Sportive cycling standard poor
Comments
-
-
SteveR_100Milers wrote:wildmoustache wrote:SteveR_100Milers wrote:Why do and why should people feel they are "forced" or even expected to "do a turn" at the front?? How many times ITS NOT A RACE. So those of you that treat other riders as if it were one (who can only be thinking why should they give somone a free ride)
why on earth suggest dropping back to a slower group. As if you or anyone would do that in a REAL race?? I think not! Consistency please.
Some sportifs are in fact races. Does that mean your views don't apply to them?
While most sportifs might not officially be races, people coming on this forum screaming "it's not a race !!!" seem to be ignoring that the events are timed and for many people getting a good time is one of the focal points of their season something they've traned for, spent £ for, and put a lot of effort into.
I'd turn your argument on its head and say that those who "just sit in" are doing so precisely because they want the fastest time possible given their physical limitations ... which doesn't sound at all like racing does it?[/quote]
To be hoinest all this talk of it being a race and everyone enetering must treat it as one is really off putting to beginners. And as for sporives being races, well I don't know of any that are billed as races, so I'd be interested to know which ones are officially races.
Etape du Tour, for example, is a race and and is described as such.
I've never said everyone entering sportifs must treat it as a race. I agree that would be offputting to beginners.0 -
my 1st sportive was caledonia etape last weekend. did manage to jump on the back of a couple of groups for a while as they shot past and also had folk on my wheel from time to time. i dont personally see the problem! no it wasn't a race as such but i still wanted to see what sort of time i could achieve and was mega surprised to recieve a bronze medal at the end. when i managed to hold on to these groups i found it a real buzz and certainly was enjoyable, i knew full well i wasn't strong enough to have a go on the front yet i could still manage to stay with/in the group fairly comfortably. so perceived wisdom says i should take a turn up front or slow down and drop back? if somebody had suggested that at the time there would've been words had i think! i cant see the whole fuss about it all really as long as you're not an obvious hazard to others.0
-
lugster77 wrote:my 1st sportive was caledonia etape last weekend. did manage to jump on the back of a couple of groups for a while as they shot past and also had folk on my wheel from time to time. i dont personally see the problem! no it wasn't a race as such but i still wanted to see what sort of time i could achieve and was mega surprised to recieve a bronze medal at the end. when i managed to hold on to these groups i found it a real buzz and certainly was enjoyable, i knew full well i wasn't strong enough to have a go on the front yet i could still manage to stay with/in the group fairly comfortably. so perceived wisdom says i should take a turn up front or slow down and drop back? if somebody had suggested that at the time there would've been words had i think! i cant see the whole fuss about it all really as long as you're not an obvious hazard to others.
The whole "there isn't a problem with it" argument rests of the view that sportifs are "not races". Well, they are not races if by race you mean a British Cycling road race, but they often are races in the sense that there are a number of people competing to see how fast they can complete the course (if that isn't one definition of a race please explain what it is
). 0 -
wildmoustache wrote:
The whole "there isn't a problem with it" argument rests of the view that sportifs are "not races". Well, they are not races if by race you mean a British Cycling road race, but they often are races in the sense that there are a number of people competing to see how fast they can complete the course (if that isn't one definition of a race please explain what it is ).
Welllll.....I almost agree with this, but not quite! I agree that the point of sportives is, for almost everyone that enters them, to see how quickly they can complete the course, but unless you also have the realistic goal of being quicker than everyone else on the day, then for you it ain't really a 'race'. I could understand elite riders getting pissed off if someone sat in their group all the way round and then buggered off five miles from the finish to take the best time, but for the rest of us, if a slightly slower rider gets a tow from the group you're in, this will have a negligible effect on the time in which you complete the course and probably won't affect your finishing place either (and do you really care if you finish 85th instead of 83rd?)
