UCI Reduces Number of WC DH Riders, Increases Team Fees

Related:
Create New Tag

9/26/2015 1:24 AM

We picked up the following paragraph from a statement published by the UCI yesterday:

"Rationalising the great appeal for Downhill Mountain Bike, it was agreed to reduce the total number of riders at the UCI Mountain Bike World Cup presented by Shimano. This will reduce pressure on the course during training, space required from the organisers, a slightly reduced schedule to give some flexibility in the case of stoppages/red flags, and importantly reduce the wide ability range that currently means some riders are able to access a UCI Mountain Bike World Cup who maybe do not have sufficient experience. In the same spirit, the UCI Management Committee approved to increase the UCI Mountain Bike Team annual registration fee."

What do you think? A move in the right direction, or an unnecessary change?



|

9/26/2015 2:08 AM
Edited Date/Time: 9/26/2015 2:10 AM

i think this would be a good change to make sure that it is the best of the best competing on the toughest tracks, it would also make it more appealing to the general public to watch having a reduced schedule.

|

9/26/2015 4:58 AM

trex84 wrote:

i think this would be a good change to make sure that it is the best of the best competing on the toughest tracks, it would also make it more appealing to the general public to watch having a reduced schedule.

I agree, is there any information on how many they will allow in now?

|

9/26/2015 5:10 AM

It depends how far they go with it, but it seems like we already have a good thing going now. Why mess with it? I wouldn't want to see number of qualifiers reduced by much, but I could see making entries a bit more restrictive.

|

9/26/2015 5:28 AM

epic wrote:

It depends how far they go with it, but it seems like we already have a good thing going now. Why mess with it? I wouldn't want to see number of qualifiers reduced by much, but I could see making entries a bit more restrictive.

Agreed. I think there is a fine line, UCI just needs to find it. Let's hope they don't go to overkill with this.

|

9/26/2015 6:51 AM

I think the UCI is just trying to price the shanty Bergamont team out of the pro pits area

|

9/26/2015 7:41 AM

trex84 wrote:

i think this would be a good change to make sure that it is the best of the best competing on the toughest tracks, it would also make it more appealing to the general public to watch having a reduced schedule.

russthedog wrote:

I agree, is there any information on how many they will allow in now?

Not as of the time of writing.

|

9/26/2015 8:28 AM
Edited Date/Time: 9/26/2015 8:29 AM

This makes the most sense if they also make it easier to inscribe a race into UCI calendar. Where are the riders who are forced out going to compete? How will they score points to win their way back? At what events will they gain experience that they lack?

For the usa riders I would like to see more UCI points on offer and the progrt augmented with east and west calendars that award UCI points yet make it easier for riders to travel to make the entire series.

|

I am the founder of Memory Pilot I make MTB Fenders and have an awesome sock.

9/26/2015 3:47 PM

SlalomSlayer wrote:

I think the UCI is just trying to price the shanty Bergamont team out of the pro pits area

Noooooo, that would be terrible. Bergamont is the most entertainable team out there!

|

9/26/2015 4:39 PM

Heard about this concept from some pro's at MSA. I am not surprised it happened. How much influence did Redbull have on this decision?

|

9/26/2015 7:56 PM

There are always positives and negatives to everything. I think it's a good thing to narrow the field and make sure only the best of the best compete. The real issue comes from increasing the fees. Most teams already struggle to compete. Raising the fees means all of the smaller teams will be non existent.

|

Its not how fast you ride,....Its how you ride fast

9/26/2015 8:45 PM

Are they limiting the number of entrants "into qualifying" or "qualifying"?

I can see this bringing another couple rounds to smaller venues if they force smaller teams to forfeit.

|

9/27/2015 10:37 AM

uci kills the mtb sport like sep blatter fucks up the football with fifa
first was 4X.. now bit by bit DH
less chances for newcomer and youngsters with their "noname"-teams, thats all what this uci rule shit brings

...
go on with your applause blinds

|

9/27/2015 1:29 PM

depeche4 wrote:

Heard about this concept from some pro's at MSA. I am not surprised it happened. How much influence did Redbull have on this decision?

Why would RedBull have anything to do with this decision? The RedBull live feed only shows the top 10 women plus the top 30 or so men anyway.

|

9/27/2015 2:12 PM

This sounds like a sensible move to me.

It seems that standards are increasing, meaning more riders are achieving the required points at their home races to race at world cup level, however the gap between the top 30 and the slowest rider is still large. When you consider that only the top 80 qualify, and around 20 of those are usually pre-qualified, then proportionally having 200+ riders competing for 60 places doesn't make sense.

