CAPE EPIC: DON’T BLAME THE ROUTE, BRU. HTFU!

Over 25% of teams that started, did not finish the 2016 Cape Epic and the difficulty of the route seemed to be the most popular excuse. We say excuse because participants seldom volunteer self-blame when they can’t finish a Cape Epic. We expect 2017’s route to be just as, if not more demanding. Here’s our analysis of one of the most brutal Cape Epics ever.

By Sean Badenhorst

Photos: Nick Muzik, Emma Hill, Ewald Sadie, Dino Lloyd

Sure, there are a few really bad luck cases that force riders out of the Absa Cape Epic, either through mechanical failure or illness. But most of the other reasons for withdrawal before the finish are avoidable/manageable; and it’s simply a case of being under prepared/conditioned.

Mountain bike stage racing should test a combination of endurance, bike-handling skill, recovery, equipment choice, energy management, partner relationship management and time management. You can still finish with one or two of these areas not being up to scratch, but once a few of them are out of control, faltering and failing becomes more likely.

Traditionally, Stage 1 offers the big Cape Epic reality check. The prologue is always short and exciting and a great way to get the nerves under control and iron out any last minute niggles. But Stage 1 is usually a big day in the saddle that sees the first real fallout. These are usually riders that are simply not conditioned enough.

But while Stage 1 last year was a tough one, the biggest stage ‘cull’ occurred on Stage 3., the 101^st Cape Epic stage to be ridden. The 104km stage from Saronsberg to Wellington included 2150 metres of ascent, with much of that coming in the second half of the stage. There was also a headwind, some sections of thick sand and of course hot, dry weather, all of which made for a challenging day out. Combine that with two long preceding stages and you get one of the biggest DNF days in the race’s history. A total of 61 teams succumbed on Stage 3. That’s almost a tenth of the field. For a comparison, 32 teams failed to finish Stage 3 in 2015, the toughest stage of that edition.

Mountain bike racing isn’t meant to be easy, but there are days when it really can be super tough. Stage 3 in 2016 was one of those days. A day when even seasoned riders found themselves wondering why they’re putting themselves through this – voluntarily.

As we wrote just before the 2016 edition, the Cape Epic is a race, not a ride. An international level race of the highest grading, designed to create a challenging contest between the world’s best professional racers. The rest of us get a rare opportunity to be a part of that race and should really prepare properly, no matter how difficult it may be.

The 2016 edition included a lot of rough-surface singletrack, especially in the first half. Modern mountain bikes are designed for this kind of terrain, but it can really be a challenge if you don’t know how to ride it with at least a basic level of confidence. Many Cape Epic participants focus heavily on training their endurance, but place little or no emphasis on their skills. Maybe that will change after the 2016 route design.

Would the organisers feel bad about the tough route of 2016 and offer a less challenging route in 2017? Nope. We’ve ridden most of the areas where the 2017 route will go and we think it will be as tough, if not more so. Mountain bikers really should take this event seriously and get to the start line prepared enough to be able to make it to the finish line – the final stage finish line… 

Average speeds and finishing times

We started collating this information a couple of years ago to determine the depth of quality in the Cape Epic fields. Taking the winners as the benchmark, we have noted the time of the 100^th placed team as well as their time behind the overall winners. Obviously route distance has an effect on these numbers, but average speed is the best reflection of the conditions in general.

Note that even though the 2016 route was the shortest, the average speed was the second slowest of all 13 editions. This is an indication that the terrain, gradient and higher percentage of singletrack all had an effect on the race speed, emphasising too the importance of power and skill, not only endurance and recovery, which were the primary factors in the early years, especially on the point-to-point route, which included a higher percentage of gravel roads.

Also see that in 2016, the gap to the 100^th team from the winners was the smallest yet. This indicates that the depth of the top 100 teams was the greatest so far (factually), which could mean that race preparation among the more serious participants is improving.

Finishing stats since Race #1:

2004 – winners: 31:02:55 / 25.37kph | 100^th position: 44:48:51 (@13h46m)

2005 – winners: 31:20:06 / 28.65kph | 100^th position: 46:38:53 (@15h18m)

2006 – winners: 34:41:41 / 27.08kph | 100^th position: 49:04:07 (@15h22m)

2007 – winners: 33:08:00 / 26.74kph | 100^th position: 46:30:49 (@13h22m)

2008 – winners: 36:01:44 / 26.80kph | 100^th position: 50:13:45 (@14h12m)

2009 – winners: 28:10:13 / 26.41kph | 100^th position: 38:53:37 (@10h43m)

2010 – winners: 29:47:46 / 22.18kph | 100^th position: 41:10:43 (@11h22m)

2011 – winners: 28:44:44 / 24.62kph | 100^th position: 39:08:39 (@10h23m)

2012 – winners: 31:46:50 / 24.38kph | 100^th position: 44:00:02 (@12h46m)

2013 – winners: 29:40:44 / 23.78kph | 100^th position: 40:03:39 (@10h22m)

2014 – winners: 30:31:59 / 23.51kph | 100^th position: 40:06:06 (@9h28m)

2015 – winners: 31:00:57 / 24.61kph | 100^th position: 41:11:39 (@10h10m)

2016 – winners: 28:13:28 / 23.17kph | 100^th position: 37:10:08 (@08h56m)

All rights reserved