Sportives: Elitism?

Marik

It has always been my understanding that the nature of a sportive is that the event is open to all, as in you'd probably want to have a reasonable expectation of completing the course. It's for cyclists to challenge themselves in a personal battle - many participants will ride the event like a race, others often being happy to complete the distance within the time allowance. It is not a race. I am sad to read some comments in these forums regarding La Marmotte, which criticise slower riders, anyone not a 'skilled descender' or heaven forbid, anyone taking 10 hours plus to complete it. Using language such as 'idiots' and calling for a qualification procedure before being allowed to take part is hopefully not the way most ordinary keen cyclists want to see things go.

markhewitt1978

I think there's a place for both? I don't see why there shouldn't be some sportives which are only open to a certain level of cyclist - a level which I have little hope or aspiration to reach!

I've done some Evans sportives and they seemed to attract riders of all abilities and rightly so.

Cleat Eastwood

Marik wrote:

It has always been my understanding that the nature of a sportive is that the event is open to all, as in you'd probably want to have a reasonable expectation of completing the course. It's for cyclists to challenge themselves in a personal battle - many participants will ride the event like a race, others often being happy to complete the distance within the time allowance. It is not a race. I am sad to read some comments in these forums regarding La Marmotte, which criticise slower riders, anyone not a 'skilled descender' or heaven forbid, anyone taking 10 hours plus to complete it. Using language such as 'idiots' and calling for a qualification procedure before being allowed to take part is hopefully not the way most ordinary keen cyclists want to see things go.

Thats a good point Marik. Maybe not elitism, you have to have an elite ability to display that characteristic and most are just hobbyist cyclists - but certainly condescending none the less.

What I find heart warming is that the people (men and women) who do audaxes, some of which overshadow the Mamotte by a long long way, never show any such condescension - in fact they're really open with their advice and encouragement. Maybe the only test should be if you think other riders are idiots for riding within themselves you should be made to do the Paris-Brest-Paris and be roundly mocked as you fall of your di2 equipped pinarello

marcusjb

Sportives - for those pretending to race.

Audax - for those pretending not to race.

Whilst Audax is notionally a non-competitive form of cycling, of course we all compete with each other, and make no mistake, there are some seriously fast riders in Audax. But I've never ridden in such a mutually-supportive environment where riders do genuinely respect each other and ability and speed is not a barrier.

Often sitting around a breakfast table on the second morning of a 600, you'll have the fast boys who got into the sleep control at midnight and have had 6 hours kip sat alongside the guys at the back of the field who've just arrived knowing they won't have time for much more than a cat nap. Everyone will be chatting away, no hint of disrespect from the fast boys.

I think it sort of revolves around the fact that, particularly on the longer stuff, what we do is so challenging that anyone that finishes automatically deserves respect whether they are fast or slow.

I am not sure a sportive could easily bar people from riding based on a timing requirement - I think that would make the line between riding on an open road and racing even more blurred than many sportives already make it. Maybe the answer is to have the 'elite' riders set off first as per a marathon etc. - and to be in that group you have to have ridden the event before and got a time of xyz.

But it really isn't on to criticise slower riders - they are out to enjoy themselves just as much as a fast rider.

chrisaonabike

marcusjb wrote:

I am not sure a sportive could easily bar people from riding based on a timing requirement - I think that would make the line between riding on an open road and racing even more blurred than many sportives already make it.

Ride London 100 is doing exactly that - you have to finish by 5pm and there are checkpoints you have to have reached by a particular time, or else they send you off down a shortcut, or if you're really slow, disqualify you completely.

Admittedly it's easier since it's a closed road event.

Given that my start is just before 8 (unlike the proper fast riders who start at 6am and will be back at the Mall before noon), I'll be pretty close to the limit if I have anything much in the way of puncture delays or other mechanicals.

alihisgreat

Marik wrote:

It has always been my understanding that the nature of a sportive is that the event is open to all, as in you'd probably want to have a reasonable expectation of completing the course. It's for cyclists to challenge themselves in a personal battle - many participants will ride the event like a race, others often being happy to complete the distance within the time allowance. It is not a race. I am sad to read some comments in these forums regarding La Marmotte, which criticise slower riders, anyone not a 'skilled descender' or heaven forbid, anyone taking 10 hours plus to complete it. Using language such as 'idiots' and calling for a qualification procedure before being allowed to take part is hopefully not the way most ordinary keen cyclists want to see things go.

