Forum menu
Changing the categories in XC comes up from time to time. Seems a bit like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, frankly. You would be better off fixing that big hole in the boat, or not steaming blindly towards it in the first place.
Everyone has a view on what would be best for categories, generally based on their own personal circumstances.
Mind you I guess it would give the illusion of progress being made to fix things, some obvious signs of activity.
I haven't read anything but:
what do you like the most? Riding around a muddy field for one and half hour of doing 7 times the same boring loop? Getting 4-5 hours in the heart of mountains riding with your friends on nice techy singletrack? Or getting 5000 m of altitude loss on a couple of highly adrenaline fueled tracks all day long.
Or on the other hand what do you enjoy the most watching? The olympics XC or Danny Hart run at champery?
Believe it or not, some people, even some XC racers enjoy a technical challenge and race so they can excel on tougher parts, not necessarily win . If races had a better balance of climbing/flat/technical sections people might be more interested. I'd do more XC races if I thought there would be a decent amount of fun parts to balance out the hard work. The last thing it needs, imo is more tracks where a cyclocross bike would be faster.
comes down to course design and what level your pitching the race at. If you want technical go race national level, but if your just starting out is that really the best place to start?
I think something else that could be considered is the way road races are categorised? but rather than the road ability cats for entry E/1, 2/3/4 etc. make it clear what the course is like, have clear guidance on what makes a local race etc.
Obviously you need enough races to make it work though,
I haven't rad anything but:
what do you like the most? Riding around a muddy field for one and half hour of doing 7 times the same boring loop? Getting 4-5 hours in the heart of mountains riding with your friend on nice techy singletrack? Or getting 5000 m of altitude loss on a couple of highly adrenaline fueled tracks with your friends.Or on the other hand what do you enjoy the most watching? The olympics XC or Danny Hart run at champery?
Juan,
Everyone knows your attitude to XC racing. what your describing is fine and can be a nice way of spending a day, but it isn't XC racing. Asfor your last point, DH is to me watching paint dry, too slow, too boring. A lot of this is down to coverage i suspect. But each to their own.
I enjoy Cristalp, what better than spending a day crossing the Swiss Alps, climbs, downhills, etc. It is a race for a few at the front but for most, it is just a dayout and a challenge. It certainly isn't an XC race though.
Believe it or not, some people, even some XC racers enjoy a technical challenge and race so they can excel on tougher parts, not necessarily win . If races had a better balance of climbing/flat/technical sections people might be more interested. I'd do more XC races if I thought there would be a decent amount of fun parts to balance out the hard work. The last thing it needs, imo is more tracks where a cyclocross bike would be faster. Not many riders (xc racers) I know want to pay/drive/race an event where it's already a foregone conclusion that the guy who spends most time on his roadbike will win
Muddyfunster what races are you on about exactly ? I dont have much experience but I'd still say for most races you'd still be better on a MTB as the suspension helps even out mistakes when your tired.
I wonder if some of the issues Muddyfunster mentions are just a side-effect of the way the hierarchy works. Technicality generally goes up as the 'level' does, however the standard does too. So you go to a 'local' level race and they're the least technical (I did do one in Wales once which was just around fields, literally, it was utter toss, completely rubbish), so you get the perception that the fittest rider wins, with little skill, probably justified. Perhaps MF finishes in the top 1/3.
Then you look at a national race, which by and large are more technical, but the standard is higher, so MF (for example) still finishes in the top 1/3, because despite being better on the technical sections, his lower fitness compared to the top guys is more obvious.
Dunno, just saying. I certainly don't think that more technical races at a grass-roots level is what is needed to encourage people in.
Saying that... is it even struggling? Entry numbers seem to be well up, seem to be more people racing than in any time I've been racing since 2000 (I realise this was after the 'hey-day' to an extent, but I don't think it's waning).
Or on the other hand what do you enjoy the most watching? The olympics XC or Danny Hart run at champery?
Can I enjoy watching both?
I mean I don't have to be entirely in one tribe or the other do I?
I do really like DH racing, but I did also enjoy watching the Olympic XC, and the BMX, track, Road and TT events...
It's been nice to have cycling on the TV so much lately, it'll be a shame now the olympics and TDF are over that general cycling coverage will sharply drop off again...
Or on the other hand what do you enjoy the most watching? The olympics XC or Danny Hart run at champery?
