With regard to the route, land access etc; Is it all private land or does the race use public rights of way and if they are rights of way, how do you control access on race day? Also how do they define a cyclocross bike, which I understand can have straight handlebars, from say a 29er XC race bike? I was talking with someone who raced it last year and they were saying how ‘mountain bikes aren’t allowed’ and how they have these rules about bike geometry that sound draconian and quite ridiculous.
how they have these rules about bike geometry that sound draconian and quite ridiculous
You mean you don't own a cross bike, so wanted to complain that you're prevented from riding?
Waah.
Theres some info in the 3peaks forum about the bikes.I reckon theres plenty places to race a mtb or 29er, the race has some heritage why not protect it?
Flat bars not allowed, 29ers also not allowed. Its a cx race and pretty much the only kind of it's type in the world and the rules are there to maintain the legacy of it rather than use this week's niche.
A large part of the route is on private land and not rideable at any other time.
It's a cross race.
Get over it.
I was talking with someone who raced it last year and they were saying how ‘mountain bikes aren’t allowed’ and how they have these rules about bike geometry that sound draconian and quite ridiculous.
don't enter or create your own event. No point moaning about it.
Poor Troll.. 🙁
1.5/ 10...
I am over it. I was curious to know how they structured the rules. Really not a troll, although my view is that the rules seem to be draconian because they seem to be protecting something that doesn't exist any more.
You mean you don't own a cross bike, so wanted to complain that you're prevented from riding?
You don't know me. The last thing I would want to do is enter the 3 Peaks race.
Flat bars not allowed
I think they are allowed. Here's a picture that perhaps proves that point:
[img] 
[/img]
29ers also not allowed
Sure but aren't 29ers identical to 700c/27" road rims? See [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_wheel#Road.2Fracing_bicycle_wheels ]here.[/url]
Access is on private land, OK but the paths they use to get to the top of the three peaks themselves are public rights of way aren't they?
Yes you can run flat bars but only less than 500mm. The organiser can set whatever rules he wants as it is his race and has been for 48 years.
"[i]they seem to be protecting something that doesn't exist any more.[/i]"
what's that then?
as from this year flat bars will not be allowed
They may well be public rights of way but they are not Bridleways. The race organisers have landowners permission for the day of the race only. Not all of the route uses public rights of way, some of the race is over private land.
Flat bars are not allowed in this years race. Believe me.
Maybe you should go to the EU and get an injunction on discrimination?
and they were saying how ‘mountain bikes aren’t allowed’
I innocently asked this about 5 years ago and attracted no end of censure. It's just one of those things you're not supposed to ask like "when did you stop beating your wife?"
I was curious to know how they structured the rules. Really not a troll, although my view is that the rules seem to be draconian because they seem to be protecting something that doesn't exist any more
the rules keep the private landowners happy which in turn keeps the race open.
Racing can't be held on bridleways but can be on footpaths thanks to the archaic rules that govern our PROW. Hence you will never be able to ride the course "legally"
The organiser can set whatever rules he wants as it is his race and has been for 48 years.
Couldn't Gaddafi claim the same ?
Ah OK so if they're using footpaths, then the unstated element is that it's OK to ride on footpaths when you have the permission of the landowner?
Is that correct?
Flatbars may well have been ruled out for this year. I wouldn't know, that's why i was asking.
Are you allowed dropper seat posts?
What I was getting at with the rules to protect something that doesn't exist anymore was this.
The Specialized 29er that that bloke won the UCI XC race on last year, put dropper bars on that and bingo you've got a cyclocross bike right?
Or not, because there's something about geometry that no one has explained yet.
But let's assume that the geometry thing is just a bit too anal even for the UCI or whomever is making the rules up.
A spesh 29er MTB race bike with drop bars. What's the difference between that and a cyclocross bike.
Let's assume there are no restrictions on what bike you can use except that it has to be powered by you and you can only have one for the whole race.
What would be the ideal bike?
I innocently asked this about 5 years ago and attracted no end of censure. It's just one of those things you're not supposed to ask like "when did you stop beating your wife?"
