Maximum Team Riders [Archive] - The Eastern Road Race League Forums

txorme

22-02-2006, 09:55 PM

Does anyone know where this ridiculous rule came from ?
I've just been told I can't do the Crest having sent my entry in with plenty of time and can't race because of the full team entry. I'm not even onthe reserve list in the event that another team member pulls out !
This is not some Elite race or pro-tour event its a bit of local sunday morning excercise that, frankly, a team at this level is lucky to get a full team home let alone control the race !

notsoracy rich

22-02-2006, 10:24 PM

1. The rule was proposed to be a maximum of 5 riders per club to be accepted-this was specifically to stop domination of races by the Cambridge CC.
2.Rule was passed after much 'discussion', but amended to a maximum of 8 riders per team, unless there isn't a full field of ERRL riders, then other members of that club can be accepted IN PREFERENCE to non-ERRL club members.

So if there are more than 8 members from your club on the start sheet ,you should still take preference over non-errl club riders.

Hope this helps a little bit.

Rich

txorme

22-02-2006, 10:48 PM

Thanks and it does help. Unfortunately not me as the race is full with ERRL riders.

I can see the logic of the rule but it won't stop another cambridge situation - they had 4 strong riders in selected races that worked well together.

notsoracy rich

22-02-2006, 11:03 PM

I was one of the people -along with the Cambridge CC members to 'discuss' this new rule at the meeting.I thought it was unfair to penalise a club for having too many racing members ,which is the way it appeared to me. I also had my entry returned a few years ago from the Redbridge RR because the organiser thought there were too many riders from my club, so I had personal experience of how unfair this decision was- and in those days there was no maximum riders rule.
If enough riders get affected by this new rule , perhaps they could lobby to have it removed.
This is our league and we can decide how it is to be run-but we have to be there to do it.
A mass demonstration at the AGM perhaps?

Rich

ChrisB

22-02-2006, 11:06 PM

I proposed the rule with two goals in mind. It wasn't just the Cambridge who had upwards of 8 riders in events, and to my mind, it's not good for competitive racing to have so many from just one or two clubs. It's not the good riders who cause the problems - they'll always do well. It's the others, who are less inclined to race once they have clubmates up the road. Even sitting in results in less chance of the break coming back, without any active interference in a pursuit. The other problem with large numbers from one club is that riders from small clubs often don't get a look-in, which isn't fair on them.

Anyway, if you care about how the league is run, I suggest you pay attention to the agenda for this year's AGM, and if you don't like a proposal, attend the meeting and influence matters. Otherwise, you'll just have to lump it.

Alan Lawrence

22-02-2006, 11:11 PM

....have to agree with Chris on this one. :wink:

For those that are interested there is a start sheet for the Crest RR below.

Click here (http://www.angliasport.btinternet.co.uk/racefields/crest06.gif)

notsoracy rich

22-02-2006, 11:30 PM

When did I get to be a 3rd cat-I didn't even notice . :lol:

Anyway Chris has a valid last point -you have to attend the AGM to change things if you're not happy with them,

Rich

ChrisB

22-02-2006, 11:54 PM

Regarding the Crest, I don't know why the organiser only has 5 reserves. He's allowed 20% of the field, I think, so could have had twice as many. The league rules are a bit ambiguous as to what to do with league/non-league members in the reserves as well. I'd give members preference myself, but I guess organisers can currently do what they like.

txorme

23-02-2006, 08:13 AM

I think it is a valid point but a) it effects me b) its not going to stop teams not chasing down their own team. The Crest has about 7 Glendene,5 AngliaSport, 5 Shaftsbury, 8 Interbike and my guess is that the strongest riders on the day will win regardless of some cap on team numbers.
Maybe we'll register two teams or i'll join as a private member .......but what if all the private members got together and secretly rode as a team I bet the AGM didnt think of that race winning control scenario !

Need2Rest

23-02-2006, 11:39 AM

ChrisB

23-02-2006, 11:39 AM

You can't join as a private member, you're in a member club. And no private members would have got a ride at the Crest.

ChrisB

23-02-2006, 11:41 AM

Maybe with this rule people will be more inclined to join their local club and the numbers might even out a bit.

The Eastern League does drag down the standard of racing in this area. It's the reason why there are only 3 elite road races a year in the Eastern region. Anything that makes it more competitive is probably a good thing.

Thanks Rich. You'll know that I'm trying my best to make things more competitive. Still too many 2/3 races in the calendar.

Talking of Elite RR's, how about the league as a whole trys to resurrect Romford-Harlow or the Tour of Essex?

Need2Rest

23-02-2006, 11:52 AM

Couldn't agree more. Eastern Region BC should make sure that a Premier Calendar race is promoted in this region. It should be a major objective.

txorme

23-02-2006, 01:00 PM

Need2Rest

23-02-2006, 01:19 PM

If the majority of riders are 2/3/4 then how does reducing 2/3 races make the league more competetive ? Surely the cream will rise to the top anyway ? what we need is more 2/3/4 races so more people can race and allow more people to enjoy a great sport not stop people racing because of some silly rider no. cap.
Anyway, i'm bored of discussing this stupid rule.
I don't think the rider cap has much affect on the competitiveness as no Club has 8 or more strong riders. If it was 5 it would have had an affect but would probably have been unworkable.

