# Barriers to Entry- level of competition



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

After a blazing fast crit yesterday in which 2/3 of the field were pulled (to be fair, the course was something like .8km long- rectangular and flat), I was speaking with a guy who brought up an interesting point: it is ridiculously competitive in bike racing compared to triathlons or marathons. The latter both encourage the "casual participant" much more than bike racing. I've seen people ride comfort bikes in triathlons... and people walking during huge chunks of marathons. Look at all the crazy chicken costumes people run in... or suits and ties... or other such madness. I know several people who will be in the tri next weekend in my neighborhood... oddly, none claim to be "racing" in it. They "do" a tri... or marathon. They encourage the participant.

I'm not ripping on runners or triathletes... and there certainly are some great athletes that do either, but the vast majority are in it for personal reasons or to meet personal goals- uless someone is at the elite level. 

A few friends of mine regularly run marathons- are in great shape, and are great riders. I can't get either to ever show up at a race. Actually, one guy raced once last year, but I don't think he has forgiven me yet. He doesn't want to pay for a day license and $20 entry fee to last (what he expects to be) a few laps in a crit.

Yesterday I watched as a lone unattached guy lined up for the open 35+ crit... and I wondered if he knew what he was getting himself into. He lasted almost three laps. Granted, he should have had more sense, and done one of the 4/5 races.

I wish it were easier to encourage some of my riding non-racing friends to try racing. A friend showed up to watch a few races yesterday. He's interested in racing, but entirely intimidated. We see weekly posts about this at this forum.... I'm not suggesting that the bar be lowered... or maybe I am... maybe there should be a category 6? But you have to wear a chicken cosume, garbage bag, or tuxedo.... or something?


----------



## 53T (Jul 20, 2002)

*Good points*

The barriers to entry: competition level, cost of equipment, lack of TV coverage to help you learn the game, etc. are definatly slowing the growth of bike racing in the US and UK.

The issue you raise, competition level, might be addresses in a number of ways. The local TT is one good way, since you can't get dropped in a TT. My club runs a racing school every spring and this helps to get people prepared technically and teaches them how to train.


----------



## Orbea_Carbon_Force (Apr 27, 2004)

Is not about high barrier to entry which has to do with cost and accessbility. It is so easy to sign up for a race. You just need a working bike. Bike racing is bike racing. To do well or survive, you need to be more than average. You need to train right and to have the right race mentality. If you afriad of crashing, can't sustain your effort at LT for more than 10 minutes, or the sight of riding very close to other racers craps your pants, bike racing isn't for you. Bike racing is not a charity ride. Bike racing is a working man sport. A lot of people got spoiled by the yuppie life style.  




filtersweep said:


> After a blazing fast crit yesterday in which 2/3 of the field were pulled (to be fair, the course was something like .8km long- rectangular and flat), I was speaking with a guy who brought up an interesting point: it is ridiculously competitive in bike racing compared to triathlons or marathons. The latter both encourage the "casual participant" much more than bike racing. I've seen people ride comfort bikes in triathlons... and people walking during huge chunks of marathons. Look at all the crazy chicken costumes people run in... or suits and ties... or other such madness. I know several people who will be in the tri next weekend in my neighborhood... oddly, none claim to be "racing" in it. They "do" a tri... or marathon. They encourage the participant.
> 
> I'm not ripping on runners or triathletes... and there certainly are some great athletes that do either, but the vast majority are in it for personal reasons or to meet personal goals- uless someone is at the elite level.
> 
> ...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Orbea_Carbon_Force said:


> ... can't sustain your effort at LT for more than 10 minutes, ...


If you can't sustain an effort for more than 10 minutes, by definition you're above LT, or you have a serious physical disorder.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

No- the barrier to entry is _performance_. Anyone can BUY the bike or pay the dues... that is the easy part.

More than average? The avg. participant of a triathlon is "more than average" in this obese sedantary culture. 

Consider a road race- like a cat 4/5 race- where maybe a minute or two can separate first from last place in a 50 mile race. You'd never see that in a tri or marathon... or even a 10 K run.





Orbea_Carbon_Force said:


> Is not about high barrier to entry which has to do with cost and accessbility. It is so easy to sign up for a race. You just need a working bike. Bike racing is bike racing. To do well or survive, you need to be more than average. You need to train right and to have the right race mentality. If you afriad of crashing, can't sustain your effort at LT for more than 10 minutes, or the sight of riding very close to other racers craps your pants, bike racing isn't for you. Bike racing is not a charity ride. Bike racing is a working man sport. A lot of people got spoiled by the yuppie life style.


----------



## Orbea_Carbon_Force (Apr 27, 2004)

Nah, you can't argue this way because that's like saying a 2nd year cat4 like myself can't ride for Team Discovery. Therefore, the sport sucks.  




filtersweep said:


> No- the barrier to entry is _performance_. Anyone can BUY the bike or pay the dues... that is the easy part.
> 
> More than average? The avg. participant of a triathlon is "more than average" in this obese sedantary culture.
> 
> Consider a road race- like a cat 4/5 race- where maybe a minute or two can separate first from last place in a 50 mile race. You'd never see that in a tri or marathon... or even a 10 K run.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Filtersweep is entirely correct, there are very high barriers to entry in terms of fitness and skills that stop many people from entering the sport. As someone who is often the able to drop most on the club ride, then quickly becoming pack fill or worse in a competitive race field, I have encountered this situation a few times. I would argue that it's an innate part of the sport though, since drafting is so effective, you must stay with the group to do well. If someone in the front wants to go faster, you are forced to keep up to some degree. In running or tri there is no peloton effect forcing you to keep up a certain pace, making it much more appealing to people who do not train 8-10 hours a week. So, you either make the grade, and stay in the pack, or you don't, and you fail. That's a grim prospect for a beginner.

The solution in my opinion is not a cat 6, but to have Gran Fondo or Etape de Tour style races with many participants working together and learning skills, but primarily enjoying themselves and getting the feeling of accomplishment.

Silas


----------



## GearDaddy (Apr 1, 2004)

Hey filtersweep, I was in that crit too. Oooh, it was fast indeed (darn over 50 cat 2 and 3's).

You are right on. It is intimidating. I've done mtb racing for awhile, but only this year have I started a foray into road racing. I'm learning a lot, but I've also found that I can hang better than I thought I would. Looking from the inside, you really don't need a zooty rig to participate, especially for crits. Also, the crashing thing is a bit overblown. I firmly believe that a few people cause most of the crashes. So, if you know what to look for (and stay away from), then you can keep the rubber side down.

I think what newbies need most of all is to build confidence in their pack skills. But there are n't a whole lot of avenues to build this experience outside of just jumping right in to cat 5 races. Cyclocross is a great starter I think. Otherwise, finding fast group rides is good way. Unfortunately, a lot of these "citizen" events (like some of the Wisport races) are a joke, and more dangerous than anything. Getting people into clubs so they can learn would be great, but it takes good organization, which many clubs do not have.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

According to my data, that race was faster than last year's open 35 race on the same course.

I had been bugging a few friends to try yesterday's crit, since it is so non-technical- but none would bite. It is just as well. Personally, I usually like the challenge, so I'm really not complaining- but it is such a contrast to "everyone I know... and their uncle" that is "doing" the Lifetime Triathlon next weekend. My wife rode with a two women training for the "race" and was surprised how easy it was for her to keep up. If not a triathlon, they are training for a marathon.

-crashing is nothing to dwell on (although I know a few guys who can't get past that risk).

As for Wisport... never again. I did the Firehouse 50 a few years ago and was apalled at the insanity of starting a thousand citizen racers in one giant race. I never saw so many crashes in my life. My goal became to "survive" the race after seeing several nasty wrecks. Last year, someone actually did die in that race.

A lot of club rides can be very cliquish and uninviting to new members... and I'm just as guilty as anyone else in that regard. It is usually best to already know someone.



GearDaddy said:


> Hey filtersweep, I was in that crit too. Oooh, it was fast indeed (darn over 50 cat 2 and 3's).
> 
> You are right on. It is intimidating. I've done mtb racing for awhile, but only this year have I started a foray into road racing. I'm learning a lot, but I've also found that I can hang better than I thought I would. Looking from the inside, you really don't need a zooty rig to participate, especially for crits. Also, the crashing thing is a bit overblown. I firmly believe that a few people cause most of the crashes. So, if you know what to look for (and stay away from), then you can keep the rubber side down.
> 
> I think what newbies need most of all is to build confidence in their pack skills. But there are n't a whole lot of avenues to build this experience outside of just jumping right in to cat 5 races. Cyclocross is a great starter I think. Otherwise, finding fast group rides is good way. Unfortunately, a lot of these "citizen" events (like some of the Wisport races) are a joke, and more dangerous than anything. Getting people into clubs so they can learn would be great, but it takes good organization, which many clubs do not have.


----------



## tobu (Dec 19, 2004)

There are a lot of venues for beginners that are similar to running races or triathlons. Beginners can participate in century's or organized events which reward and emphasize finishing/ completion over placement. 

Even before entering a road race, I would highly suggest joining a road club or participating regularly in group rides. Clubs often have regularly scheduled club races or training rides. If you are lucky enough to live in a cycling popular area, there are many levels to choose from. Many of these rides will have between 10-150 riders and will get you accustomed to the skills and knowledge required to participate in a road event. I'm always surprised that people will enter a road race or criterium even though they have never ridden in a pack. Even if you don't live in an area with a lot of choices, most regions have some rides in which you can participate. Be careful though -- some group rides are faster than real races and are not for beginners.

Ideally, you should only think enter a bike race after mastering pack skills, etiquette, and conditioning ones body for the peak power outputs needed for pack riding. The Category 5 level is really for the riders who have worked to this level -- it's really not a pure beginner category.


----------



## CLTracer (Aug 21, 2004)

I agree, bicycle racing is hard.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*That's just it...*



CLTracer said:


> I agree, bicycle racing is hard.


Bicycle racing is hard, and it's a lot more competitive than running events and triathlons and other things where finishing is the priority. In bicycle racing, being competitive, and or possibly winning a race is what takes precedence. This is not to say that I line up at every race that I do expecting to win, far from it. I haven't lined up at a race in the last 2 years that I really expected to win, but I thought that I could affect the outcome of some of the races I've been in. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes, well, I'm dropped. 

