[humprabbit]

It seems from reading posts on another forum from Martin Whitely (Honda Boss), There could be a nasty surprise on the horizon for the riders that didnt get themselves on trade teams because they had the required points to race. This is what martin put on Descent-world.

The old system that we created at UCI of having points expire on their birthday was done away with in 2005. The rankings start Jan 1, and end Dec 31...making the ranking system a 12 month points contest (which when you have a World Cup doing sort of the same, makes no sense to me...one should be a non-stop ranking, the other an annual points contest). So...at Jan 1..everyone has zero points. The UCI are making an exception for Round 1 of the World Cup (XC, DH and 4X) but after that, it's the 2007 ranking that determines the field of entries. Couldn't think of something more stupid if I tried.

IMTTO (www.IMTTO.com) have lobbied the UCI on this, but they feel this is the best way (which is their way of saying they have this other plan I referred to before). How does anyone score 20 points before Champery? By finishing 31st or better in a World Cup final, or trying to get to as many UCI races as you can before Champery. As I said, small field in Champery.

Sorry, but I'm a little frustrated with the UCI's stand on this and their lack of understanding of the gravity disciplines.

It seems that UCI points will now not run on a 12 months from when you won them, now it will be jan-dec regardless.

So although the UCI are accepting riders who had 20 points for Vigo after that only UCI points gained in 2007 will be eligable for the UCI entry criteria.

I really hope i am wrong but again this is just another spanner in the works.

 

[caballero]

i also hope you're wrong...cant be true

all press releases (including UCI's) said that you will need 20 points from last year (no matter from which month) or 20 NEW points in 2007 !!

so why should this be different now ??

i had chances for a trade team place..but didnt do it because i have those old 20 points anyway.... booked rooms, and lots more...

i will bomb the uci building if this is all different now

 

[Transcend]

Well, thsi is what some of us had heard all along (points being zeroed), but it didn't make sense at the time with the new 20 point rule. Of course, it doesn't make any more sense now but it doesn't really surprise me.

 

[stiksandstones]

Like I said before, this is another tactic by the UCI to kill gravity racing. They will continue to do it in methods that slip under the radar. The UCI 'HATES' gravity racing, always has and always will. They can not just NOT support it, so they keep doing things that will make people not want to race.

And after all this time and talk, still no one has come forward with a new/better organization.

 

[Pbody]

Looks like Sea Otter may just be a bit more exciting now!

 

[Transcend]

Looks like Sea Otter may just be a bit more exciting now!

Sea Otter doesn't offer UCI points for gravity events as far as I know.

 

[davetrump]

Sea Otter doesn't offer UCI points for gravity events as far as I know.

even if they did, no one new would be getting any of the points... no new blood in the world cups this year

 

[caballero]

Well, thsi is what some of us had heard all along (points being zeroed)

for me this sounds more like a communication problem...

nothing is beeing zeroed... there are just 2006 points and 2007 points ... thats it...

 

[Transcend]

They are, as in previous years your points lasted 1 year from the day you received them. Now if you received points in September, 2006 at the last world cup, they expired on Dec 31, 2006 and NOT September 2007. That is a HUGE difference for people trying to qualify for world cups.

 

[caballero]

for sure they ended on dec 31st , because those are points of 2006... now we have 2007

and the rule says about old points

have obtained a minimum of 20 points in the UCI individual ranking of 31 December of the previous year in the format concerned (cross-country, downhill or 4-cross);

this rule is one month old..why should it be changed again ? i dont get it ...

 

[Transcend]

for sure they ended on dec 31st , because those are points of 2006... now we have 2007

and the rule says about old points

this rule is one month old..why should it be changed again ? i dont get it ...

It's just badly worded I presume. The UCI is making an exception for Vigo. Martin is the head of the international mountain bike trade team organization. He knows what he is talking about in this regard.

What you don't seem to understand is that the points expiring thing is new. Points always carried on for 12 months from the date you received them. They no longer do, thus the points have been zeroed for the current year, which never used to happen. It is no longer a ranking, it is simply a points race, which is ridiculous. That is what the world cup is for.

You don't understand how big of a deal this is in north america, where we don't have 1/5 of the UCI points events that you have. To make matters worse, they are spread out over an area about 5x the size of all of europe.

 

[caballero]

It's just badly worded I presume. The UCI is making an exception for Vigo. Martin is the head of the international mountain bike trade team organization. He knows what he is talking about in this regard.

i know who martin is and for me the rule posted by the uci doesnt sound badly worded...it should all be clear...

for sure its not possible to mix points from both years ... take for example 15 points from '06 and just make 5 new points this year..impossible.. but the rule clearly says that riders with 20 '06 points are able to enter !

