Update: Amaury Pierron Airlifted from French Cup DH Race

 Unfortunately his Les Gets run was also a demonstration of why this kind of situation can happen. He seems to ride a little closer to the edge compared to the rest of the WC DH sharp end

 When he's on it, he looks like he's grabbing a charging bull by the horns. So aggressive on the front wheel. I f the front wheel snaps, slides, grabs whatever. .. Physics strikes back viciously.

 @Arierep: Very true.

Anyone who hasn't watched the helmet cam of that run, you really, really should! www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUyPUVvqPTo

 @xice: Yeah, watching him one gets the impression that his competitive advantage seems to be a higher risk tolerance compared to Loris, Loic, etc.

And mind, speaking as a huge fan of him

 @Arierep: In reality though, that is true of all riders who win. All riders can go faster if they simply don't touch the brakes as much. Its the risk of doing so that keeps most from doing it as it gets infinitely harder to navigate these tracks as the speed increases.

 @Arierep: No matter who it is, the lines they send at the speeds they rip is insanely dangerous if it goes wrong. Its all part of racing and hope its nothing serious. It sounds like quite the intense section if they changed it in hopes of slowing the riders down.

 @Arierep: Same, Same. He's so exciting to watch. Fearless with such a on-a-mission-attitude when he's on track. But as you say., it looks like he's pushing the limit 1-2 % fürther than others, increasing the chance for a big pile-up by 10 %.

 @xice: Agreed entirely. All these guys push the limit or else they wouldn't be at this level. But Amaury's aggression seems to be turned up just a bit higher. Thibaut also seems to be on that same level. I'm a big fan of both of these guys, because they go for broke. Not to say that Loic doesn't push it, but I think he always has the overall in the back of his mind whereas Amaury's sole objective is to win the race he's presently in and will take higher risks as a result.

 Full respect to Amaury who is an incredible talent and arguably the fastest guy on the circuit when he's at the top of his game. This also makes Minnaar's run at the top so incredible - so steady, consistent and relatively few injuries (I think...)

 @kcy4130: man, remember crowds??

Thanks for posting, been a while since I’ve watched that one to remind myself how fast I’m not!

 @kcy4130: What in the actual F... That's all the insane good stuff we miss during the live feed! So great seeing and hearing the crowds in that video too, I got goosebumps as he neared the finish. Can't wait to get back to normal spectating again. Thanks for sharing.

 @kcy4130: AMAZING RIDING!! Maybe a couple of roots and rocks to slow down his unbelievable speed!! The Thin Red Line. Downhill skiers in the same boat....Heal up Amaury!!

 Whoa. A top upvoted thread with reasonable comments about pro's and con's. Faith in PB comment threads restored.

 @kcy4130: epic PoV.
It must really pump the adrenaline to hear the roar and sounds of the crowd going nuts all the way down.

 @kcy4130: Margins… margins for mistakes. This video… none. Damn. Hell of a run.

 @curendero: maybe I'm wrong, but even at those mind-warping speeds, downhill skiing looks *a little* less dangerous than downhill mtb.
Courses are wide open, no pointy things, no bombholes, no narrow passages through trees etc.

 @kcy4130: the man was on a mission that day, nothing but winning would suffice.

 @Tasso75: Good point!

 @Tasso75: not sure. What's the furthest a downhill biker has flown through the air during a crash? Gwin at Fort Bill?
Other metrics are available.

 @xice: His riding is like Chuck Yeager's flying . He probably has a Mach guage mounted to his bars.

 @Arierep: Isn't that what DH racing is all about? Managing your risk and knowing where and when you can push the limits...

 @SonofBovril: it kind of is that, but note that I wasn't making a judgment about it, my point being only that he Amaury seems to be more risk tolerant than his competitors

 @BenPea: not sure it counts but got to be that bouncing bike from one of the Earthed films at the Mega.

 @Tasso75: don’t know about that lol

 @BenPea: m.youtube.com/watch?v=ypLuYbN2-ZQ

 @lone-ranger: savage

 @lone-ranger: oh yeah, I remem. Not a DH race, but thanks for the memories. That Gee Atherton huh?

 Touchy subject. Many riders don't want to wear back protectors and neck braces. Force it by regulation and you will have the same "UCI is destroying our sport!" outcry as when helmets were made mandatory in roadie events.

 More armor would go a long way toward keeping more riders (at all levels) out of the hospital. If all the EWS pros started wearing elbow pads...business would boom. Isn't that what pros are supposed to do? Sell product and safety is win win.

 I’m not sure what that would look like, aside from altering courses. In F1 they made they engines less powerful. Weren’t they up to like 1400hp at one point?

 True, but it's my understanding a fairly high level of body armor is already required by the French cycling federation. More than any other national governing body.

