Road racing and sportives.

dulldave

I wrote a piece about road racing and sportives you might be interested in reading.
http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2013/02/25 ... ad-racing/

gattocattivo

It is interesting, but it feels like the conclusion has been left off. What would you like to change? I think you've made some good points, but it's not simply a lack of focus/promotion from BC towards amateur road racing that has lessened the take up compared to sportives. The fundamental difference is that you can do a sportive at your own pace, so that's always going to be more attractive to a greater number of people with a wider range of abilities. Whereas for a road race you've got to be fit/strong/brave enough to keep up with the bunch otherwise it's a waste of time.

imposter2.0

BC is in a tricky position, to be fair. Cycling is the new 'golf', and if a massive influx of 'new' cyclists all want to ride sportives, you can't really discourage them - nor should you. If only 5% of them make the switch to club membership/racing at some point, it will have been worthwhile.

dulldave

gattocattivo wrote:

It is interesting, but it feels like the conclusion has been left off. What would you like to change? I think you've made some good points, but it's not simply a lack of focus/promotion from BC towards amateur road racing that has lessened the take up compared to sportives. The fundamental difference is that you can do a sportive at your own pace, so that's always going to be more attractive to a greater number of people with a wider range of abilities. Whereas for a road race you've got to be fit/strong/brave enough to keep up with the bunch otherwise it's a waste of time.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't do sportives, I'm suggesting that a clearer distinction is necessary between sportives and races. There are lots of things I think can be done to improve the situation but if I were to put them all into the article it'd be the length of War and Peace and I don't think there is one single answer. There is a variety approaches that could work.

As for having to be fit and strong enough to keep up with a road race in order to keep up or it's a waste of time, I disagree. Most people spend a year getting dropped before they can keep up with a race, the riders who drop them are the ones who were stubborn enough to keep at it in previous years.

chrisaonabike

dulldave wrote:

I'm suggesting that a clearer distinction is necessary between sportives and races.

I read your article with interest, but the main thing that stuck out for me is that as a beginner (as of last October), I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

I've read a few articles about sportives in various mags, I've rooted around on the interweb for details of some of them, and FWIW I'm in Ride London 100 in August, which will be my first sportive, unless I can do any in the meantime.

But I haven't read anything at all that suggests to me either that Sportives are races, or that people participating in them treat them as races. In fact, the only thing I've seen that relates to amateur racing has been on a couple of club sites I was looking at.

It wouldnt surprise me if, on RL100, some people race others for fun, for parts of the course, but if they're not riding dangerously, is it a problem?

danlikesbikes

dulldave wrote:

As for having to be fit and strong enough to keep up with a road race in order to keep up or it's a waste of time, I disagree. Most people spend a year getting dropped before they can keep up with a race, the riders who drop them are the ones who were stubborn enough to keep at it in previous years.

Tend to agree with you - I know that was true for me & many other of the guys I raced with a few years ago.

It does make for a good piece though & I do understand your lack of a conclusion as it could take ages. I do feel that racing at grass routes level does lose out in terms of press coverage & perhaps this has a knock on effect at the higher level domestic races as they could struggle to attract sufficient sponsorship.

imposter2.0

dulldave wrote:

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't do sportives, I'm suggesting that a clearer distinction is necessary between sportives and races.

in what way do you feel this distinction is currently not clear?

dulldave

Imposter wrote:

dulldave wrote:

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't do sportives, I'm suggesting that a clearer distinction is necessary between sportives and races.

in what way do you feel this distinction is currently not clear?

As I said in the article there is money to be made in allowing sportivists to kid on they are racing and everyone who is making money out of the rise of sportives is sustaining the lie. If you want to attract people to the competitive side of the sport then it needs to be visible. Just now it isn't.

imposter2.0

You're probably correct, but if people want to kid themselves they are racing it's a difficult thing to address. As it stands, I think the law itself is clear enough - whether it is actually enforced enough is another matter. I agree with the sentiment though..

dulldave

You can't stop people kidding themselves on but you can refrain from humouring them to make more money. There's a lot to be said for how much of a difference a simple change of language would have.

BeaconRuth

dulldave wrote:

As I said in the article there is money to be made in allowing sportivists to kid on they are racing and everyone who is making money out of the rise of sportives is sustaining the lie. If you want to attract people to the competitive side of the sport then it needs to be visible. Just now it isn't.

