The Mont24 Hr - 2011, Mt Kowan

[mtb5150]

My first race was the Scott 24 2010. This was my 2nd go. Although I would be considered a reasonable newy.....I found Stromlo much more challenging on a technical side as well as the first 15-20 min climb. .......

I am a beginner to MTB that has really been inspired to do more "endurance" events (currently just riding WSMTB club rounds) and I am tryin gto get a handle on how hard these climbs are. I have ridden Stromlo once (loop 2) and the main initial climb I remember as something like Emu Switchbacks (?). Is that the climb at Stromlo we are all talking about?

If so that is the only climb I think I have ever ridden with a smile on my face. It was a really interesting and enjoyable climb.

 

[FR Drew]

I'll put my 2c in on the course itself. While it was a good track, the climbing was way harder than last years Mont, without a doubt. The first 3km and the 1.5km after the "3k's to go" sign were utter bastards.

Yes, I weigh 20 kilos more than I probably should, yes, I was on a rigid singlespeed, these are self inflicted, but I was pretty much the same last year.

I loved it, don't get me wrong, but those two mongrel climbs were certainly unpleasant for me.

 

[hipdos]

Re: the issue of rider/runner swaps; I think it's very important that action is taken where possible. The basics of 'your action leads to this consequence' is what we try and teach our kids every day and live our lives by. If these teams have decided to cheat and then planned and executed on that intent then they need to live with the consequences. Otherwise it sends a strong message that you can get away with this and in fact you probably need to do this to be competative next year.

Obviously the organisers are in a hard place without solid evidence and even if they remove a lap (because the runner didn't finish the first lap) you could argue the impact is minimal as the first set of results are already out there. Personally I'm all for naming and shaming as long as you are sure there was cheating (there's nothing worse than being falsely accused

anyway, that's my rant.

A lot of teams take a video at the start (Ours included - How funny is it watching your mate so stuffed from the run that he has troubled getting on the bike?!) - I reckon almost all offending teams could be identified. Not that a witch hunt is needed, but it would be good to stamp this out.

 

[walken]

Yep - I agree with above sentiments. Think the recency effect is most at play. At Sparrow Monts you knew the last climb (Bobsled tail) led to a fast, rolling downhill to the finish. The late pinches and the tight finish on this track meant I didn't quite have the same smile on my face at the finish as previous events however there are parts of the track that did create that smile - if the track were to finish down near orchard road, we'd have all had that smile at transition. Unfortunately that wasn't possible due to lack of space for camping etc.
Overall great fun and a huge thanks to all the friendly folk chatting as they passed me. Just a note to the guys on the end of the trains - I don't care how many people want to overtake me in a train - just tell me so that I can judge how long I need to do my poor attempt at a track stand or better still I can slow a little more and not have to stand. Few guys trying to sneak through - noone was rude but just that little bit extra helps a lot.

 

[dhd]

I can see how the Kowen course was tougher on the fitness side of things, there were few spots where you got a rest, either you were climbing or you were up on the pedals descending... I thought it was tough over the first 2-3km and coming back over the last 5-6kms into transition and looking at the elevation now I can see why (attached). I wonder if there's a little bit of a recency effect going on, you finish feeling rooted from the last few kms of climbing and so feel the course is super hard, yet if the climbing is early in the piece and you finish with descents back into camp you tend to remember the descents rather than the climbs.

So in your reckoning that makes probably the most memorable 7-9kms of an 18km course you considered tough. I definitely think the recency argument has merit. I know riders in our camp were dreading the climb up to the "top corner" especially the organ/angle grinder sections. I personally loved the downhill sections, but found I always had the thought in the back of my mind that I had to slog it back to the camp area. Others I talked to had similar thoughts.
I heard no one complain about the course being too technical, and Yes we could probably work on our climbing. But my post is aimed at giving some perspective from a less serious rider out there for fun that probably makes up about 40% of the Mont entry list (40% is just a guess!). We are not beginners by any stretch of the imagination, just casual XC endurance riders trying to help with some feedback to make the event better for all. Flatten out a few sections and the punters are happier and keep coming back and the fast guys just go a bit faster. No biggy.
And yes, having been involved with DH racing for many years I do appreciate the amount of work gone into building the Kowen trails. They have done a fantastic job, A few tweaks I feel will keep the entry numbers up and fun factor high.