You don't understand how big of a deal this is in north america, where we don't have 1/5 of the UCI points events that you have.

yes may be right for DH ... but NO (!) 4X points races in EU makes the problem the same for us and eu with 4x

 

[Transcend]

It did seem clear, but knowing the UCI, they will indeed change things at the last minute. I am pretty sure Martin isn't just going to make something like that up and post it on a public forum.

 

[Pbody]

Sea Otter doesn't offer UCI points for gravity events as far as I know.

Damn, I think I lost my grasp on all of this.

I was at the understanding that all of the events listed on the USA Cycling National Gravity Calendar were classified as Category 1 or Category 2 in order to earn UCI points. I went back to see where I got that from and now I'm not so sure!?!?!?!?!

http://www.usacycling.org/forms/mbnc/MTBNatzCalendar_Gravity.pdf

 

[Transcend]

Those are USAC categories, not UCI.

I believe the USAC cats change how many points you get towards some newly created US national ranking.

 

[vitox]

this ranking system they have now, which zeroes itself out at the end of the year, was actually in effect this year too, dont know if anyone noticed that though.

so, while i fully agree there is no need to make the ranking a year long points race, on top of the world cup, i dont see how its making things any more difficult for getting the 20 points needed to enter a world cup.

if anything, this system makes it easier to gather these points, you see, now, for a world cup say in august, you will be able to enter on the basis of points gained as far back as january of the preceeding year, whereas in the old system you would have only the points from the last 12 months, granted you cant add points from different years as before, but i think this doesnt make things harder.

this debate should be two pronged, one is to see if its really in the interest of racing to demand WC riders to have 20 uci points just to enter, and on another end, to see what the ranking should be like, but i dont think they are discussions that should be tackled at the same time.

and on a slightly related subject, i talked to the main uci mtb guy this week and it would seem things are looking good for valpo being the first ever (to my knowledge at least) uci hors categorie DH race next year, 20 points to #11.

 

[Transcend]

Can't wait for next year! Also, hit me up on messenger vic. We need to get some stuff finished up from valpo this year!

 

[davetrump]

if anything, this system makes it easier to gather these points, you see, now, for a world cup say in august, you will be able to enter on the basis of points gained as far back as january of the preceeding year, whereas in the old system you would have only the points from the last 12 months, granted you cant add points from different years as before, but i think this doesnt make things harder.

are yo sure about this?

from my understanding, if you wanted to eneter a world cup in Aug 2007 you would only be able to use points awarded from Jan 2007 forward... which is only 7 to 8 months depending on when the event falls.

previous years points were good for 1 full year so you would have been able to counts points from he past 12 months... for example WC's raced in the late summer and early fall would have counted in the past, but this year they do not.

either way it is a pain in the ass, and UCI is really shooting itself in the foot my making these regulations. Hopefully this year is being used to weed a lot of riders out so they can start clean slate next year with a 1 point rule again

 

[jbogner]

Obviously, wrecking pro road cycling wasn't enough of a challenge for the UCI this year, so they decided to take on gravity cycling as well...

 

[stiksandstones]

Obviously, wrecking pro road cycling wasn't enough of a challenge for the UCI this year, so they decided to take on gravity cycling as well...

They have been attempting to clean out gravity racing for over a decade.

 

[Lex]

In a perfect world things like this push local and regional racing to a new level and, hopefully, those races would start to offer the points needed for the best local guys to move on to the WC level. This way only the top guys in the world qualify for WC's and in the future only the top prospects would qualify (or those who are willing to pay to set up a trade team). This would shrink the events to only the best riders and might require less logistical and financial support. I don't see a perfect world anywhere on the horizon, though.

 

[Transcend]

So I checked with 2 national federations, and the English federation has also spoken up (second hand info). None of them have heard a single thing about this change, and are all still going off of the info that riders can qualify through all of 2007 on 2006 points.

I also fired off an email to martin to see what was up, but no answer as of yet.

 

[caballero]

So I checked with 2 national federations, and the English federation has also spoken up (second hand info). None of them have heard a single thing about this change, and are all still going off of the info that riders can qualify through all of 2007 on 2006 points.

I also fired off an email to martin to see what was up, but no answer as of yet.

thanks for the infos ...