Bike parks can be tricky places to run a race at. Often a trail can be a lot of fun to ride, but when turned into race course, the speeds can increase substantially - thus increasing the risk of injury if/when a rider pushes past the limits.

 @combee: I really do believe you are wrong on this point.

 @combee: loic Bruni begs to differ.

 @mountaincross: there’s obviously a reason nobody wears protection unless they’re made to. Hardly anyone rode full faces at EWS until they were mandatory.

 @fitnj: THIS!! You're so right about this. We're on the edge of something (it feels like). Brooks crash in MSA seems like the last warning shot. Luckily he's racing again, but he could sit in wheel chair as well. Jumps that snap Rachel's Achilles heel, because the landing is critically flat or something.
Doesn't mean all tracks have to be Leogang or FtBill Motorway, still you can have big jumps and lots of technical, steep stuff, but some suicider sequences where you get blown to pieces and you watch the helicopter live oon red bull with "horrible news" afterwards. - No need.

 @hllclmbr: The deadliest time in F1 was at the beginning of the aero era. The courses and cars weren't designed to deal with cars suddenly loose control at much higher speeds than the course and car designers had seen before. What this would look like in DH is some course alterations to ensure that a rider that has lost control wouldn't come off the course and hit stuff that could do serious harm like the catch fences you see in DH Skiing. But also make sure that the speeds aren't too high, in sections that have lots of dangerous to impact features. Would also be looking at implementing some required safety equipment that passes a set of specific tests.

I think that this could help the sport a lot since it would perhaps allow more riders to feel more comfortable pushing the limits and therefore tighten up the top of the field, and bring some mid pack racers that are not willing to risk death or serious injury to get those last few % points of speed. I don't ever want to see downhill go back to the late 80's early 90's era of races on fire roads, but some small changes could make the sport even better.

 @combee: last pic on commencal/muc off insta was Amaury (looks like) wearing an Dainese mx body armor... Ready for French cup blablabla...

 @insertfunusername: unlike F1 I don’t think downhill needs to be made safer the riders know the risks but I do firmly believe they should be getting paid much more for the risks they’re taking and they should be getting the best medical treatment. It’s a joke how much money these bike companies make while not paying the athletes who promote and sell them a decent wage.

 @thenotoriousmic: " but I do firmly believe they should be getting paid much more for the risks they’re taking "

Hot take, everyone else thinks the same.

 @scott-townes: This is a draconian take, trotted out constantly so that people don't need to worry about the well being of athletes. They've used it in hockey. They've used it in football. They use it everywhere.

If the UCI has the ability to make the sport safer without fundamentally changing it, they should. A few equipment requirements and basic standards could be had without fundamentally changing the sport. Will it always be dangerous? Yes. Will there always be injuries? Yes. Will those injuries mostly happen when a rider makes a mistake? Yes. The whole point is that a mistake shouldn't result in a serious injury, and the whole point is that there needs to be somebody else looking out for the riders than just the riders.

But I doubt you care.

 @thenotoriousmic: the F1 racers also knew the risks during the deadly era, since they lost a few friends every year and knew they could be next. The sport got safer and the competition tighter and bigger money, at least partially, as a result of the increased safety.

I'm not saying that it needs to be totally changed, just make it so that a company from outside the sport can sponsor an athlete for big dollars and not have them injured half of their career. Since it is so risky, that does keep money out of the sport. If you are counting on a bike company to pay big wages then that is a pipe dream, since bike companies are tiny compared to just about any business in the world. My guess is that you took every bike company with sales in N America or Europe, there sales wouldn't come close to the sales of a midsized chain grocery store, or a car companies sales, like Kia or Hyundai. I might be wrong on these numbers, but I feel like I am right. The big dollars in road racing bikes are not due to Specialized or Trek sponsoring their riders, it is due to the sport being able to attract sponsors like car companies, cell phone manufacturers etc.

 Speeds are too high. Slow them down by reverting to 26 wheels. Problem solved.

 @scott-townes: Oh, sick burn!

There's always room for advancement. Even upping their medical support and procedures. You're the one who said "Fanboys calling for the world to be padded so their fav riders don't get injured in an inherently dangerous sport". You are the one trotting out the "for the love of the game" arguments. We can have both an exciting sport and one that is safer for the riders.

 @insertfunusername: I see what your saying about making it safer to attract outside sponsors. I didn’t think of that but do think bike companies plead poverty. You mentions specialized and trek which are both multi billion dollar businesses. How many factory athletes do they have over all disciplines including road and track it can’t be a huge wage bill each year. They prove the product at the highest level, promote it and allow them to charge premium prices that people are willing to pay. They should be getting a bigger slice.