If you go to a triathlon and or a running event of some sort, there are all walks of life there toeing the start lines of these events. But in reality, at most running and tri events, there are probably what 30-50 people who are really there to COMPETE, and the rest are there to say that they did a triathlon or ran a 10k, or completed a marathon. Most of these folks are going out there to challenge themselves, and maybe meet some personal goal of some sort. For me, racing bikes is about trying to make other folks suffer if I can, and maybe taking home a small amount of cash at the end of the day to pay for gas and entry fees getting to and from the race venue. 

With bike racing, you have to obtain a certain level of proficiency before you even think about getting into a race. Well, for road racing. And to a lesser extent, mountain biking. Cat. 5, as someone else mentioned, is really not a true beginner class of racing. Lots of guys who race as cat. 5's have probably done some other mountain bike racing, or maybe some triathlons, or have done some serious riding, and just decided to get wrapped up into this bike racing thing. You need some half decent training in your legs before you can be a good cat. 5 racer. It doesn't take a ton, but it does take some. 

So there are barriers, but bike racing is not a hug-fest sport, it's a lot more competitive than that. Most of the time there aren't tons of people waiting around to cheer you on to finish a race, most of the time if you're that far off the back, you should have quit, saved some energy for another race another day. That's why there are less folks in bike racing. I think people are intimidated a lot by the competitiveness of it all.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The "century" ride is the bike "racing" equivalent of the triathlon or running race, or at least it would be if they gave out finishing orders and times (maybe some do, I think I've only done one century back when I first started riding).

Bike racing is a whole 'nother animal, there is no "everybody who finishes is a winner" mentality.


----------



## krishna (Jan 20, 2002)

*Wisport*

Curious why you consider wisport a "joke". After reading filtersweeps original message, it was wisport-type events that came to mind as the ideal solution. If the thought is crashes - I'd say there are more in your average cat 4/5 then in a Wisport run event.

Firehouse 50 is a big exception. I don't know the history (as in why its so big) but the field size is easily 10x the normal wisport field size.

Anytime you see a 70+ year old "racing" along side a 20 year old, and excitedly coming in 15+ minutes from the pack - I'd say that's pretty darn cool.

-K


----------



## vonteity (Feb 13, 2005)

Bike racing is not a "feel-good" sport and it never will be, regardless of the number of categories.

People who want to feel good about participating in a sport gravitate to running, tris and centuries. 

Sometimes things are the way they are for a reason...


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

It is interesting to look at the history of bike racing. It started out in the 1800s as a sport for college dandies, because they had the $$ and free time to race bikes. Then when bikes became cheaper, it became a blue-collar sport. Most of the early Grand Tour racers were chimney sweeps, brick layers, etc. Hard men out to make some cash. Today it has sort of come back around to people with money and free time who at least like to think of themselves as "hard."

Personally, I say raise the barriers to entry. Doing 10 races to get out of Cat. 5 is not enough. For some guys, those 10 races are the only 10 pack rides they've ever done. I'm a Cat. 4 and now that it is July, I am seeing some of this spring's Cat. 5s upgrade to my races. Many of them are squirrelly as hell. Short of having some kind of "bike handling skills" test to get a Cat. 4 license, I say raise the barrier to 15 or even 20 races.

I see too many Cat. 4s on expensive bikes who don't know how to ride. Last week in my race some guy said he "hit a pothole and my hands came off the bars." He caused a huge crash on lap 2 of a 6-lap race. Took out at least half a dozen guys, including me. Idiot.


----------



## Squint (Jan 22, 2004)

vonteity said:


> Bike racing is not a "feel-good" sport and it never will be, regardless of the number of categories.
> 
> People who want to feel good about participating in a sport gravitate to running, tris and centuries.


That's not necessarily true. There are a lot of riders that train and want to be faster but don't race. Their races are groups rides and impromptu races against whomever they come across, often on bike paths.

These "recreational riders" are always riding aggressively on bike paths and trying to race me when I'm training.


----------



## vonteity (Feb 13, 2005)

Squint said:


> That's not necessarily true. There are a lot of riders that train and want to be faster but don't race. Their races are groups rides and impromptu races against whomever they come across, often on bike paths.
> 
> These "recreational riders" are always riding aggressively on bike paths and trying to race me when I'm training.


Let me reiterate... "Bike *racing* is not a 'feel-good' sport..."

Not _once_ did I say anything about bike riding, I specifically mentioned racing.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

krishna said:


> Curious why you consider wisport a "joke". After reading filtersweeps original message, it was wisport-type events that came to mind as the ideal solution. If the thought is crashes - I'd say there are more in your average cat 4/5 then in a Wisport run event.
> 
> Firehouse 50 is a big exception. I don't know the history (as in why its so big) but the field size is easily 10x the normal wisport field size.
> 
> ...


I have done one WISport race (Whitewater) and think have mixed thoughts.

Starting everyone - Juniors, Elite, Masters, Tandems (You haven't seen racing until you've seen a tandem sidways in a pack of 75?? riders.), Recumbants - is scary. That said, there was only one crash in the race I was in.

It really is no different than a USCF race as far as competition. At first I thought that they were giving out Hayes Brake jerseys at registration and I had just missed mine, so it's not like it's for the unnattached rider. The race was as fast or faster than a Cat4/5 race and much more squirrely.

I found it one of the scariest races I have done and would not recommend it as a first race for a newcomer.

The picnic after certainly is unique in road racing.

TF


----------



## onrhodes (Feb 19, 2004)

*Try your local "training" race*

I don't think a newbie should be showing up to a weekend race as their first ever experience with bike racing. It would make more sense for them to show up to that weekly training race that most areas have. In NH we have the NH International Speedway in Loudon where for $13 you can learn to get your butt whooped or start learning how to do the whooping. It is a much cheaper alternative to your typical Saturday crit that costs $25.
Nobody gets pulled and you race the same course every week so you can start to gauge your degree of advancement (or decline)
There is also the Wells Ave training race every Sunday in Newton, Mass. Plus probably about 6 other events that I am not thinking about.
I'd say most everyone who is racing in America now stumbled upon this sport. We're an oddity compared to the beer league baseball and hockey leagues that pop up every where. It isn't like most of us have much of an influence to look up to in the US media.
How many parents are telling their kids to ride your bike you might become pro. As opposed to throw that ball, you might become pro.
The reason I bet 2/3 of the field got pulled was for two reasons
1) keep those racers who are going to get lapped from getting in the way and possibly causing an accident
2) Time restraints. Since to say once again we are a fringe sport. It is hard enough to get permission to close off some city streets for a bike race, but to have to wait for the dropped riders to finish, would greatly reduce the amount of time other races could be run.
The reason you don't see this in running races is easy. *Numbers*
Your typical weekend crit is going to have maybe 350-450 people if you're lucky. Now take into consideration something like a 5K road race. You're could easily get A FEW THOUSAND people to show up to run, walk, limp/hobble 3 measely miles. Plus it is a more generally accepted form of "competition" in the US.


----------



## Squint (Jan 22, 2004)

vonteity said:


> Let me reiterate... "Bike *racing* is not a 'feel-good' sport..."
> 
> Not _once_ did I say anything about bike riding, I specifically mentioned racing.


I'm addressing outlets/alternatives to real bike racing brought up in your previous post.

You talk about triathlons, running, centuries, etc., which are also not racing. I think centuries would be considered bike riding within your riding/racing dichotomy so perhaps you meant to say:

Not _twice_ did I say anything about bike riding, I generally mentioned racing and riding.


----------



## novagator (Apr 4, 2002)

*Were you...*

at the Hagerstown race this past Saturday? I was talking to someone who looked like you while the 1, 2, 3 race was going on...just wondering?



vonteity said:


> Let me reiterate... "Bike *racing* is not a 'feel-good' sport..."
> 
> Not _once_ did I say anything about bike riding, I specifically mentioned racing.


----------



## vonteity (Feb 13, 2005)

Squint said:


> I'm addressing outlets/alternatives to real bike racing brought up in your previous post.
> 
> You talk about triathlons, running, centuries, etc., which are also not racing. I think centuries would be considered bike riding within your riding/racing dichotomy so perhaps you meant to say:
> 
> Not _twice_ did I say anything about bike riding, I generally mentioned racing and riding.


I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

My point was that bike racing is not a feel-good sport. Those that wish to take part in feel-good sports naturally gravitate to running, tris and centuries. 

I didn't say anything at all about people who gravitate towards those events, decide not to race, yet treat those sports as a competitive outlet. So you bringing it up is quite baffling to me.

Are we clear now?


----------



## vonteity (Feb 13, 2005)

novagator said:


> at the Hagerstown race this past Saturday? I was talking to someone who looked like you while the 1, 2, 3 race was going on...just wondering?


No, I wasn't.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*Bicycle racing is harder for sure*

Even for CAT 5 you have to have alot of time put in. I haven't started racing yet, but yesterday I was doing some hill climbing repeats to the verge of "tossing my cookies" and I was wondering why in the world I even thought I wanted to race. I can easily do a tri but I am no where near to getting to the level that most of the local cat 5's are(yet).


----------



## jimmyihatetoregister (Oct 23, 2002)

*I agree it is very hard & thus discourages many*

I do a few MTB races, no road races. I wish more would try so maybe I wouldn't come in last so often.


----------



## krishna (Jan 20, 2002)

*First race of season is always...*

"The race was as fast or faster than a Cat4/5 race and much more squirrely.

I found it one of the scariest races I have done and would not recommend it as a first race for a newcomer."

First race of season is _always_ squirrely. Ever done the Waterloo USCF spring races? Crashfest! I avoid both sets of races now for just that reason.

In general, the mass start has unofficial ettiquette - if you can ride in the front pack you start in the front. Tandems and such line up in the rear. If you are a horrible bike handler and find yourself in the lead group be prepared to get your a** chewed out during the race and be visited for a friendly chat afterwards.

Many people on this thread are talking about how bike racing does not allow for the "just proud to be part of the event" mentality. Wisport citizen races are the counterpoint to this. You have great camardarie, small packs that finish many minutes off the main group time, wonderful after event get-togethers ect.. At the same time, the lead group clips along at a pace as fast or faster than a Cat 4/5.

Someone above mentioned club rides serving this need. Perhaps its different in other parts of the country, but around here USCF teams/clubs are very intimidating to join. Chalk it up to knuckleheads believing they have to go all out on the weekly ride thereby leaving newbies with the mistaken impression they don't stand a chance in a race. 

just my 2 cents

-K


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

This quote was in the book Lance Armstrong's War -- approximately:
"The biggest mistake bike riders make is to think that racing bikes are to go fast. They're not. They're for winning races."
I think this captures the difference between bike racing and bike riding. You want to ride your bike fast? You can have lots of opportunity to do it, but it's not in racing. You want to race? That's a whole different endeavor, and it doesn't have all that much to do with liking to ride your bike, fast or otherwise. It's about racing.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Squint said:


> You talk about triathlons, running, centuries, etc., which are also not racing.