 

[ÆX]

subscribing

 

[LaharDesign]

The Wording I've seen is that you can qualify either with 20 points from 06, or 20 from 07 (can't add them together) or as a trade team or national team member.
Its a disaster for anyone who got injured or took a break last year, and especially for up and coming juniors that want to use WCups to gain international experience for this years WChamps. Only a couple of NZ riders can get the points locally to qualify since theres only a couple of low ranked points races here a year.
Giving gravity racing to the UCI was just like giving Downhill Ski racing to the international Ice speed skating authority. Totally inappropriate!

 

[LaharDesign]

I don't see any way to argue that WCups were too big to manage properly. Certainly not good for the athletes to make it 20x harder to get in to them.
So who benefits from this? Answering that question would tell us why its been done.
The UCI has for 100 years been the marketing wing of big bike industry. Its controlled by lead executives from the biggest brands. With DH called "the glamour discipline of mtb" and the boutique DH builders leading the way with technology and design for the last 10 years, its perhaps not a surprise that they want to price internationally qualified athletes out of the market for small builders by cutting supply. The perception that the big brands can't match the technology and performance per dollar of boutique's is well founded due to the far lower markups on boutique bikes. And the fact that enthusiast driven companies are far more in touch with the sport and scene. The communication age makes this possible.
It might be a big boost for Norba. It may become the tour de jour for riders after development in "international competition" and the small brands.

 

[stiksandstones]

I don't see any way to argue that WCups were too big to manage properly. Certainly not good for the athletes to make it 20x harder to get in to them.
So who benefits from this? Answering that question would tell us why its been done.
The UCI has for 100 years been the marketing wing of big bike industry. Its controlled by lead executives from the biggest brands. With DH called "the glamour discipline of mtb" and the boutique DH builders leading the way with technology and design for the last 10 years, its perhaps not a surprise that they want to price internationally qualified athletes out of the market for small builders by cutting supply. The perception that the big brands can't match the technology and performance per dollar of boutique's is well founded due to the far lower markups on boutique bikes. And the fact that enthusiast driven companies are far more in touch with the sport and scene. The communication age makes this possible.
It might be a big boost for Norba. It may become the tour de jour for riders after development in "international competition" and the small brands.

This was too much of a ramble thrown together, so I will try to respond to what I 'could' decode from your post.

-The UCI is the bike industrys marketing wing? are you seriously out of your mind? Take the largest 3 bike companies in the world, Giant, Merida and Trek, 10 years ago the UCI did not know they existed, and those 3 never have or ever will NEED the UCI.

-DH the 'glamour' discipline? what the hell? where did you ever hear this? could not be further from the truth. DH is the red headed stepchild to the UCI, and is a pimple on the ass of cycling in the grand scheme of things.

-World cups are too big to manage properly??? dude, have you ever been to one? the fewest amount of racers of any large cycling series, few sponsors to butt kiss and few disciplines (A dh and a 4x per weekend, maybe a XC (see triple) thrown in there once and while. Look at the sea otter, 1000's of riders, dozens of sponsors, numerous events. Not the model to stand by and not saying they pull it off 'great' but it is pretty damn good.

Sorry man, I am not trying to be dick, you might perceive it as that, but your post was just CRAZY talk and made little sense to me, but wtf do I know.

 

[LaharDesign]

This was too much of a ramble thrown together, so I will try to respond to what I 'could' decode from your post.

-The UCI is the bike industrys marketing wing? are you seriously out of your mind? Take the largest 3 bike companies in the world, Giant, Merida and Trek, 10 years ago the UCI did not know they existed, and those 3 never have or ever will NEED the UCI.

-DH the 'glamour' discipline? what the hell? where did you ever hear this? could not be further from the truth. DH is the red headed stepchild to the UCI, and is a pimple on the ass of cycling in the grand scheme of things.

-World cups are too big to manage properly??? dude, have you ever been to one? the fewest amount of racers of any large cycling series, few sponsors to butt kiss and few disciplines (A dh and a 4x per weekend, maybe a XC (see triple) thrown in there once and while. Look at the sea otter, 1000's of riders, dozens of sponsors, numerous events. Not the model to stand by and not saying they pull it off 'great' but it is pretty damn good.

Sorry man, I am not trying to be dick, you might perceive it as that, but your post was just CRAZY talk and made little sense to me, but wtf do I know.

You mistook my comment on size. I have been to world cups with my own race team and theres no difficulty in managing races with fewer riders than many club races.

