Jun 24, 2016 at 05:09 PM
$10 on Vos the Hos
In Print: Articles of Interest
Jun 24, 2016 at 05:16 PM
Wise bet but still not the point i was trying to make.
Jun 24, 2016 at 07:47 PM
Jun 24, 2016 at 08:33 PM
^what kind of next level beyond fucking voodoo mind control evil genius search criteria does one use to find that gif?
Jun 25, 2016 at 11:29 AM
Does the Brexit mean I can get stuff on Wiggle even cheaper?????????????
Jun 25, 2016 at 05:25 PM
Sacre bleu
Jun 27, 2016 at 12:52 AM
srlsly
Jun 27, 2016 at 12:40 PM
Well with trek=pooh yeah that's probably right
Jun 27, 2016 at 01:42 PM
https://youtu.be/BgyqAD5Z6_A
Jun 28, 2016 at 01:54 AM
"...a five hour energy shot straight into his eye..."
Jun 28, 2016 at 05:06 AM
Been meaning to write this article for a while.
Feel free to respond on Twatter with comments/criticisms/ideas.
Feel free to respond on Twatter with comments/criticisms/ideas.
Jun 28, 2016 at 04:36 PM
Twatter is a poor forum for discussion. You've ignored several important aspects of the category system:Adam said:Been meaning to write this article for a while.
Feel free to respond on Twatter with comments/criticisms/ideas.
1) rider safety
2) the scourge of people refusing to upgrade to spite good results
3) course difficulty - at some point the Cat 1 race is a totally different event from the Cat 5 race, and categories serve to distinguish those
Lastly, the idea that a bike races is meant to be won - while obviously true - doesn't capture the essence of why the other 90 guys/gals are racing. This is the elephant in the room.
Should the system be aligned to the benefit of the 10 or the 90? I'd argue the 90 want to compete - they want to push themselves and they use the race as a tool for that. They need that race to be a) safe enough and b) appropriate difficulty
In both these cases categories serve us well.
Lastly you shouldn't horde your good ideas - we all know damn well that you have a crystal clear idea of how to improve the system in that big honking brain of yours - don't be afraid to share it!
Jun 28, 2016 at 05:12 PM
I must say i felt the same way. Rider safety really is the elephant in
that room. Winning is totally secondary, the TDF for example. Only two
guys on the planet are going to win it but tge circus continues
that room. Winning is totally secondary, the TDF for example. Only two
guys on the planet are going to win it but tge circus continues
Jun 28, 2016 at 10:05 PM
I appreciate the thought and effort.Adam said:Been meaning to write this article for a while.
Feel free to respond on Twatter with comments/criticisms/ideas.
However, I think your 10 out of 50 idea is too reductive. It allows you to make your point without acknowledging that reality is far more complex.
The course,the weather, and the riders all have an impact. Those 10 out of 50 change, increase, or decrease, depending. And if you double the field, by making the pro/1/2 field a pro/1/2/3, those ten are probably going to change, possibly increase, possibly decrease, because the racing dynamics will likely change as well.
The few places where i think it's possible for your theory to work out is in mountainous races that finish on a long climb and flat four-corner crits with no wind. In the former, the requirements are such that 5-20m w/kg is the deciding factor, in the latter, 15s-2m w/kg can be the deciding factor.
Everywhere else, I think it varies far more than you admit.
Jun 30, 2016 at 01:32 PM
Slipstream catches up with Axeon in the quest to eat more teams
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cannondale-to-merge-with-drapac-for-2017/
Slipstream has eaten: Cervelo Test Team, Cannondale Pro Cycling, Drapac
Axeon: Bissell, Hagens-Berman, Cal Giant/Specialized
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cannondale-to-merge-with-drapac-for-2017/
Slipstream has eaten: Cervelo Test Team, Cannondale Pro Cycling, Drapac
Axeon: Bissell, Hagens-Berman, Cal Giant/Specialized
Jun 30, 2016 at 03:04 PM
Jun 30, 2016 at 03:57 PM
Two more cycling mags bite the dust.
https://cyclingindustry.news/cycling-weekly-becomes-times-priority-as-road-portfolio-slims
https://cyclingindustry.news/cycling-weekly-becomes-times-priority-as-road-portfolio-slims
Jun 30, 2016 at 05:53 PM
@Jules- In the most part it seems that the sentiment is the same as in my article.
