[Closed] XC racing. How technical?

It is quite frustrating for someone who is pretty good on the bike but not fanatasticly fit to have some whippet shoot past on a fireroad only to then [spend the next 15mins trying not to crash into their back wheel on the descent

Things is I kind of accepted that is part of XC racing. One way round would be technical climbs which reward skilled not just fit riders.

Personally I would prefer rally stages where each rider is timed between sections and given a full clear run, but I just don't think that's practical.

Has anyone had a crazed cyclist-chasing dog as a course hazard?
We've got one at HTN2.0.

It 'kicks in' just as you're getting bored on an uphill cobbled section.
We could strap a yellow flag to it if it helps.

Not read all this thread, so sorry if this has been mentioned already.

Dalby apparently has a new xc course which has a little more tech than usually found on xc courses, rock sections and drops, etc..

So i think things are heading that way, which will make xc more fun.

Most technical i've experienced is witches wood at a very wet cheddar challenge 04, but i was new to MTB then.

I'd love to see more technical sections in races, however they'd need to be as an alternative line, and even that might not work as different riders have a different rate at which they tackle techy bits and this could prove dangerous and too higher risk.

If you ride a classic XC bike (flat barred, v-braked, old Sid fork, skinny-tyred) most types of terrain are 'technical'.

Did the Rough Ride last year, and coming off the hills at 30mph+ on rutted paths is not for the faint-hearted - glad I've a proper bike. But the XC boys don't like it up-em!

Tinsy you can't have a no overtaking rule in an XC race surely

no over taking zones arequite common for bridleway/row sections.

last year there was several injuries at one of the gorrick races including a hospitalisation - it wasn't tech it was just some undulations!!

i think the problem was people who couldn't pump/ suck up bumps were getting the timing wrong and going over the bars.

[i]But the XC boys don't like it up-em! [/i]

The top XC riders can descend better than you would believe possible, especially given that they're usually on carbon HT's.

That video showing the Expert riders at Dalby that was linked to earlier in this thread - I think some people assume that the guys running it are crap/scared etc but it's usually nothing to do with that, it's a measure of speed vs risk. As that video shows it's just as quick to run it, probably less dangerous so they'll choose to run if it's slightly dicey (ie lots of other riders around). Do you ride it for the potential gain of a couple of seconds but with the risk of crashing (or having someone else crash into you) or do you take the safe option and run it, knowing that you'll only lose a second or two at most but you won't break yourself/the bike and you'll finish the race.

If you put really tech stuff into an XC race, the riders will simply jump off, run it and jump back on CX style. Not cos they can't do it but because it's quicker. So you need to find a happy balance where the riders will actually ride it.

jambo, in the name of 'research', if I pitch up at chipshop on the 'wrong' (100mm xc) bike and clippy pedals, will the big boys pick on me? The more i think about it the more of a laugh it sounds. A little diversion off the open track round the proto-pump track would be truly funny.

I suppose a less financially risky version would be incorporating it into the early morning of one of the cake race/timed run days so folk could bring 2 bikes and have a go at both, and you don't have to close the place for normal riding for another weekend day.

penalty times if caught running would stop that behaviour. At the end of the day it's supposed to be a mountain bike race. Getting off the bike and running sections isn't in the spirit of things.

Pro XC racers and youth and junior are all very good technically ( a lot better than what you think) you will be very surprised at what they can do with this.

courses can be very very technical, look at the 2009 UCI World cup course, bet half of you willy wavers would think twice about riding half of it.

for 80mm-100mm races bike they can fly on the single track, they will have any of you willy wavers on here.

they get of their bikes and run if its quicker, as i do when I'm racing nothing like a bit of cross. it is meant to be the fastest one around the course isn't it ??

These guys are quicker than you realize. they are lightning fast Up and Down.

That video showing the Expert riders at Dalby that was linked to earlier in this thread - I think some people assume that the guys running it are crap/scared etc but it's usually nothing to do with that, it's a measure of speed vs risk.

