[c2001]

http://www.dirtmag.co.uk/news/category/dirt-team/new-uci-rules/dirt-1231511.html

not much information in the blurb, but this is said:

"Riders belonging to a UCI MTB team will need a certain amount of individual points to register for 2009. (this should clear out the muppets)"

so just being on a trade team won't be good enough? wonder if it's true or just being 'discussed?'

 

[Transcend]

UCI WILL require points next year. It was agreed upon last weekend in Andorra.

 

[Lex]

Just out of curiosity does anyone know how many pro men were riding at the WC this past weekend? How would a new points rule affect that number?




x

 

[Pbody]

I sure hope the US starts having more races awarding UCI points. Any momentum that the US is obtaining this year will be gone.

 

[c2001]

UCI WILL require points next year. It was agreed upon last weekend in Andorra.

can you edit the title of my post? instead of "might" - put "will" ? everytime i edit the title, i never see the change actually show up.

 

[MikeMac]

MSC #5 (July 11-13, 2008) is a UCI-inscripted C1 event for 4X and DH. That means 60 points for the winners of each. You'll need 20 points to race WC's in '09. We'll also inscript next year's Chile Challenge on Memorial Day Weekend (plus a handful of other events throughout the season). US WC in '09? Maybe. A longshot for the Rockies, but you never know.

Here's how the points break out for both 4X and DH for a UCI C1:

1st - 60
2nd - 40
3rd - 30
4th - 25
5th - 20
6th - 18
7th - 16
8th - 14
9th - 12
10th - 10
11th - 8
12th - 6
13th - 4
14th - 3
15th - 2
16th - 1

 

[stiksandstones]

Ya, common knowledge as of a week ago that this was the new rule.

 

[General Lee]

the 'muppets' as they call them aren't jsut the result of trade teams. there are some guys racing WC's with the requisite 20pts who shouldn;t be there as well. Imagine if America was 20 different countries each with a nat. champs or a couple uci sanctioned events; there would be a ton of riders with a bunch of points and not neccessarily a great deal of skill. such is the case it seems with the euro. world cups.

rule sounds like a good one, but it's too bad it will come at the expense of the guys without points who need to be on trade teams to race world cups and have a legitimate shot at doing well (namely the really fast juniors). any idea what the minimum will be?

 

[Eren]

the 'muppets' as they call them aren't jsut the result of trade teams. there are some guys racing WC's with the requisite 20pts who shouldn;t be there as well. Imagine if America was 20 different countries each with a nat. champs or a couple uci sanctioned events; there would be a ton of riders with a bunch of points and not neccessarily a great deal of skill. such is the case it seems with the euro. world cups.

rule sounds like a good one, but it's too bad it will come at the expense of the guys without points who need to be on trade teams to race world cups and have a legitimate shot at doing well (namely the really fast juniors). any idea what the minimum will be?

i believe its 20 points.

someone correct me if im wrong though. .

 

[- seb]

While I was out spectating/riding in Maribor I stumbled across some WC racers from a small nation that were riding one of the other courses. Rode with them briefly and was surprised to be held up. I figured that they were just taking it easy before the big race. I then saw the same riders in the race and couldn't believe how slowly they were going.

I don't think they were part of a trade team. They may have been put forwards by their federation, or have had the 20 UCI points needed. Certainly if their country has any UCI events it'd be easy to get points there because of the low DH population.

I got thinking about how the UCi can set it up best to get the 300 fastest riders from across the world, which lets face it is how it SHOULD be.

I didn't really come up with any bright ideas that would really work, the best I could think of would be to have a series of courses around the world that a few of the top guys set times down, and then anyone who wants to race a WC can go and do some timed runs, and if their time as a percentage of the "benchmark" times is within the top 300 globally that year then they can race WCs the next year, or something like that. Can't see it happening, but I like the idea of it

 

[Jester]

Maybe do something like the ASP World Tour does, where they pick the top 44 based on qualifications. Obviously it would be better to have a lot more than 44 riders but you get the idea.

 

[ska todd]

The rule as I've heard is to ensure the safety of the riders, allow for actual usable practice sessions for the riders, and make qualifying day go a lot smoother. I think this makes sense for both the riders and the promoters.

