Longer Jump Landings Separate Rider Skills and are Safer. Change My Mind?

what

It seems exceptionally early to be drinking. Even in Texas.

No, this just gives lesser skilled riders an inflated sense of skill, and the first time they come across a real jump with real consequences, their first attempt is basically a roll of the dice

Csb146 wrote:

It seems exceptionally early to be drinking. Even in Texas.

Maybe he works nights? But damn, what is he talking about? Is there a vid recently of people doing this, maybe mini O’s?

It’s quiet the opposite. Longer landings give riders who have no timing or necessary skill the confidence to try jumps they have no business hitting.

Track owners here talk about how they hate how riders say they “work their way” up to hitting jumps. They will land 5 ft short, bouncing and landing sideways, the entire day. Because they are “working their way up to it”. In my opinion you have to create jumps where you can’t do that. Because landing 3 ft short is extremely dangerous.

Either hit the jump, or don’t.

hypermoto wrote:

It’s quiet the opposite. Longer landings give riders who have no timing or necessary skill the confidence to try jumps they have no business hitting.

Track owners here talk about how they hate how riders say they “work their way” up to hitting jumps. They will land 5 ft short, bouncing and landing sideways, the entire day. Because they are “working their way up to it”. In my opinion you have to create jumps where you can’t do that. Because landing 3 ft short is extremely dangerous.

Either hit the jump, or don’t.

They sound like some real shitty track owners then tbh. Never seen a track owner here makes jokes of a rider for trying. Here they'd be out there offering the person advice.

Johnny Depp wrote:

Rider's who can jump 100 ft. should not be stuck doing the 90 ft. landing or face flat landing. Having a longer landing gives a greater margin for error AND allows you to send it further.

Can you draw a picture of what you are trying to describe?

OP is bored, SX can't start soon enough.



I learned to hit unfamiliar/sketchy jumps by following someone that had it dialed as they were going over. Match their speed/shift point and hit it.. Almost always the jump was much easier to manage than originally thought.

Johnny Depp wrote:

Rider's who can jump 100 ft. should not be stuck doing the 90 ft. landing or face flat landing. Having a longer landing gives a greater margin for error AND allows you to send it further.

BMc914 wrote:

Can you draw a picture of what you are trying to describe?

Hrs talking about instead of a defined back side landing the landing is tapered so no matter where you land you dont bounce on flat.

We need steep doubles the size of SX triples. Preferably with alligators (East coast) or sharks (West coast) in the gap.

Most tracks here are designed to accommodate. The face and approach allows the rider to adjust based on skill and on the downside there are several places to land. One at 60’ one at 80’ and again at about 105’ and all are save as you land and continue. Kind of a tiered downside.

hypermoto wrote:

It’s quiet the opposite. Longer landings give riders who have no timing or necessary skill the confidence to try jumps they have no business hitting.

Track owners here talk about how they hate how riders say they “work their way” up to hitting jumps. They will land 5 ft short, bouncing and landing sideways, the entire day. Because they are “working their way up to it”. In my opinion you have to create jumps where you can’t do that. Because landing 3 ft short is extremely dangerous.

Either hit the jump, or don’t.

I actually feel the same way, a 50 ft double is safer than an 80 tabletop. The tabletop gives riders confidence that they can do it, when they are not ready to, the double will hold them back when they are ready.

look how many youtube crash compilations show someone landing sideways on the top of a table and getting ejected to the bottom

I agree especially on longer jumps. It is safer for the beginner rider. It takes time to develop the ability to have precise throttle control and understand what a given gear and speed will result in when leaving a jump face. As they get better, you can build steeper takeoffs and landings as their precision improves. I have 2 tracks I've built, and they all have a variety of faces/lips and landings. I think the longest jump we have is 65 feet on the SX track. There is a 100 footer on the outdoor track but very few do it since the landing has a HUGE penalty if you come up short. We will fix it in the Spring since its simply dangerous to 90% of the riders.

I try to avoid landings that don't roll off smoothly - do or die isn't what I want most riders to choose between. I can build a landing where 3 feet short isn't that bad a penalty. Those landings that have a steep upslope just before they roll off is what I avoid.

None of the above applies to fast guys. It's really hard to build a track that caters to both.

Hammer

Csb146 wrote:

It seems exceptionally early to be drinking. Even in Texas.

If your gonna drink all day, you have to start in the morning...

nskerb wrote:

We need steep doubles the size of SX triples. Preferably with alligators (East coast) or sharks (West coast) in the gap.

I appreciate the fact that you separated the 2 creatures by coast it makes a lot more sense to me that way lol

Csb146 wrote:

It seems exceptionally early to be drinking. Even in Texas.

Nah man, we like to get shit done early round these parts.....

hypermoto wrote:

It’s quiet the opposite. Longer landings give riders who have no timing or necessary skill the confidence to try jumps they have no business hitting.

Track owners here talk about how they hate how riders say they “work their way” up to hitting jumps. They will land 5 ft short, bouncing and landing sideways, the entire day. Because they are “working their way up to it”. In my opinion you have to create jumps where you can’t do that. Because landing 3 ft short is extremely dangerous.

