MTB Endurance Racing (Events) Development

[Timo]

(long.......I apologize that I cannot be more succinct.)

Mountain biking is a relatively new sport and our races and racing organization are still working to reach to the level that is seen in road cycling. Note the recent declining trend in NORBA pro races, while the road US Pro Tour grows – with just this week the announcement of the Tour of Missouri. MTB Endurance racing in particular is even more on the frontier, but yet we have been able to develop some interesting, and challenging events. I am very thankful for that.

I’ve been involved in both road cycling endurance events and also mountain bike endurance events and I thought I would share some observations and perhaps encourage a discussion on the current state of affairs in what is the preferred passion for many in this here forum – endurance mountain bike racing.

First off, I much prefer 100-mile (I call them dirty centuries) mountain bike races. I liken these to Double Centuries (200-mile – reference www.caltriplecrown.com ) road events, which I also really enjoy. I’ve done 12-hr, but never a 24-hr. MTB event, and I should note that yes, indeed there are 12 and 24 hour road events too (reference www.tt24tt.com ). So I think there are a lot of similarities between the road and mountain endurance events, and therefore a comparison is natural.

I would also like to spend a few minutes on the concept of race-vs-ride – because I’m sure someone will fire off some sort of reply to my post if I don’t. A lot of the road endurance events are not races in the definition used by any governing cycling body. A few are timed events, a few are not. Most do not have the multi-age group/categories for placement that we see in racing However, you are sadly mistaken if you do not believe the Double Centuries (for example) are not “races” (read the history of The Grand Tour and it covers this issue quite well), as quite a few people shoot not only for their own best recorded time, but the best time over all. The point being is that some people show up riding a DC just like a race - I think Tinkers results at any Planet Ultra event will clearly demonstrate this – while others are just there to finish.

A lot of the Double Centuries events have 19hr time limits and “early” starts as well as mass starts – or even some just have no mass start but rather use an open window to have people check in and go. The mountain bike endurance races, as we know have the mass starts, and in the case of Dirty Centuries go with shorter time limits, usually 12-hours or close to it. I contend that this encourages racers to attend the MTB races, but limits the chances for “endurance riders” to participate.

I’ve seen older, overweight, less fit riders use all of their 19-hours to finish a Double Century, but we just do not see these types in the 100-mile MTB Endurance Races. We do however, see this in the 12/24 type races. There are quite a few lesser fit riders out in the MTB horizon that could complete a Leadville (for example) in an expanded time frame I believe. If you don’t believe me, please attend a double century and you will be amazed at the people that complete these. It is quite extraordinary to see some of these people complete their goal of just finishing the darn thing!

Why should most of us care about this? Well it would expand the field, and perhaps result in lower prices for the races. (Aha! Now you know the point of this) There currently exists a significant discrepancy in pricing between the dirt and pave events. Any Planet Ultra (www.planetultra.com ) event is around $75 and they come with 5 or 6 aid stations stocked with food and even Hammer Products. A similar MTB 100-mile race will cost 3 to 4 times that price – but yet the organization is very much the same. The Texas Time Trials 12 and 24-hr. events will cost a solo road racer between $90 to $120, and again the MTB races will cost 3-4 times more than that as well. Given that all of these races cover a lot of terrain, both require permits and work with government officials, insurance (would not the insurance cost be higher for a road event, given the vehicle risk?), and staffing, I am curious as to why there is such a large difference in price?

The 12/24 road vs. 12/24 dirt comparison to me seems the most similar. Closed loop routes with some level of course officials and medical/EMT/police staff staff. Is there really a factor of 3 to 4 in the cost of running such an event between road and dirt?

If you are a racer promoter reading this, please note that I am not trying to accuse anyone of being greedy. I am very thankful that there are MTB race promoters willing to take these challenges on, and hopefully others will not post replies accusing the MTB promoters of that – obviously the market dictates the price. Clearly a function of business and they have a right to make a profit and be rewarded for their risk! However, as in any system of checks-and-balances, the comparison between road and dirt prices for these events is a valid question that should be asked.

I have more observations and comparisons to make, but I’ll limit it to just the two topics discussed here, which I believe are inter-related. The MTB Endurance events tend to focus on racers (and most of us up till now have had no qualms about that), but by doing so the fields are smaller. Inclusion of lesser fit riders with longer time limits might perhaps expand the fields and perhaps allow for reductions in prices. In addition, there already exists a large discrepancy in pricing between the road and dirt endurance events and I think this is an appropriate place to begin a discussion on why perhaps it is that way.

In a way it’s a Catch-22: smaller fields mean higher prices, higher prices mean smaller fields.

So I’ll close and throw it out to the forum. I’m sure we will get some great responses, and hopefully we will not see a large volume of the negative ones. Or perhaps I’m just the only one who thinks this way, and I just blathered on to no one else other than myself.........

[hairball_dh]

Interesting thoughts Matt. I have no experience in long road events so these issues have never occured to me. But, off the top of my head, here are a few things to consider:

- Hundies (dirty centuries) are expensive, well at least if you don't count the ones in NM I don't think you can enter any hundie in our neck of the wood for under $150. There are several 24 hour events that are less than the hundies!

- Long MTB events are difficult, moreso than the road. Put a triple on a road bike and you can climb trees when bonked. Off-road it's a different story. The E100, for example, requires riders to start in the dark and many still finish in the dark - and they are fit riders doing so! Granted the E100 is hard as nails, but I'd have to ask if you really want to widen the hundy crowd any more. Also...it's really really hard to foresee a promoter lowering rates as a result of increased registration.

- There are plenty of inexpensive endurance racing options for MTBers. All those dirt road slogs in the midwest are under $50 I think (Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas). The MC brand of racing - the purest of all - are free. GDR, GLR, KTR. With some scouting, vision, and nads one could design their own route and go bust out a solo TT. Your own NM dirty century series is free. 24 hour races like OP, Steamboat, Chamberlain ranch (to name but a few) are under $150 for solos.

I guess it really depends on what you are after. Is it the challenge, the competition, or a well organized and looked after event? I'm willing to shed some $$ for the last two, although some of the strongest competition I faced this year came in the freebies.

[Team Green Steve]

Another factor to consider is that most 24 hour races have large payours, while non-race events don't have any. Take the Granny Gear events, for example. Big Bear paid out $800 + for first prize, and I'm sure Moab paid out multiple times that. Worlds paid what, $2400 for first place? That money has to come from somewhere.

[Rock Punk]

The most I've ever paid for a dirt event was $130. That's the most; usually it's only two digits. Maybe I don't get out enough I'd guess the average price difference between dirt and pavement is more like 1.5x, not 3x. Just a rough guess.

Regardless, you're right that dirt cost more. I have always attributed the higher cost of dirt events to simple economies of scale. You know: the more riders you have the lower the expense-per-rider is to the organizer. I don't know if that's the reason, but it seems plausible enough given that some significant fraction of the costs paid by the organizer are fixed (do not increase with the rider count).

These comments add nothing to the value of this thread so I'll put a merciful end to them now.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Team Green Steve

Another factor to consider is that most 24 hour races have large payours, while non-race events don't have any. Take the Granny Gear events, for example. Big Bear paid out $800 + for first prize, and I'm sure Moab paid out multiple times that. Worlds paid what, $2400 for first place? That money has to come from somewhere.

Good point. Interestingly enough I was at a MTB pre-race meeting earlier this year and witnessed someone ask the promoter why the cash prizes were not high enough! Needless to say not everyone in the room agreed with the questioner, as it was easy enough to figure out where the additional money would come from.

Personally I'd like to see a lot of that disappear. I'm more for the masses than for the individual in this regard. The Double Centuries that I've done were indeed on a shoe string and without the any sort of prize and also the schwag (belt buckle, shirt, jersey, etc) that are common in the MTB events.

But then again, I would have to actually buy shirts if I didn't get them from the races.....

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Rock Punk

These comments add nothing to the value of this thread so I'll put a merciful end to them now.

Not at all....you made some great points and I agree with you.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by hairball_dh

Interesting thoughts Matt. I have no experience in long road events so these issues have never occured to me. But, off the top of my head, here are a few things to consider:

- Hundies (dirty centuries) are expensive, well at least if you don't count the ones in NM I don't think you can enter any hundie in our neck of the wood for under $150. There are several 24 hour events that are less than the hundies!

- Long MTB events are difficult, moreso than the road.

although some of the strongest competition I faced this year came in the freebies.

Good points amigo. Colorado dirty centuries are quite expensive and the largest of them all brings in ~$200k in revenue just from event fees! Throw in the fact that they string it out over 3 days and the impact to the local economy is huge. Great for the locals!

But you know, I'd like the option of doing more of these over the course of a year, and thats sort of the point here. In California alone they offer 18 Double Centeuries in a Calender year - and they don't have any in the months of Nov, Dec, Jan, and July! I'd rather see more skeleton/scaled back events rather than fewer, grandiose ones.

Also my experience is that the road doubles are just every bit as tough as the dirt hundies. I climbed all of Columbine @ Pb on my MTB, but Decker and Potrero Roads at Mulholland made me walk my road bike on pavement (although your triple idea would have really, really helped there!).

MC style/grass roots events are great! Yep, we put on 4 in NM this year and have one more coming up. But unofficial grassroots is still a step below the local club events that roadies have put on for years. Note that MTB clubs spend their time building trails, whereas Road clubs spend their time putting on events. Therefore they can add a level of sophistication to the "local" races, and for us it's just easier to say "meet here and race/ride on your own."

[Debaser]

Check out the laramie Enduro - it's cheap, longish (111k), super well run, and still manages to make a donation to the Red Cross Every year. If there were more races like this one within striking distance of home, I'd do them.

(The Dakota 5-0 is similar too, although getting shorter still.)

[kretzel]

I'll just add a couple of observations from my own experience, with little or maybe a lot of relevance to the very interesting discussion here.