I think its fair enough to complain if someone is clearly not a competent or sensible enough cyclist to complete a course without putting themselves and other in danger.

Although it has to be said that its often those who are treating sportives more like a race that cause the problems.. I did the Wiggle No Excuses sportive with some club mates since its free, and bear in mind we weren't exactly hanging around...

but we still got a group of four cutting up the inside without warning on a blind right hand junction. We had no idea they were there (no "on your right" or anything) and one of them carried too much speed and bumped me - luckily I was able to stay upright, but had he hit me any harder that would have been tricky and I wouldn't have been pleased to hit the deck at that point.. only a few miles from the end of the route, and still with 20 miles+ to ride home.

Wirral_paul

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

marcusjb wrote:

I am not sure a sportive could easily bar people from riding based on a timing requirement - I think that would make the line between riding on an open road and racing even more blurred than many sportives already make it.

Ride London 100 is doing exactly that - you have to finish by 5pm and there are checkpoints you have to have reached by a particular time, or else they send you off down a shortcut, or if you're really slow, disqualify you completely.

Given that it is a closed road event - and the roads need to be reopened at a predetermined time, whats the issue with them having the requirement? The marshalls also shouldnt be expected to wait for people who are too slow, and i guess they do need to account for the riders who head out arriving back. Seems sensible to me that those who cant keep up with the published requirement should be required to take a shortcut.

zardoz

The ride London is supposed to be a challenge and the challenge is to be able to maintain an average of just over 11mph for 100 miles which isn't that onerous for anyone when you think about it providing they have done the required training and preparation. I'd prefer it if the RL event didn't end up like the London Marathon where people turf up on the day having done zero training and then walk round the course in 7-8 hours and then say "I've run a marathon".

Most Sportives have a cut off time anyway for people doing the longer route you have to reach a certain poing by a specific time after which signage and feed stations won't be available. The time is usually quite generous though.

Tom Butcher

The last audax I did we went off like a bat out of hell for 20 miles thinning the group down, then later some guy slipped off the back, I went back to try and tow him back on but he couldn't put the extra in. I managed to make it back to the group and let them know suggesting we slow down and let him get back in the wheels to be told they'd been trying to drop him for the last hour as they didn't think he could ride in a group and the fast early pace had been intended to get rid of hangers on!

Personally I've never ridden a sportive or audax where I felt others were putting me at risk - if I feel someone is not the best I just give them a wide berth.

mididoctors

marcusjb wrote:

Sportives - for those pretending to race.

Audax - for those pretending not to race.

Whilst Audax is notionally a non-competitive form of cycling, of course we all compete with each other, and make no mistake, there are some seriously fast riders in Audax. But I've never ridden in such a mutually-supportive environment where riders do genuinely respect each other and ability and speed is not a barrier.

Often sitting around a breakfast table on the second morning of a 600, you'll have the fast boys who got into the sleep control at midnight and have had 6 hours kip sat alongside the guys at the back of the field who've just arrived knowing they won't have time for much more than a cat nap. Everyone will be chatting away, no hint of disrespect from the fast boys.

I think it sort of revolves around the fact that, particularly on the longer stuff, what we do is so challenging that anyone that finishes automatically deserves respect whether they are fast or slow.

I am not sure a sportive could easily bar people from riding based on a timing requirement - I think that would make the line between riding on an open road and racing even more blurred than many sportives already make it. Maybe the answer is to have the 'elite' riders set off first as per a marathon etc. - and to be in that group you have to have ridden the event before and got a time of xyz.

But it really isn't on to criticise slower riders - they are out to enjoy themselves just as much as a fast rider.

+1

I nominate anybody,[ you in this case ] who has ridden the Pendle 600 [crudely equivalent to the c2c with the fred banged on the rear end but harder!] as an expert therefore truly elite when it comes to this subject.

while I think there is a place for sportives in this world a fair few leave a lot to be desired both in terms of value and enjoyment. some are a bl00dy menace.

I think regulation is on the way given crowded roads. as for competitive timing? apparently there is this thing called strava? And you can do this on empty roads not covered with hundreds of "fat commodity brokers discarding gel wrappers across the countryside" so if high speed is your thing there is no excuse for poor manners on the road towards others who get in the way of your road space.

if the reality is, and I suspect this is the case. One derives satisfaction from overtaking others and making yourself feel good by waving your [at best mediocre]prowess on a bike in the face of some overweight 40 year old first timer then I suggest you need to move on and set yourself higher goals.

mididoctors

Wirral_Paul wrote:

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

marcusjb wrote:

I am not sure a sportive could easily bar people from riding based on a timing requirement - I think that would make the line between riding on an open road and racing even more blurred than many sportives already make it.

