The long, complex debate over the length and structure of the cyclocross season has arguably proved more intriguing than most of the racing this winter, dividing riders, prompting bizarre public outbursts from UCI presidents and disgraced former team bosses, and highlighting the inherent difficulties in growing a sport seemingly reliant on its multidiscipline stars.
But, with summer roadies like Mathieu van der Poel and Zoe Bäckstedt adding to their increasingly bulging collection of rainbow jerseys at the weekend, changes appear to be on their way in the world of cyclocross – thanks to the planned introduction of a condensed UCI World Cup calendar, designed to entice the MVDPs and WVAs of the world, who may otherwise not want to spend four cold, wintery months in a muddy field as they prepare for the Tour of Flanders.
According to reports in the Belgian media, Flanders Classics (the rights holder of the World Cup until 2018) is currently negotiating with the UCI over a new schedule that will mean the cyclocross’ premier competition – which runs from October to the end of January over 14 rounds – will take place entirely in December and January, and over 10 or 12 rounds.
> road.cc Podcast: Lucinda Brand and Eli Iserbyt on the future of cyclocross
The new calendar, which is set to be announced in the spring, will also ensure that World Cups do not fall on the same weekend as other major, traditionally important races (which potentially draw riders away from ‘foreign’ – in other words, non-Belgian or Dutch – World Cups), while aiming to expand cross’s global reach by including more far-flung races, such as the long-touted London event and, apparently, in other UK cities.
“The negotiations take a long time and that is normal. This is about the future of cyclocross,” Flanders Classics CEO Tomas van den Spiegel told HLN.
“The cyclist of the future is multidisciplinary. I’m not just talking about Van der Poel, Van Aert, and Pidcock. But also about Van Empel, Van Anrooij, Pieterse, Backstedt, and Thibau Nys. That is the next generation that emulates Mathieu, Wout and Tom.
“If you want to make cyclocross sustainable, we can no longer ask the riders to adapt to the calendar. Then it seems logical to me that the World Cup adapts to the rider of the future. We have to find a format that allows this type of riders to win the World Cup.
“Then we have to ensure that the World Cup is held in December and January, without wanting to touch the Christmas period. There are a number of historic races there, we should not want to thwart them. In the future it will still be possible to race cyclocross from September to the end of February. But in the big races it must be ensured that the best riders are at the start. This is also the case in other sports and for me that is the future of cyclocross.”
(Alex Whitehead/SWpix.com)
Meanwhile, the subject of the ‘cross calendar also came up in Mathieu van der Poel’s post-race interviews with the Dutch press, after the all-round superstar secured his sixth world cyclocross championships, moving him just one rainbow jersey shy of the all-time men’s record set by Erik De Vlaeminck.
And while Van der Poel remains intent on cementing his status as the best ‘crosser of all time by surpassing De Vlaeminck, the abuse he’s received by some fans during his startlingly dominant winter has forced him to weigh up his future in the discipline in which he made his name, at least when it comes to competing for any extended period of time during the road off-season.
“I think that is the only motivation to start racing again in the winter,” Van der Poel told WielerFlits of his desire to reach that seventh ‘cross world title.
“The rest of the season, as I've said before, isn't important. There is only one race that counts and that is the World Championship.
“Showing that I am the best is not something I am concerned with. I'm just working on that record. Everyone still talks about that De Vlaeminck record. That's something people just don't forget. Even many years after his career, people talk about it. So those are the things that matter and keep me busy.”
He continued: “Sometimes I wonder if it's worth it to have beer poured over you every race. “Although that shouldn't influence the decision too much. On the other hand, I can't just let it pass.
“I still enjoy cyclo-cross, it's something I really like to do. But it's not just the ‘cross. It's everything that comes with it. It takes a lot of energy.
“A day like that on the cross simply demands a lot from you. The racing is perhaps the easiest part of the day. My focus is also more and more on the road, that is where my big goals lie.”
Add new comment
42 comments
"If we don’t stop it now, this unjustified rebellion led by an ultra-urban and anti-car minority will spread like gangrene to other cities.” Yes please.