Regarding safety, I too agree that bike racing from amateur to professional should be as safe as plausible. However, I am unsure how you equate riders gaining more experience and progressing through the categories in a more methodical and slower manner as unsafe. I would argue the opposite, no? Additionally, I would argue that a rider who is in way over his head after upgrading to the P/1/2 field, for example, is much more of a liability than one who is perhaps ready to upgrade but has yet to make the jump. Descending, cornering and pack riding in the advanced fields is a massive challenge, one that presumably is easier to overcome with more experience and a slower progression. Definitely not the other way round (i.e. upgrade too fast then find yourself bombing down a mountain with riders way above your level). This also fits in to your notion that a Cat1 parcours is a totally different beast to a Cat5 one.
Regarding the "scourge" of people "refusing to upgrade"- that is patently a mistruth. Firstly, one can count the actual number of people who *should* upgrade (as per USAC rules) on fingers. How many Cat3 riders have accrued over 40 upgrade points in a 12 month period and obstinately refused to upgrade? Same for Cat3s or 4s? That is incredibly, incredibly rare. Furthermore, the "scourge" is easily overcome with a one line email to someone like Myles- problem fixed. That is the mandate of the USAC upgrade officials and there is a system to deal with this very rare circumstance.
Course difficulty- I agree entirely that the Cat1 races are much harder than the Cat5 ones. That was essentially my point- at each degree it just gets harder so premature upgrading is not helpful.
About the 90% in the race vs the 10%. This comes across as a little contradictory to your earlier statement that scourge of people who are winning lots is a big issue. If most people are just there to ride around (which I agree, they are, at least in the beginner categories) then why do they care if someone who won the last 5 races wins again? They were not in contention anyway? But, I digress, as stated, I am not convinced that the problem of people sandbagging to a major extent actually exists.
Finally- I am not sure if there are some crossed wires here? I very much agree that categories are a good thing and make the sport of amateur cycling better at what it is designed to do, i.e. get people on bikes. I have issue with the way that the very people it is designed to help and encourage seem to interpret it, i.e. the racers themselves. Hence, a good idea has been 'bastardised' and therefore has a massively reduced efficacy at what it is supposed to be for.
@mgwump- I agree that certain factors can alter who is favourite for the win. I am not massively convinced, however, that such factors as weather, for example, are much more than a modulator. Yes, some people do better in heat, some better in rain, but you don't get someone who scraped up to the next highest category with a variety of top-10 results who would otherwise be just pack-fill becoming a 5-star favourite with changing conditions.
Also, the number '10' was arbitrary. Might be more or might be less, dependent on a myriad of factors. Either way, I feel the point remains that categories serve to expand the overall pool of riders at an event who can do well. My point with that illustration was that categories are present for a purpose but are misinterpreted and thought to function for another (i.e. ego boosting, among others) purpose.
In brief, if up to me I would make changes not to the categories but how to get there. Also, seems that category 1 and 2 seems a little redundant. For all intents and purposes, Cat1 and 2 are more or less the same thing- could probably combine them. Some changes (or similar) that I would like to see more or less involve making upgrading more of a challenge and a longer process (think of it taking a few seasons not one season):
-Reduce upgrade points to the top 5 places only. If the best you can muster is 6th place I personally do not see that as evidence that you should be promoted to a more senior category.
-Make the upgrade points awards less linear to really promote those who are the best but to make those who scrape up less likely to hit the upgrade mark. For example, points might be awarded as something as follows
1st: 12 points
2nd: 6 points
3rd: 4 points
4th: 2 points
5th: 1 point
-I personally don't think that races with a field of less than 25 riders are a good event in which to award upgrade points. I understand that this raises a whole load of issues for promoters and race organisation (would people not attend a race if no upgrade points were on the line- perhaps? Having said that, that is the very attitude that this sort of change would hope to eradicate).
-I think that training races should be much better defined and I think that USAC should not take a cut/make an insurance surcharge at these events. Or something similar. They should be cheap and accessible and get support from USAC, not taxed. There should be a forum for people (the "90%" Jules) to race bikes where learning, development and training are the unequivocal focus. This does not of course mean that the 90% cannot enter more competitive races, but would provide a genuine set of "C races" for people to attend. These sort of events do exist but in reality the line between a training series and non-training series/races is very, very blurred.
