Fitchburg - Forum Archive

Jun 07, 2013 at 12:03 AM

I honestly don't understand all the hating on Dieter. He runs profitable races that are well run and well supported.

Fitchberg is in a shambles - he took it over and tried to run it the way he runs other races and people prefer the shambles.

I has confuse.

Marc Bertucco

Jun 07, 2013 at 12:33 AM

I'll be the first to admit that some of my "hate" towards Dieter is not really logical or justified but there are a few things that he has done that have really rankled me...most recently:

In the case of Fitchburg, he came in like a white knight, made a specific statement that he understood registration numbers would be down this year, but that he would float the race regardless, to get a great event back on the calendar...

And then he's like, "PSYCH, never mind. I don't like that USA Cycling is requiring 'too many' officials." Or somesuch nonsensical excuse that reminds me of a few years back when he was trying to get a special exception to allow Div II pro teams into his race.*

As far as I can tell, the only "taking over" he did was send out a press release a couple of weeks ago, and then totally back out on his stated commitment. I mean, who knows what went on behind the scenes, but it doesn't exactly make Dieter look quite as shiny as he did when he made all kinds of promises.

*If you want to go back a few years ago when he was trying to get in UCI Continental Teams into his pro race...there's some truly revealing public letters/nastiness between Dieter, USA Cycling and the community at large.

Ryan J

Jun 07, 2013 at 12:56 AM

I don't have any problem with Dieter. I'm just bummed about the change.

Jules

Jun 07, 2013 at 01:04 AM

Marc Bertucco said:

I'll be the first to admit that some of my "hate" towards Dieter is not really logical or justified but there are a few things that he has done that have really rankled me...most recently:

In the case of Fitchburg, he came in like a white knight, made a specific statement that he understood registration numbers would be down this year, but that he would float the race regardless, to get a great event back on the calendar...

That sounds like a misrepresentation: did he come in like a white knight and promise to "float the race exactly as it had ever been regardless of cost, with no changes to the old format that was totally unsustainable?"

Unlikely.

The races of yore are now (effectively) imaginary races because they don't exist and can't exist without someone who is only interested in turning a lot of money into a little money.

It seems mind-bogglingly immature for critics at large (not you, Marc) to say "yes the imaginary races don't work but NO WAY NO HOW DO I WANT ANYTHING DIFFERENT than the races that can't be run because nobody can afford to keep losing money..."

If anyone thinks they can run Fitchberg (or any other) the "way it was, unchanged" then for pete's sake step up and lets hear it.

ian ellis

Jun 07, 2013 at 01:33 AM

I believe USAC were comparing this instance of Fitchburg to the days when it was NRC and when it had lots of officials per field and was run very close to Pro standards. They did not allow for the fact that this year was very different and still had the same expectations.

Marc Bertucco

Jun 07, 2013 at 01:36 AM

I swear I didn't make that quote up about Dieter putting on the race no matter what...of course I can't find it now...

mugwump

Jun 07, 2013 at 02:05 AM

ian ellis said:

I believe USAC were comparing this instance of Fitchburg to the days when it was NRC and when it had lots of officials per field and was run very close to Pro standards. They did not allow for the fact that this year was very different and still had the same expectations.

Ian, Could you find some proof of this? I would think that an NRC race takes more officials than a race that's a step below. And since it wasn't NRC this year (unless it was), then the officials wouldn't be as great.

The bigger issue is once again a promoter bails throwing blame around without offering any specifics. While B'kill is well run, Dieter does not get a free pass on schenanigans.

I also worry about the future of road racing if every race has to have a b'kill-esque entry fee. There has to be a way to do it for less.

alyoshas

Jun 07, 2013 at 02:12 AM

let's organize a race in the catskills.

Jules

Jun 07, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Battenkill is well run, Catskills is well run, Both Hunter Mountains are well run...

