[ire]

Way back when I started racing most XC courses were 25 miles for the beginners and were on one large loop. I was really surprised to see that Sea Otter ran a crappy short course instead of their nice course for the pro race. Soon XC is going to be down to an hour event like CX. I raced this last weekend for the first time this year and I was done in 1:45 with the winning time being just under 1:40...seemed a bit ridiculous to me. Anyone else feel this way? I would rather race my bike for an epic 3 hours, but maybe I'm just odd.

 

[Westy]

Around these parts a lot of races have what is called a XXC option. Basically a single loop double length course that typically includes some truly absurd technical sections, tons of climbing and finishing times of the winners starting at 4 hours. It's an open class but from an endurance and technical level newbs need not apply. It's pretty ****ing awesome.

 

[DiRt DeViL]

Here's about the same, a 5 to 7km loops done several times depending on the class.

You should look into marathons or any kind of endurance events if you want long races.

 

[oldfart]

Part of the reason is I think ubiquitous they seem to believe that XC must be spectator freindly and TV friendly too so the courses must be short multi lap affairs so we can see the race easier. Yet around here the most popular events are the epic Test Of Metal and Cheakamus Challenge. 800 plus riders in those. Personaly I think since UCI started running things, the sport has been dumbed down. When I raced at Silver Star they actually dumbed down the Wold Cup course after our race the day before. They had cut out some roots and spray painted all kinds of stuff day glo orange. What happened to skill? I have an aquaintance that raced World Cup and he thought it was pretty technically mind numbing. I think the UCI regulations dictate course length nased on time. XC IIRC should be around 2 hours for pro winners. Marathon is 3 hours?

And having pits with spares? Feed zones? I always thought the XC race was supposed to emulate a bunch of guys going for a ride. That's where the sport came from. It is not supposed to be like motocross or cyclo cross where fat folks can watch from a chair with easy access to pops and cheezy poofs. It is supposed to be hard where the individual rider takes care of his own needs. You are out there with no access to spare bikes and water fountains.

 

[ire]

I'm with ya. The race I was referring to used to have an epic 35 mile loop with a ton of climbing and a long single track descent. The course last weekend was fun, but far too short. When I started racing in '89 the winning times were always above 2.5hrs. I've done some marathon races, but around here it seems like we either have short courses or ultra-marathon (6+hrs or 100mi). There are a few that are more traditional XC length.

 

[Leppah]

I think the normal xc races around here are about 12-14 mile rides for the sport riders. I did an "endurance" race last year that was 32 miles long. That was brutal. I consider myself an expert all around rider, but that was pretty brutal. If something like that isn't long enough for you, you should probably start doing some 24 hour races.
This year they're doing the same race, but offering a 100k race to the hardcores. I barely finished the 50K (on a 41.5 pound bike). I couldn't imagine 100K. Might be good for you superheroes.

 

[SpeedMatters]

My guess is it's all about the money. Since the economic downturn over the last couple of years, fewer people are competing so race organizers may be trying to capture some additional riders who have the time and energy to train for the shorter and easier races. Also, their liability insurance may be tied to the distance and difficulty of the course. If they didn't work the #s on both ends, they may be out of business and these guys and their sponsors need to make money for supporting the sport...just my guess.

 

[DiRt DeViL]

Also keep in mind that money runs this events, advertising on long courses is not feasible when you can put a ton of signs/banners all over a short course. Also for spectators a short course is a lot better 'cause you can see the riders a lot more.

Soon the XC courses will be like CX courses without the obstacles but full of orange paint marking dangerous spots.

 

[HAB]

Around these parts a lot of races have what is called a XXC option. Basically a single loop double length course that typically includes some truly absurd technical sections, tons of climbing and finishing times of the winners starting at 4 hours. It's an open class but from an endurance and technical level newbs need not apply. It's pretty ****ing awesome.

That sounds rad.


I've given up on racing XC, for now anyway. I've just gotten bored with lame ass courses and lack of competition in my age group around here. There are only a couple fast 19-29 guys in the area, and racing against the same 2 guys over and over gets boring. Fast.


As far as the course length thing goes, I'm kind of biased because I'm faster on courses in the 1-2 hour range, but I do see where you're coming from. I can pretty consistently podium a Cat 1 race if a) it's on the shorter side or b) it's really long and in super ****ty conditions, i.e. a 6 hour race in 45 degree rain. Really what it comes down to is I'm a sprinter/ climber who happens to be enough of a meat head to suffer through 6 hours of cold wet misery if I have to. I'm really not a good endurance guy.

 

[TheTruth]

I havent raced in Cat 1 yet. I think I am going to bump up next year.