The Cyclocross Crusade is proud to host the first ever Clydesdale race at
this weekend's State Cyclocross Championships at Estacada Timber Park.
Who: Those who weigh 200+ lbs (in the buff). We will be doing a weigh-in,
so don't even try entering if you're not a plus size athlete
When: The Clydesdale Open category will run with the Masters B's/ Jr race @
11:00am
Note(s): To be eligible, you will have to get a new number at registration-
you're regular category number will not work. All entrants are subject to
weigh-in.
The Cyclocross Crusade is proud to host the first ever Clydesdale race at
this weekend's State Cyclocross Championships at Estacada Timber Park.
Who: Those who weigh 200+ lbs (in the buff). We will be doing a weigh-in,
so don't even try entering if you're not a plus size athlete
When: The Clydesdale Open category will run with the Masters B's/ Jr race @
11:00am
Note(s): To be eligible, you will have to get a new number at registration-
you're regular category number will not work. All entrants are subject to
weigh-in.
not to rain on the parade.. but i dont understand why there needs to be more categories...
this is an honest question. i get having them for age categories.. but if you are a slow 200+ then race the C's.... if you are an old 200+, race the masters... and if you are Dale Knapp then race the elites...
again, honest question.... me confused.
i guess, same thing for B-masters... why not just race age category?? or C's.. or B's....
maybe we should have a category for people over 6'.. i may do ok in that... then again, probably not.
To keep the categories under 100 riders? Around here the C, 35+ C race will field 50-80 riders in each field. I suppose that you could have just have 150 C racers out there and score them ...
Another thing to condsider is that the 35+ race used to be pretty small around here. But with the popularity of the lower cat age groups, there is an upgrade feeder system to bulk the ranks.
I think it all comes down to popularity. Folks want to have the new cats and if promoters are able to handle them, then they might get more participants.
Another thing ... the 35+ B's are way more fun to race with than the regular B's. Most of them have "real" jobs and families and understand that this racing thing is fun and not worth risking your neck over.
I'm 43 and 230. I've raced C's and finsihed highly every race (never won, but some 4th thru 10ths) if I didn't crash or have a mech on most courses I was usually the first of the chasers of the lead 3. (one of the fastest of the 2nd fastest groups), Not being a sandbagger I moved up a grade, so I either race young and fast B's or Old and really Fast Masters (we have no master B's).
second on a hillier course we Clydes suffer like dogs locked in cars on hot days. I tell ya what, go out on your local hilly cx training circuit, ride it at race pace, now add enough weight to put you near 200, ride it again and tell me your experience. Yes we put out more watts but watts to weight on climbs are brutal. It would be fun to race against folks yer own size.
Third: why is it in sports where being big is an advantage they break it into weight classes?
why have lightweight and heavyweight boats in rowing? Why not have Sugar Ray Leanord Box Mike Tyson? Why not have 110 lb flyweights power lift against the 300 lbers? I mean don't these weight classes just complicate things? It's a frickin conspiracy of little people, when your size is an advantage you want equality, when it isn't you want special treatment.
What's the big deal, its the Cross Crusade listening to a segment of their racers that want to include a category for a little fun. These guys are just racing for laughs and my guess is some hearty brews. Good for CC for being so receptive to an idea.
not to rain on the parade.. but i dont understand why there needs to be more categories...
this is an honest question. i get having them for age categories.. but if you are a slow 200+ then race the C's.... if you are an old 200+, race the masters... and if you are Dale Knapp then race the elites...
again, honest question.... me confused.
i guess, same thing for B-masters... why not just race age category?? or C's.. or B's....
maybe we should have a category for people over 6'.. i may do ok in that... then again, probably not.
I think the main reason is that it serves two goals. The 35+ B race is run with the juniors. At the beginning of the year, the 35+ B will have near 80 guys and the juniors will have 25 or so youngsters. The Cs and 35+ Cs will have close to 100 per and the Bs and Single speeds will have 80 per as well. It's a way to accomodate Clydes and at the same time reduce the # of Cs and Bs and put em on the course with less traffic thereby making it easier to score.
When you have races that routinely get 700 competitors it results in unique problems, but also creates the opportunity for unique solutions.
BTW. I've only got 35 pounds to go and I qualify for Clydesdale.
When participation is up, you can have more categories. Look at NORBA at big races, like the Sea Otter. The have everything broken up into 5 year increments for every category. They even have a Beg, Sport, and Expert Clydesdales.
More categories doesn't always more fun, but in this case it does.
That is more like no riding until the race. Lots of drinking, and steaks, seaford and pasta dinners. Plus some nice IHOP breakfast and you will have it.
