CycloCross: Dismount/Run vs Jump?

This is a totally idle question bc I've never ridden 'cross and
never will.

At a race in Reno that I watched this morning there were two
yellow barriers maybe eighteen inches high spaced 10-20 feet
apart at the approach to a steep hill.

Almost everybody rode up to the first barrier, dismounted,
stepped over it and the next and then ascended the hill on foot.

But one guy, who was leading his pack just flowed over both
barriers and rode up the hill without missing a beat. I re-wound
a couple of times trying to see exactly what he did but couldn't
figure it out. Didn't seem tb a bunny hop, more
front-wheel-rear-wheel... but the rear wheel didn't get kicked up
by the barrier.

Bottom line: this guy was clearly out front and stayed there.
Why doesn't everybody ride over such barriers?
--
PeteCresswell

Per (PeteCresswell):
Bottom line: this guy was clearly out front and stayed there.
Why doesn't everybody ride over such barriers?

I think I just answered my own question by watching said race a
little longer.

On a subsequent lap, the guy went down on the second barrier.

Sounds like, for most, the risk outweighs any perceived benefit.
--
PeteCresswell

In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

This is a totally idle question bc I've never ridden 'cross and never
will.

At a race in Reno that I watched this morning there were two yellow
barriers maybe eighteen inches high spaced 10-20 feet apart at the
approach to a steep hill.

Almost everybody rode up to the first barrier, dismounted, stepped
over it and the next and then ascended the hill on foot.

But one guy, who was leading his pack just flowed over both barriers
and rode up the hill without missing a beat. I re-wound a couple of
times trying to see exactly what he did but couldn't figure it out.
Didn't seem tb a bunny hop, more front-wheel-rear-wheel... but the
rear wheel didn't get kicked up by the barrier.

Bottom line: this guy was clearly out front and stayed there. Why
doesn't everybody ride over such barriers?

Sven Nys, who has been the dominant force in pro 'cross racing in Europe
for a number of years, often hops the barriers. He's won an awful lot
of races, but also dismounts when that's the appropriate thing to do.
Bunny hoppers may get to conserve more momentum going over the
barricades in some situations, which would be a benefit. Many 'cross
course designers (those who understand the difference between a 'cross
course and a MTB course) try to place barricades in such as way as to
minimize this advantage.

A few years back I remember getting done with my race and watching the
Cat 1s. There were two lead riders neck and neck lap after lap; one
bunny hopped and the other dismounted. Neither gained an advantage
until the last lap and then the bunny hopper pulled away. To be sure,
though, the guy dismounting had *superb* technique.

As for why doesn't everybody do it, well, if you blow it while bunny
hopping you will lose a lot of time and maybe be unable to finish the
race. A lot of racers think it is not worth that risk. I like the
aesthetics of the dismount, and on a cold day it really helps keep the
rider's feet and hands warm.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:26:41 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote:


--snip-- Many 'cross

course designers (those who understand the difference between a 'cross
course and a MTB course) try to place barricades in such as way as to
minimize this advantage.

--end snip--

What are the principal differences in course design between itself and
mtb??

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:53:47 +0000, Keiron wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:26:41 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote:


--snip-- Many 'cross

course designers (those who understand the difference between a 'cross
course and a MTB course) try to place barricades in such as way as to
minimize this advantage.

--end snip--

What are the principal differences in course design between itself and
mtb??

What a badly phrased question. replace itself with cross. thanks

Keiron wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

*Many 'cross
course designers (those who understand the difference between a 'cross
course and a MTB course) try to place barricades in such as way as to
minimize this advantage.


What are the principal differences in course design between
[cyclocross] and mtb??

Cyclocross has a long tradition of using the wrong tool for the job,
which for decades was uninterrupted because there were so few people
who thought it a good idea to ride any kind of bike in the freezing
mud during winter.