 

[dangersean]

no need to flatten the course.

It was a perfect single speeder's course and I enjoyed it

 

[EzyLee]

Holy shit!! Arm pump?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/skittlemachine/5609325902/in/set-72157626473716822

 

[sruge]

Subjectively, the course felt a bit tougher than last year, but I just had a bad weekend all-round - headaches, blurry vision, felt flat the whole time - especially disappointing when my fitness is well up on this time last year. Got passed by many more riders than I passed each lap and thought I had dragged the team down to a very lowly performance. However (and all credit to my team-mates - zero to me), we were just outside the top 20% overall & in our category - if I hadn't pulled the pin on a last lap @ 11.30, we probably would have been well inside the top 20%. I suppose we were helped a bit by other teams that pulled out early, tho' not sure if many front-running teams did so. I can't help but wonder if I felt so bad, how much did others suffer. I guess it begs the question about exactly who you pitch your event at - would the elite riders (whose skill & fitness we love to admire) still come if the track was designed exactly to keep Mr/Ms/Mrs/Miss Median both challenged & happy, would we have even longer freight trains if we took out the bits that everyone has picked as a challenge. For myself, while I enjoyed Sparrows more, Kowen still had the mix right & I learnt some worthwhile lessons about training & fitness & preparation in the few days leading up to the event. Overall, a really well run event - the "feel" of the Mont is great & the trail builders do awesome work.

 

[StanTheMan]

I am a beginner to MTB that has really been inspired to do more "endurance" events (currently just riding WSMTB club rounds) and I am tryin gto get a handle on how hard these climbs are. I have ridden Stromlo once (loop 2) and the main initial climb I remember as something like Emu Switchbacks (?). Is that the climb at Stromlo we are all talking about?

If so that is the only climb I think I have ever ridden with a smile on my face. It was a really interesting and enjoyable climb.

the climb/direction will change from year to year.
but in 2010 it was about 120m climb over 3.7 km. It took me just under 18 min. with my fitness at the time....I was pretty stuffed.

 

[Dazzo]

From my perspective, I really enjoyed the flow and lay out of this years track. The changing 'terrain' was quite enjoyable, especially the sections through the gum trees.

When I ride a track like Kowan, I constantly remind myself that every time I brake, I need to pedal to recover that speed/momentum and therefore use energy. So I focus on proper cornering, body position and my choice of line. It can make a lot of difference to just how 'stuffed' you are after a lap. Also, after my first two laps, I decided I'd take it easier and not blow myself up on every single climb. I'd just go out there for a fun spin. As a result I only added on average 6 minutes to my lap times, but the joy I got out of each lap increased many fold! It can make the difference between returning to camp eagerly anticipating your next lap, or dredding it - I know how I'd rather feel!

BTW, a quick plug for Endura products, they really helped with keeping muscle fatigue, soreness and exhaustion at bay! Won't ride without it from now on!

 

[Dreggsy]

some pics here

http://dreggsy.smugmug.com/Events

click on mont 2011

I am re-importing them at the moment,
i will get rid of the ones that didn't work/ turnout.
give it a few hours.



I have just uploaded them all to my smugmug account.
My flash went dodgy due to the batteries running down, and having the flash set to "really strong"
you can tell the diff between when the shots did work.

I thought it would be easy but nope, it is actually pretty hard work to get the right shot.

 

[EzyLee]

Wow, those shots in the gum trees are awesome. Perfect lighting coming through the dust. Thanks for sharing!

