I would like to follow up on the March 16 post by Kate W. ( when do I have the honour of meeting you ? ) where she passed along her maximum group size guideline. I thought it was wise: “We shouldn’t be longer or more difficult to pass than the biggest thing generally allowed on the road”.
The Department of Transport specifies that “The length of a standard tractor trailer shall not exceed 52 feet” ( that’s about 16 m for you young whipper snappers ). I measured my bike at 6 feet and by following Kate’s example, I am totally making up a suggested gap between bikes of 24 inches ….. for a total “bike length” of 96 inches ( or 2.5 m ). Therefore, a semi-trailers worth of bikes is: 624 inches / 96 inches = 6.5 which means we can either argue about my “bike length” or arrange for 2 unicycles to join every group of 12. Actually, it means we could have 7 bikes at 70 inches long and 6 gaps of 22 inches ..... with 2 inches to spare!
So to summarize: The optimal size of a 2-up group to meet Kate’s criteria based on questionable calculations is 14. I have heard the argument that a much larger group can be safe on the road and I agree that a big group of fast, strong riders can stay out of trouble ….. and be an impressive sight. However, we need to remember we are sharing the road and we want to both stay safe and not annoy the 4 wheeled users. I think it worth mentioning that we are VERY fortunate to live and cycle in Victoria, where every Friday we can ride nearly non-stop from the foot of Blenkinsop, to Mount Doug and all the way along the waterfront to Beacon Hill Park and encounter 1 light and 4 stop signs …..in 23 km! It doesn’t seem fair, or safe, for a large group to be holding up vehicles and it seems that there are 3 types of people that end up behind us: those who are happy to follow and share the road, those who are afraid to pass but do it anyway, and those who pass recklessly because we “shouldn’t be on the road”. I’m only comfortable with the first category.
Any ideas on how we can make this into a routine “guideline” rather than an unenforceable rule?
Andrew
P.S. I suppose that the “A” riders could argue that a maximum group size shouldn’t apply to them: they don’t impede traffic because they cruise at the posted speed limit of 50 km/hr. We B and C riders can only dream.
Group Size ( version ...? )
Moderator: mfarnham
Re: Group Size ( version ...? )
That's just the length of the trailer, you are missing the length of the truck.
No combination of vehicles is permitted to exceed a length of 23 metres (74.75 ft.) except double- trailer combinations that meet special requirements for both trailers and the tractor.
compete: 1620, from Fr. compéter "be in rivalry with"
Re: Group Size ( version ...? )
Yikes! Thank you Roland. I did say the calculations were questionable, and now I see I also consulted some dubious illustrations. My bad.
So my new questionable calculations show that we could fit in 9 bikes at 72 inches and 8 gaps of 30 inches ( total group length 74 feet ) or 10 bikes at 70 inches and 9 gaps of 22 inches ( total group length 74.8 feet). So 18-20 riders maximum. I'll leave it to the experts now ...
Andrew
So my new questionable calculations show that we could fit in 9 bikes at 72 inches and 8 gaps of 30 inches ( total group length 74 feet ) or 10 bikes at 70 inches and 9 gaps of 22 inches ( total group length 74.8 feet). So 18-20 riders maximum. I'll leave it to the experts now ...
Andrew
Re: Group Size ( version ...? )
Roland's right; we also don't have a "Department of Transport". Here's a plain-language summary of commercial vehicle regs in B.C., cuz I know you're dying to read about them.
18-20 is about where our common sense has usually kicked in for a split, so that's good. I'd suggest it's probably more important to keep things manageable on Tuesdays where those corners can get fast and gnarly—as compared to the more flowy Friday/Sunday routes.
Kate W. was a faithful Tripleshotter who sometimes single-handedly maintained the levels of witty and amusing banter on the forum (sorely lacking these days) before she decided she truly hated herself (or just really loved someone else a lot) and moved to the frozen wastelands of Michigan, in the United States of Drumpf.
18-20 is about where our common sense has usually kicked in for a split, so that's good. I'd suggest it's probably more important to keep things manageable on Tuesdays where those corners can get fast and gnarly—as compared to the more flowy Friday/Sunday routes.
Kate W. was a faithful Tripleshotter who sometimes single-handedly maintained the levels of witty and amusing banter on the forum (sorely lacking these days) before she decided she truly hated herself (or just really loved someone else a lot) and moved to the frozen wastelands of Michigan, in the United States of Drumpf.
Re: Group Size ( version ...? )
Great Post Andrew.
I agree that 18-20 seems to be where group rides start to "feel" a bit big. Great to put some "science" behind it.
Of course the obvious question is, even if we "know" and "feel/ believe" this, how do you make this happen ?
I remember last year being on a farm team ride with about 40 people. Everyone agreed at the top of Ash that the group was too big and that we should split up. The "first" group rolled out. 4 or 5 people were left in the second group- which meant that upwards of 30 were in the first group
I agree that 18-20 seems to be where group rides start to "feel" a bit big. Great to put some "science" behind it.
Of course the obvious question is, even if we "know" and "feel/ believe" this, how do you make this happen ?
I remember last year being on a farm team ride with about 40 people. Everyone agreed at the top of Ash that the group was too big and that we should split up. The "first" group rolled out. 4 or 5 people were left in the second group- which meant that upwards of 30 were in the first group
Craig B.
Re: Group Size ( version ...? )
As Tripleshot's only psychologist (I think?), observing the various personalities and social dynamics of this forum discussion of group rides (and the dynamics on the group rides themselves and your stories about them), is quite fascinating and distracting me from the boring tasks of grading end of term student assignments.
Re: Group Size ( version ...? )
John you are so diplomatic - ouch the truth hurts!
Mark
Mark
Re: Group Size ( version ...? )
If you find yourself with some spare time on your hands some afternoon (i.e. if you work for the Province like Rolf, or have tenure at UVic like me) try searching the Forum for posts on "group size". Discussion of the "optimal" size for our group rides has been a hot topic of discussion since the club was formed. A few thoughts:
- Trying to define and enforce a hard limit on group sizes does not work. Trust me, we've tried.
- Besides, the "optimal" size of a group ride varies and depends on many factors: route, weather, time of day, level of experience of the riders, the purpose of the ride (i.e. training vs. leisure), etc.
- If you feel that the group is too big, then it probably is and it's also likely that others feel the same way. If so, then SPEAK UP and do something about - preferably before the ride gets rolling, but if necessary do it in the middle of the ride!
- As Peter is fond of saying "The most important person on a group ride is EVERYBODY ELSE."
Let's face it - we ride for fun, not UCI points. That's not to say that we shouldn't encourage people to go as hard and fast as they can, but it does mean that safety should come first.
J.
- Trying to define and enforce a hard limit on group sizes does not work. Trust me, we've tried.
- Besides, the "optimal" size of a group ride varies and depends on many factors: route, weather, time of day, level of experience of the riders, the purpose of the ride (i.e. training vs. leisure), etc.
- If you feel that the group is too big, then it probably is and it's also likely that others feel the same way. If so, then SPEAK UP and do something about - preferably before the ride gets rolling, but if necessary do it in the middle of the ride!
- As Peter is fond of saying "The most important person on a group ride is EVERYBODY ELSE."
Let's face it - we ride for fun, not UCI points. That's not to say that we shouldn't encourage people to go as hard and fast as they can, but it does mean that safety should come first.
J.
"Talk - Action = Zero" - Joe Keithley
Re: Group Size ( version ...? )
Could someone give me the readers digest version of all the above plus recent postings on the crash....please???
OK...Iwill try.
1.We are lucky people like John D and Peter are part of this great club...i.e. Go back and read Pete's quote above.
2. Group names....A1 A2 ....A B C D E.....GROUP 1. 1.5 2 3 4 BLAH BLAH BLAH...how about we try : Trevor s..Jims.....Alan C.s. ..Mary.s...and the ones that took sunrise pix....group.(ok, maybe not Alan.s!) seriously...my opinion is try the Term A2 for a second drop ride for April.See if it works.
.3.Group size...we will have a Friday very soon with 70 to 80 at the start and pick up 10 more mid ride. We are lucky we belong to Tripleshot and not the Tuktiyuktuk Sled dog cycling club!! We have lots of choices.
4. Like some of you ,on a good day , I love to push the pace, line up my Lead out train and have some safe fun. I find it stimulating doing this with 15 to 25 people...AND ......I would prefer doing this with about 6 to 14 of you. I am thinking of the quote at the end of John D.s posts.....see above.
5.So......whats next??
OK...Iwill try.
1.We are lucky people like John D and Peter are part of this great club...i.e. Go back and read Pete's quote above.
2. Group names....A1 A2 ....A B C D E.....GROUP 1. 1.5 2 3 4 BLAH BLAH BLAH...how about we try : Trevor s..Jims.....Alan C.s. ..Mary.s...and the ones that took sunrise pix....group.(ok, maybe not Alan.s!) seriously...my opinion is try the Term A2 for a second drop ride for April.See if it works.
.3.Group size...we will have a Friday very soon with 70 to 80 at the start and pick up 10 more mid ride. We are lucky we belong to Tripleshot and not the Tuktiyuktuk Sled dog cycling club!! We have lots of choices.
4. Like some of you ,on a good day , I love to push the pace, line up my Lead out train and have some safe fun. I find it stimulating doing this with 15 to 25 people...AND ......I would prefer doing this with about 6 to 14 of you. I am thinking of the quote at the end of John D.s posts.....see above.
5.So......whats next??
Re: Group Size ( version ...? )
I suggest 12-14 per group on Tuesdays, 14-16 on Fridays and 20 on Sundays. I love the idea of an A2 drop group or even an A2 group that soft pedals for a few seconds (no foot down) to regroup a bit on Ash, Caddy Bay and KGT an carries on. The group could cooperate like a TTT and try to keep in touch with the A group. The A's often are done the laps before the other groups hit the park in part due to waiting.
Re: Group Size ( version ...? )
Thanks John for pointing me in that direction- amazing what one can find with the "search" function.
After an afternoon perusing previous threads, its obvious most of the issues arise again and again.
My question to the Senior members and Historians is what has been tried and what has failed in the past?
The idea of an A2/ "Drop" B ride seems to come up quite often, but doesnt seem to happen. There must be some history?
BTW: for those newbies like myself who want to avoid going through all the posts- this one from "Josh" more or less sums up all the issues best.With some good suggestions...Thanks "Josh"! :
(couldnt work out how to link it from a search, so "cut and paste" it has to be:)):
One of my favorite things about cycling.
No matter how fast you get, there are always going to be plenty of people who can hand you your ass on a bike. Check your ego at the door.
Take the BC time trial championships this last weekend. In a time trial, it's all about pure steady state power output. The course was pancake flat, so zero advantage to those with lighter bodies to haul up inclines. No watts/kg, just watts.
Gavin was the fastest tripleshotter on the day with a 55:18 on the 38.something km course, followed by Peter at around 56:48, followed by me and Sean at 57:15. I haven't heard how the other people did yet. Our team time trail time was 54:50ish.
To put it all in perspective, The fastest cat 3 was around 53:30, and 2nd and third in cat 3 were both under 54 minutes. Gavin's (awesome) ride only got him 2nd place in cat 4.
A bunch of those strong cat 3 guys got together to form the winning cat3/4 team that did around 51:30, beating the "A+" tripleshot squad by over 3 minutes. The winning cat 1/2 individual time was 47:25!!!, with 2nd and 3rd place both in the low 48 minute range. These are individuals who can take 7 minutes out of the "A+" tripleshot 4 man team working together
It got me thinking about all the squawking going on lately about the "naming of our rides", and people not wanting to be called "B"s or "C"s. GET OVER IT!!! The strongest riders in our club are only around mid pack cat 3, or strong cat 4. These riders regularly go to races where they get ranked by their category numbers. These number ranking are there so riders can be grouped with riders of similar ability to have a fun, COMPETITIVE, race without getting instantly spat off the back. None of the "A+" cat 3 or 4 guys in tripleshot have any misconceptions about how much slower they are than a cat 1 or 2 rider, and don't mind being "ranked" as a "3" or a "4". It's the nature of this sport, IT'S OK IF PEOPLE ARE FASTER THAN YOU, NOBODY REALLY CARES.
This is the same purpose as naming tripleshot rides "A", "B" and "C" or "A+", "A", and "B". It provides an opportunity for people to put themselves in a group where they can have an enjoyable ride with people of similar ability. Any naming that tries to make a concession to our delicate egos and doesn't keep this "ranking" loses meaning in this regard, which makes it harder for people to find the right group to ride with. Especially, since most of the rides have "no drop" policies, it helps keep the ability levels in the groups somewhat even. People don't end up having to wait too much for slower riders, and slower riders don't have to spend the entire ride feeling like they are holding up the group. Less fun for every one.
Here's my suggestion. Why don't we reverse the "ranking" in our ride descriptions. Call them Group 1 through Group 4 right now, which would be our current C through A+ rides respectively. I assume this club is always going to want to have beginner/novice rides moving forward. Getting new riders into cycling is a club priority, so that ride gets the highest "ranking".
We could update the ride descriptions part the website to better explain that we do have several rides that roll out every morning, and detail each.
eg for tues/fri rides:
Every morning we split our rides up into some or all of the following groups depending on the number of people we have out. Read these descriptions to find the ride that is right for you.
Group 1
(current "C" Group) This is the ride for you if you are completely new to cycling. The pace and the setting will be friendly, and there will be some experienced riders here to help you out and give you some pointers along the way.
Group 2
(current "B" Group). This is a two-up group ride for riders newer to group riding looking to gain more experience in a friendly, social setting. This ride will re-group after intermediate sprint points, and also has a "no-drop" policy in effect until the bottom of beacon hill, after which the race is on for two laps of the park. Average speed for this ride is typically 28-30km/h.
Group 3
(current "A" Group). This is a two-up group ride for stronger riders looking to get some morning training in a more social setting. The typical ability level of this ride is cat4 or strong recreational cyclists with group riding experience. This ride will regroup after sprint points and climbs, and has a "no drop" policy in effect until King George Terrace, at which point the race is on. Average speed of these rides is typically 33-34km/h over rolling terrain, and will typically ramp up to around 38-39km/h for the last few laps of beacon hill.
Group 4
(current "A+" Group). This is typically a hard paced rolling paceline for those looking for a pure training ride. The ability level of this group is typically cat3, strong cat 4. The paceline will normally try to stay together until the last few km of the ride, and will regroup after intermediate sprints, but there is NO "no drop" policy on this ride. You may find yourself off the back. Attacks and a full on race will happen from King George Terrace on. Average speed of these rides is 37-38km/h over rolling terrain, and will typically ramp up to about 42km/h+ for the last few laps of beacon hill.
and in the future, as riders in our group inevitably continue to get even stronger.....
Group 5
This is typically a training paceline for experienced racers. The ability level of this group is typically cat2, strong cat 3...........average speed is 41km/h.........etc,etc.
The most important aspect of all tripleshot rides is the "cafe destination". All rides end at the Moka House coffee shop at Shoal Point, and everyone is strongly encouraged to come and get to know the other members, and see what everyone looks like without their helmets and sunglasses.
After an afternoon perusing previous threads, its obvious most of the issues arise again and again.
My question to the Senior members and Historians is what has been tried and what has failed in the past?
The idea of an A2/ "Drop" B ride seems to come up quite often, but doesnt seem to happen. There must be some history?
BTW: for those newbies like myself who want to avoid going through all the posts- this one from "Josh" more or less sums up all the issues best.With some good suggestions...Thanks "Josh"! :
(couldnt work out how to link it from a search, so "cut and paste" it has to be:)):
One of my favorite things about cycling.
No matter how fast you get, there are always going to be plenty of people who can hand you your ass on a bike. Check your ego at the door.
Take the BC time trial championships this last weekend. In a time trial, it's all about pure steady state power output. The course was pancake flat, so zero advantage to those with lighter bodies to haul up inclines. No watts/kg, just watts.
Gavin was the fastest tripleshotter on the day with a 55:18 on the 38.something km course, followed by Peter at around 56:48, followed by me and Sean at 57:15. I haven't heard how the other people did yet. Our team time trail time was 54:50ish.
To put it all in perspective, The fastest cat 3 was around 53:30, and 2nd and third in cat 3 were both under 54 minutes. Gavin's (awesome) ride only got him 2nd place in cat 4.
A bunch of those strong cat 3 guys got together to form the winning cat3/4 team that did around 51:30, beating the "A+" tripleshot squad by over 3 minutes. The winning cat 1/2 individual time was 47:25!!!, with 2nd and 3rd place both in the low 48 minute range. These are individuals who can take 7 minutes out of the "A+" tripleshot 4 man team working together
It got me thinking about all the squawking going on lately about the "naming of our rides", and people not wanting to be called "B"s or "C"s. GET OVER IT!!! The strongest riders in our club are only around mid pack cat 3, or strong cat 4. These riders regularly go to races where they get ranked by their category numbers. These number ranking are there so riders can be grouped with riders of similar ability to have a fun, COMPETITIVE, race without getting instantly spat off the back. None of the "A+" cat 3 or 4 guys in tripleshot have any misconceptions about how much slower they are than a cat 1 or 2 rider, and don't mind being "ranked" as a "3" or a "4". It's the nature of this sport, IT'S OK IF PEOPLE ARE FASTER THAN YOU, NOBODY REALLY CARES.
This is the same purpose as naming tripleshot rides "A", "B" and "C" or "A+", "A", and "B". It provides an opportunity for people to put themselves in a group where they can have an enjoyable ride with people of similar ability. Any naming that tries to make a concession to our delicate egos and doesn't keep this "ranking" loses meaning in this regard, which makes it harder for people to find the right group to ride with. Especially, since most of the rides have "no drop" policies, it helps keep the ability levels in the groups somewhat even. People don't end up having to wait too much for slower riders, and slower riders don't have to spend the entire ride feeling like they are holding up the group. Less fun for every one.
Here's my suggestion. Why don't we reverse the "ranking" in our ride descriptions. Call them Group 1 through Group 4 right now, which would be our current C through A+ rides respectively. I assume this club is always going to want to have beginner/novice rides moving forward. Getting new riders into cycling is a club priority, so that ride gets the highest "ranking".
We could update the ride descriptions part the website to better explain that we do have several rides that roll out every morning, and detail each.
eg for tues/fri rides:
Every morning we split our rides up into some or all of the following groups depending on the number of people we have out. Read these descriptions to find the ride that is right for you.
Group 1
(current "C" Group) This is the ride for you if you are completely new to cycling. The pace and the setting will be friendly, and there will be some experienced riders here to help you out and give you some pointers along the way.
Group 2
(current "B" Group). This is a two-up group ride for riders newer to group riding looking to gain more experience in a friendly, social setting. This ride will re-group after intermediate sprint points, and also has a "no-drop" policy in effect until the bottom of beacon hill, after which the race is on for two laps of the park. Average speed for this ride is typically 28-30km/h.
Group 3
(current "A" Group). This is a two-up group ride for stronger riders looking to get some morning training in a more social setting. The typical ability level of this ride is cat4 or strong recreational cyclists with group riding experience. This ride will regroup after sprint points and climbs, and has a "no drop" policy in effect until King George Terrace, at which point the race is on. Average speed of these rides is typically 33-34km/h over rolling terrain, and will typically ramp up to around 38-39km/h for the last few laps of beacon hill.
Group 4
(current "A+" Group). This is typically a hard paced rolling paceline for those looking for a pure training ride. The ability level of this group is typically cat3, strong cat 4. The paceline will normally try to stay together until the last few km of the ride, and will regroup after intermediate sprints, but there is NO "no drop" policy on this ride. You may find yourself off the back. Attacks and a full on race will happen from King George Terrace on. Average speed of these rides is 37-38km/h over rolling terrain, and will typically ramp up to about 42km/h+ for the last few laps of beacon hill.
and in the future, as riders in our group inevitably continue to get even stronger.....
Group 5
This is typically a training paceline for experienced racers. The ability level of this group is typically cat2, strong cat 3...........average speed is 41km/h.........etc,etc.
The most important aspect of all tripleshot rides is the "cafe destination". All rides end at the Moka House coffee shop at Shoal Point, and everyone is strongly encouraged to come and get to know the other members, and see what everyone looks like without their helmets and sunglasses.
Craig B.
Re: Group Size ( version ...? )
Yeah, Josh had a pretty level head. Maybe had less time for those of us who took things a bit less seriously. 
Here's a link to the six year-old thread in question.
And my response (still):
Here's a link to the six year-old thread in question. And my response (still):
Cool, Josh. I really like focusing on the intake of new riders as the foundation for some new names. I think it is the club's approach to newbies that sets TripleShot apart and that makes us the cult we are.
I also like the inverse relationship between ride speed and ordination. Not only does it leave the sky the limit on accommodating stronger riders, it leaves the school grades behind.
I've been squawking here and there about the A, B, C names, but I think I've been doing a crappy job at communicating. Permit me to place my tongue in my cheek and once more overanalyze something meaningless for my own amusement.My comment (it's not a "beef" or even an "irritation") is a little more subtle than the ranking hurting someone's feelings by labelling some riders slower than others (I generally see nothing but humility around the coffee table.
As you said, it's important to indicate that the rides sit along a speed continuum, some are faster and some are slower. But by inversing the order, you take away the inference that faster is better and that, for example, "C" riders should aspire to be "A" riders. This inference arises from the fact the ordination (first, second, third etc.) starts with the fastest ride. This necessarily subordinates all rides but one, the fastest ride. By flipping things around and making our slowest ride number 1, we move to an open set in which there could be an infinite number of faster rides -- the necessary ordination becomes less a statement of an ideal, and more just a recognition that some rides are faster than others.
Confucious say: faster ride not better, just better for faster riders.
I'm going to guess the term "B-ride" was influenced by the UCI/CCA "cat 1, cat 2 etc." -- a system that is focused on athlete development and seeks to encourage young men and women to race as much as they can to get precious upgrade points. In contrast, I'd like to think the driving question behind TripleShot is less "How can we make riders faster?" and more "How can we have the best collective riding experience?" These questions are not necessarily the same thing. And your proposal recognizes that.
TripleShot Cycling Constitution wrote:2. The purposes of the club are:
(a) To manage, develop and conduct programs in the sport of cycling in Greater Victoria, British Columbia.
(b) To work co-operatively with community groups, individuals, agencies and organizations (public, private and professional) to enhance the recreational experience of persons who participate in cycling.
(d) To promote, develop and foster good citizenship through challenging recreation.
Maybe the missing sub-paragraph (c) was once "To make members ride faster." But I don't see it anymore!
[In deference to our "Cafe Destination" tagline, we could call the rides Single Shot, Double Shot, Triple Shot, Quad Shot etc. But then of course the inference would be that we should all aspire to ride in the Triple Shot group...I'm going to put you all out of your misery (especially Roland) and go shoot myself now. Seeya in the morning!]