I'm quite surprised that people get worked up about this; on my first sportive last weekend I was only too happy to give a gentleman a tow along the A66. I was going at my pace, his was a bit slower but if he could go a bit quicker by latching onto my wheel then good for him, makes no difference to me. Or am I just being too laid back about the whole thing?0 -
nasahapley wrote:wildmoustache wrote:
The whole "there isn't a problem with it" argument rests of the view that sportifs are "not races". Well, they are not races if by race you mean a British Cycling road race, but they often are races in the sense that there are a number of people competing to see how fast they can complete the course (if that isn't one definition of a race please explain what it is ).
Welllll.....I almost agree with this, but not quite! I agree that the point of sportives is, for almost everyone that enters them, to see how quickly they can complete the course, but unless you also have the realistic goal of being quicker than everyone else on the day, then for you it ain't really a 'race'. I could understand elite riders getting pissed off if someone sat in their group all the way round and then buggered off five miles from the finish to take the best time, but for the rest of us, if a slightly slower rider gets a tow from the group you're in, this will have a negligible effect on the time in which you complete the course and probably won't affect your finishing place either (and do you really care if you finish 85th instead of 83rd?)
I'm quite surprised that people get worked up about this; on my first sportive last weekend I was only too happy to give a gentleman a tow along the A66. I was going at my pace, his was a bit slower but if he could go a bit quicker by latching onto my wheel then good for him, makes no difference to me. Or am I just being too laid back about the whole thing?
I think you are on to something there. My earlier example from the Hampshire Hilly (where I did finish in the top ten) was exactly the type of free-loading you're talking about amongst those high up the field. The other thing you have to remember is that while someone is free-riding (endless drafting ) you don't actually know if they are genuinely struggling or are just conserving energy to bu**er off up the hill when they can.
Yes, you are being too laid back. Come on man, get shirty with these bludgers!!!0 -
Or better still take up proper racing like a real man....
0 -
Surely, whether you regard it as racing or not, the idea of a sportive is to get a sense of achievment.
What is the point in finishing & thinking. 'Well! I've done it...thanks to a bloke called Kevin from Bradford who did all the work?' If you are struggling & need a tow at the end to finish, fair enough, but otherwise all you are doing is deluding yourself. You owe it to yourself to take a turn
0 -
ellieb wrote:Surely, whether you regard it as racing or not, the idea of a sportive is to get a sense of achievment.
What is the point in finishing & thinking. 'Well! I've done it...thanks to a bloke called Kevin from Bradford who did all the work?' If you are struggling & need a tow at the end to finish, fair enough, but otherwise all you are doing is deluding yourself. You owe it to yourself to take a turn
Which is a different issue from other riders begrudging a tow. Logically from your argument the only "fair" eay to ride one is to do it solo, but then thats called a time trial, so where do you draw the line? What's fair and what isnt? Remember they are aimed at all levels of cyclist, not just experienced club riders. If cycling is to grow, if competitive racing is to grow it needs to recruit more members and participants. Sportives are a great way of dipping ones toes into the "pretend" race, so for the sake of growth and mainstream acceptance of cycling I personally prefer to see them aimed at just that audience, a mix of experience where you can either learn bunch riding skills / roadcraft, or use as a hard training ride if you are a more experienced racer. A bit of tolerance goes a long way to attracting newcomers, which is something sadly lacking in a lot of riders.....0 -
I think I must be unique! I've done 7 sportives now - including the Medio Fondo Cymru yesterday - not once have I spent more than 10-15 mins riding with either a group or A.N.Other!! I'm usually 2/3 rd's down the finishing order and heavy-ish so not quick on the climbs and fast on the decents. I long ago accepted that I ride the event at my own pace and it seems it doesn't coincide with anyone elses pace! As a result I have no problem with people sitting in behind - when I am too fast for them they fall away, and vice versa when I slow up. I do the events for fun and am competitive for my time but not for every inch of road. Yesterday the weather was awful but there were plenty of people saying hello in the last 1/3rd of the event - lots of those were clearly club riders/fitter/more experienced, etc, etc. I did find that some groups take crazy risks to overtake me when they had clearly caught me from miles back - several times I had to brake to allow people in. Surely the 10 seconds delay wouldn't have hurt their time....... I guess that common sense communications and decisions would help all round!0
-
Have read the last few pages of this post with interest. I'll admit to having sat in behind people on recent sportives and I've also tried to make sure I've taken my turn on the front. My favourite memory of riding was some impromptu through and off in a group of about 30 on the Etape de Legende last year.