 @thenotoriousmic: without looking up the number of athlete's of those companies it is undoubtedly many hundred each. The margins in the bike world aren't that large, and so thinking that our favorite riders should be getting 100's of thousands of dollars to ride bikes isn't realistic since those companies probably sell 1 dh bike and 5 Enduro bikes to every 20 road bikes and 50 commuter bikes. I'm totally making up numbers, but the MTB market is tiny compared to the rest of the bike market and the DH market barley exists compared to the rest of the bike market.

I am not saying to make the courses boring, I'm just saying to make them safe, they can be more exciting and more safe at the same time.

 @scott-townes: We'll end up with something as bad as Restrictor Plate Racing.

 @combee: I’ll be honest, I’ve been in some decent crashes with minimal armor, and I’ve been in some decent crashes wearing a lot of armor. I would definitely say I enjoyed the crashes with armor quite a bit more. No amount of muscle on my shoulder was going to make a big impact feel better.

I will agree with you, armor isn’t going to stop certain serious injuries resulting from a high speed crash, but breaks from hard impacts could be mitigated (areas like elbows, knee caps, etc). We should be ok with risk mitigation, since we aren’t ever going to get risk elimination in this sport.

 @mountaincross:
No, what he said is absolutely true and logical as well. Just because the oh so respnsible amateurs in their turtle costume think so, does not make it valid at all.
A serious injury never occurs at the exact spot where your body smashes the ground. E.g. a back protector won‘t prevent a broken back (impact on head or ass is the cause), a knee protector does not prevent torn acls, an elbow protector does not prevent broken elbow aso. How do you wanna protect your humerus or clavicula for example? It is not possible with clothing. Strength, flexibility, awareness, muscle memory, risk management, that is all you can no. But please, do not rely on some pads, it is unbelievably unscientific.

 @insertfunusername:

Re: F1, yes, but during the most dangerous years, both drivers and spectators were used to low-tech wars, so people dying wasn't that uncommon. Racers were very much like gladiators, not celebrities. Seatbelts were considered dangerous, because it would be impossible to bail during an accident.
Nowadays we expect people to shake huge accidents off, and they should, but we know it's not perfectly safe.

It has always taken someone from the inside to push for change - like Jackie Stewart, Senna and so on. Anybody advocate for safety in DH or enduro? Like in the rider's briefings demand safety improvements/track fixes and so on, or would this be too much loss of face?

 DH is very much at the group B rally stage of its evolution. The only way is to reduce engine power.

 @knutspeed:
Minaar has campaigned for track changes before, Leogang last jump I think.

You’ll never change some people cos they think it makes them tough or cool to associate with potential serious injury or death. There usually 12 year old boys but some seem to never grow out of it. Bravery is more about doing the right thing than the cool/selfish/macho thing but some people will never comprehend that. Kind of why the world is so messed up really.

 @ArturoBandini: your argument is the basic "helmet doesn't prevent concussion so it's useless"
Except when you don't wear a helmet, a rock will crack your skull and give your brain a kiss. So maybe it's better to skip the rock in the brain and go for "only" a concussion ?

Of course all the injuries that twist joints, put extreme pressure and break bones are not prevented by armor and pads. But unlike what you said, you can shatter a vertebrae because of a direct impact. And this is less likely with a back protector. You can f*ck up your knee pretty bad in other ways than tearing all the ligaments. And oh surprise, this can be mitigated by pads...

 @ArturoBandini: Geeez, I really hope you aren´t traumatologist, because while you are not entirely wrong, you are definitely not right.

 @BenPea: group B was dangerous for a lot more reasons than HP. Those cars had really shitty chassis control compared to any reasonably modern rally car and more often than not they were skipping some crucial safety measures like not using braided fuel lines to save few grams (sounds kind of familiar eh?) of running high toluene fuels while fuel tanks weren´t able to even seal in the fumes lol. And it´s ban had more to do with group B getting more popular and stealing attention from formula 1 which was milking cow of FIA, riders dying were just good enough reason to stop that from happening.

 @Mondbiker: Great detail, thanks. Don't think the UCI are too worried about DH eating into road riding's popularity.

 @BenPea: I don´t think uci really cares about DH/enduro at all sadly. Like they left it all to red bull to decide what will or won´t be. Well, other than when someone tests positively, then they are very interested.

 @Mondbiker: too true, too niche, too good for them.... It's probably for the best. You'd have to pay to watch for one thing.

 @insertfunusername:

"might be wrong on these numbers, but I feel like I am right."

Surely that's all that matters in this day and age....

 @mountaincross: it seems so weird that it’s been only a month or so since the Pinkbike article, “State of the Sport” when many riders reported how poorly they are compensated. And yet injury prevention is rarely spoken about.

So, do riders really see increased armor as a performance liability? And if so, how good will performance be once a completely avoidable injury occurs, especially once medical bills roll in on what appears to be a mostly marginal salary?

 @ArturoBandini: “ A serious injury never occurs at the exact spot where your body smashes the ground.”

