I actually started enjoying the coverage of the big events once I met some of the athletes at OTGG. That made it more…intimate?
My boss did ask me if I wanted to race Unbound one day and that was a firm “no, it looks miserable”. I’d much rather spend the time at OTGG with its 20k of climbing and amazing views.
I had to look up OTGG, but that does indeed look superb. Why aren’t events like that more popular than the Midwest events?
As far as I’m concerned, any event where there is the possibility of peanut butter mud is a strict no-no from me. Riding bikes should be fun (even when it’s tough as hell). Carrying your bike through the stickiest mud known to man is fun for no-one.
Yeah, it’s a terrible spectator sport (just like most cycling disciplines). But the racing is more dynamic and unpredictable than road racing, even more so than classics racing with much more of the course being selective and the races being longer/harder. If the racing was tedious and unexciting for competitors, the races probably wouldn’t be selling out every year. But that doesn’t mean they are appealing to everyone, it just makes your opinion unpopular (ie - you are posting in the right thread).
Maybe not the technicality you enjoy, but it doesn’t get much more technical than peanut butter mud where decision making, bike skills, equipment setup, mechanical know how, and mental strength are all key to success. I personally love unmanageable chaos in races and mud sections are some of the most selective/challenging course features that come up. That said, my perspective on mud is probably less popular than yours (most people don’t like mud even if they like these midwest events).
Not sure if you are talking about the “gravel worlds” organizers, but that’s a US-based race with a decent following. Clearly, there is demand for the race in Nebraska (and other races in Kansas, Oklahoma, etc.). Those races have nothing to do with whether Norway would be a good place to race. If you want to race in that location in Norway, consider organizing a grass roots race and see if you can get it rolling. That’s how all the big midwest races started, just people wanting to race/ride their bikes on gravel.
I get the point Jon is trying to make, and certainly Europe is gorgeous, but we DO have some beautiful locations in the US too. Here’s a few shot from Steamboat Gravel (SBT).
Yep, the scenery is certainly one thing that can make an event more appealing, but far from the only thing. Steamboat has nice scenery, but the course is pretty tame and it’s not the most welcoming community. That’s one thing you get in the Midwest, it’s basically a big love fest with the hosting towns. It’s obviously a formula that has worked, a lot of the big races aren’t in places any of us would visit if there wasn’t a bike race. If you build it, they will come….
That’s exactly what it should be.
This is what mountain biking is for 
I just don’t agree that peanut butter mud is a techincal challenge. It’s more of a “will to live” sort of challenge, as far as I’m concerned.
My idea of entertaining technicality is weaving, winding, undulating gravel, where you have to work out your lines going in and out of corners in an instant, where corner combinations are complicated and complex. You want short, punchy climbs, longer, gruelling drags, technical descents and exposed, open sections where drafting and aero are key.
I get all of that just on my commute (22km). I’ve got climbs at 16% (x3), weaving descents (65kph on rough, rain damaged gravel) and stunning scenery.
The US is chock full of amazing places to ride a bike. I understand that the Midwest have embraced gravel, but it’s just unfortunate that the least interesting wing of the sport is the one that’s getting the highest profile. I think it doesn’t do the image of gravel that much good as if that’s what people perceive gravel to be, it’ll put a lot of folk off. It’s just difficult to see where the enjoyment is.
Another borrowed photo from (my friend) Pär. This one from the Spanish Pyrenees.
No. Mountain biking is for mountain bike trails. Gravel cycling is for gravel roads, trails and just about anywhere. It doesn’t mean MMRs and knee deep mud.
You may not like the challenge that mud brings (most don’t), but saying it’s not a technical challenge is flat out wrong (in my opinion). It’s not that different than XCO where you see huge differences in abilities racing in the mud, people running with bikes, people dealing with mechanicals. Sure, it can get extreme with extended mud on a gravel course, but it’s not hard to see the difference between people with the skill/experience to deal with mud vs. those who don’t. “Will to live” is funny though and probably comes into play for the people who hate it. For me, mud sections put a big smile on my face because I know it makes a lot of people mentally implode. And who doesn’t like playing in the mud? Maybe I’ll grow up some day, but I’ll take the mud day over a dry day every time.
Opinions vary greatly on that one. Some people like manageable/predictable challenges (a steep hill or a sections of roots/rocks), but others like unmanageable chaos where the outcome is varying degrees of bad depending on how you deal with it. I’d argue that #2 makes a race much more interesting even if it sometimes ends my day or hurts my results. At it’s core, it’s probably a bit of a debate whether gravel should be “adventure” racing or more similar to a classics road race. I vote adventure and try to pick events accordingly. Probably my favorite “gravel” race is Rule of 3 with 25+ miles of singletrack.