I'm happy to admit I'm in that video running down, as the bloke crashed just as we were 'lining up', so it made more sense to just jump off and run down the chicken run, not knowing if he was gonna jump up and out the way as he did, or lie there for ages. That's what I mean about drops though, there's no real skill there, it's just a bit of balls, but it totally ruins the flow of the race.

They've changed it now anyway haven't they, made it shallower.

Walking/pushing has a long and honourable history as part of UK mountain biking. 🙂

The good thing is that there is a format for everyone:
Riding over technical terrain without dabbing - Trials
Technical speed downwards without need for speed upward - DH
Rally style events - Kona Mashup
All round riding - Singletrack Weekender
etc.
etc.

XC racing has got to where it is today through a process of evolution. Personally, I like technical tracks (Inners BUSAs track was pretty sweet) but I think that there is space for many types of track, its impossible to define the perfect track and every single one will be a different balance between the a wide range of factors including but not limited to skill, fitness, tactics, bottle, equipment choice and preparation. In a very real sense though, since they are the springboard to larger events and eventually World Cups, World Champs and the Olympics, they have to reflect the design and philosophy of the global scene, for better or worse.

Most events in this country are run under the auspices of BC. When BC officials assess a track it has to be primarily safe and fair, distance and other factors also have to be considered however the first two are paramount. Usually the same track will be used for all races so it has to be suitable for all riders especially the younger ones and not just the testoterone fuelled weekend warriors. This does leave a large amount of leeway but usually rules out doubles, large drops and the like.

As for comments about marshals, marshalling is (as I suspect many of the contributers to this thread know) often a tedious and thankless task, if more racers volunteered occasionally both the quantity and standard of marshalling improve it would help organisers hugely.

That's what I mean about drops though, there's no real skill there, it's just a bit of balls

The Squamish GearJammer is a pretty decent technical XC race. Its the more technical equivalent race to the Squamish Test of Metal, which sell out 1000 places in about 4 hours.. lots of roadies enter and do reasonably. Not much technical riding aside from the plunge.
The GearJammer on the other hand has virtually no road orientated riders and is cool as you get to mix it up with the old school guys.

In terms of uber technical, the now ceased Samurai of single track and new addition of the exciting format of the 'Four Jacks' races in Whistler are a great example of where technical XC racing should be imo. [url= http://www.worca.com/?page_id=765 ]Four Jacks[/url]
I'd personally rather race a techy course than a flat 'leggy' course.. but then I'm not the majority of people that are going to pay to enter your race and the ones you want to please.

Has anyone had a crazed cyclist-chasing dog as a course hazard?
We've got one at HTN2.0.

It 'kicks in' just as you're getting bored on an uphill cobbled section.
We could strap a yellow flag to it if it helps.

I would put a warning sign, "Dog sprint" with a distance count down 200,150,100 etc, yellow flag attached to the dogs tail, marshall with a whistle for when the dog starts the sprint 😉

XC racing has got to where it is today through a process of evolution.

When BC officials assess a track it has to be primarily safe and fair, distance and other factors also have to be considered however the first two are paramount.

Usually the same track will be used for all races so it has to be suitable for all riders especially the younger ones and not just the testoterone fuelled weekend warriors.

penalty times if caught running would stop that behaviour. At the end of the day it's supposed to be a mountain bike race. Getting off the bike and running sections isn't in the spirit of things.

and as stated before time penalties can't be imposed, will be impractical, and will be disputed,

photo's of xc racing (includes wheels off ground content)
http://clearshot-photos.com/bike%20gallerys/Brown%20backs%20r3%20s2/index.html

Here's a plan...

1) Join British Cycling (£80*)
2) Register the event (£20)
3) Contact your local events officer [url= http://new.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/article/eventst-Regional-Events-Officers-Contacts-0 ]Click[/url]

It is their job to promote events and if your local officer is anything like mine (Phil West) they are pretty good at it.