Ride London 100 is doing exactly that - you have to finish by 5pm and there are checkpoints you have to have reached by a particular time, or else they send you off down a shortcut, or if you're really slow, disqualify you completely.

Given that it is a closed road event - and the roads need to be reopened at a predetermined time, whats the issue with them having the requirement? The marshalls also shouldnt be expected to wait for people who are too slow, and i guess they do need to account for the riders who head out arriving back. Seems sensible to me that those who cant keep up with the published requirement should be required to take a shortcut.

+1

these closed road events need regulation

if you want to ride the route in your own time you can do that anyday you like. just not with thousands of other riders blocking the lanes.

markhewitt1978

I always end up with the gel wrappers in my back pocket and what's left makes everything sticky. Am I the only one who just refuses to toss them to the ground like it doesn't matter?

drlodge

markhewitt1978 wrote:

I always end up with the gel wrappers in my back pocket and what's left makes everything sticky. Am I the only one who just refuses to toss them to the ground like it doesn't matter?

No - I refuse to toss them too.

marcusjb

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

marcusjb wrote:

I am not sure a sportive could easily bar people from riding based on a timing requirement - I think that would make the line between riding on an open road and racing even more blurred than many sportives already make it.

Ride London 100 is doing exactly that - you have to finish by 5pm and there are checkpoints you have to have reached by a particular time, or else they send you off down a shortcut, or if you're really slow, disqualify you completely.

A cut-off time is slightly different to having some form of pre-qualification. Every event has to have a cut-off, be it on open or closed roads so the staff can go home.

More people are suggesting that only those who can ride at a certain speed should be allowed to start certain sportives and that doesn't seem on to me, and really does make that line about racing on open roads very very blurred indeed.

For a closed road event, I suspect Ride London will have a large number of people moaning about slower riders costing them seconds. Personally, I want to see more people out there enjoying their first 100 mile ride than racer-wannabes moaning about slower riders.

marcusjb

markhewitt1978 wrote:

I always end up with the gel wrappers in my back pocket and what's left makes everything sticky. Am I the only one who just refuses to toss them to the ground like it doesn't matter?

Does amaze me how people could even think it is okay to throw a gel wrapper on the ground.

I'm not a big user of them, more for emergencies than anything else, but I wrap them back up on themselves and things don't get overly sticky. Chuck them in the bin at the next cafe control. Easy peasy.

apreading

I never chuck anything on the ground. I have seen plenty of full gels/snackbars/bananas/bottles etc on the road at Sportives too though, so some of it may be unintentional (or maybe not)...

The one Audax I did was the friendliest event I have ever done, much more chatting with other riders than on sportives - more about the fun than the performance. This was on the 100K route though - the competitive riders may all have been doing the 200K and left earlier.

I would class myself as not in either the novice or expert camps - I ride alot but never in a club (yet anyway).

I actually find the biggest menace is the club riders that come up behind and hang 3 inches off my rear wheel, which I find very discomforting but I guess they are used to, and the ones that dont complete an overtake properly before cutting in with only a hairs breadth of space between us as they cut in front of me. They seem to assume that if you are going at a reasonable speed you must also be used to group riding in close proximity and dont take account of the fact that you might not be and this is unnerving and feels dangerous to me.

Slow riders are easy to deal with and much less of a problem than the above - fast riders that assume you are as good as them and dont leave any margin at all.

onemoresolo

There are some truly awful riders who endanger others either by riding like idiots. They are at both ends of the spectrum though, the plodders who weave all over the road and the people who want to ride like the roads are shut. The latter are undoubtedly the more dangerous, though they would probably consider themselves experienced cyclists. Nothing worse than getting buzzed on a descent or cut up by some knob that thinks he can ride like Nibali.

That said, I think you are irresponsible if you enter an event like the Marmotte but you aren't comfortable or experienced riding long descents. I'm not saying you need years of practice either, just a couple or rides prior to the day so you have a rough idea what you're doing.

AchillesLeftKnee

Certain standards are reasonable IMHO, especially for the more exacting stuff. The alpine descents example is a good one, I reckon. It's something I've never done (and am never likely to do), and I certainly wouldn't want to share the road with me on my first attempt!

