I think we're basically all in agreement here. Sucky situation, probably could have been handled better.

Though Eloy seems to place more blame on the doorstep of USA Cycling. He says, "When there's an event of this stature, it's your job to know about all the variables, plan for them and be ready." Myles says, "USA Cycling did, they were ready, but those crackpots dropped an effing nuclear bomb on us like 5 minutes before race time, and there was no way to engage any of the contingency plans."

I for one am excited at the prospect of potentially having to race over fewer tree roots in the future. Haha. Just kidding. Kind of.

Myles said:

You still ain't picking up what I'm putting down

That's because what you're putting down is irrelevant and diversionary.

No!
No no no no no
You fix&ing morons!!!!?!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! My subliminal brilliance is WASTED on your inferior intellects!!!!

And they wonder why I drink

Arg

Now, to get back to the old topic.

Cross nats. Correct on all counts. But does this mean the standard of contingency planning is a fully loaded alternate venue ready to go on ten minutes notice?

Thats an unattainable standard.

In my mind were after long standing mutually beneficial relationships with land owners. With cross nats being currently a one year stand alone event, we don't have that.

Furthermore appropriately scaled is hard, as nationals is likely twice as bigbir four times as big as a good regional event and damage can be weather related. But still that point is completetly valid, a test event sure isn't going to hurt.

Crackpots is completely valid. Sorry. Let's look at the facts. Midnight calls to action? Check. Ignoring of existing contracts mandating repair of damage? Check. Not comprehending or caring about a multi million dollar event and just assuming "everyone can come back next week" check. Going "oh. Yeah. Y'all l move away from the trees? K. Yeah thats works". Check.

Radicals, fanatics, nutjobs, what have you. You need to realize that two people can get an entire bike race to cease the exist for whatever cockamamie reason they can come up with. Especially cross because there is GOING to be unsightly " damage " to the venue. Absolutely guaranteed. And it needs time to repair. Which is exactly what we don't have in the north east because the growing season is over.

Gwynna Smith said:

I'm interested in the "boring racing" part - 'cause I remember the same claims after last year. And since I tend to watch things like cross nats while on the trainer, I, too, was bored with last year. Soooo, why do we keep having boring races? Is it really because we have the same course designer, or is there more? And what can we do to fix it?

cross races are generally boring to watch on TV. Even the Belgian ones with lots of cameras. Unlike stick and ball sports where TV provides the best view. There is no way to truly get the big picture watching on TV.

Also, watching from the pits, where Myles provided his assessment of the racing? I almost never stand near the pits when onsite. A few exceptions, but mostly not good spectating from the pits. IMO.

Part of what's making the racing both here and in Europe "boring" is that you are seeing, once the first two laps or so are done, the major places pretty much decided. Here, you've got Powers off the front, with a solid gap, then the rest of podium chasing from behind.

In Europe, it's kind of the same deal.

I have to say that for lead changes, real chases (as opposed to racers settling in to hold their position for the last 1/2 of the race), the Elite women this year, at least in New England, were putting on the best shows. Legitimately exciting stuff. And since JPow was largely absent from New England this year (choosing only to race C1 races), the Elite Men were putting on some pretty good shows as well.

BUT...even when watching a "boring" race like Nats this year, I get excited by the implication of what I'm seeing, and what that says about the future. Namely, if Powers was on his A game, then Jon Page hasn't raced this well in like 2 years. At bigger races this year, Page struggled at Gloucester and Providence. 12th, 18th, 9th, 6th. So for him to be going blow for blow with Powers at Nats? Was pretty exciting for me to see.

I'm going to post a video I watched the other day where Sven Nys, Powers and Page get into it a bit through a tricky section. Page has enough of that BS and puts them both in his rear view mirror. It was cool to see.

But yeah, while doing the training, the Euro races are not that exciting, but then again, I don't want it to be too exciting, I don't like to get too distracted from the business at hand.

All of the above.

The point is sort of important. Racing your bike is inherently fun. So no
one comes back from a decent cyclocross race and says they had a bad time.
So I think people think the courses being made are good.

But fewer people go to races and today they had an awesome time and saw
incredible racing. That's the difference.
Frankly im usually concerned with designing courses that produce great
racing. Thats just way more important to the final product
On Jan 17, 2015 7:50 PM, "Gwynna Smith" <

re: boring course.

BUT.