*I think

This sounds more like a new dicipline to me.
Running will always be part of xc, if youre just about to lap a bunch of twenty riders pootling on the narrowest singletrack running will be the quickest option, just like running around fallen riders or slow riders on climbs.
The other concern is it might slow down races, XC is getting faster. And XC is about fitness pure and simple.
To me and forgive me if I sound cynical, it seems as if you want to penalise pure racers by deducting time for dabbing, walking or running.
However, I like to see sport evolve which xc has, but I think gentle intergration is the way.

crazy-legs

I know how fast the fast boys are, they are the guys I only ever see at the start when I do the Gorricks' - and I reckon the Vets are the fastest of the lot.

But its they not-so-fast guys who I see, and while good on the ups are a nightmare on the techy bits, and as said, especially the faster bits.

And I don't care if its quicker to run/walk - I ain't doing it, I'm riding!

I reckon the Vets are the fastest of the lot

You don't look at the results then? Mark Chadbourne who won 'Super Vets' at the last Gorrick would've been 8th in Expert after one lap. His lap times also tailed off much more quickly. Don't get me wrong, there are some incredibly fast vets, particularly this year with Paul Hopkins and Mark Hutt, but they're not the quickest!

[i]You don't look at the results then?[/i]

TBH I only check total race-time for the distance I race, so really only look at the 3-lappers - but haven't managed one this year so far, but have done the majority for the previous 3-4 years. Will be at the Enduro though.

hels - Member
Actually you can add Photographers to the list of Hazard Warnings for Riders. I am always more alert when I see one of those vultures, although one day I might get annoyed enough to accidently crash into one, I think it's a liberty to take pics of complete strangers in public (and even more to publish them) but I appear to be old-fashioned on that one.

Maybe try not going outside then? Oh, and I take it you only take photos outside when there's no-one else at all in sight? 🙄

To be fair as we have mentioned enduro (real ones), i think XC race should be at least about that level of thech
[url]

It's not that hard as even someone like me can go down all of it on the bike, but it would at least keep the roadies at bay.

Put your ****ing cock away damn it, I really am tired of the sight of it.

XC racing is about testing all aspects of a riders ability, most notably fitness. At the point at which fitness stops being a key element of racing then it stops being XC. He's wearing a full face lid, and probably other armour, should that be a requirement of XC?

As you've just linked to it, there are already races on terrain like that, why turn XC into that too? Should we make DH races more pedally too, like that? **** it, let's just turn cross races into that too shall we.

Juan as you're clearly a bike handling god please do me a favour and don't ever come to an XC race or anywhere I might bump into you!

While I'm at it:

It's not that hard as even someone like me can go down all of it on the bike

What a meaningless statement you cretin, you're clearly not your average XC racer, you don't appear to ride your average XC bike!

Numpty photographers* at DH races can be a serious problem. Nothing quite like being blinded by a flash just before entering a tree covered technical section 🙄

*but hats off to many many good photographers who get ace shots without the riders hardly knowing they're there.

juan whilst that's a lovely video it did appear to be closer to DH than XC and what wasn't gravity assisted seemed to be walked up. I also can't see how you could get a race field down those sort of trails.

I like the idea of a tough/technical xc but not as the norm. There is a place for a niché race even I would have a go. But xc is what it is, and as I've mentioned above courses and riders can evolve and they have over the last two decades, but a sudden drastic change to what a xc race is would be daft.
To answer another comment, yes we are riding mountainbikes but xc is cross country. That's rather like pointing out that a xc runner shouldn't wear Walshes.
And finally to let you know why I'm getting all defensive, it's because of the anti roadie and 'fit' xc rider comments. It's as if you want to embarass riders like me.
Having a cuppa tea now.