1) Entry fee is often a small fraction of the cost of doing a race.
2) Money is often no factor at all in choosing races. When can I get time off, and when can I afford to walk around comatose for 3 days after the race? Those often dictate which events I pick.
3) I can physically only do so many 12's & 24's a year, assuming I want a decent performance. Yeah I could run myself into the ground doing 5 24 s a year but why bother? A good friend and quite experienced athlete told me a solo 24 MTB race left him more wasted than the Furnace Creek 508.

I think an interesting benchmark is Ironman - they routinely sell out events 12 months in advance with 2,000 spots at almost $500 a pop

Cheers,

[hairball_dh]

Originally Posted by Timo

Good point. Interestingly enough I was at a MTB pre-race meeting earlier this year and witnessed someone ask the promoter why the cash prizes were not high enough! Needless to say not everyone in the room agreed with the questioner, as it was easy enough to figure out where the additional money would come from.
.....

Yea, I wasn't there but read Harlan Price's report. Ouch. That was a most "unusual" way to handle the issue...

Originally Posted by Timo

Personally I'd like to see a lot of that disappear. I'm more for the masses than for the individual in this regard. The Double Centuries that I've done were indeed on a shoe string and without the any sort of prize and also the schwag (belt buckle, shirt, jersey, etc) that are common in the MTB events.

Payouts - that's an interesting aspect in your discussion. Some promoters want top riders at their event. Those riders tend to be motivated by $$ cause to be a top rider takes a lot more than talent. It takes a big financial investment, on somebody's part anyway. Having a very competitive field certainly adds to the excitement of the event. However...this ain't a spectator sport.

Here's a tangential question: how do you think having big names at an event affects it? My guess is that it doesn't make a hill of beans for the average joe...

[wooglin]

One difference that springs immediately to my mind is that on a road ride I can pass pretty much anywhere, but put one slower rider in front on singletrack and everyone behind is impacted. I don't mind walking, but I don't like doing it on an easy section just because someone ahead is inexperienced.

I think one reason the Ouachita Challenge has a "tour" one day and a race the next is to separate the folks who want to hammer from the folks who are just out to ride. It also lets them double their entry numbers, which is also a good thing. Maybe a better model than just increasing the size of one day events?

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by Timo

I contend that this encourages racers to attend the MTB races, but limits the chances for “endurance riders” to participate.

Right. So? They are races after all. If someone wants to race, they race. If they can't make the time limit, they either take steps to get faster or they do endurance rides by themselves or with a group of likeminded friends. There are far more people doing this than there are 'racers'.

There are quite a few lesser fit riders out in the MTB horizon that could complete a Leadville (for example) in an expanded time frame I believe.

So you're suggesting that we should basically dumb down the 100-milers even further (and make them less safe because there will be even more people crammed onto the same trails) just to save a few bucks?

I don't see how that's a good idea. Convince me.

Why should most of us care about this? Well it would expand the field, and perhaps result in lower prices for the races.

It would expand the field at the slow end, but wouldn't add anything to the level of competition at the sharp end.

As to the prices, 98%+ of the racers I know have $4000 race bikes, training bikes, road bikes, commuter bikes, cyclocross bikes, nice homes, new cars, etc... Money is not the issue.

My $.02 is that we need longer, more difficult, more challenging races to give people who've "been there and done that" with the 100-mile and 24-hour thing something to graduate to. It's happening, slowly, and one of the results is that some of the prices have come down as the 100/24 promoters realize that they no longer have a corner on the market.

But that's just the way I see it.

Anyone else?

MC

[Timo]

Originally Posted by hairball_dh

Here's a tangential question: how do you think having big names at an event affects it? My guess is that it doesn't make a hill of beans for the average joe...

And the use of the phrase "big names" is relative (with all due respect). I can't imagine anyone signing up for an endurance event just to be around some level of celebrity...

Nope, these events are about personal strength and tests of well......endurance. Where that level is for everyone is quite different, but I'm more excited to see the mother of 4 complete her first hundie than I am for the overall.

[sportsman]

In light of this thread, and some of your responses, why did you choose the Breck 100 ($185) over the CB100, with plans to make the same choice next year? The CB 100 is a free, grassroots, self-supported race.

Both races have big names, both have fast riders. Both have excellent venues with world class courses at high altitudes.

[hairball_dh]

Originally Posted by Timo

And the use of the phrase "big names" is relative (with all due respect). I can't imagine anyone signing up for an endurance event just to be around some level of celebrity...

Nope, these events are about personal strength and tests of well......endurance. Where that level is for everyone is quite different, but I'm more excited to see the mother of 4 complete her first hundie than I am for the overall.

OK, sure...that's an obvious point I alluded to. Promoters, however (and to be clear, you are hoping to influence promoters here, not riders) actively pursue the best in the sport for their events. Why? It's all about publicity from the promoters POV. More press (cyclingnews, velonews or whatever) draws more attention, which in turn makes the event more attractive from a riders perspective (at the very least it gets it on the radar screen), which helps to grow an event.

I'm no historian, but I bet Dave Wiens dropping the hammer on Leadville year after year has done a lot for the event, even if only a handful of riders each year think they've got a shot.

I think what you are really asking is this: why are there no MTB equivalents of double centuries? And to answer...mountain bikers in general, especially enduro nuts, are more self-reliant and less gregarious than their roadie cousins. Big group rides off-road have zero appeal to me - unless it's a race. Pin a number on and it changes everything. Take the number off and I'm going solo.

There is a frontier out there you have yet to experience. Put May 4 on your calendar, read up on the Kokopelli trail, do your planning and scheming and give the KTR high priority come spring. It is quite liberating to be self-reliant over that distance. The entrance fee is just right, the consequences are real, the payoff is enormous. That's livin'.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by mikesee

Right. So? They are races after all. If someone wants to race, they race. If they can't make the time limit, they either take steps to get faster or they do endurance rides by themselves or with a group of likeminded friends. There are far more people doing this than there are 'racers'.

Perhaps you missed my point that the longer time limits in the road events open the fields up to more people...which in turn allows them to get better, faster, and brings more people into the field. At the other end of that as well is the rider whose times are getting slower by the year - the Arnie Palmers. I know of a an awesome senior citizen who missed the time cut at Leadville this year by a few minutes. He's a multi time finisher, but age (or illness) catches up with all of us. Yeah these last few years he's had a "new" goal - not to miss the time cut!! But what I saw in the road events was a whole collection of people like this - very vibrant seniors and some completing doubles into their eighties!

I dunno maybe my argument has now become irrelevant.

Originally Posted by mikesee

So you're suggesting that we should basically dumb down the 100-milers even further (and make them less safe because there will be even more people crammed onto the same trails) just to save a few bucks?

Ok thats not what I suggested. How do longer time limits crowd courses on hundies (a few of which that would just like to attract 100 people!!!)? How does that make it unsafe?

And with all due respect Mike - the phrase "dumb it down" could be interpreted as insulting - but it's the internet so I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. Give credit to the entry level riders for giving it their all and shooting for their first endurance event. I think we all should be try to be ambassadors to the sport and encourage more people to participate. The road events are doing this...why not endurance MTB?

Regarding the more challenging event argument: Yes I agree there is quite a future for that. Thanks to you, the MTB endurance sport has an optional path for more of the endurance survival tests rather than the clinical NASCAR type approach that a lot of the 24 events are like. Nothing is wrong with either- different strokes for different folks, eh?

Wow, thansk for the reply and comments.

[KERKOVEJ]

What I go looking for in events....
1. Good bang for the buck!
2. A course that makes me give a thumbs up when I am done
3. Different. Make the event different than what's already out there.
4. Make it hard! Make people work to finish!
5. Respect the people who register for your event, and volunteer.
6. Pay out is not important to me, so not a deciding factor.

I am sure I will have more to post at a later date.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by sportsman

In light of this thread, and some of your responses, why did you choose the Breck 100 ($185) over the CB100, with plans to make the same choice next year? The CB 100 is a free, grassroots, self-supported race.

Both races have big names, both have fast riders. Both have excellent venues with world class courses at high altitudes.

Hey Scott, in a perfect world they won't be on the same weekend next year.

I support both and would live to ride in both. I do prefer Breckenridge and I thought Thane put on one hell of an event.

I've put on a few grass roots events myself like you have.....they are great fun and the price is right. But I can always roll out of bed one morning and just say the hell with it (which I contend I will do some day anyway!). Because of this, there is a need for organization in the sport. Maybe that is what I am now arguing......

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by Timo

Perhaps you missed my point that the longer time limits in the road events open the fields up to more people...which in turn allows them to get better, faster, and brings more people into the field.

I think I got exactly that point. I just don't see why/how more = better.

Ok thats not what I suggested. How do longer time limits crowd courses on hundies (a few of which that would just like to attract 100 people!!!)? How does that make it unsafe?

You're asking for time limits to be lengthened so that more people will enter, in hopes that attracting more people will drive down entry fees. More people on the same course = less space for each person. Some (read: "many") of these folks will be OCD types that, despite the fact that they'll be hard pressed to beat your extended time cut, will line up at the front of the pack to save that extra .065 seconds. And in so doing they'll not only displace some of the truly fast that stand a chance of winning, but they'll be getting in the way the first few miles and possibly causing accidents/pileups as a result of their inexperience in true race situations. It happens at every race already. Increasing time cuts to bring in more slow people (who else will an increased time cut attract?) will only exacerbate it.

And with all due respect Mike - the phrase "dumb it down" could be interpreted as insulting - but it's the internet so I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. Give credit to the entry level riders for giving it their all and shooting for their first endurance event. I think we all should be try to be ambassadors to the sport and encourage more people to participate. The road events are doing this...why not endurance MTB?

The phrase is what it is. If you choose to be insulted by it, well...?

