When did XC racing get so gnarly?

Interesting article over at emptybeer:

http://reviews.mtbr.com/when-did-xc-racing-get-so-gnarly

U.S. World Cup racers Lea Davison and Howie Grotts explain




It used to be that hardtails where the weapon of choice for World Cup level XC racers. But recently that’s changed.

This year, a flood of new cross-country bikes have hit the market. As you’d expect, the marketing materials have been dripping with superlatives regarding weight, stiffness, and pedaling efficiency.

But there’s another trend. In between the glamorous photographs of Lycra clad warriors, manufacturers have also been hyping the trail capabilities of their new bikes. A trail capable XC race bike? That doesn’t seem to jive with the idea many of us have of XC, but it’s true. These short travel thoroughbreds are getting longer, slacker, and dare we say more fun.

So why the shift? To find out, Mtbr reached out to two of America’s fastest pros, Lea Davison and Howie Grotts. Davison has won multiple national championship titles and recently rode to an impressive 7th place finish in a stacked field at the Rio Olympics. Grotts is also an accomplished World Cup racer, who has won back-to-back U.S. national XC titles.


Brands such as Kona are capitalizing on this new longer slacker trend by offering their XC race bike with two different build kits. One is outfitted with the rigid seatpost and skinny tires you’d expect, while the other is more than capable of being ridden in baggies. Learn more about their approach here.

Mtbr: This year, XC race bikes have been given slacker headtube angles and more travel. Manufacturers claim that this new school geometry is the direct result of race tracks becoming more difficult. Is this just marketing or are the courses getting more technical?

Lea Davison: The World Cup cross-country courses are undoubtedly getting more technical. There’s often a jump or drop at least once or twice in every course. About four years ago is really when the evolution started, and I needed to learn how to jump my XC bike and learn how to maneuver off of drops. This was essential to successful racing on the World Cup circuit because, if I wanted to win, the B lines were not an option. They often added 5-10 seconds per lap which adds up over five to six laps and makes a big impact.

Howie Grotts: XC courses are definitely becoming more technical. I think the evolution of trails and bike technology goes hand in hand. It could be that more advanced bikes influence harder trails and vice versa.


World cup tracks used to have longer loops riddled with natural features, but builders are now incorporating more man made features and shorter laps to increase excitement.

Mtbr: Can you describe some of the ways World Cup tracks have evolved since you started racing?

LD: The World Cup races used to be two hours long on a bigger loop. Now, the loops are smaller and consistently 5-6 km. The tracks used to be more natural features. Now the builders truck in tons of rocks and boulders to make manmade rock gardens and build features. Jumps and drops are often built. This gives the courses a different flow and requires a different set of skills than was previously required. It really requires the riders to be comfortable in the air.

HG: I started racing World Cups in 2011, right around when they began to be shorter, punchier, and more technical. There are still a couple courses with a more “old-school” feel like Windham and La Bresse. But even those are dramatically different than say the 1990 World Championship course in Durango, which is a 30-minute loop with nothing very technical. But the bikes were quite a bit different back then.

Mtbr: Where do you think this change in track style originated from?

LD: I believe it started with the World Cup in South Africa. That was one of the first times these man made features were added to the courses. It created some excitement. Then other race organizers wanted to create difficult and exciting courses. Also, now that we don’t ride as big of laps, maybe the builders are afforded more real estate to include natural features. So, building features in the course and packing them into a 5km course was the solution to that.

HG: Shorter tracks, around 15 minutes in length, with technical features are a lot more spectator and TV friendly. Instead of doing 2 to 3 laps, we race 7 or 8 with plenty of places where the trail doubles back on itself for better viewing. Anything that encourages more spectators and TV viewing is good for the sport.


Many people associate XC racing with buffed out singletrack or fireroad slogs, but modern tracks are downright technical.

Mtbr: What are some of the more difficult features you’ve faced this season?

LD: Ironically, one of the most difficult features was an entirely natural course in La Bresse. The builders just ran us straight down this steep hillside, and it was very muddy and slippery. It seemed like this race and conditions caused the most crashes from our field this season. I walked away with six stitches in my elbow.

HG: Lots of venues are incorporating rock gardens into their track. They’re an exciting place to watch riders choose various lines and definitely increase the chance that someone could make a mistake and crash, which is exciting for everyone but the rider. It’s also a good place to showcase the benefits of full suspension bikes over hardtails.




Hardtails used to be the weapon of choice for XC racing, but tougher obstacles for the elite field has caused a shift towards full suspension.

Mtbr: Do the elite men and women ride the same obstacles, or do some categories have an optional go around?

LD: The elite men and women ride the exact same course. There are B lines on a lot of these obstacles that the men and women can make the choice to take the A line or B line. That’s one of the coolest things about our sport. The level of technical difficulty is exactly the same for the men and women.