Sure they are racing... they are timed, people wear numbers, pay money, etc... they are treated more as a TT for most people- like they are racing against themselves, but they are racing.


----------



## velocity (Apr 18, 2002)

filtersweep said:


> ...maybe there should be a category 6? But you have to wear a chicken costume, garbage bag, or tuxedo.... or something?


Next time I line up, I'm gonna wear a tux!  

Being a newbie racer, long-time roadie, I'm a little surprised at the strength of the strongest riders in Cat. 5 fields. But there are week-long rides, century rides, a variety of club rides, brevets, etc., for strong roadies who want to be challenged. If you're gonna race, you've got to suck up the difficulties, train, and race.


----------



## swimbikerun75 (Mar 25, 2002)

*From an average triathlete's perspective...*

I thought I'd weigh in on this subject with my own experiences. I started riding in college with some friends who were into mountain biking. I competed in several races and even organized and ran a couple races in college. Near the end of college I bought a road bike because I wanted the variety, something different from always hitting the trails. A friend talked me into doing a road race with him, and I have disliked road racing ever since. The pack riding, and the accordian effect of riding in a pack was not fun to me at all. I do, however, still love to ride, both road and trail, and I like to ride fast. I decided that a time trial (which a mountian bike race or the bike leg of a triathlon essentially are) would be more my thing. Furthermore, I liked the challenge and variety of training that could be had from triathlons.
I generally dislike running, and am not all that excited about swimming either, but I do them enough to keep me in shape, and to get me around the triathlon course. I still mainly do the sport to see how fast I can ride my bike. All the while I am swimming, my main motivation to get me back to dry land and on my bike so I can pass everyone who got out of the water faster than I did.
I'd like to think that if I enjoyed road racing and/or crits that I could be very good at them, but I decided years ago that I just had more fun riding as fast as I could for X number of miles rather than all of the other aspects of road racing.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> The "century" ride is the bike "racing" equivalent of the triathlon or running race, or at least it would be if they gave out finishing orders and times (maybe some do, I think I've only done one century back when I first started riding).
> 
> Bike racing is a whole 'nother animal, there is no "everybody who finishes is a winner" mentality.


Oddly enough the few century rides i have done have been really compeditive. Seriously lots of staging issues and sprinting through red lights and the like, so as to make the front group. People you could not force to race a "real" race at gun point going crazy to make the front group, kinda scary actually. At least in a race I don't have to worry about brushing shoulders and how they are going to react. I try and stay out of the way mostly I don't go to events like that because of stuff like that.

Funny stuff happens too like the last century my wife and I did she stopped to help a guy change a flat since she wasn't "racing". The guy had gone through both his tubes because he had crappy rim tape she fixed is rim tabe and loaned him a tube he repaided he by attacking he right after they got back on the road and were going up hill - stuff like that makes me (us) laugh.


----------



## GearDaddy (Apr 1, 2004)

Bike racing is hard. But other racing disciplines, e.g. running events, X-C ski races, triathalons, etc. are also very *hard* - just different. I've trained just as hard and "left it all out on the course" in 10k runs, 50k X-C ski races and etc. I haven't done a Tri, but some triathaletes I know train harder (3 different disciplines!) than I've ever trained for anything, and they would most assuredly smoke me in their event.

I like the point that someone earlier made about bike racing being about winning a race, not going the fastest. This is where it really differs. All those things like the accordian effect, covering a break, working your a** off in a chase group, risking a solo break, going for a prime, being in a field sprint, etc. add new elements to the racing. Our Tri lover said he hated this experience. I think its fantastic. But these things don't have that much to do with how fast you do the race. And some of these things are what intimidates newbies.

I didn't mean to totally dump on Wisport races. It just seems to me that most people show up to these with a goal to ride at a certain pace. Not exactly bike racing, and you can end up in close proximity to some pretty untrustworthy riders.

Centuries and other group cycling events that I've seen are kind of useless unless you're only after a nice social ride. Nobody rides in groups, or even knows how. I've met plenty of people who do Tris and such in these events that are simply afraid to ride on someone else's wheel. OK, great conversation to be had, but absolutely no skills being learned here.

Back to the original topic, i.e. why does it seem to be so hard to take the leap into bike racing...

Local training races sound great. I wish we had such a thing. A lot of clubs are small and clique-ish. The best thing that we seem to have around here is some larger clubs have "beginning racing programs", and we have a large and very organized recreational riding club that offers a wide variety of rides that provide some good fast group ride opportunities. It would be nice to have more avenues though.


----------



## swimbikerun75 (Mar 25, 2002)

*I've noticed...*

Something I've noticed mentioned here more than once is the dislike and/or fear experienced racers have riding with inexperienced racers, i.e. "The ones who are going be in or cause a crash." This is very intimidating to someone trying to get into road racing and crits, knowing that there are people lining up next to them, loathing them for being in the same race (even though you can't go any lower than Cat 5) and automatically assuming that they are going to cause a field crash.

It would be cool to offer a race for beginners, limiting it to people who have raced 0-5 times before, offering no prizes, etc., so as to keep sandbaggers out, and giving people a chance to truly ride with those of their own ability, and keep the true beginners seperate from the experienced Cat 5er's. From the friends I do know who race, there are plenty of people who could move up to 3 or 4, but continue to ride 5 because they're afraid of the competition too.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

swimbikerun75 said:


> Something I've noticed mentioned here more than once is the dislike and/or fear experienced racers have riding with inexperienced racers, i.e. "The ones who are going be in or cause a crash." This is very intimidating to someone trying to get into road racing and crits, knowing that there are people lining up next to them, loathing them for being in the same race (even though you can't go any lower than Cat 5) and automatically assuming that they are going to cause a field crash.
> 
> It would be cool to offer a race for beginners, limiting it to people who have raced 0-5 times before, offering no prizes, etc., so as to keep sandbaggers out, and giving people a chance to truly ride with those of their own ability, and keep the true beginners seperate from the experienced Cat 5er's. From the friends I do know who race, there are plenty of people who could move up to 3 or 4, but continue to ride 5 because they're afraid of the competition too.


We had such a race here a short time ago. "First pack race only" was the requirement. Unfortunately, it still didn't work. MAYBE those top 3 guys have never been in a 'pack race', but they certainly were fast enough looked the part. - TF



TF


----------



## swimbikerun75 (Mar 25, 2002)

TurboTurtle said:


> We had such a race here a short time ago. "First pack race only" was the requirement. Unfortunately, it still didn't work. MAYBE those top 3 guys have never been in a 'pack race', but they certainly were fast enough looked the part. - TF
> 
> 
> 
> TF


Still, it might have been a great thing. Got some new people some experience, kept the "crash causers" out of the cat 5 race, and maybe it got one new person to try the cat 5 race next time with a race under his belt. I would hope the fact that some idiots decided to sandbag it wouldn't be the cause of some never trying a race again. Only one person can win in the end anyway.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

swimbikerun75 said:


> Still, it might have been a great thing. Got some new people some experience, kept the "crash causers" out of the cat 5 race, and maybe it got one new person to try the cat 5 race next time with a race under his belt. I would hope the fact that some idiots decided to sandbag it wouldn't be the cause of some never trying a race again. Only one person can win in the end anyway.


I did not mean to imply that it was without value, only that it may be nearly impossible to have a real beginner's only race. Of the 3 that I persuaded to try it, one is now racing weekly at the velodrome and probably will do more crits/RRs. She's still not real comfortable in a pack, but doing very well considering she never even attempted to draft another bike until this spring.

If you are lucky enough to have a velodrome close by that has a 'stock bike' program, this is probably the best place to try pack racing.

TF


----------



## Orbea_Carbon_Force (Apr 27, 2004)

This is getting out of hand. Dropping bunch of B riders on your group rides mean little in the racing scene. Teams won't ask you to join and you don't get the same respect from more stronger, experienced racers. Racing on bike path??? Just pick a guy on the bike path and race him???? That's not a race. He could have ridden 50 miles already before you meet up to him. Maybe he does not want to race you. Bike race is a bike race. There is no substitution. That's no ifs or but. You race or you don't. You want to take cycling to the next level from group riding??? You go race with bunch of guys who share the same ambition as the rest of the group. To win or to affect the outcome of the race. 




Squint said:


> That's not necessarily true. There are a lot of riders that train and want to be faster but don't race. Their races are groups rides and impromptu races against whomever they come across, often on bike paths.
> 
> These "recreational riders" are always riding aggressively on bike paths and trying to race me when I'm training.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

Orbea_Carbon_Force said:


> This is getting out of hand....


Psst.... Dude, I think Squint was being sarcastic.


----------



## bbagdan (Aug 20, 2004)

i've found that road racing is far easier than mtb or cross racing. if you suck, you can basically sit in and finish with the peloton. if you suck in mtb, you might not even finish. 

not that i suck in either!


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

bbagdan said:


> i've found that road racing is far easier than mtb or cross racing. if you suck, you can basically sit in and finish with the peloton. if you suck in mtb, you might not even finish.
> 
> not that i suck in either!


I find it just the opposite. If I suck at road, I'm off the back, packing up and going home. With MTB racing, you just keep pedallling until you finish.

not that i don't suck at both! - TF


----------



## Orbea_Carbon_Force (Apr 27, 2004)

Well, before you head to the starting line, you need to know what are you going to do in the race. Need to get on a break? You ride in the front. Follow the wheels of stronger riders. Avoiding being boxed in tricky road condition. If couple of guys making the move, you go and you floor it. The rest your luck and fitness will dictate. As long as you have the correct race mindset, you have already won 50% of the race. The rest is all about fitness, luck, timing, and who is attacking and who is on a break. I used to be a pack fill until I signed up on my local racing team. Every time I race I have a purpose. I know that I can't do sh-t if I am not in the front. I also do weekly 30 minutes TT interval and this seems to build up my matches. Some of you getting dropped in races???? That's a good reason for you to train harder and smarter. 



TurboTurtle said:


> I find it just the opposite. If I suck at road, I'm off the back, packing up and going home. With MTB racing, you just keep pedallling until you finish.
> 
> not that i don't suck at both! - TF


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Bike racing is hard, damn hard.
Imagine a 10K running race, where after 1 mile, a ref blows a whisle, and stops everybody that is more than 200 yards behing the leader. Imaging how many of them would come back week after week after week.