Apparently my tibial plateau didn’t get this message.

 @scott-townes: here is one.
Do not have high speed sections dump straight into highly technical sections with high consequence impact points everywhere.

This could make the racing more exciting since it wouldn't just be the few people willing to risk serious injury to gain half a second into such sections. I'll admit it is also exciting, in a different way then watching a tech section or someone finding the right line through roots, to see the very few riders, willing to risk serious injury, successfully navigate transitions like this, but it isn't good for the competitiveness of the race.

And is it actually exciting to have those big long sender jumps at the end of some of these tracks, for me it is just the boring end of the race run that occasionally ends careers.

 @jay-me: well I could look it up to get specifics, but having been around and in, off and on, the bike retail industry for 30 years, I know that the bike world sells many times commuters then all kinds of MTB's put together.

 @insertfunusername: these ideas all seem good on paper but in reality they would do very little to help prevent injuries. No mater what changes they make to the tracks the racers will always push the limits of the track. If you make a section easier the riders will just ride it even faster. If you make it more tech instead of wide open the riders will just try to find ways to ride the tech sections even faster.

 @sino428: the differences that I see making a difference would be to continue to add features that transitions the riders into sections with many high consequence impact objects. Yes you can get hurt on a smallish slow speed jump, or highsiding yourself in a set of catch berms, but not as bad as you can if you blast off a wide open section, straight into a section of giant stumps, huge holes and jagged rocks. I'm not advocating for wholesale changes in course design, just continuing to improve the way these types of transitions are laid out. This is likely done a lot better at the world cup level, than smaller events, but there is still room for improvement at the WC level in my opinion.

I grew up doing super sketchy DH races in the 90's and it has gotten better, but we can always strive to improve even more.

 ArturoBandini: @JamesR2026:

I'd like to gather a few volunteers to test the "armor doesn't do anything" hypothesis. Randomly select one arm and strap on a DH rated elbow pad. Leave the other arm alone. Now, smash both elbows into a cinder block. Don't hold anything back now, remember armor doesn't do anything if your a seasoned expert ripping tracks at insane speeds...

Report your results in the comments below.

 @scott-townes: this isn't really true of F1, it was extremely dangerous before the governing body started to take track safety seriously. Trees and barbed wire fences on runoff areas for example were commonplace and turned accidents into deaths, marshals didn't cover the entire track and on consequently on site rescue didn't happen swiftly, even if there was a properly equipped team to do it. Helmets and standardisation of the HANS device are examples of other changes.

Someone mentioned Brook's crash and this was dismissed as him making a mistake. That's how crashes happen and it's a great example of where having the proper extraction ready and on-site could have made a significant difference.

Rachel's injury also an example of poor course design, the same size jump in the same place could have had a much safer landing, not impacted the racing in any way and not injured a rider.

DH can remain DH, and arguably courses can get even gnarlier, whilst mandating standards designed to mitigate what happens when things go wrong. I don't know where that line is but things like mandatory chest/back armour (that meets a standard) or a proper protocol around concussion after a knock to the head for example would be sensible. A review of run-off areas and landings also wouldn't be a bad thing.

 @insertfunusername: My point is that its a choice by the riders to blast full speed into those rocks and roots and stumps. The track doesn't force them to do that, they choose to not hit the brakes because it is faster. DH course by nature will always be gnarly, and the top riders will always try to find the fastest lines. If that means pushing the limits of speed, they will do it. If it means gaping a section, they will do it. If it means taking a sketchy high line because its faster if they pull it off, they will do it.

Obviously you don't want features or sections that are dangerous even for the best riders in the world. But most of these tracks are only dangerous because the riders choose to make them that way by how aggressively they ride. And I don't really see a way to change that because its racing.

 @sino428: My point is, of course some riders will blast off the high speed section into a section with many high consequence features that could be impacted. I am saying to not let them by making them expertly navigate a transition feature that slows them down to a reasonable pace before getting to those features. Of course riders will still push the limits, of course if they find that sketchy line that will shave .08 seconds off their run they will take it. In my opinion the racing would be better if it wasn't mostly decided by the few that are willing to risk massive injury in a few sections, while also being extremely skilled on the rest of the course and instead by how well you are able to pilot an entire course that does not have one or 2 features that demand a huge risk to get to the top steps of the podium..

Obviously you can't take all the risk out of DH, but it can be managed, and I do think that it has been steadily improving. When I did DH races in the 90's we had a course that you would be cooking along at over 60 mph and need to bunnyhop a ditch from a road to a trail that was not a straight shot, to really get the most out of your run. Later on in the same course you would come out of a wooded double track section into a rock quarry section where you would get back up to about 45 mph and need to hop over a 1.5 foot tall speed bump shaped feature, while trying to flick around a little cluster of sapling trees, definitely mistimed that once and OTB'd myself, but luckily only wound up with a concussion, some scrapes and a bruised shoulder.

