T. Kenji Sugahara

That's racing.

You get neutralized with a group off the front- that's the way it
goes. It's then up to the pack to try to chase them down. A break
gets neutralized, them the breaks. (No pun intended). If someone
times a break with a neutral- it's gotta be within reason. Ken's has
some great points.

It's an intriguing idea about the one rider but probably not the
best. That's a lot of responsibility on one person, and there's too
many variables involved. e.g. what happens if that person has a
mechanical, gets shelled (has a bad race) or is at the back when the
neutral happens.

What would be awesome is if we had a motorcycle in front of each of
the groups. That would be the cake, but unfortunately, I don't think
we have the resources to pull that off.

As with anything, I think communication is key. The lead rider of
the overtaking group should always let the slower group know. It's
also the responsibility of the riders in the slower group to pass the
message up. Holding the line is the best option, whichever side most
of the riders are on, stick with it.

On May 10, 2007, at 9:03 AM, John Gleaves wrote:

> What about when the group being overtaken has a break up the road?
> What is the responsibility of the slower breakaway when being passed
> by the faster group?
>
> Also, I know a couple of times this year a bell has been rung for a
> 3/4 hotspot when either the 1/2/3 is right behind or right in front
> which leads to the enevitable acceleration of the 3/4 and tend to lead
> to many of the problems.
>
> I know the officials do their best, so when this is the case, the 3/4
> etiquette should be to neutralize to make sure the 1/2/3 field is
> completly uncatchable. Perhaps that means a little longer than the
> usual overtaking?
>
> I do know the hardest part of the neutralizing is when the 3/4 has a
> break up the road and the peleton has to sit there and watch their
> break gain an advantage while they are soft pedaling. I guess this
> gives a little advantage to the guys willing to try breaks at PIR, but
> if they have the guts to try a break that 9/10 times will be pulled
> back, then we should be willing, perhaps, to just sacrifice that bit
> of frustration.
>
> One other thought is to designate one rider with experience who is
> willing to be the guy who goes to the front and holds the 3/4 until he
> or she deems it time to let the racing start again? It would kind of
> be like a yellow flag at a NASCAR.
>
>
>
> On 5/10/07, Ken Finch wrote:
>> 1) Candi makes a good point. Always neutralizing to one side or
>> the other has never worked since the peloton snakes from left to
>> right depending on the direction of the turns. I think the over
>> taking group should always determine to which side they pass.
>>
>> 2) A 500 meter gap between groups before attacking is a bit much.
>> That's well over a quarter mile. That would be very hard to
>> enforce. I think the gap should be big enough to ensure that there
>> is no interaction between the groups and leave it at that. For
>> instance, no attacking into the back of the faster group that just
>> passed you.
>>
>> One thing that I think needs to be addressed is attacking out of a
>> group that is about to be passed. Some wiley people in the slower
>> groups time their attacks just before they know the group will be
>> neutralized. Or it happens inadvertently, as happened with me a
>> couple weeks ago. I was in a group of 3 who had attacked off the
>> front and had approx a 100 meter gap when the main group got
>> neutralized. After the race it was apparent that they expected us
>> to sit up as well, even though we were well up the course. In my
>> opinion if you've got that big a gap, you're a seperate group and
>> shouldn't have to neutralize with the rest of the pack. But, what
>> should that gap be?
>>
>> Having set distances for these things will always be hard to
>> enforce though, as estimating distances while racing will always
>> be subjective. I like performance measurments such as "no
>> interaction" or "no effect" much better then "100 meters" or "500
>> meters".
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

John Gleaves

What about when the group being overtaken has a break up the road?
What is the responsibility of the slower breakaway when being passed
by the faster group?

Also, I know a couple of times this year a bell has been rung for a
3/4 hotspot when either the 1/2/3 is right behind or right in front
which leads to the enevitable acceleration of the 3/4 and tend to lead
to many of the problems.

I know the officials do their best, so when this is the case, the 3/4
etiquette should be to neutralize to make sure the 1/2/3 field is
completly uncatchable. Perhaps that means a little longer than the
usual overtaking?

I do know the hardest part of the neutralizing is when the 3/4 has a
break up the road and the peleton has to sit there and watch their
break gain an advantage while they are soft pedaling. I guess this
gives a little advantage to the guys willing to try breaks at PIR, but
if they have the guts to try a break that 9/10 times will be pulled
back, then we should be willing, perhaps, to just sacrifice that bit
of frustration.

One other thought is to designate one rider with experience who is
willing to be the guy who goes to the front and holds the 3/4 until he
or she deems it time to let the racing start again? It would kind of
be like a yellow flag at a NASCAR.

On 5/10/07, Ken Finch wrote:
> 1) Candi makes a good point. Always neutralizing to one side or the other has never worked since the peloton snakes from left to right depending on the direction of the turns. I think the over taking group should always determine to which side they pass.
>
> 2) A 500 meter gap between groups before attacking is a bit much. That's well over a quarter mile. That would be very hard to enforce. I think the gap should be big enough to ensure that there is no interaction between the groups and leave it at that. For instance, no attacking into the back of the faster group that just passed you.
>
> One thing that I think needs to be addressed is attacking out of a group that is about to be passed. Some wiley people in the slower groups time their attacks just before they know the group will be neutralized. Or it happens inadvertently, as happened with me a couple weeks ago. I was in a group of 3 who had attacked off the front and had approx a 100 meter gap when the main group got neutralized. After the race it was apparent that they expected us to sit up as well, even though we were well up the course. In my opinion if you've got that big a gap, you're a seperate group and shouldn't have to neutralize with the rest of the pack. But, what should that gap be?
>
> Having set distances for these things will always be hard to enforce though, as estimating distances while racing will always be subjective. I like performance measurments such as "no interaction" or "no effect" much better then "100 meters" or "500 meters".
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>

Ken Finch

1) Candi makes a good point. Always neutralizing to one side or the other has never worked since the peloton snakes from left to right depending on the direction of the turns. I think the over taking group should always determine to which side they pass.