You've indicated that you want to fill the field with more people to drop entry fees. You've indicated that your means for achieving this is by extending time cuts to draw more of the slow end of the peloton. You'll get more people, sure, but not necessarily qualified people. So aid stations will get hit harder, volunteers (and more of them) will be asked to do more, and for longer, EMS will have more issues to deal with, etc... All in all, I see race costs increasing as a result.

I call that dumbing it down. What would you call it?

I think that more competition is good. But simply more pack fodder? How is that good?

Nothing is wrong with either- different strokes for different folks, eh?

Sure.

MC

[Timo]

Originally Posted by hairball_dh

I think what you are really asking is this: why are there no MTB equivalents of double centuries? And to answer...mountain bikers in general, especially enduro nuts, are more self-reliant and less gregarious than their roadie cousins. Big group rides off-road have zero appeal to me - unless it's a race. Pin a number on and it changes everything. Take the number off and I'm going solo.

There is a frontier out there you have yet to experience. Put May 4 on your calendar, read up on the Kokopelli trail, do your planning and scheming and give the KTR high priority come spring. It is quite liberating to be self-reliant over that distance. The entrance fee is just right, the consequences are real, the payoff is enormous. That's livin'.

Yeah maybe you figured out what my observations were really about. It would nice to have more local endurance events, that don't take on so much importance and planning as the "big" ones do. Perhaps the folks in the midwest and east are ahead of the us out here in the west with all of the 6-hr and 12-hr options. I agree....I don't want to be the group leader on big group rides anymore. Been there done that.

Regarding the frontier challenges.... I think Scott can back me up on some of the primitive routes I've led the NM Endurance Series on. But yeah, the Koko interests me. I just have never been there and haven't yet found the desire to study maps and plan for this one. Hell I already do THAT around these parts!

[rich]

It would seem the endurance elites don't like or want the share their races with newbies.
The more we can open our sport to new people the better it will become.

[trail717]

Interesting reading through everyone’s comments. I see two underlying arguments here

First: expanded participation in mtb endurance events due to lower entry fees and easer cut off times

Second: make the event/cut off times hard enough that only top tier racers can truly compete

Sort of a “how can we get more average Joes involved in endurance mtb events and more events” vs “only the elite who have earned the right can competitively/safely do these types of events”

I think the Durango 100 is a good model that addresses both points of view, i.e.:

• 100 miles for the elite racer that wants to be truly tested with a fun 100 mile course and very tough cut off times
• 60 miles for the fit, but not elite, racer who can not legitimately make the 100 cut off times
• 30 miles for the less fit or new to the endurance game racer/rider (and any hardcore sandbaggers)
• The staggered start allows for a fair start for the elite racers and address start/course crowding safety issues

A 6 or 12 hour solo class in the 24 hour races can address some of the same issues in a different format

Also the KTR, Grand Loop, GDR is an example of getting the elite endurance racers to stretch beyond the 100mile/24hr format with a hard/harder/very hard approach

My 2¢ is that in the case of endurance racing ‘more can be better’, more endurance events/courses/formats to choose from at reasonable entry fees, more less-fit or non-endurance racers getting into the endurance game, more average Joe endurance racers to race against other average Joe’s like me, more elite racers coming up through the ranks, and more endurance racers/riders to buy more 29 inch wheels from custom wheel builders ( with all due respect)


forever lost in the desert except when in the mountains

[teamdicky]

I got some time to kill so here goes:

I think it is great when a promoter can EASILY incorporate a shorter loop in a race like a hundie. It does require more organization, but it is a nice option. I don't know if extennding the time limit for hundies would be a good idea. I have had a few reasonably fit friends join me at a few hundies this summer and they have taken 12-15 hours to complete the full distance. For the average Joe to be out on a ride over 15 hours blows my mind. If you can't do it that fast you probably need to consider doing some slightly shorter (40-60 milers) and see how that goes first. 15 hours in the saddle is hard enough on those of us that are used to long days, but for an endurance newbie??
Also, how long should an organizer have to have volunteers and EMS available, especially on a backcountry 100 miler?
Events like the Shenandoah 100 already get 400 riders. Do they really need more?
Good lord, the E100 is so hard that it starts before dawn, and the cutoffs are still not being made by some experienced riders. I had my concerns after a couple mechanicals that I might not make the light cut-off time.
High prices? I think that the racers fall into two categories. Guys with too much money to spend and a desire to constantly compete, and the weekend warrior who picks one big legendary event (cost be damned) and throws down his money to do it. Some promoters seem to have gone a bit overboard on reg fees (especially when they don't offer much in payout), but as long as attendance keeps going up why bother lowering the price. It's a product, that's all it is. I really treasure the few events that offer huge amounts of fun, nice payouts, and beer all at a low price. I do realize that big loop events can cost a lot to put on so I put my money where I think I can get my money's worth.
Sweeping a road course for stragglers is a lot easier than looking around hundreds (or thousands) of acres of wilderness. I've seen pacing promoters wondering where their racers are loooonggg after dark. Promoters take on a fair amount of concerns when they put on these events, and I wouldn't want to be worrying about the guy who left the start line 18 hours ago in a pair of gym shorts and cross trainers on a Walmart bike (two guys STARTED the PMBAR looking just like that last year).
I guess you can do a Mike C type event, where you pay nothing, you get nothing, and your family is on their own if they want to find your corpse (putting that lightly with a dose of sarcasm). Someday I hope to have the pleasure of such torture, someday.

random thoughts from a guy who had twenty minutes to kill this morning

[bikerunner]

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the fact that the race course for off road events must often be rented, leading to higher costs.

I've raced many 12 and 24 hour events, and the payout does matter to me. I have something tangible to remind me, and I think it shows that the promoter was willing to put in some extra effort to make it happen. To me a medal is crap, I want something I can use. I may already have two gear bags, but a 3rd is OK, I'll use it someday, tires always wear out and it's something I won't have to buy later. I know we've all recieved the wrong size glove/helmet/gender prize at some point, but for me it adds to the overall value of the event, and offsets some of the cost. And you feel like you earned your prize, adding to the sense of satisfaction for a job well done.

[jimmy]

I can't train enough for the 100 milers, but enjoy the 50 mile or 100K races. Work and family committments keep me to about 8-10 hrs a week training during the summer. If there were more of those types of races I would race them. This past sumer I did the Silver Rush 50 and the Laramie Enduro. Another race like that at the end of August would have been fun.

[rio]

I agree with MC's comments on the 100 mile and longer events. Make them longer and tougher and here in Alaska with limited trail access at times it becomes a challenge to create a 100 plus event with most of the trails located on federal lands. I have found that here in central Alaska, with the Soggy Bottom 100 and the infamous and very secret Sweet Roll 200, these events attract more of the endurance rider ( not a racer but a fast trail rider, I am not sure if I can define the difference ! ) . The riders that do my events usually team up if they have safety issues with bears or exhaustion or both. The Soggy and Sweet Roll are events where the rider has to be self sufficient or else fail. I have yet to impose a mandatory cut off time, however, I have made it a requirement for riders to have lights should they need them and when they finish the event they usually clock themselves in and write down there time in my ride log sheet.

I would like to thank MC for his ideas that improved the Soggy Bottom and Sweet Roll events !

Originally Posted by mikesee

Right. So? They are races after all. If someone wants to race, they race. If they can't make the time limit, they either take steps to get faster or they do endurance rides by themselves or with a group of likeminded friends. There are far more people doing this than there are 'racers'.



So you're suggesting that we should basically dumb down the 100-milers even further (and make them less safe because there will be even more people crammed onto the same trails) just to save a few bucks?

I don't see how that's a good idea. Convince me.




It would expand the field at the slow end, but wouldn't add anything to the level of competition at the sharp end.

As to the prices, 98%+ of the racers I know have $4000 race bikes, training bikes, road bikes, commuter bikes, cyclocross bikes, nice homes, new cars, etc... Money is not the issue.

My $.02 is that we need longer, more difficult, more challenging races to give people who've "been there and done that" with the 100-mile and 24-hour thing something to graduate to. It's happening, slowly, and one of the results is that some of the prices have come down as the 100/24 promoters realize that they no longer have a corner on the market.

But that's just the way I see it.

Anyone else?

MC

[Jilleo]

Originally Posted by mikesee

My $.02 is that we need longer, more difficult, more challenging races to give people who've "been there and done that" with the 100-mile and 24-hour thing something to graduate to. It's happening, slowly, and one of the results is that some of the prices have come down as the 100/24 promoters realize that they no longer have a corner on the market.

But that's just the way I see it.

Anyone else?

MC

Mike, what about the Great Divide Race? Isn't that something all mountain bike racers can aspire to?

[Guitar Ted]

The following is from my blog post today and is written from the perspective of being one of the promoters of Trans Iowa........................


www.g-tedproductions.blogspot.com

This is a subject that has been debated upon for quite sometime and one that gets brought up consistently by folks when talking about Trans Iowa. Since I am one of the promoters of Trans Iowa, I'll focus in on this discussion from that perspective.

From my point of view it seems that most of the comments having anything to do with the subject at hand are requests for larger field limits, requests for "support", and requests for easier courses/ rules. We ( Jeff Kerkove and I) have stuck to our guns and not changed much from the basic format that we started out with.

For the record, we believe in a tough challenge that not all can handle. We believe that this provides a most rewarding experience if you do finish, or overcome the challenge. This "reward" is personal, and worth more than trophies, schwag, or money. The sheer fact that not all can finish makes the finishing worth more than the things I mentioned. It's what defines a challenge. Anything that allows everyone to finish is something less than that, and I for one, am not interested in that.

So, it boils down to this, I think. Have an event that everyone can finish, within reason, and have your competition within that format. It's then about who is best/ fastest/ strongest. There can be only one person/ team that can claim that honor. The rest are losers.

Or, you can have an event that is about something deeper than that. A challenge: you not only have other individual competitors, but you have the course itself, the weather, time, and yourself to overcome. An event that, even if you do not finish it, can take you beyond your own limits to a new place you may have thought not possible. If that's not winning, if that's not worth more than money, prizes, or even recognition, then I'm in the wrong game.

