Man vs. Machine

[rosceaux]

Glad to see so many mountain bikers who also run.

Running is more of my sport and mountain biking is more of a hobby. In fact, I really just got into it a year ago. I ride with a friend who has been mountain biking for years, but kids and work have left him rusty. Anyway, he rides about 5 days per week now, and I run three, ride one, and throw in some lifting. As I've gotten better on the bike, I keep chiding him and saying "I can run this faster than you can ride it."

So, last weekend was the first Man vs. Machine challenge. We did the blue and red loops at the Water Co and I kicked his ass. I made up ground on the technical sections, he made it up on the flow and downhill sections. Given the nature of the blue trail leading into and out of the area, I built and expanded an insurmountable lead.

My question is what would constitute a more fair challenge?

For our next iteration (possibly today before the snow comes), we are adding on the 1.25 mile downhill section of Dry Creek Run, which should totally be in his favor.

I was thinking that a big Baldpate loop might work, but I would have to build up a huge lead in order to hold off a rider for the 2 miles back on the ridge trail. Core Creek in Pa. is our local place, but it is so flat and non-technical that any biker could whup a runner. Maybe Clayton, but that might also be too runner friendly.

Anyway, its a good, stupid challenge. Looking for some ideas on setting up a fair course.

 

[Patrick]

@rick81721 and I have been going at this for a few years, but it has fallen off. I'm too slow!

we do a loop over at the sourlands - massive tech up, boulders, and fly downhill. it is close, but he's still got me.
will need to revisit.

 

[stb222]

Glad to see so many mountain bikers who also run.

Running is more of my sport and mountain biking is more of a hobby. In fact, I really just got into it a year ago. I ride with a friend who has been mountain biking for years, but kids and work have left him rusty. Anyway, he rides about 5 days per week now, and I run three, ride one, and throw in some lifting. As I've gotten better on the bike, I keep chiding him and saying "I can run this faster than you can ride it."

So, last weekend was the first Man vs. Machine challenge. We did the blue and red loops at the Water Co and I kicked his ass. I made up ground on the technical sections, he made it up on the flow and downhill sections. Given the nature of the blue trail leading into and out of the area, I built and expanded an insurmountable lead.

My question is what would constitute a more fair challenge?

For our next iteration (possibly today before the snow comes), we are adding on the 1.25 mile downhill section of Dry Creek Run, which should totally be in his favor.

I was thinking that a big Baldpate loop might work, but I would have to build up a huge lead in order to hold off a rider for the 2 miles back on the ridge trail. Core Creek in Pa. is our local place, but it is so flat and non-technical that any biker could whup a runner. Maybe Clayton, but that might also be too runner friendly.

Anyway, its a good, stupid challenge. Looking for some ideas on setting up a fair course.

Baldpate isn't technical enough to give a runner a major advantage, unless you are going up the rock stairs. A few of the steep climbing sections, sure,m runner has the advantage for would easily be caught anywhere else. Clayton would be a blood bath for the runner, given how fast the whole place is on a bike. Unless a runner can average 11-14 MPH, if you did the loop clockwise from the lot, the biker would be long gone before the runner even got to the woods leaving the fields.

Water co is somewhere in the middle but given the number of technical corners / winding, a runner can just fly through that.

 

[rick81721]

Yes it has to be very tech to give a runner a chance. Sourlands is a good one as Pat mentioned. I used to run more, then starting biking to save wear-and-tear on the joints. Now I ride ~ 5 times a week and run 1. The other issue I find with running high tech is that it's not how fast you can run, but how much risk you are willing to take. A place like the sourlands the risk of snapping an ankle goes up exponentially with speed - I used to take more risk but now it's not worth it. I did the loop once in 52 min and could probably get to 49 or so but I no longer want to risk it.

Still a fun concept tho!

 

[qclabrat]

@rick81721 and I have been going at this for a few years, but it has fallen off. I'm too slow!

we do a loop over at the sourlands - massive tech up, boulders, and fly downhill. it is close, but he's still got me.
will need to revisit.

Pat, I was thinking Cush could be technical enough, but the running elevations could also doom them

 

[Paul H]

Odd... just saw this the other day

 

[1speed]

This is an interesting contest. I think it'd be tough to find a perfectly "fair" course. Maybe race a bunch of different courses and just see how many you can beat him on? And mix up all the variables -- length, elevation profile, tech, amount of singletrack, etc. That'd be a really cool experiment - see if you can work out an "ideal" profile for when a runner can beat a cyclist.

 

[rosceaux]

Thanks for the recommendations and insight. The goal is for both of us to get better. He can make a lot of time-saving improvements by being more technically efficient as well as gaining fitness. I can really only improve my engine and pacing strategies. In the end, I'd prefer that our races come down to a final quarter mile or so where we're gunning for the finish line in sight of one another.

And yes, the goal is to find the most fair course, so the recommendations are appreciated.

 

[UtahJoe]

Didnt realize this was a thing. Maybe we should try it for our Mooch Maddness race. @Norm