 

[scootabug]

no need to flatten the course.

It was a perfect single speeder's course and I enjoyed it

I agree. No need to "level the playing field" any further, guys struggling on the hills need to accept the fact that 16km laps over 24 hours is going to hurt. There are no two ways about that, regardless of who you are or how fit you are.

"It never gets easier, you just go faster." Greg LeMond

 

[scootabug]

Also, after my first two laps, I decided I'd take it easier and not blow myself up on every single climb. I'd just go out there for a fun spin. As a result I only added on average 6 minutes to my lap times, but the joy I got out of each lap increased many fold!

Win!

 

[dhd]

I agree. No need to "level the playing field" any further, guys struggling on the hills need to accept the fact that 16km laps over 24 hours is going to hurt. There are no two ways about that, regardless of who you are or how fit you are.

"It never gets easier, you just go faster." Greg LeMond

OK, so we disregard riders that probably make up about 40% of the feild because you can do it so you think everyone else should be able to???? I have no problem with the 24 hour race concept of "It hurts and you push on" That is what it is all about. I think this was my 7th 24hr so yeah, save the lecture, I do have a grip on that concept.
Any girlie whining you are hearing from me is simply meant to be constructive criticism that will hopefully go towards keeping the Mont an event that attracts all levels of riders not just the ones that are your personal level of fitness and above. It's a new track/venue and correct me if I'm wrong but there was a call for input from slower/less fit riders. Just dismissing them and telling them to harden the ---k up will not get them back next year with their fat wad of cash and "it's a fun race" attitude. People loved the old Sparrow event and flooded to it because it wasn't as serious as the Scott. A concept that apparently had the Scott organisers wondering why the Mont filled up so fast and their event took a long time to fill. I think it's important from a riders perspective as well as an organisers perspective to hear these people out. A hell of a lot of them will not put their hand up and speak out because they will be shot down and belittled as they are not "semi pro" in their own mind. They will simply just not be on the next years starting list and the Mont will be worse off for it.
We were in a group that consisted of three mens teams of four. One serious, one medium and one there for a laugh. We also had two teams of kids who were having a crack, so with them and the others that floated by our campsite and the people I talked to around the event I think I got to talk to a fairly good cross section of the race populace. Many have already said they won't be back next year if something doesn't change and that my friend would be sad.

 

[morgs]

OK, so we disregard riders that probably make up about 40% of the feild because you can do it so you think everyone else should be able to???? . Many have already said they won't be back next year if something doesn't change and that my friend would be sad.

So are we taking the usual forum talk as gospel as to what will happen next year? There's a lot of fuzzy figures floating around, 40% this and half that. How do you ever judge the middle ground and is the middle ground appropriate in terms of course difficulty, lap times, climbing, singletrack ratio? No matter what you do, a proportion of people will not be happy, should it be Bill's take or Gordo's on course design, toilet numbers, wash points? How can an organiser ever hope to please everyone?
There will be an event survey come out, take the time to fill it out and respond when it does, not just get wound up in fruitless agravation with each other on forums, put in some constructive input when the oportunity comes, I know the guys are serious about it.
I don't know which Sparrow Hill you were talking about when you say it didn't hurt though, some of the straight up the hill pitches were truly sucky, there's some rose coloured glasses in the crowd obviously.

 

[scootabug]