Either hit the jump, or don’t.

Deadric wrote:

They sound like some real shitty track owners then tbh. Never seen a track owner here makes jokes of a rider for trying. Here they'd be out there offering the person advice.

When they are purposely casing jumps, landing sideways and occasionally crashing doing that. There is nothing to cheer on about “trying”. It’s dangerous. They do offer tips, they say “DO NOT HIT JUMPS YOU ARE NOT READY FOR” with pictures of tire marks and dug out spots from landing 3 ft from the landing.

Landing 3ft short for the entire season is not working your way up to it. It’s casing the jump which is a technical error in your riding skills.

Ryno has strong opinions on this, and they are true. The more we have guys “working their way up” to jumps, the more injured riders we will have. Training is key and so is knowing your boundaries.

nskerb wrote:

We need steep doubles the size of SX triples. Preferably with alligators (East coast) or sharks (West coast) in the gap.

Lightning78 wrote:

I appreciate the fact that you separated the 2 creatures by coast it makes a lot more sense to me that way lol

Logistical nightmare getting alligators to california

That's like saying riders that can jump SX triples(peaked faces) shouldn't be stuck doing regular jumps, so let's make every jump like SX triples... Just no.

Johnny Depp wrote:

Rider's who can jump 100 ft. should not be stuck doing the 90 ft. landing or face flat landing. Having a longer landing gives a greater margin for error AND allows you to send it further.

BMc914 wrote:

Can you draw a picture of what you are trying to describe?

numbers wrote:

Hrs talking about instead of a defined back side landing the landing is tapered so no matter where you land you dont bounce on flat.

^ This

hypermoto wrote:

It’s quiet the opposite. Longer landings give riders who have no timing or necessary skill the confidence to try jumps they have no business hitting.

Track owners here talk about how they hate how riders say they “work their way” up to hitting jumps. They will land 5 ft short, bouncing and landing sideways, the entire day. Because they are “working their way up to it”. In my opinion you have to create jumps where you can’t do that. Because landing 3 ft short is extremely dangerous.

Either hit the jump, or don’t.

zookrider62! wrote:

I actually feel the same way, a 50 ft double is safer than an 80 tabletop. The tabletop gives riders confidence that they can do it, when they are not ready to, the double will hold them back when they are ready.

look how many youtube crash compilations show someone landing sideways on the top of a table and getting ejected to the bottom

Just to be clear, I am not describing a tabletop, more like an Evel Kneivel landing ramp or a distance ski jumping ramp.

Forty wrote:

Most tracks here are designed to accommodate. The face and approach allows the rider to adjust based on skill and on the downside there are several places to land. One at 60’ one at 80’ and again at about 105’ and all are save as you land and continue. Kind of a tiered downside.

With laserbeams

hypermoto wrote:

It’s quiet the opposite. Longer landings give riders who have no timing or necessary skill the confidence to try jumps they have no business hitting.

Track owners here talk about how they hate how riders say they “work their way” up to hitting jumps. They will land 5 ft short, bouncing and landing sideways, the entire day. Because they are “working their way up to it”. In my opinion you have to create jumps where you can’t do that. Because landing 3 ft short is extremely dangerous.

Either hit the jump, or don’t.

Deadric wrote:

They sound like some real shitty track owners then tbh. Never seen a track owner here makes jokes of a rider for trying. Here they'd be out there offering the person advice.

hypermoto wrote:

When they are purposely casing jumps, landing sideways and occasionally crashing doing that. There is nothing to cheer on about “trying”. It’s dangerous. They do offer tips, they say “DO NOT HIT JUMPS YOU ARE NOT READY FOR” with pictures of tire marks and dug out spots from landing 3 ft from the landing.

Landing 3ft short for the entire season is not working your way up to it. It’s casing the jump which is a technical error in your riding skills.

Ryno has strong opinions on this, and they are true. The more we have guys “working their way up” to jumps, the more injured riders we will have. Training is key and so is knowing your boundaries.

He who has not cased a jump shall cast the first stone.

Short, steep jumps make for better racing. Why are we still designing tracks where the racers are jumping everything on the second lap of practice. Don’t even get me started on the “supercross triple”.

nskerb wrote:

We need steep doubles the size of SX triples. Preferably with alligators (East coast) or sharks (West coast) in the gap.

With fricken lasers attached to their fricken heads!

LOL.

Having owned and built several tracks, and being a decent rider, it is just impossible to make everyone happy.

Some people just shouldn't try certain jumps. Occasionally some race organizers here will tell riders below a certain class not to even attempt particular jumps or face being moved up. That approach isn't universally great, but at some tracks it works well, especially on sketchy and/or blind jumps.

Technical stuff separates people, but fast guys gonna be fast regardless.

Forty wrote:

Most tracks here are designed to accommodate. The face and approach allows the rider to adjust based on skill and on the downside there are several places to land. One at 60’ one at 80’ and again at about 105’ and all are save as you land and continue. Kind of a tiered downside.

GalagaOnMYArm wrote:

With laserbeams

Damn I should have read further. You beat me to it

There’s still those who try to hit the big ones.