Warning!! old school moan about the Olympic Xc

How is it like that? You think an enduro is ‘easy’? Go win one then. More lame sniping, as is this:

No need to change your post grum after I have commented to argue your point.

I have never said enduro is easy nor have I said XC is easy. I’m quite happy say I fit more into the weekend warrior box (sorry if that touches a nerve) I don;t have the skills to race XC or Enduro, I just ride for riding’s sake and have my opinions and like to argue them on the tinternet like so many others.

Your saying i’m demeaning but your the one in an arse with my opinion. What about all the others criticising XC??

its not that xc has to change its format – its incredibly popular in most of europe and parts ofhte USA just the way it is and has been – what needs to happen is to get more people involved. Every year I speak to people that want to do it, but – havent got a good enough bike, arent fit enough, theyll do it with a bit more training, cant afford it, oh really wish Id done it now.. etc etc..

The structure of races needs to change too – theres no progress unless you do the NPS and have to have a licence – year after year IM racing against (or behind) the same people who are up to 5 minutes a lap faster than the rest of the the filed, yet cant be moved up to elite as they dont have a licence. It is so disheartening, I even tried to move myself up to Elite (as Im actually quicker than some of those riders) but dont have any points to be able to do it. Until theres a set structure open to everyone we’ll get no where…

Not too sure what I can really add here, it’s all the usual (good) points being made, interspersed with all the usual (tired and rather pathetic) bitching!

XC is the easiest route into MTB racing, it’s the most accessible for those who are new to it. Making it far more technical may be more exciting (to some) but will likely put more people off than it will encourage.

Enduro is good, and I’m sure will develop, but something that straddles DH and XC should be popular for most ‘normal’ riders for whom neither XC nor DH racing typifies what they do and what they think of as mountain biking (is that matters).

There may be things wrong politically with various areas of cycling and there may be levels of imbalance when it comes to funding but for what it’s worth all I will say is that I’ve loved all aspects of cycling at the Olympic Games. The BMX was incredible, The Road and TT races were inspiring, the Track cycling was edge of the seat exciting and the XC was a joy to watch.

I’m a cyclist first and foremost, I have a cheap road bike when the moods takes me on the hard stuff, I have a trail bike for some explorative off road riding, a have a 4X bike for when the bar to bar racing mood takes hold and I have my downhill bike for when I want an immediate adrenaline fix. I love all aspects of cycling, they have all collectively enriched my life and I wouldn’t be without any of them and I would have a very hard time choosing just one if it came to it.

I love watching competitive cycling and I love taking part myself and I love the freedom that all forms of cycling ultimately give me and I couldn’t bring myself to argue about which is superior, which is more difficult, which is physically harder, technically harder because I’m just grateful I’ve got cycling in my life and nothing makes me feel better than riding a bike.

Sorry, that was a bit ‘mushy’ but I think it’s worth taking a step back and remembering just how great all this bike malarky stuff is.

The structure of races needs to change too – theres no progress unless you do the NPS and have to have a licence

Totally agree with this !

Been doing the gorricks in the open category for about 4 years. I managed to get a bit quicker one year but still the best I managed was 6th on the first lap 13th by the end.

Admittedly when the field can be over 100 riders this is a massive improvement from finishing 50th.

But what is the point of Master/Super Master/Veteran/Super Veteran ?

There should be no age categories above 16ish just ability categories.

Ie Begineer,Fun,Open,Advanced,Sport,Expert,Elite and not merge Expert/Elite into one race.

There would still be time for this as you would cut out Master/Super Master/Veteran/Super Veteran/Grand Veteran and Senior Veteran.

This way more people would actually come close to winning races and make them compete against similar abilities, might help keep them interested.

Also the Gorrick do occasionally get popular ie new season and the sun is out. But entering a race with 125 people isnt much fun if you get trapped behind ALOT of slower riders.

More ability category might help with that. No one wants to enter Fun cos you just get 2 laps ie so could be 40 mins cycling.

So every one pours into open to get a decent race but then people who have been racing for 5,6,7 years will also be in this category.

So thats another change I’d make. Except for the very “Beginners race” make sure everyone get at least 1 hours racing time.

For the gorricks I’d suggest this and more info on the website

Beginner 2 laps – Ie been riding bike offroad less than a year
Fun 3 laps – Unfit Weekend Warrior
Open 3 laps – Fit Weekend Warrior
Advanced 3 laps – Been racing for at least a year or just generally pretty fit
Sport 4 laps – Previously been near the top of the Advanced category
Expert 4 laps – Previously been near the top of the Sport category
Elite 5 laps – Similar to now

Obviously there would be the worry their would nt be enough riders for all the categories but if you moved all the veteran/masters it would be fine. And beginners doesnt really need to be a proper race.

This way more people would actually come close to winning races and make them compete against similar abilities, might help keep them interested.

