Doge

Yea, well that was then. Things may have turned out differently, but now, looking back, I'm sure glad they didn't. But I have not seen the selection process really work so well at all - right up to 2017.

rubiksoval

Good to know. I'm a bit surprised it continually happens, though. When some promoters seem to have everything down pat, and then these other ones seem to fly by the seat of their pants and then wonder how things get so messed up...

But possibly a lose-lose for everyone with your description of usacycling's involvement, or lack thereof in some crucial areas.

miyata man

Good, because if you were hoping to effect change you were going about it the completely wrong way. Seasonal farm workers can more no elect a new landowner than seasonal sports enthusers can hope to do the equivalent.

topflightpro

This is also why you see a lot of recycled locations. Good promoters are good promoters and can put on an event year after year.

For example, August, Ga. hosted Junior and I think Elite nationals a few years ago. They stepped in to do Masters nationals this year after Winston-Salem backed out (kicked out?).

Doge

Why would you think a thread posted in a forum was about effecting change?
Did I say that? You have replied to my posts multiple times like you think I have an agenda on them. I'm just chatting. I'm not even clear what I'd communicate, only a few things are clear, most are not and if the answers were known, I believe someone would listen. If it came to having an effect, I'd talk to someone as a start.

hack

We use bikereg for 90% plus races in NorCal. I prefer it and they have a race predictor built in as well that pulls rankings from road-results.com

Doge

I'd like USAC out of the registration process.
I'd like them out of coaching.

I'd like them more to set hard standards for racing rules, doping rules, selection rules.
There is a whole lot of squishy.

Doge

No. I also don't particularly like to listen to him, but that has nothing to do with his experience. David Towle gets around, also not a personal favorite, and I have no idea what his racing history is.
My fav grass roots announcer is Ralph Elliot and he was a racer too - locally. At the TdF - Christian VdV is great.

And No for USAC CEO.
To be clear he is not really even an acquaintance of mine, but the cycling world is real small. He was a roommate of kid's team director and does a Sat ride my kid does. I had to tell my son who he was.

Most the teens/collegiate races don't know the admin. There is a 30-50 year difference in age. Some of those old folks never road, some were corp professionals, some are cycling hall of fame riders. I wish they would talk more.

rubiksoval

Whatttt? That website sucks. Missing a bunch of my "Ws"! Actually, says I only raced 20 times last year, so must be missing a bunch of stuff.

Does it really compile a ranking based on road races and crits together? Psh. Not a fan of that.

Must be a west-coast thing.

Where's the race predictor thing on bikereg? All I can see is who's registered and when they did so. Doesn't even tell what category they're in.

hack

Last item in the blue header:
https://www.bikereg.com/the-parnassus-investments-burlingame-criterium
I can only think of 2 races that use USAC for ref out here (cal Aggie curt and the tt championship). All the rest are bikereg with a handful of timeyourrace.

mike868y

road-results/cross-results are most definitely an east coast thing

rubiksoval

Thanks. So my race tonight doesn't have the predictor, but the race tomorrow does. So guess it's something the promoter chooses?

These two races I'm doing this weekend are both in conjunction with a 5k, so I assumed that's why they were using bikereg. Almost every other race I do uses usacycling. Never heard of timeyourrace.

Eh, basically the same thing. All you guys on the fringe with your progressive developments and the like.

globecanvas

road-results is pretty random. It's set up to snarf results as they appear on USAC, but that means it often misses all but the first race in a weekly series, and since it's literally scraping the results web page, slight wording changes in field names can confuse it (like "P/1/2/3" vs "Senior men P1-3" or whatever). And it doesn't differentiate between crits, road races, hill climbs, TTs, anything. And the upgrade point calculation is obviously wrong.

The whole thing is just a side project/hobby of the bikereg programmers so it is what it is. I always look at it before a race because noise and all, it lets you see if there are unfamiliar fast guys. If you see a race predictor link on bikereg it's just going straight to road-results (since it's the same programmers and database).

cross-results on the other hand, which is literally the same system but for cross races, is much cleaner data, because a cross race is a cross race. cross-results ranking is often used for staging so racers care a lot about the data being correct.

kbarch

I have very little knowledge of them, but I get the sense they're floundering, but I think it's a structural, if not societal thing. Especially if what I've observed at the local level is any indication. We've got the one big mega-club (CRCA) with all its sub-teams, which puts on a bunch of club races and a handful of open races, some other non-CRCA teams who, as far as I know, don't hold their own races, and a couple of promoters who have put together some series I've enjoyed participating in. While most events seem reasonably well-organized, it doesn't seem like anyone knows (or much cares) what anyone else is doing, and if you scratch the surface, you realize how very tenuous the whole thing is. I thought I might lend a hand on the CRCA board, but when I tried to find out a little more about what the jobs entailed, I couldn't get an answer. Most of the positions went uncontested, and they had to beg people to run for others. One would think a club as big as CRCA might be representative of how structurally sound USAC is, but I hope it isn't. There's just a small handful of people who make everything happen, and far too many racers fail to help; again, on the local level, it's shameful how many club members neglect their marshaling duties, and don't even know the rules.

Meanwhile, the whole "competing with oneself" or "personal best" culture seems (at least partially) antithetical to the notion of sanctioned competitive racing, so their foray into the world of Gran Fondos just seems awkward and forced to me.

Alaska Mike

How are they doing? In terms of growing the sport of road racing in the US? Pretty crappy, based on participation numbers I've seen.