This seems like more of a discussion of what each person thinks DH should be. Should it be gladiators willing to die or be maimed for our viewing pleasure, through needing to take massive risks for the win and have amazing skills for the rest of the course, or should it be an event of calculated risk and extremely high skill. I think it should be the second option, and those highly skilled riders, that are willing to take risks, but not massive risks should be allowed to compete for the win at all events. On many courses I do think this is how it currently works at the WC level, but again it is always worth looking at these challenges and striving to improve. There are events like Rampage, Hardline and others that are more of a gladiator style event to satisfy that need for viewers and competitors that need massive risks to be truly satisfied.

I also do think that there should be a certain amount of safety gear that is required to race, so that it isn't an advantage for those that decide to go without.

 @insertfunusername: I agree with everything you are saying about how it should be, I just think that no matter what you do to a course, outside of dumbing it down completely, the riders at that level will push the limits and make it dangerous. Its just what they do. Its the nature of the sport. I don't see a real way to stop it.

 @sino428: The organizing bodies will never be able to take away all opportunity for riders to badly hurt themselves, but they should take away the options that have massive risk, and tell them that need to wear protection that meets very specific standards. That is the way an organizing body protects themselves and the athletes that participate.

Perhaps Moto GP is a good example. Tracks must meet certain standards that mitigate the consequences when riders fall off and the riders must wear equipment that meet certain specs. People still die participating in the sport, but the FIA has done what they must to protect everyone, so that the sport can attract good sponsors and retain fans. If Moto GP allowed there to be standard guard rails on the outside of corners and the riders could race wearing whatever they felt like, there would surely be many more deaths and massive injuries and the sport would not have the number of fans on sponsorship dollars coming in. People would still watch, because there are people that like that kinda stuff(Isle of Man for instance), but it would be a different sport.

 @mountaincross: why the obsession with elbow pads?
None of these World Cup riders are being airlifted off the mountain with grazed elbows.
Head injuries, spinal injuries and chest injuries are the issue here. Euro races already require back protection.
Yes, better helmets and chest/back protectors are important. Better, not more armour is what is needed.

More body armour will do nothing to stop broken wrists, arms, collar bone, legs, ACL tears, achilles tendon tears. It makes kooks feel invincible, but for a racer it is just going to make you hot and restricted.

 @scott-townes: I assume by “gaper” you mean people who have to work the next day and can’t afford to bust up a major joint.

Don’t get me wrong, I rarely wear them, and most rides only consist of knee pads, gloves, and a half lid, however I’ve wrecked hard at the bike park with them and was glad to have them. I’ve also wrecked hard without them, and I enjoyed that far less.

Someone wants to armor up for their ride, more power to them. Shaming them for it is just dick level 1000.

 @TypicalCanadian: I don't think anyone is shaming people for wearing elbow pads.
I just think calling for pros to wear elbow pads to encourage regular joes on an article about one of the fastest DH riders on the planet getting airlifted off the hill with a punctured lung is a bit out of place.

 @JamesR2026: I’ll agree with you there, that doesn’t fit here.

My response was just to calling people into elbow pads “gapers”.

 @scott-townes: learn to read. I don’t wear them... gaper.

 @scott-townes: You always go for the personal attacks. What's your problem?

 @JamesR2026: @scott-townes

"obsession with elbow pads" Your words not mine. But I'll run with it!

Did you know that elbow injuries account for 7.4% of all serious injuries (lasting at least one month) among EWS athletes? This is the 5th ranked most common injury out of a total of 25 categories. Forearm injuries, also protected by a quality set of pads, are ranked 7th at 5.9%. Using my big brain....that's a combined rate of 13.3% of all serious injuries.

The study concludes with a bullet point list of 11 recommendations. At the top of the list...

"Riders should wear more protective equipment against lacerations and abrasions during steep technical race stages, and also generally when training/doing recreational riding, particularly on trails with steep rocky sections."

Which, by the way, corroborates my initial comment:

"More armor would go a long way toward keeping more riders (at all levels) out of the hospital. If all the EWS pros started wearing elbow pads...business would boom. Isn't that what pros are supposed to do? Sell product and safety is win win."

This is not some "gaper" opinion. Its just fact.

 @mountaincross: how do they define ‘serious’ injury for the study? I’m just thinking realistically here that when it comes to top level mountain biking like EWS, anything less than a broken bone in the elbow or forearm wouldn’t be considered ‘serious’ by the riders themselves. Bruises, scrapes, and even cuts that might require stitches don’t keep these riders off he bike very long so they aren’t going to be inclined to wear any extra or uncomfortable padding to prevent those injuries.

 %@sino428: The only point I'm trying to make here is...
"More armor would go a long way toward keeping more riders (at all levels) out of the hospital."

