iamsx

@lkubica: Yeah, that makes sense, but it seems like you are conflating "freeride" with "Rampage." To me, Rampage is a specific event with specific qualifications and specific (although subjective) judging criteria, while freeride is a type of mountain bike riding. Brendog's line was a sick freeride line, no one is doubting that, but I understand the idea that it might have not been the best "Rampage" line.

Can someone explain the controversy here? I've watched all the runs as best as I can from a screen, and Brendog's line was awesome, for sure, but it's so radically different than anything that has scored highly in the past that I'm confused why everyone is hating on the judges. It's like if Danny MacAskill came to rampage and did some of his gnarly trials tricks. There's no doubt that the bike control and technicality of the line is higher than the other riders, but it's clear (and has been clear for years) that the event and judges are not set up to reward that kind of riding. If the judges had given Brendog the win, it would have been a wild departure from their past judging criteria, and the other competitors would have been robbed in their own way. It would change the way riders choose their lines at future Rampages (maybe that's not a bad thing!), so I think I understand where the judges are coming from here.

@AddisonEverett: I'm pretty sure this still counts as a four bar: 1) bottom link, 2) rear triangle, 3) top link, 4) shock. Just a different configuration than a Horst four bar with 1) chainstay, 2) seatstay, 3) top link, 4) shock.

@lkubica: What's ironic about this is that it's pretty well accepted amongst general aviation designers that a 4130 welded steel fuselage covered in fabric is the lightest and safest (although not most aerodynamic) construction method for aircraft.

@peetyjay: Maybe I’m just talking past everyone - I 100% want to see these guys make a living wage. My point is that, if I, being an unaffiliated third party, dictate the terms of what each deserve for their part in the competition, one or the other is going to get screwed. If the riders get screwed, they leave and Red Bull looses the competition and the money it generates. If Red Bull gets screwed, then they stop the competition and the riders lose their source of income, anyways. I’m not anti-rider.

@peetyjay: Exactly! If the optics are bad, then fans won’t watch and Red Bull won’t make money. If the pay isn’t appropriate, then riders won’t ride and Red Bull doesn’t make money. I want everyone involved to come out on top, and only they know how to negotiate within their best interests. I wouldn’t ever want to force a rider to ride for a wage below what he or she is willing to ride for, and I wouldn’t want Red Bull to pay a wage higher than they are willing. If Red Bull doesn’t take care of the athletes and event staff, they deserve to be put out of business by we the consumers. A lot of these riders became who they are BECAUSE of Red Bull - should they have to pay Red Bull a living wage because of that service Red Bull provided to them? NO! Because that was not part of their mutual agreement. Both parties win when both parties are able to freely negotiate their terms. Both parties lose when one or both lose that freedom.

@MT36: I 100% agree that the riders work hard and provide a real benefit to the companies sponsoring them and the competition. But they do not have a "right" to make money doing this. I would love to make a living riding bikes, too, but no one is willing to pay me to do that. The riders are voluntarily accepting a deal which each sponsor has presented to them. If the terms and conditions of that deal are not acceptable to either party, then everyone is free to not accept it. To compel either party (by force, coercion, regulation, or other means) to enter a deal that is not favorable to them would be a terrible thing. This applies to both the sponsors and to the riders.

I honestly don't understand the "living wage" criticism regarding prize money. There are probably hundreds of riders who would kill for the opportunity to ride in Rampage for free. It is in Red Bull's best interest to create a competition where the world's best riders want to ride, or at least where the sponsors of the best riders want to ride. Prize money is only one part of that equation. As far as I know, all of these riders are free to refuse to ride if the risk is not worth the reward. If not then we have some serious human rights violations going on, and I don't think that's the case.

That’s called the “hourglass” at Bootleg Canyon, and it’s one of the gnarliest lines there. The way this guy crashed was absolute best-case scenario, and it was brutal at that!

That casset brings back bad memories of scarred shins and ripped jeans from back in the triple ring days.