PMSL - but I am begining to see what you mean! **** me they're an uptight lot aren't they.
Well it's obvious - a cyclo cross bike. 🙄
Well it's obvious - a cyclo cross bike.
Touche!
Why aren't cyclo cross bikes allowed at Mayhem?
I am not sure Gadafi has a waiting list of people wanting to come and do his event!
Good point about the bridleway - I remember there being a Marshal making sure we got off and walked on one section so as not to be racing on it. Awesome event and the hardest thing I have done. Keeping these rules keeps the spirit of the event. Like the tyre sizes - running 100mm of suspension with 2.2 tyres down the steps of wherside would take away the challenge.
**** me they're an uptight lot aren't they.
sadly the thread is lost in the mists of time but it was very funny 🙂 Basically the rules are the rules are the rules and questioning them is tantamount to defying the heavens.
Why aren't cyclo cross bikes allowed at Mayhem?
one might also ask:
why is everyone so well behaved ?
where is the mountain ?
etc etc
I am not sure Gadafi has a waiting list of people wanting to come and do his event!
ah, you were under the impression participation was optional ?
it's been suggested that mountain bikes were excluded to appease the landowners but local Chris E said that they can't tell bikes apart anyway and will only be happy when they are allowed to kill any life form found on "their" land 🙁
Flat bars used to be allowed provided that they were no wider than 50cm. They are no longer allowed. You can use a dropper seatpost although frankly, why would you? Tyres must be no wider than 35mm.
It maintains the spirit of the event, it's one of the oldest CX events in the world and certainly one of the toughest. Doing it on a 150mm all-mountain "rig" would take away the challenge of the descents, you'd gain nothing on the uphill bits and it'd be slow as hell on the road bits.
Three Peaks has an atmosphere all of it's own - personally I'd say do away with spare bikes/bike changing and keep it as no disc brakes too.
the rules seem to be draconian because they seem to be protecting something that doesn't exist any more.
Do you think while you type?
They are overwhelmed with entries from people wanting to ride it on CX bikes.
There's a vintage car rally through Whinlatter every year and they don't allow subaru Imprezas. No-one ever complains.
A spesh 29er MTB race bike with drop bars. What's the difference between that and a cyclocross bike.
Are you serious? Or can you not tell the difference? If you put a spoiler on a land rover do you have an imprezza?
Would you want to do the 3 peaks on a mountain bike? From what I can see the terrain is either pretty dam steep and its quicker to carry or its not technical to warrant the extra weight etc of a mtb.
"Why aren't cyclo cross bikes allowed at Mayhem?"
Because they would be way quicker than mtb's and make a bit of a joke of the title Mountain Mayhem. It really be called riding round a grassy field mayhem.
Back in October there was this race http://www.bingleyharriers.org.uk/html/h_v_cyclists/hvc.htm one by a cyclocross... in fact the first few bikes home were x bikes as well as runners. Mtb's came 3rd by some margin. Some sections of the route are actually quite technical too.
A spesh 29er MTB race bike with drop bars. What's the difference between that and a cyclocross bike.
Tyres need to be less than 35mm, so that would require a change, up to last year disk brakes were banned, and simply adding drop bars to am MTB frame would make for seriously interesting handling.
Not quite sure where the UCI stand on suspension on cross bikes, but I wouldn't be surprised if you'd have to run rigid forks.
So that'd be a normal 29er, with new wheels and tyres, drop bars, and rigid forks.
Do you think while you type?They are overwhelmed with entries from people wanting to ride it on CX bikes.
I do but I try not to think too much as it wears me down. It's obviously a very popular event, which is great. I'm honestly really happy for everyone who gets pleasure from participating.
Are you serious? Or can you not tell the difference?
I [i]know [/i]the difference, but that's not what I was asking. If as the organiser couldn't [i]tell [/i]the difference then whats the point in the rule?
