No I haven't presented much evidence, I wasn't on an evidence hunt and didnt really have time to find it, it was an observation of the sport. It also wasnt a critique on the whole sport, merely pointing out that even on very simple technical sections they seem to struggle. I remember watching what I believe was the olympics before last but could have been something else of similar level (to be on normal evening TV), they had what appeared to be a log crossing the trail, followed by a load of rough cobbly rocks - not one tried to ride over the 4-5" log and rocks, most dismounted and ran over the whole section. This sort of defeats the purpose - i mean it might as well be a road ride. I appreciate the whole risk issue and yes, I suspect you and everyone is right this is why it occurs, but I just feel its a bit of a let-down in the viewing stakes. It's dull as hell even for an MTBer to watch, let alone a non-biking spectator. I dont doubt that what they do wins the races they enter, I just think the races they enter _appear_ to be little more than dusty road rides when you take out the technical content they skip.
Well it seems I'm at odds with most people so I'll accept I may well be wrong in my thinking, but my thinking still stands regardless!
myfatherwasawolf - this is a 1m vertical rock drop followed by a 45 degree slope, taken at a similar vantage point and slightly closer distance to that in the link (my local woods, the guy doing the drop is on a rigid cannondale with very light components, not me), though admittedly no rocks in the run-out, but its a lot different to that in the vid. The trail shape is very similar to the olympic one actually, with the trail coming in from top left and turning through some rocks.
[img] 
[/img]
Regardless, at no point was I saying anything quantative, I was merely suggesting that the trails look easy enough from the vantage points given and they seem to attack them in a rigid, awkward way and mayvbe they could improve by adjusting that. Not trying to say I have better vision, I have better skills, I am god etc.
Fair enough Coffee, and would have to agree with you in regards to the viewing stakes. XC Racing generally doesn't make very good viewing. This is an important point, if professional sport isn't deemed to be viewable, exciting, spectator worthy etc. it tends to largely die out. This is when you get meddling in the rules and set-up of the sport in order to stimulate participation and spectating. I.e. Table tennis, Basketball (ad infinitum) etc. etc.
To tie this in with the risk payoff thing discussed earlier. The organiser of a race would have to tip the balance of a race such that it is at a level of technicality that there is a significant payoff for hopping the log, nailing the descent blasting the corners. If these conditions existed then a highly technically skilled rider without the higher level of fitness MAY be able to upset the balance and beat the traditional XC racer. This would take concerted effort on the side of course designers and race organisers and the sport may not actually need as shake up at this point. I don't know to be honest.
Using my previous analogy, if you were to play snooker with Mark Selby et al. at the local pub you'd probably see a load of astounding shots that you'd rarely witness in high level competition. Would the same be true if you rode with an Olympian XC rider down the local woods? I'd personally like to think so, but I don't know.
Just briefly skim-read this thread. the OP obviously has no idea what these world standard riders are capable of.
It's an XC race, true MTB-ing IMO, this is where it started before the suspension travel grew and grew so much that Mr Podgy Financial Adviser could suddenly go out and ride technical trails.
Get on a bike with a high seat position, low narrow bars and 80mm of travel. THEN, ride as hard as you possibly can so your vision goes blurry, your body screams in pain and your heart is beating close to max, THEN try and hop/skip your way down a steep technical trail. You'll soon find out how hard it is.
And besides, go watch one of these races in the flesh; you'll be utterly amazed at how technically adept they are.
Plonker.
Doesn't sound like many of you have done much XC racing.
In all the races I've been in, even the local Elite riders are very good technically (and I'm not a numpty). It amazes me that they can ride the stuff they do like they do on the bikes they are riding. Have you been in a race with Becks/Kileen? They are so quick it defies belief up, down and along - and they're not exactly top flight on the international stage.
I've been on the course with a lot of women, and I can usually keep pace with those who turn out to be placing on the podium in Expert. To compare, I'm usually top 20% in Sport (but only because I hammer the tech bits so hard) and I'm a fit-ish club rider. At the road 10 mile TT I've been 9th out of about 30 blokes. I weigh about 85kg and my threshold power is about 330W on a good day. An elite woman I chatted to last year had a threshold power of 270W, but only weighed 55kg! And she didn't place that well IIRC. I do accept tho that most women aren't very good technically. I do wonder why this is the case...
