A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Petition to bring barriers back to cross...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 11th 05, 04:03 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Petition to bring barriers back to cross...

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/cyclocross

Ads
  #2  
Old February 11th 05, 08:37 PM
Wade Summers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/cyclocross



Barriers are a crutch. Dismounts and running are what make cyclocross
unique not wooden barriers. In 2004, 4 dismounts were allowed per lap. Now
it is 6. Promoters need to get creative and achieve the dismounts using
other means - sand, stairs, steep hills.

Wade


  #3  
Old February 12th 05, 12:06 PM
Wes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Wade Summers wrote:

Barriers are a crutch. Dismounts and running are what make

cyclocross
unique not wooden barriers. In 2004, 4 dismounts were allowed per

lap. Now
it is 6. Promoters need to get creative and achieve the dismounts

using
other means - sand, stairs, steep hills.

Wade



Wade,
I agree wholeheartedly, BUT, as a race promoter I recognize that to
have more races available, it needs to be relatively easy to put on a
race in a variety of venues. I'm lucky to have terrain choices that
allow me to get those dismounts in without more than 1 set of barriers,
but in some venues that may be a real challenge.
Why can't the rule state 6 dismounts, and if there *are* natural
obstacles readily available, *then* the barriers must be limited, but
otherwise more than 1 set of barriers can be used? USAC requires course
inspection and approval, so the chief refs can be given latitude to
include this in their inspection.
Just a thought.
And as a racer....I dig barriers. But that's just me.
Wes

  #4  
Old February 12th 05, 08:47 PM
Wade Summers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Wes" wrote in message
oups.com...



Wade,
I agree wholeheartedly, BUT, as a race promoter I recognize that to
have more races available, it needs to be relatively easy to put on a
race in a variety of venues.


I'd agree to that but here in New England the season is starting earlier we
are still getting several conflicting races now and so there doesn't appear
to be a shortage of venues available.

I'm lucky to have terrain choices that
allow me to get those dismounts in without more than 1 set of barriers,
but in some venues that may be a real challenge.


I'm lucky too. I've got a great venue and this year (my fourth year) I
really was able to use the place to the fullest (other years there were
construction projects I had to work around). I had two beach areas that had
to be run and a staircase. My long grass run-up - turned out most of the
top riders in each category could ride so I ended up with 2 runs - 3 for
some folks.(the staircase was the last bit taking you off the beach, making
it a very long run). I didn't use any barriers. I was trying to show people
you could have a *real* cross course was with no barriers. I was a little
tired of " no barriers is making cross a grass crit "argument that was
floating around the cross scene. I'd challenge anyone to say my race was a
grass crit. Running 25 yards through sand and then up a staircase is like no
crit I've ever done. A couple of riders I respect came up to me and
indicated it was one of the best courses of the season. Everyone I spoke
with agreed it was challenging.

Why can't the rule state 6 dismounts, and if there *are* natural
obstacles readily available, *then* the barriers must be limited, but
otherwise more than 1 set of barriers can be used? USAC requires course
inspection and approval, so the chief refs can be given latitude to
include this in their inspection.
Just a thought.


I agree there probably should be some flexibility. But part of the reason I
took the stance I did is I saw some promoters make no effort to spice things
up. They used the same courses they've used in the past and just took out
the barriers. Then there is bitching by promoters and racers a like about
how the lack of barriers is killing cross. I think it is lack of imagination
and initiative.

Wade

And as a racer....I dig barriers. But that's just me.
Wes



  #5  
Old February 13th 05, 06:01 PM
MagillaGorilla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/cyclocross


I thought substantial barriers were brought back into cyclocross when
the Supercup series was cancelled.

Thanks,

Magilla
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Simeoni and Lance situation Ronde Champ Racing 4 July 24th 04 12:21 AM
Trip Report - Philadelphia - Ste. Anne de Beaupre, QUE and back Ron Wallenfang Rides 9 June 27th 04 05:35 AM
RePete is Back...RePete is Back!!! RePete General 1 April 25th 04 03:29 PM
Legs, when you going to bring back you web site? paul UK 3 March 29th 04 10:33 AM
Arcata celebrates Skot, Denise Hill is Back Leaves Reno amid fanfare Cycle America/Nat. Bicycle Greenway Recumbent Biking 0 July 26th 03 09:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.