Ultimately the only material difference will be in the geometry and I can't quite see how you make a rule that says 'you can't race a bike with a head angle of less than 72 degrees, a BB drop of more than 10mm, TT length of blah blah blah'.
If the rules don't change then the race will become just like that vintage car rally and will become an anachronism and won't be taken seriously.
but local Chris E said
What does that twerp know?
He just gets upset by people getting in his way on 3 Peaks CX day, when he goes for his snuff and Sunday paper from his local shop for local people. How are his nose bleeds these days??
😉
If the rules don't change then the race will become just like that vintage car rally and will become an anachronism
They did change them, to allow flat bars, and now they've changed them back.
and
won't be taken seriously.
We'll see. It's outlasted most other races so far.
simply adding drop bars to am MTB frame would make for seriously interesting handling.
Quite.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Craig won the 2009 race on flat's IIRC? Wonder why they are ruling them out.
Anyways from what I know the top tube of a CX is a different length to that of a MTB tube.
The only reason JT did that was because he had a season riding with an US road squad and his coach told him to maintain the same position. He only did that for one year, I wonder why?
If the rules don't change then the race will become just like that vintage car rally and will become an anachronism and won't be taken seriously.
And yet still full year after year...
Ah OK so if they're using footpaths, then the unstated element is that it's OK to ride on footpaths when you have the permission of the landowner?
The footpaths will also have to be subject to a closure notice from the local authority for the duration of the event which won't be granted until all sorts of hoops have been jumped through. There will be signs up saying "FOOTPATH CLOSED" at the start and end of each section*. Enforcing it is a different matter.
* Well that is how it works in Bury for HtN.
Actually it's getting harder and harder to get in. In 99 I was offered a free place in that years race. Oh well.
And yet still full year after year...
Maybe I have a better ability to envision what the future might look like.
Yes JT raced with the 7-Eleven team IIRC and yes he didn't maintain that absurd position for long.
I mean, why make things artificially hard? It's not like 40 miles and 5000ft is easy after all.
Why not let anyone ride anything they want as long as it's 100% human powered. Surely that's the challenge, not the bike you do it on?
Hey here's a radical and progressive idea.
Let's have '
' for different bikes.categories
You could have the open category, that allows any bike and then the 'Master Race' category for the cross bikes.
'Master Race'
but you must be in the Hitler Youth ?
I believe this event to be a form of religious observance...
What a brilliant idea. Let's do that with everything! Formula 1 could have a class for mini's. You could pitch your Honda C90 against the best in the IOM TT. It'd be ace. I'm sure the organisers wouldn't mind a bit of extra work.
PS Good work on the trolling though.
"You could have the open category, that allows any bike and then the 'Master Race' category for the cross bikes."
The cross bikes would still win so a bit pointless really
The cross bikes would still win so a bit pointless really
is it only about winning ? That would be a bit poo for the hundred losers 🙁 Actually you could save time by banning anyone who wasn't going to win.
That would be a bit poo for the hundred losers Actually you could save time by banning anyone who wasn't going to win.
Great idea, in fact why not just decide the winner by measuring your resting heart rate and vo2 Max.
After all, it's how they decide triathalon events.
Surely it would be watts per KG of body weight at threshold?
Ah you see you're heading down the equality route again chef, which is counter productive to whole 'mater race' thing.
Ah you see you're heading down the equality route again chef, which is counter productive to whole '[b]master[/b] race' thing.
well, yes, if it were up to me I'd replace races with more cooperative events where prizes were given for the most improved riders and the most helpful 🙂
Crikey - what a comical post. I wanted to interject at several points along the way but think it's best to let it run its course. I'm off to the formula 1 official forum now to ask why I'm not allowed to compete - my 2008 Zafira is in fine fettle and the formula 1 events simply must be run on my terms.
After that, I'm going to ring [url= http://3pcx.blogspot.com/2005/12/exclusive-john-rawnsley-interviewed.html ]John[/url] and let him know that someone is finally offering to take over as event organiser. He's been dying for that.