There wasn't racing in the top fifteen. No groups. Single dudes chasing
single dudes around. Yawn
On Jan 18, 2015 8:31 AM, "mugwump" <

We should want to create races that result in interested spectators. It is
the only way the sport Will grow
On Jan 18, 2015 10:16 AM, "Gwynna Smith" <

On the screen, if there is a group together after a lap or two and the racing is lively, or if there are spots on the course that are interesting enough that its fun to see the riders do them multiple times, I'll keep watching.

If its a snore (like Nats was) I'll often shut it off and just watch the Sveness episode.

On the other hand, live I'll watch race after race and make myself late getting home.

I think one of the best rules the UCI ever made was a minimum course width. This way, in theory, you have more opportunity for passing, allowing riders to choose alternate lines, etc.

Narrow courses, necessarily creates a follow-the-leader dynamic that leads to the kind of racing that Gwynna mentions. From her description (1/2 roots, 1/2 grass crit), I would have thought she was talking about Northampton. Marty does have two passes around/over trees (Heritage trees?), and the steep off cambers and climbs make it a power-to-weight, no drafting affair, but...anyway.

My big gripe with most courses this year and in years past (including highly respected courses, with highly respected course designers and race promoters like Providence and Northampton) is a ridiculous holeshot narrowing that, less than 1 minute into the race force everyone to "hurry up and wait."

And probably the best part of Myles' course design at Supercross, was ironically the last feature planned for. Namely the prologue starts. Yeah there were a couple of curbs (but they were totally manageable even for me), but that shit stayed wide and fair for a long time. Watch the video highlights on Dirtwire.tv, you'll see what I mean. And so by the time riders hit the first tight turn, there was plenty of time to make a move, if the legs had it.

In stark contrast, Myerson's Cyclesmart starts wide enough (per UCI regs, natch), but after a loop around a baseball diamond, then a pavement straightaway that is immediately preceded by a tight turn, we're all funnelled into a wall of a run up, where everyone BUT the top 10 guys are literally standing still, waiting at the bottom for their turn to go up the hill.

Or at Providence, gunning for World Cup status in 2017, we go from 4 lane superhighway and get funneled into a curb jump onto 2 lanes of grass not 15 seconds after the gun. So many crashes there this year. Why they did this with much more "superhighway" pavement available to them as in years past is somewhat of a mystery. I heard it had something to do with course crossings, and/or rider access to starting grid.

I could go on and on. I've done 65 cross races in the last 3 seasons, and I've got opinions on every one of them.

The fact of the matter is that if we want to see more group racing, courses actually need to be made easier, not harder as the trend as been.

When you have wide open grassy sections, with no roots or off cambers or whatever, you give riders an opportunity to draft. Sit in, catch up, whatever. But the second you throw in tricky single track, off cambers, run ups, etc., you are forcing a selection that the riders themselves have not necessarily chosen. In a road race, a rider chooses to attack here or there. And that happens in cross too, but a selection is also forced upon them when one's technical skills are put to the limit. That just doesn't happen as much on the road. Yes, in a technical crit like Burlington, or a hilly RR, the course plays a bigger part in the selections than most.

So really there are just conflicting dynamics that will always be a struggle for fans, course designers. Racers want "interesting" courses, fans want more lead changes, more battles. Racers want a mountain bike course, but want to watch a crit later in the day. It's an almost unresolvable conflict of interest.

It's hard to have both on a single course. I guess that's one reason that Gwynna likes Marty (and in theory, should like Northampton too.). If there's a course all year that lends itself to group racing, it has to be Nittany. That was the grass crit of all grass crits. But even on more technical courses like Supercross, with the right mix of riders, you can have a lot of group racing. I was watching a bit with Garrigan on day 1 and I think we were both surprised to see such a large group racing together for so long. But that I think came down to who was there.

Timmerman and Dodge are legit A-list contenders, but when guys like (and no disrespect intended) Dylan McNicholas, Robert Marion, Anthony Clarke and Christian Favata are legitimately racing for podium (even Kyle Murphy was 11th on day 1), then you know you are dealing with a pretty tight group of fitness/skill levels. That is a group of guys who are really not that close to Powers and Page in performance level.

Powers, Page, Trebon (when on form), Driscoll (when on form), etc, those guys are at least 1/2 a notch above the rest. And even at medium big races, like Northampton (most A-listers were contesting a C1 that weekend in the midwest), you saw that play out in the race itself.

On day 1 of Cyclesmart, Northampton, for example, two "podium" guys from Nats pretty quickly separated themselves from the chasers. Timmerman and Stephen Hyde. In the end, Pro mountain biker, Adam Craig put in a hero effort to chase back and eventually pass and drop Timmerman for second. But Hyde still finished that race 43 seconds in front of second place.

