|
Post by Josh Whitmore on Aug 14, 2007 21:20:51 GMT -5
In lights of Ted's accident, it seems wise to think a little about our Tuesday ride, what kind of image we want it to have, and how we can make it safer. Tonight (8/14) we tried a slightly new format that I thought worked well. Here it is:
1. Everyone takes it easy to the Hub (base of the climb). If there are a bunch of people, we split into 2 groups, if 15 or less people, just one group. The idea is that we stay together in groups, which is safer than several groups of 1s and 2s.
2. From the Hub to the Balsam PO is the "hammer zone". Go as fast as you want. If you want to time yourself, it should start at the Hub.
3. Re-group at the PO.
4. From the PO back to the hub is "neutral", everyone takes it easy and safely back down the hill. No cutting corners, or attacking on the small up-hills.
5. From the Hub to the sprint at Chipper curve is the next Hammer zone. Go as fast as you want and sprint at the end.
Advantages: In the past I felt like people were taking chances and over-extending themselves on the downhill to try to stay with a group as it rolled out onto the flats. Other people were going all out to get ahead to have a gap on the flats. We all know it is very hard to chase back on once the group is off the descent. If we make the descent "neutral" then we can all roll down much safer and those who want to be in the pace line can be there. This format seems to be more encouraging for newer riders. My vote is that our Tuesday ride should not be an all-out hammer fest that is intimidating to newer riders. Those types of rides tend to create a "gate" if you will, that keeps people away from the ride unless they possess a certain level of fitness and skills. I would like a more encouraging ride where all ability levels can thrive. The neutral roll out creates a supportive cycling community that encourages newer riders to learn. Once people start to hammer up the hill, then the faster riders that want a good workout can have their time as well.
Of course this means at every ride, someone needs to be vocal and communicate the expectations at the start so everyone is on the same page.
What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by 1yellowtire on Aug 14, 2007 21:24:45 GMT -5
Sounds like a great idea. Thanks, Josh.
I will post more later (working on a write-up), but (1) Leadville was great, but really, really difficult, (2) Durango is beautiful, (3) the mtn biking is Durango is great, (3) Eric and I just got our a&*@&@#$es handed to us on their Tueday night road ride--8 pros....and Eric and me.
|
|
|
Post by Vespa on Aug 15, 2007 9:31:04 GMT -5
I agree 100% with Josh.
Here's one more suggestion, regarding the return paceline after regrouping at the Hub:
Establish two different pacelines back into town. People can decide where they belong by self-selection.
2. The first can be fast, with a focus toward the finish line as well as high average speeds and attacks. As Josh described, this can be a very discouraging situation for new riders. Also, it can be dangerous for everybody if a participant doesn't understand how pacelines work, whether they're strong, or not. It's OK to struggle or sit in if you have the skills to do so safely, but it's not OK to push yourself to the max in tight quarters without some knowledge.
3. The second line should be slow, with a focus on technique instead of speed. That way, new riders can learn while enjoying the magic of a great paceline. Even the fastest, most experienced cyclist may wish to relax this way on an off day or for recovery and fellowship, as one measure of intensity could be the ability to talk. Short, <20 second pulls or even a double rotation should be used to guarantee everybody gets to practice pulling through and drifting back correctly and smoothly.
I think this would add to not only the safety but the quality of our Tuesday night ride experience. Just thoughts...
|
|
|
Post by Scott Baker on Aug 15, 2007 9:43:43 GMT -5
I agree with Josh and Vespa. It went well last night at the ride and it was nice to have the group together. I could tell a few were a little uneasy in the faster paceline, but the speed was not hammer-fast either. Two groups would be good if it works out that way.
|
|
|
Post by Vespa on Aug 15, 2007 9:50:45 GMT -5
Asheville's Tuesday night ride has undergone similar dialogue in its past, and they now do something not unlike what we're discussing, and what we began to practice last night (Thanks, Josh). I've been absent from our Tuesday ride most of the summer, but Ted's passion for cycling and the value that our Tuesday night ride has for the cycling community inspired me to return last night. Here's a similar, personal story from a rider in Asheville: ashevillebike.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=clubinfo&action=display&n=1&thread=1187185988&page=1I think sometimes it's easy to forget how, despite differences in skill, fitness, goals, style, or personality, we all share so much in common in cycling. I'll see y'all on the road. Mike
|
|
|
Post by irish on Aug 15, 2007 15:08:10 GMT -5
For what it’s worth:
First off, I’d like to thank Josh for taking a leadership role and suggesting changes to the Tuesday night ride format. Secondly, I’m slightly reluctant to post what I’m about to in light of Ted’s accident, and do so with respect to all the safety concerns that riding fast downhill entails.