@Wump while I sympathize the "The Race Entry Fee is Too Damn High" complaint rings hollow in the absence of similar scale, safe, adjudicated, adequately supported races - which nobody seems able to point to.

Ryan J

Jun 07, 2013 at 01:16 PM

I think the more important part of Mugwump's complaint is "The bigger issue is once again a promoter bails throwing blame around without offering any specifics. While B'kill is well run, Dieter does not get a free pass on schenanigans."

I agree with this. If entry fees are going to be what they are, fine. But entrants should, in turn, be allowed to have higher expectations.

At Charlie I's races I race for $10 and the value added is incredible with the Sprint/KOM competitions and prizes, competitive fields, the reliable results, etc. Of course its "just the park" - but it's also several times a year and conveniently located. So I feel grateful to be able to do it and I am much less annoyed if/when anything happens.

On the other hand, with the amount I spend on Dieter's races, I feel more like a "customer." I'll pay the price without complaint, but I expect a little more. Often, Dieter delivers. But there is a recent pattern of sort of amateurish, condescending communication between promoters and their entrants. I had the race on the calendar (and made some decisions about not doing other things because it was there). I built my training around it, booked lodging and cars, etc.

At the very least, he could've offered some explanation and even some sort of apology, as a "vendor" usually does when they inconvenience "customers"

Jules

Jun 07, 2013 at 01:33 PM

Ryan J said:

At the very least, he could've offered some explanation and even some sort of apology, as a "vendor" usually does when they inconvenience "customers"

I think this fair; although I don't know the timelines of when he "stepped in"

Adam

Jun 07, 2013 at 01:43 PM

I get really perplexed about this entry fee issue. It is something that comes up often on our forum so I assume it's an issue, both here and presumably in other teams.

I just do not understand what on earth people are expecting in terms of fees? Battenkill, for example. $100 give or take to enter. 65 miles. All the admin. Website info. The many, many, many referees and officials. The poor volunteers who I would love to see get more, standing in the rain/snow/wind marshalling the course. SRAM neutral...what on earth makes this not a good deal for $100?? OK, here's another way to look at it. Let's just argue for the sake of it that this race is 4 hours of entertainment (sign on, pin up, start line, race). You tell me another pass time in NY or elsewhere where you can get total immersion in an incredibly safe environment for $25 per hour? Even going to the cinema costs $15 dollars for two hours. How much is 4 hours of bowling? $40 (no idea). 4 hours of crossfit in a gym (now I know that's expensive-about $25 per hour, ludicrous). How about the NY Fondo (something like $300!!). What bout Boston Marathon if you are not raising money? A quick Google came up with $150 for US residents for 2014. I will not understand what on earth people expect for race entry.

Looking at park races makes this an even better deal. So, Prospect is what, a 3 mile loop. Even with the majestic Kissena discount to enter Charlie's races, which makes it $15 I think, but lets' just say $10 in old money. So, $10 for 3 miles of marshalled course. Transfer that over to Battenkill, the same cost per mile of marshalled course means Charlie would be charging over $200-with Kissena discount. Of course, it doesn't work simply like that, economies of scale and all, but I just wanted to highlight the idea that if anything, the long races with triple digit entry fees are fair.

I understand that of course, most race entrants need to travel to races, fuel, tolls, rental, hotel etc. But factoring that into "entry fee" is totally unreasonable. Like flying to Disney World, paying $75 per day and complaining that it's more like $500 per day as you had to fly down to Orlando to go there.

So, after my rant, here's a question. What do people consider a "fair" entry fee? With that in mind, how do you reconcile that with real-time, 2013 costs, for running a race?

and.........breathe.

tito

Jun 07, 2013 at 02:39 PM

Honestly, I think a lot of the complaint is that B'kill in particular has jumped up dramatically in price every year for what is basically the same race with the same overhead each time. The first time I raced it, it was in the neighborhood of $45 - now, just a few years later, it's $100.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled Fitchburg discussion...

mugwump

Jun 07, 2013 at 02:46 PM

Adam,
you could look at what entry fees were historically and adjust for inflation to see if the fee tracks for inflation. Then you could look at what the races offer the racers in terms of prize money, etc to see if that, too has kept pace with inflation. Then, and this is the hard one, go to promoters and ask them to report their costs over the years and see how that has tracked.

