Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [USAICO] Commission meeting

Expand Messages
  • Alan Atwood
    I feel that this one should get top priority. While C1 races should be held to higher standards and be strictly bound by the UCI regulations, this one is
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 17, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I feel that this one should get top priority.  While C1 races should be held to higher standards and be strictly bound by the UCI regulations, this one is unrealistic for any North American country.  In Europe it fits better because there are many more countries within a 1000 mile radius; but in North America, you have Canada and the U.S. who participate in cyclocross, but that's it.  Not Mexico, not any other central American or south American country participates in cyclocross.
       
      We don't want to be getting constant pardons and exceptions to the rules, but this rule in particular needs to be tailored to the areas that have limited options to import foreign riders.  I'm sure countries like Japan and Australia which have lots of cycling activity could benefit from an adjustment here as well and perhaps would even allow cross to grow and flourish there.
       
      Thanks,

      Alan



      To: USAICO@yahoogroups.com
      From: ctmcdaniel@...
      Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:36:52 -0400
      Subject: RE: [USAICO] Commission meeting

      I'm concerned about the 10 foreign riders from 5 different countries that
      would be necessary to hold on to C1 status.

      I don't have a counter proposal. I'm not even sure if we consistently get
      ten foreign riders and the 5 different countries is way beyond what Granogue
      can currently count on.

      Tom McDaniel
      Granogue Cross

      -----Original Message-----
      From: USAICO@yahoogroups. com [mailto:USAICO@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
      Adam Myerson
      Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:24 PM
      To: USAICO
      Subject: [USAICO] Commission meeting

      Organizers,

      I have a commission meeting via conference call this Thursday morning.

      If there's a topic you feel needs addressing, please pass it along, and I
      will do my best.

      Adam
      --
      Adam F. Myerson
      President, Cycle-Smart, Inc.: Solutions for Cycling
      Member, UCI Cyclo-Cross Commission
      Member, AIOC-Cross Management Committee
      Organizer, Cycle-Smart International Cyclo-Cross

      32 Ditson St., #5
      Dorchester, MA 02122
      (413) 204-3202 Mobile
      (617) 288-1460 Office
      (512) 681-7043 Fax
      adam@cycle-smart. com
      http://cycle- smart.com

      Yahoo! Groups Links


    • Tom McDaniel
      Tom I don t understand the issue. Current UCI start area is 6m wide 10m deep with 8 lanes. Each lane is 75cm wide. If you have bigger fields then you have
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 17, 2006
      • 0 Attachment

        Tom

         

        I don’t understand the issue.  Current UCI start area is 6m wide  10m deep with 8 lanes.  Each lane is 75cm wide.

         

        If you have bigger fields then you have to extend the 10 meter deep section because each bike takes up about 2m so the official UCI grid only holds about 40 riders.

        At Granogue we made the grid about 26m deep to allow for up to 125 riders.

         

        Tom McDaniel

         


        From: USAICO@yahoogroups.com [mailto: USAICO@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Tom Stevens
        Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:44 AM
        To: USAICO@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [USAICO] Commission meeting

         

        Adam,

        As you remember, I would like the issue of the start line up addressed. I would like the ruling to be; at least 8/row with 75 cm per rider. As opposed to 8/row.

        Thanks

        Tom Stevens

        Adam Myerson <adam@...> wrote:

        Organizers,

        I have a commission meeting via conference call this Thursday morning.

        If there's a topic you feel needs addressing, please pass it along, and I
        will do my best.

        Adam
        --
        Adam F. Myerson
        President, Cycle-Smart, Inc.: Solutions for Cycling
        Member, UCI Cyclo-Cross Commission
        Member, AIOC-Cross Management Committee
        Organizer, Cycle-Smart International Cyclo-Cross

        32 Ditson St., #5
        Dorchester , MA 02122
        (413) 204-3202 Mobile
        (617) 288-1460 Office
        (512) 681-7043 Fax
        adam@...
        http://cycle-smart.com






        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USAICO/

        <*> Your email settings:
        Individual Email | Traditional

        <*> To change settings online go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USAICO/join
        (Yahoo! ID required)

        <*> To change settings via email:
        mailto:USAICO-digest@yahoogroups.com
        mailto:USAICO-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        USAICO-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


      • Adam Myerson
        Tom Steven s point is that if your start stretch is wide enough to accommodate more than 8 lanes, you should be permitted to have more. At least is the
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 17, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Tom Steven's point is that if your start stretch is wide enough to
          accommodate more than 8 lanes, you should be permitted to have more.

          "At least" is the phrase in question with this rule. Does it HAVE to be 8
          lanes, or should it be "at least" 8 lanes.