I would like to add a Disadvantages section to the “neutral” downhill format. This format seems to favor climbers primarily and those who are strong on the flats to a somewhat lesser extent. I agree that the Tuesday night ride should be less competitive overall, but there are those of us who suffer the climbs solely for the reward of a safe fast descent. It’s no secret that I like to descend fast, very fast when the conditions are right. By removing this aspect of the Tuesday night ride much of the fun is taken away for those who like to fly downhill.
The term “safe fast descent” begs a little definition. A safe fast descent is one performed with due respect to road conditions (i.e. weather, debris, obstacles, etc.), traffic conditions, rider ability and experience, and equipment capability (among other variables, of course).
During an out-and-back ride with significant climbs it is important to note where any debris has accumulated in turns, whether there are larger obstacles in the road, and the degree to which visibility is impaired in tight turns (e.g., foliage changes, etc.). These aspects of riding are things that I process during every out-and-back ride with climbing involved (probably because I climb so very slowly). I take this information and compare it with the lines I usually take in turns on the descent and then adjust my speed accordingly. Indeed, it gives me great pleasure to go 1 mile-per-hour faster than before in a specific turn when the conditions are favorable, or to know that a different line is needed for a specific turn (due to a change in road conditions, etc.) and to log mentally those data (i.e. the different entry points, speeds, apexes, and exit points). If I can give others a tow in the process, well that only enhances the pleasure of riding fast, but doing it safely.
As a lifelong motorcyclist I’ve had my share of serious and not-so-serious accidents, witnessed dear friends die and others become seriously injured while riding. Sometimes it was our own faults for riding beyond our abilities, not paying due respect to road conditions, or riding while impaired. I’ve had a couple minor crashes aboard road bikes from which I’ve learned a great respect for speed and experience. Each time someone lost his life (during my dissertation research with outlaw bikers at least one person died each year, and one year three died while riding) or was seriously injured, at least one other rider would give up the sport or alter fundamentally the manner in which they rode. Perhaps changing the way we ride is the right thing to do? I don’t believe so.
|
|
|
Post by Vespa on Aug 15, 2007 15:19:07 GMT -5
Good points. Maybe "neutral" doesn't mean that people can't descend safely in the style they wish but that all competitive pressure should be off. What if the ride still regrouped at the Hub before getting into pacelines, so that those not wishing to descend fast wouldn't feel pressure to stay with the front?
Just thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by thomasB on Aug 15, 2007 16:02:23 GMT -5
I wanted to strongly support what Josh and Mike have suggested for the ride. I have been absent from the ride for the better part of 2 years, but rode it religously for 3-4 years. I always thought that going back down to the flats should be neutral for safety reasons. The few times people obviously were not neutral struck me as "sketchy," given the variety of skill and experience level.
And sure, neutral doesn't mean you can't ride what speed is comfortable for you, but regrouping at the hub is a great idea. I don't think this should be viewed as giving an "advantage" to the climbers as there is a significant flat section going toward the sprint lending itself to riders strong in areas besides climbing.
This topic hit a chord with me after 2 weeks ago being at Whittier and witnessing the strongest rider there attacking through a left hand turn at a stop sign, all to escape and finish the ride by himself. I thought this was risky, and could have encouraged others to jump through a bilnd turn without a good check on traffic. Maybe intersections and stop signs should be "neutral" as well, allowing all riders there to make the turn without fear of losing ground.
I don't think everybody at the group rides is exactly in agreement about how things "work" anymore. A system of "hammer zones" with regrouping areas and/or neutral zones, like you guys in Sylva are starting, would be safer for sure.
Be careful, we're just riding bikes.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Whitmore on Aug 15, 2007 22:15:08 GMT -5
Irish, I certainly don't want to deny you the joy of fast descending. Goodness knows I like fast corners pretty often myself and really enjoy chasing you down the hill. Due to your experience on both the lighter 2 wheeled creatures and the heavier motorized ones, you have good base from which to exercise judgment on safe cornering speed and maneuvers.
