 |
It’s safe to say, last weekend’s Kona 100 has had it’s fair share of controversy, with everything from the number of bananas to the number of entrants being criticised in the forums. Having seen the strength of feeling among our members, we pointed the event organisers in the direction of your complaints and asked them to comment. One of the principle organisers of the Kona 100, Michael Wilkens, went through the extensive forum thread and has emailed us a reply to the issues raised.
Most of the disapproval seems to be aimed at the provision of food and water (or lack of it) at feed stations along the route; “We have to admit that there were problems this year and it is our main focus to tackle and resolve those issues. To our surprise (even after we doubled up on water barrels and bananas) we experienced some problems with food and water supply at some of the service stations but we are confident that those problems are not going to come up again at the upcoming ‘Sequel’ or next year’s event.”
Many participants claimed the route was simply too hard for an event that marketed itself at the average rider. The consensus of opinion seems to be that the event needs to decide whether it is a hardcore event catering to a hardcore minority, or a tough event that a good proportion of average riders will be able to complete. Michael and the other organisers seem want to cater for the whole spectrum of riding abilities for the ‘Sequel’ and next year’s event; “Another change we are going to introduce for next year is an additional medium length course (75-80km), so that every competitor can match the race length to his or her capabilities”. Even with this change, it is up to the individual entrant to honestly weigh up their abilities and decide which distance they can realistically complete.
Michael is keen to stress to riders put off entering the ‘Sequel’ by the problems experienced in the Kona 100, that the multi-lap format of the ‘Sequel’ should eliminate similar feed station problems; “The upcoming Kona 100 ‘The Sequel’, as it is not a one loop race, is not going to be effected by the same problems, because service stations are used more than once, and the course is more all-weather”.
For some riders the £25 entry fee was judged to be a rip-off, but these riders seem to be, on the whole, those who missed out at the feed stations, and it’s easy to see how they might feel short-changed. But no organiser wants to hear this kind of criticism, as it’s a lonely and often thankless task, as Michael concurs; “It is extremely complex to organise mountain bike marathons, and unfortunately things can go wrong sometimes, or they can’t be predicted in the way we would like to, but we are intending to move forward and improve over time. I can assure everyone who is not happy about the entry fee – for what we put into the event, there is hardly anything left at the end of the day. It was not really worth it from the financial point of view.”
“At this stage we can only be thankful for the feedback we had, apologise for any problems that occurred and guarantee that they will be resolved in the future.”
We hope Michael’s comments go some way to appease those whose expectation of the event didn’t match the reality, and having ridden the storm of foot and mouth last year, they can ride the storm of hungry mouths this year.
Share