I agree that we should hold a premier calander event - what ever happened to the grand prix of essex?
Every club in the ERRL must promote a race for the league. They are stretched to promote anything else. Hence no big races.

Most clubs take the safe option of promoting a 2/3/4 because they will get a full field. The league is uncompetitive because the same 50 or so riders compete against each other every week. People outside the league don't enter as they probably won't get a ride. It's not an easy problem to solve due to the 50 rider field limit in Essex. If there were to be two ERRL races each week the League would open up more to outside riders and introduce more variety and competitiveness in racing. I think that was the idea of most of Chris' proposals at the AGM.

ChrisB

23-02-2006, 01:26 PM

I see tso really has no clue as to the dire state of local racing.

We have a vicious circle in the ERRL. There aren't enough races open to 1st cats, so when a 2nd cat gets to 90-odd points, a lot of them just stop racing so they don't have to worry about not having any local races to go to. This means that we don't get many 1st cats in the region, and those we do have either travel a lot, or drop down to 2nd cat. Clearly, this isn't good for competition in the region - there's no need for the 2nd cats to race against better competition, so they don't get better! If we had more 1st cat races, we'd get more people going up and staying up, we'd get more 1st cats from outside of the region coming to race, and raising the standard. So we really do need a shake-up of the calendar. I'd much prefer to have 1/2/3 and 3/4 races every other weekend than 2/3 races every week. Get out of the comfort zone!.

The 50-rider field size is a problem, but we're getting more and more clubs from outside of Essex joining the league now, and their promotions have larger fields.

Barky

23-02-2006, 02:04 PM

I suppose the ideal situation to work towards would be 2 promotions every weekend, on a 1/2/3, one a 3/4. But it will take a lot more member clubs for that to happen unless there is some incentive for clubs to promote more than one event each year.

racyrich

23-02-2006, 02:16 PM

I think it all went wrong when it went from 3 categories to 4 and now 5. It's easy for promoters to think that excluding elites doesn't matter, as they're a minority and somehow can look after themselves, and 4ths as there are plenty of closed circuit races for them.

Certainly league racing has decimated the racing programme. Virtually every Essex club promoted a 1/2/3 (and often a 3/J the same morning) as well as their ERRL race. I think the Colchester is the only club not to have dumped its proper race now (Jock Wadley). People argue that there's no demand for 1/2/3 races - actually it's the other way, the lack of them means no one wants to be a 1st or elite.

ChrisB

23-02-2006, 02:20 PM

Well, as the league grows, the incentive is there for non-member clubs to join, as their members will end up with fewer and fewer 'open' races to enter. A nice snowball!

txorme

23-02-2006, 04:13 PM

thanks chris, a condescending note always helps with clarification.

ChrisB

23-02-2006, 04:24 PM

Well, talk of 'stupid' rules is hardly complimentary, is it? :roll:

txorme

23-02-2006, 04:42 PM

It wasn't a personal comment but one about a rule that isn't going to stop teams acting as teams if there are 3 riding or 10 riding and if the rule isn't changing that practice (frankly i see nothing wrong with it) then its a pointless rule.
If, as you suggest, it is meant to stimulate a flagging racing environment and by me not getting a ride someone will be getting a promotion to 1st or elite then i will gain greater enjoyment and benefit from yet another training ride instead of racing.

ChrisB

23-02-2006, 04:59 PM

The rule was more about protecting the smaller clubs. Just because riders belong to a big club, doesn't give them a right to get a ride. If the smaller clubs get the thin end of the wedge, then why should they bother to be in the league? We'd end up losing races off the calendar. If you find my comments condescending, then I apologise - but instead of just moaning about the rules, how about coming up with alternatives?

Perhaps we should re-draft the rule for next season? Instead of limiting the number per club, we could insist on equal representation (this is currently mentioned, but it's very vague) - so if Wobbly Wheelers enter two riders, and Acme RC enter eight, the two Wobblys are guaranteed a ride, even if it's at the expense of some of the Acmes? At the end of the day, the result would be the same if you belong to a big club - you still wouldn't be guaranteed a ride. We have to reflect the fact that the league is bigger than two or three large clubs.

Ultimately, I'd like us to go towards the Surrey League method, whereby club reps take entries from club riders, and pass them on to a central organiser. This would a) allow clubs to prioritise their own riders entries and b) avoid the somewhat random methods of individual organisers we see today. There are many obstacles in the way of this at the moment, though.

txorme

23-02-2006, 05:38 PM

I guess people join clubs for numerous different reasons. my local club happens to be interbike and it does everyting i need from a club - my only issue has been this one but if i can't get to race when i want i'll find another club that doesn't have so many members. In many ways i can see that being in a small club may have benefits over a big club in a race situation.