I'm off to the formula 1 official forum now to ask why I'm not allowed to compete
the comparison is hardly apt - a bike is still a bike regardless of the type of wheel, brakes and handlebars - there's probably a far more significant difference in the performance of the riders, yet non-athletes are not excluded
I'm off to the formula 1 official forum now to ask why I'm not allowed to compete
Quite apart from which Formula One is BORING!
The WHOLE point of this thread, (apart from trying to understand how they hold a race on public byways which been very well explained so thank you) is that there is so little difference between ostensibly between say a 29er XC MTB and a Cyclocross Bike as to make it a pointless exercise to write a rule banning them from entering.
Don't you people get it? You're almost making my argument for me by saying, ooh, why can't I enter Formula One in my 2008 Zafira. Like that's even remotely like a formula one car.
The only material difference between this:
[img] 
[/img]
and this:
[img] 
[/img]
Is a few degrees in the head angle and an inch in the tyres - ignore the bars, you can easily swap those out (although the ruling against flat bars for the race this year is another case in point of rule making for some anachronistic reason). Everyting else is ostensibly the same, even the wheels are identical.
Yes, 29er wheels are the same size as 700c so what is the freakin point of banning them? More pertinently, how do you define a 29er in the rule book in order to ban it.
If I put super skinny tyres on one, and drop bars, would I be allowed to compete on it?
Alternatively, if I built a cyclocross frame with a dropped top tube and a slack headangle, would I also be allowed to compete on that?
Here's my point:
They make the rule to satisfy some bizare sense of I don't know what, but it's a strange mix of radical conservatism, elitism and open hostility to anyone who isn't conforming to the organiser's agenda.
If you can seriously explain the difference between the bikes above in a way that justifies the exclusion of one against the other, without sounding like a cock, then I'll happily concede the argument.
Why don't you just ask John Rawnsley instead of getting all aggressive with other people?
Anyway, isn't your employer paying you to waggle some switches on the end of the server cupboard?
Ok so are we saying that if I were lucky enough to get an entry in to the 3 peaks I would have to be careful which x bike I bought in case it had the wrong angles for the regs?
[i]They make the rule to satisfy some bizare sense of I don't know what, but it's a strange mix of radical conservatism, elitism and open hostility to anyone who isn't conforming to the organiser's agenda.[/i]
Not from the organisers it's not. There's some rules, you can take them or leave them. Just like everything you do in life. The antagonism is coming from you and others. The organisers have attempted to maintain some essence of cyclocross racing in the event. History is clearly important to them. If it's not to you then fine, don't get involved. Stop being so ridiculous and accept that some things just aren't for you.
That Ridley's got bottle cages so it can't be a true CX bike 😀
It's a cyclocross race for cyclocross bikes. It's that easy.
If that rule wasn't enforced it would have turned into yet another mountain bike race years ago and wouldn't be what it is today.
Oh, and can I recommend you never, ever look at track racing if strict rules bother you.
I love the way you all just keep blindly saying:
'It's cyclocross race for cyclocross bikes'
As if just repeating that phrase like a mantra is going to suddenly make the whole thing clear to me.
If one of you really could just address my questions as to what the differences are in a way that makes sense, i.e justifies the rule, I'd be genuinely very grateful.
Please define -
what is a cyclocross bike?
what makes it fundamentally different to a fully rigid 29er MTB race bike?
what is it about the latter that makes it justifiable to not allow it in the race, i.e. unfair advantage, tradition etc?
[i]As if just repeating that phrase like a mantra is going to suddenly make the whole thing clear to me.[/i]
I really don't care if it's clear to you.
It's been explained.
No it really hasn't. Please define:
What is a cyclocross bike?
What makes it fundamentally different to a fully rigid 29er MTB race bike?
What is it about the latter that makes it justifiable to not allow it in the race, i.e. unfair advantage, tradition etc?
what is a cyclocross bike?
A bike designed to work off road that's derived from a road bike.
what makes it fundamentally different to a fully rigid 29er MTB race bike?
They share a wheel size - not much else, what's so hard to see?
