Posts
1225
Joined
8/29/2010
Location
Grand Junction, CO
US
Edited Date/Time
10/20/2020 6:32pm
Curious what everyone thinks of the format this weekend. Personally, I love it. I can watch Friday at work, then get to watch again Sunday.
As a rider, I always wished I had another crack at a track right away. This gives that opportunity.
More racing. More races. Relatively speaking the same amount of money.
Thoughts?
(and yes, I know it'll never happen)
As a rider, I always wished I had another crack at a track right away. This gives that opportunity.
More racing. More races. Relatively speaking the same amount of money.
Thoughts?
(and yes, I know it'll never happen)
But, I was thinking about the format and how fans/racer's always complain about how there isn't enough races. So one easy compromise would be to make qualies worth way more. Maybe not the full points of sunday, but let's say half the points for the top 20-30. And also have it filmed by the proper crew and released as a 30minute-1hour highlight reel.
Another advantage of double headers/ meaningful qualies, would be to avert weather issues. E.g. if you know if it going to pour down for half the race on sunday, make the earlier round the higher scoring round.
The negative aspect is the toll taken on the riders physically, both from an effort and injury perspective, they would need to play it safer and aim for consistency, but we know that isn't how it will go. So you will have guy hitting the gym way harder in the off season getting overly rewarded and also a lot of people attempting to ride races injured.
if mx racers do what mx racers do, i don't think fitness should be an excuse. everyone would be in the same boat, so they may all tone it down a bit on double header weekends.
Several riders use to race slalom/4x and then DH.
As a spectator I like the idea of double headers though I must admit I'm less interested in Sunday's race than I was in Friday's just because I already spent several hours watching. Maybe that will change Sunday.
Freerider71's point about double headers being a good insurance against a mechanical is a great point. Fully support that. It does feel kind of dumb when a flat or a broken chain costs someone a whole weeks worth of travel and prep.
I'd hope for 6-8 events still i.e. 12-16 races.
I'm not worried about recovery time. If racers know this ahead of time they will just train for it.
Entry fees seems to be something that can easily be fixed and changed as this is tried out.
As for doubling up races, Maribor and Leogang being one after another is a fluke. The original calendar had Maribor and Lošinj back to back. Which is kinda the same, but different
It makes sense for the teams, but not for the spectators. Had it gone through normally with no COVID, I would have gone to watch the Lošinj round (down by the seaside, where it's warm, an early start to the holiday season kinda deal), but likely not to Maribor, even though it's in Slovenia and closer than Lošinj. I wouldn't want to deal with the logistics of traveling and the like (drinking?
As a rider, especially as someone who has tried to be competitive as a privateer it would be much more difficult to keep the bike running, however, I always loved having multiple DH races, maybe a chainless, to usually try and right a wrong from the first race. Overall, I think that the format could work. What doesn’t work, double entry fee and a split prize purse, what’s going on there???
To promote racing in both, maybe have an overall cup like the skiers do?
That really reveals how much UCI loves DH, I can clearly picture UCI as old corrupt uncle scrooge screaming "me me me money me"
Through, this is interesting : https://www.uci.org/docs/default-source/publications/2019-uci-rapport-annuel-inside-english-web.pdf
Remember that UCI job is actually to fund (or I would say to exploit) DH racing. It means they have cost (they always try to minimize) and revenue (they always try to maximize). I don't want to be cynical so sports health is maybe a consideration but the main driver is to generate revenue year after year.
Fucking up at securing sponsoring revenue after Grundig doesn't make them heroes. People would still want to race DH with or without UCI.
UCI is not a charity (well they are actually a non-profit!), they provide a service that's being paid by team and racers registrations, licences, host, etc. Sponsors and media stuff are extra fluff that is not absolutely vital ( you've seen what I've done here)
@spommer: it would be a good idea to get somebody on the podcast with a good economic understanding of the UCI (or USA cycling) revenues and operating cost so we would be more educated on what we can actually expect from this bodies. As average mountain bikers, we always cry for more racing, more coverage, more of everything without having a good analytical knowledge on the numbers.
Getting back on the subject, I'm not sure the double headers are as enjoyable as regular round by racers and spectators (they kinda saturate the viewers attention for a short time instead of keeping them engaged longer) but if it makes sense financially for racers privateers and hosts, i'm all for it!!
If the UCI ran at a deficit then it would have disappeared long ago and taken our DH world cup with it.
It’s not like a national body which could be replaced with another by simply lobby the current administration for funding. And it’s not FIFA pulling in ridiculous amounts of money every 4 years with the biggest global sports event there is.
1) I wonder what the riders really think? I'm sure opinion is mixed, but I know there are a number of WC pros that wish there were more races overall. This seems like a way to accomplish this (yes, its a compromise) without making teams fly all over the world more.
2) The idea riders need more recovery is kind of funny to me. Most riders do a handful of training runs, then a qualy, then maybe 1 more run, then they race. You are telling me the best riders in the world can't do ~20 laps in the entirety of a double header which spans 4-6 days?
3) It would suck to pay two entry fees, but entry fees, as pricey as they may be, are not the limiting factor for privateers. Getting to the race, in my experience, is often your biggest cost. Sure, staying in a hotel a few more nights could be pricey, too, but again, you are getting to race twice. Overall, I'd argue its more economical for everyone to do a double header.
I think the big argument against it is simply this: It sort of takes away the "purity" of WC DH racing in that its a new track every time. I've hesitated to bring up moto, but they do often revisit locations in the same season, but they build new tracks.
Maybe that'd be the best way to do it, mix the track up a little. Tape in new sections. You could use bits and pieces for one race, then other pieces for the second race.
I guess this ultimately comes down to "does everyone want more DH WC racing or not?"
I want a LOT more!!!
I like the idea of the double header for race weekend 1 and the final. It also makes a lot of sense for the N. America stops if you have MSA and then double header in the US.
I think the strongest argument against it would be from the trade teams. Bonuses, etc. would cost them more for riders and does a double weekend really create more exposure for the brand? I would think more shots at the podium would be better but I have no idea of the metrics they use.
It might be hard for some venues to do variations on the track they use (Lošinj?), but for sure it is an option. And nobody said you have to run 2 races on a course, you could maybe do double headers only on courses that can accomodate variations of the course?
As for too much running, hell, skiers do 2 races in subsequent days with two runs each. In some cases we're talking about downhill and slalom as well, so two complete opposites on the skiing spectrum.
If they changed the courses slightly between day 1 and day 2 we would also see different skill sets since riders that don't need to know every inch of a track to go fast would be rewarded. Allow a Sunday practice for an hour or two so the riders can see the changes and try them out without being able to nail every section. Or they could just run the same track which would still be interesting since riders that made a mistake on day 1 could make a comeback on day 2.
Regardless, racing is awesome. The sport is, in fact, growing. Production is cheaper than it was 20 years ago. There has to be a way to make this all puzzle together so we get more racing, racers and brands get more exposure and the sport prospers further on the competitive side.
Staying static when everything else is changing seems a dumb move. But what do I know...
Post a reply to: Should the UCI do more double headers? (in non-pandemic years)