I'm very confident that's an accurate statement.

One final point for anyone who actually agrees with me...with high quality arm armor (elbow pads), the rider can, in many cases, rely on their elbow and forearm to absorb a crash, rather than using their hand/outstretched arm to absorb the fall. This protects the hand/wrist from the impact (12.7% of injuries) as well as offering better protection to the shoulder area (13.3%) due to better muscle recruitment around the shoulder during impact when the arm is not outstretched.

the main performance problem with armor is body heat management. An overheated core definitely has an impact on performance...at all levels.

 @scott-townes:
#1 Bubble wrap would actually prove ineffective.
try these:
www.alpinestars.com/collections/mx-elbow-protection/products/sequence-elbow-protectors?variant=31614599364666

www.alpinestars.com/collections/mx-chest-protection/products/a-10-full-chest-protector

#2 what's your problem?
admin.enduroworldseries.com/uploads/documents/EWS%20Medical%20Study%20v6.pdf

www.enduroworldseries.com/news/1309-ews-publish-three-yearinjury-study--concussion-guidelines

 @JamesR2026:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJcVHoMO70c

 Yep.. and as we're recently found out, for very little pay it would seem.

 Yes, so true, but Friday Fails is a testament of how dangerous the sport is at the bottom level too.

 And a bad permanent injury they lose their job and have no source of income.

 All mountain biking is dangerous, just a high risk sport

 Watch Friday Fails. It's not just the top of the sport that can land you in an emergency room. Riding bikes is an inherently dangerous activity.

 @Peally: Mountain bike riding within your abilities is relatively low risk.
Riding bikes outside your ability level can be very dangerous. (thinking of Friday fails. Most of those crashes look like folks are pushing way beyond their skill base, not just trying something next-level by working up to it in a low-consequence environment)

 @neimbc: very different types of danger at the top and bottom of the sport.

 Even though we know they’re all super fast, watching them one after another and almost getting numb to realizing their speed is crazy.

 Whoever stays healthy and injury free this season will win the overall. Praying that we have no more injuries and those who are injured heal up quickly.

 @bmccrady: Sure, I guess. I’m do XC endurance races and regularly climb and descend 1000s of feet at a time, but I hold it way farther inside the limits than DH racers, and even more so AP.

I’m well aware that I could break my back, or whatever, doing what I do, but I don’t think I’m taking big risks either.

 @bmccrady: I mean life is a high risk activity, you could even say that no one has made it through without dying.

dark humor aside, injuries are definitely a part of the sport, and pretty much a part of every sport, as much as we'd like it to be eliminated.

 @Peally: Never watched that segment and never will. Had my share of injuries and don't know what's the point of watching others injure themselves (as I imagine will be shown on FF). Gives me gut wrenches...
I know what a twisted knee and ankle feels like. Don't wann see others experiencing the same.

 @chrod: agree on that - most of the Friday fails crowds look like beginner/intermediates of limited skill, people on capable bikes without the experience or skills too match. Most of them look like poor athletes who are badly out of their element. Reminds me of the time I thought I'd try ski a couloir like Jeremey Nobis. I bucked off a ridge in the middle and tomahawked down the rest of the way. A total reset on my own abilities, and desires frankly. I was very lucky to have that experience.

 @chrod: I think it depends how far within your abilities. Most riders I know are looking to progress and inevitably get close to the edge, so the risk increases. For me mountain biking isn't something I'd classify as relatively low risk, pretty much everyone one I know who rides has injured themselves to one degree or another, some pretty seriously.

 @chrod: Fairly low risk? Compared to what I must ask? I've been riding for over 30 years, and have only had a few bad injuries, but have never considered trying to balance on 2 wheels while riding through roots, rocks, drops and loose or slick surfaces low risk.

Maybe low risk compared to free climbing, or squirrel suits, stuff like that, but definitely higher risk than most other activities that humans engage in for sport.

 @insertfunusername:
"MTB riding within your abilities is relatively low risk" (lower risk than pushing your limits) is all I was trying to say.

Most of us average riders ride for decades and come away with (lots of) bumps, scrapes, and bruises. I would be willing to bet that nearly all of us who have broken bones and torn ligaments were pushing our limits at the time.

If you're interested in summer sport mortality rates: www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/20/3920/pdf

 @chrod: Yes, I agree that pushing your limits is where the injuries occur. But I have had some nasty injuries from just screwing around at low speed in what seemed to be a no risk situation. I actually broke my leg and exploded my ankle into 8 pieces on an elementary school playground on my bike, messing up a manual down a short decline. I tell people, you can always tip over when you are trying to balance on 2 wheels.

 @insertfunusername: Isn't manualling "pushing the limit" if you crash doing it? Along with "screwing around" lol

 @chrod: well then I was also pushing the limit when I fell down while talking with someone at a fireroad intersection and riding slowly in a circle. Maybe "pushing the limit" needs defined.