The World Cups have now become a victim of their own success. They wanted to steer people toward trade teams to alleviate the glut. That worked for a season and then the riders who wanted in just started to form up their own teams. I don't think anyone at the UCI would have figured the team thing would have caught on like it did with riders, but it did. Now they have to limit the teams to points. As some others point out, this will just cause some more issues down the line and we'll be back in the same spot...and they'll just raise the points needed. Unfortunately there will still be squids from random little Euro countries.

As far as juniors, I believe the plan is to allow Nat Feds to continue having their own teams and filling slots. As you guys point out though, each little Euro country gets the same number of spots as a country like the US. (Anyone want to petition for citizenship to Liechtenstein?). This will mean the slow guys will just have national team colors.

The UCI needs to figure out a legit way of awarding points at points events based off either 1. the level of competition there or 2. on a percentage basis off the winning times. This way if a Sam Hill or a Fabien Barel rocks up to one of these events the riders are actually being judged on a competitive basis to these elite riders and being awarded points accordingly. Just because a promoter can cough up a large prize purse to secure beaucoup UCI points and a random local pro can win it does not mean that said rider is of World Cup caliber.

Maybe the best way is to set the field limit for the World Cups before the season starts and then give each federation a percentage basis of spots based on the number of athletes their country has in the preceding year's overall UCI rankings? Let it be up to the feds to submit their "roster" for each World Cup event, a la World Champs. I'm sure this would have it's own set of problems but I'm just brainstorming!

For qualifiers, the UCI should come up with a tier of race events sub-World Cups. These could have the marketing cache of "World Cup Qualifer Event". Something that signifies just what they are versus being some random UCI points event. I think there is a bit more credibility to this for a promoter than in just forking over CHF's to the UCI for an "inscription fee".

-ska todd

 

[Akula_7]

Something like this was inevitable after Maribor, but this new rule will probably not weed out the goons, most of which in Maribor where in on national jersey tickets.

In my Maribor quali run I caught two riders. Whcih is something I though could and should never happen at a WC. Pretty nutty really that a rider of my ability (i.e. I wont be on a WC podium emmm...........ever), can make up 30secs and 1min on riders at a WC. Neither of which had crashes or mechanicals from what my friends etc.. saw on the big screen.

Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria and maybe Slovakia, where they national jerseys that where going quite pedestrian all weekend, that's in general now I don't wanna offend anyone here. So the UCI's trade team rule won't get to the route of the larger number problem, especially at the Euro WC's.

But For sure I agree with Ska Todd here the UCI need to come up with a certain/defined continental quali series for the WC's something like FSI have for Alpine Skiing. Something where the top 25 riders in each continental series get to race WC and not the continental series in the next race year, and then they only get to stay in the WC for the following year if they make the top 80 twice or top 50 once or something. That way there is a constant stream or turnover of riders getting a chance to first race World cups and then getting the chance to prove that they are good enough to race them consistently.



Pretty complicated issue for the UCI really, but if the Elite level of our sport is ever going to become a marketable, exhilarating professional TV experience then its gotta be a top 150 in the globe kinda thing.

Some of what I saw in Maribor was a joke, some guys where so outta league that it would be like me trying to Quali for an AMA Supercross main. Imagine 302 guys lining up in a stadium casing jumps and rolling around in 2nd gear???

I even heard one guy in the restaurant at the bottom say he wasn't racing because he was afraid of the rock garden!

 

[c2001]

Maybe do something like the ASP World Tour does, where they pick the top 44 based on qualifications. Obviously it would be better to have a lot more than 44 riders but you get the idea.

agreed, that would be cool.

 

[NJMX835]

Something like this was inevitable after Maribor, but this new rule will probably not weed out the goons, most of which in Maribor where in on national jersey tickets.

In my Maribor quali run I caught two riders. Whcih is something I though could and should never happen at a WC. Pretty nutty really that a rider of my ability (i.e. I wont be on a WC podium emmm...........ever), can make up 30secs and 1min on riders at a WC. Neither of which had crashes or mechanicals from what my friends etc.. saw on the big screen.

Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria and maybe Slovakia, where they national jerseys that where going quite pedestrian all weekend, that's in general now I don't wanna offend anyone here. So the UCI's trade team rule won't get to the route of the larger number problem, especially at the Euro WC's.

