Sportive cycling standard poor

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.

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 ).

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!!!

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

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!

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.

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!

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.

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...

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!

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...>

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.

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.