How do you win a sportive?

amaferanga

ugo.santalucia wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

A sportive without timing? That's an audax isn't it.

I won a sportive the year I started racing. Didn't win a single race though even against 4th Cats only.

No, you are wrong. Up to 6 years ago, give or take, no Uk sportive had electronic timing, but route cards instead. Electronic timing has been introduced as an upgrade, to lure the middle aged competitive lot into events which are by nature not competitive (but challening). The result is an explosion of NON challenging events on various flatlands which become the perfect field for unofficial competition.
That normally is not a problem for anybody, as rivalry and competitiveness are seen on sunday rides as well.
The paradox is when the organisers promote competitiveness on one hand (what's the need for standards, medals and official results on the web?) and claim they promote a NON competitive event on the other

Wrong about what exactly? It's not at all clear from your post what point you're addressing nor what point you're trying to make!

You are wrong in thinking that timing chips are the essence of a sportive. They aren't. A sportive is a non competitive organised ride, which is signed and catered for. An audax is an organised ride with no signage or catering provided (some food can be available at discretion of the organisers)

No. You're wrong. An audax is about wearing sandals, telling boring stories about PBP 1991, steel bikes with mudguards and enormous saddlebags and fat men with beards.

Maybe...
You should consider PBP... that is a real challenge... sucking somebody's wheel for six hours, climbing up and down a few bumps and dips and getting a gold plated piece of nickel is one thing, cycling from Paris to Brest and back in 90 hours and sleeping rough is way more manly... you need real hairy balls for that

Read about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris%E2%8 ... 80%93Paris
it's fascinating

I've already done it (in 2007).

rodgers73

I thought the winner of a sportive was the one with the most patients in his dental practice...

CYCLESPORT1

Non-Competitive On-Road
and Off-Road Events
Rules, Regulations & Guidelines



2.8 Publication of 'Result'
The only "result" issued shall be a list of riders who have completed the route within the
specified time. Organisers must not publish a list of riders by finishing times nor indicate the
order in which riders finished. The appropriate format is alphabetical name order.
The awarding of prizes cannot be given on placings. The use of a podium would indicate theevent was of a competitive nature, so should not be used.

polocini

Am I missing something??? Paul Gray didn't even 'win'

44 M18 Paul Gray 08:37 1h 25m 3h 12m 13:23 4h 45m Gold (KH)

There are faster riders:

35 M18 E Ong 08:37 1h 40m 2h 28m 13:03 4h 25m Gold (KH)
141 M40 Matt Park 08:37 1h 37m 2h 16m 12:36 3h 59m Gold (KH)
6 M40 Julian Kirwan-taylor 08:33 1h 41m 2h 25m 13:17 4h 43m Gold (KH)

Unless I have misread the results???
AL

LeighB

The events in our area are clearly titled ‘Challenge’ i.e. Cumberland Challenge, Three Counties Challenge, Fred Whitton Challenge etc. The challenge can be in different forms for different people, the first event I entered it was the challenge of completing a 120 mile ride and then subsequent events the challenge was to improve my times. I think this is the attraction of a sportive ride, it can be different things to different people so why all the fuss about what title some local paper attaches to it.

amaferanga

LeighB wrote:

The events in our area are clearly titled ‘Challenge’ i.e. Cumberland Challenge, Three Counties Challenge, Fred Whitton Challenge etc. The challenge can be in different forms for different people, the first event I entered it was the challenge of completing a 120 mile ride and then subsequent events the challenge was to improve my times. I think this is the attraction of a sportive ride, it can be different things to different people so why all the fuss about what title some local paper attaches to it.

Um because if people start calling them races then it won't be long before they get banned?

gilesjuk

I did a sportive on my Surly Big Dummy. A 50 miler with some big climbs. This was with a Rohloff hub, dynamo hub and big volume slicks.

I wasn't first, I wasn't last (400 before me, 100 after me). But where's the challenge in riding a lightweight bike that minimises effort?