No it wouldn’t, getting rid of categories would mean fewer folk won, that’s very basic maths.

To be honest its also what put me off triathlons, unless you were really really good you didn’t win. There’s no sense of achievement in finishing (an Olympic distance) one for me, that’s a given, I want to compete! I know some do age groups, but it’s essentially a secondary criteria.

However… masters is daft. There’s no physical degradation in performance at 30, it’s now full of former elites who’ve dropped down for an easier race (why not!?). The BC rule book says the top 3 masters get promoted to expert – that would be a significant demotion!

Admittedly many have gone back to Elite, but now you get folk yo-yoing between the 2, which is daft.

Super Master was just a Gorrick thing to give the fast masters a longer race, IIRC one other series has cottoned on as well.

Trouble is… if you get rid of masters and merge them you’ll annoy a lot of people:

– the winning masters, who are forced into elite where they’ll never win against full time athletes on a national stage
– the experts who are inundated by faster masters who don’t want to go into elite
– the elites who are demoted because they’re suddenly outside the top 50, the goalposts having been somewhat moved by the influx of masters

etc etc

The US have gone to a road style 5/4/3/2/1/E cat system, and we were meant to be doing the same, but it’s all gone very quiet, so I’m not sure.

I don’t think the categories are a huge issue though.

I think there’s a bit of an issue with popularity of regional races. Southern XCs are a good step between Gorricks to NPS (for example). Courses are tougher, the standard is higher. The problem is that they have fewer competitors than either, and I don’t know why frankly, but that ‘transitional’ stage from local to national does exist.

Beginner 2 laps – Ie been riding bike offroad less than a year
Fun 3 laps – Unfit Weekend Warrior
Open 3 laps – Fit Weekend Warrior
Advanced 3 laps – Been racing for at least a year or just generally pretty fit
Sport 4 laps – Previously been near the top of the Advanced category
Expert 4 laps – Previously been near the top of the Sport category
Elite 5 laps – Similar to now

WTF is advanced? That’s unnecessary. And why have Sport and Expert as the same distance?

Gorrick have always promoted Beginner as being for folk doing their very first race and wanting to try it out in a non-threatening mass-start environment. For some people, that’s exactly what they want. If they don’t, there are plenty of other options.

The US have gone to a road style 5/4/3/2/1/E cat system, and we were meant to be doing the same, but it’s all gone very quiet, so I’m not sure.

is a great idea..

The US have gone to a road style 5/4/3/2/1/E cat system, and we were meant to be doing the same, but it’s all gone very quiet, so I’m not sure.

Genuine question to the XC racers out there:
Do you want that? Or do you want categories defined by age AND ability (as now)? Which is simpler (for racers and organisers)? Which is more open to newcomers?

One of the problems with early XC racing in the NW of England was the lack of sensible categories. You had fun classes with maybe 100 riders, then sport with loads more, then an expert/elite class with about 15 riders in.

Plus people would deliberately not enter the harder categories so it was easy to win, we had words with one or two riders who were basically national level but who rode in the sport class for the prizes.

I always enetered the expert/elite class and had a much better race as a result, despite getting hammered.

the road licence system would work great, as you wouldnt have the same people winning the same races year in year out, theyd be ‘nowhere to hide’ unless you stopped racing or stopped accumulating points

the categories as they are now, and as shown above, are open to abuse and different series have their own different categories…

The trouble is in the first year of a new licence everyone would have a ‘starter’ licence (cat 4?!)

No it wouldn’t, getting rid of categories would mean fewer folk won, that’s very basic maths

njee you normally have some very good stuff to say especially about racing, but you seem to have totally missed my point.

The point would not to have less categories but get rid of Master/Veteran and replace them with more ability categories, do you not get what Im saying ?

As you say Masters/Veteran are almost as fast as sport/Expert.

Im near the top of the open category but not quite. I dont think i’ll ever win a race except maybe Fun which is a bit pointless at 2 laps long.

The point of advanced etc would be to make more full length races ie 3+ laps but with differing abilities.

you say american is 5/4/3/2/1/E

Does this help ?

Begineer(not a full race) then

5 = Fun
4 = Open
3 = Advanced
2 = Sport
1 = Expert
E = Elite

Not far off what I’m saying

So, the general consensus is that the XC racing scene in the UK is dead, or near death. Meanwhile DH racing is in good health and Enduro is exploding (not just in the UK but worldwide).

Whilst XC might be bigger and more popular in other countries the same is true of all cycling disciplines, at the end of the day marketing and media is rapidly moving away from the sport.

But according to all the ultra fit, ultra talented elite level world class XC athletes of STW, anyone who doesn’t understand or appreciate XC racing is a fat i.t consultant knacker on a 6″ bike and it’s peoples perceptions that need to change, not XC. Oh no, if you don’t get it there is something wrong with you.

