One aspect of local racing that I’ve always thought would enhance the overall scene is making a slight change to the race distances. I believe all categories would benefit from an adjustment, but I want to first focus on the Men 1/2 since that is where I race. My proposal is not for the local or national federation to enforce, but for promoters to see the benefits and adopt it at their own free will.
For road races, a distance of 60-80 miles would be more than sufficient in most instances and I would argue would produce more competitive, exciting races. In most cases, I would even shade to the lower end of that range. My thoughts behind this were along the following lines:
Less Volunteer Stress
Shorter races put less stress on volunteers and officials. It basically means they will have a shorter day on their corner.
No Feed Required
There is less of a need for riders to find friends or teammates to feed them during races. For a race of 60-80 miles, most people could get buy with two or three bottles.
Shorter = More Aggressive
Shorter races tend to be more aggressive and have less of the long periods of time where the group is just lazing along. Many times in 90-100+ mile road races, an early break will go up the road and there is such a lack of motivation with four hours of racing left, that it turns stupid quick. This is not always the case and when there is larger fields - teams or groups of riders can organize and keep the race alive.
1 - 2 Divergence
In the MN racing scene, we are seeing a stronger divergence between the true Cat 1’s and Cat 2’s. This divergence has resulted in many Cat 2’s (who are old enough) to opt into the Masters open field. This outlet could hurt “elite” level racing in MN in the short term if field sizes shrink, but I think it is mostly positive for cycling. A Cat 2 who is not capable of being competitive (or even relevant) in a 1/2 race, can still show up and enjoy the sport. When and if their fitness comes around, shorter races would give them more incentive to move back to the elite field.
There are negatives to shorter races. Some riders do much better during longer races and have all of the intangibles that a long race requires. An overall shortening of courses would put them at a distinct disadvantage. Although my argument is not purely utilitarian, I think this only affects a minority of the field. I also believe the riders who are winning 80-100 mile races would still win the 60-80 mile races. Another argument against is a 60 mile road race is not good preparation for national caliber 100-120 mile road races. Again, I don’t see this as a major negative for the majority of the Cat 1/2’s in MN. I would also argue that more competitive, faster, shorter races would be better preparation than long, slow, tiny fields.Â
I recall many years ago lining up at Sogn Valley for five laps with about 15 riders. The officials asked if we wanted to shorten the race a lap (they were thinking about how long they were going to be there) and everyone was in agreement except one person. Since it required unanimous consent, we did five laps and guess who dropped out after two? That was one of the lamest races I’ve ever done, I think about five people finished.
Comments 12
What about longer crits and tt’s?
This post brings up valid concerns from a promoter’s perspective. I do agree that small fields should have 60-80 mile races, but 100-120 miles is much easier when there are 120 riders pulling you along and should be considered. Otherwise it’s the same old story every weekend, it just ends up turning into a crit on the open road.
I feel if you can’t support yourself and absolutely need feeds, you probably don’t belong in that category. Feed zones are nice, but not necessary.
I also don’t like it when people DNF for no reason. Finish the race, unless your body or bike are broken beyond immediate support or repair.
Maybe there should be ROY points for DNF’s?
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 8:09 pm ¶I agree with Homme.
However, I also think that there needs to be more emphasis placed on the lower categories to have their own races. But that is another subject…
I want to know who the one rider was at Sogn Valley. I know who would probably pull that stunt now, and he still wouldn’t finish the race…
Who was it?
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 10:15 pm ¶Funny, I remember back when I first started reading the MCF message board, late 90’s early 2000’s when there was tons of whining that the 1-2 races were too short…
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 11:46 pm ¶per the USAC rulebook for championship races
State Road Race Championships Cat 1-3: 120-205 km
National RR Championships Men Cat 1: 160-225 km
If you can’t convert km to miles in your head then you’ve never watched the tour day frants
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 8:29 am ¶short race = criterium
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 9:16 am ¶long race = road race
fun race = time trial
different strokes for different folks
If you want lower the miles fine, but then you better have a course that offers some kind of challenge to it such as the Birchwood race did last year.
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 9:42 am ¶speaking on behalf of 1/2 racers.. as field sizes increase I could see adding a lap to certain road races.. but if by chance you show up to a feild of less than 20 doing over 70 miles is a wasted effort on everyone’s part. the course itself also has an influence on race distance as does the weather. Durand is a good example of a coure that races long.. sogn races cold. Avon (long course) races hot.. crits are fast no matter what but can be course dependent (like the capitol crit) so an hour max is fine.. more laps, less overall time required. time trials? bring on a century bee-atches
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 3:48 pm ¶I thought the refs had the authority to ‘roll you over’ when they thought the race too (pick one) non-competitive, hot, rainy, lightning, etc. They would take a lap out of our fields all the time. As for promoting, there is nothing better than a shortened race. Volunteers, liability, time, name it.
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 5:00 pm ¶The State RR had the smallest field ever and that was a fast one. Maby 20 riders in front of me in that one. I do agree with tone though that short road races are like crits on the open road. Theres not even enough time to stop and pee in a cornfield and get DQ’d for indecent exposure..
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 6:29 pm ¶Yeah I dont do well in short crits either because like tone im not very fast. I think crits should all be 100km 75 km and 50 km for A B C. I do better when its long and everyone has to go slow.
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 6:33 pm ¶Part of the road race is not just being aggressive. It comes also down to “who can last.” It is an endurance event. If you want aggressive then keep hitting the crit. series. While I lived out west I noticed that the races were very long. Both 1/2 and collegiate. Coming back to the midwest I saw shorter distances, most noticeably in the collegiate races. The race at a national level I think the extended distance is very important to the development of the rider. If we are looking for 60 mile races then either lengthen some crits to Superweek length or find courses that keep you on the rivet the entire time. There used to be a Wisport race in Trempealeau, Wisconsin that was only 50 miles. However, in the 50 miles you were feeling each and every inch of it. Anyhow, endurance is a key factor in the road race scene. If we don’t practice it here we won’t have it anywhere else. Keep the lengths or even bring them up 10-15 miles.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 12:19 pm ¶Who dropped out?
Posted 14 Feb 2008 at 3:22 pm ¶Post a Comment