----------



## Squint (Jan 22, 2004)

Orbea_Carbon_Force said:


> This is getting out of hand. Dropping bunch of B riders on your group rides mean little in the racing scene. Teams won't ask you to join and you don't get the same respect from more stronger, experienced racers. Racing on bike path??? Just pick a guy on the bike path and race him???? That's not a race. He could have ridden 50 miles already before you meet up to him. Maybe he does not want to race you. Bike race is a bike race. There is no substitution. That's no ifs or but. You race or you don't. You want to take cycling to the next level from group riding??? You go race with bunch of guys who share the same ambition as the rest of the group. To win or to affect the outcome of the race.


That's what I've observed riders doing here. Last fall, I twice saw EMTs working on riders who apparently crashed into each other on bike paths. They were carried off on stretchers and things like syringe covers were left behind so their injuries probably weren't trivial. The 3rd crash that I saw that involved emergency services was on a nearby non-technical descent but also involved a recreational rider/quasi-racer.

People here actually train on the bike paths rather than using them to get to training grounds. And they often engage in impromptu races with other riders.

It's these aggressive recreational riders that get themselves and others into trouble. They sort of train but they don't race because they know they would get stomped even in a 4/5 event so they have other outlets for their competitive urges.


----------



## Rower (Aug 1, 2003)

*europe*

it's interesting that in this entire discussion no one has mentioned how they do it europe. i only have limited experience with how it's done, but they definitely seem to get more "average" folks out. 

having said that, i don't think the point is whether or not bike racing is hard. it obviously is. the point is how to get more people to do it and thus raising its exposure in our country.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Orbea_Carbon_Force said:


> Well, before you head to the starting line, you need to know what are you going to do in the race. Need to get on a break? You ride in the front. Follow the wheels of stronger riders. Avoiding being boxed in tricky road condition. If couple of guys making the move, you go and you floor it. The rest your luck and fitness will dictate. As long as you have the correct race mindset, you have already won 50% of the race. The rest is all about fitness, luck, timing, and who is attacking and who is on a break. I used to be a pack fill until I signed up on my local racing team. Every time I race I have a purpose. I know that I can't do sh-t if I am not in the front. I also do weekly 30 minutes TT interval and this seems to build up my matches. Some of you getting dropped in races???? That's a good reason for you to train harder and smarter.


You would make an interesting coach  

How exactly, does a new racer simply "ride in the front" when you know everyone is trying to ride in the front?

How do you explain how to "avoid being boxed in in tricky road conditions"? It is the sort of thing that can only be "learned" out of experience.

In an amateur crit, how much does having a pre-determined "game plan" actually mean anything? The "plan" evolves in reaction to the dynamic events that unfold during the race... and frankly, for a new racer, it is less about tactics and more about racing safely and staying with the pack and out of trouble.

A new racer isn't going to just "get in the break" unless incredibly physically gifted.

Your post trivializes much of the major points of racing.

Everything you mention is Race Tactics 101 (not some sort of "secret forumla" for success)- but of course, executing them is another matter.

The point turbo turtle was trying to make is that mtn bike racing inherently functions more like a time trial- whereas, in a crit or RR, most racers who lose the pack will end up in a bad way.


----------



## Val_Garou (Apr 30, 2002)

I agree with Rower and Grumpy--to a point.

I think the point of filtersweep's post was to question how we might get more people out and thereby grow the sport/raise its profile.

For a lot of other people in this thread, the point seems to be about how we might best keep these soft, inexperienced, sadly curious bastards OUT of the sport in order to continue congratulating ourselves on how much harder, more committed, and, well, superior morally, physically, and spiritually we are than the general population.

I can't actually see how a Cat 6 or beginners series or no-pull race or whatever would actually affect those racing 2/3/4. Hell, I can't see how'd it would affect 5s. I can only see an objection to the knowledge that "those kind of people" were out there, recieving racing numbers too.

Well, actually I can think of some effects. It would increase participation, thereby swelling the purses event-wide. It would let you bring your less-serious friends (if you could stand being seen in public with them) to races, not as specators, but as participants. That would make post-race beverages more fun, I think. It would increase the number of people in the world who know "racing" cyclists, and therefore reduce the number of people who think we're aliens. 

But whatever.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

> Well, actually I can think of some effects. It would increase participation, thereby swelling the purses event-wide. It would let you bring your less-serious friends (if you could stand being seen in public with them) to races, not as specators, but as participants. That would make post-race beverages more fun, I think. It would increase the number of people in the world who know "racing" cyclists, and therefore reduce the number of people who think we're aliens.


You say "increase participation," but, increase participation in what? There are plenty of organized rides (around me, anyway) through various cycling clubs. There also are plenty of informal, weekly rides where recreational cyclists can mix it up with racers. But, racing is for people who . . . um, want to race, isn't it? I mean, if it's not a race, what is it? At the risk of being stupidly simplistic, if it's not a race, it's . . . well, not a race. So, go do something else. Leave racing to the people who want to race. I must be missing something.
It's not as if the races (again, around here, DC metro area) go wanting for riders. The problem is more that the balancing act between safe field size and limiting street closings results in novices being shut out of races, not that we need to get more novices involved.


----------



## bbagdan (Aug 20, 2004)

i don't think it's so much that races are too fierce for riders to want to participate that is hindering the development of cycling. 

The problem is that road races (except crits) are essentially logistical nightmares, requiring a lot of commissaires, volunteers, car/police escort, road closures, etc. I find that there just aren't enough high quality events in which to participate. 

so please, if you have some spare weekends, or are retired from racing, be sure to volunteer at races and help promote the sport. heck, just go cheer on the racers.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Rower said:


> it's interesting that in this entire discussion no one has mentioned how they do it europe. i only have limited experience with how it's done, but they definitely seem to get more "average" folks out.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Where? As I understand it most countries in Europe don't have the ability based categories that we have that allow less competent riders to race.
> ...


----------



## Val_Garou (Apr 30, 2002)

bill said:


> But, racing is for people who . . . um, want to race, isn't it? I mean, if it's not a race, what is it?Leave racing to the people who want to race.


"Um," a cat 6, for example, would certainly be for those who want to race. One of the things being complained about here, I think, is the lack of a bridge between organized rides like club rides or centuries and races. Riders are often portrayed as either/or riders, belonging to one world or the other. Your post, in fact, reflects and perpetuates that mentality. What interests me, and some others perhaps, is a competetive level that would serve as a gateway to the "real" racing side of the sport. 

And its not just to stroke green egos, either. Things like safe field size are influenced by--and general safety is determined by--rider experience. Earlier, less vicotory-rage-soaked competetive experience benefits everyone. 



bill said:


> It's not as if the races (again, around here, DC metro area) go wanting for riders.


No, I'm sure that's very true. But could they be bigger? Could other areas--which aren't big metros like DC, NYC, etc--start supporting more races? And before someone points out that the talent pool isn't big enough for every town to have its own series, I think that's part of the catch-22 this thread is looking at.

Of course, maybe I'm just naive and nobody would turn out for these sorts of events. But without an honest effort, who can say how deep interest runs?

For better or for worse, like it or distrust it, I think everyone can admit that road cycling doesn't do much in the way of recruitment or (young) rider development. You're either in as a serious balls-to-the-wall racer or you're out doing centuries with the donut pack. Even cat 5 represents a real commitment in terms of physical conditioning and exposure to risk. I'm just wondering if the jump into the pool ALWAYS has to be into the deep end. 

Maybe the macho culture of bricklayers and vein-stuffers means that it does.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Val_Garou said:


> You're either in as a serious balls-to-the-wall racer or you're out doing centuries with the donut pack. Even cat 5 represents a real commitment in terms of physical conditioning and exposure to risk. I'm just wondering if the jump into the pool ALWAYS has to be into the deep end.



That probably sums up this entire thread better than anything.


----------



## goldsbar (Apr 24, 2002)

I've been on many sides of the equation - first Mtb racer, then Cat 4/5 racer and for the last several years, the guy on group rides that likes to go all out sometimes though I wait for others to attack first to see what type of ride it is. 

First of all, I have to laugh at most of the poeple making fun of the people going hard in group rides. Just about all of the group rides I've done with people who race - and I've done a lot of them - wind up turning into psuedo races at least during some point in the ride. Unless everyone on this board is so different than the racers I've seen then many of you are being a little hypocritical.

As for the level of competition - yes, it is very high. Many top level expert mountain bikers with great bike handling skills (yes, even in a group - it's really not that hard to develop group riding skills though some people just never seem to get the hang of it) have to race in Cat 5 10 times. In this respect, your average crit or road race is just like a 10k. If 100 people enter, maybe 20, really more like 10, have a real shot at winning. The difference? In group bike racing, you have to push yourself beyond your limits - drooling, etc. - if you want to stay with the pack. Not necessarily so in the other events.

I finally stopped because I got tired of driving long distances to race in a circle.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

Cat 5 was started not so very long ago (10 yrs ago? someone help me out here) to do just what you say -- to have a newbie field. Promoters, I agree, should have a dedicated Cat 5 field, because I do think it is a great way to get into the sport. Cat 5 races generally are safer and saner, in my opinion, than 4/5 fields, where a little knowledge and experience becomes a dangerous thing. Cat 4's are stacked like cordwood in the ranks, and some of them have as much speed and raw talent as many a Cat 3, including 4's with as much experience as 3's but who who haven't scored their way up for any number of reasons, and many, you know, don't. Traffic can be inconsistent to say the least, and the inconsistency poses as much danger as the overall skill level.
If you started a Cat 6, though, isn't that getting out of hand? What is the vision, here? Maybe I'm confused. 
And, whatever it is, competitive spirit being what it is, it won't be long before we start talking about a Cat 7.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

goldsbar said:


> First of all, I have to laugh at most of the poeple making fun of the people going hard in group rides. Just about all of the group rides I've done with people who race - and I've done a lot of them - wind up turning into psuedo races at least during some point in the ride. Unless everyone on this board is so different than the racers I've seen then many of you are being a little hypocritical.



if I can hang with a cat 2 rider on a group ride, it doesn't mean a thing in a race.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

goldsbar said:


> I've been on many sides of the equation - first Mtb racer, then Cat 4/5 racer and for the last several years, the guy on group rides that likes to go all out sometimes though I wait for others to attack first to see what type of ride it is.
> 
> First of all, I have to laugh at most of the poeple making fun of the people going hard in group rides. Just about all of the group rides I've done with people who race - and I've done a lot of them - wind up turning into psuedo races at least during some point in the ride. Unless everyone on this board is so different than the racers I've seen then many of you are being a little hypocritical.
> 
> ...


