Track building at Bugs Boarding Centre
Why are competitive riders grouped the way there are?
Competitors in mountainboard comps are almost always grouped by age, and some times by gender. But why? Just because you’re the same gender and a similar age as another ride, why should you be competing against them? Neither age nor gender have any causal relationship with mountainboarding ability. So why are all the women put in one group and all the men over thirty in another group?
If we think back to the beginning of mountainboard competitions, when there weren’t very many riders, and the range of ability was much closer (I assume), it might have made sense to split the women from the men, and the younger riders from the older riders. And although the splits between the groups have moved over time, the historic idea of how riders should be divided has persisted.
At Round 2 of the UK Series 13 we rolled out a new boarderx qualification system that took a step away from the old way of classifying riders and grouped them by ability. We started with a list of riders, used their previous results to sort the list best to worse, and then split the list into groups of twelve. Each group then had three races so riders could earn points before being sorted back into their categories. The riders seemed to like it.
It’s always nice when the riders like the changes we make, but that isn’t why we did it. We came up with this system to make the qualifying races more interesting for those riders that otherwise would have had three pretty much identical qualifying races. We wanted the system to be safe first and foremost, which is why we don’t include the Groms (under 12’s), and we wanted it to help riders improve their racing ability, which makes them safer and reduces injuries.
It’s a step towards moving away from the arbitrary classification of riders. I wonder where we’ll go next.
Stars and pyramids
A few things happened today which made me think more about the strategic level models that guide how the ATBA-UK works on its mission of supporting the growth of mountain boarding in the UK.
I currently have two models at different stages of completion and understanding.
The Riders Model
This pyramid shows the pathways approach we use to understand what types of mountainboarders there are, how people get into mountain boarding, what barriers get in the way, and what we do to help people overcome the barriers.
First timers are mostly those people who go to a centre and have a lesson. For most of them, that’s all the mountain boarding they will ever do and we recognise that one of the barriers that exists for this segment is the perception that mountainboarding is a one off activity like paintballing or zorbing but isn’t the kind of thing you do as a hobby.
Those that do take up mountainboarding as a hobby we call Hobbyists. These riders usually have a cheap board, will ride occasionally during the summer, and aren’t part of the community. A lot of these people are perfectly happy riding occasionally, but the barriers that prevent this group from moving up the model include the price of boards, not having others to ride with, and perhaps having lots of other things going on in their lives.
Those riders that are part of the community and ride regularly we call Recreational Riders. Moving a percentage of these riders up to the next level is a priority to counter the attrition rate of Competitive riders, who are those that participate in competitions. Arranging different types of competitions and choosing different locations for the competitions is one of the pathways we use to take Recreational Riders into the Competitive level, whilst also hopefully providing some variety for the Competitive Riders to keep them interested.
The Industry Model
This Constellation Model is actually a model used by social enterprises to enable partner organisations to work together to achieve the same goal without having to be formally organised as a single entity. It means that any organisation within the constellation can get on with doing their thing regardless of the other organisations, but they are all working together in a loose way as they all have the same goal.
As I adapt this to fit the world of mountainboarding, I can see constellations developing for ‘Mountainboard Centres’, ‘Activity Centres’, and ‘Retailers’, with the ATBA-UK taking on the role of stewardship and the shared vision being one of growing mountainboarding in the UK. What is particularly interesting on this model, and why I think it fits mountainboarding so well, is the chaos/order line. This shows that all the elements of the various constellations can and do operate in a disorganised way, but that the shared goal and stewardship can bring order to the whole system and achieve more than the sum of it’s parts.
The final stage of this model development will be figuring out how the two models fit together and mutually support each other, e.g. with the Centres constellations having a focus on First-timers and all levels of riders in the Pyramid having a connection with the Retailers constellation.
ATBA-UK Product/Market Fit
How do we make sure that the products we deliver (competitions, membership, instructor training, etc) are want our customers (riders, parents, instructors, centre owners, retailers, etc.)?
Product/Market Fit has been described as if 40% of your customers would be disappointed if they could no longer use your products. This easily applies to competitions, I’m pretty sure most of the people who come to the comps would be disappointed if we didn’t run them, but what about our other products? They don’t have the same customer engagement and loyalty, and if they stopped, most people probably wouldn’t care.
We need to change that. But how? It’s relatively easy to survey the riders at a competition, but surveying about membership and instructor training is much harder. The question, ‘What does the customer want?’, is difficult to answer when the customer doesn’t know what they want.
So, we continue to add benefits and extras to things like membership and instructor training to improve the inherent value of the product, but we still can’t be sure we’re heading in the right direction.
Misdirection
One of my Google Alerts for my name turned up a couple of weeks telling me that I was a Director of the ATBA-UK. This was news to me. I don’t remember discussing it at a committee meeting or agreeing to it.
Having confirmed it with the person who files the returns to Companies House, I suddenly felt a little conflicted. It’s a pretty big deal being a company director, it comes with a lot of responsibility and consequences if someone else doesn’t do what they are supposed to.
On the other hand, I kinda expect to be involved with the ATBA-UK for the next ten years or so, and I think I’ve got a lot to bring to the success of the organisation, so I guess it kind of makes sense. However, I am definitely going to work on putting more robust systems in place to make sure we comply with the regulations.
Something else I will work on is a guiding policy to ensure things like how directors are chosen, and having 25% of the board members being female, are followed.
How to layout berms
Today’s work on berms.
Finding the centre of existing berms using two dissected chords.
What is the best radius for a berm? Somewhere between two and three times the width of the track.
Laying out the out-track to make use of the tangent line the rider will be following as they leave the berm.
Euler Curve for the cross-section of the berm, giving a 5m wide track a riding width of approx 5.6m in the berm.
