The reason why American cyclists need UCI points is to get good position on a typical mountain bike race starting grid.  Some visible examples of where this matters is the Olympics and the annual World Championships require a good starting position to get into contention for a podium placing.

That’s the need, now USAC’s solution is to encourage promoters to use “UCI compliant courses.”  These courses aren’t very interesting to race for the weekend warrior classes, so there’s a big disparity in participation between well-attended races with non UCI compliant  courses.   If a promoter attempts to use a UCI compliant course, the turnout is weak after the first event because word gets around that the course is not interesting.  USAC has been beating this dead horse for over a decade now with no signs of changing.

What’s so boring about ‘UCI compliant’ courses?  The descents aren’t very long.  The repetitiveness of the course isn’t interesting at all. It looks like USAC likes their courses ‘lawyer safe.’  So, not terribly difficult.  Lapping riders isn’t really racing per se and the riders getting lapped don’t like it either.

To make matters worse, the way they structured Mountain Bike events that generate UCI points does not maximize a rider’s opportunity to collect UCI points for a World Cup/Olympic cross-country starting postion.  USAC needs to have some combination of XCO (cross country Olympic, 5-9km), XCP (cross country point to point, 25-60km), XCC (cross country circuit, less than 5km), XCT (time trial, 5-25km) events.

A more optimal UCI Points American series goes something like:

• Five races that generate UCI points. Ideally the Canadian UCI events do not conflict.
• One time trial event. This is where a crazy steep hill should be used to draw spectators.  Or, an up-and-down course.
• The time trial sorts out the cross country starting grid.
• One Cross Country event.  This would likely be a point-to-point in the U.S.  How about a giant loop that puts you within 10K of your start line?
• I’d argue for a restriction requiring riding the same bike for both events.

That’s a whole lot to pack into one day, so doing the events over two days is the likely scenario.

It makes justifying races to the locals much easier because the promoter can cite the tourism dollars generated.  The promoter also has a more compelling “Expo” area for vendors sales and marketing.  Food, bikes, massage all looks better when you know racers will be around for hours over a couple days!

It also gives the promoter and racer some choices.  Let’s say Saturday you have a Time Trial in the morning, then some short course preliminary races in the afternoon/evening.  Obligatory BBQ on Saturday night!  Sunday, the long cross country course event and the “finals” for the short course event.

Skinnier Tires:

33c is the maximum width for a tire.  For most of us, there’s no change because the calculation they use to get to 33c isn’t what’s printed on the side of the tire.  It looks like the average 35c meets the 33c limit.

Disc Brakes are Allowed:

This isn’t a big change for a competitive cyclocross racer. Disc brakes on a ‘cross bike aren’t a big advantage.

-They are heavy.  Even if they come up with a compact model, many generations away, they are really heavy.

-Braking power is relative.  ‘Cross bikes are not suspended mountain bikes.  A ‘cross racer’s speed is very limited by the lack of suspension, skinny tires, and intentionally smooth courses.   These limitations eliminate the need for huge braking power.  To put it another way, there isn’t a slope of head-sized rocks to traverse while flying down a steep section on a UCI/USAC cyclocross course.

I’m working against the bicycle industry on this one because 2012 ‘cross bikes will be made with disc brake capabilities and ‘cantilevers are dead!’ be shouted from the rooftops.

A Word of Caution

In almost every race/ride, you will be slower using a ‘cross bike with disc brakes.  They are a great deal heavier than cantilevers.  You have to compensate for that weight penalty by working much harder than your cantilevered riding partners.  There are no physics that make disc brakes better in most conditions. ‘Cross is still a Watts test on relatively smooth ground.

The greatest fear I have is the old problem of the front quick release skewer loosening with disc brakes.  Unless they mount the caliper on front, this could get ugly.  The other problem is the earliest designs that make it into production will have mechanical flaws that will only be obvious after mechanical failure. (aka crash)

Reality Check

Most of you reading this will ignore it and buy a ‘cross bike with disc brakes in 2012.  Some of you will spend lots of money just to have it for 2010/11.   What’s worse, many sponsored pros will be riding with disc brakes because their sponsor will require it.  You’ve been warned that there are no extra benefits to disc brakes on ‘cross bikes.