Maybe it's hard to get a grasp on this until you take on such a challenge. Maybe I'm not able to convey the "certain something" that motivates folks to take on these ultra-challenges. I'm not sure, but there.............that's my take on it.

What's yours?

[SlowerThenSnot]

From A guy who ownly has one bike, a very felxible job, no money, and who loves to go long.... Who did some xc stuff and don't really like the agro weekend riders...

I like events were the entry is less then a buck a mile, that make me push myself... and that I might not finish.

TI2 was awsome nobody finished and the way Jeff and Mark handled it was awsome!

GDR the miles I got in were awsome! Can't wait to do this year I am there to finish but heck not in the frame of mind to do in less then 25 days... Hopfully no rednecks in MT this year

CB100 pushed myself the hardest I have and almost cracked and saw some of my limits! Had to bail after 47miles... just cost me a night in a hostel

Larimie 111K The best run event i've been too! Finished over there time cutoff... also rode up there the day before from Denver Felt good to finish!

Gonna do more events like thease cuase the feeling of getting them done or to push your self to the brink is what really living is for me!

Whatever you do DON"T make em EZer!!!

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by rich

It would seem the endurance elites don't like or want the share their races with newbies.
The more we can open our sport to new people the better it will become.

That's one way to interpret/twist what's been said here.

Another way to say it is this: Don't bring the races down to the people, allow the people to bring themselves up to the races.

There's nothing rewarding about finishing a race that's been dumbed down to allow you to finish. It's a hollow victory and all but the most shallow realize this immediately upon finishing.

But when you bite off more than you can chew with respect to distance or time out, even if you don't finish, you learn something about yourself if you go further than you thought possible. That's extremely valuable, not to mention addictive.

And finishing something that you'd previously thought beyond your abilities is priceless.

MC

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by Jilleo

Mike, what about the Great Divide Race? Isn't that something all mountain bike racers can aspire to?

Of course. For many, it's the end goal of a logical progression. Norba race->24 hour team race->100 miler->12 hour solo->24 hour solo->KTR->Susitna->GLR->Idita 350->GDR.

And then there are those that take it a step further and do the race to Nome.

MC

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by Guitar Ted

For the record, we believe in a tough challenge that not all can handle. We believe that this provides a most rewarding experience if you do finish, or overcome the challenge. This "reward" is personal, and worth more than trophies, schwag, or money. The sheer fact that not all can finish makes the finishing worth more than the things I mentioned. It's what defines a challenge. Anything that allows everyone to finish is something less than that, and I for one, am not interested in that.[/i]

Well put on all, Mark.

Thanks for chiming in.

MC

[alizbee]

Another way to say it is this: Don't bring the races down to the people, allow the people to bring themselves up to the races.

Nicely put.

Most of what I have to say has been said. But I agree that attracting more people to Endurance events is a good thing. But masses for the sake of masses can be a bad thing. The "average Joe" rider just isn't going to enter a 100 mile race, regardless of any cut off time. Most enduro riders are people who have been riding/racing for many years. The endurance scene is a natural progression for experienced riders. You won't have an entry level rider wheeling their new bike from the shop, to the start line of the Leadville 100.

And for what it is worth, I think the cut off times are quite forgiving as is.

[Haroow]

I am the Race Promoter for the Bearlodge Mtn Bike Race ( Bearlodge Mtn Classic) . I have a limited (very ) experience on doing endurance events. Though, I love the Laramie Enduro 111k.. I am large guy 260, and I have yet to finish the enduro, I missed the last cut off time at the 5th station....But I come back to that event every year, and I bring our club members too. It is well put on, the aid stations are completely stocked.. The price is right and I can justify the trip...

I don't worry about the prizes, simply because I 'm competitive with myself and the rider in front of me.. I strive to finish the LE 111, but each person in front of me or behind at that time is my competition...they are my motivation to keep going...

Back to the ?. As a race promoter/director, I felt for the locals in my area that anything above 30 dollars for one day and 55 for two days is excessive...I pay the 55 for LE111 because it is still reasonable for the area, length , time, and support. Our race is broken into 14, 24, and 35 mile event (sse elevation pic)...We have up to 4 aid stations for experts...My volunteers bless the hearts is predominately EMS personnel, with a strategically placed paramedic...

1. Our race is difficult...it has a alot of climbing, alot of singletrack. Our expert racers last year felt that out 35 Mile course was every bit as hard as the Dakota 50 and "We have been told “your 35 mile race is very equivalent (to) other 50 mile races. Look at Leadville Silver Rush times, or the Enduro in Laramie.”
2. Our race depending on the weather is technical to a slog fest...(See 1st year)
3. Depending on your abilities, It will literally make your legs hurt, burn a lung or two.
4. It offers the most beautiful views in the area (IMO) See our photos...

I would love to race my race, but I have to put it on...I would pass the torch but it would not be done the way I expect a racer would want it...( want it done right do it yourself)

I strive to put on a race as well put on as the Enduro... and Prizes are what you get at the end.. 1st -3rd they are custom made prizes locally, I now have repeat riders just for our prizes, as they are one of kind, and specific to our region.

I am limited on the people I have to put on a race, I with one other person, flag it, sign it, and make any necessary fixes the week prior to the race as well as do everything else. ( not unlike many Race Promoters/directors) ( I love doing it) ...

We have no time limit, but with an increase in registration that may have to occur or we start earlier...our winning time for the expert was 3:49:30.. He is no slacker, and a very competitive racer...Our slowest was 5:34:37...He got lost and had to track back...That rider, is also not a slacker and he was in proximity of main group of experts, just got head of steam, and missed a sign...I sagged that section, and never saw him...He went right stead of left...our fastest beginner was 2:26:29 and slowest 4:24:05 and our slowest intermediate was 5:37:00...Some of the competitors were in it for ride with sag, some were racing, and were very happy to just finish...

As a grass root org...and state recognized non-profit, and working on 501 3c.. We simply work to give activity to our community, increase mtn biking in our community and area, and promote our trails...We use funds to map out trails, purchase equipment to maintain, develop, and then donate funds to our community bike rodeo, and sponsor kids who want be involved in something that has no cliques...

IMO only I feel higher prices can only be justified by high monetary prizes, or donating to Red Cross, etc... I feel that high entry fees, without the min adequate volunteers and sag station is unsafe, and bordering on greedy... That why I think the LE 111k is fantastic. event. A slower but steady rider like myself, will get the bananas, gels, water, Hammer and other stuff at every station...And i will have food at the end... I have been in E events that don't have food at the end, and stations were picked over, and never saw personnel at critical junctions.

So I believe 1. Safety of the rider is paramount ( Insurance is expensive so are lawsuits), no need to dumb down a course, put the volunteers where they need to be...to give direction and or summon help or provide aid... ( reward the volunteers, a group dinner, recognition publicly)
2. reasonable costs for racers....AS a racer at min I want a shirt, and some stuff in a goody bag...***as race director..Shirts depending on color and sizes , and type of shirt can be as lows a 3.50 -7 bucks, ins for about 150 entrants can runs as high as 600 bucks...this passed on to the riders...Fuel for volunteer org.. etc.... Flagging material, signage, forest service fees, etc... It's not cheap...
3. The events will only go on, with racer participation , both in the race/ride etc.. and through comments/suggestions to make it it better for them...We had a low turnout this year, weather was great, but is was on Fathers day.. What was the issue, did We do so poorly the first year...Don't know. But we took suggestions and put on a great event and were highly complimented on how safe they felt, and hard the course was, and the views, and their prizes.. Those will come back , will they bring their friends?

I think it is difficult to say, about large groups, and changing the dynamics of events, I think, having "known " riders show is a plus, But then you might have to contend with point systems, NORBA, and many others things I see racers complain about...with those increased numbers with uber competitors changes have to be made for qualification to have those races sponsored.. and doing so may not be logistically possible...

It's just my .02...but doing this difficult and there are many variables for many events, due to location, weather, turnout etc.. We typically have few pre registrations and most entrants wait the day of--very frustrating....in that aspect...Seems typical...

[Stefan_G]

It's not the money, but it really is. Sorta.

Originally Posted by Kretzel

1) Entry fee is often a small fraction of the cost of doing a race.

This may be true, but think of the other things you could use this money for. Especially if you do several races in a season! How many dinner's out, nice bike accessories, etc. could you buy for the price of all those entry fees? I know a few people who won't/can't justify spending so much cash for an HID light, yet their yearly race costs would have paid for an HID light twice over! My HID light has provided me with some of the most memorable riding/racing I have ever done. How about a second wheelset? Sure is nice to have a set of studded tires mounted and ready to go at the drop of a snowflake.

I've only paid for a few (< 5 !!) races, and every time I feel like I am just throwing that money away. I am torn because I want to race more, and competition really motivates me to ride my hardest, but it kills me to feel like I am just throwing money out the window. I guess it's not that I can't afford to enter more races, it's just that I am very selective about where to put my money. My bike is probably worth 2x my truck...

So, for me, it sort of comes down to a question of money vs. principles. If I can get the same challenge and personal reward elsewhere, why pay the race "tax"? Why not gather some riders together for local trail TT's. DWRIAD. KTR. GLR. CB100. The Colorado Trail and the soon-to-be CTR. And, tons more that I haven't done yet. Loads and loads of stuff everywhere to challenge *everyone*! We are only limited by our creativity and motivation. And there's the rub - nothing seems to motivate like a race, and already having the race course/date set removes the "burden" of creativity. Signing up and paying adds an additional feel of commitment and motivation. Doesn't it seem harder to bail or quit on a race/ride if you've paid for it? Why is that!? Why do we base our commitment/motivation/training/racing on money over principles?

