save10

thats a great photo. i love it. if i was in that field i'd buy it - a large print, frame it and put in on my wall (and i say that as photographer who only has my own stuff on my walls).

there are a few Alex photos of from various races but how i think i look and the fat reality of how i actually look means that i need one of these artsy group shots and not one of me plumped up in my sausage casing/bike jersey.

ah ok. i'm probably sticking to mostly 35+3/4s, then waiting around to 35+123s at RKs this year even though there is a long gap between races. had too many near-events in the 3/4 races last year

hack

One thing I've noticed since doing 35+ races this year is that guys are competitive, but generally there is a less a-hole demeanor in the group. Not sure if that is an age thing or if it's "we race against eachother every weekend and know each other" thing.

caloso

Some of both.

Doge

Video - where it belongs. First of 3 https://www.bikeforums.net/33-road-bi...l#post17600439

shovelhd

True. Add a lot of self policing. That does not necessarily mean yelling.

Ygduf

more like

KWalker

One question I've had for a while, but keep hearing conflicting answers to:

Are Red Kite and CCCX somehow worth less upgrade points? I keep being told this, but with no real explanation and since points depend on rule type, field size, and length/time I fail to see how they are less than normal.

tetonrider

i hear you and can understand your point. as you said, you worked super hard to make the published time cut (and i'd guess you didn't know when the leaders finished while you were on your 2nd lap, so you were just working your ass off and letting the chips fall where they may).

i think the other side of the story is that even though it is called a "pro" field, most riders are paying their way. some guys i know flew there for the race on their own dime (their choice, of course, and they knew the rules). on a course with potholes and gravel, mishaps are more likely, and falling off the pace in a big group can mean a huge time loss. there was (IMO) inadequate support for a course where mishaps are more likely than a normal RR.

personally, i planned for it by riding slightly heavier tires that penalized me a bit on the other 90% of the course, taking 3 bottles because i couldn't count on a feed, etc. i don't think my field even had a wheel car--the instruction was to wait for sram neutral that was following in the women's pro/1/2 field. that was a 15' time loss right there. they couldn't muster up a follow car for each field? or ANY neutral bottles at all?

anyway, chances are if someone fell off the pace and still completed the RR they were doing so very much on their own so it was a significant effort...not like they could have just soft-pedaled it. they're also no longer a factor in GC (and probably weren't in contention anyway). the huge time loss wouldn't impact your GC spot, and while in theory they might cheat you out of a few places in the TT or crit it's likely not to be a huge deal.

guys who climbed off their bike after 1 lap of the circuit were not allowed to continue.

i'm torn on this one. the pay-to-play element is probably the reason i give the nod to letting people ride, though i'm generally a big believer in following all published rules strictly.

an example: i was racing the gila years ago. pretty much EVERYONE makes a huge trip there and blocks off the week. there's a break up the road on stage 1 which takes all the sprint points. a dude sprints from the pack i'm in and breaks his chain. total dumbass move. i see him after the stage and the officials gave him a huge time penalty but let him ride stage 2. i thought that was cool....even though he saved himself 3h of riding in 90*+ heat. non-trivial.

if it were me, i'd have ridden the stages but not tried to influence the outcome.

anyway, this dude was trying to bury himself for teammates (nice thing for them). he even grabbed my pocket as our lead group hit the final climb on the final day to try to hold me back (i wasn't THE guy to be worried about). i was pretty stunned and still thought i had a chance (well....for about another 180 seconds that is!) -- but one of my biggest regrets in cycling was that i didn't step off my bike and deck him. i came to share a house with him at a race years later and called him out on it.

in any event, even with that a-hole move i still think that he should have been allowed to ride.

tough call.

UmneyDurak

No. Upgrade points are upgrade points, and are based on type of race and number of people in a field.

P.S. Circuit races count as crits for upgrades not road races.

UmneyDurak

Damn I was way off! That is a huge field! Doesn't look like it in a photo.