2) A 500 meter gap between groups before attacking is a bit much. That's well over a quarter mile. That would be very hard to enforce. I think the gap should be big enough to ensure that there is no interaction between the groups and leave it at that. For instance, no attacking into the back of the faster group that just passed you.

One thing that I think needs to be addressed is attacking out of a group that is about to be passed. Some wiley people in the slower groups time their attacks just before they know the group will be neutralized. Or it happens inadvertently, as happened with me a couple weeks ago. I was in a group of 3 who had attacked off the front and had approx a 100 meter gap when the main group got neutralized. After the race it was apparent that they expected us to sit up as well, even though we were well up the course. In my opinion if you've got that big a gap, you're a seperate group and shouldn't have to neutralize with the rest of the pack. But, what should that gap be?

Having set distances for these things will always be hard to enforce though, as estimating distances while racing will always be subjective. I like performance measurments such as "no interaction" or "no effect" much better then "100 meters" or "500 meters".

Candi Murray

Good comments.

1. I do not think that having the slowing group move to one side or the
other is a good idea. It tends to lead to confusion and put riders in harms
way. I think holding your line and slowing is a better idea. Like in
downhill skiing it is the faster riders responsibility to pass the slower
riders. Thoughts?

2. No attacks is absolutely correct and offending riders should be
disqualified.

3. If there is a breakaway of the faster group I think that should be
accomplished without any neutralization if that group is small enough.

6. There must be no drafting or cooperation between the riders in both
fields. These are separate races and they should be earned upon their own
merit.

More?
Candi

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Cheryl and Scott McElroy
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 7:56 PM
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Let's start a new topic - Neutralizing
andOvertaking at PIR

1) The overtaking field should be required to announce neutral, and
depending on race direction, the field being overtaken should understand
that they should immediately line up to the outside ie. Clockwise direction
= left/outside, Counter clockwise = right/outside

2) There should be no attacks in the overtaking field during the
neutral period

3) The faster field should not alter their speed, or should increase
speed slightly without attacks unless they are already established before
the neutral. In the event of a breakaway/riders off the front of the faster
field, they should signal neutral, and something to the effect of "off the
front" to signal that their field is following and that another neutral will
be required.

4) There appears to be adequate width on the PIR course to allow a very
wide berth during a neutral. Caveat would be that both fields should
attempt to line up to each side of the course as much as possible. This can
be led by the lead riders in each field.

5) Riders in the 2nd field should be allowed to attack after a sizable
gap is established. This is a tough one and hard to enforce. Perhaps after
there is approximately 500 meters between the last rider in the faster field
and the lead rider in the neutral field.

-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Candi Murray
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 7:25 PM
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: [OBRA Chat] Let's start a new topic - Neutralizing and Overtaking
at PIR

So let's come up with some guidelines

What should happen when a field is caught and passed? By both groups
Should the faster group announce itself?
How close should the faster group pass?
When can riders in the 2nd group attack?

What else?
Candi

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Neil Green

It seams pretty straight forward to slow down and let the faster group
pass...especially when both groups are yelling NUTRAL.

In the case of the Monday CAT 4/5 field last lap, there were a group of
riders on the front that didn't want to slow, even when the rest of the pack
was slowing.

We finally got back together (or so we thought) right before the last corner
and began to speed up for the sprint.

We almost caught the CAT 1/2/3 group by the finish line, which added more
confussion for the officials (I would think).

If we would have slowed when we were first caught, this wouldn't have been
an issue...

My thoughts
Neil

>From: "Cheryl and Scott McElroy"
>To:
>Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Let's start a new topic - Neutralizing
>andOvertaking at PIR
>Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 19:55:51 -0700
>
>1) The overtaking field should be required to announce neutral, and
>depending on race direction, the field being overtaken should understand
>that they should immediately line up to the outside ie. Clockwise direction
>= left/outside, Counter clockwise = right/outside
>
>2) There should be no attacks in the overtaking field during the
>neutral period
>
>3) The faster field should not alter their speed, or should increase
>speed slightly without attacks unless they are already established before
>the neutral. In the event of a breakaway/riders off the front of the
>faster
>field, they should signal neutral, and something to the effect of "off the
>front" to signal that their field is following and that another neutral
>will
>be required.
>
>4) There appears to be adequate width on the PIR course to allow a very
>wide berth during a neutral. Caveat would be that both fields should
>attempt to line up to each side of the course as much as possible. This
>can
>be led by the lead riders in each field.
>
>5) Riders in the 2nd field should be allowed to attack after a sizable
>gap is established. This is a tough one and hard to enforce. Perhaps
>after
>there is approximately 500 meters between the last rider in the faster
>field
>and the lead rider in the neutral field.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
>Behalf Of Candi Murray
>Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 7:25 PM
>To: obra@list.obra.org
>Subject: [OBRA Chat] Let's start a new topic - Neutralizing and Overtaking
>at PIR
>
>So let's come up with some guidelines
>
>What should happen when a field is caught and passed? By both groups
>Should the faster group announce itself?
>How close should the faster group pass?
>When can riders in the 2nd group attack?
>
>What else?
>Candi
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OBRA mailing list
>obra@list.obra.org
>http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>OBRA mailing list
>obra@list.obra.org
>http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_________________________________________________________________
See what you?re getting into?before you go there
http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507