Some others were riding Pashley Guvvnors, they were more in the spirit of challenging yourself

Philip Whiteman

amaferanga wrote:

Um because if people start calling them races then it won't be long before they get banned?

Correct!

This may occur from one or two directions. Firstly, local police may forbid the event via the use of the Cycle Racing on the Highways Regulations 1960. I heard second hand that a traffic section of one police area had been looking into the matter of sportives. Secondly, insurers may stop the provision of cover for these type of events. No insurer as far as I am aware covers racing events accept where organised under the controlled conditions of BC or LVRC.

AUK do not publish timed results for audaxes and cycle clubs do not produce individual rankings for reliability trials for this very reason. Whilst many sportive organisers are responsible in respect of ranking individual rider's times, those that continue by producing a ranked list or an excel sheet where rankings can be tabulated could theoretically induce a ban.

Tom Butcher

Yes exactly - it's not that people aren't racing them - it's that the organisers don't want anyone to admit to that in public because it might put sportives at risk.

I'm sure we all understand exactly where southernsportive and cyclosport are coming from but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. If you publish results some riders will compete to be first home -two or more people competing to beat one another over a given route - what else do you call it but a race ?

juggler

I would like the option to pay a reduced fee for not using a timing chip on sportives...

nhoj

juggler wrote:

I would like the option to pay a reduced fee for not using a timing chip on sportives...

That would be good. If there isn't a big clock at the start and finish, your own computer or watch can tell you the time. (Does anyone still wear a watch?) All I need is a few signs and some strategically-placed munchies - shouldn't cost more than a couple of quid. If you want to do a time-trial, do a time-trial. If you want some banter in a mixed field, do a sportive or an audax.

Stedman

Is a sportive a race? I would like to think that the majority of those who take part in these events would say no. Are sportives competitive events? I have always been under the impression that these were semi-competitive. Unfortunately in the UK there is no formal body that have identified what formally constitutes a sportive and if you type this word into Wikipedia you get some of the following descriptions:

• "A cyclosportive, or often simply sportive, is a long distance, organised, mass-participation cycling event"
• "Sportives are cycling's cousin of running’s marathon"
• "A cyclosportive falls between a traditional cycle road race and a non-competitive randonnée or Audax event"
• "Riders normally carry a number and the time they take to complete the course is recorded"
• "Although sportives are not races, entrants’ times are recorded and riders are given their finishing position. This can encourage the fastest cyclists to push the pace, with faster riders working together to increase speed in a pro-peloton style"
• "Also like the marathon, the top placed riders in a cyclosportive ride the event like a race and there are prizes awarded"

Admittedly I have been a bit selective with these, however if I were a senior constable with one eye on my resources, it would be very easy to say that that this is cycle road racing and therefore it is not permitted.

bompington

Stedman wrote:

I"Sportives are cycling's cousin of running’s marathon"

This. Is the London Marathon a race?

Pseudonym

bompington wrote:

Stedman wrote:

I"Sportives are cycling's cousin of running’s marathon"

This. Is the London Marathon a race?

That comparison only works if you accept that a sportive is like a marathon - which it clearly isn't.

A sportive is the cycling equivalent of a sponsored walk - the objective being to complete the distance....

SouthernSportive

Tom Butcher wrote:

Yes exactly - it's not that people aren't racing them - it's that the organisers don't want anyone to admit to that in public because it might put sportives at risk.

I'm sure we all understand exactly where southernsportive and cyclosport are coming from but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. If you publish results some riders will compete to be first home -two or more people competing to beat one another over a given route - what else do you call it but a race ?

No. That is completely wrong. A sportive (or any other event) is what is laid out to be and described as by the organisers. It does not become something else just because a few of the people taking part would like to be something else. In a football match, if some of the players start fouling one another, their actions do not by default change the rules of the game, simply because that is how they have chosen to play it. They just break the rules and bring their game into disrepute. When you sign up to a sportive, you agree to the terms and conditions to which the event has been presented, and it doesn't magically become a race just because you want to beat your mate Dave.