XC in Person
DH on TV
Riding around a muddy field for one and half hour of doing 7 times the same boring loop?
Apparently loads of people do this for 24hr
Everyone knows your attitude to XC racing. what your describing is fine and can be a nice way of spending a day, but it isn't XC racing
You probably mean the middle bits, it isn't XC racing indeed. IT's called Enduro or XMB. And it is indeed way less boring than XC. I raced my share while in the UK. And to be honest only one race was actually nice and fun to ride. All the other where boring as hell.
Apparently loads of people do this for 24hr
Indeed, it makes that argument flawed, because 24 hour races get far more entrants than XC (or Enduro or DH or stage) races, despite being more 'boring' from a terrain perspective. Indeed the biggest one (in the world?) really is just a load of fields in the Malverns. Not for everyone, but clearly what a lot of folk enjoy.
yes I wonder if alot of people get their idea of XC racing from Mountain mayhem and Sleepless. Although there are a couple of good sections in Moutain Mayhem its easily the most boring course I've raced.
Although there are a couple of good sections in Moutain Mayhem its easily the most boring course I've raced.
Partly a limiting factor of a venue that can accommodate 5000 people and all the infrastructure, partly the fact that it has to appeal to and be rideable by all levels of riders including at night/when tired.
Very much so, but likewise I think people do that (or see the pictures) and assume that's what XC racing is, perhaps unsurprisingly.
And it is indeed way less boring than XC.
In your opinion, and seeing as you're going to bring absolutely nothing constructive, perhaps you ought to jog on.
on a slightly different note - just been speaking to some (non bike) guys that got tickets for the weekend - told them there was a round ofthe NPS taking place just down the road in two weeks (langdon hills), explained it wont be anywhere near as a spectacle as this weekend, but theyre coming down, in their words - looking forward to getting a bit nearer to the bikes...
As mentioned above, there's been this attitude shift in MTBing in the past 15 years where you HAVE to now go and ride a trail centre on your 6" travel full sus because nothing else is gnarl core enough. XC has been the unfortunate victim of that.
Yet again, does this have to be expressed in such a bitchy and derogatory way? Maybe lots of people just think that kind of riding is more fun.
I seem to remember old school XC involvong lots of non technical slog around muddy fields , from what I've seen of the Hadliegh couse its considerable more tecnical with gap-jumps and rock gardens so its got to be much harder on the riders hence our boy with a broken ankle
(newer) Manchester Midweek Madness are about. Entry level, grass roots, FUN, social events on what are basically inner city parks. The course does not have to be some rock infested tech fest, anything can be a racecourse and can be hard if you do it right
interesting, I heard a story that one of the courses has a drop that hospitalised two people last year
it was in the rider brief this year with an extra "be careful", when questioned the organisers just said they had to keep it in to keep the more experienced riders happy. This year, one faller hospitalised.
hardly novice friendly.....
could all be hearsay tho........
Hadleigh is tougher than any UK course I've raced certainly, but they're not riding around a field either.
To be honest the vast majority of race courses are what I like to ride anyway (hence why I enjoy racing), a combination of fun singletrack, bit of a climbing, few technical features etc. Look at the popularity of the Surrey Hills/Swinley, I'd say most XC racing is very much like that.
interesting, I heard a story that one of the courses has a drop that hospitalised two people last year
People die racing on the road, doesn't need to be technical for folk to get hurt. Martyn Salt told me that Sherwood always sees the most injuries, despite being the least technical. The speeds are higher, the margins for error smaller.
hels - Member
Changing the categories in XC comes up from time to time. Seems a bit like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, frankly. You would be better off fixing that big hole in the boat, or not steaming blindly towards it in the first place.
any idea's are welcome, what are your idea's for reviving XC racing?
People die racing on the road, doesn't need to be technical for folk to get hurt. Martyn Salt told me that Sherwood always sees the most injuries, despite being the least technical. The speeds are higher, the margins for error smaller.
which brings me back to my point
hardly novice friendly.....
which for a series pitched at novices is odd
anyway could all be hearsay.....
The trouble is in the first year of a new licence everyone would have a 'starter' licence (cat 4?!)