The irony here is that at Natz, I think Page would argue if the course had been muddier and more technical, he would have had a better chance at catching back after his flat where he lost the horsepower war.

I don't know, I'll no doubt have lots of bloviating to do about the nats course next year (because yes, I'm going, for sure.) But I have to say that I'm "mostly satisfied" with where and what cross racing is in this country. Next year should be good. If we could get Trebon back in shape, Page is reportedly going to be racing domestically, Summerhill away from his road committments, then we could have 4 or 5 guys legitimately going for the win. Which would be better than what they have going on in Europe these days.

There weren't any super technical sections of the course at nats. There
were no ",I can blitz this shit and make up two seconds" sections.
Partially due to design, partially due to damage. I'm interested in
seeing all the lap times. Powers told me all his laps were nearly
identical.
On Jan 18, 2015 11:29 AM, "Marc Bertucco" <

PS Also part of what makes for good spectating, I think is the look of terror as riders negotiate steep/trick off cambers and the like. That kind of thing rarely shows up on camera. #somanyconflicts

Finally watched the elite men's race.  

This is why I keep having this discussion.

The only logical plan is a test event prior. But even that might not
work.

Ttbomk USAC DID do course walk through post each day with the park
department.

The failure seems to have been either no one called heritage tree, or
enforced the city ordinances about such.

Now you could argue that USAC should have somehow gotten in touch with
these people. To me, slightly above and beyond, as the implication is now
locating and reaching out to potentially hundreds of unknown groups
somehow. Sadly relying on the city may have been lazy, but is accepted
practice across the board for every Cyclocross event I've ever been to.

The other scenario is Gloucester. That wasn't even an organized group, but
merely a collection of people that were pissed off their park got beaten
up. But it's not their park. And the people whose park it was said it
was OK to race. But what ever I digress.

So if we have a fully loaded second course set and ready, well...what
then? Does THAT course need a test event too? And then what....it never
have ends.

That course in Austin likely cost.....well...a lot. By the time cameras
are set you're talking close to 100k.

But what about sponsors? So now people have to break their shit down AND
set it up across town.

Or have a completely redundant second set of shit to have at the ready just
in case.

Alternate courses are not for this scenario. Alternate courses are for
supercross '10scenario, where the venue is KO'd a week or a day or two out
and you have to adjust. Except we couldnt because Sandy.

Due diligence in contract and venue negotiations is the way to go.
On Jan 18, 2015 12:27 PM, "mugwump" <

I just want the record to reflect my disappointment at absolutely no one
getting my "rider fifteen" reference.

Moving on. I don't understand it. Its not like it should be a surprise
that accidents happen on the start line of cross races. Or that people
going really really fast on a wide road and getting funneled into a much
thinner road is also potentially disastrous.

For most of the UCI promoters it is not our first trip to the rodeo.

It's always just made sense to have as long and wide a start straight as
possible. And a pit located relatively soon thereafter.

But so many races don't do that it's really sort of surprising.

As for the questions on terrain and conditions and features, cross is
really about exploiting what you have. But it also seems to me that by
providing a wonderfully varied course with both the space to recover and 4
or 5 sections to completly blitz you allow someone like favata the ability
to ride with timmerman assuming he is ready to drop the hammer and take a
few risks. Which usually isn't a problem.
On Jan 18, 2015 5:58 PM, "Gwynna Smith" <

An impressively data-driven review of nearly every road crank out there: https://fairwheelbikes.com/c/reviews-and-testing/road-bike-crank-testing/?utm_source=Fairwheel+Bikes+List&utm_campaign=cc992752fd-2015_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_514d9b6c53-cc992752fd-410545649

Lance has responded...

Centurian down!
http://ow.ly/KTs0p
[Edit] Utter carnage:
http://www.cyclingfans.com/node/17676
http://www.cyclingfans.com/node/17668
http://www.cyclingfans.com/node/17672
http://www.cyclingfans.com/node/17671
http://www.cyclingfans.com/node/17669

Him and Boonen out of the monuments ,
Im putting a pony on Stybar for flanders and Vanmarke for Roubaix

Maybe there is just much more video available these days...or maybe I'm just getting old...but when I watch some of these races lately and I see mountain descents with no guard rails or some of these narrow descents with no shoulder (road into San Remo) I'm shocked and have new level of respect for these guys.  I know they are getting paid but between the questionable "dr.s" they are using and the inherent danger of the sport....I would rather be an accountant...no offense to any accountants on these boards.

Sure, this checks out: Specialized's new Zertz Command Cockpit