RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Cyclo-Cross


Archive Home >> Cyclo-Cross(1 2 3 )


BARRIERS: yes/no, less/more?????(8 posts)

BARRIERS: yes/no, less/more?????Big-foot
Oct 31, 2003 12:17 PM
I'm the promoter of the upcoming Redwood Cyclocross Series up here in beautiful Humboldt County. Round 1 is Nov. 22.

Question: Some of the riders are suggesting that I follow the UCI's lead and either eliminate barriers altogether, or cut back to only a 2 or 3.

Personally I feel that without barriers it ain't nothing but a smooth-course-shortrack-XC.

Whatchall think????
re: BARRIERS: yes/no, less/more?????flyweight
Oct 31, 2003 1:35 PM
I think, as is the case in Europe, it all depends on the course. Courses with lots of tight twists and turns and natural run-ups don't need barriers. Courses with lots of hardpack and straight sections do need barriers. All depends on the terrain.
I agree 100% but find a place for at least 1 setskateparks
Oct 31, 2003 3:02 PM
Also, I just did a race with a set of 6" barriers that was kinda' cool.

-tom
Yes to Barriers but....cxrcr
Oct 31, 2003 3:40 PM
As Flyweight said, "it all depends on the course". I was at the Zolder World Championships that created all the commotion about not having barriers...and guess what? The course was more interesting and challenging than almost half the courses I have raced on here in the good ol' US of A.

Barriers have their place in cyclocross; however, many promoters just throw them in because they see it as a part of the sport with no forethought as to were they should be located. Cyclocross is a race of transitions, riding your bike through a variety of surfaces with different pitches, cambers, and degrees of corners. In the end, it is still about bike riding (IMHO). If you must have barriers to break things up, make sure that they are well planned and not just thrown somewhere because it is 1) flat or 2)an easy hill that you would rather have turned into a run up. Think about what the riders have just ridden through and what they have coming up. Ideally you want a course that flows from one part to the next...I know that is hard to describe but once you have ridden a course that does...it all makes sense.

Also, sets of more than 2 (or even 3) are silly. If you want to make a longer running section there are different ways to accomplish it...snake a corner with one barrier at the entrance and another about 15 ft further down with a corner coming out of it. There are many different combinations that one can come up with. Do NOT repeat NOT put the barriers closer together to stop people from bunny hopping them. There is a reason that the rules keep them farther apart...trip on one and landing on the next will probably ruin a season for someone.
Yes to Barriers but....flyweight
Oct 31, 2003 5:12 PM
"make sure that they are well planned and not just thrown somewhere because it is 1) flat or 2)an easy hill that you would rather have turned into a run up."

I've seen promoters in both the Bay Area and Seattle Area do EXACTLY that! I've actually heard them say during warm-ups: "Too many people are riding up that hill, we need to put in a barrier"

My other big pet peeve is poorly designed pit placement. We had problems with an unsafe pit design at the Stumptown UCI race and also this past weekend at Steilacoom. Sometimes I think people forget to consult the riders/mechanics when designing the courses.

But to their credit, at least they're doing it. Putting on a race is sooooo much hard work.
Yes to Barriers but....ASiegel993
Oct 31, 2003 6:14 PM
So let's see here, you raced at Steilacoom this weekend. Your team is sponsored by Kona. One of your guys destroyed Alison Dunlap if I recall you saying that correctly. Let's just take a WILD guess out of the blue. You race for Rad?

I had no problem with them putting the barrier at the bottom of the run-up this weekend. I thought it was well placed and that the hill should've been a run-up. I ran up it during my race, but that was before the barrier was put in. I thought it was kinda stupid and no fun if people were riding up that. If they could hop it and then ride up, then they absolutely should be able to. Maybe I was just too eager to run, since that was the strongest part of my race, but I thought the run-up was way more interesting if you actually ran up it.
-Siegel
Yes to Barriers but....flyweight
Nov 3, 2003 9:21 AM
Don't race, just wrench. Yeah, I'm their mechanic. Don't really have time to race and take care of them.

I'm more old school so I also prefer more barriers. Also makes it more fun to watch. That said, in terms of course planning, you should have a better reason for barrier placement than simply wanting to force them into running up a hill. You need to consider the overall flow of the course.
re: BARRIERS: yes/no, less/more?????climbo
Oct 31, 2003 3:28 PM
keep 1 or 2 if you can, if it's a UCI race the UCI official may make you remove them no matter what you want, you are only supposed to have 1 artificial obstacle. You should try to incorporate dismounts in other ways, steep unrideable sections, stairs, sand, anything you can find. You can have up to 4 dismount sections.