Equity in Cyclocross: Hartford Edition

I don’t know if equity is possible in cyclocross.  But I think we should try to move in that direction.  It’s could boost participation, which is what makes the sport happen.

Lowering the barriers to entry will help the niche; all sports should expect churn, and ‘cross, like all sports, constantly needs new people to try it out, if only to replace those who are moving on.  Bike racing is essentially about riding bikes fast against other people on an appropriately-challenging course.  Bike racers can see the different skills and strengths needed in the different disciplines and how they can be complementary and keep racing fresh, an extension on their racing campaign.

The Runt of the Disciplines

Cyclocross, for all its awesomeness, is a bit of a runt, with a season so short that having a dedicated bike can be hard to justify, which is why few people start by racing ‘cross.  In most places, ‘cross is a two- to three-month campaign, and the transportation demands, even in hotbeds like New England and the mid-Atlantic states, are such that few are racing every weekend.  And ‘cross is rarely anyone’s first racing experience; usually people have already raced on the road or MTB, occasionally track, before trying ‘cross.

In a sense, equity in ‘cross could be easy.  As it has elements of both mountain biking and road racing, anyone with a mountain bike could put on narrow tires, and anyone with a road bike could install the fattest knobby tires she could find.  Mountain bikes will be hampered by the excess weight and road bikes by the limited tire clearance; perhaps that could strike a balance, depending on the course.  That is, provided course designers put together something that both bikes can manage.

Of course, even in the bad, old days, it wasn’t that easy.  Mountain bikes were, in many cases, lighter than they are now, but still kind of heavy, and possessed few suspension elements. Road bikes had more clearance—steel road racing bikes with side pull brakes could often fit 27-28mm knobbies and touring bikes could get in much bigger tires.  People did race both mountain and road bikes in ‘cross because dedicated ‘cross rigs were hard to find and expensive to have built custom.

As with all pursuits, however, specialization is inevitable.  Even with that, people shouldn’t need a cyclocross-specific bike to race cross and be competitive at entry level.

Equipment Progress Might Help

Nowadays, with rotor-disc road racing bikes often having clearance for 30-32mm tires, many bikes have sufficient space to be re-shorn with knobbies and MTB pedals and probably provide the owner a well-performing ‘cross bike.  And most gravel bikes have room for the right tires, making it good to go, even if aspects of their geometry, like super-low bottom brackets and long trail, might not be ideal with all the turns a cross course can out. On the other end, a modern, full-suspension MTB might be at more of a disadvantage than early-generation MTBs.

Most people should be able to enjoy and do well at cyclocross with one set of tires, despite all the talk about which treads work best in which conditions.  Sure, it’s fun to debate Limus vs. Baby Limus, but unless you’ve got wheel and tire sponsors, most stick with one for all races.  It might not be perfect every time, but it should be perfect some of the time and good enough for the rest.

Of course, a second set of wheels, cyclocross-specific tubulars, would be even better. Tubulars are still the best-performing rim design in ‘cross thanks to the low weight of the rims, the strength of the design, the souplesse of the tires, the security of having the tire glued in place, and the run-flat technology.  And you can always leave your first set in the pits.  But it shouldn’t be necessary to race well.  For those on cantilever brake ‘cross bikes, tubulars should be easy to come by used.

A second bike, sure, is better if cost is little object and the races are “important.”  This is a pretty pricey performance aid, especially considering the short season.  Ideally, it matches the primary race bike, but most people often minimize costs by using one’s older bike, or buying a lower-cost used bike to keep the cash outlay relatively low.  And, unless one is constantly racing in muddy conditions, this bike almost entirely sits unused.  If a second bike is usually necessary to do well, probably the course designers need to do a better job.  The muck and mess that requires a second bike is not only rough on courses, which might impact the promoter’s ability to use that course in the future, but if many people say to themselves ‘I can’t be competitive unless I have a second bike,’ that  becomes a deterrent to participation, which will adversely affect the racing as well.

Return to Hartford for Cyclocross Nationals

Which brings us to the recent cyclocross nationals at Riverside Park in Hartford, Connecticut.  On the one hand, nationals should be extremely competitive, and there should be a certain expectation of competitors looking for every legal edge possible.  On the other, with the exception of the elite men and elite women, the vast majority of competitors in the rest of the fields typically live in the region that is hosting the event.  A national championship should be the ultimate test of a season and a celebration of bike racing both, a reward of sorts for years of training and devotion, something that racers want to be a part of.