When MTBs arose, they turned out to be unbeatably better at riding
cross-country on unprepared surfaces than any sort of road bike with
knobbies. Cyclocross being enamored of its long tradition of using
the wrong tool for the job, its organizers made two changes to ensure
the place of the road bike in this off-road sport.

First, they banned tires more than 35mm wide, because wide tires work
a _lot_ better on cruddy surfaces such as dirt, mud, and rocks.
Allowing appropriate tires for conditions would give an insurmountable
advantage to bikes that can fit appropriate tires (which traditional
'cross bikes cannot).

Second, CX courses began to focus on features like steep rough climbs
without reasonable approaches, short fences, sand pits, stairs, and
other such things that make it more practical to tote your bike as
luggage while you waddle through or over them rather than riding
through them. This gave a small but significant advantage to bikes
that are better at being carried than being ridden in those
conditions.

Chalo

On Jan 31, 8:28*pm, Chalo wrote:
Keiron wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

*Many 'cross
course designers (those who understand the difference between a 'cross
course and a MTB course) try to place barricades in such as way as to
minimize this advantage.

What are the principal differences in course design between
[cyclocross] and mtb??

Cyclocross has a long tradition of using the wrong tool for the job,
which for decades was uninterrupted because there were so few people
who thought it a good idea to ride any kind of bike in the freezing
mud during winter.

When MTBs arose, they turned out to be unbeatably better at riding
cross-country on unprepared surfaces than any sort of road bike with
knobbies. *Cyclocross being enamored of its long tradition of using
the wrong tool for the job, its organizers made two changes to ensure
the place of the road bike in this off-road sport.

First, they banned tires more than 35mm wide, because wide tires work
a _lot_ better on cruddy surfaces such as dirt, mud, and rocks.
Allowing appropriate tires for conditions would give an insurmountable
advantage to bikes that can fit appropriate tires (which traditional
'cross bikes cannot).

Second, CX courses began to focus on features like steep rough climbs
without reasonable approaches, short fences, sand pits, stairs, and
other such things that make it more practical to tote your bike as
luggage while you waddle through or over them rather than riding
through them. *This gave a small but significant advantage to bikes
that are better at being carried than being ridden in those
conditions.

Chalo

An extreme, aggravated case of "blazer knows best". -- Andre Jute

In article ,
Keiron wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:26:41 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote:


--snip-- Many 'cross

course designers (those who understand the difference between a
'cross course and a MTB course) try to place barricades in such as
way as to minimize this advantage.

--end snip--

What are the principal differences in course design between itself
and mtb??

Mountain bike courses tend to have rooty sections, rocky downhills, long
downhills, steep climbs, narrow sections and are often very long.

I was taught about 'cross course design by former pro Joe Parkin, who
happened to turn up to a race I was promoting and very kindly went over
the course with me and managed to teach a lot in a very short time. A
very nice, helpful and generous man- the antithesis of the testosteroney
guys one usually meets in bike races. That didn't stop him from lapping
me three times in an hour long race!

A 'cross course is more like a mostly-off-road criterium, usually no
more than 10 minutes a lap and usually 5-8 minutes. There's no
singletrack, the biggest mistake that course designers who don't
understand the difference tend to make. The course is always a minimum
of 2 meters while to permit passing at any time. The course is not rocky
or rooty because 'cross bikes have no suspension and usually about 28 mm
tires- surface textures such as dirt, clay, sand, mud or grass provide
the resistance instead. There's nowhere to catch air. Downhills tend to
be short and uphills are run rather than ridden. Some of the course can
be on pavement- up to half of the lap although usually much less.
Stairs are always a good thing to add. And of course there are the
barricades, usually placed to force the riders onto foot for climbs
(there should be no downhill runs due to the risk of injury).

There are a lot of resources about this. Here's one:

http://www.wicycling.org/CycloCross/crossTechGuide.htm

In article
,
Chalo wrote:

Keiron wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

*Many 'cross
course designers (those who understand the difference between a
'cross course and a MTB course) try to place barricades in such
as way as to minimize this advantage.


