on the ground riding (I am far from a strong technical rider)

i always thought gorricks were about right; they were technical enough to make mid pack running a good day out on the bike - and not just a fitness test.

Gorrick races are the most convenient for me despite a 100+ mile journey each way but I agree - it's a good day out on the bike. Their courses are better than the riding straight from my doorstep so I'd have to get in the car anyway for a decent ride (not always possible w/o notice), plus there's no having to stop and wait for people.

A few of their races this year have had some a/b lines none of which I've hesitated over choosing the a-line as they've all been rollable. I wouldn't mind seeing more technical/fun features like drops and small jumps at Gorrick.

Pretty much a mid pack rider but still frequently been held up on descents as well as climbs at Gorrick.

I dont know if more of the cx crowd would race if courses were more like I remember from the nineties (like the gorricks are now), as a lot of them focus on road.

Just to make it clear wasn't slating gorrick at all, the ones I've done are great courses, as said above technical enough but not terrifying. But they remind me of racing in the mid to late nineties. The courses are accessible to all and unsurprisingly the fields are big in gorrick too. What I meant was that here in Wales cx is booming, but some won't race mtb due to perceived danger.

That's another good point you make re rider skills, even without crazy a-lines, technical riders are stil rewarded in any singletrack section and will make gaps

The log drop at Wasing isn't rollable down the right any more... That line's been blocked off from what I can see in the photos.

Interesting thread - I've only 'raced' MTBs as part of an off-road triathlon and that was what told me I needed to learn some proper skills. However, I was up at Porridge Pot on Thursday and riding what I assumed was the Gorrick track.

Apart from the fact that it was great fun and surprisingly little eroded, the thing that amazed me was how do you race something as tight at that? If I was on the course (reddy brown trail) there was very little room to overtake, quite a few tightish bends and one shirt hill that was quite difficulty to make it up (at least if you did not know what was coming). On the first lap I was thinking - good job this is not a race because the people behind me would be getting pretty pissed off!!

Log jump A line at Wasing closed - think after a crash. Mini log jump A line (first after the start) had a couple of crashes. Watching people being tended too a bit sobering.

Riding As while fresh is a lot easier than when breathing out of every available orifice!

Rode the b line at the massive drop - a line was too much for me. Saw the girl stack it there - looked horrible, but I understand from the paramedic that she is ok.

The gap jump (mini log jump) took a bit of practice for me, but in the end got it nailed in practice. Race was a different issue though, as the fella in front braked hard on the lip causing me and others to dismount on lap 1. On lap 2 had a clear run, but sprinted at the lip like an idiot and overshot the landing by a country mile, and had a squirrelly moment. Lap 3 i crashed earlier in the lap, so took the b line.

Anyway lots of fun and a really fast course.

I heard how many collar bones the big A line has bust over the years and avoided!

I stood at the top, pondered a bit then went for the b line. 🙂

On lap 2 had a clear run, but sprinted at the lip like an idiot and overshot the landing by a country mile, and had a squirrelly moment

I did that last year! On my 4th lap got a bit cocky and went flying!

Some 'friends of friends of friends' raced Newnham and some photos popped up on my Facebook. As soon as I saw them I had a look for when the next race was down there. Course looks really good, personally I'm all for more technical A/B/C lines as I'm a bit overbiked for XC, but I do think it does add another tactcial dimension which keeps it interesting.

newnham on friday night was great. my fitness was more than a little lacking but the downhills were fun...

take control of your destiny... or maybe jsut become a statistic:
[url= https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/survey-taken/?sm=8vJOE1Tbj0kpZ4tttGEM8ID53N5vsZtcGlR37LLNgjQ5z2BIrZFfDsKFHpXnwjKY2G5do27rxZlC_2B76tt0HVkA_3D_3D ]Xc course survey from Facebook[/url]