This is making me think of the wave after wave of men that rolled right into the mud at the beginning of Gravel Worlds compared to the women, who immediately went up the grass.
Yeah, as if we needed any more proof that women are smarter than men.
I thought the same. Until I looked at my chain inventory and realized I’ve replaced Michelle’s MTB chain exactly once in 4 years of ownership (and only because she was racing Leadville this year and I wanted her to have a new chain!). I’ve gone through at least a dozen Shimano chains in that time. And, my maintenance of the Shimano chains was religious because of how fast they wore out. I have neglected the living daylights out of the SRAM chain (no lube or wax for 1000 miles etc, dry creaky nasty sounding pedaling, etc, etc)
I’ll devils advocate myself a bit here with some confounding variables:
Surely I’m overlooking something. I’ve measured chain wear upside down and backwards using the Park Tool CC-2 & CC-4. In grimey conditions on the road Michelle has hit 0.75 wear on Shimano chains in a month sometimes. In grimey MTB… I think it took 3-4 years for her to hit 0.50 on her first chain.
SRAM stuff just seems utterly bomb-proof compared to the Shimano parts that wear out faster (because the chains wear faster, presumably).
Thoughts?
So when the owner of campy was asked why his brakes dont stop you as fast as shimano brakes the response was “that’s so you can be faster”
I’m sure Mr shimano has the same sort of response about chains
I think, the only way to discuss this is from a data-driven perspective. How you are currently describing the background generates more questions and confusion. A month, a year - these are not effective metrics for others to evaluate the longevity of your chains.
To summarize; you have replaced the chain on your wife’s MTB once in 4 years. In that same span of time, you have replaced at least a dozen Shimano chains on your road bike.
What mileage are you getting out of your Shimano chains? What mileage was your wife’s MTB chain when it reached 0.5?
I’m hard on chains. I rarely ride pavement and usually ride in dry and dusty conditions often with damp sandy top surface. I typically get around 2500 miles to between 12 & 1/32”-12 & 1/16” out of a chromized Shimano chain - 12sp/11sp XTR with UFO Drip All-Conditions. I’ve gone through a half dozen of these chains the past couple years, cassette is worn but still meshing with new chains, chainring less worn and fine.
I’ve had one Eagle XX1 chain in this time and at 8000 miles it has shown wear approaching 12 & 1/32” but not over. I suspect I’ll get close to 11-13,000 miles out of it. The cassette shows some wear, the chainring more.
I think the best SRAM chains are around 5x as durable as the current best Shimano chains. SRAM jumped a few paces ahead very quickly and Shimano has not been able to catch up. I do not think it’s reasonable for most people to think that the chains are going to be 20x as durable, and certainly not 100x.
I agree that mud requires high technical skill and experience but at the same time the most common technique that seems to be exhibited at events is avoiding the mud by riding in the grass or walking/running. Which is sort of like doing an expert level XC race with drops and gaps where all the b-lines are still open.
The walking gets a lot of air time (and high drama), but the reality is that there can often be people riding (grass or mud) while others are walking. Sometimes that’s pure skill, but it’s often more about equipment choice along with the skill/experience of knowing when to walk and when to try riding it.
This video of keegan is a good example where he’s riding while another rider is walking the grass. You can also see he’s aiming for the deepest/wettest spots to ride (which is almost always the line you want in the mud at Unbound). The wetter the better with that type of mud, it’s usually rideable when it’s raining hard and doesn’t turn into the sticky peanut butter until it dries a bit. Often, the roads have a mix of both and you have to read the mud and choose the best bad choice.
And here’s a clip of sophia (fast forward about 1 minute) showing some mad skills surfing the mud (and a little walking also). For me, these are the kind of conditions that make a race a lasting memory (good or bad) vs. “just another race” that blends into all the others.
That video of Sofia keeping it (mostly) upright is fantastic. Insane skill and determination there. After the 3rd or 4th fall I’d definitely have given in and started walking.
The different types of ‘gravel’ around the world are exactly why the world championships (not this weirdly-named ‘worlds’ race) should move around. In the US, there are mindnumbing long wide gravel roads, Norway (or are you in Sweden?) seems to have nice winding technical roads, the Benelux countries have ‘gravel’ that includes canal paths, cobbles and grass sections. Each require different skills to race, but which seem ‘normal gravel’ to locals. It’s nice that there is such variety.
That sort of mud is just my idea of hell. As a forestry harvesting contractor, I am borderline allergic to mud and the sight of that much of it brings me out in cold sweats! 
Don’t forget the forest roads of the Sierra and Cascade Mountains that are worth of suspension when descending!