 @insertfunusername: Seems like it's pretty dependent on the person's skill base. Pushing it means something totally different for a pro than a beginner.
"Pushing the limit" might mean "anything that you or your buddies would think was cool if you pulled it off"?
That could cover most things from Gee's mind-bending speed runs to the average dude's wheelie attempt when a hottie passes by.

 @chrod: I for one would say that most injuries happen on trails that injured person knows very well and had ridden tens if not hundreds of times and consider them easy. And as a result, the guard is down and that´s where you go down the hardest. When you are actually pushing yourself you are focused a lot more and able to respond faster and more adequately.

 @Mondbiker: add to that going "easy" so the mind really has time to wander. I've had a few accidents while commuting, never while going all-out on an enduro run, or in a race for that matter. But I'm just average, and if I wanted to go even faster I would be pushing myself into that scary spot where I would find the limits in a more painful way, sooner or later.

 @chrod: I don't think a skill like manualling or riding in a slow small circle is "pushing the limit" by any definition. Being able to manual is a basic bike handling skill that many preteens master on their bmx bikes. I blew up my leg messing it up at age 14, a lapse of focus, as it was routine, pulled into it just a fraction of a second too late. Since that happened 30 years ago, the stamped steel with resin coating Mountain LX cantilever brakes were not even kind of enough to stop the loop out that result in a terrible injury.

I agree in general if you are pushing your skill boundary, than that is pushing the limit obviously. But most of my close calls to bad injury in over a decade have been just little things, like hitting a baseball size rock hiding behind a fern on the inside of a corner, or going to put a bit more pressure on the front tire as I initiate a turn and it is just a tad more greasy than I anticipated.

Crashing while riding bike is like the stock market in many ways, you can lower your risk for bad outcomes, but you cannot eliminate it, the only way to do that is not participate.

 @insertfunusername: I'd argue that anyone's first manual is "pushing the limit", as-defined by their own limit.
Once mastered, manuals are not pushing the limit. (limits are relative)

 How about we also develop better body protection or at least require more for this level of racing?
Sure, back protectors/elbow pads/knee pads are required for some world cups, but is that even enough? Most of the time they’re using CE Level 1 pads.
IMO the CE standard is a strange way to determine how protective pads are. It really only measures how much force is transferred towards a pad. It doesn’t really protect against serious injuries where there is more at play than just the amount of force in a crash. Even if we continue to use the CE rating, I honestly think that at least a level 2 back protector should be required.
The industry should develop a more effective way to protect riders who race at this level.

 I raced Lourdes as a regional cup, Barel or Spagnolo won in something like 4.45min. World cup there: same start and same finish line, Fayolle won in less than 3 minuts, I let you bet how the track changed...

 @jacobsobczak: But the racers don't want to wear the protection already available. It's their bodies that they're putting on the line, so the choice about what protection they wear should be theirs.

 Slower, more technical courses might slow speeds, but racers are always going to push themselves, which means taking chances and pushing their skills to get a win.

No one is forcing them to ride. Hey, we need a couple of labourers on site next week if they fancy hauling 5m long 8x4" roof joists around in 35°C sun rather than getting paid to ride their bikes.

 “Slower more technical terrain on smaller bikes…” I believe that’s called Enduro racing.

 @commental: Daprela broker his nose, he has a full face and googles, sometiles it is also just bad luck

 @pasteque51: Yep. Shit happens.

 @commental: Hey, by that logic, if the racer doesn't want to wear a helmet, why should they? It's their bodies, right?
I know racers don't want to wear body protection, but that doesn't make it right. Thinking like this only inhibits further development to make body protection lighter, more effective, more breathable, and more practical.

 @jacobsobczak: Yeah, I was waiting for someone to take the argument to that degree. Do you seriously think any of these racers would choose to ride with no helmet? I don't think that's likely. However we see them choose to not wear neck braces and pressure suits all the time. It's highly likely it would be safer if they did, but I don't think they should be forced to. Neither do they.

 @commental: You made your argument out to be that way. Doesn't matter if someone would actually ride without a helmet or not, you were proposing that if a racer doesn't want to wear protection, they shouldn't, since it's their bodies. I was pointing out a problem with that. That was my point with that statement.

Also, not every single racer is opposed to wearing body armor. Is it a majority of the racers? Who knows? There is no official poll for that kind of thing so speculating on it is pointless. Pretty sure in France a lot of them have to wear body armor and over time they've gotten used to it, and no longer mind the discomfort that usually comes along with it. A similar thing can be seen when you first put on a full face helmet. They're uncomfortable especially on a hot day, but that doesn't matter since they protect your noggin and over time you get used to the feeling.
Either way, mountain biking body protection is still in its infancy imo and definitely needs to be developed more.