Several others in this thread have eloquently stated what Endurance Racing means to me. I'd like to give them props and quote them here:

Originally Posted by dh_hairball

It is quite liberating to be self-reliant over that distance. The entrance fee is just right, the consequences are real, the payoff is enormous. That's livin'.

Originally Posted by Guitar_Ted

For the record, we believe in a tough challenge that not all can handle. We believe that this provides a most rewarding experience if you do finish, or overcome the challenge. This "reward" is personal, and worth more than trophies, schwag, or money. The sheer fact that not all can finish makes the finishing worth more than the things I mentioned. It's what defines a challenge.

Originally Posted by mikesee

But when you bite off more than you can chew with respect to distance or time out, even if you don't finish, you learn something about yourself if you go further than you thought possible. That's extremely valuable, not to mention addictive.

And finishing something that you'd previously thought beyond your abilities is priceless.

Originally Posted by SlowerThenSnot

Gonna do more events like thease cuase the feeling of getting them done or to push your self to the brink is what really living is for me!

[Timo]

Great discussion and points by many of you - and not too many arguments in absolute terms!! :-) I think there are several interesting ideas and points of view floating about here, and it's nice to see so much passion in the endurance side of mountain biking.

So what can we do to have more endurance races? Is money the ultimate motivator to bring in more promoters, or is the grass-roots way of racing the quickest and easiest way to get get an endurance outlet?

Perhaps the road cycling clubs are geared (bad pun day) toward putting on events/races, whereas mountain bike clubs are understandably geared toward trail work. The MTB side relies more on promoters to put on races than the skinny tired folk do.

Is this perhaps why we have higher prices and lesser choices in events?

[alizbee]

Originally Posted by Timo

Is this perhaps why we have higher prices and lesser choices in events?

I am not sure we have fewer choices. There are far more events that I want to do, that I don't have the time for. Each year more races are cropping up, and exisiting ones seem to be growing. The calendar at www.ride424.com offers a comprehensive list.

I have only done 1 endurance road race, the LOTOJA, and it was as expensive as other MTB enduros. The huge difference in the two (besides the overly uptight roadie culture ) was that the MTB events have left me far more satisfied. I was bored during the LOTOJA, something I never was during the KTR.

In the end I think it comes down to experience. What are we looking for on our bikes? Fun? Adventure? Pain? Redemption?

In every enduro ride I get to a point where I could either quit or continue. Quitting is always easy, and almost always justified. But it leaves a bitter, lingering taste that stays with me until I can purge it out with another ride.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by alizbee

I am not sure we have fewer choices. There are far more events that I want to do, that I don't have the time for. Each year more races are cropping up, and exisiting ones seem to be growing. The calendar at www.ride424.com offers a comprehensive list.

Kretzel's Calender is just awesome isn't it? Yeah there are a lot of events on his list - but we also live in a very large country - not to mention planet, since he does include some international events! However, you ad the spatial dimension to the argument and then the choices are a limited. With travel personal expense goes up, and that goes well with Kretel's argument that race fees are irrelevant. I agree in that regard.

Originally Posted by alizbee

I have only done 1 endurance road race, the LOTOJA, and it was as expensive as other MTB enduros. The huge difference in the two (besides the overly uptight roadie culture ) was that the MTB events have left me far more satisfied. I was bored during the LOTOJA, something I never was during the KTR.

What is the LOTOJA? Yeah personal interest is key in these events....if you don't like it, then yeah it's not for you. I get the toungue and cheek remark, but I have seen some very high strung mountainn bikers and some very laid back roadies too. I think the endurance crowd between the two are pretty darn similiar though and there are quite a few people who do both.

Originally Posted by alizbee

In the end I think it comes down to experience. What are we looking for on our bikes? Fun? Adventure? Pain? Redemption?

In every enduro ride I get to a point where I could either quit or continue. Quitting is always easy, and almost always justified. But it leaves a bitter, lingering taste that stays with me until I can purge it out with another ride.

Yep, that's a great way of stating the "why the hell do we do this?" Dave H had a great post on his blog about this sometime back I recall.

[alizbee]

LOTOJA is the Logan, UT To Jackson, WY race. LOgan-TO-JAckson

It is a 200ish mile race/ride. It was fun, but not exactly my cup of tea. And yeah, the uptight comment was a joke. There are uptight people in all walks of life. I just like to generalize and stereotype once in a while...Another joke!

[Haroow]

I do endurance events, because I get more satisfaction out of them....Each time I have done the LE111k I have gotten further and further, and i have to think about the race as well as Pedal my tukis off....How do I eat, how do i train, where can I fast, where do i need to conserve...I was simply overjoyed and in shock that during 105 degree temps, I could keep cool and push myself to no quit, and make the next aid station...I ride them to see what can i do...Will I ever win one... Nope....But I suffer as I can, and I will eventually finish the enduro....

The Dakota 50, i do cause it's local, on good trails....I do it, because I know I can finish it, I tired to beat my time from last year, and felt faster, I rode very well, but did I ride hard enough? Well I didn't beat my time and I had plenty in the tank...I have my goal for that race as well...

I know the satisfaction of going to the next station, and eventually the finish is tops for me... It is a trial, and I know if I can deal with the pain, and the "thoughts" I can succeed at everything i do.... Hence the hill is only what you make of it....

People think I'm out of mind when i tell them I ride the LE111k, and the 50... It to them is nuts to travel that far on a bike...But hell, why not... I rode to Spearfish today, 31.5 m on my HT MTB>>> I did it alone, and met my wife at the BIke shop....I wanted miles....to feel good, and put an a sweat.....Cool thing is, I don't hurt....

[AusMTB Orienteer]

Well the Scott24hr over here in Aus doesn't lack for numbers this years race had an astounding 3024 riders, from hardcore single speeders to mixed six teams and everything inbetween.
entry fee is 115 aus dollars but that gets you a tee shirt as well as entry, facilities are laid on and the course is challenging enough for all comers
challanging enough that our world singles reps male and female are chosen on this race.
the course is 19.11 km long.
Aus also has a few enduros coming along nicely. highland fling 160km, 100km or 50km. N-ZO 24hr (with 12 hour) plus polaris events and others. Its growing in popularity here at an amazing rate.

[LyndaW]

Originally Posted by teamdicky

I guess you can do a Mike C type event, where you pay nothing, you get nothing

That sure doesn't describe my KTR experience this year. That was one of the coolest races I have done.

[IttyBittyBetty]

Originally Posted by Guitar Ted

[i]

For the record, we believe in a tough challenge that not all can handle. We believe that this provides a most rewarding experience if you do finish, or overcome the challenge. This "reward" is personal, and worth more than trophies, schwag, or money. The sheer fact that not all can finish makes the finishing worth more than the things I mentioned. It's what defines a challenge. Anything that allows everyone to finish is something less than that, and I for one, am not interested in that.

Maybe it's hard to get a grasp on this until you take on such a challenge. Maybe I'm not able to convey the "certain something" that motivates folks to take on these ultra-challenges. I'm not sure, but there.............that's my take on it.

What's yours?

It's not hard to grasp. I think Guitar Ted said it perfectly. Mikesee also had some very true words. I have finished (and won) some endurance events and there are others I have not completed. Both the finishes and the "un-finishes" were rewarding in their own way. The "un-finishes" were not failures, as I learned so much from them, mostly about myself. While I think it's nice to have some shorter "endurance" events to start out with (like the Firecracker 50 and the Laramie Enduro out here in the Rocky Mountain region), I don't think the longer events should be made easier by lengthening the alloted time. I'd rather train/ride more and prepare better so that I can make the cut-off all on my own. That's way better than any T-shirt that doesn't fit me anyway!

[PeT]

1). It's clear from the comments here that most think endurance racing is a club and dues need to be paid in order to move up the hierarchy of events, and I must say I find merit in their arguments. I too am willing to pay a premium for a competitive event that effectively precludes having it clogged with people who don’t have a realistic assessment of their abilities. We all want to -- at least occasionally -- test our mettle against other like-minded individuals. But at the same time, I'd like to see more affordable events that reach out, beyond the fanatic, to bring more into the fold -- not so much to lower event prices but to save the planet. Well, maybe it won't save the planet, but such events might at least increase the voting block of people that ride bicycles and want to use and experience the outdoors with minimal impact -- and just maybe ride to the corner store instead of drive. I'm not afraid of the consequences of sharing our world, I'm afraid of losing it because there are too few of us who have the same values.

Someone noted that the Durango 100 has three events folded into it and I would agree that something like that that could fill the gap. The E100 does something similar as well, but neither of them could be considered inexpensive. The director of my home event, the Laramie Enduro, is contemplating a "half-enduro" of about 50 K, as it wouldn’t add substantially to the logistics of the day. He’s certainly of the mind to be inclusive of more riders, giving them a chance to “pay their dues” in a fun and cost-effective way...

2). It's been 25 years since the thought of a 100-mile road ride seemed daunting, but it has been only 8 years since a 100-mile dirt ride hasn't seemed too outrageous to me. NORBA races and dirty 100s have gotten me to where I can at least consider attempting these events and even "race" most of them -- I guess I’ve paid my dues. But what these races have really done for me has been to open-up a whole new assortment of epic rides that don’t require the validation of a race or organization. Does it really matter if I'm suffering at the Breckenridge 100 or during a solo ride on my home trails? Heck, I'm probably further away from civilization on epics beginning from my door and I don't have to pay $200+ for the right to suffer. Personally, I'm finding I only need to check in on my competitive self about once a year...

3). Finally, I think that we collectively have too great an opinion of how tough we are in relation to the rest of the cycling world. For my money there's no tougher event than the kilometer TT on the track. The last 20 seconds of the 70 or so seconds of the event provides more insight into the limits of one's inner strength than can be found during the hours of suffering in a dirty 100...

[Rock Punk]

Originally Posted by PeT

not so much to lower event prices but to save the planet. Well, maybe it won't save the planet, but such events might at least increase the voting block of people that ride bicycles and want to use and experience the outdoors with minimal impact -- and just maybe ride to the corner store instead of drive.