Like prior cycling subcultures, they’ll over-promise disc brakes as the new hotness that makes cycling better and therefore drive away more cycling consumers.

2010/11

I’m still looking forward to increased popularity for cyclocross in the U.S.  It’s a great sport and fun to watch too.

There are probably others though…

What happened when a bunch of American pros showed up for Kalmthout?

17. Jonathan Page (USA), at 01:45  Planet Bike

38. James Driscoll (USA), Rock Racing at 04:34  ( ~3 minutes back on Jonathan)

50. Troy Wells (USA), at 05:31  (~4 minutes back on Jonathan)

Top-ranked Americans (excluding Mr. Page) are in the lower half of the field and yet were ranked in the 20-something’s on UCI points.  If this was a situation where Driscoll and Wells would swing into a World Cup and finish in the 20-somethings, then they would have earned their mid-20’s points.  But it’s not.  Nowhere near it.  There are no excuses either.  Belgian Hardman Sven Nys passed plenty (20?) of people AND dropped a chain on the same course on his way to a win.

I hope the UCI will adjust their scoring next year because neither one of those Americans are justified in keeping their rankings anywhere near the mid-twenties.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Page has legitimately earned his position.  Go Jonathan!

Full results here.

First, some rules.

1. The content is targeted at road or mountain bike riders who are already riding regularly.  Or, someone interested in upgrading their road bike and considering a cyclocross bike.
2. If you want a to read about the interaction of cyclocross geometry on your road postion or some other equally dense fiction then go elsewhere.
3. I’m talking complete bikes available at your Local Bike Shop coming in around USD $3,000 or less.  No Empella/Ridley mentions because these are very well outside the norm in many ways.
4. I’m talking specifically about cyclocross bikes with drop bars.  I’m very glad there are flat bar multi-purpose bikes because it generally means more bike riders, but I’m not discussing these.

What’s different about a cyclocross bike versus a road bike?  They have room for fatter tires, and more powerful cantilever brakes.  You sit higher on a ‘cross bike because the bottom bracket is much higher than the equivalent road bike.  Many accommodate fenders so one can ride in more varied weather without getting soaked by the tire spray.  The ability to ride much more varied terrain is a big plus.

What’s the same about a cyclocross bike?  For road riders, the geometry is very similar to the average road bike.  You can very easily race a cyclocross bike in road events like time trials and criteriums.  There is a  slight weight and aerodynamic penalty, but that is not actually important in a Category 4/5 field.

Measure your current bike:

If your bike has a perfectly horizontal top tube, then measure the top tube from center-of-the seat-tube to center-of-the-head-tube.  Mark the spot you measured on your seat tube.

If your bike has a sloping top tube, then measure from the center-of-the-head-tube to the center-of-the-seat-tube keeping your tape measure flat. mark the spot you measured to on your seat tube.

Measure from the center of the bottom bracket to the spot you marked on the seat tube.

Top Tube Spec.

For road riders, seek a ‘cross bike with a top tube length within 0 to -1 cm.  You want to be more upright on a cross bike than a road bike, so a little shorter top tube is a benefit.  Cross-country mountain bike riders will want to have a similar top tube length, gravity-riders will be much more stretched out.

Seat Tube Spec

The seat tube length needs some special consideration because the bottom bracket is much higher on a ‘cross bike.  I recommend a seat tube specification  ~1-2 cm shorter.

Mountain Bike Riders

Translating your seat tube length into a ‘cross bike is a bit more difficult because of the variations in mountain geometry.  Subtracting 2cm from the length of the seat tube dimensions from above works for me on my cross-country oriented full-suspension bike.