But For sure I agree with Ska Todd here the UCI need to come up with a certain/defined continental quali series for the WC's something like FSI have for Alpine Skiing. Something where the top 25 riders in each continental series get to race WC and not the continental series in the next race year, and then they only get to stay in the WC for the following year if they make the top 80 twice or top 50 once or something. That way there is a constant stream or turnover of riders getting a chance to first race World cups and then getting the chance to prove that they are good enough to race them consistently.



Pretty complicated issue for the UCI really, but if the Elite level of our sport is ever going to become a marketable, exhilarating professional TV experience then its gotta be a top 150 in the globe kinda thing.

Some of what I saw in Maribor was a joke, some guys where so outta league that it would be like me trying to Quali for an AMA Supercross main. Imagine 302 guys lining up in a stadium casing jumps and rolling around in 2nd gear???

I even heard one guy in the restaurant at the bottom say he wasn't racing because he was afraid of the rock garden!

When they used to have the Saturday afternoon Supercross qualifiers, it was exactly like that.

There were cases in practice of an official telling a rider 'you have 5 minutes to jump something or you're out of here'.

They ended up instituting a special supercross license that is seperate from a regular AMA pro license & you have to accumulate a certain amount of points in the AMA Arenacross series in order to qualify for a SX license, thus making the AX series sort of a qualifying series for SX.

There is also an exemption for factor team riders so if you have a talented amateur rider that gets signed by team Honda or whoever they can go directly to SX without having to race the AX series first.

There may be a 3rd way in, but I can't remember offhand, the funny thing is that as big a sport as SX is, they only instituted these rules about 2 years ago, before that if you had a pro license & an entry fee you could ride the day qualifiers at any SX.

 

[Akula_7]

When they used to have the Saturday afternoon Supercross qualifiers, it was exactly like that.

There were cases in practice of an official telling a rider 'you have 5 minutes to jump something or you're out of here'.

They ended up instituting a special supercross license that is seperate from a regular AMA pro license & you have to accumulate a certain amount of points in the AMA Arenacross series in order to qualify for a SX license, thus making the AX series sort of a qualifying series for SX.

There is also an exemption for factor team riders so if you have a talented amateur rider that gets signed by team Honda or whoever they can go directly to SX without having to race the AX series first.

There may be a 3rd way in, but I can't remember offhand, the funny thing is that as big a sport as SX is, they only instituted these rules about 2 years ago, before that if you had a pro license & an entry fee you could ride the day qualifiers at any SX.

HA no why, I never thought that SX qualis where like that. The AX being a feeder for SX is kinda how the UCI gotta organise the DH side of things, a set series to qualify for WC's not just a race here or there.

Fcuk it would be funny to see full kitted out privateers casing **** and getting smashed up in the whoops in SX!

 

[LittleBIGjumP]

The ASP model would work well here. You could even have some of the events cross over and use the same location a few times a year to expose the WQS to the higher lever WC guys.

WC should be the best of the best, but also the chance to compete at that level if you are good enough should be there.

Japan for example has no ASP riders on the surfing world tour as yet, but that has not stopped them trying on the WQS for years.

This gives the ASP the best there is each year, they drop the bottom 15 ( I think ) each year- they can go to the WQS and the WQS guys go up.

All the WQS events have star ratings- which effects the points


LBJ

 

[General Lee]

For the most part I think the problem is limited to European rounds of the world cup (which is to say almost all of them). Ste. Anne had about 130 or so last year and 160 the year before and no real 'muppets' on the track, though there were a few women who could barely make it down the hill but that is not a big deal. I've never had 20 uci points because until recently they were extremely hard to come by in the US (and still are when 20 is the minimum) so I took advantage of the trade team rule. Sure I did it because it was a viable option and I wanted to at least enter a world cup before I got too old (and slow). Some might argue that's not what the world cup is for and i would tend to agree but I managed to make the cut even with a crash so I never felt like I was a liability, even though Steve Peat can pretty much run me over on that track. it's the guys with the same motivations who can't ride through a rock garden that are making practice dangerous. And though i totally support the rule change it's too bad for north americans especially who really need the trade team exception to be a viable option in order to compete.

it seems we have the opposite problem over here. lots of fast riders with no points and few options as opposed to europe where there are a large number of slow riders with points or the support of countries the size of Vermont mixed in with 100's of really fast riders as well. 275 men at Maribor, that's just outrageous.

i wonder if going back to the old 1 point rule with no trade team or federation exceptions would make a difference. it is certainly the simplest possible solution if it could work.