HG: Some technical features have A and B lines, but those are available to all racers all the time. So everyone from junior women to elite men actually end up racing the same course. The only difference is the number of laps.

Mtbr: Has this transition affected the way you train?

LD: Yes. USA Cycling has hired a skills coach, Shaums March, and this has really transformed the way I ride. It has made a huge impact on my racing, too.

HG: Since the climbs aren’t as long, my training intervals tend to be shorter and harder, more 2-minute intervals and less 10+ minute intervals. I also go out of my way to find tricky sections of trail around Durango where I live to practice on, especially steep, rough descents.


You wouldn’t expect an XC bike to feel at home at the bike park, but bikes like the new Scott Spark are capable of being pushed outside of their intended use. Full story here.

Mtbr: What about setup? Are you doing things differently?

LD: Sometimes when courses are really steep, I run the Specialized XCP dropper post. It just gives me the little bit of maneuvering room that I need in some tricky situations and it’s lighter. I find myself racing my Era, women’s 29er full suspension, more often because it handles so well and it’s light enough to climb.

HG: I play around with my suspension settings more than I used to. If a track is really rough I’ll take some pressure out of the fork and shock and dial the rebound back just a little. I haven’t used a dropper post yet, but a few top riders are, so it could be just a matter of time.

Mtbr: What are the positives from this shift towards more technical tracks? How about negatives?

LD: I think it’s caused everyone to really step to the next level of technical riding. A lot of the cycling world doesn’t really grasp the technical difficulty of our tracks until they actually experience it in person. A lot of times, my downhill teammates would ride the XC course early in the week and challenge themselves to ride with the seat high and not use the dropper post. There were only a couple of times they could ride without dropping the seat. The main negative is that it’s dangerous. We are riding big obstacles on XC bikes without any protection or padding. I believe there is a happy medium.

HG: It forces everyone to focus on their skills, rather than just fitness, which is a good thing. Mountain biking separates itself from road biking because the rider has to be very confident handling a bike over a variety of terrain, not just cornering fast. I think there should be a limit for how technical tracks are though. We don’t have the padding or bikes that downhill riders do, so course designers should keep that in mind to prevent major injuries. I think technical features should mainly distinguish riders by how fast they can go down them, rather than if they can go down them at all.


Even though XC race courses have become more technical, requiring athletes to become more well rounded, they’ll always be hard core contests of how much punishment your body can take.

Mtbr: Does XC run the risk of becoming too similar to enduro if the tracks continue this trend of larger and more difficult obstacles?

LD: Cross-country is completely different than enduro. We have to climb uphill as fast as possible and then descend cross eyed while trying to recover. The fact that we have to climb fast will always keep the bikes as light as possible.

HG: Cross-country will always be unique because it’s a single, hour and a half long race, where how fast you climb matters just as much (if not more) than how fast you descend. So no, that’s not going to happen.

Mtbr: And finally, from an equipment perspective, what do you think the biggest changes will be over the next five years? Will things like full suspension and dropper posts became mandatory to stay competitive?

LD: We are already seeing more full suspension bikes becoming the ideal choice for some of the courses. Dropper posts are also being run more often. I think that trend is going to continue and there will be more of both. What is the lightest setup possible with the best descending/handling performance? The cross-country circuit will constantly be finding a balance between both those opposing factors.

HG: I don’t think the tracks will get much more technical, but the equipment will certainly progress. Full suspension bikes are already approaching the weight and efficiency of hardtails. Dropper posts add a decent amount of weight now, but they can only get lighter.

 

Neat article... And I think they hit the nail on the head. If it's possible to make the sport more marketable for TV, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I, personally, fall into the XC camp, but watching that genre on TV is like watching paint dry.

I love this quote... And I can relate to it. It's exactly how I felt after catching up to Herz at the top of the Cattle Pond climb the other day.
LD: Cross-country is completely different than enduro. We have to climb uphill as fast as possible and then descend cross eyed while trying to recover. The fact that we have to climb fast will always keep the bikes as light as possible.

 

Good read! but old news... to me.
I raced XC from 1992 through 1998. In 1994 I watched Bob Rolls ride by at a NORBA National in Big Bear on a Proflex 854 full suspension bike. At that moment I looked at my buddy racers and said, "Our team will be riding those next year."

In 1995 our team of 10 were riding Proflex supplied 855's. Granted, the courses were not as gnarly as mentioned above, but relatively speaking, in my opinion, Proflex made a superior bike. Way ahead of the times. After 1994, it never made sense to me why I would race a Hardtail. Even today.

Bob (Bobke) Rolls 1994


My 1997 Proflex 857

 

The only Proflex I've ever seen in the wild was 2 minutes before you told me you forgot your shoes. I should have known it was some kind of weird omen...

