Slow Thinker Quick Linker
So for the past week or so- probably longer- I've been thinking about the long discussion over on the New England Cross list about categories, start times, etc. For the most part it's been a good discussion, but as always there is a lot of 'you should...' and not enough 'how about if I...' going on.
There is a lot of talk about using Colin's amazing CrossResults standings for the series call ups. Which is ok, the data is actually really cool- but nobody has pointed out that wranglin' all that data is simply one guys hobby. He's got a day job and his own racing to think about. Perhaps someone should ask him first before we draft him to be the call up czar for the entire series. I can assure you that bike racers tend to take themselves waaaay too seriously waaay too often. Do we want to subject poor Colin to the inevitable internet wrath of some dude who got called up on the 4th row instead of the 3rd row? If that data is worth using- and I think it might be- perhaps we might think about actually paying him for his work? And by "we" I mean the bike racers who are going to potentially benefit from the improved call up system.
On top of the whole "we should use Colin's data" thing, the annual "what about timing chips" discussion came up. Again, it's a legitimate question, and another good idea, but frankly nobody really gets the costs involved with implementing it. For Pioneer to invest in a reliable chip timing system I would have to pass some portion of the cost along to the promoter. And the reality of that means I would have to charge some 5-6 times more for my services in scoring a cross race. So does the improved scoring/timing really justify that?
It makes me think a lot about how we (both the cycling community, and people in general) value things. And it makes me think that our value system might be out of whack. Is seems that the balance of what we want vs what we will pay for is off. And by "pay for" I don't just mean money- I mean time and effort as well. If you want better and more accurate timing and scoring at a race, will you pay more for an entry? If you want better call ups is that worth paying for on some level? If you want a race category or a type of course that's not currently being offered, are you willing to step up and put it on yourself?
There's some interesting comments about 'value', and what things are worth in this article on Freeman Transport. It took me a bit to get past the hipster bandwagon track bike thing, but buried in there are some pretty good quotes, and I think some of those quotes can be applied to 'cross racing specifically, and bike racing in general. I guess what I mean is this: If you want something of quality- be it good results, good call ups, a good choice of categories there is a very real cost associated with it, and you need to be willing to bear those costs. To put it another way, if I can mangle a quote from the late Al Kreitler: "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweet taste of a deal."
There is a lot of talk about using Colin's amazing CrossResults standings for the series call ups. Which is ok, the data is actually really cool- but nobody has pointed out that wranglin' all that data is simply one guys hobby. He's got a day job and his own racing to think about. Perhaps someone should ask him first before we draft him to be the call up czar for the entire series. I can assure you that bike racers tend to take themselves waaaay too seriously waaay too often. Do we want to subject poor Colin to the inevitable internet wrath of some dude who got called up on the 4th row instead of the 3rd row? If that data is worth using- and I think it might be- perhaps we might think about actually paying him for his work? And by "we" I mean the bike racers who are going to potentially benefit from the improved call up system.
On top of the whole "we should use Colin's data" thing, the annual "what about timing chips" discussion came up. Again, it's a legitimate question, and another good idea, but frankly nobody really gets the costs involved with implementing it. For Pioneer to invest in a reliable chip timing system I would have to pass some portion of the cost along to the promoter. And the reality of that means I would have to charge some 5-6 times more for my services in scoring a cross race. So does the improved scoring/timing really justify that?
It makes me think a lot about how we (both the cycling community, and people in general) value things. And it makes me think that our value system might be out of whack. Is seems that the balance of what we want vs what we will pay for is off. And by "pay for" I don't just mean money- I mean time and effort as well. If you want better and more accurate timing and scoring at a race, will you pay more for an entry? If you want better call ups is that worth paying for on some level? If you want a race category or a type of course that's not currently being offered, are you willing to step up and put it on yourself?
There's some interesting comments about 'value', and what things are worth in this article on Freeman Transport. It took me a bit to get past the hipster bandwagon track bike thing, but buried in there are some pretty good quotes, and I think some of those quotes can be applied to 'cross racing specifically, and bike racing in general. I guess what I mean is this: If you want something of quality- be it good results, good call ups, a good choice of categories there is a very real cost associated with it, and you need to be willing to bear those costs. To put it another way, if I can mangle a quote from the late Al Kreitler: "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweet taste of a deal."
posted by JD at
10:59 AM
9 Comments:
JD,
I always think the stuff you post here is remarkable.
this might be the most brilliant that I have read.
