Anyone who's serious about racing should tailor their equipment to their weaknesses rather than to flatter their strengths but, more often than not, that isn't how it's done.I've just returned home after finishing up the B.C. Bike Race, a week-long cross-country stage race that's somewhat unique in that it puts a massive emphasis on a rider's bike handling abilities. This is in contrast to the majority of competitive cross-country events that simply reward those who have the biggest quads and lungs, and while fitness still rules the day at the BCBR, racers who manage to combine excellent conditioning with good handling skills are the ones who seem to prosper when it comes to both finishing positions and enjoyment levels. There's no way of getting around the fact that you're going to be faced with some stiff climbing up gravel roads when you're trying to serve up 50 or 60km of racing, but it really did feel like we spent the large majority of our time on singletrack during the week, with much of it being technically challenging regardless of if it was pointing up or down the hill.
It's all relative, of course, as you might not find that hairy rootball of a section too tricky when you're fresh as a daisy and still filled with hope for the day ahead, but come up on it after 40km of breathing through your eyeballs while battling for 50th position in 90° heat and you might feel a bit like you've slammed a bottle of Fireball whiskey and are now trying to play Jenga. I spent a lot of the week back in the mid-pack with riders who were quite obviously fitter than me but probably would have ridden said rooty sections better had they actually drank some Fireball before coming to the start line, and I'm sitting here now, a few days after the final stage in Whistler, nursing a taint that resembles an open can of tuna and thinking why that was the case. After all, going on appearances alone, these dudes should have been able to ride away from me at a moment's notice. These racers, men sporting body fat percentages that told me they ate way less candy than I do, with calves and quads that gave me questionable feelings of man-envy, were all on machines that catered exactly to their strengths. I'm talking about dudes who barely break the 100lb mark riding carbon fiber hardtails with scary looking 2" wide tires and handlebars that belong on a child's bike. Attached to 120mm long stems. And no dropper post. I would have been scared for their safety if they didn't put ten minutes into me on every five minute climb up a gravel road, followed be me closing the gap anytime we got back onto remotely challenging singletrack. Now, if these same riders had been on bikes with wider, more aggressive tires, a shorter stem and, god have mercy, a dropper seat post, the only time I would have seen them is at the start of each day's stage before they left me to cramp up by myself in the forest.
BC Bike Race - SquamishThese all looked like men who were taking the BCBR seriously, had obviously trained hard for it, and probably had to give their bodies a coating of chamois cream so they could slip into the tightest plum smuggler suits possible, yet most were on bikes that catered to their strength: outright climbing and fitness, rather than their weaknesses: bike handling and terrain that asked you to call on all of your skills. I believe that this cost most of them some serious time, and while that counts for diddly squat on your casual ride, these boys were at the BCBR to race for position. You can spot the exact same scenario in pretty much any riding scene: local hammerheads who are obviously competitive people who put a lot of effort into their chosen discipline, yet nearly always choose equipment that flatters whatever it is that they're good at: the local cross-country phenom on the 20lb race whippet; the aggro dude with the 6" travel trail bike who climbs like a loaded tractor trailer and descends like a demon; the roadie convert who looks like he's trying to keep the same body position on the dirt as he does on the pavement (
this one never ends well, does it?). If we're talking in competitive terms and only competitive terms, all three of those examples are both very common and perfect illustrations of exactly how not to do it.