Let's take $100 as the fee B'kill charged in 2013. That is the equivalent of $47.16 in 1986. I chose the year because that was the first year when I had a fairly busy race schedule. I don't think I paid that for any race, even the one national championship I rode, even the stage races I did, and I did races with what I believe were (adjusted to inflation) higher prize lists than what B'kill offers. I remember paying $10 for many races. Many times, I paid less. And these weren't just parking lot races. Adjusted for inflation, the $10 race in 1986 is $21.01 today. The $21 dollar race is rare today.

What has the racer gotten for the increased costs? Computerized results? I haven't found Dieter's service unmatched. I've defended his b'kill price in the past--but mostly as his sold-out fields allow him to charge whatever he wants until those numbers start going down.

Some costs have gone down. Computers and automation have helped. Website costs? Cheaper than print advertising and countless flyers. Some costs have gone up. What are they? I know for park racing, we need more marshals, and we have an ambulance around? What else?

As you pointed out, these races utilize lots of free and cheap help, so how come the costs are where they are?

I agree that there's a place for professionalism, and having a pro promoter can be a benefit. At the same time, bike racers aren't any more professional and the services offered at bike races have basically remained the same. Shouldn't part of the job of a pro promoter be to decrease the costs to his customers, something his skill and time should be able to accomplish? And with B'kill (and stage races), he has scale on his side--should the scale of the event helped decrease costs?

Jules

Jun 07, 2013 at 03:30 PM

mugwump said:

I agree that there's a place for professionalism, and having a pro promoter can be a benefit. At the same time, bike racers aren't any more professional and the services offered at bike races have basically remained the same. Shouldn't part of the job of a pro promoter be to decrease the costs to his customers, something his skill and time should be able to accomplish? And with B'kill (and stage races), he has scale on his side--should the scale of the event helped decrease costs?

I think we get into trouble when we use "should"

Race promoter is selling a product. He/she will sell it for the greatest margin the market will bear.

That is all.

Cycling is the new golf, and the market can "bear" much higher (even adjusted for inflation) costs than it could 30 years ago.

Mark Clifford

Jun 07, 2013 at 03:42 PM

to add to jules' point, i hear a lot from people about how, back in the day, there used to be a ton of legit road races in NY. by extension, then, supply used to be higher. as the number of races have dwindled, i imagine that promoters have found that their demand is relatively inelastic and thus they have been able to charge higher prices without adversely affecting demand. in truth, i suspect that promoters could charge even more than they do today... cycling is only increasing in popularity and, let's be honest, if a large part of your customer base can afford $2,500 wheels, they are probably not going to quibble between $100 or $150 (especially when there are in effect very few substitutes).

i know there are people, like charlie, that largely promote for the love of racing. and that is awesome. but if certain promoters do it as a full-time gig -- that is, it's their sole source of income -- then i have to believe that they are going to want to charge the highest prices possible, without negatively impacting demand. and so if the demand is there, the price is going to keep going up. i think it has nothing to do with inflation.

to adam's point, though, and to stay on the economics tip, i personally would struggle to find anything that provides me as much utility, for four hours at $100, as bombing around on my bike with friends. except perhaps in thailand.

Ryan J

Jun 07, 2013 at 03:59 PM

Cycling is the new golf, and the market can "bear" much higher (even adjusted for inflation) costs than it could 30 years ago.