You could also conclude that a very great many cyclists are inspired to get out and ride sportives because they perceive them to be exciting, challenging and accessible. I'd rather focus on how many more people are riding their bikes now, than on who is making money out of "sustaining the lie".

I'm not convinced there are a whole lot of riders out there who are potentially competitive road racers who are not finding their way to real races - which, correct me if I'm wrong, is your main point.

There's a very high threshold for participation in road racing and sportives have filled a massive gaping hole for average/lower ability/new cyclists to get out and enjoy cycling. What surprises me (but probably shouldn't) is the power of marketing and the importance of 'image' because organised rides, essentially identical to sportives, have been organised for years by Audax UK and have never taken off in the way sportives have.

Ruth

Barbarossa

dulldave wrote:

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't do sportives, I'm suggesting that a clearer distinction is necessary between sportives and races.

Why?

I've done a number of Gran Fondos in Italy and at the front of the field, there is not much difference between a GF and a road race. You need to have a racing licence to compete. You are timed and results are published. Most are grouped with other GFs into a league.

Wouldn't blurring the distinction between a Sportive and a race encourage more people into racing?

mamba80

Sportives are the new racing and you are arguing against the tide here.

RR is perceived as elitist and inaccessible, personally thats not always the case - but BC s attititude towards the lower levels doesnt help.
On the local BC committee, the snobbery shown towards Sportives and their riders is staggering

Sportives are great and i d like to see them run more on the european model, prizes, even a league?
More like a runners half/full Marathon - podium for the top guys and gals but still plenty of fun and a challenge for everyone else.

imposter2.0

mamba80 wrote:

Sportives are the new racing and you are arguing against the tide here.

RR is perceived as elitist and inaccessible, personally thats not always the case - but BC s attititude towards the lower levels doesnt help.
On the local BC committee, the snobbery shown towards Sportives and their riders is staggering

Sportives are great and i d like to see them run more on the european model, prizes, even a league?
More like a runners half/full Marathon - podium for the top guys and gals but still plenty of fun and a challenge for everyone else.

Not sure I agree with that. Racing is for those who enjoy competition and are prepared to put the time into training and improving. Sportives (in general) are for those just want to ride their bikes. The two can co-exist, but let's not start getting elitist about it.

I'm confused why you want to turn sportives into races, when racing is already available.

dulldave

BeaconRuth wrote:

I'm not convinced there are a whole lot of riders out there who are potentially competitive road racers who are not finding their way to real races - which, correct me if I'm wrong, is your main point.

Ruth

I'm not sure how I can convince you other than to say that I meet people all the time who have no idea that what they are doing is not racing and that if they wanted to they could do a proper race. The people that find themselves to racing are usually guided there by someone they know (through contact at a club or general discussion) because only a very determined few can wade through the quagmire of becoming a road racer alone.

People get inspired to do something when you stick it under their nose and show the good side of it without any pressure. Amateur road racing is not getting stuck under many people's noses.

imposter2.0

As I said before, I agree with the sentiment, but I think you're making this out to be more complex than it actually is. I know some people confuse sportives with races and I've done the occasional sportive myself, but I have never met anyone on a sportive who actually, genuinely, thinks they are in a race.

Entering a race is not that difficult either. The problem (if there is one) is the number of new riders that come into cycling outside of the established club structure within which races are typically run. In fact, I know of one 'club' which sprung up purely out of sportive participation, is not BC registered, contains no racers and only seems to exist to ride other people's sportive events. I'm sure the members have fun, but that can't be good for the sport.

dulldave

I've met them and I meet them all the time. But more than this it's not just about genuinely thinking they are in a race it's about the belief that as an amateur a sportive is as close to racing as they are able to get. So they simulate racing in sportives when they are better off getting into racing if only it were made more accessible.

Entering a race is difficult if there is nobody to guide you through it. I know because I've guided a few people through it who didn't know what to do and spent a lot of time getting through it when I started. it's actually quite difficult to explain in a simple way never mind understand.

bigmat

Entering a race really isn't that hard. My first race (Crystal Palace) I just turned up to have a look, the commissaire said why not have a go so I paid for a day licence, pinned a number on and off I went. OK, a lot of races you need to pre-enter but no different to sportives.