This would make XC racing (as all my riding I thought was xc of one sort or another) more attractive to me as it'd cause people to settle at the levels of their abilities but have options on working harder (or not) to progress as they could according to their current abilities. However, I would imagine that unless whoever handles the roadie licence system took it on it'd be a logistical nightmare to implement and the first few years would be difficult for competitors and organisers and might even cause a drop in participants which is the last thing needed :-/
PS - speaking as a fat middle aged middle class IT cyclist, I reckon we're the best hope for the future of the sport - certainly all my children are riding and racing each other from an early age, and will probably race at some point in something (quite probably not even bikes) to see if it floats their boat.
which brings me back to my pointhardly novice friendly.....
I think you've missed my point, short of riding on a bouncy castle dressed as the Michelin man you will likely get some injuries. A course can be suitable for novices but not a wild tech-fest. Doesn't negate the risk of injury, irrespective of level.
Where the challenge lies is in building a course which is suitable for novices, but still fun/challenging for more experienced riders. Personally I think most races achieve this, and most racers I know would agree. Those who seem to be dissatisfied with what XC racing brings/involves seems to be those who are least involved in it.
Where the challenge lies is in building a course which is suitable for novices, but still fun/challenging for more experienced riders. Personally I think most races achieve this, and most racers I know would agree.
why only one course? why compromise both novices and experienced riders "experience"? why put novices off with stuff that scares them whilst not putting in stuff to excite the more experienced?
Those who seem to be dissatisfied with what XC racing brings/involves seems to be those who are least involved in it.
😆
why only one course? why compromise both novices and experienced riders "experience"? why put novices off with stuff that scares them whilst not putting in stuff to excite the more experienced?
What do you mean? I meant 'a' course for a specific instance, I don't think there should only be one XC course in the country 😕
Do you think there should be 'beginner' XC races and 'expert' races as totally separate instances? That would be wonderfully inclusive!
Seems like the problem boils down to people who have good technical ability don't like the idea of being beaten by those with a good level of physical ability, and would like to see courses designed with that in mind...
..which is a major challenge for course designers, because the fit lads will be fit on the flat and on the ups right up to the point where the climbs become quicker to run, so your tech sections need to be so big or so techy that everyone without a full susser and a dropper post comes to a halt.
[quote=crikey ]Seems like the problem boils down to people who have good technical ability don't like the idea of being beaten by those with a good level of physical ability, and would like to see courses designed with that in mind... Or they could take up darts.
Those who seem to be dissatisfied with what XC racing brings/involves seems to be those who are least involved in it.
And there's the rub.
You want fresh blood in the sport but are reluctant to change the model to make it more appealing* to newcomers.
*not sure what that would be, but some sort of 'fun' element could help.
Do you think there should be 'beginner' XC races and 'expert' races as totally separate instances? That would be wonderfully inclusive!
How about a standard course suitable for beginners with an extended 'pro' section. This would make the lap longer for the experienced racer and could contain suitably difficult technical bits.
Which course at Manchester MWM had a drop in that hospitalised people? I did two of the three courses last year and son't remember anything like that. One of the courses was fairly flat with one very sharp climb twice each lap, the other was three decent sized climbs each lap. Both were really good fun to race on, both might have been a bit dull to just ride around.
That's the point really, any course is great to race on, if you're going as quick as you can round every corner etc it's not going to get more technical than that. If you're pottering around it'll be dull.
There's quite a few on here that clearly aren't interested in pushing themselves physically, which is fine, but XC doesn't need to change so that those people enjoy 'doing' a race too, there are plenty of things for those people to go and do. And they do, as you can see at Manchester Mid Week madness; Manchester Mountain Bikers has over 200 members, but only 3 or 4 are interested in things like Manchester MWM.
The issue isn't the people riding mountain bikes in general, it's the people not riding mountain bikes. There's no reason why you should be interested in xc racing just because you own a mountain bike. As has been said earlier, it's the road cycling drain that is taking most of the people that would want to race XC as it is away and the best 'solution' is to look at that rather than worrying about what the typical MTBer wants to do with their time.
crikeySeems like the problem boils down to people who have good technical ability don't like the idea of being beaten by those with a good level of physical ability, and would like to see courses designed with that in mind...
..which is a major challenge for course designers, because the fit lads will be fit on the flat and on the ups right up to the point where the climbs become quicker to run, so your tech sections need to be so big or so techy that everyone without a full susser and a dropper post comes to a halt.
