[Closed] XC numbers down?

So what you really mean is that you want to have a license and points for Open/Fun?

I think fun/novice would be better left alone and up to the organisers discretion, but yes, as I said about 5 times before, there should ideally be another two point scoring steps on the ladder.

So something like:

[b]Fun/Novice[/b] (no license required - for raw beginners and maybe parents that are only really there cos their kids are.)
[b]Intro[/b] (For folk that enjoy racing, but for whatever reason aren't very good at it)
[b]Sport[/b] (Similar to intro, but at a higher level, maybe riders that train 6-8 hrs a week)
[b]Enthusiast[/b] (Riders that take their racing seriously, but have not yet, or are not able to reach higher level)
[b]Expert[/b] (As current)
[b]Elite[/b] (As current)

Obviously needs to come hand in hand with a slightly more robust promotion/relegation system, and a major media campaign to drum up fresh blood

So what you really mean is that you want to have a license and points for Open/Fun?

I'd question why, I must say.

THIS. People seem to be saying over and over "that's just how hard it is" "you need to put in more effort" and variations without really acknowledging the impact that has on participation. Again, this isn't a problem exactly- if you're happy for your sport to be small and performance oriented, that's reasonable. But it means you can't complain about low entries and lack of events. (I don't know if it's sustainable)

To counter this, you're not expected to be a fully paid up member of the PFA to pay Sunday league 5-a-side football. Why do people want a national ranking position, to have to buy a race licence and so on for a bit of fun? Why not just ride the non-ranked races, of which there are a number, and would appear to offer what a lot of people want?

fifeandy - Member
So what you really mean is that you want to have a license and points for Open/Fun?
I think fun/novice would be better left alone and up to the organisers discretion, but yes, as I said about 5 times before, there should ideally be another two point scoring steps on the ladder.

So something like:

Fun/Novice (no license required - for raw beginners and maybe parents that are only really there cos their kids are.)
Intro (For folk that enjoy racing, but for whatever reason aren't very good at it)
Sport (Similar to intro, but at a higher level, maybe riders that train 6-8 hrs a week)
Enthusiast (Riders that take their racing seriously, but have not yet, or are not able to reach higher level)
Expert (As current)
Elite (As current)

Too complicated. If anything I'd go the other way and just have novice (non ranking), senior and elite cats. It's not like we have too many people racing to make the fields too big. With your suggestion every male that went to the last Welsh xc could have had a podium.

Njee, those races don't really exist outside the SE, mores the pity.

Njee, those races don't really exist outside the SE, mores the pity.

Does virtually every race not have at least an open/fun category though? Why must stuff be ranked for those who, by their very nature, are being put off by it all being a bit serious?

Years ago Novice was renamed Open because people didn't like the insinuation that you were a Novice, do we need to rename fun too? Make it "enthusiast" or something?

If anything we're seeing consolidation of categories, I'm not sure you can go adding new ones without the numbers to support, although I fully accept it's chicken and egg.

I'm not sure why ranking points matter. In sport and expert, their main function is to try to control promotions. Are you suggesting that you shouldn't be able to directly enter sport?

Not having a license doesn't stop there being series standings to work towards. I know MSG publish a ranking for their open category. Is that not a standard thing?

I'd question why, I must say.

Why must stuff be ranked for those who, by their very nature, are being put off by it all being a bit serious?

Does virtually every race not have at least an open/fun category though?

[u]NO[/u], i'm clearly failing at explaining.
I don't have access to [u]ANY[/u] open/fun category races

I know MSG publish a ranking for their open category. Is that not a standard thing?

Again, getting somewhat tired of explaining, but open category isn't even a standard thing, let alone series rankings for it.

Does virtually every race not have at least an open/fun category though? Why must stuff be ranked for those who, by their very nature, are being put off by it all being a bit serious?

Years ago Novice was renamed Open because people didn't like the insinuation that you were a Novice, do we need to rename fun too? Make it "enthusiast" or something?

If anything we're seeing consolidation of categories, I'm not sure you can go adding new ones without the numbers to support, although I fully accept it's chicken and egg.

