Bad breath, or a tough day in the saddle? CrankWorx enduro winner Jared Graves is visibly fatigued from the toughest day in the history of the EWS.
The Enduro World Series race at Whistler Crankworx was described by most competitors as being the most physical race, by far, that they had ever experienced. Riders simply could not make the transfer stages on time and a significant number did not finish due to the difficulty of the transfer stage climbs. It has been accepted that enduro is intended to be primarily a downhill competition, and while the venues can include a number of climbing or pedaling sections, that those intervals would not be the prevailing factors for a victory. In the spirit of enduro, transfer stages are neutralized, meaning that the climbs to the start-line of each stage of the race, do not accumulate against a competitor's overall time. Transfer stages are timed, however, because the race must end on schedule, so riders are given a fixed time interval that they must meet in order to get to the start at their appointed minutes. Miss your start time and the clock starts running without you. This is true for riding or lift-access transfer stages.
Long and technical singletrack climbs made Whistler's transfer stages a races within a race.
Top racers in any mountain bike venue are assumed to be in top fitness, so it makes sense that promoters can expect competitors to be able to top a number of 500-meter climbs without lollygagging under a tree for an hour between stages to recover. What connotes a reasonable time interval for a transfer stage, however, was stretched to the breaking point at Whistler. Insiders say that the event had to be compressed and thus the transfer stages were intentionally tightened. Another reason, spoken more than once, was that the EWS is a pro series and that transfer stages can and should test the fitness levels of the top athletes. Both explanations, however, stretch the concept of transfer stages being neutral beyond purpose and good reason.
Racers confronted trails that most riders choose to ride their DH bikes with. Those fit enough to have some energy in the bank at the start line benefitted immensely on Whistlers' infamous descents.
Eliminating a stage at the Whistler EWS would have made enough room to pad the transfer stages and would have prevented it from becoming an XC race within an enduro race - which essentially, it was. Racers often arrived exhausted, with under a minute or two to make their start times. The EWS is new, but two years is more than enough time to establish clear guidelines that dictate the difficulty and duration of neutral transfer stages. Getting the majority of competitors to the start line with enough energy and wits about them to put in a 100-percent performance on the timed downhill stages should be the priority, not testing the fitness levels of the top ten athletes on a given day.
Yes, many of them are very fit. Graves won an XC round down in OZ in the early part of the season. However, he's a very rare bird. 99% of these dudes, while they are very fit, would get their doors blown off by WC XCO racers.
But if you make them "Pro XC Climbs", meaning you're racing up the climbs, it's a different sport, catering to a different crowd. Also, it should be noted that the WC XCO courses had, at maximum, a climb that was like 8min and less than 3km long this year.
If you have them race up the climbs, too, it's basically becoming old school, single lap, John Tomac, Ned Overend and Thomas Frischknect XC races, but two days in a row, on bigger bikes. I'm a Lycra wearing, HT 29er riding XC nerd, and even I don't want that.
Those who say enduro would then be then no different to DH without climbs should once in their life participate in a french enduro series. They'll be beaten by the end of the week end if they race it and not cruise it. Believe me! Though having only lift assist is not my prefered version of it but let's face it, enduro started with both versions more than 10 years ago. We're not inventing anything here.
There is no "race" up the hill other than a set time when you should be hitting the next stage. Perhaps the timing for next stages could be relaxed a bit... but keep them epic!
In some of the videos I thought I noticed many of the racers moving at considerably less than full timed stage race speed...now I realize why. They were too drained from the transfers to ride the downhills with confidence at full race pace. From what I remember the climbing was around 2,500-3,000m with total downhill somewhere around 3,500m.
It's not as if Whistler has a lack of uplift capability...DUH!
On this page Anita Gehrig (Finished 10th PRO Women) describes how numberous hits made her chest hit her handlebar, because she was feeling so weak after all those uphills and could bearly hold onto her bike. That's just irresponsible by the organizers, especially towards the female competitors.
translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtb-news.de%2Fnews%2F2014%2F08%2F14%2Fueberleben-ist-alles-die-gehrig-twins-bei-der-ews-6-whistler-blog%2F
they should have an effect, in that you should be fit enough to make your start time, but it should be a reasonable standard you have to meet. Since it's not a timed stage, I would argue that it shouldn't even really have to be a pro level of fitness. because you shouldn't be having to make a racing level of effort.
DH is for those who dont want to pedal up. This is not the format for retired DHers trying to stay competitive. Enduro is an expertise. Earn your turns, there are bound to be tough enduros and easy enduros.