 @jacobsobczak: I don't dispute body protection should be developed more. I just don't think anyone should be forced to wear it if they don't want to. As for an official poll, there's no need. Do you watch races? Anyone using their eyes can see the majority of riders aren't wearing any significant protection, it's not speculation, it's evident. However your statement about riders having gotten used to wearing protection and no longer minding when it's a stipulation certainly is speculation.

 @commental: It still is speculation on your end. "Majority" can mean many things to different people. "Using your eyes" isn't evidence, come on now. This seriously isn't worth arguing about. It's a stipulation to wear a full face helmet (in races and bike parks at least), I don't see what's so wrong with that being applied to body armor. I was just using that as an example. You have to admit as a mountain biker that a full face really isn't ideal comfort-wise. But you get used to it. This can be applied to body armor as well (so long as the pads aren't sitting weirdly or causing pressure points, etc.). It already kind of is required, in a way, since a fair amount of events/races require a back protector of some sort. This is irrelevant to my overall message, though.

Now to clarify on my point, am I calling for required body protection at EVERY single bike park? No, that would never work. I'm just saying it wouldn't be a bad idea to require certain body protection for races or perhaps introduce a new standard that's more conducive to mountain biking for protective pads. I'm not calling for a global mandate that every single mountain biker must wear xyz whenever they go out to ride.

Just a question though, are you one of those people that think added safety for the riders deters from the inherent danger of the sport? It certainly is an interesting point that I've seen others bring up in different threads.

 @jacobsobczak: No I'm not one of those people. I'm just tired of this woke shit where people have to put their idea of what is and isn't dangerous on to others rather than letting those who actually race at the top level decide for themselves.

 The latter. I'd like to see more tracks that are simply hard to go fast on, not mega gnarly. Bikes are too good that to win on a gnarly track means hitting things at speed where a crash is going to be catastrophic.

 Same series but it was in Les Menuire not Les Arcs

 Different series

 Might not be about the payout...could be racing for the love of the game, just to trying to stay sharp for the WC, test a bike change, etc.

 @unicornmtb25: that's true. I suppose especially for Commencal this year with the new bike and all, the riders are wanting to get more time under the bike. At the same time doesn't have to be a race to get more comfortable on the bike...
--
I'm just gutted for riders who get injured at smaller events that ultimately f*ck up the main goal which is world cup wins and world champs. But as swine who's raced. Any win is a win

 @unicornmtb25: Good for sponsors having your top riders in the startline mingling with the locals.

 He's trying to be the National Champion. Please let it be a minor thing! We want to see this guy in action.

 So true, in the US even with good health insurance I would refuse a helicopter unless I was 100% sure I was going to die. Because you will be paying that helicopter ride off for YEARS. I've refused multiple ambulance rides just knowing it would be a few extra thousand dollars.

 @yoonytoons: That is sad, but i understand it is super expensive. I helped 3-4 people in France/Switzerland and called the 112 3 times we had the helicopters. I did the same in Whistler and Jesus those guys don't care about you. It was more or less go walking back to the chairlift ... That is why I don't ride hard in North America.

 Sure about that? When you are skiing/hiking/mtb you need extra insurance that has rescue costs covered, at least in Austria and Germany. Not sure about France.

It's pretty cheap honestly, for 10-50€ a year you get 10 or 20k coverage but it is not covered by your normal insurance.

 Do those work for offroad motorcycling now? I know they use them in moto gp. But the sensors would always be tripped in motocross or dh. The ski ones are user triggered and designed to avoid getting buried in an avalanche, Right? It's been a while since I watched moto or supercross, has the tech changed?

 @kcy4130: The downhill skiers use the airbags too. I'm not sure how it could be implemented with mtb or supercross.

 @kcy4130: They work in offroad racing yes, mandatory in the Dakar for bike and Quad racers now. Alpinestars Tech Air system.

 @farkinoath: Cool, it'll be interesting to see how well that goes. I imagine it's super tricky to program what inputs cause it to deploy when needed but not get any unnecessary deploys.

 My guess is that with extra protective gear the pros will take even more risks.

 @Sopiarz3: I've never heard of any downhill ski racer using an airbag other than as avalanche gear when not racing

 @wburnes: www.dainese.com/us/en/d-air/ski.html

 @kcy4130: Bike lanyard or proximity sensor. An orientation sensor for both the bike and rider would help too (I assume nobody is trying flips in the middle of a race).

 @Sopiarz3: interesting, thanks

 yea makes me afraid damages are not visible on xray..

 yes, on smooth asphalt or into gravel pit while wearing thick leather suits and much safer hemets, knee high boots etc.Not really comparable to our situation is it? If you want to compare to anything else, MX or SX is the closest thing, and they see ton of injuries as well.