You could change the transmission, brakes (although that's obviously suddenly changed), handlebars, forks and tyres and call it a cross bike if it makes you feel better, but they're not the same.
what is it about the latter that makes it justifiable to not allow it in the race, i.e. unfair advantage, tradition etc?
As has been said repeatedly, to your derision, it's the heritage of the event, it's for cross bikes. As said, an MTB would be slower on the road, harder to carry up the climbs (you still wouldn't ride them), and very slightly advantageous on the descents.
I think the best analogy is the classic car rally, it's an event designed for a specific type of vehicle. That's the rules. Get over it.
[i]What is a cyclocross bike?
What makes it fundamentally different to a fully rigid 29er MTB race bike?
What is it about the latter that makes it justifiable to not allow it in the race, i.e. unfair advantage, tradition etc? [/i]
In an effort to get those pesky bees out of your bonnet, why don't you go and see if you can answer these questions for yourself?
Poor troll btw.
A bike designed to work off road that's derived from a road bike.Derived from a road bike? OK, getting closer. Let's just concentrate on the frame for a moment since gears, brakes etc are all much of a muchness, especially now since it looks like the UCI will allow disc brakes.
What makes a road frame a road frame and what is transfered from a road frame to a cyclocross frame that makes it thus?
What is it about the MTB 29er XC race bike that makes it such and therefore 'not a frame dervied from a road bike'?
In an effort to get those pesky bees out of your bonnet, why don't you go and see if you can answer these questions for yourself?
You can't actually answer can you. 😀
Ergo, I win, you loose. Twas ever thus.
Congratulations. You must be very pleased.
My understanding is that on a CX bike, the majority of the better riders all go the same speed up the hills, down the hills and along the flat bits.
A mountain bike will be pedalling up some of the hills the CXers are running up, will go down a lot faster, and less wibbly, but will be slaughtered on the flat bits. There's going to be a lot more swapping positions and people getting in each others way, leading to all sorts of grumpiness.
Rules define the difference between a cyclo-cross bike and a mountain bike
4.3 Comments on article 1.3.020
For massed-start road races and cyclo-cross, the frame elements (arranged as shown in the diagram below) shall
be tubular without excessive curvature (a straight line along the element’s longitudinal axis must remain inside
the element). The elements shall have a maximum transverse dimension of 8 cm and a minimum transverse
dimension of 2.5 cm (reduced to 1 cm for the seat stays, chain stays and forks). If the seat tube is extended so that
it replaces the seat post, the anchorage point with the top tube is considered for the purposes of the horizontal
template of the “Shape 1” diagram shown in article 1.3.020.
3.2.3 Technical specifications
Except where stated to the contrary, the following technical specifications shall apply to bicycles used
in road, track and cyclo-cross racing.
The specific characteristics of bicycles used in mountain bike, BMX, trials, indoor cycling and paracycling for riders with disabilities are set out in the part regulating the discipline in question.
http://www.uci.ch/includes/asp/getTarget.asp?type=FILE&id=NjU4NTY
Why don't you go to these guys [url= http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuId=MTI1OTg&LangId=1 ]UCI[/url] and ask them to change their rules to allow your ideas into their races. After all, that is what you are asking?
The UCI are wrong... John Rawnsley's wrong... bikes are bikes. It's offical. Power to the forum. We sorted that one, didn't we. 😀
If the rules annoy SFB then that's reason enough to keep them...
Derived from a road bike? OK, getting closer. Let's just concentrate on the frame for a moment since gears, brakes etc are all much of a muchness, especially now since it looks like the UCI will allow disc brakes.
Gearing isn't the same, look at a proper cross bike, brakes aren't really the same either, even factoring in disc brakes.
Frame differences include dropout spacing and frame sizing, completely away from angles and geometry, which don't make a blind bit of difference according to you.
Lets give it a car analogy...
Touring cars = road bikes
WRC cars = cross bikes
Land Rovers = mountain bikes
You can increase the ground clearance on a touring car and add some mud tyres, doesn't make it a Land Rover.