One minute they want to take the bikes on the trams now they don't want trams omg make your minds up . Maybe if the tram doors were fitted with red lights they would be more attractive to ride straight on ,but the seats must be 1.5 mts apart to be safe
Mind the crap (with apologies to Banksy).
Oh, wait, I see what you did there
The mayor of Paris claims that reducing the number of SUVs in Paris is an important matter. I don't think she does and neither do Parisians.. If it was an important matter she would have just made the bye-law herself, there was no reason to call a referendum. When only 5% of the population come out to vote, you might as well throw a dice. The result is random, not democratic. Only 2.7% of the population voted for the mayor's SUV policy. The only real conclusion you can come to is that 97.3% of Parisians don't think it is important enough to vote for it.
The stats on the votes show approximately 45%, who voted, didn't want it.
If only 5% of the population came out to vote that means only something like less than 2..5% didn't want it.
I assume that most if not all of those 2.5% are owners of SUVs.
My questions are:
1) what percentage of people there (or are affected by this increase) own SUVs (presumably more than 2.5%)?
and
2) did those other SUV owners not vote against it because they didn't know about the vote or they don't care/can afford it?
No one needs an SUV. Full stop.
Try fitting a wheelchair into a small car ,I have a big gas guzzler but the chair only fits by a few mil it's the smallest I could get and still have a hoist fitted . Cars look big these days but most of it is the crash protection requirement ,there's actually less useable space inside than ever , and don't say get an electric ive never seen a charging point that gives a wheelchair user access space to use one .nobody thought of that .just a thought the bigger cars often have multiple bike racks on them to take our healthy bikes on holiday very eco friendly
Sorry to hear that, have a look at the VW Caddy, mine is great, size of a car and 55mpg+ too.
The energy saving trust did a report on challenges and some solutions:
https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/service/electric-vehicle-accessibility-...
If only we had safe spaces for people to wheel in the UK
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/who-else-benefits-from-the...
...or drive their Cantas.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ly7JjqEb0
Paris are not imposing parking charges on "SUVs" as such.
It is proposed to implement charges on heavy vehicles If that remains the sole crierion then some VW Caddy models exceed the proposed weight limit and would be chargeable - as would my works van, especially as I'm not a resident of Paris.
I've just read that, yes - seems SUVs don't enter into it, it's just ICE vehicles over 1.6 tonnes and EVs over 2 tonnes. So basically everything then. Seems like a very blunt object way to differentiate.
All these poor wheelchair users locked up for millennia before SUVs were invented...
You make me weep (your stupidity that is)!
It used to be possible to buy small sensibly shaped estate cars that could accomodate wheelchairs easily - the peugeot 405, or the ford focus estate (original shape) for example. These cars were relatively affordable. Even our Peugeot 5008 (old shape) is smaller than most SUVs. We only bought this (after exhaustive research) because a suitable small estate was no longer available. Don't mock - it might happen to you one day.
They don't but people like them and if you have kids the bloody car seats take up a huge amount of room. We have a 3008 which is very much a "small" SUV and at 6'2" I cannot sit comfortably in the drivers seat with the baby seat behind me. I'm sure its much safer that the old ones but my word are they bulky buggers these days.
I would have gone for an estate car as any good cyclist would but I was overruled by the missus. SUVs are almost never the most practical car but people, especially women seem to love the high up driving position.
On a related note, I was cycling for a few hours the other day and there seemed to be a glut of expensive new executive land rovers on the roads. They are absolute monstrousities. They genuinely don't fit on one side of the road on any normal sized road. Oversized, overweight and no doubt about as fuel efficient as a tank.
As you say estates would be a better and more practical bet for actual carrying people and things.
Perhaps you should have offered to say it with ... a truck cab (great elevated view out front! Probably get four kids up there next to you and nobody's pushing you around on the roads...)
Or if DIY-minded rig up an umpire's chair through the sunroof.
There is deffo something to the psychology of the elevated driving position. Even though with the chunkier door pillars and restricted close-in view in front / back your view is often worse people feel they can see better.