 

[Mani_UT]

The UCI needs to figure out a legit way of awarding points at points events based off either 1. the level of competition there or 2. on a percentage basis off the winning times. This way if a Sam Hill or a Fabien Barel rocks up to one of these events the riders are actually being judged on a competitive basis to these elite riders and being awarded points accordingly.

Exactly! Works pretty good for alpine skiing and even small events could award good points given some super low points riders show up.

 

[cesar_rojo]

Damn I was hoping to race some WC next years I will need to get my a$$ off the sofa for some trainning!

 

[Tenacious Doug]

Damn I was hoping to race some WC next years I will need to get my a$$ off the sofa for some trainning!

Comeback kid! That would be sweet. You been riding much lately?

 

[MarkDH]

I'm getting a bit confused reading this thread, is it the case that a lack of UCI points events in N. America is the problem? And is there a limit to the number of riders and/or teams that can come from each country?

 

[cesar_rojo]

Comeback kid! That would be sweet. You been riding much lately?

Hey Doug! It's you, how are things men! Not riding much last years, but I'm riding bits now... I really want to do some races, for sure not as I was doing some time ago, but I will be happy if I can get to the finals on some WC races

So you're off to fort william next weekend?

Take care mate!
C.

 

[c2001]

same cesar rojo? telluride '02...

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

Well hearing about this rule makes me glad that I did the trade team thing this year, because it would be a bummer if I never raced a world cup in my career. It also looks like it may even be possible to accumulate 20 points for someone like me thanks to the efforts of bigfoot promotions. I completely support a qualification process for the world cups, and even for getting an elite liscence. The problem with mountain bike racing is that it is fairly disorganized at the regional and national levels of racing, so it is difficult to have a fair system of qualification. You may have two racers in different regions, say one in CO and one in VT. If they both have a regional race at C1 status, the guy in Colorado may find himself having to get 5th behind 4 top international pros who happen to be hanging out in town, while the guy in VT may be able to get 5th to all local guys (many of whom are really fast, but still)*. The obvious solution to me is to have a UCI sanctioned national (or continental) series paying out a respectable amount of points over several events (at least 4), and possibly some other events that have a high level of talent and prestige in which riders can get points (thinking US Open, Sea Otter, ect). For the US in previous years points have been virtually unavailable, and even this year, a flat or mishap at one of the three events with points could end a good racers hopes of getting 20. I think the requirement of having points for everyone is entirely fair, as long as everyone has an opportunity to earn them with solid performances.

... 2 points to my name right now, 18 to go...

*to anyone confusing this for east coast hate, don't bother chastising me, Maryland representing right here...

 

[CRoss]

Another possible new thing I heard here in the US is you have to be on a team registered with USA Cycling. The UCI official(she is on the board discussing all these new decisions) I was chatting with said they are trying to make World Cups the Elite of the Elite. No more privateers, except for $150 you can register a team with USA cycling.

I wonder if this means you will eventually have to be on a registered team with the UCI and your national organizing body. Sounds like they might be looking at combing the two qualification rules, trade team and 20 points. Having 20 points alone might not be enough.

 

[General Lee]

Well hearing about this rule makes me glad that I did the trade team thing this year, because it would be a bummer if I never raced a world cup in my career. It also looks like it may even be possible to accumulate 20 points for someone like me thanks to the efforts of bigfoot promotions. I completely support a qualification process for the world cups, and even for getting an elite liscence. The problem with mountain bike racing is that it is fairly disorganized at the regional and national levels of racing, so it is difficult to have a fair system of qualification. You may have two racers in different regions, say one in CO and one in VT. If they both have a regional race at C1 status, the guy in Colorado may find himself having to get 5th behind 4 top international pros who happen to be hanging out in town, while the guy in VT may be able to get 5th to all local guys (many of whom are really fast, but still)*. The obvious solution to me is to have a UCI sanctioned national (or continental) series paying out a respectable amount of points over several events (at least 4), and possibly some other events that have a high level of talent and prestige in which riders can get points (thinking US Open, Sea Otter, ect). For the US in previous years points have been virtually unavailable, and even this year, a flat or mishap at one of the three events with points could end a good racers hopes of getting 20. I think the requirement of having points for everyone is entirely fair, as long as everyone has an opportunity to earn them with solid performances.