Just need to get it all into some kind of easy to follow instructions.
A quick population study of mountainboarders in the UK
Does having a mountainboard centre in an area increase the population of mountainboarders? Which county has the most mountainboarders? Which areas have the fewest mountainboarders? What has the greatest effect on the number of mountainboarders in an area; hills or population?
To answer these questions we took a sample population of 200 mountainboarders selected at random from the ATBA-UK database. We marked each of them on a map, along with all the Mountainboard Centres, and we did some statistical analysis of the data.
Here’s what we found:
22.5% of riders live within 10 miles of a Mountainboard Centre, and just over 30% of riders live in counties with a Mountainboard Centre. Herefordshire is the most densely populated county with 8% of riders. West Sussex and Devon were joint next most densely populated with 6% each. Cornwall had 5.5% and Gloucestershire had 5% of the mountainboarders. With an average for a county being just under 3%, it’s clear that having a Mountainboard Centre in an area certainly does get more people into mountainboarding and keep them riding.
The least populated areas were Wales, Scotland, and the East Midlands and Eastern regions. Also, there were surprising gaps in the Somerset/Wiltshire area and in Kent, but this may have been due to the selection process. Wales had 4.5% of the mountainboarders selected, approximately the same as Cheshire. Even though Wales has three times the population of Cheshire, plenty of terrain, and a mountainboard centre, it still has a lack of mountainboarders. Scotland is even worse off than Wales. Even with plenty of terrain and a population of five million people, only 3.5% of our mountainboarders live there. The low number of mountainboarders (just 2.5%) in the area from Scunthorpe down to Northampton and across to Ipswich could be easily accounted for by the lack of suitable terrain, but we don’t have any information to back this up.
So, what does all this tell us? It tells us we all need to support Mountainboard Centres if we want a strong community of riders. It tells us we need to think about ways we can encourage people to get into mountainboarding in areas without centres. And it tells us that we need to think about the big picture of supporting the growth of mountainboarding in the UK.
Some thoughts on learning how to mountainboard
I spent the past few days working on updating the ATBA-UK Instructor Training Programme. It’s brought a lot of my more unorthodox thoughts on teaching mountainboarding to the forefront of my brain.
Powerslides Vs. Emergency Stops
Traditionally, most mountainboard lessons have included learning to powerslide. Some instructors even teach it before turns. I have a few problems with powerslides for beginners. Firstly, doing powerslides well requires a certain amount of board control, which most beginners don’t have, and so often go wrong, or at least take some of the fun out of the lesson.
Secondly, if they are taught as a way to avoid hitting something or someone, then what a powerslide actually does is take away the riders ability to steer and keep them heading towards the thing they are trying to avoid in an uncontrollable manner.
My third issue with powerslides is the safety/legal aspect. If a person suffered spinal injuries from a powerslide that went wrong, I can just imagine the lawyer questioning the instructor with something like, ‘So, you gave the client helmet, wristguards, elbow pads, and knee pads, and then told them to put the part of their body that isn’t protected on the ground at speed?’ The instructor might as well hand over their wallet there and then.
So, what’s the alternative? I think J-turns should be the main stopping technique taught to beginners. Taught properly, J-turns can be used to stop safely at any speed, and the rider remains upright and away from the ground.
And if the rider needs to learn an Emergency Stop (not a powerslide, which I think is actually an intermediate technique), then they should be taught to get low and pull a hard backside turn so they steer away from the obstacle.
Heel straps
Don’t think I’ve ever seen a beginners board used for teaching at a centre with heel straps. Why not? Most regular riders use heel straps because we recognise how much more control we have over the board, and yet centres/board manufacturers/instructors/whoever still seem to to like to make it as difficult as possible for beginners to control their board.
I realise there is an extra expense associated with heel straps on a fleet of beginners boards, but part of that cost would be offset by not having to buy leashes, and the heel straps don’t have to be proper ratchet heel straps. A few metres of seatbelt material would make an entire fleet of heel straps.
Giving a beginner a better, and more realistic, experience of mountainboarding would surely help to get them coming back. It’s also got to be safer as it prevents them from taking a foot off the board whilst they’re going along and twisting an ankle or doing the splits.
Using brakes
Just about anyone I mention this to says, ‘Oh no, bad idea.’, but I’m not put off the idea. I think teaching people to mountainboard with brakes has two big advantages. Number 1 is image. If more mountainboards had brakes, and people didn’t have to look quizzically at them and ask ‘How do you stop?’, the boards would look safer. They’d fit into people’s preconceived ideas about things with wheels having brakes (i.e. bikes). If people saw that they could have a go at mountainboarding without the risk that comes from slides and putting various parts of your body on the ground at high speed, then more of them might give it a try.
Number 2 is a equality. Tackling the safe/dangerous image would get more people to have a go. But with slides as the main stopping technique, the rider needs to be of a certain physique, fitness, and flexibility. With brakes more different types of people can not only have a go, but stick at it. I’ve seen loads of people hobble away from mountainboard lessons with a bruised behind, never to return. Take away the need for slides and a person can ride all day without ever getting muddy (I’m reminded of the scene in Riding Giants where they are talking about the revelation of tow-in surfing and how they could ride all day without getting their hair wet) or getting any bruises.
The argument against brakes is that reduces the skills a rider learns, but I’m not so sure about this. They may learn different skills, but riding well with a brakes takes skills too. And what’s better; fewer highly skilled riders or more less skilled riders?
I realise these are unorthodox and even unpopular ideas, but sometimes steps forward come from the out-of-the-box thinking, and without considering new ways we’ll be stuck doing things the same old way forever, even if it’s not the best way.