What are the principal differences in course design between
[cyclocross] and mtb??

Cyclocross has a long tradition of using the wrong tool for the job,
which for decades was uninterrupted because there were so few people
who thought it a good idea to ride any kind of bike in the freezing
mud during winter.

Cyclo-cross started in a Parisien park and road bikes were all they had.
They dismounted periodically to run and warm up their feet and to get
past unridable obstacles. At least that's the urban legend.

When MTBs arose, they turned out to be unbeatably better at riding
cross-country on unprepared surfaces than any sort of road bike with
knobbies. Cyclocross being enamored of its long tradition of using
the wrong tool for the job, its organizers made two changes to ensure
the place of the road bike in this off-road sport.

It's not the wrong tool, Chalo, for riding like a cyclo-crosser. Riding
it like a mountain bike would be a misuse of the tool, the fault of the
operator and not the tool.

Of course, I just ride off road on my road bikes and don't even own
anything with fat knobby tires.

First, they banned tires more than 35mm wide, because wide tires work
a _lot_ better on cruddy surfaces such as dirt, mud, and rocks.
Allowing appropriate tires for conditions would give an
insurmountable advantage to bikes that can fit appropriate tires
(which traditional 'cross bikes cannot).

I see 2" tires on 26" wheels often at cyclo-cross races, since the UCI
rules are not in effect here in the US at the vast majority of events.

Second, CX courses began to focus on features like steep rough climbs
without reasonable approaches, short fences, sand pits, stairs, and
other such things that make it more practical to tote your bike as
luggage while you waddle through or over them rather than riding
through them. This gave a small but significant advantage to bikes
that are better at being carried than being ridden in those
conditions.

That's because it's not mountain biking. Different activity, different
tool.

MTBs are used frequently in 'cross races. They are at a disadvantage on
a properly designed 'cross course which is very different from a
mountain bike course. They're just too slow on pavement.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:12:12 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article ,
Keiron wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:26:41 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote:


--snip-- Many 'cross

course designers (those who understand the difference between a
'cross course and a MTB course) try to place barricades in such as
way as to minimize this advantage.

--end snip--

What are the principal differences in course design between itself
and mtb??

Mountain bike courses tend to have rooty sections, rocky downhills, long
downhills, steep climbs, narrow sections and are often very long.

I was taught about 'cross course design by former pro Joe Parkin, who
happened to turn up to a race I was promoting and very kindly went over
the course with me and managed to teach a lot in a very short time. A
very nice, helpful and generous man- the antithesis of the testosteroney
guys one usually meets in bike races. That didn't stop him from lapping
me three times in an hour long race!

A 'cross course is more like a mostly-off-road criterium, usually no
more than 10 minutes a lap and usually 5-8 minutes. There's no
singletrack, the biggest mistake that course designers who don't
understand the difference tend to make. The course is always a minimum
of 2 meters while to permit passing at any time. The course is not rocky
or rooty because 'cross bikes have no suspension and usually about 28 mm
tires- surface textures such as dirt, clay, sand, mud or grass provide
the resistance instead. There's nowhere to catch air. Downhills tend to
be short and uphills are run rather than ridden. Some of the course can
be on pavement- up to half of the lap although usually much less.
Stairs are always a good thing to add. And of course there are the
barricades, usually placed to force the riders onto foot for climbs
(there should be no downhill runs due to the risk of injury).

There are a lot of resources about this. Here's one:

http://www.wicycling.org/CycloCross/crossTechGuide.htm

To add to that, part of the value in banning super-wide tires and such
in high-level competition is to keep the sport what it is. It makes
promoters to make cross courses, not just dirt/rock courses.

Yes, cross bikes are not the fastest or most reliable way to ride fast
over harsh terrain, just as the butterfly isn't the best swim stroke.
But it is what it is, a sport with rules.