Is what you guys want actually a DH race but one were you have to pedal to the tops. Or a longer version of 4X.
See I'd like to do a DH race, but not one with anything technical in it because I would be frustrated by all the skilled riders freewheeling past me.
Sorry for being silly, but can you see how it looks to me.

My thoughts were merely to ensure that real bike handling skills were rewarded. I was thinking about a layout like the newish climb at glentress where in a few places you have the option of a steep riocky bit or a longer smoother bit. If you have the skill to ride the rocky you get a few seconds advantage. You would need some mechanism to stop people running the shorter route tho. It could be done on climbs and descents and could be as simple as a chicane on the chicken run to slow folk down.

I just would like to see it more biased towards bike handling skills and away from pure pedalling fitness. Its not cyclocross or road racing - its mountainbiking and I think you should need some MTB skills to win.

Its just a laymans observation from watching a few bits on telly and taking part in a couple of 24 hrs.

TJ it's actually cross country.
Problem is your taking one attribute away i.e fitness and replacing it with another which is skill.
The other issue is could you get a field racing in numbers against each other on this type of terrain?
I think to make want you want work would require an almost 'Time Trial' approach to the racing. And then, and sorry to sound sarcastic it would almost be a DH race with riden uplifts.
I think there's a new dicipline to be had here.
But I think it borders on selfishness to want to race xc, but not to do so until all the paramiters have been changed until it puts all the long term traditional xc racers at a disadvantage.

BTW riding a mountainbike faster than any other man on the day is a skill.

Old git - not removing the fitness element entirely - just making sure that skill gets some advantage - obviously skilled and fit wins - fit wins over just skill but the skill becomes a "tiebreak" between two folk of equal fitness. It would need careful balancing. I am only talking perhaps half a dozen obstacles in a lap with a few seconds each one.

it seems to me some cross country mtb courses have not enough skill element. It seems wrong to me that you can win a mountainbike event by running all the difficult bits.

That last bit is partly true. Though I think the level of technicality is pretty ok.
An xc course looks tame at a glance with only minor technical stuff usually off cambers, roots, rocks, ditches etc. However when you factor in rider numbers and the speeds and the fact that they're usually in heavilly wooded terrain i.e your never more than one error from a tree/head interface those minor little technicalities become a big issue.
Edit; To be fair most running is done when another person is in your way not because of the terrain, so you would have that however you designed the course.

Wow njee is touchy today. You need to look at the video with more attention.
It is not all down, there is a massive portion of pedalling (where fitness does matters) and I will dig some video of the full special so you can appreciate the length of it. Second your comment about lift assisted is purely insulting. People have to pedal to the top it's part of the rules, no lift allowed. The whole rally is about 4h30 hours long and it's doable on a XC bike (mine that is suppose to brake btw) with a XC lid. Rallye is departing from the village and going back to the village so yes you could fit a race field even a long road climb too. By not very technical I mean really not very technical, as I am far from being good (people I ride with will confirm it to you) and a friend brings his 11 year old son there and he did special one and two. So clearly not something hard.
What I she with such course is that they will keep roadies at bay. I have done Busas twice and there is nothing more frustrating than getting stuck behind someone WALKING down the slope because he can't ride a effin bike.
Why do you think I have lost interest in doing XC races? What is the point of doing loops around a muddy field. I think XC race should at least be as technical as the busas at inners.

Mind you I like the idea of a two laps around a DH course where you have to pedal up.

XC racing with pure fitness in mind is fine, but being that XC and Enduro races are becoming increasingly popular to the casual cyclist, not just 'olympians', why wouldn't you want to create a format that appeals to the vast majority.
If I were setting up a commercial XC race, I'd be marketing it to casual racers vs pro athletes.. there are far more recreational racers out there.
If you want to reward fitness alone then road time trails and cyclocross racing are what you should look at.

I'm still happy to pedal my arse off during an XC race but personally find the challenge of getting through a technical section of trail far more rewarding that sprinting along doubletrack trying to keep up with a lycra clad, shaved legged whippet.