Maybe not "Any old joe" but a LOT more people can ride fast downhill when not fatigued. It takes a real athlete to ride fast downhill when they are already a bit tired, and a lot more strategy comes into it.
.
Also, it raises that wonderful spectre of performance enhancers, if you're going to constantly make the riders give 100% someone is going to look at ways to find 101%, not that it hasn't already happened...
If all the traffic is going faster than the signposted limit, and you are just keeping up with traffic, you are still breaking the law and if you get busted by the cops you deserve it just as much as those who didn't get caught. Same thing.
I too question incredible aerobic performance. That's why it's easier to look up to the likes of Hill, Peaty, Zink etc.
i.imgflip.com/cyl1f.jpg
Seems to me someone's looked at it and said "wow enduro is awesome, let's change it"
They should ask to jerome clementz, he knows enduro better than everyone as he won "every" enduro race before EWS.
@chal0080
Enduro is not for "washed up" dh racers, JC (FB, RA etc etc) are racing enduro for at least 5 or 6 years and jared, richie etc are still able to race and win a DH race.
Based on what I see around the world, no organiser sees this as the way to go. Sure, sometimes there is a difficult climb, because it's the only way to get to a great downhill. Also you have to be really low fitness to not reach time limits, if there are time limits at all.
Chill out guys. It's not a direction the sport is heading to. My opinion is that enduro should have offroad riding to stages. The cool thing about enduro is that you can do it on bikes that you can ride trails with every day. That is something to be protected.
After all, you can as well enter an XC race on a DH bike, I don't think it's illegal...
Graves is a freak of nature who's skill trumps many, many, many talented people across multiple disciplines, which makes the EWS so attractive for so many riders right now -- he's the man to beat.
Same thing is happening at the local/national level. Top pro DH racers are showing up at enduros and are not getting the results that they expected.
Most attendees are not there to realistically podium. If you can't handle the physical requirements to climb and descend, enduro isn't for you.
(oh, and ↖ this is a french flag)
I raced the Whistler EWS and the fourth stage of the day on Ride Don't Slide was the most technical, and, after 2400m of climbing, where a lot of people barely had time to catch their breath first, safety was a worry. I know a lot of people were just in survival at that point and simply didn't have the strength to actually race that stage. After all that we then raced TOTW to the valley, 10km of bike park racing, but we at least had an hour to re-group and refuel.
It was the toughest race I've ever done, and the transitions were brutal, particularly for stage four. That said, I'm not sure I'd change anything. I had an amazing day, one of the best ever on my bike, and the point of Enduro is to push every aspect of your riding and fitness. Yes, it could have gotten dangerous towards the end so you couldn't push hard, but it was the same for everybody unless you were some kind of freakish super human. At the time I wished for more transition time, but in hindsight it was an awesome day.
Not sure I'll ever experience arm-pump like that ever again though. Well, until next year's race anyway. Riding technical single-track one-handed at times to shake-out your other arm is terrifying.
The only issue with this, however, is that you could potentially turn off a lot of the amateur riders that are in it just for fun and the thrill and can't afford to dedicate that much time to training. Do you, then, have Pro and Am transition times different? Otherwise a big drop in attendance numbers from less-fit Am will affect entry money and funding, which is bad for the sport.
I know from the day that a lot of the riders around me, even if they were making start-times or not, said they won't race Whistler next year. It just wasn't fun enough. I know it's the WORLD SERIES so it shouldn't be easy, but the sport needs to be accessible to grow. We have this debate about DH and why it's not bigger than it is all the time, don't make Enduro exclusive too else it will also suffer.
Perhaps DH racers are fitter than you think?
I'd do the FEST series but there were too many steep uphills.
Most of the FR guys in Rampage ride their lines slower than the DH racing crowd would - really just the tricks that separate them.
Marco Osborne, 2014 PB interview.
At the begining, enduro was just like your average sunday's ride with your friend, but with all the downhill sections timed.
It's been said a few times now, the event was put on in a manner that fits with the history of riding/racing in the Whistler Valley (outside of the bike park).
A pro level event should test the pro's.
The hardest cut off was to Stage 4. Looking at the results for Open men 123 riders finished Stage 3 and 120 riders finished stage 4. For Open Women there was 29 finish Stage 3 and 28 finish Stage 4.
So all this yammering for 4 riders? Can you say over hyped problem???
I think Enduro is just fine but I would like an AM Series in the style of the classic WORCA races.
Timed climb, position or points awarded - Short rest - Timed descent, position or points awarded.
Overall points or position (not overall time) decides the winner.
Savage format. Climb like you're in an XC race but you descend like you're in an Enduro.