I hate that this is true

(says the guy with a Quarq and two carbon road bikes)

watch out - one day I'm quitting all this shit, selling everything, buying a steel road bike, and riding like a civilized adult

Ryan J

Jun 07, 2013 at 04:20 PM

Apropos...just got the email below from the Tour of the Dragons promoter, who you'll recall stood out for his transparency and humility dealing with ToD feedback around the same time as the Quabbin guy had his meltdown. I'm impressed with Jim, for sure.

* * *

Greetings Everyone

I want to thank you all for your constructive feedback, detailed suggestions and overall positive attitude. I believe that it is important for me – for all race directors – to listen to the participants and get their feedback and input. After all, there is only a thin slice at the top who are earning a living as professionals. The majority of us balance daily lives with a passion for the sport. Our job as race directors is to keep the passion in the events for you. So thank you for the constructive criticism. Across the board it was really good.

In the near future I expect to send you a report that is a compilation of all the comments and suggestions that everyone has shared. It is great seeing the event through your eyes and I want to offer my thoughts on positive changes for the future.

Please continue to contact me with your input.

Thank you very much,

Jim Marshall
DragonsEnterprises@gmail.com

--

Dragons Enterprises LLC

PO Box 151

North Bennington, VT 05257

802.447.2313 office

401.440.7760 mobile

Jules

Jun 07, 2013 at 04:21 PM

Very impressive.

Adam

Jun 07, 2013 at 04:34 PM

It's little things like that, the unquantifiable things, that your race fee also go towards. A director who is only 75% worried about margins and cash flow, compared to the director who is 95% worried, has a little more energy for these sorts of things.

Jules

Jun 07, 2013 at 04:36 PM

I think we are splitting hairs here. Pepsi vs Coke. Both want to sell a popular product; I don't think for a second ANYONE gets into race promotion as a way to get rich - unless they are born into it ASO-style.

ian ellis

Jun 07, 2013 at 05:17 PM

I think the sport has become a victim of it's own popularity.

I expect a small part of the cost increase is because a new set of affluent competitors attend (triathletes for example - no hate here, just an example). These folk expect a little more than getting changed in the back of car and peeing in a bottle.

I expect a small part of the cost increase is because as the promoters have to treat people as customers with higher expectations they need to evolve into thinking like providers of a service, which is more hassle and they may as well make some money from it.

But if we look at the events we are talking about - it is Road Racing on the public highway, through townships, etc. The logistics involved here is significantly more than that involved in a park race or a crit.

So the main part of the cost increase is in fees associated with logistics.

As much as these big events supposedly bring money into the community they also clog roads with cars and bikes and inconvenience the locals. As such simply getting a permit can take a lot of meetings and politics, with the result being increased charges by town officials, extra policing, yadda yadda.

So events that didn't piss off the locals when 40 riders charged about the lanes do now that multiple fields of 100 riders are doing the same thing.

mugwump

Jun 07, 2013 at 05:43 PM

Jules said:

I think we are splitting hairs here. Pepsi vs Coke. Both want to sell a popular product; I don't think for a second ANYONE gets into race promotion as a way to get rich - unless they are born into it ASO-style.

To be fair, Dieter almost fell into his success. He came up with a novel race (kudos to him) at a time when road races were disappearing and the number of licensed racers increasing. His "single," has turned into a home run, thanks to the marketplace being largely ceded to him. Much success is being at the right place at the right time and taking advantage of that moment. And I don't blame anyone for that.

At the same time, if his success means that racers can't afford to do other races, there's a decent chance that racing will wither, which will not only cost Dieter, but everyone else in the long run.

to me, if you say a race is going to happen, it should go on, unless something occurs like the course is underwater. That the promoter is going to lose money is not the racer's concern--and if hte promoter didn't specify something to the effect of "if we don't get X registrants by Y date, the promoter reserves the right to cancel," he shouldn't cancel or change.