My golden rule about race promoters, promotion is this:
don't complain unless you are willing to jump in and do something about it.
as much as we all get from cycling, I do believe there is an obligation bigger than paying entry fees and showing up to race to give back.
love the keyboard studs that bitch about everything but do nothing...
respect
m
My experience:
Oregon promoters tried chip timing for cx a few years ago. It was unreliable and slow to get the results out. Since then it is back to hand tallied results.
The riders hated it. Results took over a week to get posted and they were generally incorrect. The web based interface was ugly and sluggish and there was no reason to visit the site beyond trying to interpret the crap results.
-
You need to create value for the riders and then you can absolutely increase fees for the races.
A chip system with a slick website could also create a new revenue stream for Pioneer. Imagine Bikereg but, better. Cleaner. A site with results, links to blogs and an easy way to purchase cx related swag. Maybe the crossresults website features could be a "free" added incentive on the website.
People are going to bitch about entry fees (I know I have) but, it is cross and a $20 vs. $30 entry fee is not going to stop riders from racing cross.
It may deter some but, keep in mind, everything is going up in price across the board in cycling.
It would be a disservice to race promotion to not keep entries in line with the ever increasing cost of actually putting events on.
@Molly I wouldn't say that is the norm in the Midwest, quite a few here won't pre-reg, and won't go at all if there is a late fee (as they make their "decision" on the morning of the race.
No doubt that sort of attitude (in the Midwest) is lame, but I'd question whether chip timing is the answer, or whether just a tad more manpower would get the job more reliably more a slight increase in expense.
@JD Right on man, sing it.
Chip timing is overkill, in my opinion. I've daydreamed about what kind of cool stats I could do with lap times, but I can't think of a realistic reason to use it. And I absolutely think that entry fees are a dealbreaker for many amateurs -- I would NOT feel confident promoting a race with a $30 entry + chip timing going up against a local race with a $20 entry without chip timing. Elites like Molly might be more concerned with getting the highest level of competition possible, but there are lot more amateur types that like short drives and cheap races.
Crossresults.com is already the most stressful and rewarding thing I do in the fall. Using it for Verge staging would increase both of those attributes; but really, it's the closest I'll ever get to being a celebrity, so if the racers think it's a good idea, then I do too. But I'm too tied up in it to think about it objectively, which is why I try to avoid pushing it.
Well I know a good handful of riders who would push to have it used...
as it is Colin collects all the data anyway. Right? The downside for colin is that more than a few of his friends will be correcting the results on his database that the promoter got wrong. But if the results are accurate then he just runs the code and does his magic (i can't explain how he does it so i'm supposed to call it magic i think) and everyone starts perfectly seeded in the most important races in the region. Not just at MRC.
Big plus for promoters (verge series not as much but still a factor) is pre-reg incentive. You pre-reg and you get ranked based on your crossresults ranking. But then heck. I thought the season pass thing was a good idea.
Reading between the lines I see colin jumping up and down with joy if Verge decides to use crossresults.com to rank and seed riders for the series.
it would be a huge validation to his hard work over the last few years.... something not to be overlooked.
just my crappy ineloquent and poorly thought out two cents...
actually, I think colin scrapes the data from sites like bikereg.com. i don't think he collects it himself.
I am a results hunter-and-gatherer. And occasional results farmer.
not to be picky but i think "collecting" is an appropriate word for what colin does... his little code monkeys living in his computer get the results and then transmogify the bikereg/obra/whatever score sheet into crossresults.com form and then the points and stuff happen...
collecting data doesn't mean he's out there with a steno pad at each race...
but then maybe my perspective is wrong... wouldn't be the first time
I'm not pushing for the chip system.
But maybe for raising entry fees? I guess if you are "competing" with other races, that is complicated.
I realize not every cx scene in the country has the absurd participation that Portland has.
I'm advocating adding "value" to the cx racing events in general.
A timing system could (or could not, I personally don't care for them) be one part of half a dozen things race promoters could do to get people stoked to come out to cx races.
The idea is to make the event WORTH $30. Or $40.
It is not just about racing your bike but having several other reasons to put in the travel and pay more money than you "normally" would to race your bike.
If the cx race is a festival? Even a small one? And you could bring your kids and family and invite non-bike racer pals?
I'd imagine race entry would be of secondary concern.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home