In my mind, this is EXACTLY in the spirit of "Enduro": you need to make the time on the descents, while knowing how to pace yourself on climbs to have the most in the tank to do so without being cut.
With such a small amount of the field being eliminated, I would assume this race struck an excellent balance of offering a challenge to endurance and pacing, without encouraging any uphill racing. Sounds great.
(and yeah, the cutoff times probably should be scaled by category)
In Enduro, I think your climb time on a transfer stage should NEVER affect the overall standings. Unless you are cut off by lack of fitness (underprepared) or inability to fix a mechanical (underprepared and/or made a dumb mistake)
I think it's the fairest way to find out the best all-round rider. XC races massively favour the climbs/fitness of the rider, Enduro is DH stage racing with a bit of XC fitness. Neither tell you who the most complete rider is.
transfer stages should spread out the pack some, to avoid wait times for timed stages. This would add the tactic that some riders may rider faster uphill to start the transfer earlier and start warmed up, or conversely to have more time to recover...while others might climb more conservatively to spend less energy...allowing riders to play to their recovery abilities and strengths, which shows completeness as a rider...(you better know how much you've got in the tank when riding way out in the mountains!)
Transfer stages should make riders think about how to approach them to get the most out of them...sometimes it might be more spirited riding, sometimes more relaxed...neither racing uphill nor totally dragging feet should be encouraged, rather test a rider's all around self awareness and preparedness.
That already exists, they call it super d. When I first heard about enduro races other than Megavalanche back in like 2006 they were being talked about in Decent magazine along with super Ds. Now I never hear about super D. What is the difference? I thought Super D was just the North American term that faded out when Enduro started getting hyped.
And while we're at it lets drop the "enduro" and call it the World "just f*cking around in the woods" series
It was no XC race within the race.
The EWS in Whistler was a typical big day for many folks, it wasn't out of the norm, nor were the trails too technical. Transfers could have been far worse, and stages far more technical.
The EWS is supposed to be the top tier of the discipline. You wouldn't expect most riders to be able to ride the race lines on world cup DH tracks, nor would you expect them to clean every climb at full pace for 90 minutes.
Beer league enduro should be the same. If you're not fit, you're off the back. If you can't descend, same.
Whiners need to:
a) get fitter and suck it up
or
b) try some entry level races first
or
c) all of the above
Beginner should be easy to get new people in the sport, but pro is pro, if you cant hack the climb and race the downhill, time to head back to expert or sport.
Either they need to relax the times, people need to get fitter so they are less winded by the climbs, or people need to get faster at climbing.
A flat tire in XCO and DHI, unless it's at the end of the run or in the tech zone, more or less ruins your race. Why should Enduro be different? Choose your equipment, and your line, properly. Take risks, or don't.
At the end of the day, it's a bike race, and the standards are not unreasonable, at all. No, they shouldn't be full-gas climbs, and they aren't, not even close to it for the fastest guys. Nobody is standing and hammering out of corners to get back up to full speed on a dirt or gravel road climb. No one. And if they are too hard for others, well, that's a personal problem. Ride more, train harder, train smarter, rest more when you can, as much as you can.
I reject this question. I reject it's premise entirely. The "polling question" does not address what all the writing leading up to it is asking.
Clarification needed:
What is a "PRO XC Climb"? 3minutes? 30 minutes? 90 minutes? What are you referring to as "difficult"? Technical, rocky, rooty, steep, trail? Gravel road grind? Or was the time allotted to complete the transfer stage not enough for 4 people in the Whislter EWS who didn't make the cut?
A very finite complaint (re: Whistler EWS) and now there is a poll to address ALL enduro transfer stages in-general. I'm astonished this poll was created and went live in it's current form. I'm embarrassed for you, Pink Bike.
My opinion on transfer stages... Sounds like this is a non-issue. But thanks for kicking the hornets nest that is the Pink Bike Comments section.
Cordially,
The difference is that you guys were racing some weak ass fire roads instead of legit DH trails.
People are different than you, grow up. There are people on this earth that the only thing that gives them pure enlightenment is going down the mountain, at the fastest speed they can, with nothing but pure focus. Who are you or I to question that? Totally a control freak thing.
I pedal 16.5kg of sexy aluminium as well as my own 90kg of I chunky love and I still enjoy the climbs just as much as I enjoy the descent every weekend.
I would not like to turn enduro into a gran fondo race but I would like to see an element of endurance or uphill section in it.
From an outside viewpoint, the french rounds of EWS over the last 2 years have mixed long flowy stages, some steep tech stuff and the right mix of assisted uplift and transfers under your own steam...