I think the real issue is that sportives are promoting themselves a lot better than road races. They probably have less red tape to deal with as well, which is the main reason why we couldn't just "make sportives more like road races" - if we did then most wouldn't be allowed. Rather than criticising sportives, I think you should focus on what road racing should be doing to entice people away from the sportive scene and capitalise on the increased interest in road cycling generally. Be positive!

mamba80

Look, you dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure why Sportives are so popular - there will almost aways be some one slower, the finish will always be there and its a good day out with your mates, having your "race" against the clock or whatever.
Compare to RR ing, i did a race once where i cramped and came back to find the finish packed up and the village hall locked.
Riders feel that they ve made a fool of themselves, if they cant keep up + to many, its seen as dangerous.
A friend of mine ( a decent cyclist and runner) tried a 3/4 rr and was shelled out within a mile or 2, he said never again.
But he aways get his entry into the Dragon and Dartmoor sportives and has a great time.
It has nothing to do with how difficult it is to enter, its all to do with a new riders experience and in many cases, its far worse than say an average runner doing his/her first 10k run.

RR needs to be made safer, ( track accreditation hasnt reduced its popularity) more entry level events and BC needs to get on board and promote RR as a good experience, help organisers with rising personal costs and equipment, unfortunately, all they seem interested in, is track and regional racing as a revenue stream for their developement programes.

imposter2.0

mamba80 wrote:

A friend of mine ( a decent cyclist and runner) tried a 3/4 rr and was shelled out within a mile or 2, he said never again.
But he aways get his entry into the Dragon and Dartmoor sportives and has a great time.
It has nothing to do with how difficult it is to enter, its all to do with a new riders experience and in many cases, its far worse than say an average runner doing his/her first 10k run.

The barrier to entry in a sportive is very low - all you need is £20 and a bike. The barrier to entry in a race is usually a bit lower, say £15 and a bike. However, the barrier to performing well in a sportive is a good deal lower than the barrier to performing well in a race, as your mate seems to have discovered. The difference is the kind of fitness required.

The fact that your mate said "never again" as opposed to "damn, I need to get fitter" sums it up really. If you get dropped in a race, the buck usually stops with you - nobody else. That's what I like about them. You can't criticise a race for being too fast - it is a race after all.

danlikesbikes

Imposter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

A friend of mine ( a decent cyclist and runner) tried a 3/4 rr and was shelled out within a mile or 2, he said never again.
But he aways get his entry into the Dragon and Dartmoor sportives and has a great time.
It has nothing to do with how difficult it is to enter, its all to do with a new riders experience and in many cases, its far worse than say an average runner doing his/her first 10k run.

The barrier to entry in a sportive is very low - all you need is £20 and a bike. The barrier to entry in a race is usually a bit lower, say £15 and a bike. However, the barrier to performing well in a sportive is a good deal lower than the barrier to performing well in a race, as your mate seems to have discovered. The difference is the kind of fitness required.

The fact that your mate said "never again" as opposed to "damn, I need to get fitter" sums it up really. If you get dropped in a race, the buck usually stops with you - nobody else. That's what I like about them. You can't criticise a race for being too fast - it is a race after all.

I'd never thought of it like that but you have summed it up quite nicely.

dulldave

Imposter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

A friend of mine ( a decent cyclist and runner) tried a 3/4 rr and was shelled out within a mile or 2, he said never again.
But he aways get his entry into the Dragon and Dartmoor sportives and has a great time.
It has nothing to do with how difficult it is to enter, its all to do with a new riders experience and in many cases, its far worse than say an average runner doing his/her first 10k run.

The barrier to entry in a sportive is very low - all you need is £20 and a bike. The barrier to entry in a race is usually a bit lower, say £15 and a bike. However, the barrier to performing well in a sportive is a good deal lower than the barrier to performing well in a race, as your mate seems to have discovered. The difference is the kind of fitness required.

The fact that your mate said "never again" as opposed to "damn, I need to get fitter" sums it up really. If you get dropped in a race, the buck usually stops with you - nobody else. That's what I like about them. You can't criticise a race for being too fast - it is a race after all.

Exactly. Some people just aren't cut out to do road racing in fact most cyclists aren't. You can't change road racing to make it something that people who don't want to race do want to do. But you can make it more accessible by improving the communication of how it works, making the system a bit more simple, managing the gaps that have been created in the entry process for newcomers and also by making it more prominent in the consciousness of cyclists.

