 That tarmac main climb was a bit of a shocker to me. In previous years it's been a matter of climbing up the big grassy hill (which is a real killer) but I suppose with the uncertainty about the weather it was a sensible option.
Only problem I can see with Newnham is it's a looong way South but then if people will drive up to Scotland for 10 under etc then it shouldn't be too much of a chore for people.
How many people signed up for MM and SITS this year?
|
| Edited: 18/08/08 15:32 |
 Only problem I can see with Newnham is it's a looong way South but then if people will drive up to Scotland for 10 under etc then it shouldn't be too much of a chore for people. How many people signed up for MM and SITS this year? true. but by the huge turnout this year i don't think the organisers have much to worry about. impossible to cater for everyone.
|
 |
 Just cannot see the attraction in these sort of events
|
|
 i'll do '09 mayhem solo, and depending on how that goes, i'll enter the others
|
|
 Tekk, try doing one (or three) then you'll have something to really hate about them.
|
|
Exactly. It's not like there's no Motorway to this part of the Country. There was a good deal of moaning on *another* forum about the location but they were just moody Northerners I guess  Video
|
|
 MM '08 was my first proper race ....and my lack of knowledge showed when I ended up throwing up on one of my night laps and then having to slide round the rest of the course on my arse coz of all the mud on off camber parts. Somehow we still were the top uni team (Man Easting squirrels of Lufbra) just coz we kept on plodding through the crappy conditions. SITS '08 was my second proper race, again a uni team, but in the mixed cat. We came 9th probably again coz we just kept going, that and we had a very strong female rider (i.e. fastest in the team). I still enjoyed it, and reckon coz we're bloody minded, we were getting good results coz we kept going. Dry race, probably would have been more fun, dunno if we would have got a better result.... but I am really looking forward to a dry race sometime.... Mike - credit to you solo-ing it, you were a real mess when you got back!
|
|
 Guys ur doin a 24 hour enduro and expect it to be easy? its a enduro because ur ment to endure whatever is thrown at you. tbh i think the event organisers do there best but to have 2500 odd people at mayhem and about 1500 at sits going round a short 8mile loop there is only so much they can do about mud. the mud actually made a relativly boring sits course far more entertaing. Ur there to survive it and then if you do maybe see what position you came in the race.
|
|
 Guys ur doin a 24 hour enduro and expect it to be easy? its a enduro because ur ment to endure whatever is thrown at you. tbh i think the event organisers do there best but to have 2500 odd people at mayhem and about 1500 at sits going round a short 8mile loop there is only so much they can do about mud. the mud actually made a relativly boring sits course far more entertaing. Ur there to survive it and then if you do maybe see what position you came in the race.
You're kind of half right - it's about geology. The current Mayhem and SITS venues are both in areas where any sort of serious rainfall means lots of mud, especially given the number of riders, so yes, any sort of wet race becomes about pushing through mud. If fundamentally, what you want is a test of whether you can push a bike through mud for 24 hours, then they're a good bet in UK summer conditions.
I'm not sure that's why the majority of folk go to 24-hour races though - if I want an endurance / survival test, I'll go high altitude mountaineering, thanks - which is why some people are suggesting that Pat and co might want to look at a more sustainable venue or make the existing ones slightly more weather resistant, though I can't see how that's realistically feasible. Anyway, this whole thing just goes round in circles. Appropriately enough. There's no 'right answer', but if you want to ride in Somme-like conditions, you're well catered for 
|
|
You seem to be missing a key point here Rusty - it's supposed to be a 24 hour event but wasn't.
I'd be somewhat peeved to have paid my (not cheap) entry fee, arranged a team / crew / travel / training, incurred all the additional expense that goes with taking part in something like SitS and then not being able to make a proper go of it because the course wasn't up to it.
It's pretty poor actually.
Mountain Biking is a messy sport, there's obviously going to be times you have to ride through crap conditions and every now and then you'll have to carry the bike or make repairs on the trail. That's fine, I think we all get that. What isn't right is when you've paid good money and taken the time & effort to take part in an organised ride where they haven't really made sure the course is up to the event.
If the course is boring without mud that's got to say something about the venue they picked.
Over 1000 riders took part in the 24/12 and the course held up perfectly. The weather (obviously) helped with this but even with rain Newnham stands up to a large number of riders. There's no reason at all they can't have more people on site and more riders take part and it's a fun course without relying on the rain / mud combo to make it a challenge. I know where I'll be spending my money next year.
The biggest test in a 24 hour race should be surviving the race, not the course.
|
|
Actually, fwiw, I don't think the course is 'boring' without mud based on last year's SITS when it was mostly dry. It's actually a nice mix of singletrack and rolly stuff that works well for a 24-hour race - I don't know if you rode it last year, Rusty, but most of the wooded quagmire stuff this year was blistering fast singletrack and really good fun if you attacked it. No, it's not Whistler, but if you want über technical riding, there's plenty of other options.
|
|
 Cattons a good course,when its dry. We all enter these races anyway knowing what the 'great' British weather can do to some of them should it turn wet,if we're not prepared for the possibility of riding or rather walking in heavy mud then its best not to enter.
|
|
Just noticed that the article says the course will be having some work done on it for 2009,interesting.
|
|
 It means they're aware that both SITS and MM were less than ideal in the pouring rain and they have indicated that some of the course needs some weather-proofing. How that comes about you'd maybe be best to ask. In fact it could be argued that your comments and thoughts would best be directed at the race organisers as feedback from riders would maybe be more pertinent coming direct from those who have something to say, especially those who ride these events rather than second hand from off a web site. I'm not knocking the debate, nor these web forums, but maybe some individual direct correspondence to the organisers may be in order given that both events did not hold up at all well to the Great British Summer this year. I rode both events and too feel that some more wetherproofing or Plan B's should be in place were the Heavens to open again, making some section un-rideable; and here I'm thinking specifically about that 1st wood at SITS, so when it becomes 70% un-rideable (for example), a less muddy trail is available that takes riders elsewhere on a new section until the wood becomes manageable; after all they do seem to have the run of much of the estate, so it should be possible. Tim
|
|
It really should be possible Tim, you're totally right. As for direct feedback with the organisers I wholeheartedly agree, however (and you knew, with me, there would have to be a however ) It would be in their interests to actually come to places like this after the event (especially when they know it hasn't gone so well) and ask for feedback. If they did it would do two things: 1) Show that they are aware of the fact things need to change to maintain the events status. 2) Give them more honest feedback. In an email people are much more likely to just moan in unspecific ways about conditions and the course and the problems. At least on here you can get good two way communication going. The potential is there for a fantastic event regardless of the weather. Pat is probably the best in the business at putting events like these on. They just need to make a little effort to get the feedback they need. Just my tuppence worth of course 
|
| Edited: 20/08/08 01:04 |
feedback from riders would maybe be more pertinent coming direct from those who have something to say, especially those who ride these events rather than second hand from off a web site. I've done 7 24hr races in the last few years,I think that puts me in a good position to offer feedback/credit/criticism,anywhere.
|
|
Have you bothered to comment beyond these forums or are you content with the status Quo? (I was not completely sure what the last post meant, that's all) Tim
|
|
I miss summer. I think that's why this year's SITS really pissed me off. I'm going to mail Pat Adams and tell him to sort it out. Summer that is.
|
|
oh yes I've spoken to Pat face to face about the course,especially on how boring the 2006 Catton course was. I give credit where its due and constructive criticism where its needed. Pats aware of the problems with the SITS & MM venues,only time will tell if he sorts things out.
|
|
Podge. You don't make it clear - did you have this conversation (singular?) this year or in 2006? Tim
|
|
