rubiksoval

And I think that's what led our races to doing an oval race for half of the planned races instead of the original course with two 180s that we did for every race the first year.

People kept getting dropped and instead of actually going out and training and getting better they just changed the course to make it as simple as possible for them to hang on.

The promoter said it was to make sure the series winner was actually the best rider, but the best rider wins regardless of the course. It did change how many people were finishing, though.

So I can see the point in the "keeping people paying to race" avenue, but I think watering down the course to accommodate those not willing or able to put in the proper training is a copout.

It's bike racing. It's supposed to be hard. Two sides to every coin, though.

topflightpro

We use the track for convenience and cost. It doesn't require closing roads, city permits, or police. So, it's a very affordable and easy option, especially for weeknight races.

More and more, races are being held on courses that do not require road closures. Around here, we have events at oval race tracks, a large parking lot at a warehouse distribution center, and a fair ground.

Ttoc6

Ha. The first time I did a race track race I got shelled because I didn't understand how to ride when it's strung out. I got dropped and rode with the masters for a bit.

Howard70

How about a modified pursuit race? If the track is 1.5 miles long you station starters 0.1 miles apart around the track. On the gun they go off. Pass the person in front of you and you stay in. Get passed and you are out. Last person spinning wins, or it's over in 35 minutes and remaining riders are ranked by distance. More riders, space 'em closer to start.

More complexity? Make it a teams of three with the opportunity to rotate in like speed skating relays, but goal is still passing the person in front of you.

Or figure out how to do track style matched sprints with teams of three. That would be complex!

Howard