There are more guys turning up then going home early than there are actually getting the chance to race on a Sunday. Travelling around the world to races is an expensive business for a privateer so by raising the bar and limiting the places, then it might save a lot of guys from this expense. It's arguable that they should be gaining experience and learning their craft at national level on home soil, or in other international series such as IXS.

The increase in team fees is an interesting one. At a guess it is to reduce the attractiveness of registering a UCI Team for 'privateers' who have the backing of family or other sponsors who can stump up a few thousand euros for the status. These guys register a team so that they can have the benefits of paddock space for themselves and their buddies even though they might only have 1 actual 'team' rider. I can understand that the UCI want the paddock area to be a professional environment that is the reserve of factory teams. I guess this is very elitist and might be viewed as such, but we are talking about the highest level of the sport here. I doubt that raising the price will affect any of the current well known teams.

|

9/27/2015 3:57 PM

The farther away you push the party, the rowdier it gets. The Syndicate have proved that. Let the Lads have their fun. It's been refreshing entertainment.

|

9/27/2015 5:27 PM

SlalomSlayer wrote:

I think the UCI is just trying to price the shanty Bergamont team out of the pro pits area

Id bet itd because they want the same revenue from the event, no terrible agenda. Fewer riders means less revenue so jack up entry and you can provide the same services and not lose any money. Its what most organisations would do.

|

9/27/2015 7:40 PM

More importantly when are we ever going to see world champs replays DHI and XCO?

|

9/27/2015 11:35 PM

russthedog wrote:

Id bet itd because they want the same revenue from the event, no terrible agenda. Fewer riders means less revenue so jack up entry and you can provide the same services and not lose any money. Its what most organisations would do.

I really don't think these decisions are anything to do with revenue. The amount the UCI makes out of a world cup downhill race is isn't much compared to other disciplines.

The resort hosting the event has to meet the majority of costs (including uplifts for riders, staff, paddock space, signage, advertising and marketing, safety, parking, marshals, tv viewing platforms, public access, grandstands, course building and taping etc) as well as paying for the organisational rights to the UCI. I've heard figures mentioned that it costs a resort up to around half a million $ to host a world cup. Somebody please correct me if this figure is wildly incorrect.

By reducing the number of competitors this should help ease the cost to the hosting resort. Hopefully this will mean more diverse locations and higher quality racing. This in turn should raise the level of the event and spectator numbers (ie revenue for the resort and local businesses).

|

10/2/2015 10:21 AM

More importantly, I have heard they are ditching the ridiculously stupid "clothing rule" for trade teams, the rule that states everyone must be in the same kit, all F-ing year long.
Can anyone confirm this dismissal of a idiotic ruling?

|

10/2/2015 2:11 PM

Stiksandstones wrote:

More importantly, I have heard they are ditching the ridiculously stupid "clothing rule" for trade teams, the rule that states everyone must be in the same kit, all F-ing year long.
Can anyone confirm this dismissal of a idiotic ruling?

so specialized finally decided not to pay a backdoor deal to uci to allow there riders in different kits? troy and gwinn never looked the same

|

10/2/2015 7:02 PM

Oz_Taylor wrote:

I really don't think these decisions are anything to do with revenue. The amount the UCI makes out of a world cup downhill race is isn't much compared to other disciplines.

The resort hosting the event has to meet the majority of costs (including uplifts for riders, staff, paddock space, signage, advertising and marketing, safety, parking, marshals, tv viewing platforms, public access, grandstands, course building and taping etc) as well as paying for the organisational rights to the UCI. I've heard figures mentioned that it costs a resort up to around half a million $ to host a world cup. Somebody please correct me if this figure is wildly incorrect.

By reducing the number of competitors this should help ease the cost to the hosting resort. Hopefully this will mean more diverse locations and higher quality racing. This in turn should raise the level of the event and spectator numbers (ie revenue for the resort and local businesses).

A lot of those costs would be unchanged though. You'd still need the same amount of marshalls, TV guys, etc. Looking at your list, why would reducing the number of riders drop those expenses?

From the standpoint of spectators, there is a point where the race gets too small. An event like Hardline kind of sucks for spectators because there is a lot of time with no action on course. Not saying that the UCI will take it anywhere near that point, but the "excess riders" really don't hurt much. They pay their own way, if they want to keep showing up, why should they be told to stay away. You don't see it often, but guys with high number plates do make the top-80 sometimes.

|