Good point. But I don't think it's just that technical riders can't handle getting beaten by fitter riders, speaking personally it's that technically good riders know they [i]can't win[/i] unless they dedicate all their time to training on the road.
why does everything boil down to how hard a course is...??
I quite often see some french dhing when I stay in the alps they have one course with different categories (full bounce - and its assoc levels, front suspension and rigid- yep rigid..)
Are they dumbed down boring courses...well last time I was the Anne Caroline and Nicolas Vouilloz turned up to race... Not the megaavalanche, grand raid, just a three minute downhill course.
I have to say, as an occasional XC racer, that road racing is probably a 'better' sport. MTB racing involves riding as hard as you can and seeing if you are faster. I have a feeling that road racing is far more interesting!
You want fresh blood in the sport but are reluctant to change the model to make it more appealing* to newcomers.*not sure what that would be, but some sort of 'fun' element could help.
But I don't think the sport is struggling, and I don't think the folk who want vastly more technical courses are the ones that need to be encouraged, I think novices and folk who find the idea of racing daunting to be a bigger untapped resource. Ie normal riders. I think the sort of people who are represented here (Juan for example) are not what the sport needs, I suspect if all races were designed to his spec we'd see numbers plummet, and certainly not entice new riders.
How many threads do you see for "I want to try racing, but I'm new to riding and don't know how to get into it" compared to "I want to try racing, but think it will be far too easy, what's the toughest race there is"?
How about a standard course suitable for beginners with an extended 'pro' section. This would make the lap longer for the experienced racer and could contain suitably difficult technical bits.
Why though? Again, I don't think the racers have an issue, it's those who don't race that do. Whether justified or not. Start splitting out the course and you get into logistical headaches and deviation from UCI regs, which in turn makes it far less likely we will succeed on a global stage as we won't get UCI points in domestic races and encourage the foreign racers over giving our top elites folk to race.
But I don't think it's just that technical riders can't handle getting beaten by fitter riders, speaking personally it's that technically good riders know they can't win unless they dedicate all their time to training on the road.
But if you want technical skill to rule entirely over fitness surely you race DH or enduro? The inherent nature of XC is that it favours fitness over skill. That's not to say you can't succeed without both, but changing that balance fundamentally changes what it is.
..But if you want technical skill to rule entirely over fitness surely you race DH or enduro? The inherent nature of XC is that it favours fitness over skill. That's not to say you can't succeed without both, but changing that balance fundamentally changes what it is.
I wouldn't want technical skill to rule entirely over fitness, that's swinging wildly the opposite way, and if that's what you think I am saying then I am not conveying my point well. Look at the megavalance - mass start, shoulder to shoulder racing. A huge test of fitness and skill and ultimately only extremely fit riders win. Extreme, extreme analogy I know.
Speaking to a lot of my mates who still race xc, they consciously avoid the less technical tracks as they just get blown away by guys who spend most of their bike time on the road. Now, these are not fat knackers, they are fitter than you, you and you. But they see no point racing around fields and flat tracks. And nor do I.
You don't have to fundamentally change it, but everything can be improved. Nothing is perfect. If it was perfect XC would have the cache of the TDF, the public awareness of F1 and rider wages to rival the premiership. I suppose that might get me on the turbo.
And there's the rub.You want fresh blood in the sport but are reluctant to change the model to make it more appealing* to newcomers.
I think people are arguing about 2 different things.
The non XC riders are on about making XC more accessible to all/more gnar riders.
The XC riders are on about minor tweaks and mainly advertising I think ! Ie getting the message out to other people (espeically youngsters) who will enjoy this sort of riding, people who might be doing triathlons, running, road racing etc ..
Personally I dont want to change the event to attract people who are nt really into the physical "race" format.
Although I do like the idea of having a longer lap with more technical features for the upper categories rather than just more laps.
Problem is, it's hard enough to get enough decent trails in a normal XC course.
Personally I would like shorter faster races on wider courses. Say half a mile or a mile or so.
It'd be MUCH more fun than 90 mins of solitary agony. Courses could be planned to create tactical options too, much like tour stages.
Although I do like the idea of having a longer lap with more technical features for the upper categories rather than just more laps.
Sadly the UCI disagrees and is pushing for shorter laps and races!
Speaking to a lot of my mates who still race xc, they consciously avoid the less technical tracks as they just get blown away by guys who spend most of their bike time on the road. Now, these are not fat knackers, they are fitter than you, you and you. But they see no point racing around fields and flat tracks. And nor do I.