It's not all their fault, though. There has never been so many competitive outlets out there. Triathlons, fondos, non-USAC sanctioned races/group rides, and even stuff like Zwift competes for a shrinking segment of an increasingly sedentary and non-physically competitive public. The outlets for physical fitness have exploded in the last 30 or so years, yet somehow being called "Lance" while out riding by a redneck in a F-350 has lost its appeal. The brutal math of how many winners can emerge from a race and the probability of being made to feel less than superior turns off a lot of people. Socks as a winner's prize don't compare to a participant medal and a swag bag just for showing up. It's a niche sport with a relatively high bar for entry (financial, fitness...), and an even higher bar to keep showing up race after race.

What they didn't seem to realize for the longest time is that to make more elite riders, you need to expose a crap-ton of introductory riders. Out of a gazillion introductory riders, maybe you'll get a thousand that stick with it for a couple years. Out of that thousand, maybe 100 will progress past Cat 4. Out of that 100, maybe 10 will have some promise. Out of that 10, maybe 1 will work out. That said, without exposing the crap-ton of riders to the sport, chances are that kid will do something useful with their life instead.

What meaningful rider creation/development initiatives have they really tried? How many middle and high school leagues have they championed? How many bike manufacturers have they teamed up with to comp racing licenses for introductory riders who buy a new race bike? Lower the bar to give the sport a shot, and keep it low initially to pursue it.

Check out GS Andiamo and other similar clubs for where they should be going. Any sort of stabilization of current trends or even a reverse will come from the bottom up. Nobody is going to aspire to be an elite in this sport when there isn't anyone below them left.

topflightpro

It's been awhile since I've seen the numbers, but IIRC, each category is about twice the size of the next level up.

Doge

I'd like to see numbers on that. Seems the opposite to me.

Alaska Mike

Obviously my percentages were non-scientific, but if there are fewer and fewer racers at the base of the pyramid, how long is the business model sustainable?

Alaska Mike

You're arguing the American public is a whole is as physically active as they once were?
Or that there are fewer outlets now for adults to compete physically than there once were?
Or that USAC's market share is better now than it was in Lance's heyday?

Beyond that, think how much competitive cycling itself has fragmented in the past 30 years. When I was a kid, you had 10-speed bikes and banana seat bikes (for lack of a better term). BMX hit for a while. Mountain bikes. Triathlons. 'Cross blew up in this country. Fat bikes. Gravel grinders... Road is just one of a bunch of different options, and that's just what you can do on two wheels.

A bunch of people are more in the participation mindset. Spartan races. Tough Mudders. Triathlons. Running events... countless events that award you for eventually crossing the line (and often for just showing up and paying).

Compare that with road racing. What USAC has failed to answer and then publicize is why anyone would want to ride around in circles at some office park. You and I might have our own reasons, but what message does the uninitiated rider on the street need to hear? Once in the door, how do you keep them coming back?

Once USAC answers that effectively, then I'll say they're doing a good job.

Doge

I'm really asking to see numbers. I think sports are more prevalent than ever. Still more sit at desks for jobs vs working in the fields.

When I was a kid in the 60s few grandparents could do over 10 push-ups. Now - 10 push-ups is not really anything for some 60+ year old to do.

I think there are more athletically inclined, while others do nothing. Average? - I wanted to see numbers.

Alaska Mike

I doubt you'll find them, because I don't think the studies were done on fitness across a wide spectrum of the population.

My family came from farm and hillbilly stock, and 10 pushups for my grandparents in their '60s? Not something they'd consider doing or something they'd consider any great feat. It varied heavily even then depending on lifestyles. They were active, but never exercised. Exercise didn't become a thing until the sedentary desk culture became dominant. It only got worse with the introduction of the computer.

"Fitness" as something adults did past a certain age really didn't hit until the '70s and '80s. Jane Fonda and leg warmers. Rec team leagues for adults and the (somewhat) acceptance of soccer in the US. Gyms that had more than free weights.

Let's look at obesity percentages between the '80s and now. Obviously diet has played a huge role, but lifestyle (activity) certainly has changed. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and the amount of energy it takes to get a larger object moving is correspondingly greater. Take a look at how kids spend their time after school now vs then. Heck, take a look at your old yearbook and then compare body types at that same school today.

How's SCNCA's road license numbers this year as compared to the last ten years?

krumvis

Not very well.

Doge

Good input.
Obesity is hard. In CA particularly hard, for the same reasons education numbers are hard. Many were not born there/here and many races(genes) and cultures play into it - and I think races and cultures - play into it.
But...
The social group my daughter and my son were in were way beyond the fitness of the 60s people, or 90s people. My view is tainted from that. I think it is off balance to the other direction and they should settle down. Working out is an addiction and this CrossFit stuff - I'd rather they eat sugar and sit on the couch. The body can't take that.
Son says push-up are aerobic. Yea, that is not the general population, but there are plenty kids that run 5 min mile and high schoolers that do it under 4.
So I really don't know. Maybe it is like wealth and the fit are getting fitter and the non-fit aren't.

Ygduf

that's probably true given that the population as a whole is less fit, but those that care to invest time into fitness are benefiting from better and better science, diet and training information

Alaska Mike

Believe me, I wish the athletic bubble of my life (ski racing and cycling friends) was representative of the general population. Healthy, successful, engaged... However, the other compartments of my life (professional and family) have shown me the fit/healthy are a small portion of the general population. It all boils down to resources, environment, and interest, and they're all intertwined.

How many high school kids even think amateur bike racing is a "thing"? If you don't catch them before that point, you're probably not going to get another shot until their settled in their lives, if at all. Generally speaking, there relatively small windows of opportunity to bring them in. If you catch them when they're young, even if they leave the sport for a while, the possibility is still in their mind later in life. Mid-30s and on can be more problematic, with their own kids and other demands competing for attention, not to mention all of the other "sexy" fitness opportunities out there.