OK, so we disregard riders that probably make up about 40% of the feild because you can do it so you think everyone else should be able to???? I have no problem with the 24 hour race concept of "It hurts and you push on" That is what it is all about. I think this was my 7th 24hr so yeah, save the lecture, I do have a grip on that concept.
Any girlie whining you are hearing from me is simply meant to be constructive criticism that will hopefully go towards keeping the Mont an event that attracts all levels of riders not just the ones that are your personal level of fitness and above. It's a new track/venue and correct me if I'm wrong but there was a call for input from slower/less fit riders. Just dismissing them and telling them to harden the ---k up will not get them back next year with their fat wad of cash and "it's a fun race" attitude. People loved the old Sparrow event and flooded to it because it wasn't as serious as the Scott. A concept that apparently had the Scott organisers wondering why the Mont filled up so fast and their event took a long time to fill. I think it's important from a riders perspective as well as an organisers perspective to hear these people out. A hell of a lot of them will not put their hand up and speak out because they will be shot down and belittled as they are not "semi pro" in their own mind. They will simply just not be on the next years starting list and the Mont will be worse off for it.
We were in a group that consisted of three mens teams of four. One serious, one medium and one there for a laugh. We also had two teams of kids who were having a crack, so with them and the others that floated by our campsite and the people I talked to around the event I think I got to talk to a fairly good cross section of the race populace. Many have already said they won't be back next year if something doesn't change and that my friend would be sad.

I'm disappointed you're directing this flaming at me, I actually agree with your feedback, but I am entitled to my own opinion too.

These are the points I was trying to make (in more words):

1. I personally don't think the course could have been much easier (realistically). Obviously this is technically achievable from a mathematical standpoint, but realistically, and I say this without ever having marked out a course, I think it would be difficult to mark out 15km+ without including some climbs. As I said, what goes up, must come down. What I would guarantee you is that if the course had no descents (which as far as I am aware practically EVERYONE enjoys), you'd have a bigger ruckus than those talking about there being too much climbing per lap.
2. In my opinion, hills and climbs are part of mountain biking. Removing the climbs from a MTB course would be like having a shooting range without wind. And talking about climbs, none of these climbs were actually that bad. This is an important note. And this is not to say "HTFU" to anyone who thought it was hard, it's a fact, my point being it could have been much worse. Refer to point number 1. And note well: this may actually strengthen your argument: the climbs weren't hard by definition, but they were when you consider a) length of course b) position of climbs on course i.e. near the end) and c) the riders on the course. This is what the organisers need to know. If you tell them to have "less climbs" I bet they LOL at you (Mont 2020 on a salt lake? )
3. Re: my comment about not needing to level the playing field: The Mont is in fact a race, not a social ride. If you take the challenge out of the course, you'll retain the 40% for sure but you'll also lose the 60% of the field (using your guesstimated figures).
4. I said it was hard for everyone. But how hard it is depends on how you ride it?
5. I haven't done 7 x 24 hours. What part of Mont 24 this year was less fun than last 2010 (I was there)? Are you referring to something other than the climbs? IMO this year was easier. Or was it? I'm fitter this year than last. It's perception.

I'm not wishing to start a flaming match here, as I said, I actually agree with your points. It was a demanding loop, certainly not an easy ride for the not-so-pointy-end of the field. Does it need to be changed? Not in MY opinion.

Also, how do you know where I sit in the field? Your words suggest you think I am at the pointy end of the field because I don't think it needed to be "easier" per se.

 

[Dreggsy]

Morgs said stuff here

I enjoyed the course morgs, it was RAD.

 

[scootabug]

And just to clarify, I'm not a big guy but I'm not very strong and I struggle on the climbs. My section of choice is either technical singletrack or descents where skills counts more over brute force. But I know that I can't have it all in my favour.

 

[FR Drew]

I don't think that anyone is flaming, merely stating that some of the more unpleasant climbs (which a lot of folks feel were way nastier than last year) are the sort of features that might drive away entry/participation level riders. Last year's loop had no climbs anywhere near this degree of difficulty.

There are dozens of MTB events that cater for those folks who want to compete sport wise. The beauty of the MONT in the mind of many people is that mug punters could also get around the course. To head more in the direction of sport riders would be in my mind a step backwards.

Personally, I feel that the climbs in the first 3km and in the last 3km sucked more than the climb to the firetower in 03. Preference would be that if you must include climbs of this nature, arrange the course to have them mid lap if possible, not in the start and finish.

Still had a blast, but OMG, it sucked the energy out of me.