First of all I really like what ATP had to say about how we factor in weight ability into other sports such as; boxing, rowing! That is true and an undeniable fact. What I find from my experience in cycling is that there are slow big guys and slow small guys. Also, there are fast big guys and fast small guys and everything in between. I race against quite a few guys that are right in the 200lb range and they are very fast. Having said that they are also very lean. So, I think what you will find is that the clydes category will become another ability based category. The fast big guys are going to continue to race whatever they are racing. I guess what I am wondering is it the weight that is keeping bigger guys from being fast enough to hang in the regular categories or is it things that we all face like time to train, bad diet, poor handling skillz, and in my case no genetic engine? It is just a question. When I started racing I was 174 pounds, I now race at 160, and if that damn beer stopped calling my name I could probably be at 157 ish, but alas it does beckon me everytime I open my fridge door.
anyway, I think it is a smart move on the part of the crusade as they have realized there is a need and they are filling it.
Weight makes a huge difference. Couple years back I dropped 30 lbs from the start to the finish of the MTB season. I went from bottom of the pack to a first place finish in the sport cat. My time to train and my handing skillz didn't change. I had been riding three times a week for the last several years, plus commuting to work on the bike. The difference was the weight, which I lost to a change of diet. My results got better at each race with the weight loss. I got down to 193, and people thought I looked skinny. At best I can get down to 180 without being unhealthy. That will always put me at a disadvantage to someone that weight 125 to 145. There are some people that will never get below 200. They can be a far better rider than someone at 150 but that 50 will make a difference.
In general, I'm not a fan of the category based on a random weight-200 lbs? 220 lbs? I can understand the argument that more categories need to be created to make smaller fields. I'd rather see fields broken up into more age categories-that's equitable for all competitiors. I don't like the argument that clydes need their own category so they can feel competitive. If you're not competitive because you're overweight, well do something about it. If you're not competitive because you're a lean, fit, bigger rider but can't keep up with the smaller guys, well maybe cyclocross isn't the sport for you. There are many other sports I'd like to do well in but my body type doesn't really match what those sports demand. So either I just relish the participation, or I find a sport that I am more suited to. IMHO, age and gender are the only appropriate parameters to catogorize competitors (in cycling).
but I'd be 200 lbs even sub 10% bodyfat.
abd ya know what else sucks when yer big ? false flats on grass, you sink you drag and while the little feelers float along you feel like yer draggin an anchor.
last season when I wasn't having the sciatica issues I was around 225 and fit, riding many miles, and good ones a week.
this season I can't train due to the injury so I'm heavier, slower, pedlaing on a leg and a half and so F'in jealous of you guys.
crepitus your point is damn close to retarded. why can't bigger guys race? why can't cx be the sport for them as well? Can you imagine if there was only one boxing, wrestling, judo weight? "well mr flyweight you keep getting your head scrambled by guys double your size, maybe boxing isn't your sport". It's why they have weight classes, so size doesn't become an unfair advantage, but it doesn't exist in the inverse.
second Cycling is a sport we should get as many people involved with as possible. why not make categories so more people can be included and enjoy the fitness, fun, pain and camraderie that only cx has. I like to race, I don't care if I win but nothing would put a bigger smile on my face than suffering and sharing a post race beer with some kindred spirits. You little folks have no idea how much we turn ourselves inside out just to not get dropped too severely on hilly rides. wqe should be encouraged and appreciated cause it hurts us alot. Your attitude is so anti 'everything that is good' about bicycles it saddens me. It reeks of roadie snobbery.
oh and I'm big, not fat. I was 6'3" 180 lbs at 14. I was 'engine room' on a Collegiate Heavyweight 8 but cycled my whole life. CX is the only thing I've ever found that produces the pure sweet hell that rowing does.
In general, I'm not a fan of the category based on a random weight-200 lbs? 220 lbs? I can understand the argument that more categories need to be created to make smaller fields. I'd rather see fields broken up into more age categories-that's equitable for all competitiors. I don't like the argument that clydes need their own category so they can feel competitive. If you're not competitive because you're overweight, well do something about it. If you're not competitive because you're a lean, fit, bigger rider but can't keep up with the smaller guys, well maybe cyclocross isn't the sport for you. There are many other sports I'd like to do well in but my body type doesn't really match what those sports demand. So either I just relish the participation, or I find a sport that I am more suited to. IMHO, age and gender are the only appropriate parameters to catogorize competitors (in cycling).
Yep, exactly. I was heavier when I started racing, I knew I wanted to be faster and getting lighter was a major way to get there so I dieted my ass off, sacrificed a lot and lost 40 lbs. I didn't complain to race promoters that I wanted a class just for me. This Clydesdale/Athena thing is SO American.
Yep, exactly. I was heavier when I started racing, I knew I wanted to be faster and getting lighter was a major way to get there so I dieted my ass off, sacrificed a lot and lost 40 lbs. I didn't complain to race promoters that I wanted a class just for me. This Clydesdale/Athena thing is SO American.
so lets just get rid of all those silly weight classes in every sport shall we? C'mon we won't have as much to watch at the Olympics, no need for 50 K wrestling, open class baby.