Agree with filtersweep - a group ride, no matter how cutthroat is not racing. Your own comment, "...sometimes though I wait for others to attack first to see what type of ride it is." shows the difference.

This post sounds more like a justification for not racing than a comment on how (if) racing should be more accessible.

TF


----------



## DuxRoad (Mar 3, 2005)

Filtersweep,
Your initial thread premise seems flawed. Comparing a crit, and the rules governing it, to a generic marathon or triathlon is pretty much stacking the deck in favor of the crit. Also, your last few lines (re lowering the bar) strike me as unintentionally telling, as I think it gets at the root of the issue that will keep bike racing as a niche sport.

Unlike running and triathlons(ing?), both of which actively cultivate broad, grassroots participation, bike racing does not have scale in the US. Racing then tends to be relatively insular; it is sink or swim in the Cat 5 deep end. You can celebrate that or lament it, but it is a big leap to then claim it makes bike racing harder than running, etc.

If I implement a cut off at the next local 10k fun run, and knock out anyone not running sub-5:30, has road racing suddenly become inherently harder? Don’t know about that, but Mr Grumpy is right that folks are not apt to return if they keep being cut. The real racers will just have lots more room on the road.


----------



## onrhodes (Feb 19, 2004)

*Close to the right idea*

One of the comments above is close to getting the right idea.
What is the sense of having a Cat. 5 group if every race you go to is combined 4/5 field. Even worse, in New England we have been getting lots of Cat. 3/4 fields, which drives me nuts. As another posted mentioned earlier, you get a Cat. 5 with 10 races who moves up to a 4 and really isn't ready. Now throw that person into a 3 field and you're really talking trouble.
I'm a pretty darn good bike racer (skills, talent, etc). But I am a cat. 3 for life. Needless to say, it is pretty scary when you're racing against guys who have only done 15 races in their lives, while there are many of us in the 3's closing in on the 500 race mark.
If you want to promote racing to get people to stick together, then promoters need to stop the 4/5 fields and have seperate 4 and 5 races.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

> First of all, I have to laugh at most of the poeple making fun of the people going hard in group rides. Just about all of the group rides I've done with people who race - and I've done a lot of them - wind up turning into psuedo races at least during some point in the ride. Unless everyone on this board is so different than the racers I've seen then many of you are being a little hypocritical.


I don't recall anyone's making fun of people going hard in group rides.
Sort of the opposite -- I was saying, you CAN go hard in group rides, often with racers, so, what's the need for another category? If anything -- and this IS what I tell people thinking to get into the sport -- do the group rides. It's as close as you're going to get to a race without it's being a race.
Of course, there remains a difference. Group rides often are dominated by people who are strong. Races are dominated by people who can race. These are often very different things. Why we want a category of "race" that would collapse that difference, which is what some seem to be arguing for, or, even more inexplicably, have a group ride with numbers, is hard for me to fathom.
I'm not making fun of anyone. Go on the group rides! I *love  * group rides! I'm a god on group rides! 
It's the races where I have a problem. But exactly that problem, that challenge, is what gives the races, and the racing experience, value.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

> I don't recall anyone's making fun of people going hard in group rides.


I will, however, make fun of people who race on the bike trails. A guy I know calls them "pathletes."


----------



## benInMA (Jan 22, 2004)

I don't get what the commotion is about.

I think the issue is just that bike racing is more dangerous then running or triathlon, and it attracts a far more competitive crowd. People who want the touchy-feely experience and getting a medal for just finishing the race are scared off, creating a new category that people have to go into won't change that.

If we make a Category 6 the same guys who are strong in Category 5 are just going to be strong in Category 6, the people who are dangerous in Category 5 will just be dangerous in the Cat 6 race.

Now in terms of making it more approachable for beginners they could perhaps try and force people to upgrade from Cat 5 to Cat 4. I definitely have the feeling that there are people who sandbag in Cat 5 and are plenty fast to be in Cat 4 but they never upgrade. Those people are the ones who make Cat 4 races too fast for a lot of newcomers. Some of it is a genuine lack of confidence and thinking they will get shelled in Cat 4, others are outright malicious and would rather kick around newbies rather then moving up.

But regardless, some of this is just whining by people who couldn't keep up. Do we need to have a racing division that is so slow that a rider who just got his first bike 1 month ago can stay with the pack? There are plenty of people who do their first Cat 5 race and do just fine. I was off the front briefly in my first Cat 5 race. I got creamed after everyone sat up and let me kill myself and then came sprinting past me, but it was certainly a different experience then someone who gets spit out the back on the 2nd lap.

If you get spit out the back on the 2nd lap, you just need to accept that you need to ride more and figure out what you're doing wrong. Making the name "Category 6" will not change anything.

There is a lot of whining on this site that never comes through when you talk to riders out in the real world, racing or non-racing.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

> I don't get what the commotion is about.


me, neither, actually.
not that I'm above whining, myself. It's just that I don't get what THIS whining is about.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

benInMA said:


> I don't get what the commotion is about.
> 
> I think the issue is just that bike racing is more dangerous then running or triathlon, and it attracts a far more competitive crowd. People who want the touchy-feely experience and getting a medal for just finishing the race are scared off, creating a new category that people have to go into won't change that.
> 
> ...


I think that you have outlined two (not the only two) different 'sides' of this thread. Those, like yourself, who are competitive the way it is and think that change is bad and everybody else is just a whiner and those who cannot compete and think that there should be an entry level where they can be competitive. Argue on. (I probable would have to side with the whiners.)

I think the important argument is whether we want cycling to grow via the Tri/Running model or remain small and elite. This is a valid argument. Thinking of myself as one of the elite is great and I have no problem with cycle racing remaining at its current level. I do try to get more people into racing but this is just to share the experience, not to make bigger fields. However, if we want to maintain this elite status, then we cannot complain about cycle racing being too small. Promoters are going to continue to combine fields if they are not big enough. The races are going to remain predominately crits unless cycle racing reaches a level of acceptance that we will never see. We cannot have it both ways.

TF


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

Around me, there probably is more demand for racing than the communities and the promoters, albeit to a lesser extent, can handle. That's the problem. Filling the fields is not a problem (although people seem to be getting a little tired right about now, and the fields are a little light). It's the communities who have said, you can have the roads for three hours, no more than that (try fitting in your Cat 6, now!), or, more and more frequently, you've had the roads every year for the past ten but no more.
And I keep coming back to the question of what is the vision here. Are we talking about a race that is not a race? a group ride with numbers? What the bejeezus is the point?
If it's a race, you'll be back to square one in no time at all -- people will come to win it. If it's not a race -- then go on all the group rides you want, of which there also are no dearth around here. The community of cycling around the DC area continues to grow, with the same lack of acceptance by the wider community. There are more of us, but we aren't any better liked. That's the problem in growing the sport. 
And I don't accept that, if we grew the sport, it would gain more acceptance. No. Sorry. The limiting factor is the transportation situation. Races block roads. People don't like their roads blocked. Period. If the community doubled or tripled, we're still talking about a very, very small group of people, completely and utterly dwarfed by people who don't want their roads blocked.
Road racing has very little future as other than a niche sport that is barely tolerated by the community at large.


----------



## Val_Garou (Apr 30, 2002)

*Cat 6 Distraction*

Ok, I was afraid this new group thing would take the discussion afield. I'll happily abandon it, esp. in favor of things like mandatory upgrades out of 5, and probably (ok, almost certainly) out of 4 as well, and not running races with 4/5 packs. It's also the Occam's razor of solutions. These goals would mean more of a hassle for organizers and sanctioning bodies, yes, but probably less than working out new fields. Also, I assume that's what entry fees and dues are for. 

BUT I will still come out and say that I think we DO "need to have a racing division that is so slow that a rider who just got his first bike 1 month ago can stay with the pack." (I'll say it because I'm accepting it as hyperbole and assuming that as condescending and dismissive as it is, nobody actually expects "racing" to happen after 30 days on the bike, including myself) That's how people get into racing. That's how the sport grows. . .

The bottom line is: What does it cost you as a 3/2/1/pro rider to know that the people in 4 and 5 aren't as fast as you and are racing against people with a similar skill set? Why do so many on this site resist giving this opportunity to people? 

It's funny that nobody here is asking anyone to run a special 6-style race for ourselves, yet its still being classed as whining. Well, fine. I'm whining about people so anxious to believe they're active competitors in the hardest athletic endeavor known to humanity (in their local cat 3/2 races, even) that they actually BEGRUDGE any attempt to make the sport more accessible. That they resent even discussing ways in which we might reach out, like the wussies in tri and running, to grow the sport at the grassroot level. That they don't want to cultivate the sport; they want those who stumble into it to thrive or get cut down. I can't see endorsing that worldview, unless its to bolster my own sense of self at not having gotten cut down. So I'm whining. I'm a *****. Might as well take up tri, I guess--but I hate running too much, so you're all stuck with me.

Finally, if its such a terrible thing to "baby" newcomers with beginner-oriented races, why are we still coddling those riders designated 3/2/1? Why not throw everyone in together, fields broken into safe sizes alphebetically, and let the hardest, strongest, baddest men win? 

I mean, either you're fast or not. Right?


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

TurboTurtle said:


> I think that you have outlined two (not the only two) different 'sides' of this thread. Those, like yourself, who are competitive the way it is and think that change is bad and everybody else is just a whiner and those who cannot compete and think that there should be an entry level where they can be competitive. Argue on. (I probable would have to side with the whiners.)
> 
> 
> 
> TF


God help me if this ever get cross posted to some runners forum- I've seen several marathons- and I can safely say that locally, they are the RAGBRAI of running. 

I have ambivalence about "inclusiveness"- in the sense that all sorts of marathoners seem to treat it as a joke- if one were to draw any conclusions from their attire. I'd also arge that some made a mockery of their training, judging by people literally walking within the first mile of the "race." Not to say there aren't plenty of people who achieved amazing person goals by completing it- or finishing within a certain time- or placing in some age category. It offers much to many people- certainly not like bike racing.

On the other hand, bicycle racing? It certainly isn't cut from the same tree as running.

I really don't want to lower the bar so I can be more competitive- BTW. The thought never entered my mind.


----------



## Orbea_Carbon_Force (Apr 27, 2004)

Whatever dude. That's why some of you will forever be pack fills while others can win and getting more out of each race. 



filtersweep said:


> You would make an interesting coach
> 
> How exactly, does a new racer simply "ride in the front" when you know everyone is trying to ride in the front?
> 
> ...