And to Adam's earlier econ point, L&C Cup races are $35 for 44 miles in the I/II/II and 110 field limit. the B'kill cat II race is $110 for 82 miles and 150 field limit--three times the cost for less than double the miles and an extra 40 racers. B'kill might be more complicated, but real-life costs on the ground are almost certainly cheaper in Cambridge than they are in Brooklyn. So I do wonder about why B'Kill is relatively more expensive, especially when he's got over 2500 registrants over two days. L&C up races can have 270 max, so even if Dieter charged L&C rates, he'd still have almost ten times the income in two days.

As for racer costs, I raced from 1986-1990 on a bike that retailed for approximately $600 in 1986, about $1260 in today's dollars, and I did very well on it. I could probably get a bike with $1260 that, while lacking carbon-fiber race wheels, could be pretty competitive, too.

You can coke vs. pepsi all you want, but if racing dies, everyone loses. I don't want Dieter to go away. I don't want races to go away. Dieter as the solution is problemmatic because I'm concerned he's helped as much as hurt. The stuff that has gone on with fitchburg definitely shows the negatives.

Jules

Jun 07, 2013 at 06:17 PM

mugwump said:

At the same time, if his success means that racers can't afford to do other races, there's a decent chance that racing will wither, which will not only cost Dieter, but everyone else in the long run.

I don't see the causal connection here - why are Dieter's races detrimental to other races?

Adam

Jun 07, 2013 at 06:19 PM

Some good points there JP.

However, you know full well that comparing mileage alone in races is not the appropriate way to compare marshall fees, road permits, police time etc. Your comparison of a L&C race and Battenkill is a little disingenuous.

PP is a 3 mile loop. Battenkill is an 80 mile loop., in the case of Cat2.

mugwump

Jun 07, 2013 at 07:51 PM

Jules said:

mugwump said:

At the same time, if his success means that racers can't afford to do other races, there's a decent chance that racing will wither, which will not only cost Dieter, but everyone else in the long run.

I don't see the causal connection here - why are Dieter's races detrimental to other races?

Many racers have a set budget for racing. Dieter's fee is, for example, the same as three L&C races. Many with a limited budget have to choose between doing Dieter's race or doing up to several other races.

mugwump

Jun 07, 2013 at 08:00 PM

Adam said:

Some good points there JP.

However, you know full well that comparing mileage alone in races is not the appropriate way to compare marshall fees, road permits, police time etc. Your comparison of a L&C race and Battenkill is a little disingenuous.

PP is a 3 mile loop. Battenkill is an 80 mile loop., in the case of Cat2.

B'kill for the pros, I's and II's is a 62-mile loop with 20 miles of it used twice.

I realize full well the differences between the two races. At the same time, comparing the two is useful. I'm sure the costs for putting on a race in each place is different. I'm sure B'Kill benefits from economies of scale on many levels. 10 L&C races takes up a bit less than 15 hours of marshal time, which is probably around the same time as B'Kill's two days of racing. There are more people and municipalities, but the costs incurred in the use thereof are probably much less.

Jules

Jun 07, 2013 at 08:02 PM

I don't see how it matters which race is more profitable for the promoter... which products are high-margin or loss leaders is a decision for manufacturing or marketing...

Which one you choose to buy is related to it's value to you...

mugwump

Jun 07, 2013 at 08:20 PM

When was the last time you did a mass start bicycle race when you were the only starter?

What decisions the herd makes is relevant to you.

Perhaps this relates to the changes at Fitchburg.

mperlberg

Jun 07, 2013 at 09:20 PM

mugwump said:

Jules said:

mugwump said:

At the same time, if his success means that racers can't afford to do other races, there's a decent chance that racing will wither, which will not only cost Dieter, but everyone else in the long run.

I don't see the causal connection here - why are Dieter's races detrimental to other races?

Many racers have a set budget for racing. Dieter's fee is, for example, the same as three L&C races. Many with a limited budget have to choose between doing Dieter's race or doing up to several other races.

I set a budget for racing, and Dieter has priced me out.