That puts all our opinions and petty quibbling in their proper perspective. The best thing I've read in weeks.

[trail717]

Originally Posted by PeT

1). It's clear from the comments here that most think endurance racing is a club and dues need to be paid in order to move up the hierarchy of events, and I must say I find merit in their arguments. ............

But at the same time, I'd like to see more affordable events that reach out, beyond the fanatic, to bring more into the fold -- not so much to lower event prices but to save the planet. Well, maybe it won't save the planet, but ..........

......... The director of my home event, the Laramie Enduro, is contemplating a "half-enduro" of about 50 K, as it wouldn’t add substantially to the logistics of the day. He’s certainly of the mind to be inclusive of more riders, giving them a chance to “pay their dues” in a fun and cost-effective way...

Well spoken post!!!

Some events can be made more inclusive, some rightly so, should not.

In general terms more endurance racers/riders is a good thing. The more at the middle, over time, means more at the top.

[trail717]

Years and years ago I was in a cycling club and I sort of seem to remember that all the road clubs were basically required to put on at least one event a year?

If there were ever some sort of endurance “umbrella organization” this type of requirement might help increase local/low key endurance events at the club level

I for one would be interested in a “endurance oriented” MTB club. Good for training partners, race logistics, off season motivation etc etc, one that gave back to the sport by putting on a local event once a yr would be icing on the cake

… just a stray thought……..


forever lost in the desert except when in the mountains

[Stefan_G]

For free, informal races with no entry fee, no prizes, no permits, no insurance, etc... A good friend of mine coined the name "Race Club" for his informal scrambling/running/biking races this year. Seems fitting here also.

[bd.sahib]

An interesting take from a parallel universe.

Extracted from a Denver Post article
"I think I've always chosen the hardest path." "Probably has something to do with finding greater satisfaction. The deeper the pain, the deeper the reward." Mike Tierney

http://www.denverpost.com/outdoors/ci_4539126

[Guitar Ted]

Originally Posted by PeT

1). It's clear from the comments here that most think endurance racing is a club and dues need to be paid in order to move up the hierarchy of events, and I must say I find merit in their arguments. I too am willing to pay a premium for a competitive event that effectively precludes having it clogged with people who don’t have a realistic assessment of their abilities. We all want to -- at least occasionally -- test our mettle against other like-minded individuals. But at the same time, I'd like to see more affordable events that reach out, beyond the fanatic, to bring more into the fold -- not so much to lower event prices but to save the planet. Well, maybe it won't save the planet, but such events might at least increase the voting block of people that ride bicycles and want to use and experience the outdoors with minimal impact -- and just maybe ride to the corner store instead of drive. I'm not afraid of the consequences of sharing our world, I'm afraid of losing it because there are too few of us who have the same values.

Two comments here: #1. There are many ultra endurance events that are free to enter, or nearly so. Precluding other people from entering an event to prevent having it "clogged with people who don't have a realistic assesment of their abilities" by having high entry fees is maybe a way to protect the promoter from a lawsuit more than anything, I don't know. My take is that the event itself will weed out those folks in a hurry, and hopefully they will garner something worthwhile from it, and come back stronger. This has been my experience with Trans Iowa, and I realize it's not everyone's experience, but there it is. #2 The sentiments stated near the end of this paragraph I agree with, but really, the beginning of change is going to be with the youth. If they see that there are alternatives to "car culture" and they are getting these clues from adults that they respect, you'll see more of what you are talking about.

Someone noted that the Durango 100 has three events folded into it and I would agree that something like that that could fill the gap. The E100 does something similar as well, but neither of them could be considered inexpensive. The director of my home event, the Laramie Enduro, is contemplating a "half-enduro" of about 50 K, as it wouldn’t add substantially to the logistics of the day. He’s certainly of the mind to be inclusive of more riders, giving them a chance to “pay their dues” in a fun and cost-effective way...

Nice to see that some promoters are taking the initiative to make the entry easier, but your average citizen thinks bicycle saddles are "medieval torture devices" and riding five miles is an ultra endurance effort. It's going to be an uphill battle!

2). It's been 25 years since the thought of a 100-mile road ride seemed daunting, but it has been only 8 years since a 100-mile dirt ride hasn't seemed too outrageous to me. NORBA races and dirty 100s have gotten me to where I can at least consider attempting these events and even "race" most of them -- I guess I’ve paid my dues. But what these races have really done for me has been to open-up a whole new assortment of epic rides that don’t require the validation of a race or organization. Does it really matter if I'm suffering at the Breckenridge 100 or during a solo ride on my home trails? Heck, I'm probably further away from civilization on epics beginning from my door and I don't have to pay $200+ for the right to suffer. Personally, I'm finding I only need to check in on my competitive self about once a year...

This is the same sentiment that got me to quit XC racing ten years ago. However, if you want to experience competition, you're going to have to "race". Not necessarily against other people either. If you only need to check into that once or so a year, that's cool. Others are wired differently, I suppose.

3). Finally, I think that we collectively have too great an opinion of how tough we are in relation to the rest of the cycling world. For my money there's no tougher event than the kilometer TT on the track. The last 20 seconds of the 70 or so seconds of the event provides more insight into the limits of one's inner strength than can be found during the hours of suffering in a dirty 100...

Hmm.....an asumption is a dangerous thing. I, for one, think that several other cycling disciplines have their own sort of "toughness" and not all are created equal. To even assume that my endurance leanings makes me "tougher" than the next guy is a dangerous, foolish thing. Comparison is inevitable, but fruitless. There's always opinions and somebody is always "tougher". So, I don't buy into that personally. I just like seeing if I can overcome what is a challenge for me. Your mileage may vary.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by trail717

If there were ever some sort of endurance “umbrella organization” this type of requirement might help increase local/low key endurance events at the club level

I for one would be interested in a “endurance oriented” MTB club. Good for training partners, race logistics, off season motivation etc etc, one that gave back to the sport by putting on a local event once a yr would be icing on the cake

Originally Posted by Stefan_G

or free, informal races with no entry fee, no prizes, no permits, no insurance, etc... A good friend of mine coined the name "Race Club" for his informal scrambling/running/biking races this year. Seems fitting here also.

From www.rusa.org

Randonneuring: Randonneuring is long-distance unsupported endurance cycling. This style of riding is non-competitive in nature, and self-sufficiency is paramount. When riders participate in randonneuring events, they are part of a long tradition that goes back to the beginning of the sport of cycling in France and Italy. Friendly camaraderie, not competition, is the hallmark of randonneuring.

Perhaps the Brevet events are what we are doing anyway in these unofficial "meet here, finish there" races we hold. For mountain biking, would it become a Brevirt? ;-)

Also, check out Ultra Marathon Cycling: http://ultracycling.com/ There is a lot of interesting information there, and perhaps it is possible to use an org for governance in the MTB world. This is the organization that tracks state distance records. A nice set of rules coupld be developed and referenced for people to follow.

PeT, Guitar Ted - great comments from you two, btw. Same goes for everyones else, keep them coming. This is an interesting thread. I think what I've learned so far are new definitions in "endurance mountain biking" It's obvious there is distinction between events.

[hairball_dh]

Originally Posted by Timo

From www.rusa.org

Randonneuring: Randonneuring is long-distance unsupported endurance cycling. This style of riding is non-competitive in nature, and self-sufficiency is paramount. When riders participate in randonneuring events, they are part of a long tradition that goes back to the beginning of the sport of cycling in France and Italy. Friendly camaraderie, not competition, is the hallmark of randonneuring.

Perhaps the Brevet events are what we are doing anyway in these unofficial "meet here, finish there" races we hold. For mountain biking, would it become a Brevirt? ;-)

Make no mistake: the "meet here, finish there" events are RACES. There'd be a lot higher finisher percentage rate if they weren't This isn't to say there isn't friendly cammeraderie, it is mountain biking after all. But, these are races, not Brevets.

Originally Posted by Timo

Also, check out Ultra Marathon Cycling: http://ultracycling.com/ There is a lot of interesting information there, and perhaps it is possible to use an org for governance in the MTB world. This is the organization that tracks state distance records. A nice set of rules coupld be developed and referenced for people to follow.

This thread takes so many ducks and dives it's hard to keep up.

There is a set of rules for self-supported racing (and also an ultra records page to tie in with the above comment), it's on the http://greatdividerace.com site (which is down right now or I'd provide the direct link to the rules). But they are simple. To keep the events fair for all, they are completely self supported. No drops, no drafting, no outside support, carry only what you need. With these rules, it's impossible to buy your way to success. It's simple, the way it should be.

As for "governance in the MTB world" ... buzzkill. That already exists, NORBA, UCI...what have they done for you recently? Governance is a contradiction to everything mountain biking is about. We are not gregarious critters that must be guided, we are self-sufficient back-country travelers. The range of events in endurance MTB is so diverse AND getting more diverse every year. Tis a good thing. Governance is a great way to end creativity since it will generate a framework from which to conduct events. Right now endurance MTB is in a period of creative growth, how about we see where that takes us before we discuss the END.

[mikesee]

Originally Posted by hairball_dh

There is a set of rules for self-supported racing (and also an ultra records page to tie in with the above comment), it's on the http://greatdividerace.com site (which is down right now or I'd provide the direct link to the rules). But they are simple. To keep the events fair for all, they are completely self supported. No drops, no drafting, no outside support, carry only what you need. With these rules, it's impossible to buy your way to success. It's simple, the way it should be.

Gah! My site is down! "Tech support, you out there?!!"

I've been buried with real work lately, but one of my avowed projects for this fall is to streamline the way the rules are written. Not really changing the rules, just making them easier to read and less open to 'interpretation' if you know what I mean.