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

Accessible is one thing -- you're talking about a different endeavor. You want to have a group ride with numbers. I say, there are plenty of group rides, with and without numbers, without having to tie up roads on a day when the people who commit a lot of time and effort to the sport of racing want to do their thing and they're pissing off the communities doing it without adding an unnecessary field that's not even a race.
Cat 5 is what used to be the Citizen's class. It is the very popularity of the sport that has made Cat 5 competitive. That's just the way it is. And guys who got their Cat 3 upgrades umpteen years ago sometimes get blown out the back of 3/4 races, because the fields, all of them, I believe, have grown more competitive, as the natural result of the sport's becoming more popular.
Mandatory upgrades out of Cat 5? That maybe deserves some thought, although, the odd sandbagger aside, I'm not sure that moving people up and out before they feel ready is an idea without some negative consequences. Mandatory upgrades out of the 4's? I wish.


----------



## Orbea_Carbon_Force (Apr 27, 2004)

Racing in Europe is even more harder. I know a cat1 who frequently races in France. He said that a cat 1 here would be like cat4 in Europe. Yes, every level racing the same race which makes it even more harder. Imagine you just start racing and you are competing with some former pros. 



Rower said:


> it's interesting that in this entire discussion no one has mentioned how they do it europe. i only have limited experience with how it's done, but they definitely seem to get more "average" folks out.
> 
> having said that, i don't think the point is whether or not bike racing is hard. it obviously is. the point is how to get more people to do it and thus raising its exposure in our country.


----------



## Val_Garou (Apr 30, 2002)

I'm certainly not arguing for a group ride with numbers. But you know, the more I think about it, the more I think we should do away with fields altogether. One mass start, roads closed for the minimum amount of time, the best are the best and the rest go home bleeding. 

Also, we should ride armed with sticks. 

Now that's a sport I would be proud to participate in. No ******* would dare call me a [email protected] after witnessing one of those chariot races.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Orbea_Carbon_Force said:


> Whatever dude. That's why some of you will forever be pack fills while others can win and getting more out of each race.


Seriously- how many first time racers have the ability (or fitness, or experience) to pick their way through a pack without taking someone down? It cracks me up when a first time racer comes here and asks for advice and everyone says the same thing- stay near the front but not at the front, etc.- all the racing 101 stuff...

...and if you are winning all the time, you are probably sandbagging


----------



## tobu (Dec 19, 2004)

*Clubs*

When I was in Switzerland, there were really only two categories for men -- amateur and elite. To even race amateur, you had to be pretty darn good, the equivalent of an American Category 2 or 3. At the Elite level everryone pretty much had a stipend or salary and you could easily be lining up against riders like Camenzind or Rominger. You wouldn't even think about taking out a license unless you had shown your ability in various club rides and races. 

Thinking about the American system, I would say that the currently acceptable standards for Category 5 aren't high enough. Bike racing is not like running or triathlons -- it is a sport that an individual can seriously injure other competitors, not just yourself. In Northern California we have a series of clinics for beginning racers, but I still believe there are way too many unskilled racers in the beginning fields. I'm only guessing, but I would bet that the minimum standards to even be let into a beginning motorcycle race at a track are much higher than what is seen in bicycle racing. 

People have to realize that bike racing is not an individual sport. Your safety and your ability to reach the finish line quickly is dependant on how you interact with the group of other cyclists. As stated by many others beforehand: join a club. Take part in group rides. These will give you the fitness and skills necessary for Cat 5 racing. In Northen California, if you can hang with the River Ride, the Spectrum ride, House of Pain, or any number of other rides, you are definitely ready for Category 5. 

Bike racing, by nature, has and always will be hierarchical and elitist. Each level of cycling requires a new and different set of skills and social relations which have to be learned. American pros who go to Belgium and rail the corners will be ridden into the gutter. Newly upgraded Cat 2's who yell "inside" will be quickly shown that it unacceptable in the 1/2/pro's. New Cat 3's quickly learn that they have to protect their wheel at all times -- it's a free for all. Etc. The skills necessary to succeed at each level is taught by the team structure, and even more so, by the general racing community of your peers. At the most basic level, the entry way is once again the cycling clubs. I understand that many clubs are initimidating, but there are many good ones out there that really help out beginners. If anything, the competiveness and difficulty of Category 5 shouldn't be up for criticism -- it's really the minimum standard. We can, however, think about how we can foster more clubs that provide a welcoming environment for beginning racers.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Val_Garou said:


> Also, we should ride armed with sticks.
> 
> Now that's a sport I would be proud to participate in. No ******* would dare call me a [email protected] after witnessing one of those chariot races.



Then you've heard of bike jousting?


----------



## Val_Garou (Apr 30, 2002)

filtersweep said:


> Then you've heard of bike jousting?


 I'm so in. Where do I order my gear?


----------



## Orbea_Carbon_Force (Apr 27, 2004)

Here is the deal to get to the front. You have to overcome the fear of the wind, riding out in the wind. To do that you need to get used to riding near your max in the wind. Only TT interval, 20 minutes to 1 hour, can give you the confidence to ride in the wind. To get to the front, you find holes in the pack and punch it through. If you have to ride outside to get to the front, you do it. If you begin to lose your position to couple of riders, you have to make up for it by passing more riders to get to the front. It takes hardwork and presistence to get and stay in the front. If you have teamates that would make it a whole a lot easier. Generally if there is a team doing all the work in the front, the pack would normally welcome it. Is up to you what do you want to do once you are at the front. If attacks happen, you go for it. Many have said that you can generally avoid crash if riding in the front but that's not really the reason why you ride in the front though.  If my fitness is improving, I should be getting some good result next year. 




filtersweep said:


> Seriously- how many first time racers have the ability (or fitness, or experience) to pick their way through a pack without taking someone down? It cracks me up when a first time racer comes here and asks for advice and everyone says the same thing- stay near the front but not at the front, etc.- all the racing 101 stuff...
> 
> ...and if you are winning all the time, you are probably sandbagging


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

tobu said:


> When I was in Switzerland, there were really only two categories for men -- amateur and elite. To even race amateur, you had to be pretty darn good, the equivalent of an American Category 2 or 3. At the Elite level everryone pretty much had a stipend or salary and you could easily be lining up against riders like Camenzind or Rominger. You wouldn't even think about taking out a license unless you had shown your ability in various club rides and races.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> That is what I understand, I believe the correct terms are elites w/ contracts (old term being "pros") and then elites w/o contracts (everybody else). The American equivalent would be something like pro races (elite w/ contracts only), P/1//2 races or 1/2/3 (elites w/o contracts only). I've read reports of cat. 3s who have gone over to Belgium and raced the kermesses.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

bill said:


> Around me, there probably is more demand for racing than the communities and the promoters, albeit to a lesser extent, can handle. That's the problem. Filling the fields is not a problem (although people seem to be getting a little tired right about now, and the fields are a little light). It's the communities who have said, you can have the roads for three hours, no more than that (try fitting in your Cat 6, now!), or, more and more frequently, you've had the roads every year for the past ten but no more.
> And I keep coming back to the question of what is the vision here. Are we talking about a race that is not a race? a group ride with numbers? What the bejeezus is the point?
> If it's a race, you'll be back to square one in no time at all -- people will come to win it. If it's not a race -- then go on all the group rides you want, of which there also are no dearth around here. The community of cycling around the DC area continues to grow, with the same lack of acceptance by the wider community. There are more of us, but we aren't any better liked. That's the problem in growing the sport.
> And I don't accept that, if we grew the sport, it would gain more acceptance. No. Sorry. The limiting factor is the transportation situation. Races block roads. People don't like their roads blocked. Period. If the community doubled or tripled, we're still talking about a very, very small group of people, completely and utterly dwarfed by people who don't want their roads blocked.
> Road racing has very little future as other than a niche sport that is barely tolerated by the community at large.


The reason you cannot get access to the roads is because you have no support. I bet there is very little resistance to a 10k because the thousands of people (probably those making the descision or the immediate family) who run and WHO ARE GIVEN ACCESS TO RUNNING RACES will support it. Those making the descisions probably don't even know anybody that races bikes. And don't count on those who 'ride' bikes for support. They generally like 'racers' even less.

"If the community doubled or tripled, we're still talking about a very, very small group of people, completely and utterly dwarfed by people who don't want their roads blocked." We are also completely and utterly dwarfed by the running and Tri communities.

"There are more of us, but we aren't any better liked." What's to like. The only contact the general population has (or thinks they have) is either having the road blocked by packs or being buzzed by street/path racers.

Do you belong to a team/club? How much does that team/club contribute to bike advocacy groups? Clubs for rec riders give thousands or tens of thousands of $ every year and they have a voice.

Remember, I am not saying that we should change racing to become more accepted, only that we face the reality if we don't. "Road racing has very little future as other than a niche sport that is barely tolerated by the community at large." I guess you have made that descision for yourself and here I agree with you.

TF


----------



## Gary Tingley (Mar 15, 2004)

TT racing is the answer. It gets new cyclists and triathletes into the sport. HUGE in SoCal. I run a web site and TT series, http://socalttseries.com/, check it out - we have fun and encourage new participants.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

I agree that the European system is better for high performance development.

Look at all of our race schedules here, everyone gets a 45 minute crit or 60 mile RR because the organizer has six or seven frickin' fields! Everyone wants to be a winner, or they whine.

In Europe, one race for amateurs. 200km RR or 100km if a Kermesse. The 'categories' will be sorted out at the finish.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

To mix it up at high speeds at close proximity with a bunch of other unprotected bodies takes a high level of skill, I agree. There are several distinct sets of skills -- there are skills that you have, there are skills that you aspire to, and then there are skills that you may even think you know something about but until you really have them down, you don't sh*t. And then there are skills that you don't even know about yet. Cycling is rife with the last two categories.
I think that many endeavors have these same distinct skill levels, but not with the same level of danger. And a current pet peeve is the people that think that they have it all going on but maybe they really don't. I'm nursing a cracked pelvis right now because a Cat 1 pulled off the front, a Cat 3 didn't want to pull and pulled off clumsily, causing a Cat 2 to lock his brakes, which in turn caused a bunch of Cat 2's, 3's, and 4's to pile up at 30 mph.
It's hard because it's hard. Maybe that's the bottom line.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

And I think we should keep it hard.

The worst thing that happens when you see a Master or women's 4 group is that they all ride around at the same speed. This is not development, and it is not sport. That is touring.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

> The worst thing that happens when you see a Master or women's 4 group is that they all ride around at the same speed.


