Road and Track licence points

[Richard Kennedy]

Should BC licence points for road and track be separate?

Currently only track events of over 3km count for licence points i.e. Endurance track events, sprint events get no points, the thinking behind that decision being that someone who can win a distance event on the track is also likely to be a good rider on the road.

Previously (pre 2006) all track events used to get points.

[Thomo]

I say no points should be awarded that has any effect on road licence points and category. Keep them completely seperate. Track points are ok in their own right.

Paul
_________________

[Richard Kennedy]

[xixang]

track and road should be separate. Not sure how the new ruling has changed things but I have known 1st and 2nd cat riders (purely off track points) not hacking it on 20 mile crits. I'm sure the reverse would apply to me if i were to attempt track

[xixang]

[Richard Kennedy]

[Bally]

How about those riders who want track points can claim them, those that don't want them - don't.

This means that track events shouldn't suffer from a drop in numbers (due to roadies not riding them coz no points available - as has happened before) and trackies who only ride the odd road race won't have to ride in races above their ability.
_________________
Bally: Putting the @rse into Grass.
www.easterleycycling.org.uk/CycleStatsLite.exe for Gears, Revs, Speed, BBAR calc, Pursuit Scheduling etc.
"your power is truly awesome" - John McC
"real class" - George Gilbert"

[IainW]

Track shouln't get any points, unless they are called track points, but then there would be another discussion to split sprint from endurance.

In the case of riders like Malcom Elliot, the organisers and officialls know who has class, (or they should do), it's just the same for an overseas visitor, they come for the competition, not to roll round in a chipper.

[brummie_tom]

I reckon elite licences should not be related to points but awarded to riders who are really 'elite' such as the old rule that top 75 premier calender points scorers were elite (even this may be a bit too many?), with obvious exceptions such as foreign based pros/elite amateurs (ie elite 2 in France or the equivalent in italy etc) in europe being given elite licences through communication with BC.

This would make being an elite mean exactly that whereas now, especially since there are no 1st cat only races, there appears to be no real difference between e and 1.

[martin smith]

in mtb your road cat influences your mtb cat but to a lower extent - could a similar system be used? so a 1st cat on the track would be a second cat on the road even with no road points for example. those who are clearly elite in both are likely to be riding for trade teams anyway so wouldn't they have elite licences automatically?
_________________
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

[John McC]

The question is flawed as there is no such thing as a BC road licence. Personally I think the present system is o.k. as it doesn't penalise road and track all rounders (as seperate points would) and doesn't give loads of points to trackies for all the events under 3km.
_________________
John McClelland's victory in the motor paced event with Derek Marloe on the derny was a thing of beauty (Oldmanof)

[John McC]

[George Gilbert]

The ultimate aim of a points system is (in my opinion) two fold.

- First, to seperate out riders of different abilities so that they can compete amongst other riders of similar abilities for "good" racing.

- Second, to provide an incentive scheme for competing (i.e. having a higher total of points somehow infers status / kudos upon yourself.

The current system gives (again, only in my opinion) too much weight to the second of these, and not enough to the first. In particular, it is relatively easy for riders to enter lots of chipper events and accumulate lots of points without being really any good (relatively speaking). I'm sure most people can cite examples of riders that have a points category that is way above (and below) their "true" status.

In an ideal world, there'd be a system whereby your category reflects your status in each event (so crit points, road points, track endurance points, track sprint points, grass track points etc etc etc etc) however that would be unweildy and there aren't enough events to accumulate sufficient points in a given discipline to make any of these specific classifications meaningful.

The point is that any points system is going to be a compromise between accuracy and usefulness - it'll never be perfect.

Off the top of my head, I'd suggest that if road and track points were split then there would be some kind of transferrable system so that ability in one would be (partially) reflected in the status of another. For example, the track category would be no less than 2 below the road category (and vice versa so an elite track rider would automatically gain 2nd cat road status).

I'm sure there are probably problems with that at the fringes too, but at least that way you wouldn't get very good track riders lumped in with 4th cats in road races etc.

[Thomo]

[dockeca]

Can I pose a question - when did anyone ever see a track event for E/1/2 only, for example? From what I can see there appears to be no need whatever to have catagories for track anyway, and hence the need for the ever-discussed points is (pardon the pun) pointless for a track rider. Just issue 1st cat licences to GB trackies, (not Elite, don't get started on that again...), and everyone else gets on with the racing, whatever their "road" category.
All it needs is a bit of common sense.
_________________
Doc

"Any views expressed are entirely my own and not representative of any organisation of which I may or may not be a member. Unless I say otherwise."
"A Libertarian Crackpot" H.Peel

[Hans Datdodishes]

[John McC]

[John McC]

[George Gilbert]

The key question is - what is the point of being awarded points in a track race? Answer that one and everything else will fall into place.

As has already been mentioned above, track points give no reflection on a persons ability in a road race (in both directions) and serve no useful purpose in distinguishing ability in track races (with no races limiting who can enter by points and organisers splitting fields by perceived ability).

In fact, the only observable purpose of awarding points on the track is to allow people to gain points for their own sake to artificially inflate their status (i.e. so people can strut around saying that they're a elite or whatever). As John mentioned, when they tried to do away with awarding points for track races, entries plummeted. People were only entering to gain points.

So, it seems the only reason for having points for track races is to ensure there are enough entries to make events viable. A really poor (but necessary until someone comes up with a better plan) reason for having them. A shame really.

[John McC]