Results

The end result should be a seat post that sticks out a 1-2 cm more than a traditional horizontal-top-tube road bike.  Remember, the bottom bracket is much higher than a road bike.  The effective standover height will resemble a road bike and the brand’s frame size will generally come in -2 cm smaller than a traditional horizontal-top-tube road bike.  In pictures, it should look something like this .

I know there are other setups that end up looking like Todd Wells’ or Ryan Trebon’s, super-tall seatpost but I think those are outside cases specifically crafted for those racers and won’t translate very well when buying a retail bike.

Other details

Don’t get hung up on minor differences between bikes.  Riding cyclocross is still a test to see how many Watts you can generate with bike handling technique a contributing factor. Cable routing, frame material or other details just don’t matter that much.

Some objective proof to discourage splitting hairs on equipment, Dan Timmerman (Richard Sachs) got a top-10 at nationals this year (2009) on an ‘old-fashioned’ steel ‘cross bike and  David Frattini had some excellent results on a practically stock Fuji cyclocross bike.

Ride more!

Check out some of these rankings.

14. Jonathan PAGE:  this is accurate.  He earned this ranking in Europe against the best in the World.

19. Sven VANTHOURENHOUT: again, very accurate.

21. Timothy JOHNSON:  Hasn’t raced Europe once this season.

22 and 23.  More Americans that haven’t raced Europe once this season.

When/if positions 21-23 get to go to World’s they will be lucky to stay on the lead lap.  Many guys ranked way below these three will finish on the lead lap!

On the Women’s side:

1. Katherine COMPTON: totally earned her #1 in the European races.

Positions around 20 and below have Americans that have won much slower domestic races mixed in with European UCI World Cup racers.

In both gender groups, those Americans don’t stand a chance of collecting as many points if they raced in Europe.  Is it ‘wrong?’  Not really because it’s impossible to set up a points system while looking into the future and have it accurately reflect a reality that has not yet happened.

People like Ms. Vardaros are wrongfully penalized for racing with the best and it doesn’t force American fields to get faster.  Hopefully, next year the UCI will adjust their metrics.  World Cup racers for the most part should be roughly on top of all of the domestic-only racers.

I know how many UCI administrators read my blog, (0) so have a few meetings on this one, okay?

First, it’s true tubulars are better for the dedicated cyclocross racer.  Tubulars provide much lower rotational weight and reliability is improved in some conditions.   You can build lighter tubular wheels for much less money than clinchers too.  But damn they are a whole lotta work.

The article at VeloNews from a writer that claims the physics of riding clinchers are so different from tubulars that the laws of physics are altered.  To which he would reply, “Of course not!  ….”  and then alter his premise to be more specific and conveniently ignore the original ridiculous statement.

1. Somehow, tubulars offer ‘more traction’ in a way that requires clinchers to be knobbied.

This is a Sarah Palin argument.  It is purposely vague as to always be true.     But I’m just being a ‘big bummer’ by you know, collecting boring observable facts about these things.

2. Somehow a deep tread pattern is more important on a clincher.

The writer’s thinking is because one runs clinchers harder than sewups, somehow a deep tread becomes more important.  But there’s a bunch of clincher mountain bike tires/racers/history that says otherwise.  But that’s boring history.  It doesn’t promote the author’s position at all, so it isn’t relevant.

3. ‘If there’s no tread, generally, there’s not much traction.’

So, where does that leave most cross tubulars?  If we’re using the physical world as the reference point this statement is nonsense.  Last time I rode a bike, I was doing it in the physical world, not some logical construct that satisfies this statement.

The physics of bicycling suggests the clincher treads should be just like high-end not-mud tubulars and less like dirt motorcycle tires.  Clinchers are not special in this regard.

Please, don’t fall for his sophmore engineering logic.

Train better, race faster.

God bless em’ for supporting the old pro bike riders.

Homegrown’s are still light weight with exceptional handling.  I’m still quite satisfied with the full-suspension.  It’s unfortunate the Schwinn brand was in decline at that time because the Homegrown was a legitimately great line of bikes.

FYI:  the Castellano patented single-pivot is still in production as a 29er.