... 2 points to my name right now, 18 to go...

*to anyone confusing this for east coast hate, don't bother chastising me, Maryland representing right here...

Maybe, but Nobman and Beneke win all the races out here so I'm not so sure about that. Heck, even beytagh got sent home a few steps down the podium on a regular basis last year. Forget East/West comparisons, the real disadvantage the US has to Europe is that we are a huge country of more than 300million people that, anywhere else in the world, could easily be 15-20 different nations. Collectively we may not be as fast as some of the smaller nations on top of DH racing (UK, Australia, France, NZ) but we still have a tremendous depth of talent here which isn't always apparent because our size requires us to divide up by regions. Even the US Nationals has never been a very well represented event and usually consists of a small handful of sponsored riders with the rest of the spots filled out by the locals; look at the results form Mt. Snow last year to see what i mean.

sorry, back to the topic . . .

 

[General Lee]

Another possible new thing I heard here in the US is you have to be on a team registered with USA Cycling. The UCI official(she is on the board discussing all these new decisions) I was chatting with said they are trying to make World Cups the Elite of the Elite. No more privateers, except for $150 you can register a team with USA cycling.

I wonder if this means you will eventually have to be on a registered team with the UCI and your national organizing body. Sounds like they might be looking at combing the two qualification rules, trade team and 20 points. Having 20 points alone might not be enough.

All UCI teams already have to register and be approved by their individual federations first (and many require a hefty fee on top of the uci fee). in theory this mean each fed. has approved the roster and their ability to compete. in practice this doesn't seem to happen to the same degree with all countries.

 

[iRider]

Why not have a pre-qualifier instead? Say you are a guy/gal who wants to see if you are fast enough, you show up at the WC venue and have a Tuesday practice session and then a Wednesday qualifier. If you post a time that is with x % of what the top pros ride than you are allowed to proceed to the other training sessions and the Saturday qualifier. If you already have UCI points you don't have to go through that pre-qualifier.
This would give local heroes and talented juniors a chance to qualify on their hometrack and race a WC but will keep the real show free of "muppets". And it keeps our sport interesting because it enables talented crossovers from other sports to try out DH racing. If all those rules that the UCI has now would have been already in place I bet we would never have seen people like Palmer racing a WC.

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

Maybe, but Nobman and Beneke win all the races out here so I'm not so sure about that. Heck, even beytagh got sent home a few steps down the podium on a regular basis last year. Forget East/West comparisons, the real disadvantage the US has to Europe is that we are a huge country of more than 300million people that, anywhere else in the world, could easily be 15-20 different nations. Collectively we may not be as fast as some of the smaller nations on top of DH racing (UK, Australia, France, NZ) but we still have a tremendous depth of talent here which isn't always apparent because our size requires us to divide up by regions. Even the US Nationals has never been a very well represented event and usually consists of a small handful of sponsored riders with the rest of the spots filled out by the locals; look at the results form Mt. Snow last year to see what i mean.

sorry, back to the topic . . .

Good point. Nationals last year was pretty weak, and I'm kind of hoping it will be again this year so I can pick up some points there. Again I'm not knocking the east coast talent, but theres no doubt that the same depth isnt there.

I really hope there doesn't become a list of requirements, all of which have to be filled to race WCs. That would be stupid, and just ensure that no one ever gets the chance to come out and surprise some people. I realize most people only care about the podium, but those of us who really just plain love racing like to go through the whole list and see what everyone is doing. Having more or less the same results sheet every weekend would royally suck ass. Sure you don't want any schmuck racing world cup, but thats what qualifiers are for for gods sake. If you are going to make sure that only sponsored, top riders can even enter the event, then what is the point of qualifying??