Whatever could the matter be.

I don’t think the categories are a huge issue though.

Yes but it would be nice to win a race or at least compete to win one once in a while.

At my best I come about 15th in the open category.

People are keen to enter open as it has 3 laps which is a good compromise on laps.

There are two 3 laps races open and Masters/Veteran.

Why not have two 3 lap races open and open advanced and then mix the 2 groups.

That way I and others might have a chance of winning open while the best riders from both groups battle it out in open advanced.

Now good riders under 30 who want to do 3 laps do open and the Masters/Veteran are pretty much all good riders (who really should be joined by the best from the open category).

The US have gone to a road style 5/4/3/2/1/E cat system, and we were meant to be doing the same, but it’s all gone very quiet, so I’m not sure.
Genuine question to the XC racers out there:
Do you want that? Or do you want categories defined by age AND ability (as now)? Which is simpler (for racers and organisers)? Which is more open to newcomers?

Do you want that?
Yes

Which is more open to newcomers?
I would guess the american one as your more likely to be with riders of your ability. You might mistakenly enter Veteran/Masters thining the racing will be a bit slower and be totally blown away these races are pretty dam quick. Quicker than open anyhow.

I’m quite happy say I fit more into the weekend warrior box (sorry if that touches a nerve)

we have an entire category just for you

Yes I think that’s down to event organisation more than the course. A couple of tough sections with Hard, moderate and easy runs, with a risk/reward set-up.

it’s a lot harder than that, you need to find the options, risk assess, balance risk/ reward, and be able to mark it out sensibly

its not that xc has to change its format – its incredibly popular in most of europe and parts ofhte USA just the way it is and has been – what needs to happen is to get more people involved. Every year I speak to people that want to do it, but – havent got a good enough bike, arent fit enough, theyll do it with a bit more training, cant afford it, oh really wish Id done it now.. etc etc..

that’s all about getting accessible local series of the ground, skills coaching as part of the package and making sure all feel welcome on a clunker or on bling

The structure of races needs to change too – theres no progress unless you do the NPS and have to have a licence – year after year IM racing against (or behind) the same people who are up to 5 minutes a lap faster than the rest of the the filed, yet cant be moved up to elite as they dont have a licence. It is so disheartening, I even tried to move myself up to Elite (as Im actually quicker than some of those riders) but dont have any points to be able to do it. Until theres a set structure open to everyone we’ll get no where…

a road category system has been bouncing around. My understanding is that it has been binned/ room 101 due to the commercial race organisers not wanting to upset the cosy masters/ vets racing setup

my view is that age categories <40 are a cancer that are retarding the sport, once at 40 the choice should still their to race by ability

the advantage for organisers is then can start grading courses to match the riders which makes it easier for novices to get going

The trouble is in the first year of a new licence everyone would have a ‘starter’ licence (cat 4?!)

if you win you get moved up, lots of people can be “self” graded if they are currently racing for points

I think there’s a bit of an issue with popularity of regional races. Southern XCs are a good step between Gorricks to NPS (for example). Courses are tougher, the standard is higher. The problem is that they have fewer competitors than either, and I don’t know why frankly, but that ‘transitional’ stage from local to national does exist.

A reason I dont do Southern XC – Seeing as Im yet to come right near the top of the field in a Gorrick open there seems little point in me moving on to a “harder” event, as I will just finish further down the field.

Best I should save my money and train a bit harder. If there were more categories and I actually felt like after a few years training I was getting close to winning a race I would be more involved.

Assuming Fun doesnt count as at 2 laps its a bit pointless.

The public Profile of XC in this country certainly has suffered, I agree about the above, if the UK want to win an Olympic XC gold there’s no point trying to change the format locally/nationally to encourage entry, as anyone competing in these races won’t recognise the sport they are faced with once they get to international level competition.

Unfortunately I don’t think the fact that its a stand-alone event in the Olympics helps it either, the likes of Hoy and Pendlton were able to win multiple medals in multiple events due to the bredth of track cycling events on offer so as a proposition for BC funding they were very good ‘Value for money’…

That opportunity isn’t really there for XC as a single race olympic event, while the WC/world Champs between Olympic cycles (Where alot of the real work in developing a rider for international competition would need to be done) isn’t visible or promoted on anything like the same level, lack of exposure = lack of interest = lack of funding to even get riders there in the first place, Even within cycling/cycling media itself TBH…

I think the point is if you can’t rely on BC to support, grow and promote the sport when its profile is so low, then sadly you need to develop a commercial proposition for funding, but I’m not sure how that really works for XC in the UK.

The current bias in MTBing (in the UK) is either towards non-competitive enjoyable riding at trail centres (nothing wrong with that really, its people out and about having fun on bikes is a good thing) or the more ‘exciting’ disiplines (DH/Gravity enduro) which again are a bit niche and removed from XC now, these hold some commercial appeal as they have a younger more “brand aware” audience, they are the accessible and/or exciting offshoots of MTBing.

