Update: Gee Atherton ‘Not Too Bad’ After Massive Rampage Crash

Looking after folks is all well and good but you’re duty bound to minimise and mitigate what danger you can, for the riding that’s probably not that bad – helmets pads etc but I dread to think what the RAMS look like for the dig days.

And pretty much all of those activities have taken a look at accidents where people get hurt and changed something as a result. They haven’t stopped people doing those things but they aren’t getting the same injuries they used to get. Why is rampage any different?

Historic examples aside, I’m not suggesting rampage is any different, quite the opposite. My point is that “telling people not to do these things, it’s their choice to do the risky stuff” is utter nonsense but it’s not an age old phenomenon.
We let people do stuff until it becomes too risky (or costly depending on how cynic want to be) then we say enough.
Societies appetite for low risk is new.

Is it just me or does anyone else find it slightly disturbing that Gee has barely got to hospial before the crash is on social media for entertainment

Are you new to the internet?

Travis Pastrana once did a run of the A-line trail in Whistler, attempting to backflip every jump. He binned it about halfway down, no injuries or anything, but the video of the crash was online before he got to the bottom.

: /

not the news anyone wants to hear ..

I think it’s naive to suggest that social media and sponsorship doesn’t indirectly encourage a greater level of risk taking.

I watched an interesting docu on Uli Steck earlier this week that seems relevant, about how a climber at the absolute upper limits of solo speed mountaineering progressed and handled the risks and media that went with it all.

2 good points made were, first that it’s simply a matter of statistics at that level – keep pushing and in time you will fall and most likely you’ll die.

The second point was strong – if you ‘do it for your own reasons’ (as some say, that’s not a comment or point related to Gee) then why put it on social media or do it for sponsors? If it’s truly for your own reasons you just get on and do it and reflect in private. If it’s sponsored then there has to be an element of pressure to keep going or maintain your rep, butting up against that point about statistics.

Sadly Steck fell and died in the end and even though I doubt from climber heaven he has any regrets in his life, I doubt he wanted it to end that way? His main rival in that bigger-faster arena seems to have accepted second place in the eyes of some and backed off. It’s a fascinating topic. No-one goes into things like this expecting a bad outcome, but if it wasn’t a possibility the whole scene wouldn’t be what it is. The ‘pushing your limits’ and progression thing has quite different risks and rewards in different areas of riding.

^ You can, plenty do? You might just do less of it or not be present in the big events which isn’t compatible with being a ‘pro’ so we’re back to that point on rep, competition etc?

Just to be clear I’m not being critical here, just the point about it being a marketing industry and a job for some top riders, climbers etc and that must come with other pressures beyond the actual sport. Fair dues to them handling all that.

I remember years ago reading a piece about snowboarding and the athlete in that being very clear that people wouldn’t be going as big as they were unless it was for magazines and videos.

I have, on occasion, been on the slopes with one of the big names in winter sports (X-games finalist and i think he was/is on the redbull roster) he went to school with a friend of mine, so if we’re at the same resort at the same time, he’s there for some slope time and a few beers.
His *thing* when we’ve been out has always been about precision, repeatability, complexity and fun. So he’ll happily spend a morning going up and down the same half dozen runs hitting the same half dozen features (natural or otherwise) doing more and more complex tricks, flips and suchlike. I’ve never seen him more than 2m off the ground, except on TV.
TBH, my friend was getting bigger, and more stupidly, airborne. With predictable results.

The relationship between event sponsor, bike etc manufacturer and sponsor and athlete does seem quite warped, though you could argue it’s just an extension of the one that exists in DH etc.

An event sponsor with plenty of cash throws a bit of it at facilitating an event. Bike manufacturer does the same to a lesser extent – less affluent and less money thrown. Athlete who is young, dumb and full of cum…. and comparatively poor  provides the money maker moment, for comparatively little financial reward. All the physical risk is entirely with the young, poor (comparatively) talent; all the brand enhancement is showered on the people sitting on their arses.