 

I hope the more TV-ready consumption brings back the popularity of XC racing. Such a cool sport.
I like the distinctions between XC and enduro mentioned. Although they are different themselves, I wonder if the bikes will be coming closer. A slacker/longer XC bike vs. a light-weight enduro bike... where does the line go?

 

After seeing this year's World Championship downhill course, Howie Grotts' comment (above) of "I think technical features should mainly distinguish riders by how fast they can go down them, rather than if they can go down them at all." Looks like this applies to XC courses as well.

Sounds like they're pushing XC riders the same way CX riders get pushed. And the shorter, challenging courses, also like CX, are definitely more fun from a viewer's standpoint. Whether it allows for better coverage, or gives spectators a chance to see the whole course, it seems like a good thing--as long as the features and obstacles aren't too out-of-control.

 

Go back a few years and XC race courses were nowhere near as difficult as they are now. Dirt roadies ruled the day. However, bike handling wasn't as important. Now I'm not say that these dirt roadies were not capable bike handlers...but I believe they would have bigger issues these days on the modern race course.

On on the opposite side....gone are the big long drawn out climbs. No longer 20-30 min climbs....but punchy 3 min. climbs.

All that being said....I enjoy watching the racing. It is how I ride: climb, descend, climb, descend, etc. With the shorter courses it makes the coverage so much better.

I am really impressed with how fast these racers can climb....then turn around and descend some of these sections at the speeds they do.....and doing so on HT's, although many have began running FS.

 

I also like that line "...how fast you can go down them, not if you can go down them at all..." Some of the man-made features in the Olympic course were no joke, and would make us big suspension boys (and girls) pucker, I am sure.

XC races in the early 90s had long climbs - 15-20 minutes or more. I think those courses are gone. That's kind of a shame however, since long climbs are a big part of the MtB skill set - from the Alps, to the Rockies to the Santa Anas and San Gabriels. A good climber can put minutes into the field. A good descender can only grab a few seconds, if he doesn't get caught in traffic.

Thus - enduro was born. For those who suffer the climbs to enjoy ripping the downs.

As long as XC has timed climbing, it will never become enduro, but I am glad to see the re-introduction of technical mt. biking into XC. There was a time when it was truly roadies on dirt.

Thanks for posting this.

 

I totally agree with this.
Long grinding climbs set apart the climbers of XC. It may be boring for the spectators but it was an intimate part of being a successful XC racer. Big Bear always had the long grind climbs. I did very well on those sustained fire road climbs. But places like Keyesville with those repeated short punchy climbs? Well... I never finished not one race. I broke my chain once, and blew up the other times to a DNF.

I see the new XC going the way of Super Cross. Making every attempt to add spectacular features that put the riders more at risk to draw spectatorship. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

This is a good and stimulating conversation about an aspect of Mountain Biking I truly love!

 

Nice article. Loving the XC world cup this year ... And not just the women's races!

 

Oh, all right... I'll come clean. I've never watched a mens XC race.

 

To a certain point....these races with big, long, extended rides still exist.....it just seems as though they have drawn a line between them. What we all consider XC Racing, has morphed into what is more known at Marathon Racing these days. While XC has gone shorter course with multiple laps....Marathon Style racing continued the big lap/1 or 2 loop style we all remember. However with that, the distances have also gone longer.

Races like True Grit Epic, Big Bear Grizzly 100 and High Cascades 100 are where the XC racers go when they can no longer compete at the XCE Level with the short punchy laps.

 

Maybe a conscious well thought out decision on the suits behind the ad dollars? If the races used to be featureless grind fests, that doesn't really jive with the way most of us ride. Herz may poke fun at us fireroad cowboys, but we eventually get to the "good stuff", even if it does take 7000 feet of climbing to get to the Luge. It just makes sense that the pro XC races eventually have some of that good stuff mixed in with the grinding. Otherwise, it really is just roadies on smooth dirt... And that's pretty boring. I want some rocks and some roots for the hot chicks to ride over. And the occasional OTB! I'll watch!

 

Interesting point as well is that the XC Marathon and Endurance (as defined by UCI) are rolled by a lot of the XC racers even if they are fast. I believe last year's Women's WC in XC, Marathon, and Endurance were the same, and Yolanda Neff pulled a 2nd in the UCI Marathon World Championships before this years' XC World Championships.

It looks like XC is trying to find the right balance between being able to be spectator friendly and appropriate to where MTB technology is today, while those disciplines not supported by spectator $$'s have their evolution largely driven by the riders themselves.

Thanks for the post....just remember that the next time you're sucking dust at Over The Hump, imagine that effort and distance over something that is technical. (Insert shameless plug for upcoming Non-Dot Race in Santiago Oaks).