I think I know what you're saying! Out of interest what courses do they consciously avoid? And which category?
Where are these less technical courses? I've never raced on a flat field.
No need to be so facetious, it's relative, there are less technical courses like Sherwood and Thetford, no one's mentioned fields. If they're actively avoiding certain courses I'm sure it's not baseless.
I think the level is relevant too. In open (for example) you get some fit riders who are basically roadies who really will excel on a course like that. In elite you rarely get any real shocks, the racing will be closer, which can mean people being nearer the front, but it's fairly uncommon for someone to win at Sherwood who isn't in the top 10 normally. For example.
Why though? Again, I don't think the racers have an issue, it's those who don't race that do.
I think the problem is getting those that don't to do. There are lots more people not racing who would if encouraged into it. XC racing has an ageing participant profile, nothing wrong with older riders but there are very few kids actually racing XC, that's what I think is an issue.
Whether justified or not. Start splitting out the course and you get into logistical headaches and deviation from UCI regs, which in turn makes it far less likely we will succeed on a global stage as we won't get UCI points in domestic races and encourage the foreign racers over giving our top elites folk to race
comparing the a UCI ranked race to a grass roots fish and chipper?
even BC disagree with you
10.4 Authorised Technical Assistance (TA)
10.4.1 Technical assistance during a Cross Country or Marathon/Endurance race will be permitted in National Championships, and National Series rounds, subject to the following conditions.
[b]Other than in exceptional circumstances, and entirely at the discretion of the organiser and Chief Commissaire, technical assistance at other domestic cross country races will not be permitted.[/b]
for local racing it's the quality of the organisation, the thought in the course design and the atmosphere that matter
trying to emulate a UCI ranked event is the last thing you worry about
Start splitting out the course and you get into logistical headaches and deviation from UCI regs
why? you are supposed to have loads of marshals to ensure
10.5.2.2 All marshals must ideally have line of sight with each other and carry whistles which will be blown with a short sharp blast as the next rider approaches.
why not have marshalled course splits?
Personally I would like shorter faster races on wider courses. Say half a mile or a mile or so.
that's the new XC eliminator format 😀
I did XC eliminator at BBB - it was fantastic!
njee I wasn't being facetious - someone up there mentioned flat fields, which is an annoying stereotype, so I commented.
XC racing has an ageing participant profile, nothing wrong with older riders but there are very few kids actually racing XC, that's what I think is an issue.
Far more than when I was in my teens, 8-9-10 years ago.
comparing the a UCI ranked race to a grass roots fish and chipper?
Sorry, didn't realise we were only talking local races, assumed you just meant as a whole, was just pointing that this thread started on the basis that we don't have any good XC racers, and that doing things which would mean fewer international riders and fewer UCI points would only worsen that 'issue' - whether or not you perceive it to be one is something else!
Why though? Again, I don't think the racers have an issue, it's those who don't race that do. Whether justified or not.
But the current xc racers don't seem to be able to compete at world level. There is probably many reason for that, but if you widen the talent pool and try to make it appealing to anyone who rides (4x, bmx, dh and all the other splinter cells) there's a better chance of finding the next {insert the best xcer in the world]. There are plenty of talented riders about - but they just don't do xc.
Sadly the UCI disagrees and is pushing for shorter laps and races!
How does what the UCI want prohibit changing the format in the UK to attract more/better riders?
Make it fun first, get them hooked then introduce them to the world of red tape and hoop jumping. By then they'll have the fitness and skills to compete - no matter how long the laps/races are.
It'd be MUCH more fun than 90 mins of solitary agony. Courses could be planned to create tactical options too, much like tour stages.
I agree the best races are when you are actually racing against people rather than just trying to time trial.
But I think alot of the problems here lie with the categories not the course (although a shorter a course would bunch things up).
Whats the point of having some fast/slow people in open and some fast/slow people in masters.
Why not have the slow people in one race and the faster people in another race.
A shorter course would also make the start even more important would have to be very wide to make sure a bunch or a crash didnt totally decide the race.
I remember one gorrick at swinley, I was nt in great condition but the race was packed over 100 people. I managed to get a good start then I heard someone crashed just behind me on the first bend ! Held everyone else up. I got a decent results (by my standards) because alot of good riders behind were trapped.