| I spent a lot of the week back in the mid-pack with riders who were quite obviously fitter than me but probably would have ridden said rooty sections better had they actually drank some Fireball before coming to the start line, and I'm sitting here now, a few days after the final stage in Whistler, nursing a taint that resembles an open can of tuna and thinking why that was the case. After all, going on appearances alone, these dudes should have been able to ride away from me at a moment's notice. |
Take a look at any sport that depends heavily upon the equipment used by those taking part, especially other wheeled sports, and you'll find that the very best tailor their gear to address their weaknesses. Supercross racers who struggle in the whoops often focus their setup on exactly that section, and race car drivers who are hard on their brakes will adjust their car's braking balance so as to inflict the least amount of stress on them. Nicolas Vouilloz, the greatest downhiller of all time and a master technician, is said to have preferred bikes that lessened the Frenchman's only weakness: tracks with loads of pedalling. Much of his success came aboard the Sunn Radical+, a bike that featured a massively high single pivot that made for efficient power delivery, as did his own V-Process NV02 downhill bike that he raced to a World Champs victory in 2002. The lesson? If you're racing, tailor your bike to your weaknesses and allow your strengths to overcome any drawbacks. You don't have to be Nico to benefit from this approach, either, as all I'm suggesting is not to let vanity and pride get the best of you and simply take stock of where you suck and then do something about it. Are you riding away from everyone on the climbs but stumbling on the downs? Try a much shorter stem and a dropper seat post - the 3/4 of a pound weight gain isn't going to cause you to lose your climbing advantage but it sure as hell is going to give you a bonus on the downs. Seriously, you have to work really f*cking hard to get fitter and faster on the climbs, but you can literally buy time on the downhills. Terrible climber? Get rid of those massive tires and tiny stem - if you've really got skill, you'll be able to descend nearly as fast on lighter weight rubber. In both cases you'll literally be buying speed once you learn how to get the most out of those changes.
Plum smuggler taking to the air. Racer #105 has got his shit together: top fitness, skills to make the most of the trail, and a bike setup that complements the terrain. Photo: Dave Silver
Why don't more competitive riders do this? I believe that it's because it requires not only an honest evaluation of one's abilities, it also necessitates that you willingly sacrifice a bit of what you're good at in order to gain in other areas. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not that good at much so I want to really show off when I get the rare chance to do so. I don't want to give that up, and there's absolutely no reason to if you're just wanting to get out on the trail with your buddies, but those who take racing seriously should take stock of their strengths and weaknesses and maybe make some changes. Who knows, you might even discover that your 120mm stem isn't required.
Sounds like a plan gang, I'll keep you updated.
I love this. Thank you, leelau.
I agree with Mike that you should get a bike or change your setup to cater to your weaknesses. But, like Lee said you have to think about where these folks were coming from. There were people from over 30 different countries at the BCBR and it's likely that many of them have nothing back home that is comparable to the terrain in BC. So maybe they think they're hot sh*t on the climbs AND descents, but their frame of reference is different.
Living on the East Coast of the US, we have some really good technical terrain that proved to be an excellent training ground for the race. We certainly don't have the sustained gnar found in the race, but once your skills are honed, it's just a matter of pressing "repeat"!
That said, this race will put your skills to the test and will leave you a much better rider after.
When I did BCBR, the top 10 were predominantly europeans and Americans, hard-core XC'ers, on hardtails, or maybe 80-100mm travel XC bikes, set up for XCO-style racing, and they still kicked the ass of 95% of the racers, most of whom were from BC and had ridden BC trail for years. Shit, most of the Europeans were virtually national champions back home, in both XC and cyclocross...
So while here in BC we think that BC trail is so insanely technical (and while, for the most part it is particularly technical), and that everyone needs >720mm bars, and 80mm stems, and 130mm of travel front and back... the reality is that the XC results at some of our crown jewel races prove otherwise. No, they aren't riding the tougher trails on fromme or Cypress, but that's not the type of rider they are, so why should we tell them they have to be (as reflected in their bike set-up)?
Con- may not enjoy tuna sandwiches until brain becomes "Untainted" from epic graphic Levyism....
...nursing a taint that resembles an open can of tuna..
You're welcome.
Put down the candy and swallow your own advice.
People who aren't trying to win telling racers what they should be doing. That's garbage.
I think Mike was trying to win, otherwise he wouldn't have been so dead afterwards as it implies.
But, I do agree, in the regard that if you aren't racing: ride whatever bike is most fun for you.
That's a weird thing to say speed. He was with a pack of mostly guys who were super fast aerobic monsters but pretty poor descenders. I know, I saw them. Recognized some names and have raced with them in spandex days.
