Tom Kunich wrote in message
<
[email protected]>...
>"G.T." <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >
>> > Already they've decided that they have to design cyclocross courses in such a manner that it
>> > decidedly disadvantages MTB riders.
>
>That's the problem Greg. I remember reading those people who wanted to get rid of mountain bikes on
>the course so they started designing courses without any extended climbs where the MTB's would have
>an advantage. They they wanted to get rid of steep, rough drops that would give the MTB's an
>advantage. And then any rough terrain at all that would give MTB's an advantage.
>
And promoters should design courses with cyclocross bikes in mind because it is a cyclocross race
not a mountain bike race. The difference is quite dramatic - riding a mountain bike over rough
terrain and riding a cyclocross bike over the same terrain. Stuff that wouldn't even phase you on a
mtb with wide tires and suspension can be down right dangerous on a cross bike. If you want to do a
mountain bike race go do a mountain bike race. It is a different sport. Remember cyclocross has it
roots in road racing and came along long before mountain bikes were even thought of.
I think many courses having mountain bike terrain have that terrain because the clubs putting on the
races only have ( or had ) experience putting on mountain bike races or road races. They may have
never seen a true cyclocross course. The terrain was not put there because it makes for a unique
cross race, it was put there because the people didn't know any better. Cyclocross? Must be a
combination of road racing and mountain biking. Right? Wrong.
>So the courses are all going to become vanilla, BMX courses with a run-up, three barriers 2 meters
>apart, 3 meters wide over the entire course, a mud pit and a section of pavement. And where ever
>you go you'll be able to ride the same course with different scenary around the course boundaries.
Again with the BMX. What, did some kid on a BMX bike pick on you or something...
I think the leap you make from courses being designed to be good cyclocross courses to all courses
being "vanilla" and all the same is far fetched. Come east next fall. Race all the New England races
on a cross bike and see if you find them technically easy. See if they are all the same. See if the
racing isn't fun.
>
>I suppose that if you fancy yourself a professional you prefer it that way since you'll never get
>any surprises.
(from an earlier Kunich post)
>What I'm finding objectionable about Albright and his gang of two is that I don't want to see
>cyclocross, the last refuge of unprofessional FUN racing, reduced to a formulaic play-station-esque
>bit of professional money making show gamesmanship.
And what is this? The last refuge of unprofessional racing? Where have you been racing? I did
upwards of 50 races this year between road and cross and 99% were all put on for non-professionals.
Even at Crit Nats, where the big show is the Pro race, the majority of the races were for amateurs.
Cross nats too. Lots and lots of racers who are there because it is fun. How many Pro only races are
there in this country? Very few. Most races; road, cross, mountain or otherwise are put on by clubs
for club riders. If a couple of local pros show up for the P1/2 race, great. If some clubs get some
sponsorship and can afford, announcing stands, banners, barriers, making there event look "pro" -
all the better.
And what do you really care about cyclocross? How many cyclocross races did you do this year? How
many have you ever done? How many did you go watch? What is your experience? And I don't want to
hear about the good ol' days of motorcycle racing, BMX or mountain biking. They have nothing to do
with cyclocross.
Wade