Time bands and published times do not automatically make it a race either. As I said in my previous post, the definitions of a race that have been agreed by all parties who have an interest (eg. the lines a sportive must not cross to avoid being judged as an illegally run race), include promoting competition between riders, declaring winners, awarding of prizes based on performance, publishing of results in time order and holding podium style presentations. I should add to this that time bands are generally agreed as acceptable, as long as they are achievable by a rider riding legally and safely (BC recommend no more than 18mph. We set our highest target band as 17mph), and published results are acceptable as long as they are not in 'race' order. Everyone we have ever spoken to who has interest in the impact of public events (police, local and parks authorities, insurers etc.) is satisfied with this as an acceptable presentation of these events.

What matters far more than just arguing semantics though, is how people actually behave on these events. All that the police, local authorities etc. really care about is that riders on the roads ride legally, and don't present a danger or a nuisance. If everyone understands what sportives are, then that's not a problem. If everyone who enters a sportive insists on treating it as a full on race though, it still doesn't make it a race. What it does make it, is uncontrolled. And if the people involved in sportives (by which I mean both organisers and participants) can't demonstrate that they can control themselves, that's when they will find themselves controlled by law. And if that happens, sportives will lose a lot of their freedom and appeal.

That's why writing to the paper claiming you 'won' a sportive isn't helpful. And that's why posting on forums that 'sportives are races in all but name' isn't helpful. Bit by bit, it's another small chip out of the events' foundations. So next time you* want to enter a sportive and you think it's really a race, give the organiser a call and ask him; is it a race or not? When he says no, take that as a statement of fact and, if you still want a good ride at your own preferred pace, go ahead and enter anyway. But if you really do want to race against other riders, get a Cat 4 license, get over to the BC site and find a proper race to enter.


*EDIT: (Just to clarify - Tom Butcher, when I say 'you' in this context I'm talking generally, not addressing that remark directly at you!)

bompington

Pseudonym wrote:

That comparison only works if you accept that a sportive is like a marathon - which it clearly isn't.

Not clear to me, please explain

dead sheep

SouthernSportive wrote:

No. That is completely wrong. A sportive (or any other event) is what is laid out to be and described as by the organisers. It does not become something else just because a few of the people taking part would like to be something else. In a football match, if some of the players start fouling one another, their actions do not by default change the rules of the game, simply because that is how they have chosen to play it. They just break the rules and bring their game into disrepute. When you sign up to a sportive, you agree to the terms and conditions to which the event has been presented, and it doesn't magically become a race just because you want to beat your mate Dave.

Time bands and published times do not automatically make it a race either. As I said in my previous post, the definitions of a race that have been agreed by all parties who have an interest (eg. the lines a sportive must not cross to avoid being judged as an illegally run race), include promoting competition between riders, declaring winners, awarding of prizes based on performance, publishing of results in time order and holding podium style presentations. I should add to this that time bands are generally agreed as acceptable, as long as they are achievable by a rider riding legally and safely (BC recommend no more than 18mph. We set our highest target band as 17mph), and published results are acceptable as long as they are not in 'race' order. Everyone we have ever spoken to who has interest in the impact of public events (police, local and parks authorities, insurers etc.) is satisfied with this as an acceptable presentation of these events.

What matters far more than just arguing semantics though, is how people actually behave on these events. All that the police, local authorities etc. really care about is that riders on the roads ride legally, and don't present a danger or a nuisance. If everyone understands what sportives are, then that's not a problem. If everyone who enters a sportive insists on treating it as a full on race though, it still doesn't make it a race. What it does make it, is uncontrolled. And if the people involved in sportives (by which I mean both organisers and participants) can't demonstrate that they can control themselves, that's when they will find themselves controlled by law. And if that happens, sportives will lose a lot of their freedom and appeal.

"It was a only a cycle event and a notta race. And that's the honest truth Me'Lud."