Do we not think that the timing of these races can be a factor though. Take the Gorrick series for example...the novice/fun races tend to be held at the very end of the day when everyone else has packed up and gone. This was exactly the reason why the Vets races at National level were moved on Sundays and the Elite race made the last race of the day. It's bad enough when the Elites finish and most trade stands and spectators have gone home to a nice Sunday roast, when the novices guys finish to a deserted arena, it has to be demoralising...I know I felt a bit like a hindrance when I was that novice (its bad enough finishing your race when the podiums for it are taking place, never mind when everyone has gone home)

Gorrick fun class is just after the u12s and the first 'main' class out.

Last out is the open male 4 hours later

Been there too Gaz, coming in to watch the winner walking off the podium!

njee20 - Member
Njee, those races don't really exist outside the SE, mores the pity.
Does virtually every race not have at least an open/fun category though? Why must stuff be ranked for those who, by their very nature, are being put off by it all being a bit serious?

Years ago Novice was renamed Open because people didn't like the insinuation that you were a Novice, do we need to rename fun too? Make it "enthusiast" or something?

If anything we're seeing consolidation of categories, I'm not sure you can go adding new ones without the numbers to support, although I fully accept it's chicken and egg.

Think we actually agree on that one.

What I meant by my comment is the more races like Gorrick that aren't bc sanctioned, aren't technical like Newnham etc, but just consist of good racing on fun flowing singletrack and a burger afterwards the better chance we have of re-invigorating the sport which will hopefully filter through to regional/ national levels. Sadly at the moment, as I understand it, these races aren't viable for an individual to do outside of the s.e. for financial reasons relating to numbers.

My local CX league (Wessex) trialled a 'novice' category lasts eason, and for this season has made it mandatory for organisers at every round. The aim is to encourage those that want to try CX but are either worried about the speed in their category, or want to just have a go and see if they like it.

It follows some pretty simple rules:

* It is run as part of the youth race (U14/U16)
* Novices set off 2 mins after the youths, so they experience having lots of other riders on the course
* The youth race is approx 30mins long, so less than seniors or vets. That way its an easier intro.
* Men and women race together
* You are expected to do a max of 3 novices in a season. After that if you are keen and want to continue you are expected to race in your respective category. That isn't really policed, its more of a guidance and to stop people from sticking in the novice
* No podium, though there is a separate results sheet
* You will get your backside kicked by the fast youths. That is fine 🙂

I wonder if a novice cat could work for local/regional racing. Its sort of like the fun cat, but set off with the youth cats so there are more riders on the course and you are not riding solo.

[i]Southern XC are run to BC regs but still allow a bit of category swapping, it's not all that rigid.[/i]

Not in the youths you can't as BC have become VERY strict. In BC races youths have to ride in their category unless they have dispensation only really happens on road). Adults is different I guess...

Gorrick fun class is just after the u12s and the first 'main' class out.

Last out is the open male 4 hours later

Been there too Gaz, coming in to watch the winner walking off the podium!

I thought I might be wrong there but the same principle applies

Gorrick fun class is just after the u12s and the first 'main' class out.

Last out is the open male 4 hours later

Been there too Gaz, coming in to watch the winner walking off the podium!

The problem with races like Gorrick though (and this is totally my opinion) is that they don't play to everyones strengths. Don't get me wrong, they are brilliant races and really down to earth events, but they don't really appeal to someone who struggles to ride single track for example. Take the last race...it literally was 100% singletrack. Now this is fantastic and can only serve to improve peoples skills over roots etc but imagine a beginner turning up, riding it for 2 or 3 laps, falling off countless times, getting dehydtrated because they can't physically drink etc...I can see why many would be put off

That said, I guess you have the other side of the spectrum where you have those races that are almost a road race (Thetford for example). Enjoyable for other reasons but again, I wouldn't say it would be a stepping stone to going onto enjoy what the sport can actually offer.

Gutted I missed that, I'm very much not a fire road kind of guy.

I think you/we have to accept riders must be of a certain level before entering though. You wouldn't enter if you'd not ridden for 20 years, you'd do wiggle rides etc first. Catering for less quick people is one thing, catering for people new to cycling is something else

It surprises me a little to read a lot of the opinions on this subject.

When I did my first xc race, I was in awe of the speed of the top guys, and from that moment on dreamed of being as fast as them. 6 years on, after an absolute shitload of regular training, I'm able to fight against my heroes for 'Sunday Glory'.
So now I've moved the bar up and am looking at National races and dreaming...