Obviously the French have been running Enduro races the longest, it might be wise to follow their lead on the structure of a weekends racing?
If there is the chance I think in some occasions transfer stages should grind down the performance of your special stages, otherwise how can you test the fitness of the rider? Is not suppose to be a complete mountain bike competition? Maybe for some that are less lucky and only can race one enduro during the year this theme can be very important and critical. But if we speak of a race calendar like the EWS. It is a good idea to have very different kind of Enduros. Probably insert though enduro races between some easy ones. Really EWS did a awesome job regarding this. There was a lot of variety in all the races they had. Even they had complete races were all transfer stages were lift shuttle.
But really all this depends of the geography of each place. I mean we cannot sentence: "You can't run an enduro in this place even if it has awesome downhills for special stages because you don't have a lift and that makes really thought to reach the top of the track" ...
I like enduro races because it is pure mountain bike. It remembers me when I used to ride with my friends when I was kid. We didn't care if what we were doing was XC, DH, walking, climbing or falling. Sometimes we had time to speak, other times we were so exhausted that we didin't have time to speak. In resume we cannot parameterize mountain bike. Sometimes you just do all-day long dh runs with lift or car shuttle. Other days you just want to climb to the top of a innaccesible mountain to find a new dh line. The fact that you can have this in a race format is magic!!! Enduro races should come as they are now. Sometimes demanding, sometimes relaxing.
That being said, having long difficult climbs as part of the races will push manufacturers to continue the R&D of frame, suspension and component design to improve both climbing and descending ability on the same bike. If the climbs are too easy, then bike manufacturers will not need to worry about climbing efficiency as much as they do now. Is it a coincidence that the past few years all manufacturers have exploded with bikes designed for near downhill type of riding capability but can still climb really well right along with enduro racing? Which came first? Why all of a sudden almost all of the manufacturers have come out with new frame and suspension designs that are so much better than just a few years ago? Has XC or downhill tech changed just as drastically over the past few years? It doesn't seem like it to me. So even if it doesn't emulate my real world type of enduro riding I think having difficult climbs in the organized events will continue to push technology more rapidly than if we made the climbs too easy.
Too short transfer interval destroys two important things:
- you can't talk with other people on the climb, because everybody is pushing hard and concentrating on his own timing, big social loss for the event, even it is a pro race (little chat with people on the side of the road can be valuable to).
- you are in trouble if your bike need repairs. Between every stage should be 5-10 min lollygagging time, for those who have to repair a flat, straighten or repair a crashed bike,...
If you watch WRC, there is a lot of waiting-time involved.
I meant, that it is bad to participate a race in which you are 5 or more hours on the bike, but have no chance to talk with other competitors. I have competed in both "fast" and slow climb races, and I like those with slower transfers more.
The Whistler enduro has been known to racers from Washington to have more strict transfer times. This has made the transfer a race in itself because the gap was "too short" for many people. Those short transfers made it a race against the clock.
I don't think the transfers should have any time pressure on the riders. That doesnt mean it can't be a difficult climb. Thus transfers should affect the race but only because you're on your bike all day. That's tiring in itself. It doesn't need to be a race to the top.
I also would want a limit to the vertical climbing based on vertical descent, somewhere around 50%
everyones recovery is different I know however at least you get to drop with something in the tank??
The DH riders have a massive advantage in enduro and the climbs should absolutely be hard. Enduro should not be a place for washed up former DH racers to sand bag.
It will also force enduro bike technology to excel even more at climbing, and will benefit the consumers in the long run.
it's not and will never be cross country racing b/c most of those guys lack the technical skills and handling requisite to rip the downhills.
Personally, I hate when a competition isnt representative of the sport, which is why I simply cant watch XC eliminator, which doesnt correspond to anyones riding, or the south africa WC which doesnt look like anything 99% of riders ride.
So I would argue, even at EWS level the stages and climbs should be a level above a local race, but not over 2000m of ascending or 50k loops, and giving riders a chance to catch their breath, possibly do a 5 minute repair job during the liaison, time to eat a bar etc. I personally dont like the idea of a paddock (or lunch break) either, especially in Italian races, where the return to paddock seems to add 10km of road liaisons for nothing
Enduro is to mountain biking what rallying is to car racing: They don't make Sebatien Loeb drive at 120mph between timed stages! He chills out at a relaxed pace on the public roads. Racing is on the timed stages, not inbetween.
STOP making enduro less fun to do and less fun to watch by imposing fast times on link stages!