OntheRivet, I could drop 40 and still be a Clydesdale (or close) if this was 'fat bastards' class I could understand your opinion but there are just some big folks out there.
oh and they already recognize the class in Tris.
but heck, I'd cheer for a fat bastards class too. Hand them beers when they get to the feed zone, I dunno the more the merrier.
and I wish I could find the stat (so this is from memory)
on a 7% climb at equal wattage a 175 lb rider gains about 231 feet per mile on a 190 lb rider who gains another 231 feet on a 205 lber who gains another 231 feet on a 220 lber etc... every 15 pounds
so if you weigh 160 lbs and some big boy ever beats you up a mountain you really should hang your head in shame
If weight isn't appropiate the age really isn't eaither. I have seen 16 year olds beat the snot out of elite racers and I have seen 50 year olds beat the snot out of elite racers. Age is more mental that physical. Yeah, recover time the older you get is slower, but it doesn't mean you aren't fast. People that complain about age have lost the mental game.
Yeah I am fat... I can lose weight. But with your arguement , why have categories at all, why not just have age classes. I can argue, just because you are slow doesn't mean you shouldn't race with everyone else. Train harder, or just don't race. :mad2:
Yep, exactly. I was heavier when I started racing, I knew I wanted to be faster and getting lighter was a major way to get there so I dieted my ass off, sacrificed a lot and lost 40 lbs. I didn't complain to race promoters that I wanted a class just for me. This Clydesdale/Athena thing is SO American.
Your agruement here works great for the Clydesdale/Athena class. What is better for the sport than to be open and inviting to all types of people. It is great for America too... What is better for America than getting people out socializing with other people and at the same time doing a little exercise. Then these people become hooked on the sport and they want to get better, so they lose weight.
That could be our slogan. Clydesdale... Good for cycling, Good for America.
on a 7% climb at equal wattage a 175 lb rider gains about 231 feet per mile on a 190 lb rider who gains another 231 feet on a 205 lber who gains another 231 feet on a 220 lber etc... every 15 pounds
so if you weigh 160 lbs and some big boy ever beats you up a mountain you really should hang your head in shame
again - i am not trying to be a dick... but would you suggest that we have more than one clydes category? a 200+, 250+, etc? a guy that weighs in at 260 might be saying its not fair that he has to race against a guy who only weighs 205.
i see your point about the big boys having a disadvantage.. but you could say that at any level... ie, me @ 175 is not going to go up the hills as well as the kid that weighs 135 in my same category... am i at a disadvantage? should we have a cat3 200+, and a cat3 200- ?
at 6'2 and 175, i consistently hear "come on, BIG GUY" at cross races...
all that said, i see your (and others) point about adding more categories to limit the field sizes. good point. i concur with this and i guess if thats what the people want, then thats what the people should get.... if it gets more people racing.. thats a good thing, in the end....
again - i am not trying to be a dick... but would you suggest that we have more than one clydes category? a 200+, 250+, etc? a guy that weighs in at 260 might be saying its not fair that he has to race against a guy who only weighs 205.
No, I would see it as one class and category. Much like singlespeed is in many areas. It is for fun, much like most racing. Now if 200 big guys/gals were showing up for a race, then maybe you would have to think about breaking it up. But for now, I think we will have about a dozen guys out there. Which is bigger than the Unicycle category at this time.
I've seen Clydes class in mountain bike racing and know some people that have seen it as an incentive. That's what it's about really, i.e. a way to draw interest. Nothing wrong with that. There needs to be a balance though between having a critical mass of participants in the class and other's seeing the class as legitimate. I think it works for clydes, singlespeed, and even masters designations for the most part. Ha Ha, maybe we should have the "Married with children" class too?
In the end all that really matters is the elite race as far as results - right? Even when classes don't exist, we all look at the results and make up our own classifications to judge our personal performance (e.g. "I did pretty good for being over 40" etc. etc.). At the non-elite level it is kind of silly to obsess over how many "points" you've earned, especially when a lot of that depends on how many people even showed up at the events. Bike racing is pretty niche as it is. I'm pretty sure that there are people that are active endurance atheletes as non-racing recreational cyclists or triatheletes or even runners that could immediately toe up to the start line at a cross race and take your 20th place finish down to 50th place. OK, enough of the philosophical digressions ....
I've seen plenty of clydes and old guys with great engines. I also regularly see top-10's in the B's and C's that should be racing up a class, and bottom-10's in A's and B's that should be racing down a class. Whatever. It's a free country.
crepitus your point is damn close to retarded. why can't bigger guys race?
They can. I'm not saying anyone should be excluded.
why can't cx be the sport for them as well?
it can be, but accept it for what it is. yes weight may be a negative in CX, but it's a positive in flat time trials. Its a positive in other sports as well. If you need to be successful to enjoy it, pick a sport where your size benefits you. Or ride CX and don't ask for special consideration.
The way to make this weight thing fair, as brought up when mentioning boxing etc, is to have weight categories across the board, not just for heavyweights.
Look, I'm 190 lbs when fit. If it's fair that 200lbs+ get a category, then I think it's fair that there is a 180-200# cat also. Because nothing would put a bigger smile on my face than suffering and sharing a post race beer with some kindred spirits. Same then with the 175# guy. He should compete in 160-180# cat. It's gotta be across the board, just as you mention about wrestling and weight lifting etc.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Road Bike, Cycling Forums
5.4M posts
205K members
Since 1990
A forum community dedicated to Road Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!