          I've discussed this with Peter before, and we were the first ones to raise
          the question.

          Adam


          on 10/17/06 11:37 AM, Tom McDaniel at ctmcdaniel@... wrote:

          > Tom
          >
          >
          >
          > I don't understand the issue. Current UCI start area is 6m wide 10m deep
          > with 8 lanes. Each lane is 75cm wide.
          >
          >
          >
          > If you have bigger fields then you have to extend the 10 meter deep section
          > because each bike takes up about 2m so the official UCI grid only holds
          > about 40 riders.
          >
          > At Granogue we made the grid about 26m deep to allow for up to 125 riders.
          >
          >
          >
          > Tom McDaniel
          >
          >
          >
          > _____
          >
          > From: USAICO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:USAICO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
          > Tom Stevens
          > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:44 AM
          > To: USAICO@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [USAICO] Commission meeting
          >
          >
          >
          > Adam,
          >
          > As you remember, I would like the issue of the start line up addressed. I
          > would like the ruling to be; at least 8/row with 75 cm per rider. As opposed
          > to 8/row.
          >
          > Thanks
          >
          > Tom Stevens
          >
          > Adam Myerson <adam@...> wrote:
          >
          > Organizers,
          >
          > I have a commission meeting via conference call this Thursday morning.
          >
          > If there's a topic you feel needs addressing, please pass it along, and I
          > will do my best.
          >
          > Adam
        • Joel Brown
          RATS!... Do you mean I¹ve been the fool wiring money to some bank in Switzerland, when I could have been sending a check? You¹d think that after five years
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 17, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Re: [USAICO] Commission meeting RATS!... Do you mean I’ve been the fool wiring money to some bank in Switzerland, when I could have been sending a check? You’d think that after five years I’d have figured this out.

            Joel


            On 10/17/06 9:14 AM, "Tom McDaniel" <ctmcdaniel@...> wrote:


             
             

            We have used a paper check from our regular bank account and US postal service air mail.  Never had a problem with UCI not cashing the check.
             

            Tom
            Granogue Cross
             


            From: USAICO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:USAICO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joel Brown
            Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:32 AM
            To: USAICO
            Subject: Re: [USAICO] Commission meeting

            Hello Adam and others,

            I’d like to see the process for payment of UCI fees simplified. During the last two years I have had problems with the UCI keeping track of my fee payment. This has resulted in my having to send copies of the bank transfer information out to Colorado for verification of payment. In general, I find that the current system is a real pain in the ass... Or, perhaps I’m doing something wrong? For the last five years I’ve had the bank wire Swiss francs to the UCI.

            The commission may not be the right place to discuss this issue, perhaps someone out there has found a more efficient and effective technique for paying the UCI? If so, please let me know.

            Thank you,
            Joel
            W.E. Stedman G.P. Of Cross – Rhode Island


          • CrossSportif@aol.com
            Adam, I have one point that I ve already mentioned to Peter VDA and to you. Specifically, 5.1.045 which stipulates a change in staging for World Champs Juniors
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 18, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Adam,

              I have one point that I've already mentioned to Peter VDA and to you. Specifically, 5.1.045 which stipulates a change in staging for World Champs Juniors and Espoirs. New reg calls for staging of first row of Juniors and first two rows of Espoirs by current WCS rankings in those categories. We know the impetus is to get Albert, Stybar, Boom to do the WCS, but it's detrimental for nations like ours where our juniors and espoirs are not realistically able to attend all the WCS. At best, our juniors and espoirs will get to 3 of the 5. In other words, while the intentions of the reg. change are understandable, a euro-centric effect results.

              In the case of our US juniors, we finished 5th as a team in Zeddam last January. That would have earned us a front row start under the old regs. Now, our first guy will be second row. And our next guy, maybe 4th or 5th. With some strong talent in our juniors this year and only a 40 minute race, every row counts. So, I'd appreciate it if you raised this point, just so the commission is aware of it.

              I guess the other question I had was, since Europe is not going to go to an earlier Nationals date, are we going to be pressured to move ours to their date or keep as is?

              I know the commission is to discuss travel allowance discrepancies and vision for that.  I would like to see a system that would ultimately grow the sport the most. Since WCS is so UCI point heavy, that's one incentive already in place. But perhaps a system where less strong nations get ample travel money and give the power house nations less travel money but more prize money. Some sort of tiered system like they have now, but more favorable to nations like ours that have substantial travel costs to get to European WCS. Please update with that dialogue.

              Also, maybe the whole issue of entry fees in our UCI races and the future implications of that.

              Thanks for your work on these issues,
              Geoff Proctor
              National Team Coach, USA Cyclocross
              Technical Director, USGP
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.