Someone said they just paid on the day at a race to enter. That's great but most people don't just find themselves teleported to a race venue and if they did, in many cases entry on the line wouldn't be possible, there is also the issue that you could well have been woefully ill-prepared to take part in a race safely.

As for being more positive, sorry but I just find that condescending. Raising the points I did in the article is just one very small thing I'm trying to do to improve road racing that includes me spending a good bit of my time and money on it. Pointing out the gaps in the sport is positive as is this discussion by the way so thanks to everyone who has taken part in it.

mamba80

Imposter wrote:

The barrier to entry in a sportive is very low - all you need is £20 and a bike. The barrier to entry in a race is usually a bit lower, say £15 and a bike. However, the barrier to performing well in a sportive is a good deal lower than the barrier to performing well in a race, as your mate seems to have discovered. The difference is the kind of fitness required.

The fact that your mate said "never again" as opposed to "damn, I need to get fitter" sums it up really. If you get dropped in a race, the buck usually stops with you - nobody else. That's what I like about them. You can't criticise a race for being too fast - it is a race after all.

Im certainly not having ago at racing being to fast, i love to race, its a great sport.

But as has been said, its not for everyone but a market does exist for Sportives, both here and overseas - the non "racer" or older ex racer, can get his or her kicks in a Grand fondo, say the Maratona but its all frowned upon in the uk, why is that?

Euroland has no problem with mixing up the two styles of cycling.

I can assure you that to enjoy yourself in the Marmotte etc, you ve got to put in a hell of lot of hrs but they ll be different hrs, thats all.

imposter2.0

sounds like we all want the same things here..

I agree there is probably a place for some of these 'European type' sportives over here - but hopefully not at the expense of club road races & crits.

Pross

mamba80 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

The barrier to entry in a sportive is very low - all you need is £20 and a bike. The barrier to entry in a race is usually a bit lower, say £15 and a bike. However, the barrier to performing well in a sportive is a good deal lower than the barrier to performing well in a race, as your mate seems to have discovered. The difference is the kind of fitness required.

The fact that your mate said "never again" as opposed to "damn, I need to get fitter" sums it up really. If you get dropped in a race, the buck usually stops with you - nobody else. That's what I like about them. You can't criticise a race for being too fast - it is a race after all.

Im certainly not having ago at racing being to fast, i love to race, its a great sport.

But as has been said, its not for everyone but a market does exist for Sportives, both here and overseas - the non "racer" or older ex racer, can get his or her kicks in a Grand fondo, say the Maratona but its all frowned upon in the uk, why is that?

Euroland has no problem with mixing up the two styles of cycling.

I can assure you that to enjoy yourself in the Marmotte etc, you ve got to put in a hell of lot of hrs but they ll be different hrs, thats all.

The reason people treating sportives as races is frowned on in the UK is a concern that if they are being treated as such it could impact on the hard fought for right to race on the open road. Road races are subject to stringent conditions including maximum field sizes (usually 80 with a few with larger fields being allowed). The logistics and expense of complying with these rules has seen the end of many a big, established race. If the authorities believe people are treating sportives as races there is a real risk they will clamp down on sportives by applying the same requirements or, in the worst scenario, trying to ban all mass start events on the open road. European countries tend to be more enlightened.

bigmat

Pross wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

The barrier to entry in a sportive is very low - all you need is £20 and a bike. The barrier to entry in a race is usually a bit lower, say £15 and a bike. However, the barrier to performing well in a sportive is a good deal lower than the barrier to performing well in a race, as your mate seems to have discovered. The difference is the kind of fitness required.

The fact that your mate said "never again" as opposed to "damn, I need to get fitter" sums it up really. If you get dropped in a race, the buck usually stops with you - nobody else. That's what I like about them. You can't criticise a race for being too fast - it is a race after all.

Im certainly not having ago at racing being to fast, i love to race, its a great sport.

But as has been said, its not for everyone but a market does exist for Sportives, both here and overseas - the non "racer" or older ex racer, can get his or her kicks in a Grand fondo, say the Maratona but its all frowned upon in the uk, why is that?

Euroland has no problem with mixing up the two styles of cycling.