Re: Masters. Masters racing around me (DC), or at least in the 40+ and 30+ fields, is hard. Sometimes the race goes tactical, and it's not that hard, but I know for myself that they are usually harder than 3/4 races, and I have it on good authority that, on the whole, they are as hard as, albeit shorter than, the 1/2/3 races.
Gotta defend the old guys.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

TurboTurtle said:


> Remember, I am not saying that we should change racing to become more accepted, only that we face the reality if we don't. "Road racing has very little future as other than a niche sport that is barely tolerated by the community at large." I guess you have made that descision for yourself and here I agree with you.
> 
> TF


Same with auto racing... how many amateur open road races are there... like NONE. A few random time trials on very deserted roads (i.e. the closed-road TT out in Ely NV). But no wheel to wheel racing on public streets, unless it's a professional event (i.e. Long Beach GP, etc.).

Bike racing is dangerous and takes a high degree of skill. So yeah, it's inherently a niche sport. Same with yacht racing, equestrian, etc. I think that's OK. 

As far as the advocacy groups go... that *should* be the role of USA cycling. We are talking about racing on public road advocacy, not more bike lane advocacy, right? Shouldn't some of my annual license fee go to advocacy (dunno if it does, just throwing this out there).


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

[/QUOTE]I am not saying that we should change racing to become more accepted, only that we face the reality if we don't. "Road racing has very little future as other than a niche sport that is barely tolerated by the community at large." I guess you have made that descision for yourself and here I agree with you.


> Do you really see an alternative? I think you're dreaming. The alternative is not more group rides with numbers -- they already exist, and they are a different thing altogether.
> Our culture may or may not ever decide to accept cycling as a sport. Right now it is tolerated at best. Sometimes. Not that often.
> I look at soccer. Every little kid who was born after 1970 has spent like a bazillion hours playing soccer, and mom and dad have tripled that time investment by carting the little darlings back and forth to wherever. There are travel teams for 8 y/o's, for heavens sake. And soccer is still a total also-ran as a spectator sport and as a sport for anyone old enough to shave more than once a week. Our culture just doesn't accept it.
> Cycling is a perfect sport for older folks -- easy on the joints, gear to love, etc., etc. Yet it, too, remains sidelined by b-ball, baseball,and the king of them all, football. We like to watch, I guess.
> ...


----------



## benInMA (Jan 22, 2004)

TurboTurtle said:


> I think that you have outlined two (not the only two) different 'sides' of this thread. Those, like yourself, who are competitive the way it is and think that change is bad and everybody else is just a whiner and those who cannot compete and think that there should be an entry level where they can be competitive. Argue on. (I probable would have to side with the whiners.)
> 
> TF


There is nothing about the "way it is" that makes some of us competitive and some of us not competitive. Everyone has a different idea about cycling. If we had a category below Cat 5 there would still be some people who show up ready to kick butt.

Rider A:
- Gets a bike, rides it 2-3 times a week
- Signs up for a race 2 months later after watching the TdF and getting excited about racing as a fun idea

Rider B:
- Gets a bike, rides it alone for 2 months
- Joins a rec club, goes on rec rides for the next 6 months
- Starts riding with a co-worker who used to race and is still fast, gets pointers, starts going out every day at lunch and again on the weekends
- Reads some training literature
- Does some centuries, hill climbs, mountain bike races, etc..things that have a lower barrier to entry
- Hears about the local racing club, shows up for a hard group ride with a bunch of Cat 2/3/4/5 racers, gets totally shelled the first few times but realizes this is fun
- Finally feels comfortable and ready to try a Cat 5 race after about 3 years of riding.

If A and B make their debut in any kind of race no matter what the rules are, Rider A is going to get shelled off the back and Rider B is likely to just fine in the pack, ride at the front, maybe even podium on their first try.

There are going to be "Rider B" types no matter what happens, some people just have a larger commitment level before they finally start racing.

Cycling probably can't get much bigger anyway. (In New England) Our fields are almost always full, our races have to start at like 8AM and they sometimes go till 3-4 at night, a long time for the town to have to put up with us. We clog up the roads around Boston at night with our group rides, cars have a hard time passing 30+mph packs on country roads, some of the towns have anti-group-ride laws on the books, etc.. Cycling is not a totally individual sport like running, some level of group riding is required for training, there is a limit to how big and inclusive it can get.

Someone mentioned motorcycle racing. The way it works here is you would get a license (some people fail here, tough luck), get a motorcycle, ride it around on the street, you either meet up with a bunch of idiots who just cause trouble, or you meet up with a group that is track focused and has some racers involved in it. First you go to club track days, get tips from the instructors who are likely racers. (Some people fail or crash at this stage and are done, tough luck) Then if you show promise at the club track days you go to a racing school at the track The school is run by the same group that controls access to the track. If you fail the school or they are in any way concerned you wil not be given a racing license, tough luck. If you pass the school you are eligible for the local races, and they have a category system just like bicycle racing. When you move up to the highest category in local races, you would probably start visiting other tracks, at which point you may put in a license request for a regional or national racing series.

Bicycling has to fit into a model more like car or motorcycle racing then running or Triathlon. If Bicycling got as big as running we would probably be told we have to get off the street, just like the car and motorcycle races. We'd end up having to go to tracks or private courses, and there would probably be even more strict licensing then there is now due to the danger.

Luckily the physical aspect of bicycle racing keeps it small enough that we haven't had those issues yet.


----------



## benInMA (Jan 22, 2004)

Val_Garou said:


> Finally, if its such a terrible thing to "baby" newcomers with beginner-oriented races, why are we still coddling those riders designated 3/2/1? Why not throw everyone in together, fields broken into safe sizes alphebetically, and let the hardest, strongest, baddest men win?


1) The Danger involved in doing so. If you throw everyone in together it is clearly more dangerous

2) USA Cycling among others had decided the tiered system offers the best/most enjoyable competition and also provides the best mechanism for identifying promising riders who should move up to the Pro/National/Olympic/Whatever ranks.

If you mix everyone together you are going to have a lot harder time finding the next Lance Armstrong if you can never tell how good a field is.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Baloney. The next Lance will be the kid that can hang onto a 1/2 wheel at the end of a 200km open class race.

If you coddle the 3s, Espoirs, and Juniors in 80km RRs and 45 minute crits, you'll never develop them enough to see this result.

The problem with all of the tiers is that eveyone races the same speed. I am sure that in every community, the future olympian/pro always came on at the Junior scene and had to win Pro/1/2 races as that was the only place to race hard. Lemond. Bauer. Phinney. This is a North American problem.

Europe: Races are longer and harder.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*bike riding*



tobu said:


> When I was in Switzerland, there were really only two categories for men -- amateur and elite. To even race amateur, you had to be pretty darn good, the equivalent of an American Category 2 or 3. At the Elite level everryone pretty much had a stipend or salary and you could easily be lining up against riders like Camenzind or Rominger. You wouldn't even think about taking out a license unless you had shown your ability in various club rides and races.
> 
> Thinking about the American system, I would say that the currently acceptable standards for Category 5 aren't high enough. Bike racing is not like running or triathlons -- it is a sport that an individual can seriously injure other competitors, not just yourself. In Northern California we have a series of clinics for beginning racers, but I still believe there are way too many unskilled racers in the beginning fields. I'm only guessing, but I would bet that the minimum standards to even be let into a beginning motorcycle race at a track are much higher than what is seen in bicycle racing.
> 
> ...


The challenge is not how hard to ride. The challenge is making a sport interesting and oh by the way, fun.

All of it is bike riding. When you encounter the twisted cry for help, ""bike racing is not bike riding", it all gets a bit...well.......stupid.

Face it, we have the local guy who thinks they are the next Merckx and they show up at a local unrated event and delightfully, get shelled by yardsale Bike Bob. Its great, its fun and oh yeah, it is riding a bike.

There is nothig easy about this sport, its one of if not the hardest, but after a few months, I think its really really obvious and there is no need to point that out. It is the team or individual who believes they need to let everyone know the glory of "their" sport. Yeah, it is their sport. They can have it. In fact, I would bet money that this neurosis is the basis of pretty much all of the new guy or gal angst just to try and start. Sadly, what all the sad sad folks do not get is that a structured training plan with a set goal would pretty much shell half of these bozos. 

I will be riding a bike.......which by the way, is fun.


----------



## Squint (Jan 22, 2004)

Spunout said:


> Baloney. The next Lance will be the kid that can hang onto a 1/2 wheel at the end of a 200km open class race.
> 
> If you coddle the 3s, Espoirs, and Juniors in 80km RRs and 45 minute crits, you'll never develop them enough to see this result.


I was going to say the same thing but was too lazy to post.

I don't think there should be as many categories as there are right now. Maybe pro, amateur, women, and masters 45+, and some juniors categories. Having too many categories encourages sandbagging, negative racing, and rewards those who don't train to ride at a higher level.

If there were to be 3/4/5 categories, they should be based on weekly training hours rather than placings, which would be impossible to implement.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

> All of it is bike riding. When you encounter the twisted cry for help, ""bike racing is not bike riding", it all gets a bit...well.......stupid.
> 
> Face it, we have the local guy who thinks they are the next Merckx and they show up at a local unrated event and delightfully, get shelled by yardsale Bike Bob. Its great, its fun and oh yeah, it is riding a bike.


I love riding my bike, and it's why I got into racing. I have to say, though, that I'm not a particularly successful racer -- competent but decidedly unspectacular.
I then am surprised by how many racers who are much better than I am don't think of riding a bike as fun. They just don't think in those terms, about bike riding. They think racing is fun. I have had the discussion with more than a few of them on just this subject. So, I disagree.
And I myself certainly see a difference between racing and riding, even hard riding. They're different animals.
But, I confess that I'm not entirely sure what is your point.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*a little easier*



bill said:


> I love riding my bike, and it's why I got into racing. I have to say, though, that I'm not a particularly successful racer -- competent but decidedly unspectacular.
> I then am surprised by how many racers who are much better than I am don't think of riding a bike as fun. They just don't think in those terms, about bike riding. They think racing is fun. I have had the discussion with more than a few of them on just this subject. So, I disagree.
> And I myself certainly see a difference between racing and riding, even hard riding. They're different animals.
> But, I confess that I'm not entirely sure what is your point.