Historical examples of the UCI killing the advance of bike design are:
Recumbents when invented in the 1920's dominated races for a year and were banned from cycle racing because the big industry players didn't like it.
Simple and Aerodynamic frames along with ergodynamic riding positions for aerobars were banned from road and track disciplines in the 90's because they didn't look like the product range of the big brands. And were showing race advantage by crushing the world TT records. It was spun as "keeping the equipment affordable". Rubbish because its much more expensive to build diamond carbon frames than aero monocoques.
(this one drove most of the designers and engineers out of road, triathlon and track, me for one).
Dh was repeatedly refered to as " the glamour discipline of mountainbiking" by the American UCI commentator on the PA at the World Champs last year. Go figure.
I have 20 years industry experience, have sponsored dozens of riders, had national records and titles on my bikes since 1991. You'll find I don't often ramble or make ill informed comment.

 

[davetrump]

. You'll find I don't often ramble

hmmmm... i have to agree with you on this one, your post are usualy beyond rambling. no much so that i can not think of an adjective of the top of my head that even comes close.

 

[vitox]

I don't see any way to argue that WCups were too big to manage properly. Certainly not good for the athletes to make it 20x harder to get in to them.
So who benefits from this? Answering that question would tell us why its been done.
The UCI has for 100 years been the marketing wing of big bike industry. Its controlled by lead executives from the biggest brands. With DH called "the glamour discipline of mtb" and the boutique DH builders leading the way with technology and design for the last 10 years, its perhaps not a surprise that they want to price internationally qualified athletes out of the market for small builders by cutting supply. The perception that the big brands can't match the technology and performance per dollar of boutique's is well founded due to the far lower markups on boutique bikes. And the fact that enthusiast driven companies are far more in touch with the sport and scene. The communication age makes this possible.
It might be a big boost for Norba. It may become the tour de jour for riders after development in "international competition" and the small brands.

i can totally see how those that you mention there, are part of the possible effects of this much commented 20pts rule, and its evident you have a lot of first hand experience in that field, but then again, i think cause and effect do not make effect and cause, if you understand what i mean.
for one, i would -like stikman- never think of the UCI as the marketing arm of any bike brand, i mean, talk about bad publicity with the image current top shelf cycling has!.
also, lets not forget that there is a very legit reason to this 20pt rule, one might not agree with how it was carried out but the rationale behind it is ok by me and also by f.example IMTTO, establishing a clear separation between WC-able and non-WC riders is something totally defendable.
also, since my geographic location and the size of the riding scene, probably means some level of similarity, i think the best way for riders in a country like NZ, to race WC if no 20pts, is through the national federation, i wouldnt figure that would be such of a hassle, and if it is, then that would be a problem easier/more urgent to tackle than the UCI/WC structure.

 

[LaharDesign]

Just because they are the marketing arm of big bike it doesn't mean they are sane or clever. Just sociopathicly greedy.(IMO FLR). Sorry but its at least a little naive to think that the power hasn't been thoroughly subsumed by big bike in the 100 years of cycle racing. Even at national level the associations are dominated by importers of big brands.

 

[stiksandstones]

Does one get a tinfoil hat when they buy a 'lahar'?

 

[Transcend]

Does one get a tinfoil hat when they buy a 'lahar'?

 

[Punter]

Is the round one exception just for this year?
If all points reset to Zero on Jan 1. Then come the first world cup next year, as a generalisation southern hemisphere riders will be ranked the best in the world. NZ and Aus have a handfull of E2 races to attend in Jan and Feb, these dont make too many points available... but then there is the Oceania champs & our respective national championships Cat CN or something. Anyway, the oceanias have 200points for 1st and 20points to 26th place - countries available NZ, Aus, New Caedonia, Tahiti i think, then the nat champs 1st 110 points, 11th 20points. Considering NZ has about 15-20 licenced pros, they will be able to collect points from all of these races pretty easily and head into a world cup season among the highest ranked DH'ers in the world. Bearing in mind, the quality of someone in NZ who is say 10th in the NZ national series would be on the limit of qualifying top 80 at a world cup.
If the points roll over to the first race for ever year, then it wont seem so stupid. By really, the mountain bike points system is a crock of ****, always has been IMO.