When it comes to standards of behaviour on the roads in certain sportives, I've said it before but I personally would like to see the odd unmarked police car out keeping an eye on things at certain point when large numbers are expected. Some of the herd-mentality behaviour is pretty scary.

Brakeless

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

Certain standards are reasonable IMHO, especially for the more exacting stuff. The alpine descents example is a good one, I reckon. It's something I've never done (and am never likely to do), and I certainly wouldn't want to share the road with me on my first attempt!

When it comes to standards of behaviour on the roads in certain sportives, I've said it before but I personally would like to see the odd unmarked police car out keeping an eye on things at certain point when large numbers are expected. Some of the herd-mentality behaviour is pretty scary.

Yeah lets get the police aawy from Speeding Motorists, drivers on mobiles, cars with no insurance, drivers with no licences and things that might actually hurt people and get them watching cyclists for a few hours :roll:

AchillesLeftKnee

Brakeless wrote:

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

Certain standards are reasonable IMHO, especially for the more exacting stuff. The alpine descents example is a good one, I reckon. It's something I've never done (and am never likely to do), and I certainly wouldn't want to share the road with me on my first attempt!

When it comes to standards of behaviour on the roads in certain sportives, I've said it before but I personally would like to see the odd unmarked police car out keeping an eye on things at certain point when large numbers are expected. Some of the herd-mentality behaviour is pretty scary.

Yeah lets get the police aawy from Speeding Motorists, drivers on mobiles, cars with no insurance, drivers with no licences and things that might actually hurt people and get them watching cyclists for a few hours :roll:

Good point. Sorry. I completely forgot that all cyclists behave impeccably at all times. Silly me. Anyway, stuff like which side of the road we use and priorities at junctions are pretty over-rated concepts these days.

Team4Luke

A Sportive has no control over the ability, experience and skill level of those entering, there will be complete novices to those who have only been riding a year or so if that. These events often are large miles, large groups and large climbs descents, potential cold and and wet another factor. Those are extremely dangerous conditions for newbies to take on with what skills they think they possess and what proper clothing they may not have and being overjoyed at hitting their personal best top speed down hill is when they have zero thought for their life and others around them.
In my club any newbies would be given advice on all things particulary descending and group riding and appropriate clothing to stay warm and safe. Whereas many just skip the club knowledge base of clubs and go off on their own.
So, to summarise I think Sportives should state the nature of an event and who it is aimed at and also organise ones for lesser riders too.

apreading

Team4Luke wrote:

So, to summarise I think Sportives should state the nature of an event and who it is aimed at and also organise ones for lesser riders too.

I think most sportives feel that they already do this by having different route distance options. I guess the problematic part is that they usually share the same route for the first 10-20 miles. Some of them have different time slots for starting the different distances though, to try and avoid sharing the road between different groups at the same time.

So they are trying to make things work without reducing the numbers that they can sell a one day event to. Obviously they juggle the economics and profits with any compromise that they make.

Tom Butcher

My take on it is that anyone entering a mass participation event should be prepared for people to be riding in close proximity to them - that would go for an audax as well as a sportive. At the same time fast experienced riders who descend fast should be prepared for others who take a less than optimum line through corners and are perhaps a bit predictable.

ransos1

markhewitt1978 wrote:

I think there's a place for both? I don't see why there shouldn't be some sportives which are only open to a certain level of cyclist - a level which I have little hope or aspiration to reach!

I've done some Evans sportives and they seemed to attract riders of all abilities and rightly so.

"Sportives" for a certain level of cyclist are already available: they're called "races".

peat

ransos1 wrote:

"Sportives" for a certain level of cyclist are already available: they're called "races".

^This.

If you want to race, MTFU and get a license.

philbar72

I did the recent FT london Sportive, and was amazed at how poorly some people got round. Simple and basic road manners and observational skills were completely forgotten in some instances.Climbing became a nightmare when it was established that around 50% of th riders on the course were very slow climbers or again showed no observational skills.

other than that it was quite a good ride.

markhewitt1978

philbar72 wrote:

I did the recent FT london Sportive, and was amazed at how poorly some people got round. Simple and basic road manners and observational skills were completely forgotten in some instances.Climbing became a nightmare when it was established that around 50% of th riders on the course were very slow climbers or again showed no observational skills.

other than that it was quite a good ride.

You're mixing your issues there. Poor observational skills is a valid complaint, "very slow climbers" is not. IMO.

philbar72

Thanks Mark. you can improve both your observation skills and your climbing speed if you try though. I sort of agree with your point.