Pseudonym

bompington wrote:

Pseudonym wrote:

That comparison only works if you accept that a sportive is like a marathon - which it clearly isn't.

Not clear to me, please explain

well, let's see....

the winner of a marathon is the first runner across the finish line, because it's a mass-start competitive event. Do I need to continue..?

Stedman

dead sheep wrote:

SouthernSportive wrote:

No. That is completely wrong. A sportive (or any other event) is what is laid out to be and described as by the organisers. It does not become something else just because a few of the people taking part would like to be something else. In a football match, if some of the players start fouling one another, their actions do not by default change the rules of the game, simply because that is how they have chosen to play it. They just break the rules and bring their game into disrepute. When you sign up to a sportive, you agree to the terms and conditions to which the event has been presented, and it doesn't magically become a race just because you want to beat your mate Dave.

Time bands and published times do not automatically make it a race either. As I said in my previous post, the definitions of a race that have been agreed by all parties who have an interest (eg. the lines a sportive must not cross to avoid being judged as an illegally run race), include promoting competition between riders, declaring winners, awarding of prizes based on performance, publishing of results in time order and holding podium style presentations. I should add to this that time bands are generally agreed as acceptable, as long as they are achievable by a rider riding legally and safely (BC recommend no more than 18mph. We set our highest target band as 17mph), and published results are acceptable as long as they are not in 'race' order. Everyone we have ever spoken to who has interest in the impact of public events (police, local and parks authorities, insurers etc.) is satisfied with this as an acceptable presentation of these events.

What matters far more than just arguing semantics though, is how people actually behave on these events. All that the police, local authorities etc. really care about is that riders on the roads ride legally, and don't present a danger or a nuisance. If everyone understands what sportives are, then that's not a problem. If everyone who enters a sportive insists on treating it as a full on race though, it still doesn't make it a race. What it does make it, is uncontrolled. And if the people involved in sportives (by which I mean both organisers and participants) can't demonstrate that they can control themselves, that's when they will find themselves controlled by law. And if that happens, sportives will lose a lot of their freedom and appeal.

"It was a only a cycle event and a notta race. And that's the honest truth Me'Lud."

Regulation 2(1) of The Cycle Racing on Highways Regulations, 1960 (and 1980 and 1995 amendments) states that a 'bicycle race' means a race or trial of speed between bicycles or tricycles, not being motor vehicles, which is not a time trial'.

From the above interpretation, once a bicycle is fitted with a timing chip, times and positions are published in gold, silver or bronze bands, it begins to look more like a cycle race and far as many of the public are concerned, once we wear numbers then it must be a cycle race!

As far as I am aware nobody has legally clarified what a sportive actually is unlike audax where the scope of this is clearly defined. Whatever the organisers actually state in their terms and conditions, I think that I would find myself with a very difficult argument (under cross examination) trying to state that ‘I was not racing’.

Tom Butcher

We shall just have to agree to disagree.

If you don't want people to think they've "won" a sportive then it seems pretty simple to me - don't publish results. I know what a road race is - I've ridden and organised them - I also know that if you put a number on someone's back, time them and then publish the results it's naive to say some people wont be racing whether you have a permit for a race or not.

I haven't ridden a UK sportive for years but when I was I seem to remember the likes of Rob Jebb trying to get the record for the Fred Whitton and the organisers publishing that quite openly - I suppose he wasn't racing that event ? When he finished first I suppose he hadn't won it ?

SouthernSportive

"A race or trial of speed between bicycles" means that the objective is to go faster than the other riders involved in the "race or trial of speed". It's actually pretty well defined; "between" is the key word. A race or trial of speed involves pitting competitors against one another for the purpose of establishing a winner. That's not the objective of a sportive as laid out by the organiser, and is not the format you agree to abide by when you sign up to the event.

I actually think that it would be fairly easy to argue in a legal case that a sportive is different from a race. I hope it never comes to that though, because if it does, it won't be because sportives really are deemed to be races. It'll be because they are deemed to need controlling, and that'd be a different argument.

schlepcycling

I wonder if a bit of journalistic licence has been used here.