Have you ever asked yourself how hard would it be to race a bike without riding it? If we remove remote controls from the picture, riding a bike is well, gee, kind of what everyone needs to do in order to race or commute or etc etc

To create the purile distinction OH I RACE and you ride because my bodily wastes do not stink etc etc etc is snobbish, slitist and very very dishearteing to folks who just want to ride well. MAYBE EVEN DO A RACE WHILE RIDING THE BIKE

Woo hoo


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

> If you coddle the 3s, Espoirs, and Juniors in 80km RRs and 45 minute crits, you'll never develop them enough to see this result.
> The problem with all of the tiers is that eveyone races the same speed. I am sure that in every community, the future olympian/pro always came on at the Junior scene and had to win Pro/1/2 races as that was the only place to race hard. Lemond. Bauer. Phinney. This is a North American problem.


Huh? What the hell are you talking about? The system that you deride has produced how many Americans in the top 15 at the Tour?
There are so many things wrong with what I think you're saying that I don't know where to begin.
Cat 2 Juniors are around, man. Anyone that has the talent and the drive to go through the ranks goes through. What the category system does IS to broaden the sport's appeal, while the cream still rises. Real talent doesn't spend very long as a Cat 4 or even a Cat 3, whatever the environment, and no one "sandbags" as a Cat 2.
So, like, what's your point?
People are having trouble communicating on this subject, it seems.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

Riding a bike is necessary to bike racing. I get it.
But this whole thread is about changing bicycle racing to broaden its appeal to the relative masses who are more keen on riding than they are on racing, and I don't get that. If you want to ride, ride. If you want to race, race. Some people do both. They are not, however, entirely overlapping subsets of people who own bikes. So what?
What is the problem, people?
I don't get how this is elitist anything. It is what it is. I love group rides. In my club, I'm one of the few who enjoys charity rides, and riding on the bike trails, and organized event rides. I like to ride my bike. But racing is a different animal, and I just don't see the point in making races more like riding so that more people who like to ride can say that they pinned on a number in a non-race. I don't get it. People who like to ride are not necessarily the same people who like to race, and people who like to race are not necessarily the same people who like to ride for pleasure. This is news?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*excellent point*



bill said:


> Riding a bike is necessary to bike racing. I get it.
> But this whole thread is about changing bicycle racing to broaden its appeal to the relative masses who are more keen on riding than they are on racing, and I don't get that. If you want to ride, ride. If you want to race, race. Some people do both. They are not, however, entirely overlapping subsets of people who own bikes. So what?
> What is the problem, people?
> I don't get how this is elitist anything. It is what it is. I love group rides. In my club, I'm one of the few who enjoys charity rides, and riding on the bike trails, and organized event rides. I like to ride my bike. But racing is a different animal, and I just don't see the point in making races more like riding so that more people who like to ride can say that they pinned on a number in a non-race. I don't get it. People who like to ride are not necessarily the same people who like to race, and people who like to race are not necessarily the same people who like to ride for pleasure. This is news?


It looks like you got it, at least again IMO.

Much of the tip toeing is the cold hard fact that gee, people lose races. Kind of like the entire point of the act I thought. You show up, there is a race. Someone wins and everyone else does not. They lost. They did not win. Here is a straw, suck it up etc etc etc etc 

Many of the current issues are around folks who show up at the charity event and ride like they are "racing". In reality, they ride like they are chimps on acid who have no bike handling skills and IMO, again, IMO, are trying to get someone killed.

Wouldnt it be a knee slapping yarn to take these folks and stick them in a CAT3 event and just watch the wheels fly. My guess (JUST A GUESS) would be they would also be the very very first to ask a ref to DQ someone for rude behavior.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

of course, _all _ of this is killing me right now, because I'm sitting with my cracked pelvis next to my little cane, and I can't race OR ride. 
ARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Apologies, we have mixed up bike riding with racing. I was speaking totally to racing at the development level.

Bike riding is great, go on a tour.


----------



## benInMA (Jan 22, 2004)

bill said:


> Huh? What the hell are you talking about? The system that you deride has produced how many Americans in the top 15 at the Tour?
> There are so many things wrong with what I think you're saying that I don't know where to begin.
> Cat 2 Juniors are around, man. Anyone that has the talent and the drive to go through the ranks goes through. What the category system does IS to broaden the sport's appeal, while the cream still rises. Real talent doesn't spend very long as a Cat 4 or even a Cat 3, whatever the environment, and no one "sandbags" as a Cat 2.
> So, like, what's your point?
> People are having trouble communicating on this subject, it seems.


Apparently there are a lot of people who don't know anyone who went from Cat 5 to Cat 2 in a year. They are certainly out there, hang around long enough and you run into them.

My perception of this thread is that a lot of the complainers who are saying racing is elitist and not inclusive enough have not spent enough time racing. My experience is you are FAR more likely to run into a punk with a huge ego on the recreational group ride, the organized century, or in Cat 5 then any level of racing above that. There are always a few jerks out there at every level but in general people seem to get nicer and more levelheaded the further they go up the ladder. Maybe I am just really lucky but I feel far more included since I joined a team and got more into racing. It is far more fun, people care more about you and are willing to help you if you are nice, etc, etc.. the only negative is I am definitely more likely to overtrain when I've got a bunch of teammates who are feeding the excitement.

The whole "racing is elitist" thing to me just strikes me as a bunch of BS. Like people are overly sensitive and looking for an excuse. The hardest riders I've met are going to be nice and care about you as long as you do the following: a) Do not cause anyone danger b) Put in your best effort c) Are somewhat friendly. No one has ever really sneered at me or made fun of me or anything, even the few pros I met as a lowly Cat 5.

This just isn't a sport that supports the giant egos and end zone dances like some of the American Stick and Ball sports. (Maybe it is different in Europe though)


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

ttug said:


> Much of the tip toeing is the cold hard fact that gee, people lose races. Kind of like the entire point of the act I thought. You show up, there is a race. Someone wins and everyone else does not. They lost. They did not win. Here is a straw, suck it up etc etc etc etc


Oddly, when I started this thread, it was less about lowering the bar and more about contrasting it with the tri/running worlds. Aside from the risk of drowning (only tri death around here in recent memory), tris are much safer than bike racing, and with marathons, there is no comparision- (although the diversity of participants that can result in the odd heart attack here and there).

I do have some ambivalence about riding friends who talk about racing, yet are "afraid" to actually try one. Maybe that says all they need to say- that they don't feel ready- and therefore shouldn't race. Again, this is more of a non-issue in running/triathlons...


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Okay, racing isn't elitist. It is selective.

Tri/Marathons are not selective in the same sense.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*the summary is wrong*



filtersweep said:


> That probably sums up this entire thread better than anything.


Yeah, its a summary. A summary of the freak show called local racing.

Look, you find me a donut munching sub 5 hour solo century rider and I will get you your dedicated CAT5 super dooper popper scooper ego guy who will get his buttocks handed to him by Krispy Kreme dude. Wake up and stop p8ushing people away. Folkks who race and folks who do not want to race do not have to be vastly different in skill. Isnty it just faintly possible that GASP, people ride to ride well and not to be the "best in some made up category for the neurotic folks who cant handle losing....." Give me a break.

Thank God I ride solo.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

> Wake up and stop p8ushing people away. Folkks who race and folks who do not want to race do not have to be vastly different in skill. Isnty it just faintly possible that GASP, people ride to ride well and not to be the "best in some made up category for the neurotic folks who cant handle losing....." Give me a break.


Why all the attitude? I don't think anyone here has said that racers are inherently better . . . anything than people who don't race. If you see it, point it out, because I don't. I know people who don't race but who regularly mix it up with racers on some faster group rides. I'm quite sure that in speed and skill, they can match many a Cat 3, 4, or, certainly, 5, certainly if they trained. But, they don't want to race, so they don't. So what? 
Doesn't that prove the point that racing is a different animal? Not better. Just different. It is definitely more physically and mentally demanding than rec riding. But, so what? If you want to put in the time, you do, if you don't, you don't. This is news? It is what it is.
Some racers think that their sh*t don't stink, but that's not so common, and it's a personal problem, as some others have pointed out.
I'm still not sure what this is about. You don't seem to want to race, or associate yourself with racers, which is a little sub-community of riders, so, don't. But lose the complex.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*complex complex*



bill said:


> Why all the attitude? I don't think anyone here has said that racers are inherently better . . . anything than people who don't race. If you see it, point it out, because I don't. I know people who don't race but who regularly mix it up with racers on some faster group rides. I'm quite sure that in speed and skill, they can match many a Cat 3, 4, or, certainly, 5, certainly if they trained. But, they don't want to race, so they don't. So what?
> Doesn't that prove the point that racing is a different animal? Not better. Just different. It is definitely more physically and mentally demanding than rec riding. But, so what? If you want to put in the time, you do, if you don't, you don't. This is news? It is what it is.
> Some racers think that their sh*t don't stink, but that's not so common, and it's a personal problem, as some others have pointed out.
> I'm still not sure what this is about. You don't seem to want to race, or associate yourself with racers, which is a little sub-community of riders, so, don't. But lose the complex.


Its not a complex, its a syndrome..............Otherwise I agree.


----------



## chipped teeth (Apr 18, 2005)

*Occams Razor?*



Val_Garou said:


> Ok, I was afraid this new group thing would take the discussion afield. I'll happily abandon it, esp. in favor of things like mandatory upgrades out of 5, and probably (ok, almost certainly) out of 4 as well, and not running races with 4/5 packs. It's also the Occam's razor of solutions.


Doesn't Occam's Razor refer to explanations for events that have occurred, rather than obvious theoretical solutions?


----------



## jason.gonzalez.jagce (7 mo ago)

benInMA said:


> Apparently there are a lot of people who don't know anyone who went from Cat 5 to Cat 2 in a year. They are certainly out there, hang around long enough and you run into them.
> 
> My perception of this thread is that a lot of the complainers who are saying racing is elitist and not inclusive enough have not spent enough time racing. My experience is you are FAR more likely to run into a punk with a huge ego on the recreational group ride, the organized century, or in Cat 5 then any level of racing above that. There are always a few jerks out there at every level but in general people seem to get nicer and more levelheaded the further they go up the ladder. Maybe I am just really lucky but I feel far more included since I joined a team and got more into racing. It is far more fun, people care more about you and are willing to help you if you are nice, etc, etc.. the only negative is I am definitely more likely to overtrain when I've got a bunch of teammates who are feeding the excitement.
> 
> ...


Your mention of "lowly Cat5" epitomizes the ongoing state of the problems and decline of road racing in general.


----------



## Finx (Oct 19, 2017)

That thread has been dead for nearly 17 years.


----------

