How does the Three Peaks Cyclocross race work?

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 ‘master 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 John 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:

and this:

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?

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.

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?

As if just repeating that phrase like a mantra is going to suddenly make the whole thing clear to me.

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.

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?

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 UCI 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.

Which I am sure will horrify some of you

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.