I guess that is effectively the entire model for professional sport and it’s sponsors. But for me there is a line where the risk for one and the reward for the other breaks an ethic elastic limit. For me Rampage is probably the wrong side of the line.

would your velocity increase to 30mph by which point landing would be difficult?

It’ll depend mostly on your angle of approach to the ground – there’s a reason you don’t land a jet like a helicopter but the jet still lands fine.

Of course if you put a Tredmill on the lip, the bike might never takeoff

Is it just me or does anyone else find it slightly disturbing that Gee has barely got to hospial before the crash is on social media for entertainment

Disturbing? No, of course not. It’s the whole reason the event exists. RedBull must be so happy the event has picked up so much internet engagement already, days before the main event. Sure, some MTBers will marvel at the skills, but outside of that tiny world everybody else watches for the crashes.

How big a drop would it take to get 80kg to terminal velocity? I think there’s some GCSE maths to work this out, but it’s been too long

“terminal velocity” is the speed where you are falling at a constant speed becuase the force of gravity on you is equal to the resistance of the air (which increases at higher speed). Air resistance is very much beyond GCSE maths.
if you meant the speed which is fatal to the brain or will break bones, remember its not the speed, its the acceleraation/deceleration. A combination of a sloped landing, suspension and muscles decrease this.

Last year I remember Cathro saying that he wasn’t quite at race fitness, and that landing one of the drops was like jumping into a pressup. His arms couldnt take it and he whacked the stem with his chest.

When do you think he’ll grow up

Not yet 🙂

I just used a terminal velocity website to approximate a speed of 200km/h, or 54 m/s.

Given gravitational acceleration at 9.8 m/s/s, let’s call it 10 then 5.4 seconds of freefall in a prone position to reach terminal velocity.

I then Googled how long it takes for a skydiver to reach terminal velocity and once source says about 5 seconds so lets go with that. Therefore lets go with 5 seconds, although the bike adds a good bit of drag.

From Wikipedia, d = 1/2 gt^2

t from above is 5.

d = 1/2 *9.8 * 25 = 122.5 meters, or 400 feet.  I saw Gee’s drop quoted at 60 feet.

As above, it’s the deceleration that gets you though!  And I wrecked myself on a 6 foot drop.  Get well soon Gee!

Ski jumpers jump 100m+ and land on their feet with no added suspension.

The angle of the landing surface matters and there’s no real limit to the speed/distance you can drop if it’s perfectly engineered to match your trajectory (and pull you out of it gradually). But if you come off then you’re tumbling at high speed…

If you’re travelling much faster than your wheels are rotating there’s liable to be a bit of a skid on touchdown which might be hard to handle. Ski-map jumpers have lateral stability built-in through their two feet (skis) but a bike needs a bit of steerage.

That’s 100m+ horizontal though – the vertical, albeit considerable, is less.

As you say though, it’s all about the transition.

Gee Atherton is 38. When do you think he’ll grow up

You’re asking this here where we’re mostly overgrown schoolboys dicking around on bikes! My irony meter is close to breaking 😀

@thepurist agreed, see also Group B rallying, Formula 1 and even the pro-cycling peloton.

All of which have continued despite being made more safe.

Some interesting parallels between this thread and this podcast conversation about risk/reward and potential for injury. from here and from 1:18 about risk, backflips and BMX vert riders. Martyn Ashton injured himself permanently on a comparatively tiny skate park jump doing a trick he’d done thousands of times. I’ve had at least one neck-jarring impact from what would otherwise have been a standard tumble. Martyn’s right, we’re all an unfortunate accident away from something lifechanging.

And a week or so later, Olly’s out digging in the desert for one of his best mates. Must be weighing heavily, between the laughs and the callouses.

Really good interview, especially for anyone who grew up reading MBUK.

The payoff is if you make it though…

Semenuk estimated to earn $1million a year. (Also for comparison Vergier estimated at $300-500,000/year, Neff’s net worth estimated at $3.9 million, Mads Pedersen about $1mill/year)

I would love to know how that was worked out and how accurate it is

Yeah, 3 metres from a frame onto the floor. Rotational injury to his spine as he hit the deck…