Great that you have made a statement to stir up a debate. But a statement without data is useless. Your conclusion about Whistler us poor. Please validate it with information from the top 10 overall. Transfer times taken a nd time allowed any mechanicals playing a part. Effort level of riders with evidence. Without this it is just someone's thought. Or are you saying that some guys had better endurance than others..... then look at the top 10 from the EWS with the easiest transitions. Remove any climatic and mechanicals input and what are the facts..... or are you just stirring it up?
2.) POLL THE RACERS. I'd be much more interested to hear what they feel about it, since well, they are actually participating in the races, unlike so many posters here (myself included).
If its a tough on its a tough one and if they are lucky enough to have a transfer that lets them chill a bit well i would say they have earned it.
As hard as an XC race? an xc race is a 1 to 1.5 hour sprint. A EWS race goes on for 2 days. that's a totally different monster anyway... stupid question, really... Oh, Just saw who wrote that Article, my all time favorite RC... what else would you expect...
on more serious note is there anyway to switch off Richard Cunningham written articles to pop up on the homescreen?
As for timings, I think a duration that allows the top 50% of riders to get there with 20 minutes to spare, and the bottom 50% less would be optimal (I don't know if that's what Whistler was). It's enough time to give the riders a breather, while still making people actually have to be fit. IF you get to the start gate with 1 minute to spare, your downhill run should suffer, because you're going to be fatigued.
The only other alternative I can think of that doesn't have transfer stages, is if it was like a longer downhill race, that had maybe 15% uphill, and maybe another 20-30% flat (flat enough that they'd have to pedal) all part of the timed run. Basically enough pedaling and uphill that using a DH bike would never be the best option, but the uphill is short enough that you aren't going to get the Lycra guys making up so much time on them that they win the entire thing.
Maybe another one would be to up the # of stages to like 7, and then have 2 of the 5 be "pedaly" . Make them short, because again, this isn't an XC race... but they'd still be important enough that you aren't going to be using an 8 inch travel bike, and you still need to be fit enough that being able to pedal hard for like 20 minutes will be an advantage.
That would require some rule and setup changes, but it would tend to self-correct for tough events like Whistler: All the times would be slower, presumably in proportion to each other. But nobody can lollygag, because somebody in the field is probably a quick climber and notching the fastest time for the transfer.
im not sure if i got that quote right, but its close enough, what about me? and all the other hundreds of weekend riders who want to , probably misquote on track with kurtis keene "race with the best riders in the world on the same trails, at the same time".
if you make the transfers so hard then myself and all my trail riding friends simply wouldnt be able to do these races, which is completely against the "spirit of enduro".
PS i didnt actually do the whistler enduro, im on the wrong side of the world for that...
Lets not make it "Hard XC" or "Extreme Cross Country" Neither appeals.
Maybe even make a rule that penalizes the bottom 10% in transfer times or something to this effect. Not sure how this would work with races where there's a long start wait line.
No it should not be like XC climbing, and never can or will be.
The reality of the matter is that the XC pros aren't riding up big mountains: they're riding climbs of a few minutes on relatively short circuits with a total race time of 90minutes. Enduro races that involve 4+ hours of transfers and timed descents are much closer to MTB marathons in terms of duration and the need for a long-term pacing strategy.
Without the transfers & pacing strategy, this is just DH without spectators. The racers will see some great scenery, but the sport will have no raison d'etre.
As for the EWS organizers, yes they need cutoffs or they can't organize. Hell, even road racing has time cutoffs to weed out those unfit to race.
The way to improve the format is to provide an *incentive* to racers to help make the transfers not just "dead time" on race day, but part of the strategic spectacle. Offer the first 10 riders to finish a transfer a time bonus. Not huge bonuses, but enough to help their positioning in the final classification (e.g. 10 seconds for first, down to 1 second for 10th.
If Jared Graves is a man amongst boys going uphill, then he'll scoop up all the bonuses, and the other top descenders will have to up their fitness to compete.
It is very easy to pick up a mechanical in an enduro special stage or a crash or anything that you would need a bit if recovery time from. Having "normal" link stages allows for that. If everything was tight we would have less and less competitors finish due to things that may go beyond their skills.
I picked up a flat on a special stage in the last race I did. I was able sort that out in the following link stage and continue the race without penalties...I think enduro should be about that too: adapting and tackling the unexpected, unlike Dh or xc where one single unexpected thing costs you the whole race
Rightly so. What the f*ck is all the moaning about?
If it's going to be staged, give them tougher climbs.
What's the easiest way to make some fall in love with mountain biking? Take them down a flowy trail with only small climbs. That's how I convinced my wife to give up road bikes.
I don't think there is an easy or clear answer.