As for "governance in the MTB world" ... buzzkill. That already exists, NORBA, UCI...what have they done for you recently? Governance is a contradiction to everything mountain biking is about. We are not gregarious critters that must be guided, we are self-sufficient back-country travelers. The range of events in endurance MTB is so diverse AND getting more diverse every year. Tis a good thing. Governance is a great way to end creativity since it will generate a framework from which to conduct events. Right now endurance MTB is in a period of creative growth, how about we see where that takes us before we discuss the END.

Well put, Senor. Couldn't have said it better.

MC

[Timo]

Originally Posted by hairball_dh

Right now endurance MTB is in a period of creative growth, how about we see where that takes us before we discuss the END.

Don't you think perhaps this is more than a little overstated, Dave?

[Eddie O]

Originally Posted by Timo

Don't you think perhaps this is more than a little overstated, Dave?

I do not. I can not speak about anything other than the southeast, but down here there are 2-3 new events each year....most are good too. Some are point to point, some are X mile loops, some are 6 or 12 or 24 hour multi-lap races, some are orienteering/check point races, some are unofficial/no (or min) entry/self supported and some are just a group of like minded folks racing for the top of the next hill for 8 hours. There has been a steady increase in awareness about endurance racing (140 solo entries at the 12 Hours of Razorback in FL, which is up from 30 just 4 years ago). Many of the 12 hour races are now offering a 6 hour option which seems to be pulling many of the formerly XC only crowd out on their bikes for a longer period of time then they ever thought possible. All of this isl leading to even more events and better run events. If you do not feel there are enough events being put on or not the right kind of event being put on, go do it...do it right and safe, but go do it.

3 years ago I could barely make a season long endurance race only schedule in the southeast...now I have to choose which ones I want to do.

The end is not near, we do not need a governing body and I see racing outside the limits of NORBA growing.

Eddie O

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Eddie O

I do not.

Eddie - my point was that Dave said we are in a stage of creative growth, and then he basically said that my mere suggestion of governance was the end. that is sure one way to kill a discussion. I supose creativity now has hierarchy........
but thanks for your comments, btw.

[hairball_dh]

Originally Posted by Timo

Don't you think perhaps this is more than a little overstated, Dave?

Not even remotely. You got the filtered version too.

[brad h]

I've been reading this thread for about a week now and have enjoyed the different points of view offered. I've done four hundies before, two organized (vail/beaver creek 100 '01 and '02) and two semi-organized (cb classic '04 and '06). I've trained my a$$ off and done them off the couch. Each time these races take me about 9 hours regardless of training or fitness. I've come to the conclusion that no amount of training will ever put me on the podium. While I consider myself a strong rider I'm definately not fast and probably never will be.

So... this leaves me much more interested in long singletrack epics than in races, i.e., the new mexico endurance series type of events. I am going to try to put together one of these events in crested butte next summer, not to compete with the classic, but to offer up something a little different. I'm thinking less than 100 miles but with tons of singletrack and a punishing amount of elevation gain (15k?). The route will not swing through town. Riders will have to pack for the entire day. Let's assume someone like Dave Wiens could do it in 7 hours at race pace, I'd like to take ten or eleven and enjoy the views. Obviously, groups of riders at similar fitness levels would form and naturally ride together with everyone getting pi$$ drunk together at the end of the day.

Would that be something people who have posted here would be interested in?

[Eddie O]

Originally Posted by Timo

Eddie - my point was that Dave said we are in a stage of creative growth, and then he basically said that my mere suggestion of governance was the end. that is sure one way to kill a discussion. I supose creativity now has hierarchy........
but thanks for your comments, btw.

I agree wholely with what Dave wrote. We are in a stage a creative growth as both racers and promoters dream up new ways to challenge each other.

You imply and maybe more than imply that endurance events are not growing in attendance and number of events and need some sort of boost. I do not see our sport as stagnant nor in decline. Quite the opposite.

I'm not sure what " I suppose creativity now has hierarchy......." is supposed to mean, but also agree with Dave that NORBA does little to nothing for me as a racer or director and see no need for a governing body. If you see a lack in endurance events in your area/region then pick up the torch and create one. There are enough hoops to jump through to pull off an event, we do not need an addition set of rules to work with.

If you have an arguement for a governing body throw it out here.

Eddie O

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Eddie O

If you see a lack in endurance events in your area/region then pick up the torch and create one. There are enough hoops to jump through to pull off an event, we do not need an addition set of rules to work with.

If you have an arguement for a governing body throw it out here.

Eddie O

I think I have done that Eddie. You are welcome to attend any event that I plan.

[hairball_dh]

Originally Posted by Timo

I think I have done that Eddie. You are welcome to attend any event that I plan.

You know Matt, I think we (we being the posters to this thread) are all coming with some differing impressions on endurance MTB as a result of where we live. In Utah and Colorado there are enough events to fill a calendar and then some. When I look at ride424.com the SE looks super strong too. CA is another hotbed. Lots of stuff popping up in the midwest. Basically everywhere but NM looks pretty good.

NM? Dude, you're just SOL. You've got, what, the Gallup 12 hour race and ... can't think of another aside from your events. I'm sure there are others but nothing that hit my radar screen.

Time for greener pastures?

[Timo]

Originally Posted by hairball_dh

You know Matt, I think we (we being the posters to this thread) are all coming with some differing impressions on endurance MTB as a result of where we live. In Utah and Colorado there are enough events to fill a calendar and then some. When I look at ride424.com the SE looks super strong too. CA is another hotbed. Lots of stuff popping up in the midwest. Basically everywhere but NM looks pretty good.

NM? Dude, you're just SOL. You've got, what, the Gallup 12 hour race and ... can't think of another aside from your events. I'm sure there are others but nothing that hit my radar screen.

Time for greener pastures?

Hey we got rain this year....our pastures are actually green!

Yeah I've thought of your point as well. We do have some things in the works though, but only so much volunteer time and so little volunteers. You are welcome to come on down this weekend and help us shovel some trail dirt, btw......

I was just observing what I saw in the roadie world. Sometimes you get lucky and can dicuss things rationally on the net, some times you can't. That's fine.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by brad h

I've been reading this thread for about a week now and have enjoyed the different points of view offered. I've done four hundies before, two organized (vail/beaver creek 100 '01 and '02) and two semi-organized (cb classic '04 and '06). I've trained my a$$ off and done them off the couch. Each time these races take me about 9 hours regardless of training or fitness. I've come to the conclusion that no amount of training will ever put me on the podium. While I consider myself a strong rider I'm definately not fast and probably never will be.

So... this leaves me much more interested in long singletrack epics than in races, i.e., the new mexico endurance series type of events. I am going to try to put together one of these events in crested butte next summer, not to compete with the classic, but to offer up something a little different. I'm thinking less than 100 miles but with tons of singletrack and a punishing amount of elevation gain (15k?). The route will not swing through town. Riders will have to pack for the entire day. Let's assume someone like Dave Wiens could do it in 7 hours at race pace, I'd like to take ten or eleven and enjoy the views. Obviously, groups of riders at similar fitness levels would form and naturally ride together with everyone getting pi$$ drunk together at the end of the day.

Would that be something people who have posted here would be interested in?

I'll be there, Brad. But only if you promise to do that hockey stop I heard about.

[hairball_dh]

Originally Posted by Timo

I was just observing what I saw in the roadie world. Sometimes you get lucky and can dicuss things rationally on the net, some times you can't. That's fine.

Whoa there. This thread has seen a lot of discussion - and I can't see anywhere where it became irrational. Do you?

It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that if you present opinions to a group of folks, via the net or otherwise, there are bound to be some differing views. That's not irrational, that's what makes the world go round

[Eddie O]

Originally Posted by Timo

I was just observing what I saw in the roadie world. Sometimes you get lucky and can dicuss things rationally on the net, some times you can't. That's fine.

So now that we have moved off the governing body thing....

You did mention the gap in price between mtb hundies and road centuries. The major difference here is the remoteness of trails used in mtb hundies vs the use of, well, roads. Scouting, mapping, flagging/signing, & setting up SAGs becomes a lot more time consuming and/or expensive when you go off road. I can't exactly drive the route with a spray can to mark a route. To put on a century you basically need a handful of volunteers for 12 hours or so, some fairly light traffic roads, and some piece of property to host a start/finish...volunteers are a challenge for all event planners, roads are easy to come by, and start/finish loactions near a road is not all that difficult either. Permitting may be more expensive for off-road as well, but I've never looked into a road permit. So from a logistical view I see the reasoning behind charging more and there being fewer events. Certainly the prices of a given event could come down as these costs are spread over more participants, but you'll rarely see that when the market will bare the current price.

Oh and I've never had beer included in the price of a century

Eddie O

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Eddie O

So now that we have moved off the governing body thing....
Oh and I've never had beer included in the price of a century

Eddie O

Yeah I suspect there are increases in some areas and decreases. Depending on the state as well - there usually is not a need for state troopers in dirt events, but in Colorado for example there is some ratio of participants per trooper they follow from what I understand for the road events.

Regarding governance - I have not moved on or off of anything. Everyone can have their opinion, and it's up to each of us how we choose to respect anothers. I heard yours, and thanks for the comments. I don't really wish to share much more of mine at the present time. Fair enough?

[kretzel]

Originally Posted by hairball_dh

Not even remotely. You got the filtered version too.

I'll second Dave's & others' opinions on the need (ie, there is none) for a governing body. I've never, in all my years of racing, heard a racer say they prefer NORBA sanctioned races. To me, that says it all - the consumer is king, and they don't seem to care one way or the other. The (very) few ultras that are NORBA sanctioned seem to be popular, so I guess I'd conclude the issue is irrelevant and promoters should do what works best for them.

[trail717]

Originally Posted by Timo
Randonneuring: Randonneuring is long-distance unsupported endurance cycling. This style of riding is non-competitive in nature, and self-sufficiency is paramount. When riders participate in randonneuring events, they are part of a long tradition that goes back to the beginning of the sport of cycling in France and Italy. Friendly camaraderie, not competition, is the hallmark of randonneuring.