You could enter a Landy in a rally event - you'd be better in some places, but generally lose out.
They all have 4 wheels and an engine, but aren't the same thing.
This is the same. Because you can make your MTB look more like a cross bike does not make it a cross bike.
If that rule wasn't enforced it would have turned into yet another mountain bike race years ago and wouldn't be what it is today.
and why would anyone care ? To the extent that it matters at all, I'd think the participation was the thing, not winning or the type of bike used.
If the rules annoy SFB then that's reason enough to keep them...
except that I couldn't care less and just enjoy the fun of watching all the die hards crawl out from under their rocks to plead for the status quo 🙂
It's been explained
stuff has been said but it hardly amounts to an explanation, more an ad hominem attempted justification
why don't you go and see if you can answer these questions for yourself?
isn't that like the difference between sex and masturbation ?
You know I quickly read through the sections in the UCI link that relate to bike design, over lunch and although I am sure I must have missed something (yeah, like what the reakin point really is 😉 ) it actually looks like you could run that On One up there perfectly legally.
You would have to put on super skinny tyres and it would seem drop (or is it just non-flat) handlebars (maximum width of the whole bike cannot be more than 50cm, which is why some people were saying that you had to cut flat bars down to 50cm) but as far as frame geometry is concerned, that On One is good to go.
Which I am sure will horrify some of you.
Sigh....
No one is 'pleading for the status quo' simon. It is equally entertaining to see your own particular brand of disagreement applied, again, to this topic.
It is a particular race, run since 1961, as a cyclo-cross race. During the early days of the UK mountain bike scene, riders like Nick Craig, Tim Gould, Fred Salmon et al were sponspored by mountain bike companies, but they all had a more traditional background as cyclo cross riders. They did use mountain bikes in the 3 Peaks; cross rules allow bike changes, so I recollect that the descents were done on mountain bikes then bikes were changed for the road sections.
This led to an entirely predictable increase in traffic supporting the race, and was considered to be detrimental to the whole ethos of the race itself.
Cyclocross was always a niche within cycling, and the advent of mountain biking threatened to see it off altogether, hence the insistence on cyclocross bikes. As you know, it's about tradition, about preserving the particular character of the race, about helping to keep something alive.
If you would like to do it, the race organiser would like you to do it on a bike that is not a mountain bike. As noted above, it's easy to understand.
If you would like to debate exactly what it is that makes something a mountain bike as opposed to a cross bike please feel free.
[i]Which I am sure will horrify some of you[/i]
I've ridden it on a cyclocross bike with flat bars, sorry but I'm resolutely unhorrified...
If you would like to debate exactly what it is that makes something a mountain bike as opposed to a cross bike please feel free.
I kind of thought that's what we were doing.....
I've ridden it on a cyclocross bike with flat bars, sorry but I'm resolutely unhorrified...
So have I. It was an On One 29er with rigid forks. I wasn't horrified either but it's not for me.
If I was ever to do it again, which would involve some kind of rejuvenation technique as yet undiscovered, I would ride it on a drop bar cyclocross bike, because I like them and I like the whole atmosphere surrounding the race.
My personal opinion is that it is different because of the way 'mountain bikes' are excluded, and I would be sorry to see that ruling changed.
Cross is a great niche bit of bike racing, long may it remain so.
isn't tradition all about doing things for reasons everyone has forgotten? I think the vigour and range of different justifications offered are symptomatic of semi-religious irrationality - if the defense were not so fervid it might pass unnoticed!
I'm even less interested in the sfb definition of 'tradition' than I am in the 'what makes a cross bike not a mountain bike' question.
I'm even less interested in the sfb definition of 'tradition'
let's not start a competition about what we're less interested in 🙂
Jesus I'm glad I'm not paying your lot's wages. Who does? They need to know.
What is a cyclocross bike?
a bike designed for cyclocross racing.
it's not difficult if you think about it.
a bike designed for cyclocross racing.
it's not difficult if you think about it.
think in circles that is...
They're even spelt differently.