Isn't it the point to start at the bottom and dream of working up through the ranks? On the way there will be plenty of mini-battles with other riders. A good finish position just means you were among the best there that day, it doesn't count for anything really. But a shoulder to shoulder last lap, whether it's for 1st or 50th, is a memorable and thrilling thing.

It surprises me a little to read a lot of the opinions on this subject.

Isn't it the point to start at the bottom and dream of working up through the ranks? On the way there will be plenty of mini-battles with other riders. A good finish position just means you were among the best there that day, it doesn't count for anything really. But a shoulder to shoulder last lap, whether it's for 1st or 50th, is a memorable and thrilling thing.

absolutely.

but as many people are pointing out, they're entering fun/novice/sport/whatever races, and they're not getting 'shoulder to shoulder racing', they're getting lapped in the first lap by [s]people[/s] sandbaggers in their category.

for 'reasons' people, even cyclists, aren't entering xc races in the numbers they used to. and probably not in the numbers needed to keep the events funded.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned anything about the Hadleigh International Race!!!

Oh hang on, that could because hardly anyone was there and the advertising of it was almost non existent

And there, to be honest, is the problem!

@rollindoughnut.
The way you've done it shows a real determination and strength of character, and huge thumbs up from me for that.

But the overwhelming majority don't have that, they probably last 1-3 races of being destroyed and then give up. It's not a sustainable way to run anything when newcomers are driven away demoralised.

It surprises me a little to read a lot of the opinions on this subject.

When I did my first xc race, I was in awe of the speed of the top guys, and from that moment on dreamed of being as fast as them. 6 years on, after an absolute shitload of regular training, I'm able to fight against my heroes for 'Sunday Glory'.
So now I've moved the bar up and am looking at National races and dreaming...

Isn't it the point to start at the bottom and dream of working up through the ranks? On the way there will be plenty of mini-battles with other riders. A good finish position just means you were among the best there that day, it doesn't count for anything really. But a shoulder to shoulder last lap, whether it's for 1st or 50th, is a memorable and thrilling thing.

Amen! Not so long ago I was riddled with Angst about turning up and just bgeing "crap". Now I've seen the light - good summary thanks.

On the way there will be plenty of mini-battles with other riders

I think this is the key point, and the crux of the issue. I reckon too many people turn up to a race, enter in the easiest category, watch as the entire pack disappear off into the distance after 5mins, slog around for another hour in solitary no mans land then go home never to return.

Without enough other beginners/casual racers, they never get the taste of the actual racing. Its chicken and egg and I think there needs to be a real marketing push to these kind of riders. A big thing needs to be made to make first time racers feel warmly welcomed and have a good time.

I have noticed over the last few years that xc racing has become very unattractive to beginners and less-serious riders. I believe there are two main reasons for this:

The courses.

I first started racing in 2007, taking part in Gorrick, Soggy Bottom, Black Park and Southern XC races. The courses were generlly fun to ride. They had some sections that would be considered technical (roots, bomb holes, small drop offs, tricky hills), but they were all rideable for a majority of the riders and for the others it was a case of either going a bit slower, using a b-line or getting off the bike. On a section I couldn't do I could go away and train and then next time have another go at it and if I managed to do it then it was a massively rewarding experience! After a couple of years I gained the confidence to start racing the national series, which had courses that tended to be a bit more technical, but not much that couldn't be overcome with training (and a bit of bravery).

In the last 4 or 5 years there seems to have been a shift in world cup xc races, making them more shorter and more technical, mainly for the benefit of the cameras/spectators I would say. I think everyone can agree that this approach to course design has also filtered down to our national and regional races. This has resulted in races becoming more and more dangerous, with even experienced racers having bad offs and getting injured (the big drop off at Wasing being an example...). Most riders are unlucky enough to have day jobs, many even self-employed, so the xc race has developed into a very risky proposition. The flow of the courses also seems to have deteriorated, either due to riders being held up in slow technical parts or a "new section" being added, which is hideously bumpy and not well bedded in. Is there anything more enjoyable in life than absolutely nailing some twisty singletrack??

The categories.