The wording in the article posted by the OP differs from that used on the Reading CC website
http://www.readingcyclingclub.com/node/625

The article says “I was very pleased to finish my sportive season with my fastest time and making it three wins in the six events I entered this year,”

Whereas the report on the Reading CC website says "I was very pleased to finish my sportive season with another fastest time, which I achieved in 3 out of the 6 that I entered this year."

SouthernSportive

schlepcycling wrote:

I wonder if a bit of journalistic licence has been used here.

The wording in the article posted by the OP differs from that used on the Reading CC website
http://www.readingcyclingclub.com/node/625

The article says “I was very pleased to finish my sportive season with my fastest time and making it three wins in the six events I entered this year,”

Whereas the report on the Reading CC website says "I was very pleased to finish my sportive season with another fastest time, which I achieved in 3 out of the 6 that I entered this year."

Very interesting - that does make it look like some lazy hack at the paper...

Pseudonym

SouthernSportive wrote:

Very interesting - that does make it look like some lazy hack at the paper...

laziness would be simply regurgitating the same copy - ironically if he/she had done that, there wouldn't be as much of a problem...

Pokerface

amaferanga wrote:

LeighB wrote:

The events in our area are clearly titled ‘Challenge’ i.e. Cumberland Challenge, Three Counties Challenge, Fred Whitton Challenge etc. The challenge can be in different forms for different people, the first event I entered it was the challenge of completing a 120 mile ride and then subsequent events the challenge was to improve my times. I think this is the attraction of a sportive ride, it can be different things to different people so why all the fuss about what title some local paper attaches to it.

Um because if people start calling them races then it won't be long before they get banned?

In that case, I suggest we ALL start calling them races pronto!!

Pokerface

juggler wrote:

I would like the option to pay a reduced fee for not using a timing chip on sportives...

You have this option at all sportives.

You get 100% off if you just show up and ride*



*Applies to forgoing the timing chip, feed stops and any medal/certificate at the end.

mididoctors

stanthomas wrote:

First out of 64 at 27.6kph :roll:
Bragging rights down the pub maybe but hardly news. Not much happens in Reading then.

+1

FFS people have finished the FW at faster speeds

FJS

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Why don't you reverse the trend? If your event is good, it will survive even without the timing chips. Riders will be attracted by the course, the organisation and the fact that it will be cheaper than the competition... lots of people complain that sportives cost too much... if you get rid of the timing, you save 30%, give or take
The RVV, which, as far as I know, is the biggest sportive in the world by numbers, has no timing chips

This is the point. The RVV is not a sportive. It's a 'toertocht' or audax. Only in the UK people seem to think it is a sportive.
Personally I don't quite get (apart from the legal side) the UK tendency to get hung up over cyclosportives 'not being races'. The whole point for me is that they are timed and (mildly) competitive. If you want to have a non-competitive ride, there's audaxes or you can get yourself a map.

Take the Maratona and other Italian Gran Fondos - very much with a winner, prize money, a podium, etc. but still very different from actual races.

DaveMoss

How long before we get some sponsored "not racing" teams in sportives?

Despite what other posters have said Sportives really are like mass participation running marathons, but without the winners and prizes (or the massed start in most cases) . I.e most of the "competitors" know they haven't got a cat in hells chance of winning, or even coming close, but still try for either the best time they can get, or at the slower end, to get round without too much walking.

One subtle, but significant difference, in a sportive the riders who probably could be fastest know it's not a race so ride with a few mates rather than going for the fastest time, which means whoever does end up with the fastest time is no more a "winner" than the guy with the slowest time who still completed the course.

Pigtail

There are definitely people out there who want to get a really good time- often working as a group as Dave said, rather than individually.

I would have had the 37th fastest time in the Etape Caledonia this year...........................









if I had been a woman!!!!!