Its certainly necessary to give the superhuman chance to clear out at the start of the race with primes along the course to reward their fitness so having a good long road into forest service into double track section before hitting any singletrack is a must, but throw in some decent technical riding that encompasses what mountain biking is so all those casual riders who enter for the experience don't get really bored and consequently don't bother racing again.

I guess my experience is pretty much all based on Canadian XC racing, so we have to encompass technical ability along with fitness. BC Bike Race for example. I did on UK race once and vowed never to enter a race with no technical aspect ever again 😉

?
Yes it's becoming popular. That's why you'll get a race for 4 year olds upwards and novice adults incorporated into the event. And TBH 'recreational' riders would struggle on the mildly technical bits of any xc, let alone on a course that would put even the most hardened xc racer in trouble.
XC racing stopped being field edge years ago anyway.
Another thing that occured to me, what with being down south is that the sort of terrain we're talking about only exists in a few places i.e Peaks, Wales and Scotland.
There is room for this, but I think it would have to be a seperate dicipline to normal cross country. But I think the main problem would be finding courses that were both technical and able to support large numbers of riders racing each other because as youve said you don't want to eliminate the fitness aspect.
Fast forward five years and you'll have the same guys moaning that they keep getting overtaken by race whippets who have learnt the skills, they'd probably be accused of taking it too seriously. Then the sport would be so bloomin dificult no newcommers would dare enter.

This is all a bit like the arguement put forward by people that don't like the idea of cyclocross bikes being an advantage in cyclocross races.
These sports are what they are why can't people accept this. If you don't like them or don't want to ride them then don't.
Try...DH, 4X, Enduros, 12s, 24s, trials, whatever Freeride events are called 😐 But rather than change a well established sport, it's even bloody Olympic for Gods sake do something different.

blimey, all he wants to do is see whether his local dh riding location is any good for an xc race and you lot come along and accuse each other of dumbing down/willy waving. 😆

FWIW, the spot in the jambo's original question used to have small grassroots xc races in the earlier 90's, albeit on very different trails to the ones there now. I expect the last 2 pages ^^ have put him off inviting any xc racers there though. 😕

It shouldn't really Jambos idea is a good one. But as usual a STW thread goes off on a tangent about turning all xc into uber tech riding.
As you've probably worked out I live in a world a million miles from downhill.
However are we looking at something like the Kona Mashup? A circuit race were only sections of the lap are timed.

As someone just getting into racing I agree with bearback. Thats the sort of racing I want to do. My first race was the SPAM winter challenge. Nearly put me off racing permanently.

I'd be marketing it to casual racers vs pro athletes

And TBH 'recreational' riders would struggle on the mildly technical bits of any xc, let alone on a course that would put even the most hardened xc racer in trouble.

the reality is that technical bits will never balance the fitness bits as they go so fast up hill, what you can do is make the race challenging for the brain as well as the legs

It seems wrong to me that you can win a mountainbike event by running all the difficult bits.

IME the people that complain/are put off by really technical bits are the recreational riders, as frankly, the skill level is usually lower.

Plenty of people come to XC races without really having done much riding, they enter fun, and if there's tonnes of bits they won't ride, they won't come back! It depends if you want to risk alienating them, to please a minority, or if you want a more 'neutral' course perhaps with the odd technical bit that will please more.

You're never going to win over everyone let's be honest, but the biggest fields are usually made up of recreational riders.

As Julian pointed out, I have a venue available that has been used before and could potentially used again for xc racing. We're in our first season of running DH races there so the owner is ameniable.

I'm not trying to kill anyone or make it inaccessible, just trying to work out what would or could work. There is enough variety in the area to run a fully fireroad/doubletrack course for the muddy roadies up to some fierce DH's I wouldn't want to ride on anything but a DH bike.

Anyway, cheers for all the feedback and stop with all the bitching.

Love you

jam bo.