But yes - although the category "SUV" has expanded faster than the cars themselves for "the original use" the only thing they are particularly good for is "transporting fragile egos".
I agree with your sentiment , however, Paris isn't imposing additional charges on SUVs they are imposing them on "heavy" vehicles.
If the scheme is implemented just on weight (and not additional criteria such as 4x4) then I believe some models of the Peugeot 3008 exceed the weight limit and would be chargeable (if you don't reside in Paris). If anyone has evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to be corrected.
The vast majority of SUVs, some MPV's and larger estates would fall fould of the weight limit. I had a 2006 Honda Accord with a 2.2l turbo diesel which was just over the limit with a near empty fuel tank. The only SUV models that would fall under the weight limit are the smaller type SUVs and the Hatchback Crossovers providing they are fitted with petrol/gasoline and not large diesel engines.
Could tall people not fit in a car before SUVs were invented?
My father in-law is 6'3" and drove a Mk 2 Polo for years, even driving the family over to SW Ireland. It probably wasn't ideal (my brother in-law is the same height). I'm not that tall and drove Mk2 Polos for many years, including with 2 children in the back. We never had any issues getting them or the child seats in or out, despite it only being a small 2-door car.
One solution would be to choose a smaller car that makes better use of the space. When my in-laws bought a Honda Civic (2002/2003 I think) it was a revelation in that regard. Most people appear to select a car with their heart, not the head.
While not an SUV, I do need my 19 year old 4x4 and am probably more eco friendly than you! Unless you live in a Passiv House, my heating bill in this UK winter has been around £30... And yours?
I'm not one who stubbornly picks tradition over practicality of future but I have to agree with Dan Martin, and I hope that the Saudi PIF interest goes nowhere.
1. I don't want to see their blood money in sport.
2. Cycling has its quirks laid in its tradition, and circuit racing won't replace the Monuments, Spring Classics or Grand Tours. Whilst circuit racing could be more sustainable, it might not provide the drama or throw up as many surprises as traditional racing. It also narrows the field of potential winners, because Climbers and GC riders would be disadvantaged in a circuit series against Puncheurs and Sprinters who would effectively win 99% of those types of races. Even on a circuit 15-20km long.
Whilst I share Dan Martin's over-arching scepticism, I agree with your rationale more than his.
Circuit races make more sense from a purely financial position; easier and cheaper to cover the entire race for broadcasting, can enclose audience and charge more for tickets, etc. But it doesn't make sense from the sport point of view, you kill off the races-within-a-race and the performances are homogenised and sanitised.
Sadly greed will always play a part. With a big enough prize fund, enough people can be convinced to ignore tradition for the classics to fall, however £250m isn't going to cut it
£250m is a drop in the ocean compared to what LIV Golf, Newcastle United and other PIF funded investments have recieved in recent years. They have enough in reserves to pump more in if they don't get the desired result.
Echoing some other comments on here re the proposal to build on the Roseburn route I truly despair at our council.
Quite apart from any pros and cons, any sensible pragmatic official would recognize there's not a snowballs chance on hell of getting the £2B funding and therefore look to what else they can do with their time. But no, our lot want to pour countless thousands down the drain on consultations and feasibility studies. Aren't we fortunate there's nothing else that needs doing with the limited money they have in their budget.
Paris: let's make it tough for the biggest pollutants.
Edinburgh: hold my beer ...
One for wtjs, spotted yesterday:
Somehow cyclist avoids being wiped out by chance
https://youtu.be/MBKEZPklouc?t=101
This driver doesn't know the highway code on roundabouts and cyclists
Cyclist was also brave (or foolhardy !)
https://youtu.be/uguic0oQauY?t=75
In that first clip, its very worrying that the clip-submitter can't understand why the cyclist might wave a fist at the bus driver who has nearly killed them.
And at the beginning of the second video, I think the cyclist there has a point - says that motorists can't see beyond the cyclist right in front of them. They MGIF of the cyclist, and the rest of the world ceases to exist. Happened to me twice this morning
The turnout was shockingly low.
But a majority is a majority...
Pages