A far as trying to help I don't know what the problem is with league. I didn't know there was an issue with smaller clubs. I had always assumed that with the difficulty in getting into races that the scene was fairly healthy.

ChrisB

23-02-2006, 05:42 PM

A far as trying to help I don't know what the problem is with league. I didn't know there was an issue with smaller clubs. I had always assumed that with the difficulty in getting into races that the scene was fairly healthy.

It IS healthy - full fields every week is great. We just need to ensure the league is run so that it stays healthy, and that means looking after all our members, not just those in big clubs.

tigermoth

23-02-2006, 06:42 PM

is the league reaching a saturation point? too many teams/clubs??
not enough empty weekends for any more races perhaps?
or more overlapping of events and better coordination required??

notsoracy rich

23-02-2006, 08:55 PM

This is all getting a bit heavy. :cry:

Anyway, Wobbly Wheelers and Acme RC aren't in the league yet-although there once was a Wobbly Bob in the Cambridge CC.

Notso

Alan Lawrence

23-02-2006, 08:58 PM

....lets just go along with what has been decided for this year and hopefully MORE people will attend this years ERRL AGM. :?: :wink:

ChrisB

24-02-2006, 10:54 AM

is the league reaching a saturation point? too many teams/clubs??
not enough empty weekends for any more races perhaps?
or more overlapping of events and better coordination required??

More coordination? That's rich, coming from Interbike, who've insisted on promoting on the same day as another ERRL club this year. :roll:

I don't think we're anywhere near saturation point, but we do need to move towards more organised date and category setting, for sure.

tigermoth

24-02-2006, 02:20 PM

i'm off to A&E to get this bullet removed from me foot :!: :lol: :lol:

notsoracy rich

24-02-2006, 04:38 PM

Interbike merely responded to the bullying and agreed to promote a race on the same date they have used for the last 'n' years.

If we hadn't agreed to promote that race we would still not be on the team list on this website, our riders would still be getting their entries returned for not being in an ERRL club.

Interbike are not the only club promoting on the same date as another club.

I thought the idea was to have more races promoted .

These may be only my views.

I hope everyone has a pleasant weekend.

Rich

ChrisB

24-02-2006, 04:57 PM

Rich,

the issues with Interbike were as follows:

1) There was no sign of their paperwork when Baracchi chose that date, so it was an empty date on the calendar.

2) Baracchi stuck to their guns about wanting to keep their promotion a 2/3 - they felt strongly that was what they wanted. Initially, Interbike wanted to promote a 2/3 as well! Which would have been bad for both promotions. Even a 1/2/3 isn't ideal, as there's a lot of competition for the same riders.

3) Yes, there are other dates with two races, but no instances of two 2/3s or a 1/2/3 and a 2/3 - they are all 1/2/3 and 3/4 pairings.

Quite right, if you don't promote a race, you shouldn't be in the league. Interbike were not the only club in this boat - the Easterley have only gone on the list today, and there are a few others missing too.

Anyway, I've been told that Interbike are now, sensibly, looking to move to another date to avoid clashing with the Baracchi. All this could have been avoided if Interbike had been prompt with their paperwork. I would have thought that a club with serious intentions towards winning the league would have made this their first priority!

Perhaps it's the curse of ERV striking again... :lol:

tigermoth

24-02-2006, 05:33 PM

eh eh calm down calm down...its all under control :wink:

Nick E

24-02-2006, 09:04 PM

I've been watching this conversation with interest.

I'm the organiser for the VCB Road Race on this particular weekend.

I did wish that all this "paperwork" was sorted out at the date fixing meeting so that we wouldn't be having these words with each other.

I do presume there is enough room for everybody, like Chris says there are 1/2/3 and 3/4 on the same days but no more than just the one category crossing over.

I'm sure Mr Potts and Mr Lusher would agree, more racing is better isn't it???

If August bank holiday weekend was traditionally Interbike's race date then i'm sure VC Baracchi will stand down in 2007 (As long as we can have one clear date for ourselves) to keep the tradition going, as long as it's present at the date fixing!

tigermoth

24-02-2006, 09:20 PM

Nick,
thanks for the 2007 suggestion. I'll put this to Patrick as i'm sure he'll want that date back for next season.
I will make an effort to attend the date fixing meeting and see that the said "paperwork" is in order.
In the mean time, we are looking at moving our event [1/2/3] to the
17th September and have already been in touch with the Victoria to
discuss the consequences [if any] of overlapping with their event at
the other end of the county.

TigerM :wink:

tigermoth

24-02-2006, 09:22 PM

by the way, "paperwork" is not normally my job in Interbike!

Nick E

25-02-2006, 08:27 PM

Sounds like a plan.

Thanks for letting me know about moving the date.

As i said before we shouldn't be having a go at each other if this stuff was sorted out a while back.

I do appreciate that "paperwork" isn't your thing. It was just a phrase. BC are quite keen on "paperwork". You should see the e-mail with about 30 attachments they sent me for this year's summer rr. Now that's "paperwork"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wasn't trying to offend. :)

Andy B

27-02-2006, 01:55 PM