Perhaps the Brevet events are what we are doing anyway in these unofficial "meet here, finish there" races we hold. For mountain biking, would it become a Brevirt? ;-)

Also, check out Ultra Marathon Cycling: http://ultracycling.com/ There is a lot of interesting information there, and perhaps it is possible to use an org for governance in the MTB world. This is the organization that tracks state distance records. A nice set of rules coupld be developed and referenced for people to follow

Hey I checked out these links and it is evident that the road crowd has found a way to have a lot of success in terms of super high number of “endurance” type events and participants across the US contained within these “organized groups”. However the old time mountain biker in me couldn’t help but instinctively rebel and resist all the rules and conditions I read about as I skimmed through all this road based Randonneuring and Ultra stuff. I can see your basic contention that these types of organizations might have some sort of broad template for an MTB organization if the main goal is really to increase overall endurance MTB participation. Perhaps for many MTB riders the main goal would be different…..

Originally Posted by hairball_dh
There is a set of rules for self-supported racing (and also an ultra records page to tie in with the above comment), it's on the http://greatdividerace.com site (which is down right now or I'd provide the direct link to the rules). But they are simple. To keep the events fair for all, they are completely self supported. No drops, no drafting, no outside support, carry only what you need. With these rules, it's impossible to buy your way to success. It's simple, the way it should be.

As for "governance in the MTB world" ... buzzkill. That already exists, NORBA, UCI...what have they done for you recently? Governance is a contradiction to everything mountain biking is about. We are not gregarious critters that must be guided, we are self-sufficient back-country travelers. The range of events in endurance MTB is so diverse AND getting more diverse every year. Tis a good thing. Governance is a great way to end creativity since it will generate a framework from which to conduct events. Right now endurance MTB is in a period of creative growth, how about we see where that takes us before we discuss the END.

I love MC’s simple, clean and elegant rules for a MTB endurance race, they are a big part of what inspired me to try the KTR even knowing how big a personal stretch it would be. Thanks Mike.!! But if rules are a form of governance/organization then some level of organization must be a good thing for endurance MTB??

Originally Posted by kretzel
I've never, in all my years of racing, heard a racer say they prefer NORBA sanctioned races.

Rose Colored Glasses or The Good ol Days back when both ends were rigid, “index” was something in the library and shifting was on the top of the bars……I sort of remember getting my first NORBA racing license, 3 digit number I think, I remember it was ‘way cool’ then, the organization had a great reputation back then, seems there were lots of well attended NORBA sanctioned races, oh well just a vague/false memory now……..To much organization and to many rules in NORBA/world today, so which way do I go to find that faraway cave in MOAB

I couldn’t agree strong enough the there is no need for another NORBA type race-sanctioning body/organization, one is more than enough in my mind

Originally Posted by Eddie O
I agree wholely with what Dave wrote. We are in a stage a creative growth as both racers and promoters dream up new ways to challenge each other.

You imply and maybe more than imply that endurance events are not growing in attendance and number of events and need some sort of boost. I do not see our sport as stagnant nor in decline. Quite the opposite.

I'm not sure what " I suppose creativity now has hierarchy......." is supposed to mean, but also agree with Dave that NORBA does little to nothing for me as a racer or director and see no need for a governing body. If you see a lack in endurance events in your area/region then pick up the torch and create one. There are enough hoops to jump through to pull off an event, we do not need an addition set of rules to work with.

If you have an arguement for a governing body throw it out here.

Last gasp ramblings:
If an individual promoter, or small group of like minded individuals develop and promote a unique endurance event that’s great, the more choice the better, but when that individual moves on in life, as we all eventually do, the event might go away. Would it be a good thing if there were some way to encourage more club supported endurance events? The road crowd seems to have found a way to do so, over a long period, with good success.

Would it be a good thing if a ‘light handed’ national MTB endurance organization were able to find a acceptable way to strengthen the endurance branch of the MTB tree through a club based approach?
(Thanks Timo for trying to point out how the road endurance riders have found their own success)




forever lost in the desert except when in the mountains

[Guitar Ted]

In my mind, there must be a "governing body. It's just a matter of what kind of governing body it is. At Trans Iowa, Jeff and I are "The Governing Body" and we enforce the rules, for what little rules that we have. We see it as a necessity to make sure everyone is on the "same page" when it comes to running the event. That said, it's far easier to appeal to a "real person", than it is to a "faceless organization" that has umpteen thousands of rules "terribly described in tiny paragraphs, so they won't conflict with the Constitution...."

I'm not sure if this is going "off topic", so excuse me if it does. I just am thinking of the mess in Moab this year and how promoters, who don't already have enough to do , now have to re-examine the rules of running their events and prepare for eventualities that were never dreamed of before. In this sense, they are "governing bodies" and I think that the event participants also have to re-examine their relationship with the promoters to include a little respect for promoters in that manner. I'm not saying that there was any disrespect in the case of this years Moab endurance event, but I could see where it could become a problem when a promoter is caught off guard and the event participants take him to task over it.

So, it is a warning sign to those that put on such events to make sure that they have a strong "governing plan" in place and that there is a way to accomodate circumstances that might be out of their control. Probably preaching to the choir here, but I thought it important.

[normZurawski]

I think there's a difference betwen a governing body and an organizing body. There will always be a crossover but what is the priority of that "body"? For Trans Iowa, my guess is to organize, and provide the necessary governance. For NORBA, the primary aim is to govern and the organization is still left to the people on the ground, so to speak.

Having said that, evolution will eventually dictate more of a governing body to these events. This year, you're already seeing questions like, "Well, which event is REALLY worlds? Where will Eatough choose to ride?" Sooner or later it's going to melt, and you're going to have 2 different people being referred to as the yearly national champ, and so on. At that point, something will give, and the grass roots side of things will, more often than not, drop the ball. It's the inherent nature of being grass roots. Then in order to be officially recognized for some points award or other, you'll need to pay the organizing body to list your event. The spiral begins thus.

Having said that, I don't think there's enough pull to get a lot of the grass roots events & promoters to care. You'll have event like the Shenendoah 100 and WIlderness 101 paying because they're well known and they want to be on the map. But will the 12 and 24 hour races in New Jersey pony up? Highly doubtful. They'll just remain grass roots. And the governing body will shun them, acting as if the winner of that 24 hour race does not exist.

Random thoughts.

[Guitar Ted]

Originally Posted by normZurawski

I think there's a difference betwen a governing body and an organizing body. There will always be a crossover but what is the priority of that "body"? For Trans Iowa, my guess is to organize, and provide the necessary governance. For NORBA, the primary aim is to govern and the organization is still left to the people on the ground, so to speak.

Well, this was one of the points I was trying to make: that promoters need to be "governing bodies" by necessity. So those that were saying, "we don't want no stinkin' governing bodies", were being a bit short sighted. You tacitly agree to this point in the statement you made concerning Trans Iowa, so I'm not pointing a finger at you.

Having said that, evolution will eventually dictate more of a governing body to these events. This year, you're already seeing questions like, "Well, which event is REALLY worlds? Where will Eatough choose to ride?" Sooner or later it's going to melt, and you're going to have 2 different people being referred to as the yearly national champ, and so on. At that point, something will give, and the grass roots side of things will, more often than not, drop the ball. It's the inherent nature of being grass roots. Then in order to be officially recognized for some points award or other, you'll need to pay the organizing body to list your event. The spiral begins thus.

This is really another whole can of worms. I know that this has been debated to death already, so I'll just say this from my standpoint, "Who cares?" I think the only people/ factions that do are the current "title" holder, his fans, the promoter, and the companies that can make a buck off of the whole thing.

Having said that, I don't think there's enough pull to get a lot of the grass roots events & promoters to care. You'll have event like the Shenendoah 100 and WIlderness 101 paying because they're well known and they want to be on the map. But will the 12 and 24 hour races in New Jersey pony up? Highly doubtful. They'll just remain grass roots. And the governing body will shun them, acting as if the winner of that 24 hour race does not exist.

Umm..............great description of the current state of affairs. You got it, most of these promoters and the racers that patronize these events could give a rip. Besides, I think it has been shown that the racers are having a hard enough time paying to go to the events in their own areas much less going to a series of events spread out over a whole nation. Until there is some sponsorship dollars that'll cover those expenses, then I don't think the whole "world championship" thing, or any national governing body will have anything to crown as "world champ" or govern. Because the racers aren't going to be able to afford the time and money it takes to do a series of that magnitude.

[alizbee]

I think that the multiple series that came about this year are a good step in the right direction. They grouped together a number of events, added incentive for attending multiple races, and offered recognition/rewards for top overall finishes. I especially liked the regional based RMU series. There was a variety of events, clustered in Utah, WY and CO so the financial/time burden of traveling across the country was lessened.

The E100, the Rocky Mountain Ultra Series, and the National Endurance Series (hundie series) all brought people to events that otherwise, those people would not have attended. For example, the E100 drew riders from all over the country. Yeah, it has done that before, but not as many. People were there racing for the series points and to fulfill the race requirements.

So,my point is, a "governing body" aka the series itself, and the promoters of the series, boosted interest and participation in events all over the country.

Grassroots events like the KTR really never will be affected by any emergence of a sanctioning body. How can you govern people agreeing to ride at the same time, at the same place? Other than the pre-written rules that MC has written that riders agree (just by showing up and racing) to follow? I'd love to see the reaction/firestorm when someone tries to say you need a license and a fee to ride the KTR/GDR/GLR etc....

And as if I have not blathered long enough...

GT, I get your point. Every event has someone or something that ensures some form of fair play. I think though, as soon as that entity becomes dominant, and $$$ starts to determine policy and so forth, that is when things go bad.

I am really not sure I have articulated my thoughts....decipher the above at your own risk