Road and track now looks Slick and Big and has plenty of public exposure it’s the sort of thing people would love to be part of. DH/Gravity Enduro sells danger, bravery and excitement I just don’t see how XC gets itself into that mix, there’s nothing wrong with the sport it’s just it’s competing with other shinier baubles for public attention and its going to loose at that game.

I speak as part of the problem really, when I grew up and got into it MTB basically was XC (Late 80s early 90s), there wasn’t really any major sub-division of the sport that I can remember, people raced XC and not much else…
And when DH first came along, it was initially a sort of bolt on; XC racers took the same bike down a basic DH course (in the same kit mostly) and it was a bit of a fun side show.
Like many I got more into DH and non-racey trail faffing and less into XC and as it pulled itself away from XC it took plenty of riders interest with it…

So now the focus of most new entrants to the sport and many of those who’ve been at it a while is “The Fun Bits” (Downhill and trails) and the uphill slogs required for XC racing fitness just doesn’t appeal in the same way, even when you try to frame the dual rewards of better fitness and access to more fun bits once you’ve pedaled up…

The general culture and concept of what MTBing actually is has changed over the last 15-20 years and now doesn’t really match the needs of creating a Competitive British XC team… How do you address that?

categories, how do you make sure that riders take licences? I don’t know many roadies who pot hunt in the same way mtbers seem to have been guilty of, being a 1st cat is the target rather than winning a camelbak.

As for where we are and where we go? There does need to be more in the way of races particularly at grassroots level. I know it goes against the STW make it harder thing, but look at Cross. Farms, Parks, etc near where people live, a bit of woodland, some rocks. The course doesn’t need to be that hard. Riding will do that. A flat course can be harder than a hilly course if done right. As long as riders feel that they can achieve something i believe you are half way there.

njee you normally have some very good stuff to say especially about racing, but you seem to have totally missed my point.

The point would not to have less categories but get rid of Master/Veteran and replace them with more ability categories, do you not get what Im saying ?

Apologies if I misunderstood. I think your issue is largely one of semantics, but if you get rid of master/super master/vet/grand vet/super vet and replace with 1 new ability category (advanced – as per your suggestion) then surely you are reducing the numbers?

I think you’ll get more grand vets (for example) being annoyed that they have to race against 20-somethings in Sport, rather than having a race of their own. I could be wrong on that though, suspect opinion will be divided.

Yes but it would be nice to win a race or at least compete to win one once in a while.

At my best I come about 15th in the open category.

People are keen to enter open as it has 3 laps which is a good compromise on laps.

There are two 3 laps races open and Masters/Veteran.

Why not have two 3 lap races open and open advanced and then mix the 2 groups.

But why would you? At the moment it’s fairly clear cut: if you want to race for 3 laps you do open. If you are over 40 you do vets. Under a revised system if you want to do 3 laps (or are we having compulsory licenses to avoid pot-hunting?) you have a choice of 2, with a variation in name alone, how do you know where you fit? It’s like Sport and Open at Mayhem, bar a subtle difference re licenses which affects the top 5%, they are the same.

Open always used to be called Novice. People didn’t like the ‘beginner’ connotations so they changed it to Open. Rob Lee turned up at a Gorrick (whilst still doing more endurance racing) and raced Master/Open/Expert all on the same day. He won Open and people complained because he was clearly ‘too good’ for Open. People are fickle – they don’t want to be classed as beginners, but don’t like being beaten by folk they see should be racing in other categories.

The course doesn’t need to be that hard. Riding will do that. A flat course can be harder than a hilly course if done right. As long as riders feel that they can achieve something i believe you are half way there.

That’s what events like Beastway and the (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.

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.

categories, how do you make sure that riders take licences? I don’t know many roadies who pot hunt in the same way mtbers seem to have been guilty of, being a 1st cat is the target rather than winning a camelbak.

You can’t. Plenty of people ‘try’ mountain bike racing, or even do 1-2 a year for a bit of a laugh. Few do that with road racing. They commit to it (helped by the fact there are races every night of the week in most counties) and thus a license is a reasonable expense. Unless you want to travel a long way the same isn’t true for mountain biking, you may have 10 races a year within an hours drive, if you’re lucky. I reckon 90% of people at a Gorrick (and at c700 riders per event they get more than most) would not be remotely interested in a compulsory license.

mrmo

I know it goes against the STW make it harder thing, but look at Cross. Farms, Parks, etc near where people live, a bit of woodland, some rocks. The course doesn’t need to be that hard. Riding will do that. A flat course can be harder than a hilly course if done right. As long as riders feel that they can achieve something i believe you are half way there.

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.

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.

People doing what people want to do and having fun. Shame on them.

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.