My feeling is that on Tuesday night rides in the past, there were always a few people on the descent that were riding above their ability level to try to stay with a group. There seemed to be a little pressure to keep up so that they could ride with the group across the flats back to the shop. The group also seemed to go pretty hard on the short up-hill sections of the descent. The strongest people can let a little gap open in the corners because they will make it up on the next short kicker. The not as strong people don't have that luxury and have to take more chances to keep up.
My general suggestion is the general atmosphere of the descent should not be as aggressive. I can practice my downhill Time Trial on my own. I think a re-grouping at the Hub could allow those who are comfortable at high speed the chance to do their thing. People will still be tempted to follow, but at least they will know that groups will wait at the Hub and may be less tempted to over-extend themselves.
This whole issue and Thomas' example of the rider attacking through a stop sign bring up an interesting thing that I see a lot. People can be competitive by nature, and when riding road bikes, especially in large groups, there seems to be an overwhelming urge to tryout race tactics. The problem is often that they really aren't in a race, there are no corner marshals, and no officials focused on rider safety. Sure I think there are small times that one can do this pretend racing safely, but if you really want to race, enter a race. The vast majority of near-misses and horrible accidents that I have witnessed on bikes have been in non-organized group rides and century type events where riders ignore traffic laws or good bicycle/car etiquette to be aggressive. Just some food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by irish on Aug 16, 2007 11:34:35 GMT -5
I think Thomas' closing comment brings this issue to the bedrock - We are just riding bikes. I also must agree with Josh that people do ride a little faster than they normally would when we fly downhill. I guess it just comes down to the reality that the actions of one rider can and do affect all others around her/him during a ride. If this means saving the fast descents and great turns for individual or small group rides on other days, so be it.
I miss the old Tuesday night ride and support whatever it takes to get it back.
P.S. How about handicapping all the great climbers as well? I think everyone should weigh 240lbs (without bike) at the start of the Tuesday night ride. Then again, it would really be embarrassing when a weighted down Josh or Scott or Gibbs or Cooper or (insert name here) flies past me in a climb...
|
|
|
Post by TC on Aug 16, 2007 12:19:28 GMT -5
You mean I can ride with you guys on the flats back to the shop now? I'm in. I always let the fast group gap me on the down hill, not that I could not ride that fast down the hill, just that I did not want something bad to happen. I never thought it was safe. I scolded Jennifer everytime she did it.
I'm fat now, and I don't like it. TC
|
|
|
Post by Josh Whitmore on Aug 17, 2007 21:19:18 GMT -5
Hoooray!!
It sounds like the new format can be a good thing. I'll be there next tuesday to be the voice and enforcer.
PS, I have several big backpacks we can load with sandbags to accommodate Irish's request. I often feel the same way at 165lb in climbing races against most of the pros who weigh 125-140lb. How do they get that skinny?
|
|
|
Post by irish on Aug 20, 2007 11:04:29 GMT -5
165lbs vs. 125lbs? Now you're just rubbing it in. I haven't weighed 125 lbs since birth
|
|
|
Post by mvi on Aug 20, 2007 13:35:26 GMT -5
A similar situation in the Whittier ride is the (low grade) descent, followed by the fast 90 degree sweeper on the climb on Shoals Creek. The first group over the top always rides a fast -group splitting tempo through this turn. I have witnessed, and been part of a crash that I,m sure Thomas will remember that could have ended much worse than it did. If we back of by maybe 15%, more people will hang on at least until 441. After that selection seems to take care of most risks it seems. Martin
|
|
|
Post by thomasB on Aug 20, 2007 17:08:08 GMT -5
I wasn't aware that the 90 deg sweeper at Whittier caused much of a split. That is a good suggestion from Martin. In reference to the crash he and I were involved in, that was mostly due to bad riding on my part 7-8 years ago, and not due to a split in the group or anything like that.
Yes, that was my famous day of 3 crashes and a dead squirrel. In my days of mostly adventure racing and doing a little road biking, I once wrecked on the railroad tracks warming up, wrecked in a diesel puddle turning left onto shoal creek, and then once I was totally out of whack, I came up on somebody way too fast in that sweeping turn wrecking myself and Martin. We were lucky with the oncoming traffic. I finished the ride by myself for the safety of everyone else involved, but not before running over a squirrel trying to cross in front of me. He didn't make it.
Thought ya'll might enjoy the story.
|
|