Seemed like well intentioned advice. Maybe it'll be taken, maybe it won't. I can't see Mike's advice being super relevant for the hard core endurance XC guys. BCBR is about the only race where you can easily lose 10 - 15 minutes on the descent portions total over a 2.5 hour race (which is huge). Where are guys who have smooth fast relatively non-technical trails going to practise to get good at the type of terrain they get in the BCBR?
FWIW - all and all, I enjoyed the article. I just walked away thinking the same thing rfeagan and burnbern clearly did.
Mike and I were talking about how cool it is that people from all over the world are here enjoying the race. I suspect where he's coming from was that some of the guys he was riding with were struggling in the downs and maybe he thought that it might be a good thing for them to do some little things differently to get a bit faster; because these guys were losing pretty huge times on the downs.
I don't think its "garbage" to give well intentioned advice to BCBR racers who are trying to improve their racing. Ah maybe I'm overthinking this
I'd like to think that I can hold my own on the downhills, and that I probably wouldn't descent much faster (if at all) on a longer travel bike, but I do know that I climb cleaner and faster on the little Rocky Mountain than on a longer legged machine. I also believe that I climb better on the Rocky than I would on an even lighter carbon hardtail, simply due to the steep technical pitches that are low on traction. As for the dropper seat post, that's not catering to anything... it's just common sense.
And about the dropper seatpost... OMG... How true... I am 100% positive there were XC rider/machines who could have taken 30 minutes off their overall time by having a dropper seatpost.
Leelau - I'm going to have to stick to my guns a little bit. Growing up in the Midwest I watched many a fat old man sitting at a bar yelling at the game on TV, about what the players should be doing. That's what I call "garbage." To get to the top level in any sport takes an aweful lot of work. Although there is nothing wrong with playing for fun, the suggestion that a recreational participant is telling hard working athletes that they are doing it wrong upsets me. Not that Mike is some fat chump in a bar. But if your goal isn't winning then it might be hard to build credibility as a coach for winning. I dunno.
Bottom line. Article was cool. Mike's reponse was on point. I love lamp.
There are a lot of participants in this sport that spend countless hours working on fitness and simply "manage" their bike handling skills. visit a bike park, and you can meet so many athletes that spend countless hours working on skills but (barely) manage/train their aerobic fitness. God I love the special people in our sport that work on both!
So are the new ideas like "shorter stem is always better, buy 35mm!"
Customers come in to the shop saying they've tried the short stem thing and hated it. I tell them and offer a wide bar demo with their short stem and they are sold. The steering improves and is handled better and the climbing actually improves cuase the ability to use less body english to lift the front end and putting it the weight back is not so dramatic with long stems.
Next thing you know it I'm selling them on a Enve 800mm DH bar for their tallboy with a 60mm stem. hahaha And that right there is what my wife which is 5'10" is running on her medium tallboy. Says she's never felt more comfortable with this setup ever before and the confidence it has given her on the descends just stokes her even more.
So just remember having just a short stem with the wide handle bar will bring your chest down and elbows out like how you are supposed to have in the attack position for climbing and decending.
Anyway my point was not to naysay short stems as a concept, just that once you have a good fit, stem and bars have to change together for it to make sense (like you're saying). But especially if you're on an older frame your top tube probably isn't that long, so you may have to go stupid wide to get the stem "short", but that's not always practical. IMO stem length is more of a byproduct of the bar width you want, not the other way around (bar is the performance item, stem is the fit item that makes it work). When upgrading the optimal bar width should be the goal, not the stem length (my opinion).
Usualy, there is no more than 4 size for a given bicycle frame, meaning that each size have to cover 10 cm increments of body height (so from 160 cm to 200 cm). Given we all have different morphologies and riding habits, we need the amount of adaptation stems, bars, saddles and seat tube can offers.