I'll admit also to sometimes being irritated by people who hide behind me, but while it may be irritating, it really does make no difference to me aerodynamically, so why should it bother me? I've got the choice whether to feel cross about it, or whether to chill out.
Interesting exampel on the Tour of Wessex on Saturday across the levels. There was a guy who was just behind me for about 3 miles and I was beginning to feel peeved. I slowed a bit to try and push him forward and we ended up chatting and supporting each other for the remaining miles. What I learn from that is that if I give people a chance, sometimes they surprise me...0 -
topcattim wrote:Have read the last few pages of this post with interest. I'll admit to having sat in behind people on recent sportives and I've also tried to make sure I've taken my turn on the front. My favourite memory of riding was some impromptu through and off in a group of about 30 on the Etape de Legende last year.
I'll admit also to sometimes being irritated by people who hide behind me, but while it may be irritating, it really does make no difference to me aerodynamically, so why should it bother me? I've got the choice whether to feel cross about it, or whether to chill out.
Interesting exampel on the Tour of Wessex on Saturday across the levels. There was a guy who was just behind me for about 3 miles and I was beginning to feel peeved. I slowed a bit to try and push him forward and we ended up chatting and supporting each other for the remaining miles. What I learn from that is that if I give people a chance, sometimes they surprise me...
well put topcat. the fact it doesn't make much difference aerodynamically is fine unless the guy behind is sitting in only to stiff everyone when the road goes upwards / in the last 3 miles etc. it's that sort of dicking over which is unsporting IMO. I agree you should always give someone the benefit of the doubt.0 -
It might even be helping! I can't remember where I originally read this (in a book I think, shock horror, not online) but anyway, I think the principle is that someone following close behind you (how close I don't know) helps reduce your drag by stopping so many eddies forming just behind you, easing your passage through the air. I've found one link http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/aerodynamics2.html that sort of explains it but maybe someone more phsics-minded might have a better description (or debunk the theory!)it really does make no difference to me aerodynamically, so why should it bother me?0 -
On cycling holidays I've seen a lot of poor riding in terms of discipline and road sense from British riders in particular. Many seem not to know how to ride in a group, follow a wheel, not freewheel for no apparent reason when in front of others, or how to descend without drifting onto the wrong side of the road on blind corners. All the Italians I saw on the Nove Colli rode well in terms of discipline and road sense though. My first and so far only experience of sportive riding was the Nove Colli in Emilia Romagna, Italy last weekend. Great ride, brilliant atmosphere and not too bad a standard of riding. Not everyone was very fast or good at climbing, and many were massively over geared so tended to stall on hills, but no one did anything stupid, all I saw were well behaved and shouted out 'piano' , 'nistra' and other warnings when slowing, stopping, passing etc. I couldn't go 'on the front' as I never saw it - we were pretty packed together and just riding like one big mass peleton most of the time, so there was never really any open road in sight except right at the end, though even there there were large groups riding close together so no real need or even a chance to get on any 'front' of a group. I'd definitely recommend doing this one as it was such a fun day with so many spectators cheering us on. It was extremely exciting as it was such a fast ride (the start and end are completely flat and very fast paced) and there's a real feeling of elation at the end as we crossed the finish line (amongst a large group of other riders) to cheers from the crowd and some mad commentary in Italian over a loud hailer - no idea what he found to shout about for so long!0
-
Couple of comments, one negative, one positive:
- Negative: I am all for finishers getting a certificate with their individual time on + publishing gold etc standards in advance, which helps (once target of just finishing is done) measure progress.