Addopting a Ski racing system would be far more beneficial. Each races points available are worked out by factors specific to each race:

e.g. The quality of the field(determined by the top 10racers points averaged, lower means the higher quality field)
The length of the track (to work out the time difference penalty for those who dont win, and to factor into working out 'penalty')
And for biking maybe the average speed could be another factor(in ski racing the third factor is number of gates(turns)) Generally the higher the average speed the less technical the course is - i'm sure this is debateable)

All these are worked out to give the penalty, which basically works out to the quality of the race - this is the points that are applied to the 1st place getter. It also works out the number of points per second that are applied to 2nd downwards

e.g Penalty Applied 50, PPS 8.5
I get 3rd, 3seconds off sam hill
I score 75.50
Sam Hill gets 50

You start with a maximum point figure at the start of your career(990 is skiing) and then you slowly work your points down. Your points are averaged over the races you do. So, the lower the penalty of a race, and the closer you are to the 1st place the lower your points go.

hmmm, not likely its ging to happen, but IMO its a far more specific points sytem that actually means something for every racer in the points system.

 

[ÆX]

Is the round one exception just for this year?
If all points reset to Zero on Jan 1. Then come the first world cup next year, as a generalisation southern hemisphere riders will be ranked the best in the world. NZ and Aus have a handfull of E2 races to attend in Jan and Feb, these dont make too many points available... but then there is the Oceania champs & our respective national championships Cat CN or something. Anyway, the oceanias have 200points for 1st and 20points to 26th place - countries available NZ, Aus, New Caedonia, Tahiti i think, then the nat champs 1st 110 points, 11th 20points. Considering NZ has about 15-20 licenced pros, they will be able to collect points from all of these races pretty easily and head into a world cup season among the highest ranked DH'ers in the world. Bearing in mind, the quality of someone in NZ who is say 10th in the NZ national series would be on the limit of qualifying top 80 at a world cup.
If the points roll over to the first race for ever year, then it wont seem so stupid. By really, the mountain bike points system is a crock of ****, always has been IMO.

Addopting a Ski racing system would be far more beneficial. Each races points available are worked out by factors specific to each race:

e.g. The quality of the field(determined by the top 10racers points averaged, lower means the higher quality field)
The length of the track (to work out the time difference penalty for those who dont win, and to factor into working out 'penalty')
And for biking maybe the average speed could be another factor(in ski racing the third factor is number of gates(turns)) Generally the higher the average speed the less technical the course is - i'm sure this is debateable)

All these are worked out to give the penalty, which basically works out to the quality of the race - this is the points that are applied to the 1st place getter. It also works out the number of points per second that are applied to 2nd downwards

e.g Penalty Applied 50, PPS 8.5
I get 3rd, 3seconds off sam hill
I score 75.50
Sam Hill gets 50

You start with a maximum point figure at the start of your career(990 is skiing) and then you slowly work your points down. Your points are averaged over the races you do. So, the lower the penalty of a race, and the closer you are to the 1st place the lower your points go.

hmmm, not likely its ging to happen, but IMO its a far more specific points sytem that actually means something for every racer in the points system.

since 2004 i was pitching this idea.

its a great way to measure SPEED of a rider.

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96676&highlight=multiplier

 

[General Lee]

Does one get a tinfoil hat when they buy a 'lahar'?

and an interstellar jump suit

 

[Punter]

and an interstellar jump suit

i havent received either as yet.

 

[seth505]

Does one get a tinfoil hat when they buy a 'lahar'?

Ok, I am adding no value to this thread but I need to point out this remark was pretty hilarious. (if I had coffee/juice in my mouth it would have been spit on my monitor)

 

[LaharDesign]

Ok, I am adding no value to this thread but I need to point out this remark was pretty hilarious. (if I had coffee/juice in my mouth it would have been spit on my monitor)

Relieved they seem to be uping the points at the races. In 2001 I had trouble getting the 2000 national champ in(cause our races are in jan/feb) when we had no points in NZ for 2001. He was supposedly preentered by the NZMBA. It took two days of hassling Jesus(JR not JC).
If they keep the 2 year thing its good for us.

just stumbled on this, cracks me up! I think they mean hydraulic rams. Nice to know humanity were created to make use of my cattle. Nice 1.3 million tonne Lahar yesterday:

Lahar (god)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Lahar (Sumerian)) Jump to: navigation, search
Lahar was the Sumerian cattle-god sent by Enlil and Enki from heaven to earth in order to make abundant its cattle. He is the brother of Ashnan. Lahar, along with his sister, were created in the creation chamber of the gods so the Annunnaki might have food and clothes. When the Annunnaki were found unable to make use of their products, humankind was created to provide an outlet for their services. He is usually depicted as having ears of corn sprouting from his shoulders. He may also carry a bow and club and is often depicted with a ram at his feet.