A shorter stem together with longer top tube and wheelbase to maintain traction on steep climb is the better set up I ever found, coming from XC. But you can't simply fit a 50mm short stem on your usual frame if it was designed with a 90mm stem in mind, like most of XC bikes or trailbikes until now. Doing so will change your overall reach (I mean frame reach + stem length) from a L size to a S size equivalent. Keep in mind that reach difference between 2 frame size is usualy 2 or 3 cm. Reducing your stem length in such a way will results in debalancing your frame, putting your weight over the rear and ultimately act on your rear suspension behaviour.
Short stems are thought to fit longer reached frame, like yeti's, mondraker's, the new strive CF or kona's. Or you need to upscale your frame from your usual size in order to benefit from the advantages of a shorter stem.
First point, we don't say that old frame and short stem don't match. We just say that given your riding habits and your frame, if there is an overall reach (frame reach + stem length) you are used to, and if this reach is achieved with a long (90 - 110mm) stem, then, putting a short (35 - 50 mm) stem (because of trend, for instance) will not be a good choice 'cause it will be equivalent to downsize your frame size to at least 2 size.
Second point, some frames were thought with short reach (like your nomad), some other with long reach (like the new nomad) for a given size. Since there is still 4 frame sizes from S to XL, longer reach frames (e.g. Kona process 153, Yt capra, mondraker, new strive cf, etc...) have to be used with shorter stem. Or you can downsize them in order to use a longer stem. Which will be -for me- quite stupid, since I find a great benefice to long reach, long wheelbase and... short stem.
Guys, please keep this quiet and protect the advantage that the riders with an open mind have. Thank you. I am perfectly fine with me being one of the few riding a dropper post in an XC race or marathon ;-).
The truth is that I'd much rather travel with my money than own multiple bikes, so my all mountain bike might be a little big for most trails around here and even though its often "too much bike", it's never too big or too small anywhere I take it so in it's own way, it is the perfect bike.
Also, what worked for Nico Vouilloz may not work for everyone else.
In any case, the only occasions I see racers lose a lot of time is when they crash. But that could happen to anybody.
And you shouldn't come to race day knowing that you're bad at descents anyway. Descents can make up a large part of the race and it wouldn't make sense to not focus on it if you're not already proficient.
Another I like: "Don't race what you can't replace".
The average weekend warrior rarely adheres to either of this age old bits of advice- I know I'm often guilty!
Rocky Mountain Element RSL 999 (95mm)
RockShox RS-1 (100mm)
FOX Float CTD shock
SRAM Roam 50 wheelset
Schwalbe Nobby Nic tires (2.2", tubeless)
FOX D.O.S.S. dropper post
SRAM XX1 drivetrain w/ a 30t 'ring
If you want to go faster and need to choose between either improving either your climbing OR descending, choose climbing. Why? Because you spend more time climbing than descending. For a trail that takes 60 minutes to climb and 15 minutes to descend:
For a 10% improvement on the descent only: 60 + 13.5 = 73.5 minutes.
For a 10% improvement on the climb only: 54 + 15 = 69 minutes.
In my scenario, in order to get down to 69 minutes through a improvement in descending only, one would need to drop 7 minutes from a 15 minute descent. That's not going to happen through setup alone, especially without affecting the climb. You could switch to a downhill bike, knock five minutes off the fifteen minute descent, but the climb will take forever and you will come home in last place.
You make a great point about overtaking on climbs versus descents - I have witnessed this many times.
So seeing a rider with a bike that cater to his strengths is not illogical. Not everyone races everyday.
To my opinion, the best bike is the bike that suits the track, especially the most "strategical" parts. And this bike has to not being a dead body when you are in your less favorite part of the track.
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The harder you push on the pedals, the harder you have to pull on the bars, and wider bars give more leverage.
After all if he can out descend the people he climbs with then he should get equipment that makes him climb quicker.
I would climb slower on a lighter weight hardtail, and a dropper post makes no difference on the ups so why not run it to aid me on the downs? In my mind I was on equipment that makes me climb quicker.
Formula Time lost = (extra weight x total climbing x 9. / Average power output.