-I'd like to see downgrades more of a thing. Not sure how that might work but for a start the term needs changing! It isn't a "downgrade", but a recalibration. There is nothing wrong at all with being good at bikes, taking a few years out for family/work/other and then starting in a less competitive field. Perhaps a model might work whereby if you downgrade, say from Cat2 to Cat3, as a previous Cat2, maybe if you chose to re-upgrade you only need to get half the required upgrade points? Or maybe not even that, maybe just 3 top-10 results in fields of over 25 riders or perhaps just proof of entry into 10 mass start events. The idea of "downgrading" should not be taboo but should be seen as a tool to employ to enhance you skills/development. I find it unlikely that people would abuse this (downgrade just to win in an easier field) as that could happen currently, but does not.
That is all...for now.
TL/DR - categories are good, riders misinterpret the system. System should be re-calibrated to better reflect ability and to try to limit the ego-centric element of amateur bike racing which runs counter to what amateur bike competition is all about.
Regarding safety, I too agree that bike racing from amateur to professional should be as safe as plausible. However, I am unsure how you equate riders gaining more experience and progressing through the categories in a more methodical and slower manner as unsafe. I would argue the opposite, no? Additionally, I would argue that a rider who is in way over his head after upgrading to the P/1/2 field, for example, is much more of a liability than one who is perhaps ready to upgrade but has yet to make the jump. Descending, cornering and pack riding in the advanced fields is a massive challenge, one that presumably is easier to overcome with more experience and a slower progression. Definitely not the other way round (i.e. upgrade too fast then find yourself bombing down a mountain with riders way above your level). This also fits in to your notion that a Cat1 parcours is a totally different beast to a Cat5 one.
Regarding the "scourge" of people "refusing to upgrade"- that is patently a mistruth. Firstly, one can count the actual number of people who *should* upgrade (as per USAC rules) on fingers. How many Cat3 riders have accrued over 40 upgrade points in a 12 month period and obstinately refused to upgrade? Same for Cat3s or 4s? That is incredibly, incredibly rare. Furthermore, the "scourge" is easily overcome with a one line email to someone like Myles- problem fixed. That is the mandate of the USAC upgrade officials and there is a system to deal with this very rare circumstance.
Course difficulty- I agree entirely that the Cat1 races are much harder than the Cat5 ones. That was essentially my point- at each degree it just gets harder so premature upgrading is not helpful.
About the 90% in the race vs the 10%. This comes across as a little contradictory to your earlier statement that scourge of people who are winning lots is a big issue. If most people are just there to ride around (which I agree, they are, at least in the beginner categories) then why do they care if someone who won the last 5 races wins again? They were not in contention anyway? But, I digress, as stated, I am not convinced that the problem of people sandbagging to a major extent actually exists.
Finally- I am not sure if there are some crossed wires here? I very much agree that categories are a good thing and make the sport of amateur cycling better at what it is designed to do, i.e. get people on bikes. I have issue with the way that the very people it is designed to help and encourage seem to interpret it, i.e. the racers themselves. Hence, a good idea has been 'bastardised' and therefore has a massively reduced efficacy at what it is supposed to be for.
@mgwump- I agree that certain factors can alter who is favourite for the win. I am not massively convinced, however, that such factors as weather, for example, are much more than a modulator. Yes, some people do better in heat, some better in rain, but you don't get someone who scraped up to the next highest category with a variety of top-10 results who would otherwise be just pack-fill becoming a 5-star favourite with changing conditions.
Also, the number '10' was arbitrary. Might be more or might be less, dependent on a myriad of factors. Either way, I feel the point remains that categories serve to expand the overall pool of riders at an event who can do well. My point with that illustration was that categories are present for a purpose but are misinterpreted and thought to function for another (i.e. ego boosting, among others) purpose.
In brief, if up to me I would make changes not to the categories but how to get there. Also, seems that category 1 and 2 seems a little redundant. For all intents and purposes, Cat1 and 2 are more or less the same thing- could probably combine them. Some changes (or similar) that I would like to see more or less involve making upgrading more of a challenge and a longer process (think of it taking a few seasons not one season):
-Reduce upgrade points to the top 5 places only. If the best you can muster is 6th place I personally do not see that as evidence that you should be promoted to a more senior category.
-Make the upgrade points awards less linear to really promote those who are the best but to make those who scrape up less likely to hit the upgrade mark. For example, points might be awarded as something as follows
1st: 12 points
2nd: 6 points
3rd: 4 points
4th: 2 points
5th: 1 point
-I personally don't think that races with a field of less than 25 riders are a good event in which to award upgrade points. I understand that this raises a whole load of issues for promoters and race organisation (would people not attend a race if no upgrade points were on the line- perhaps? Having said that, that is the very attitude that this sort of change would hope to eradicate).