And the argument about being able to keep your bike lighter if you take mincier lines is toss. My bike's almost as light as it can be, without any concession to strength; I'm a bit of a lard arse and I cane it through the techie bits without holding back. It's still fine 🙂
mm - try not to skim read, you do end up looking a plonker. While not able to fly to china to watch the olympics I can say I've seen a couple of races in the flesh (commonwealth games) and competed in some lower end ones so I'm at least partially experienced in attempting technical things while bearly able to stay upright, and have been there at the coal face so to speak to see their skills.
Cheers
Molgrips, so what you're saying is, to counteract Coffekings assertion that women XC racers aren't very good technically: Women XC racers are very fit and light but not very good technically.
I love the way arguments progress on forums, Coffeking, ball's in your court.
I suspect that to some degree I do underestimate their skills (though I'm not totally naive in the situation, thanks for those who assume im a retarded keyboard biker with no grasp on reality!), and I didnt intend to single out women in particular as technically inept, so I'll not comment on that. I'm not sure theres a conclusion here, but the discussion has been fun. Maybe if anyone knows an olympic MTBer personally we could add to the conversation but without I think we suffer from lack of actual real content.
I wasnt trying to say they're totally unskilled though, I was only suggesting that maybe they were very fitness oriented and seem somewhat awkward down technical stuff, and that maybe they could improve that to improive their times. At no time was I saying I am better than them, or claiming to be a biking god - thanks to those who jumped to conclusions 🙂
Not read the thread, my take;
1) That decent is probably a lot harder than it looks.
2) They are riding 20lbs bikes which have to last the whole race, taking unnecessary risks to gain a second would be silly.
3) These girls probably ride 30 - 40 hours a week, although some will be technical, XC races are not won on descents, but injuries are generaly as a result of them.
4) To clarify, the girl that came last in that race would murder anyone on this forum in a race. There's local Crit fast and then there's sponsored fast.
5) The best descender i have seen is a CAT 1 roadie on a ten year old MTB, why? because he just loves riding bikes.
MTT - at least bother to read the thread. 😉
I have now read the thread, my take;
1) That decent is probably a lot harder than it looks.
2) They are riding 20lbs bikes which have to last the whole race, taking unnecessary risks to gain a second would be silly.
3) These girls probably ride 30 - 40 hours a week, although some will be technical, XC races are not won on descents, but injuries are generaly as a result of them.
4) To clarify, the girl that came last in that race would murder anyone on this forum in a race. There's local Crit fast and then there's sponsored fast.
5) The best descender i have seen is a CAT 1 roadie on a ten year old MTB, why? because he just loves riding bikes.
😉
😀 well I suppose you're "allowed" to voice your opinions, even if they've already been voiced!
Molgrips, so what you're saying is, to counteract Coffekings assertion
I wasn't really counteracting it - as you so astutely pointed out; I was merely contributing to the general topic of debate. I said that MOST women aren't so good technically, but the Olympic XC race isn't most women, is it? I can't comment on that specific race since I don't recall it well enough and I can't see the vid at work. However, in the men's races, the top racers are very good technically as well as on the climbs, so I have no reason to assume that wouldn't relatively be the case with the women too.
But you really don't need to beef up your bike to withstand an XC race. Especially not if you're a 50kg woman.
[i]coffeeking - Member
mm - try not to skim read, you do end up looking a plonker. While not able to fly to china to watch the olympics I can say I've seen a couple of races in the flesh (commonwealth games) and competed in some lower end ones so I'm at least partially experienced in attempting technical things while bearly able to stay upright, and have been there at the coal face so to speak to see their skills.
Cheers
[/i]
Don't be so arrogant.
Why not get in touch with the olympic cycle coaches and tell them how to do their job? Now, if some women in the race were riding a line a certain way and gaining time from it, and the others weren't, then those others should consider their tactics. But, if it's the line of choice for them all, there's a reason for it (and everything an XCracer does is to gain time, so I'd stick my neck out and say they are quicker doing it the way they do).
Right or wrong?
I think that the point is the line they're taking will enable them to finish the race quicker overall due to reduced risk of fall or mechanical, not that it's necessarily the fastest route down that section of the course.
To finish first, first you have to finish.
and all that.