Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What's the ideal lenght/race time of a Super-D?

I was told between 5 and 7 minutes but this is already the norm for DH so I believe it should be a little bit longer.

Would 8km / 22min be too much of a course and become more a marathon / enduro?

I have a combination of 3 trails that drop from 870 to 344m of elevation with some pedaling sections in there, which I believe to be a freaking nice trail but I'm trying to figure if it's a super-D or "too much of it".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Found this definition somewhere else on MTBR. I like the approach but I'm trying to figure "how much is too much"...

I think a defining factor of a Super D is that besides being longer than a typical DH race, it also has enough climbing so that a rider can't dominate on a full downhill rig. I would definitely consider it a different category than Enduro DH, that being just a really long DH race, a Super D is more than just that. For example Red Bull Burner at Angel Fire would be an Enduro DH event, not a Super D. The way I understand it, Super D was born as a way to make racing more approachable and create a format that was fun for someone who wasn't necessarily a traditional racer, like a guy who loves to ride and has mad skills but would get his ass handed to him in a traditional XC race by a roadie with no tech skills. On a Super D course the tables might be turned but the uphills keep it from being dominated by the DH riders on $5000 8" travel DH rigs. It also created a new class of racing well-suited to AM bikes and hence would be able to garner some industry support as a way to help sell more bikes. Which isn't a bad thing, races with no sponsor support don't tend to last long. But back to the point, I don't think a Super D needs to be an hour or something like that to be a Super D. I just checked World Cup DH results, and most of those were under 2 minutes with races being decided by tenths or even hundredths of a second. I think most early Super D races were billed as being about 15-20 minutes, so you didn't need the fitness of a XC racer, and it could be more about your skills on the bike than just about endurance. On the other hand, the Oakridge Super D course looks like mad fun and I hope they keep doing it, but I think there's room for all sorts of courses, and you can pick the ones that suit you. I don't think there's a need to narrow down the definition of Super D to some strict little subset of courses, I like it being a broad definition, like the way Mountain Biking used to be before XC/TR/AM/FR/DH. Perhaps a good definition of Super D would be that it's a course that suits a well-rounded rider (and no, I don't mean rotund, before someone gets the smart idea of posting images of examples
 

·
Terrain Sculptor
Joined
·
4,692 Posts
I don't race Super D. I did a little more reading and it looks to me like 20 minutes is about the maximum. There were a couple of 25 to 30 minutes races mentioned but they were suggesting they were too long.

The local race (Parksville) is about 15 and it's really popular in the Vancouver Island circuit.
 

·
Just roll it......
Joined
·
7,621 Posts
20+ minutes is preferable length with the Descending to ascending ratio somewhere in the 3:1 range. Too much climbing and you don't bring in the DH crowd and too much descending and the technical trail riding crowd will look at it like it's a "dh" race. Ideally, your course should reward a fit and solid all-around rider with this type of a race.

Ashland and Downieville are both exceptionally long at 45-60 minutes depending on the rider.

EB
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top