-I think that training races should be much better defined and I think that USAC should not take a cut/make an insurance surcharge at these events. Or something similar. They should be cheap and accessible and get support from USAC, not taxed. There should be a forum for people (the "90%" Jules) to race bikes where learning, development and training are the unequivocal focus. This does not of course mean that the 90% cannot enter more competitive races, but would provide a genuine set of "C races" for people to attend. These sort of events do exist but in reality the line between a training series and non-training series/races is very, very blurred.
-I'd like to see downgrades more of a thing. Not sure how that might work but for a start the term needs changing! It isn't a "downgrade", but a recalibration. There is nothing wrong at all with being good at bikes, taking a few years out for family/work/other and then starting in a less competitive field. Perhaps a model might work whereby if you downgrade, say from Cat2 to Cat3, as a previous Cat2, maybe if you chose to re-upgrade you only need to get half the required upgrade points? Or maybe not even that, maybe just 3 top-10 results in fields of over 25 riders or perhaps just proof of entry into 10 mass start events. The idea of "downgrading" should not be taboo but should be seen as a tool to employ to enhance you skills/development. I find it unlikely that people would abuse this (downgrade just to win in an easier field) as that could happen currently, but does not.
That is all...for now.
TL/DR - categories are good, riders misinterpret the system. System should be re-calibrated to better reflect ability and to try to limit the ego-centric element of amateur bike racing which runs counter to what amateur bike competition is all about.
Jun 30, 2016 at 06:07 PM
There is a reason i dont do cat four events.
Cat fours are that reason.
Be it through experience, education, or Darwinism there is less stupidity
at higher levels.
Mmmm.... perhaps more consistent less surprising stupidity. Yes, thats
probably fair.
The real issue isnt rapid upgrades. Its slow ones.
Usac is wisely allowing three years of points for upgrades now, just in
case there is a single t-utilizing-non-podium-contesting masters aged rider
that hasn't received a hand job from the feds yet.
So now the knuckleheads trying for ego uogrades aren't even good enough to
get said upgrade in twelve months. Oy.
Cat fours are that reason.
Be it through experience, education, or Darwinism there is less stupidity
at higher levels.
Mmmm.... perhaps more consistent less surprising stupidity. Yes, thats
probably fair.
The real issue isnt rapid upgrades. Its slow ones.
Usac is wisely allowing three years of points for upgrades now, just in
case there is a single t-utilizing-non-podium-contesting masters aged rider
that hasn't received a hand job from the feds yet.
So now the knuckleheads trying for ego uogrades aren't even good enough to
get said upgrade in twelve months. Oy.
Jun 30, 2016 at 09:47 PM
Adam,
I like both the non-linear points system and the newly renamed downgrade. Definitely appropriate in my case
I'm also a fan of races with zero upgrade points, or severely limited ones.
As for the sandbaggers; there have been people in literally every field I've raced in who were clearly winning everything in sight but not upgrading until someone narc'd on them. That's probably why USAC increased the points window.
It's true it only takes a phone call but in the lower categories people don't always savvy how usac and upgrades work.
I like both the non-linear points system and the newly renamed downgrade. Definitely appropriate in my case
I'm also a fan of races with zero upgrade points, or severely limited ones.
As for the sandbaggers; there have been people in literally every field I've raced in who were clearly winning everything in sight but not upgrading until someone narc'd on them. That's probably why USAC increased the points window.
It's true it only takes a phone call but in the lower categories people don't always savvy how usac and upgrades work.
Jun 30, 2016 at 09:59 PM
#allaboutthemasters
Jun 30, 2016 at 10:39 PM
Adam, I agree with all of your points since there are plenty of vanity upgrades. There are people who should probably spend more time and learn skills rather than upgrade for their egos.
I think you all are missing something. We all ride and race in some of the largest/densest regions in terms of USAC membership excluding places like Boulder/Denver area. We have the kinds of races that fill to their limit and most races have more than 25 riders. What about the guys/gals who race in places like Florida panhandle or in Wyoming who couldn't fill a race to the max unless they lumped everybody racing together in one field.
