does tech = dangerous or does tech = difficult to get up/down at speed not dabbing
That's my point, drops/jumps aren't really in the spirit of things IMO, people do them because they have the balls (and probably the skill), or they don't because the lack the balls (and possibly the skill). Technical descents offer much more opportunity for skilled riders to open gaps over those less skilled.
Well i agree with njee, there is not much technical on a drop. However a steep twisty and rocky trail now that's techy 
Agreed, and if you want to make a course technical that's the sort of stuff that should be included.
Basically you want to reward the riders who are good bike handlers, and penalise those who aren't. Doesn't actually have to be steep to do that mind!
Worry Gill from the NPS XC at Dalby linked from the British Cycling website
Is that tech enough ?
mark nope.
I need a closer film, but from what I can see, clean line before and after a steep bit. It's not like they had to actually put the wheel in the correct place and to deal with a tight switchback in the middle of it.
Looks to me that people mistake techy with
Dangerous
Steep
Rocky
Worry Gill was IN NO WAY TECHNICAL. It's merely a drop that required a bit of balls.
Hated the start to that race, basically watched the top three ride away while the people between me and them minced it up. You can see my trackstanding at the top of that drop while the faceplanter is moved out of the way at 1min in that video.
moving away from 10..2.2 etc Hit the North and many other events are well run and as with all events will get better will more rider support. BC rules have their impracticalities and the organisers guide as a first go is OK but needs some parts addressing
I'm not sure where the obsession with "tech" parts of the course and making things more technical etc etc leads us
IMHO it's about geting the balance of the course right so that both fitness and technical skills are needed to do well whilst doing what you can with the venue (as this is the true limiting factor).
get it wrong and you will turn riders off, get it right and they come back for more. We make no claims to have got it right.
I hope the proposed race gets off the ground and is well supported, what is needed is more real racing and less faux racing (eg "challenges", marathon series etc)
After numerous meetings with BC in various muddy fields and supermarket cafes I’m not sure that either party knows what rules HtN operates under. Moutainbiking I think, certainly not CX. They gave us the mountainbike handbook but have never waived a rule book under our noses and said that we don’t comply with 10.22 or any other law.
From what I can gather as long as we and they apply a degree of common sense and ensure that the event is as safe as possible we can do what we want.
Design the course however you want to. But do it in a way that the insurer and the competitors are happy.
blimey. lots of answers for a passing thought.
anyway, watch this space. I think we'll be doing something in the future...
"but the black at laggan isn't tech at all"
Too tech for me. Guess I normally ride negative tech!
I would put in some reasonable downhill obstacles: drops, logs, awkward corners, root bundles - it makes riders think about how committed they feel. If they mince or walk them they lose time. If they crash, they lose time.
Overtaking on downhills, esp singletrack sounds dangerous - worse than 4X! I had assumed that courses were designed for chasing tails on the downhills and then overtaking on the uphills.
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.
But the XC boys don't like it up-em!
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 ballsAren't mental skills important too? Having the nerve to trust your brakes to work at the last minute, your tyres to grip in a corner and so on can have a big impact on speed and consequently results.
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. Four Jacks
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.arguably it's gone into a cul-de-sac and decline but with a few new green shoots here and there
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.I think you will find that its the organiser who does 90% of the work, the commissaire may read the risk assesment and walk a bit of the course if you are lucky (they have other things to do as well)
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.we have two courses and manage to run them at the same time and we are complete amateurs
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
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!
You don't look at the results then?
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FwlVT5Ee1o
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 **** 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.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