For BC bike race the dropper post cost you a minimum of 100 seconds climbing. In reality the weight probably cost you double that (I didn't include accelerations). So a bit over 3 minutes over the whole race.
Did you make that time up on the descents with dropper post? Probably not.
1. You were stuck in traffic and couldn't use your descending skills.
2. If you are good at descending with your seat up you can rip the relativitively non-technical descents at BCBR fairly close to the speeds that you do with your seat down.
3. Descending with your seat down is more tiring. You spend more timing standing and pedaling. These efforts are going to make you climb even slower.
All that being said, I would choose to run a dropper post for BCBR. But not because it is quicker, it is in fact quicker to not use one. But for myself racing is about having fun and dropper post are a lot of fun.
SIDENOTE: I'm curious about your formula. I'm sure you simplified it for this post, but I'd like to see it in it's full form. I'm specifically curious to know if "total climbing" a measure of time or distance? If it's distance then your conclusion of saved time is mathematically impossible because you can't balance out each of the individual units of time, mass, distance,and wattage. Your answer would have to be something like saved watt per gram per kilometer. If it's measured in time, then your answer still isn't saved seconds, but rather saved watt per gram per seconds. In the end it's energy that is being saved, not time. Obviously I could be way off, but without the originally formula I'm having to make some assumptions.
For example, each of your perfectly valid reasons for not using a dropper post on the descents are dependent upon condition external to the rider. The first one is dependent upon how crowded the trail is, the second is dependent upon the definition of a "non-technical descent"(which is a perspective/opinion, not a measurable quantity), and finally the third one is dependent upon length of time in the descent and the perceived need to stand or sit. Like you said, "weight matters, if you are going to run something heavier it better give you advantages else where", but when you boil it all down each of your reasons for why a dropper post isn't worth the weight penalty are dependent upon neither the rider or the bike but rather the conditions of the race.
What do you think? What should take precedence when optimizing a bike: rider or terrain? Would you agree with me if I said that "not enough riders take enough time studying course conditions/layout, and don't take the time to customize their bike to those conditions"? I'd also love to hear what you have to say about wheel sizes. I think we'd agree on a lot there.
1st: Formula: All I did was calculate the amount of time required to lift a mass a certain vertical distance (this value is given for each stage of BCBR). Since this is a linear relation ship, losing that amount of mass is going to change your time by that much, assuming you average the same power output. Engery to lift: mass x height x 9.8 Energy expended by rider = Power x Time.
Combine the two and solve for Time => Time=(Mass x height x 9. /Power This is assuming that all climbing is done at a constance speed (which is false), if the ride is accelerating and decelerating them the time difference is going to be larger. Check this site out for another analysis www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesLessWeight_Page.html
2nd: In theory you should optimize for your terrain. But I don't know about you but it takes me a bit to adapt to smallest change on my bike. When I am constantly changing the set-up I have hard time riding well. Because of this I think racers need to be fairly consistent with their set-up. Small changes can be made, tires, suspensions, stem spacers, ect.. But big changes, not so much.
Dropper post are a big change IMHO. When I first started using one I was slower everywhere. I spent too much time thinking about what to do with it instead on just riding my bike. You need to train with one to make the most of it. Same with going the other way, if you are use to using one you are really going to struggle when you are forced to descend with your seat up.
If its for an enduro race and you suck at climbing (but lets face it pies and beers are more fun than training), but a big portion of that said "Enduro" is pedally then you go for a set up that works for that, not for the 30 secs of braaappp.
The flip side is, that if you have a course that's hella gnar, some high speed, but sweet FA pedalling, then you make sure you have beefy tires and wheels on, and slap a bigger ring on.
Of crouse if your just riding and not racing, then just ride whatever the marketing tells....sorry, whatever the hell you want. Walk those climbs, have a cone/rest/stupid selfie mid run. smell the flowers, take pics of the couple you caught doing the nasty by the waterfall....
are we going to see a mike levy post race recap? the ups and downs of the bc bike race?