I can assure you that to enjoy yourself in the Marmotte etc, you ve got to put in a hell of lot of hrs but they ll be different hrs, thats all.

The reason people treating sportives as races is frowned on in the UK is a concern that if they are being treated as such it could impact on the hard fought for right to race on the open road. Road races are subject to stringent conditions including maximum field sizes (usually 80 with a few with larger fields being allowed). The logistics and expense of complying with these rules has seen the end of many a big, established race. If the authorities believe people are treating sportives as races there is a real risk they will clamp down on sportives by applying the same requirements or, in the worst scenario, trying to ban all mass start events on the open road. European countries tend to be more enlightened.

This is what I alluded to earlier but thanks for setting out so coherently!

bigmat

dulldave wrote:

Imposter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

A friend of mine ( a decent cyclist and runner) tried a 3/4 rr and was shelled out within a mile or 2, he said never again.
But he aways get his entry into the Dragon and Dartmoor sportives and has a great time.
It has nothing to do with how difficult it is to enter, its all to do with a new riders experience and in many cases, its far worse than say an average runner doing his/her first 10k run.

The barrier to entry in a sportive is very low - all you need is £20 and a bike. The barrier to entry in a race is usually a bit lower, say £15 and a bike. However, the barrier to performing well in a sportive is a good deal lower than the barrier to performing well in a race, as your mate seems to have discovered. The difference is the kind of fitness required.

The fact that your mate said "never again" as opposed to "damn, I need to get fitter" sums it up really. If you get dropped in a race, the buck usually stops with you - nobody else. That's what I like about them. You can't criticise a race for being too fast - it is a race after all.

Exactly. Some people just aren't cut out to do road racing in fact most cyclists aren't. You can't change road racing to make it something that people who don't want to race do want to do. But you can make it more accessible by improving the communication of how it works, making the system a bit more simple, managing the gaps that have been created in the entry process for newcomers and also by making it more prominent in the consciousness of cyclists.
Someone said they just paid on the day at a race to enter. That's great but most people don't just find themselves teleported to a race venue and if they did, in many cases entry on the line wouldn't be possible, there is also the issue that you could well have been woefully ill-prepared to take part in a race safely.

As for being more positive, sorry but I just find that condescending. Raising the points I did in the article is just one very small thing I'm trying to do to improve road racing that includes me spending a good bit of my time and money on it. Pointing out the gaps in the sport is positive as is this discussion by the way so thanks to everyone who has taken part in it.

Didn't mean to be condescending. I just think that there is room in the market for sportives (UK style that is) and road racing. Improving the road racing situation can be best achieved by focusing on road racing and how it can be better promoted, rather than having a dig at sportives. That's what I meant by being positive - look for solutions rather than just griping about the new kid on the block. To be fair: a) your blog was pretty well balanced, and; b) your latest post, whilst calling me condescending, does do exactly what I suggested so I think maybe you can see that I have a point!

DavidJB

Sorry but has anyone stopped to think if we actually WANT more people racing? I'm having huge trouble getting spots on road races so far this year due to them being massively oversubscribed. What we actually want is more people hosting races. I'll be looking to start hosting a race in 2015 around my area or maybe even next season if I get my arse in gear but I'm getting married next April so probably won't have the time!

Its all well and good wanting to grow the competitive side of the sport but right now there's nowhere for it to grow into.

Tom Butcher

Getting married in April - stick a race on in September then Seriously the amount of work involved isn't all that much and it's nearly all at the back end in the week and on the day of the race - prior to April all you'd have to do is fill a couple of forms out and send a cheque off with them.

You could even still stick a race on this September - plenty of time to organise it.

trickydisco

Tom Butcher wrote:

Getting married in April - stick a race on in September then Seriously the amount of work involved isn't all that much and it's nearly all at the back end in the week and on the day of the race - prior to April all you'd have to do is fill a couple of forms out and send a cheque off with them.

You could even still stick a race on this September - plenty of time to organise it.

Have you ever organised a race? A couple of forms?

You need marshalls, You need to inform the police and get a permit, get the course inspected and approved, Risk assessment carried out. Get NEG riders, BC Commissionaires, handle registrations, payments. You need all the correct and approved BC signage around the course, Lead car and support vehicles registered with BC. Insurance etc

imposter2.0

it could be a circuit race - they're easier..