While national champions are crowned, it should be an event that’s appealing and accessible to the racers who might only race a nationals once in their racing career, or when it is close enough to get to easily.  Considering that the race is held in December, it has its roots as a fall and winter sport, people probably need to bring plenty of gear, already limiting equity, and the location is often such that people not used to cold weather racing are already largely deterred, another limit on equity.

At the same time, Hartford is pretty easily accessible by car from the entirety of the Northeast Megalopolis, and there is lots of ‘cross racing between Richmond, VA and Boston, MA.  It would seem that local and regional riders could easily fill 150 rider fields in every men’s masters race through 60+, and probably come close with the women’s races.  Filling the 75- and 100-rider junior fields would seem harder, but still seems within the realm of possible.

It doesn’t look like any of the fields filled.  Or even came close.  The Masters Men 60-64 and 50-54 had 66 starters each.  The Elite Men had 44 entries; Elite Women 34.

It strikes me as a failure of the promoting organization, though a failure that can have larger downstream effects.  Perhaps racers looked at the price—early registration was $100, late registration $175—and decided it wasn’t worth the fee plus the costs of getting there plus the time.  Perhaps they looked at the course and decided it wasn’t to their liking.  Maybe they looked at the race notes and decided it wasn’t going to be a good experience.  Maybe they attended the previous nationals on this course and decided they didn’t want to go back.

If those were the reasons for not attending, those people were probably right from several perspectives.

Support at Multiple Speeds

The venue, while once there, seems like a pleasant riverside park (minus the highway  hum), was only accessible by parking in a rough gravel lot on the other side of Interstate 91, and then riding up a several story structure to a bridge over the highway and then down a similar structure on the other side.  It could be a five-minute bike ride, and one would have to carry lots of gear or have a supporter/friend/spouse walk longer to do the same.  There was little room to warm up at the venue (the roads around the venue weren’t good for bike riding at all) and if you wanted to warm up on a stationary trainer, you’d have to do it in the parking lot or carry the trainer (which is never light) a long ways.  Then again, if the rider or her club/team/group of friends ponied up $250-700+, they could have a tent right next to the course which they could drive to.  If someone needed to clean their bike, there was a limited “neutral” cleaning station; four hoses serving as many people as needed resulted in waits of over 30 minutes the day I was there, while big teams, junior, collegiate, and pro, who set up enclosures in the parking lot nearest the bathrooms, seemed to have access a water source.

Likewise, there was no bag drop nor area protected from the elements at the start for competitors who schlepped their own gear from their cars without support.  Tossing you warmup jacket on the ground on an empty race course during most of the season is one thing.  Doing it in the midst of gates and exhibitor tents at a national championship made it feel that there was little interest from the promoter in the racers needs.

The course, similarly, seemed to favor the well-equipped.  Yes, cyclocross is supposed to be raced in all weather and it’s a cool- to cold-weather sport.  Yes, winter can be particularly fickle.  But building a course on a flood plain might not have been a wise idea.  Less than an inch of rain fell on the evening of day one and the early morning of day two of the Nationals, and maybe four inches in the previous 30 days, yet the course was soggy, slimy, peanut-buttery mud for the entire five day span of the nationals—except for when the course was frozen.  A second bike wasn’t necessary for every race, but it made a difference in a bunch of races, with a spectator reporting that during one of the Thursday races, competitors were entering the pit on the first lap, about a minute into the race, as the course parallel to the pit had deep, loose mud, and the pit had a cleaner, faster line.

Watching clips on YouTube and seeing the selection of pictures makes the racing look epic.  Which can result in etched memories.  It might not be so great for the majority of the competitors, who look at the difficulties encountered and think they have to either get more gear or get out of the game.

Ironically, while ‘cross seems to be in a decline, gravel racing, which, from afar, seems pretty similar, is on the rise. Several top domestic ‘crossers are, either by choice or necessity, switching over to focus on gravel.  Gravel racing has issues as well.  The races are generally in fairly out of the way places and are fairly expensive to compete in, though the entry fee is often much smaller than the costs around the racing—transport, housing, food.  But, at least for the moment, gravel seems to have more of the ‘one bike’ ethos, though personal support crews can make a difference at big events.

As I wrote earlier, its nationals and people seeking all legal advantages should be expected.  But, taken as a whole, the rank-and-file racer had several competitive disadvantages just getting themselves to the course, and then more once the racing started.  If we’re looking at growing the sport, or, at this moment, maintaining cyclocross vitality, issues around national championships might not be a primary concern, but it does reflect what we’re collectively doing, or not, to keep people competing.