However know I am in a minority but I do not agree with publishing finish times of all riders so you can see who came first, top 10 etc. In my mind this blurs difference between racing and non-racing and apart from encouraging some of the more negative aspects mentioned above also poses a risk to sportives themselves. Not sure how you explain to non-cyclists that an event that has riders ranked by finish time is not a race.
- Positive: The Tour of Ireland had a system that I thought could be used elsewhere. The organisers arranged for nominated (pro/expro) riders to lead "fast","medium" and "slow" groups. This made it easy for those who wanted to ride as a group to find one appropriate for their speed. (and if they choose too quick then they knew a group would be along later (or the broom wagon for the slow group)). Whats more when in the group the leaders helped organise it so it ran smoothly and as a result a lot of riders (including me) got some group riding coaching.
Maybe other sportives could do similar? Alternatively instead of having a random start why not stagger starts based on who is aiming for a given standard. So start golds first, then silivers, then bronze, then "just want to get to the enders".Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
I don't understand this. Why would it being a 'race' have any impact on public support and/or participation in sportives? The example of other sports doesn't suggest that: 80+% of the people entering the London marathon are not "contenders" and maybe don't even view it as a race (except against themselves). The ones at the front do, obviously! But lots (and lots!) of people take part and lots and lots of people support them (despite the disruption to their day/roads as discussed on other threads). What is it about sportives that makes them different? I can't see any difference, meself - some people want to go fast, some people want to finish...in my mind this blurs difference between racing and non-racing and apart from encouraging some of the more negative aspects mentioned above also poses a risk to sportives themselves. Not sure how you explain to non-cyclists that an event that has riders ranked by finish time is not a race.0 -
bahzob wrote:
- Positive: The Tour of Ireland had a system that I thought could be used elsewhere. The organisers arranged for nominated (pro/expro) riders to lead "fast","medium" and "slow" groups. This made it easy for those who wanted to ride as a group to find one appropriate for their speed. (and if they choose too quick then they knew a group would be along later (or the broom wagon for the slow group)). Whats more when in the group the leaders helped organise it so it ran smoothly and as a result a lot of riders (including me) got some group riding coaching.
Maybe other sportives could do similar? Alternatively instead of having a random start why not stagger starts based on who is aiming for a given standard. So start golds first, then silivers, then bronze, then "just want to get to the enders".
I think that only works where you have a reasonably small number of riders starting at the same time, and taking equal amounts of feed-stop time. Hills also means that groups fragment alomost immediately.
Also, the policy in the UK is often to start riders off in lots of small groups at intervals so as not to clog up the roads too much early on. From then on it all splits up massively.0 -
It probably depends which sportive you do but you usually get a list of rules/regs etc which tell you what is expected, whether the ride is a race or not and how/where times are published. You simply don't enter the sportive if you don't agree to the rules!
The one we did in Italy was a race for elite riders and those who wanted to race but for most people it was a fun day out. The racers set off first in a separate group. The pace at the start was fast for everyone anyway, whichever group they set off in. Of course it slowed to stand still for a few seconds at various bottle necks. This obviously wouldn't have effected the smaller group of elite riders who had started first but it wasn't seen as a real problem or anything to get frustrated about by anyone I saw anyway - it was just accepted that this is what happens when you get 12,000 cyclists on narrow cobbled old-town centre streets, despite closed roads and good planning. It was only for a few seconds, maybe a minute, at a couple of places , so unless you're an elite rider where every second counts, and you actually have any chance at all of crossing the line first, there was nothing lost by anyone by having to stop briefly. No one that I saw took any silly risks to get a good time, even though of course many people still wanted to get the best time thy can whilst obeying the rules of the road and staying safe.
