Originally Posted by Richard Cranium
California seems to be the "center of the double-century world", having a triple crown series as well as numerous club sponsored events. (many events draw thousands of riders for "death rides")
oh, I'd partially disagree. California might have a lot of double-centuries and might draw a lot of riders for those events, but it's a bit of a fallacy to compare California to the rest of the country. Keep in mind that the state is huge and has the highest population in the union. It might have a lot of cycling clubs that can use sponsorship to organize long rides, but there are similar outfits in other smaller states. If you want to compare apples to apples, start with looking at RUSA's
points summary page. The California clubs (San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, San Diego) combine for about 1300 points in 2006 (points are awarded for finishers of every brevet). Seattle, in a state with a population that is barely 20% of California's, put up almost 950 points this year. The two Massachusetts clubs combined for more points than California's, and even if you included the populations of CT, VT and NH into that, you're still looking at an audience that's, like, 1/3 of California's but continues to match the state for participation.
Nah, in the randoneering world, CA is second-tier. If you want to experience the heart of the movement visit the Pacific Northwest (Seattle + British Columbia) and New England.
What, I'd like to know, is outside of California, LDX cycling is left with one club that has a "foreign ride" as it's main attraction, and an "ultra" outfit that seems to promote "solo - totally supported" rider efforts.
you're ignoring Boston-Montreal-Boston, Colorado's Last Chance, the Rocky Mountain 1200, and California's own Gold Rush 1200
and that's just 1200km rides.
Tell me why, when 20,000 people are trying to get into marathons all over the nation, the only place you can get 200 people for a double century is in California. Please explain it.
as Rowan mentioned, there's a lot of investment required for ultracycling. You want to run a marathon? Buy a $150 pair of running shoes and train. You want to do ultracycling? $150 is the price of a Carradice saddlebag
there's also the fact that a lot brevet and randoneering routes are actually rather brutal from a layman's point of view. 120+ riders will show up for the Boston 200k (on PBP qualification years, that number might double) but only 30 or so will show up to do the rest of the series. For the other 90, it's just not fun for them. 1000 ft. of climbing every 20 miles, over the course of 125 miles? Unsupported? And you have to buy your own supplies? That's not fun, that's crazy talk.
If one wants more participation in the sport, it needs to appear more accessible, both financially and mentally. It also needs to have more opportunities for involvement that don't involve a super-randonneur series. There's a large amount of turnover in randonneering circles as folks do it for a few years, get a PBP or BMB under their belt then 'retire' because the training commitment is too steep, and they'd rather spend their time doing weekend club rides or two week cycle touring vacations. There should be more populaire rides in the 100k length that can retain one's interest when you aren't feeling like going for a 1200 this year.
There is also an argument that could be made for keeping the sport inaccessible. When many brevets are organized by a solo volunteer RBA, managing the participation of 30 or 40 riders can be tough. 100+ would be a nightmare. If you make it too accesible, you open the door to more DNFs and more logistical headaches. The solution to this is to bring in more logistical staff, but since there's no money in the sport, you're just relying on volunteers, which is a challenge in its own right.