As long as I have been racing xc, the categories have been a mess. You have people who are racing open with lap times that would be competitive in expert (giving the excuse that they have to get home early) and people racing the vets that would do well in an elite race. I don't blame them at all. They are racers and as such, are always keen to maximise their chances of a good result. As a result the 40yo+ categories have had their lap numbers increased to cater for these faster riders, making them a very unattractive proposition to many. After progressing my ability during the first copuple of years of racing in the Open category, I wanted to "go up a category", so entered into the Masters (as this was my age category on my license). However, it turned out to be a massive jump, both in terms of the the the quality of the field and the number of laps. The following year I requested that BC allow me to go into the Sport category, which was much more suitable. A few others did the same thing and eventually BC got rid of the Masters category! I would say that most riders turn up to a race to get the change to mix it with others and feel like they have actually raced, rather than getting dropped off the back and spending 2 hours on their own, wishing they went to a trail center instead.

So, what can be done?

The obvious thing to me is something that has already works well elsewhere. Ability categories for all seniors. Elite and cats 1/2/3/4. Everyone is on a level playing field. I realise this will get a bit of push back from the guys currently dominating their current age categories, but the way it is at the moment is killing the sport. It should be about the many not the few. I remember turning up at nationals, watching Nick Craig racing in the Elite in his 40s and thinking the guy was an absolute legend, before he had even got off the start line. If this is a step to far then there is a compromise. Get rid of the Open category and fill the void with the current age categories, by lowering the amount of laps and therefore making them appealing to the masses. Give the current age category "dominators" the option of either racing a shorter age category or a longer race, with people their own ability, in expert or elite. I also do see any reason why BC races can't feature non-ranking races, like hot-lap, pairs, singlespeed, plus bike, etc... The good thing about doing it this way is that it can be all done by race organisers, rather than hoping/waiting for BC to do something.

The second thing is to make the courses fun again. For the regional series then take cues from Gorrick and make the courses fast, fun and rewarding. For example, the cork scew at Crowthorne is tricky for the more novice but its not going to kill them by trying to master it. For the national series then take cues from courses like Big Dog and 24/12. Harder and more technical than a regional, but not dangerous and still fun! My first time at Dalby I found it hard but could do laps without putting a foot down (just about), but I had to take the b line on worry gill and other places. I still loved it and I was determined to master the a lines in the future. This is how it should be, in my opinion.

Catering to less experienced riders is vital. Not only does it allow us to develop better riders but it makes the events financially viable.

Next year I am planning on doing some BC races, but its events like Big Dog with their awesome course and brilliant atmosphere that I am looking forward to. I might give Enduro and CX a go too...

Richard Lang - UK-Biking

making them more shorter and more technical, mainly for the benefit of the cameras/spectators I would say. I think everyone can agree that this approach to course design has also filtered down to our national and regional races. This has resulted in races becoming more and more dangerous, with even experienced racers having bad offs and getting injured (the big drop off at Wasing being an example...).

Personally I feel that the course technicality is a solved issue with A/B/C lines. A lines can be crazy technical as long as there is an alternative.

I also do see any reason why BC races can't feature non-ranking races, like hot-lap, pairs, singlespeed, plus bike, etc..

Pairs or team relay would be great!

Time is the big kicker for "other" events. There's a certain number of classes you have to cater for. Any non point scoring classes need to be shoehorned in. And Marshalled. Ams administered. And so on.

just a thought, maybe run an xc event 'a bit' like a BMX event?

you're entered at random into a race with 40 others, 1 lap, top half go through to stream A, second half go through to stream B.

repeat until you get an A final, and a B final. The 'A' final is 2 or 3 laps, B final is one less..?

(posting this idea definitely feels like one of those 'did i really just say that out loud?' moments)

Sounds fun ahwiles, I'd have a go at that.

Would be a good way for people to find their true level as well, if that's as much an issue as some are claiming here.

just a thought, maybe run an xc event 'a bit' like a BMX event?

you're entered at random into a race with 40 others, 1 lap, top half go through to stream A, second half go through to stream B.

repeat until you get an A final, and a B final. The 'A' final is 2 or 3 laps, B final is one less..?

(posting this idea definitely feels like one of those 'did i really just say that out loud?' moments)

The format exists now, it is called the XC Eliminator, no reason you can't run it as a track league type event with everyone gets few rides

you're entered at random into a race [b]with 40 others[/b], 1 lap, top half go through to stream A, second half go through to stream B.