 

[cesar_rojo]

same cesar rojo? telluride '02...

Yeah thats me!
Cool picture, hehehehe!!!

 

[Tenacious Doug]

Hey Doug! It's you, how are things men! Not riding much last years, but I'm riding bits now... I really want to do some races, for sure not as I was doing some time ago, but I will be happy if I can get to the finals on some WC races

So you're off to fort william next weekend?

Take care mate!
C.

Hell yeah, annual pilgramage up the road for it, I am sure not to get stopped for speeding when I go these days though! Would be good to see you back for some races, you do much locally these days? In the meantime keep snapping, loving the shots as always http://photos.cerobcn.com/

 

[Transcend]

We got stopped. Schroth was about to be arrested and sent to jail. Cop musta decided we were too much paperwork.

 

[Tenacious Doug]

We got stopped. Schroth was about to be arrested and sent to jail. Cop musta decided we were too much paperwork.

Whereabouts? They always like to be out and about when they know speed hungry racing fans are on their way to the Fort. The only time I got stopped was almost twice the limit in town (albeit at 1am or something) and they told me to drive safely while I was visiting the Highlands, gotta love the hospitality sometimes!

 

[Transcend]

outside glasgow.

 

[stiksandstones]

^ were you guys actually speeding? or was cop just a douche?

 

[Transcend]

he said 45 in a 30, but it was more like 65. I think he didn't actually get a reading, but we were certainly speeding. too much paperwork.

 

[Tenacious Doug]

he said 45 in a 30, but it was more like 65. I think he didn't actually get a reading, but we were certainly speeding. too much paperwork.

Yikes, lucky boys!!

 

[tsamps]

It sounds like Downhill needs a points system like ski racing. The ski racing points system is based off of two things. A-how fast the fastest people in the race are (the penalty). And B- how far off the fastest people you are (race points). The closer to the leaders you are, the less race points. So for an example, if the average points of the fastest 5 people is 20. And you are 3 seconds off the winner, 30 race points. than your points for the day are 50. If you have a 50 point race, and a 70 point race, then your points will average to 60. The fastest guys in the world will have right around 0. This points system may sound complicated, but it is very effective. Basically, you can go to any race, be it a world cup, or a local fun race, and still score around where you should. For the uci, they could just cap the race at all racers with less than 30 points. This should eliminate what general lee calls muppets.

 

[MikeMac]

So NASTAR then? With domestic and international 'pacesetters'?

It is pretty easy to get an incription from the Swiss -
- you need the dough for the UCI taxes
- you need to agree to their purse infrastructure
- you need to appear reasonably well organized in the application documents
- you need to fall within (or not too far outside) their parameters of competition
- you need to front the dough for 5, count 'em FIVE commissaires that are randomly appointed to your event no matter what their location respective to yours
- you need to integrate gracefully with these five commissaires (and in the case of our recent Angel Fire event, repeatedly prevent one of them from becoming the laughingstock of the entire gravity community)

With all that said, it is easy. Despite that, if you remove national championships (which receive a fairly high-level UCI designation by default,) there were no UCI gravity races in the US in 2007. With a deep talent pool here that appears to be getting better by the season that situation's just not good enough. We need the best up and coming riders to head to WC's prepared to race and with the requisite number of points, even if it means getting their cans handed to them.

My gut tells me that we're not contributing to the muppet problem, at least not like some of the smaller Euro provinces. Maybe we are, but I doubt it. If you're good enough to get 20 points in a race here you've got the chops to give a WC DH course the scorched earth treatment stars and stripes or maple leaf style...and even if you don't I can't see any of the North American guys embarrassing themselves.

The NASTAR approach holds merit, but there are many stakeholders in the race game and it might not suit everyone. I'm curious to see what the UCI comes up with, because despite how onerous and tedious they can be, it's clear that the sentiments that most of you have voiced about WC's being the 'best of the best' are identical to the concerns coming from Switzerland. They don't want their precious WC's to become devalued.

We'll inscript at least two events in 2009 and more likely 4. The perspectives in this thread aren't unheard of in our neck of the woods, but I'll admit that based upon the strength of the North American fields we didn't think that the argument necessarily applied here. I'm curious if there's a consensus on that or if we need to rethink a few things.

MM