Regarding public support: there was a big crowd for the whole event and at the finish, regardless of the fact that the elites for whom it actually was a race finished several hours before us! I don't think it being a race or not has any bearing on support - it's cultural. Cycling is a big thing in Italy and seems to draw crowds, no matter what type of event. we watched bits of the giro near to where we stayed and there seemed to be as many spectators at the Nove Collii as there were at many points along the route of both stages we saw!0 -
ded wrote:I don't understand this. Why would it being a 'race' have any impact on public support and/or participation in sportives? The example of other sports doesn't suggest that: 80+% of the people entering the London marathon are not "contenders" and maybe don't even view it as a race (except against themselves). The ones at the front do, obviously! But lots (and lots!) of people take part and lots and lots of people support them (despite the disruption to their day/roads as discussed on other threads). What is it about sportives that makes them different? I can't see any difference, meself - some people want to go fast, some people want to finish...
There are lots of differences between well publicised London (+ other city centre) running events held in a relatively small area with traffic excluded and 100mile+ sportives held on open roads.where the vast majority of other road users dont even know the event is happening until a bunch of cyclists comes round the corner. Organisers of real cycle road races have to comply with a lot of legalities to run their event (and even if they do somebody can still cause problems as the Wessex tour itself found this year).
I am concerned that at some point someone will come a serious cropper on a sportive, that an inquest will decide this is because it was being treated as a race and as a result sportives will become a lot harder to stage.
Hopefully, (I am optimistic), following on from the TOW pro race debacle and other related issues some of the rules concerning how official road races are organised will be clarified and as a result some sportives will be able to run in a similar way to the continent. Until then I do not think it sensible to publish sportive "results" in a way that they could be interpreted as races. (Also unless the event is run as a race I fail to see what use these results serve.)Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
Interesting you mention Wessex in this manner, bahzob, and have similar worries to me as to what will happen if there's a serious accident or fatality on a sportive, what the coroner/police/etc would say and what the effect would be on running sportives.
Yes doubtless a sportive isn't legally a race because for it to be so it would have to jump through all sorts of other hoops with British Cycling and the poilice/local authorities, would require totally different insurance cover, etc. and there's the little nmatter of the 'racing on the highway act' or whatever it's called.
But when riders are issued with numbers to stick on the front of their bikes and a results table is published, how is it not a race, at least in the minds of most of the riders and all the general public you're going to come across ?
(- particularly any motorists cut-up by riders, or pedestrians or horseriders scared by them, or people whose houses are on the course, etc)
In reality, the number on the front of the bike is for the benefit of the photographer so they can flog you their pictures
- but in last years Tour of Wessex (I didn't do it this year) pre-event blurb they were referred to as 'race numbers' and the start was referred to as 'race headquarters', etc.
Walking on thin ice...
<edit - I've just been and had a look on Tour of Wessex website, had a look at the pre-event pack and it's now all changed - no mention of 'race', they're now 'rider numbers', and there's much emphasis of it being public roads/highway code etc
- methinks somebody's had a word with them...>0 -
A fair point - not one I had thought of when answering the post above. I guess it probably comes down to a clear and unambiguous participation statement - "I am taking part in this sportive but I will obey all rules of the road, I am aware that this is not a race..." etc. in the same way that organisers of running events have a statement saying "As far as I know I am fit to take part and am unlikely to drop dead at mile 2...". Although how much legal standing these really have I have no idea, nor do I have any idea of the headaches involved in getting every participant to sign one...I am concerned that at some point someone will come a serious cropper on a sportive, that an inquest will decide this is because it was being treated as a race and as a result sportives will become a lot harder to stage.
This is surely an area open to all sorts of interpretation? I'm no lawyer, but in an event where the start is staggered a table of overall times can hardly constitute a "race" all on its own, can it? If all the riders start at once, I can see the argument...(which feeds in directly to your comments about sportives on the continent I think).Until then I do not think it sensible to publish sportive "results" in a way that they could be interpreted as races.