Reckon XCE would be fun as a summer evening type event. Plus points for organisers is less area needed, less marshalls etc. Could probably be set up in many parks as a cx length course I guess. Might actually work to boost xc participation at a grass roots level, especially if could be done as go-ride type event so cheap (£3 for go cx race), and if actual xc races are pushed by organisers at the same time.

orangespyderman - Member
You get the picture, I assume.

yes, a good and valid point!

i was expecting more abuse and vitriol...

the thing about it that appeals to me is that the fast people at the front, would know that they don't need to bury themselves to win their heat, they just need to beat number 21, so there might be more of a 'group' in the heats, with the fast people holding back just a bit...

i was expecting more abuse and vitriol...

I agree, interesting idea, and agree it should encourage holding back until you're in the final. RC cars race in a similar setup, with A finals and B finals, IIRC.

Eliminator at Big Bike Bash was far more fun than a normal XC race - didn't take long either, but then the course was only about 400m!

big_n_daft - Member

The format exists now, it is called the XC Eliminator,

although it seems xce is based on 4 (four) riders per heat. i think a bigger pack would be much more fun/chaotic.

(a bit/lot like the qualifier heats for teh MegAvalanche - which is even more fun than the main event)

(i've been doing some reading) In Xc eliminator, the 'B' stream is eliminated, i'm not talking about eliminating anyone. Just diverting them to a more suitable final.

[i]The obvious thing to me is something that has already works well elsewhere. Ability categories for all seniors. Elite and cats 1/2/3/4.[/i]

To replace age cats, I would then give an age related time adjustment based on year of birth (not date), of x% per year above 40, and then include the results in the main ability category.

Proving year of birth is pretty straightforward at entry / registration.

Categories doesn't have to mean races.

Just have everyone race in ability categories then give out points/prizes/positions based on those but also age.

I entered some of the local XC series (Midweek Madness) this year. As a moderately fit (but definitely not a racing snake) bloke of almost veteran vintage I loved it. Entry fields were quite variable in number, not helped by the often terrible traffic at rush hour around the Manchester area.

Some of the courses were easier than others, but there was a wide range of ability. I entered the "Racer" category, due to peer pressure and ended up racing people of similar ability. I lapped a few people and was lapped by the (VERY FAST) podium finishers.

I also did a few evening club TT 10s this year, which I also enjoyed, in a different way.

For me, as a husband and father of young children, midweek evenings are preferable to weekend afternoons. Local races are also infinitely preferable to distant ones.

I have done some weekend day MTB 'marathons' this year, but again local and early starts are better for me, allowing me to get back home to do thigns with my family.

I've not actually done any CX races (although I would like to, and would probably like it) mostly because they are mid afternoon on a weekend day ...and partly because I would need to re-configure my commuter for the purpose.

although it seems xce is based on 4 (four) riders per heat. i think a bigger pack would be much more fun/chaotic.

(a bit/lot like the qualifier heats for teh MegAvalanche - which is even more fun than the main event)

(i've been doing some reading) In Xc eliminator, the 'B' stream is eliminated, i'm not talking about eliminating anyone. Just diverting them to a more suitable final.

The organiser can adjust the format and keep BC happy to keep his insurance

If it is run like grass track racing the organiser refines the groups through the day and everyone gets plenty of races against similar riders

Agree with all that's been said so far. The challenge XC seems to have is keeping the racing element whilst also being fun for those at the back.

My own personal experience is that the Gorrick Brass Monkeys seem to balance this better than "pure" XC. Mass starts and fewer categories means it's more about the Singletrack than trying to podium. (Adam, I hope you make the change you suggested to the non-BC cats.)

The other thing I would like to see is more B-lines. Then by all means put in technical features on the A-lines. This would give the variety for experienced and novice riders that seems to be being requested in the posts. In fact, why not run the "easier" course for the easy races and the "hard" course for the E/E. Might shift a few sandbaggers up a level.

The other thing I would like to see is more B-lines. Then by all means put in technical features on the A-lines. This would give the variety for experienced and novice riders that seems to be being requested in the posts. In fact, why not run the "easier" course for the easy races and the "hard" course for the E/E. Might shift a few sandbaggers up a level.

