The Paceline Podcast #45

The Paceline Podcast #45

It is one thing to decide not to ride, it’s another to be forced off the bike by illness or injury or whatever. Fatty vents on his period of no riding.

It’s not all complaining. We set some race goals for 2017. What do you want to bet that at least one of us plans to be in the Colorado Rockies in early August?

USA Cycling has a goal for 2017, to become a bigger part of Gran Fondos and Gravel events. They even have a license category for riders who are focused on them. But is this a good thing? The reason many riders are attracted to GF&G rides is their grass roots appeal and their lack of bureaucracy.

A former Pro is taking down Strava KOMs to prove a point. Phil Gaimon wants to erase the name of a cheater who amassed a number of records in the Los Angeles area.

The Tour Down Under is done with podium girls. This could be the first domino in a chain that connects to the roots of the sport in Europe.

The largest cycling study of its kind is underway and Padraig has an interview with the doc behind it. Their results could shed light on just how healthy we are.

A nutrition company is back, an Italian bike company is bought and our Paceline Picks are in the holiday spirit.

The Paceline is supported by: Health IQ. The people at Health IQ believe in cyclists and believe that healthy people should be rewarded with lower life insurance rates. Check them out here.

 

 

Show Links:

USA Cycling changes

Phil Gaimon Strava KOMs

Tour Down Under

Cycling Health Study

Padraig’s Christmas List

, , , , , , , ,

9 comments

  1. AC

    USAC portion was interesting. I agree completely with ‘wish them well, but just don’t care’. The fundamental problem seems to be their desire to grow revenues without figuring out how to actually serve their customers (or even view their members as customers). A good start if they wanted to add value would be to significantly undercut bikereg and active on fees, and require that they be included in the advertised entry fee.

    1. Padraig

      And just to reiterate, we want to care. We want to believe in them and believe in the service they provide. I’m not sure how they figure out a way to provide a compelling service; that’s the challenge of every company on earth—providing something you decide you want or need. It’s not that they can’t do that; they just haven’t done it yet.

    2. AC

      I think that’s the difference though. Trying to come up with products/services that improve things vs seeing a market grow and trying to figure out how to tap it as a revenue source. They simply seem to lack the fundamental ‘how do we grow this sport’ mentality that local orgs and grass promoters do have.

    3. Padraig

      Fair criticism. It’s the difference between a sales mindset and an entrepreneurial mindset. I wonder if there is anyone within USAC who is creative enough to see opportunities and lead a fresh charge rather than just continuing to be reactive to market trends. They really need to empower someone like that.

    4. Quentin

      The “competing against others” vs. “competing against oneself” idea captures the two different reasons people participate in events pretty well. None of my friends and family who do running events or triathlons got into it to compete against others. That culture of primarily competing against yourself (while simultaneously making it a social event with friends) has been in those sports for a long time, but I think has been missing from cycling until the recent popularity of fondos and the various other new types of events. I don’t see there being a huge market for converting fondo enthusiasts into USAC “category upgraders”, but rather, I think it goes the other way around. The whole point of racing USAC events and trying to collect upgrade points is mostly for young riders to see whether they have a shot at racing at an elite level. For many of us, after we age out of that possibility (and have a job and family), I think we increasingly see the appeal of moving away from office park crits to the new types of events.

  2. David

    I went on line to the saddle study site, and there is a serious flaw in the survey methodology. The questions about ED, numbness, etc. are not linked to the saddle design- for example, I listed 3 saddles that I have used over the years, and I had an episode of numbness years ago with one of the early models that I used then. However, the survey has no way to link that answer to the saddle that was associated with it! One cannot tell which saddle in my list was correlated with the clinical episode.

  3. David

    I went on line to the saddle study site, and there is a serious flaw in the survey methodology. The questions about ED, numbness, etc. are not linked to the saddle design- for example, I listed 3 saddles that I have used over the years, and I had an episode of numbness years ago with one of the early models that I used then. However, the survey has no way to link that answer to the saddle that was associated with it! One cannot tell which saddle in my list was correlated with the clinical episode. This problem will really confound the results and may make them uninterpretable. Also, always remember that correlation is not the same as causation!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *