Tripleshot Cycling

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.

tl;dr

Hear, hear!

Amen!

Fantastic comments Josh. I really like the detailed description of the different rides. It is informative and inclusive! I suggest we put this on our site for all to see in our section for ride description.

Thank Josh!

I love how this system is extensible, ie as riders get faster, we go to bigger numbers. Our current system breaks down when we have the A, A+, A++, A+++, A++++++++++ etc groups.

Remember that no matter how fast you go, there will always be someone faster than you.

Roland: 'Too long; didn't read?' Nice addition to the discussion...

HI Josh,

Thank you. Your comments are exactly spot on. The category system is meant to allow racers to enjoy a competitive environment free of sand-baggers. The point system is about the best we can do to promote fair and competitive amateur racing. The club rides, however, require that we seed ourselves accordingly. I encourage those who have assessed themselves a 'B' group rider to occasionally challenge themselves with an 'A' ride. There are also times where an 'A' rider may want to just chill and sit in a 'B' or 'C' ride, and that's cool too. An 'A' rider would not likely be racing against a 'C' rider in a sanctioned event as they'd be in different categories. So, 'A' isn't better than 'C', but different. Ride and race at your ability but use the club rides as a way to improve by trying the next group up. What I don't want to see is an elitist approach to the grouped rides. The 'A' rides are open to anyone... who's up to the challenge. And this is what I admire about Tripleshot... we're honest about what will transpire on each ride... 'no mercy', 'no dropping until....', etc. We all know the situation.

I raced for years at Cat 4, only to move up to Cat 3 just as my life was taking me in a new direction (family). I arguably barely made it into Cat 3 by tactically selecting key races (often early season races) that suited me... i.e. not an all-rounder by any stretch. I knew I wasn't going to be a Cat 2 racer anytime soon. And so, when our club rode, with many Cat 1/2 racers, we never expected to be able to stay with the higher cats on hard club rides. But we had fun, and didn't mind- we used them as the target.. as our inspiration. And they used us for our camaraderie and for our ability to stand in a feed-zone in 35+ C heat . We were rightfully humbled and awestruck by their abilities. And we learned... tactics, skills, nutrition, etc... from our more experienced and accomplished riders. We had fun. This is and hopefully will remain the spirit of Tripleshot... to have fun, push yourself to improve, to learn and to share what we all have in common.. a love for the sport. True amateurs.

POTM! (post of the month)

Roland wrote:tl;dr

Haha. You can always be in Group x, where x is the highest current level, currently 4 in Josh's "tl" post.

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!!!

I thought that last discussion about group names was tongue in check. At least my post was. I for one care not about names, I just wish to ride and occasionally step up to the "fast group" and have my seat handed to me.

I do like your suggestions Josh, as the numbering system has room to grow. Great descriptions too.

Yeah, I realize many of the comments are tongue in cheek, but it's also been coming up repeatedly for the last 6 months or so now.

There's also a lot of comments both on the forum, and on the rides that aren't so much tongue in cheek. Some members are truly bothered by the "ranking" that the names imply.

I think, ironically. most of the "A+" riders in our club put the least amount of stock in these ride names, as they are constantly reminded how slow they are in the races they attend.

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!]

When I was in the grade 1 (the first time) the reading groups were divided into the Lions, Tigers, and Elephants.
I guess the teachers thought it would fool the dumb kids. Except as one of the dumb kids it never fooled me. I knew darn well what an Elephant meant. And I was OK with it.

Our books had more and better pictures. Which made it worth it.

So maybe the groups could be animals. Or flowers. Or cookies.

Cheers,
Chris

Chris Watt wrote:When I was in the grade 1 (the first time) the reading groups were divided into the Lions, Tigers, and Elephants.
I guess the teachers thought it would fool the dumb kids. Except as one of the dumb kids it never fooled me. I knew darn well what an Elephant meant. And I was OK with it.

Our books had more and better pictures. Which made it worth it.

So maybe the groups could be animals. Or flowers. Or cookies.

Cheers,
Chris

I like books with pictures too. I would be happy to ride in the Elephant group. I bet no one in the Cheeta group got to watch the squirrel and crow repeatedly attack each other as they battled in the parking lot along Dallas road a few weeks back. All you Cheetas are missing out.

"Get over it" seems a little harsh: Wasn't, one of the goals of the trip to Abbotsford to get up-grade points?

Cause, who wants to be a cat 5? Or is cat 4 the elephant now?

Having said that, the 3-1 scheme sounds good. A+, A and C was getting a little silly and confusing. Peter shouting names also seems to work. If 3-1 is adopted, the wording should probably be revised a little. Advertising "full-on race", "two-up", and >40 km/hr speeds (i.e., when the posted limit is less) might not be best.

Great race, bye the way. I was watching for reports all afternoon and evening. I figured you guys would do well. TS isn't all abut racing, but I think we all feel some pride when we're so well represented at events like the Prov. Time Trials.

JT

Firming up the group names will be good so we can all start speaking the same language, posting our rides, and having more of us describing them to newcomers.

But more important (sorry if this is obvious/repeated), will be staying committed to riding as groups). As Josh and the other TT riders pointed out, even the A+ ride is not immune; a couple of cat 1's or 2's could show up and blow that apart in 5km.

Saturday and Sunday rides have been a bit ragged with people dropping out before half way and no discussion at the start about how we'll ride for the newer riders. 5km jams before half distance exhaust the newer riders, if not drop them entirely.

You can get a very hard workout and keep a group together. Josh, Gavin and others have lead Killer B rides at 35km+ per hour, that kept C riders with them all the way to Sidney.

Whatever we decide, it's still important to remember we're together because we're motivated by the group rides and we need to ride like we want the groups to stay together for most of the ride. (eg. Weaker riders drafting consistently, stronger riders pulling the group, not pulling it apart, do any jamming at the end, etc.)

I also agree that "no-drop" is less important for the A/A+/3 or B/A/2 ride, there's always the C/1 (jeez this is difficult..) ride. But there's also a difference between dropping a not-ready rider who starts in a group over their head, and someone blowing a group apart jamming the hills off the front in the first half.

JohnT wrote:"Get over it" seems a little harsh: Wasn't, one of the goals of the trip to Abbotsford to get up-grade points?

Cause, who wants to be a cat 5? Or is cat 4 the elephant now?

JT

It wasn't intended to be harsh, but honestly, comments like all these elephant ones are exactly what I'm talking about. Whether half serious or not, they're non constructive, and often seem targeted at the guys who do our "A+" rides.
I went over to race with zero chance of getting any upgrade points. I knew going over there were only 3 TTT teams registered, so there would be no points there, and I had no hope of a points finish in a cat 3 ITT, as I'm simply not strong enough. But I went anyway and put myself through 2 hours of pain on my bike, with my only goal being to push myself and to be happy with my performance. Points are definitely a goal for me in racing, but not an end. My motivation for getting them is to be allowed to race in groups that are much stronger riders than me to see where my limits are. I enjoy seeing how long I can last before getting spit off the back much more than being one of the strongest riders in the front. This will be whistler for me, I fear, hopefully not in dead last in the giro.

When it comes to our rides, all I am looking for is a chance to push myself really hard in the morning with a group of like minded riders. Obviously not everyone in the group has this goal, but several do. I love the fact that the club is successful enough that we can even have the luxury of breaking it up to accommodate several different peoples goals in the morning, but still have a chance to get together at the end and socialize with all the other great people who make up our club.

Point is, we need to better define our rides so people are able to find the group that is right for them, as our rides VERY often end up being gong shows due to people ending up in one that is a bad fit or undefined from the beginning. The other reality is that, schoolyard insecurities aside, the rides need to be differentiated with regards to how fast the group will travel, and doing this in some way that is sequential from fastest to slowest or slowest to fastest is by far the least confusing.

It wasn't intended to be harsh, but honestly, comments like all these elephant ones are exactly what I'm talking about. Whether half serious or not, they're non constructive, and often seem targeted at the guys who do our "A+" rides.

I thought the A+, A thing was just Peter's joke to encourage the B's (or whatever they're called). I don't hear any resentment, even minor, of the A+ riders. There might have been a bit of headscratching at first ("Are the A's/B's the right group for me?"), but I think we're past that now. I like Josh's descriptions but think we don't have to sweat the names so much. Since we're not really changing anything, how about just A,B, C, etc? If we really want to be beginner friendly, what would beginners recognize most easily?

I also think Peter's jokes might have mislead some people. He's stopped saying 'Slitting throats' now . And Josh's description makes clear that A+ or 4 is not completely uncooperative.

This may all be a mute point for the next couple of months, we'll probably be down to 2 groups for the rainy months, as the fair weather riders drop off.
But I agree with the numbered system that Josh came up with.

Whoa, I don't think there's any targeting going on, Josh. Speaking personally, I see the guys riding Group 4 (A+) as real leaders in our group and I have nothing but respect. That one lap of the box I joined you for last month gave me a great appreciation for your athleticism. And greenhorn, "rec" riders like me can and do learn a ton just from being able to hang out with you over coffee and occasionally riding behind you.

Communicating on the forum is pretty challenging given the inability to effectively express and discern the tone of something in writing. The emoticons help, but they're limited. Part of the reason the forum's so popular is that there is a lot of kidding around and people trying to be funny (and often succeeding). I'd say it's my primary source of entertainment -- after perhaps BSNYC and my 3 year-old's toot jokes (yes, my life is very small). But while I think the wit flying around here does a lot to improve our esprit de corps (and helps ensure nobody takes themselves too seriously), it can also sometimes lead to some misunderstandings.

Lister wrote:If we really want to be beginner friendly, what would beginners recognize most easily?

The only label that is useful to an entirely new rider is a speed rating (eg. 28-30, 32-34, 36+). The average flat cruising speed and whether a ride is drop or no-drop are the two basic things I'd say people need to know in order to successfully self-select their ride.

But if this morning is an indication of what the coming winter months will look like, the days may be numbered where 40 riders show up and we have the luxury of struggling to label our 3 or 4 different rides. We'll possibly just revert to "fast" and "less fast", or "A" and "B", or "roll-out first" and "roll-out second", or whatever. But that doesn't mean we won't have benefited from your very thoughtful and detailed descriptions of Groups 1 - 5 etc.

As I was saying to Peter this morning, the best thing to come from all this rumination (apart from some pretty funny piss-taking) is that it's an opportunity for members to share what their goals are, what the club means to them, and what they get out of it. Hearing about that benefits us all. So thanks for ranting.

I'd love to hear what someone who just joined us this week thinks about all this naval-contemplation...