I'm with you on the first bit, 2 lines, 1 harder but quicker, 1 easier but slower.

But the second part, i as a slower rider don't necessarily want / need an easier course in a technical context.

That takes much more effort though - and we need more races which means they need to be easier and cheaper to stage.

Agreed molgrips.

Interesting thread.

Ive been TTing quite seriously for a few years and just riding the MTB for fun when I get bored of training (before I used to ride MTB mainly but never competed). After going to Meribel to watch my nephew do some XC racing it looked so much fun I wondered why I had never tried it so will give it a go next season.

Ive rebuilt my old Whyte 905 at what seems like a reasonable weight and was going to have a go at a Gorrick race as looking at those courses on youtube I would be happy going round them flat out (for me). I would shit myself on a HT on the courses my nephew races on 🙂

The thing I cant work out is what category to enter - and after reading 9 pages of this I still can't 😕

Im 50 next year so am a Grand Vet, but I expect that involves getting owned by a load of former elites?

Fun seems a bit crap and like I might be sandbagging (~4W/kg FTP, and good 1-5min power) so is it Open or Sport if I want to ignore age cats?

I'm thinking I should enter Grand Vet and sprint like **** at the start and see how long I can hang on, as a TTer I am well used to the idea of entering races with no chance of winning so not bothered by where I come - but any advice welcome.

Just do Grand Vet. The age categories have some quick people at the top, but they tail off quickly. Winning sport will almost certainly be quicker than winning grand vet.

Entered myself in fun and my boy in under 11s.

I'm not sure if I'm more nervous for me or for him.

A really interesting thread on an important subject. Richard Lang (UK Biking) made some really good points (a few posts above) and it was good to hear Adam's post about combining the fun and open categories in the Southern XC. Simplification for beginners would be helpful. I started racing 4.5 years ago, aged 40 and totally unfit at the time. XC is so much fun, a chance to use all those skills learned earlier in life, now with a purpose in a competitive and fun environment. It's great to be stronger and not have a bad back any more. My kids, aged 8 and 10, love it too.

Unfortunately it has been very hard to convince any friends to give it a go although I'm sure some of them would like it if they tried. When I started, the number of categories was confusing and I really appreciated any advice for beginners I could find on websites. I like Adam's "up to 3 laps" in Open idea. One less category in the list and Open would be for beginners up to intermediate level.

I just want to comment on Veterans, inspired by Richard's post, where he suggests reducing the number of laps. In 2014 as my ability was increasing I moved up into Vets as it seemed more meaningful. At that time it was increased to 5 laps from 4. My aim was to work my way up to the top half of finishers. Over time I got close to it but it seems the field has been getting smaller, the standard at the top has increased to a very high level and last year I got lapped for the first time. I dropped back to Open for Crow Hill as the 5 laps were a bit too much of a slog, as if I was doing an endurance race while the top guys seemed to be sprinting it! Great respect to those amazing super fast racers but it seemed better to race with more people near my own ability in the Open category, even though Open is disappointingly short at 3 laps. If you look at the entrants, for example at Crow Hill http://my1.raceresult.com/49200/participants?lang=en#0_10BC33 you can see that around half the Open category are actually Veteran aged. After 4 years of racing, Open now seems kind of meaningless, an uncomfortable choice. I wonder how many of them would move to the Vets race if it was one lap shorter? As Richard suggested, if there will be age categories, the top Vets could either just do the shorter race or enter expert or elite if they want a longer race. Quoting Richard, it should be about the many not the few. So I just wonder how many Vets really want to do the 5 laps, how many would be happy with 4, and how many open racers would move into Vets it it was reduced to 4?

Agree with ^. When I race it's in regional open, but local vets (eg Gorricks). Both get me a mid-pack finish, so I get a decent day out racing the folk around me. But I appreciate that the top vets, of which there are a lot, need a decent expert and upwards standard race. Something that gave a 4 lap vet race would be great, but is that another category ( slower vets?). Not sure of the answer as I don't want to detract from the top level of the vets racing, so currently accepting that regional open is where I'm at right now.

I think the MSG / BC system of using the time cut off for the leaders is better. Its not about the number of laps, its about how fast you can go over a specified number of laps.

I'm assuming thats why Gorrick now have Vets & Vets +