Eroica founder discussing launch of pro gravel race series with UCI

Xenophon2 wrote:

For Christ's sake don't let the UCI rulemakers in.  Before you know it they'll regulate every single aspect and then some.

The sport is desperate for something new. The old Tour format with a bunch of people pedalling away for weeks on end in a format that is at best confusing and at worst totally off-putting isn't bringing any new sponsors or viewers.

However, gravel riding, while it's new and interesting and has the potential to bring in new/ different sponsors, it's almost impossible to televise in any meaningful fashion. There's no 'bunch' of riders, potentially no fixed route (if you're trying to follow something like GBDuro) and that means you can't showcase it. So you need some rules and some way of framing the event to create a narrative, a story that you can package and sell to the public and the sponsors.

I don't agree with everything suggested, like restricted gears - watching a rider walking up a gravel hill isn't exactly riveting TV. If I wanted to watch riders walking up a hill I'd stand on Winnats Pass next time they run a Sportive up there.

But yeah, for better or worse, it needs some sort of structure and it needs international recognition and marketing so it's the UCI or nothing. The other option of course is that it could be left to a bunch of people watching dots on a computer which isn't going to get in sponsors, new viewers or new cash!

mattsccm wrote:

Not o sure about the body fat thing but other wise, a sound idea. Not having radios is probably the best thing but I would have to think that phones would also be included. Gears? huh!   So what? It's meant to be hard. 

The thing I hate about this whole idea is all of the regulations.  That's one of the great things about what gravel races are now is that they are largely unregulated.  If you can ride it, bring it.  Mountain bikes, CX bikes, road bikes... they are all there, not just gravel bikes.  

Limiting the gears you can use is just a gateway to more frame size regulations, approved frames, forks, can you or can't you use aero bars.  The same BS the UCI has introduced into everything else.  

As for the other stuff, I'm all for no radios, no support vehicles, etc., but the "no computers" thing is going a bit far.  Being self supported should also mean self navigated, riders need to at least be allowed GPS tracking.  

TheBillder wrote:

Jolly glad he's thinking about races longer than 00 km. All those less than that are disappointing viewing. The man's a visionary.

have you not heard of the races where they pedal backwards down the mountain?

Miller wrote:

This sounded good right up until the bit where they want to ban fit people and modern bikes.

Banning people with less than 6% body fat is not banning fit people, you lunatic.

vonhelmet wrote:

Miller wrote:

This sounded good right up until the bit where they want to ban fit people and modern bikes.

Banning people with less than 6% body fat is not banning fit people, you lunatic.

Depending on the person, it potentially is.  I've been under 6% and perfectly fit, mind you that was 20+ years ago, but you can be ~5% and fit.  Gravel should be inclusive, not exclusive, and just about everything about what he's suggesting makes me hate the idea.  

IrrelevantD wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Miller wrote:

This sounded good right up until the bit where they want to ban fit people and modern bikes.

Banning people with less than 6% body fat is not banning fit people, you lunatic.

Depending on the person, it potentially is.  I've been under 6% and perfectly fit, mind you that was 20+ years ago, but you can be ~5% and fit.  Gravel should be inclusive, not exclusive, and just about everything about what he's suggesting makes me hate the idea.  

Ok, fair enough, I read it as him saying anyone with body fat above 6% was unfit, but maybe I'm misreading.