Doge

My issue is not what makes sense, but enforcing the rules that were written.
There is strategy and planning around rules - like those races they cut short halfway into the race. It changes the riders plans.

When you have rules, some people spend effort and money to comply.

hack

no ... CCCX usually has smaller fields though.

aaronmcd

Unless the official lets it go, of course...

hack

that only applies to certain things ...

Doge

Well no/err - the letting it go (rule breaking) is what I have issue with. Not sure if you are baiting me or think I thought otherwise.
If you want clarification from me - move it to the other thread. I'll go there.

tetonrider

i think they should choose what makes sense then write the tech guide/rules to correspond.

i understand your point, and i'm the guy who rides a UCI-legal TT bike all season and has spent lots of time/money/energy to comply with rules only to show up at nationals and find many violations overlooked by officials because they decided not to check something. that frustrates me, but it is what it is.

as i said above, i see both sides and although i've been adversely affected by selective enforcement i tnd to still favor what makes sense in the changing context of a race.

Doge

I was trying not to go there - but can't resist. Advantage and unfairness are built into the sport and neither really bother me that one person gets them and another doesn't - that is cycling. Those who think/say they would not take advantage of a situation just because the referee or rules allow it are likely not keeping it in the 52X14 on downhill so they don't have an advantage over the juniors in their race.
The reality is that even though Chico was above the heads of our juniors - it was for fun and the little stuff didn't matter to us.

But if I was looking for an in-the-money finish, title or selection on the line there were plenty of things that could have made a difference.
This year in the P12 each pair of 3rd and 4th, 5th and 6th, 7th and 8th, 10th and 11th were 1 second apart and it goes down the list with some with the same time. So for the money guys - having an extra teammate that was paced on could have mattered for 1 second to another teammates' GC, having a pre-wrinkled and tight on body number vs. a flat possible wind catching number, or a non UCI (oh - UCI was not required - but you get my point) might be worth 1 sec in the TT too.

Alleycatdad

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. First time shooting road bikes....







It'll be Monday at least before I can finish going through the take from the weekend...

SA

tetonrider

please show me one rider who did not have wrinkles in their # by stage 4. how could one not?

i take your point, but that's probably not the best example. we all take our racing seriously at the time, but you may be taking things a bit more seriously/strictly than most.

stuff always comes up to the discretion of the officials. they can only see so much (which is unfortunate), but i suspect they also prioritize infractions and use their judgment to determine what is being done to gain and advantage vs what is incidental to the outcome of the event. they are only humans doing their best; it is unfortunate that some will deliberately violate rules, but that's rarely a battle worth fighting IMO.

shovelhd

It's not just about advantage, it's about running the game. Intentionally crinkling, folding or mutilating numbers makes them harder to read and thus takes longer to score. The number of protests goes up. Time to payout gets longer. Some venues have strict time limits so races get shortened. All because someone thinks they might gain a watt or two. That's why it is taken seriously out here.

tetonrider

i totally get it. i folded my numbers in one of my first races thinking it was more "pro" and quickly realized it wasn't.

i was just riffing on the fact that we use the same #s for 4 races and they get wrinkled. i just unpacked my race bag earlier today and the numbers are basically a ball.

when they're on my jersey they are prominent and as clean/flat as i can get them.

shovelhd

I'm pretty sure most officials will understand that reused numbers are going to deteriorate over time. I'm talking about showing up at stage 1.

hack

Cool pics!

KWalker

I dunno how bad things are where you live, but I've raced in 6 states in the past few years and never, ever has there been an issue from wrinkled and/or cut numbers unless the officials make it one. Hell, even if a number was upside-down and they used a finish line camera, as they should in the case of photo finishes, its still easy to see who won.

Ygduf

I sprayed my number once and it came off (I pin now) but as it was flapping about I tore it off and put it in my pocket. As I crossed the line (solo ftw!) I called out my number. After everyone was through I went to the table and showed them the number and explained it had come loose.

no issues.