As Andy_wrx said above, for the people taking part it is a race of sorts and they will want to see how their times compare against friends, enemies and the world in general. For some people taking part in a sportive (including me), that is of interest and it would be disappointing if it had to go just on the off chance that at some point somebody might do something very silly (on a bike or to a rider)...(Also unless the event is run as a race I fail to see what use these results serve.)0 -
Just point of clarification: I only mentioned Wessex in particular because of the way a really good idea (that of running a pro race/sportive) was scuppered late on, due to interference from the authorities. My concern is that same authorities may take a similar view to sportives themselves if they think people are treating them as races.
(Just checked my info pack for the event which I downloaded a while back and it makes a very clear statement that the event is run as sportive not a race (though having just ridden it the final day was more a test of survival than anything else
). Still will be back next year. Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
wildmoustache wrote:topcattim wrote:Have read the last few pages of this post with interest. I'll admit to having sat in behind people on recent sportives and I've also tried to make sure I've taken my turn on the front. My favourite memory of riding was some impromptu through and off in a group of about 30 on the Etape de Legende last year.
I'll admit also to sometimes being irritated by people who hide behind me, but while it may be irritating, it really does make no difference to me aerodynamically, so why should it bother me? I've got the choice whether to feel cross about it, or whether to chill out.
Interesting exampel on the Tour of Wessex on Saturday across the levels. There was a guy who was just behind me for about 3 miles and I was beginning to feel peeved. I slowed a bit to try and push him forward and we ended up chatting and supporting each other for the remaining miles. What I learn from that is that if I give people a chance, sometimes they surprise me...
well put topcat. the fact it doesn't make much difference aerodynamically is fine unless the guy behind is sitting in only to stiff everyone when the road goes upwards / in the last 3 miles etc. it's that sort of dicking over which is unsporting IMO. I agree you should always give someone the benefit of the doubt.
which is the behaviour of someone who is clearly experiened enough to know what he or she is doing, unlike a beginner simply lloking for a rest or some help around the course. I said earlier that if you are in a group and you're all knowingly racing each other then you would have some reason to get peed off at that kind of behaviour, which is just as irritating on a Sunday club run...0 -
(This is surely an area open to all sorts of interpretation? I'm no lawyer, but in an event where the start is staggered a table of overall times can hardly constitute a "race" all on its own, can it? If all the riders start at once, I can see the argument...(which feeds in directly to your comments about sportives on the continent I think).
I don't understand that. The Nove Colli had a staggered start in that individual times were taken from the exact time you actually cross the start line and the finish line, not from the official start time of the event. Is this not the case with sportives in the UK then? Time trials have staggered starts and yet are races in that the winner is the one with the lowest time so I don't understand why it cannot be classified as a race just because people start at different times? In a sportive of course if you're allocated number 4500 rather than 150 your time is going to be a few minutes slower than if you started as number 150 because you are likely to be subject to slowing or stopping due at bottlenecks in the early stages of the event, as happened to us but not to others from our hotel who started further forward in the bunch and at an earlier time. There isn't much you can do about that but for most people the few minutes do not make a significant difference as they do not have a chance of winning the event anyway. Anyone with any chance of that starts at the front in the elite group.0 -
I find the standard varies from event to event. I was passed on a blind bend on the Cheshire cat by a middle aged fellow with no helmet and no road sense who went straight into the path of an oncoming car. He screamed and went straight into the hedge. I'm glad he wasnt hurt but had little sympathy for such dumb riding. . I usually find the most dangerous cycling is on descents where people take insane risks. The Fred has serious accidents every year. On the Tour of Wessex I was passed by a group going through Chedder really beltting it, I went round the corner and one of them was on the grass screaming (he was ok as it happened). The descending off the Glandon on last years Marmotte was also insane considering the road was open, i'm not suprised someone was killed the previous year. It's just a matter of time before someone wipes out in a British sportive.
On the subject of sportives not advertised as races the Fred publishes fastest riders and the course record being broken this year made the front page of this site.Sometimes you have to lose yourself
before you can find anything.0