Then the top 3 in a race of 10 people is an actual accomplishment, and worthy of upgrade points, and should count towards upgrades. If we didn't have different tiers of race size some small markets would have riders who could never upgrade, and would be perpetual Cat4s but could crush a Cat1-3 field. Their races would be the same issue as women of Cat1-4 fields, which is the worst way to introduce new riders to bike racing: here take a kick in the teeth, now ride by yourself for an hour and get a DNF from the officials, thanks for your $45!
USAC has to make a set of rules that work across a bunch of different regions/genders with very different needs, so a set of rules for small markets ends up distorting some larger markets, and if the large market rules applied everywhere there would be plenty of over qualified Cat4s. None of this is perfect, and it expects people to act counter their selfish interests occasionally, which is an uphill fight.
I think you all are missing something. We all ride and race in some of the largest/densest regions in terms of USAC membership excluding places like Boulder/Denver area. We have the kinds of races that fill to their limit and most races have more than 25 riders. What about the guys/gals who race in places like Florida panhandle or in Wyoming who couldn't fill a race to the max unless they lumped everybody racing together in one field.
Then the top 3 in a race of 10 people is an actual accomplishment, and worthy of upgrade points, and should count towards upgrades. If we didn't have different tiers of race size some small markets would have riders who could never upgrade, and would be perpetual Cat4s but could crush a Cat1-3 field. Their races would be the same issue as women of Cat1-4 fields, which is the worst way to introduce new riders to bike racing: here take a kick in the teeth, now ride by yourself for an hour and get a DNF from the officials, thanks for your $45!
USAC has to make a set of rules that work across a bunch of different regions/genders with very different needs, so a set of rules for small markets ends up distorting some larger markets, and if the large market rules applied everywhere there would be plenty of over qualified Cat4s. None of this is perfect, and it expects people to act counter their selfish interests occasionally, which is an uphill fight.
Jul 05, 2016 at 02:13 AM
Dammit. The old "Wyoming wallop upgrade maneuver..." shoulda done that...
Jul 05, 2016 at 02:28 AM
Ages ago, I was out in rural oregon. Ashland. Turned out there was a local weeknight training crit series in nearby Medford. A roadie turned mountain biker turned triathlete named Steve Larsen (rode for Z and Motorola on the road) lived in a nearby town, close enough that I was told I ought to call him for a training ride.Dan Reiners said:What about the guys/gals who race in places like Florida panhandle or in Wyoming who couldn't fill a race to the max unless they lumped everybody racing together in one field.
I asked another local about the crit. He told me a decent field showed up every week. I asked how big that was. He said, 'about 8-12 guys' who pretty much rode hard until Larsen threw down. And then they raced for second.
Jul 05, 2016 at 01:55 PM
Lol. Sounds like the PP crew when MG is in town...mugwump said:
I asked another local about the crit. He told me a decent field showed up every week. I asked how big that was. He said, 'about 8-12 guys' who pretty much rode hard until Larsen threw down. And then they raced for second.
Jul 05, 2016 at 02:42 PM
Shimano Europe just bought Lazer Helmets
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/international/2016/07/01/shimano-europe-acquires-lazer-sport
wonder how this "integration" will impact the industry.
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/international/2016/07/01/shimano-europe-acquires-lazer-sport
wonder how this "integration" will impact the industry.
Jul 05, 2016 at 02:57 PM
Shimano will bypass wireless shifting... their next innovation brainwave shifting with a neural activity reader integrated into their helmets. Think about shifting up and Di3 will shift for you instantaenously, no need to wait the 300 milliseconds between thought and response from your fingers to press a shifting button.mugwump said:Shimano Europe just bought Lazer Helmets
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/international/2016/07/01/shimano-europe-acquires-lazer-sport
wonder how this "integration" will impact the industry.
Jul 05, 2016 at 03:41 PM
Cops Believe Fatal Hit-And-Run Driver Intentionally Struck Cyclist In Williamsburg
http://gothamist.com/2016/07/04/cops_believe_driver_intentionally_f.php
http://gothamist.com/2016/07/04/cops_believe_driver_intentionally_f.php
Jul 05, 2016 at 08:42 PM
IFTTT now has Strava Integration, for all you cycling data geeks out there. Haven't tested it yet, excited for the 'auto-save to Google doc feature'
Jul 07, 2016 at 07:23 PM
Turns out dogs are good for your Microbiome. Never thought of a pooch as a training tool, but now....
http://www.wnyc.org/story/what-microbiologist-has-say-about-your-house/
http://www.wnyc.org/story/what-microbiologist-has-say-about-your-house/