Is this a Lance effect? (Long)

psycholist wrote:
< rant on competitive century riding snipped>

I've done about 50 organized centuries in the 20 years I've been a
roadie and my experiences are much different.

Firstly, out of those 50, only ONE was a mass start and that one only
had a couple hundred riders. All the other rides were, and continue to
be, show and go, so the race dynamics you describe simply cannot happen.
The riders starting the earliest are the ones who show up to register
the earliest and tend to be either slower (so they can finish at a
decent time) or from farther away (so they can get home at a decent
time). There simply IS no "lead pack". Maybe this is a Northern
California thing and rides in other parts of the country are different.

The competitive aspect of riding in a century though is about the same
as on any other ride; you pass people, you get passed, you show off, you
strike up friendly conversations, you decide you don't like how one guy
rides so you stay away from him, you decide you don't like somebody's
jersey so you snub him as you pass, whatever... there's just more of it.

The only part that has anything to do with Lance is the number of
roadies out there in the first place. It got really slim in the post
Lemond era when the MTB was king.

--
My bike blog:
http://diabloscott.blogspot.com/

"Diablo Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

psycholist wrote:
< rant on competitive century riding snipped>

I've done about 50 organized centuries in the 20 years I've been a roadie
and my experiences are much different.

Firstly, out of those 50, only ONE was a mass start and that one only had
a couple hundred riders. All the other rides were, and continue to be,
show and go, so the race dynamics you describe simply cannot happen. The
riders starting the earliest are the ones who show up to register the
earliest and tend to be either slower (so they can finish at a decent
time) or from farther away (so they can get home at a decent time). There
simply IS no "lead pack". Maybe this is a Northern California thing and
rides in other parts of the country are different.

The competitive aspect of riding in a century though is about the same as
on any other ride; you pass people, you get passed, you show off, you
strike up friendly conversations, you decide you don't like how one guy
rides so you stay away from him, you decide you don't like somebody's
jersey so you snub him as you pass, whatever... there's just more of it.

The only part that has anything to do with Lance is the number of roadies
out there in the first place. It got really slim in the post Lemond era
when the MTB was king.

--
My bike blog:
http://diabloscott.blogspot.com/

I'm in the SE US and almost every event has a mass start. Some even have
time clocks at the finish line, but those are the real major events like The
Assault on Mt. Mitchell.

Bob C.

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

(Sidebar: and for some reason, these guys always have to
show off how they can [censored] while riding. It's the stupidest thing. They
endanger everyone in the group. I haven't seen it happen yet, but someday
one of these guys is going to go down hard while holding himself and it
isn't going to be pretty.)

I've always wondered how much did they [censored] all over themselves while first
practicing that maneouver by themselves, so they could be "cool" later in
front of others.

psycholist said:

Back in the mid-90s the way a century would play out is that, for the
first hour, there'd be a lead pack that would ride VERY hard ... at a pace
nobody could possibly maintain for 100 miles.

I think it's kind of sad to think that large groups of riders would treat
a century as if it were a race. Something like racing all the other
cars away from the stoplight -- when none of the others realize you
are racing them, it's somewhat easier to win.

I've always thought of a century as just a sort of "happening", an
unusually large group ride. For a while you ride in one group, then you
either go up, or slide back, to another. I generally prefer real group
rides, where everyone is in it together. On a century, since there is
always the SAG wagon, and food stops are predicable, no one stops to wait
for someone with a flat, or help someone who bonks.

The real appeal of a century is for the novice rider who has never managed
that distance before. To be able to go out and take a shot at a first
long ride, it's comforting to know that the support is available if you
need it. I've seen people come in from what I guessed was one of the
shorter loops, with victory all over their faces because they made it.
Whether it's 20 miles, or a full century, they are the ones these events
are for. They aren't races, and frankly it's a little silly to use them
as such. For one thing, the roads are full of slower riders, making it
dangerous to barrel through in a long paceline. For another, it's a bit
empty to brag about finishing half an hour ahead of me, if I started an
hour after you did.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of
_`\(,_ | business.
(_)/ (_) |

David L. Johnson wrote:
|| On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:05:10 -0500, psycholist wrote:
||
||| Back in the mid-90s the way a century would play out is that, for
||| the first hour, there'd be a lead pack that would ride VERY hard
||| ... at a pace nobody could possibly maintain for 100 miles.
||
|| I think it's kind of sad to think that large groups of riders would
|| treat
|| a century as if it were a race. Something like racing all the other
|| cars away from the stoplight -- when none of the others realize you
|| are racing them, it's somewhat easier to win.

Tell me about it!

[snip]

|| as such. For one thing, the roads are full of slower riders, making
|| it dangerous to barrel through in a long paceline.

Tell me about it.

[snip]

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've been a dedicated roadie for about a dozen years now. I got into
cycling a bit late in life, so I don't really race ... though I train with
lots of cat. 2 and 3 riders and don't have much trouble hanging with them.
My goals have always been to improve my times on century rides. I always
ride at the front with the "racer types" and usually finish with the front
group.

I've finished a fairly decent season, but I found it to be unusually
unsatisfying. At first I though I just burned out on riding, but that
really wasn't it. As I've thought about it, I've realized that there's
been a new dynamic on rides that I don't like.

Back in the mid-90s the way a century would play out is that, for the
first hour, there'd be a lead pack that would ride VERY hard ... at a pace
nobody could possibly maintain for 100 miles. After an hour there'd be 20
guys. After another 1/2 hour there'd be 7 or 8 guys. That's when things
would change. What had been an effort to make a selection would become an
effort to cooperate and coordinate. These final 7 or 8 guys would begin
working together and gliding along like the Blue Angels flying in
formation. And it would almost always be 7 or 8 guys who didn't know each
other at all or where only a couple of us knew each other. Everyone
worked towards the goal of getting the little group to the end with the
best time possible. And we all respected each other at the end ... riding
through to the finish together. (Maybe one or two guys would cramp and
have to sit up or something, but nobody would attack the others. If we
worked together, we finished together.) There would always be a kind of
bond among these riders at the finish and I made some new friends that
I've enjoyed meeting on subsequent rides over the years.

But in the last couple of years, things have really changed. There seems
to have been a proliferation of racer wannabes and cat. 3 teams. The
events become practice races where the teams control the tempo at the
front early on ... usually keeping it low. Then they practice their race
team tactics and try to attack all of the independent riders. Nothing
ever gets organized at the front. There's nothing but a big pack that
surges in response to an attack, then slows down when it's brought back
... over and over and over. Things usually get whittled down to 7 or 8
riders like before, but usually 3 or 4 of those are from the same team and
it's much later in the ride. Instead of working together towards the
finish, the team executes tactics to try to break someone off the front
for the "victory."

At first I found this fun, too. But it's gotten old and there's not the
bond between riders at the end. A bunch of guys haven't come together and
cooperated to bang out a great ride. A team of (usually) arrogant jerks
has come out and tried to flog everybody else -- probably 'cuz they can't
do it at a real race. (Sidebar: and for some reason, these guys always
have to show off how they can [censored] while riding. It's the stupidest
thing. They endanger everyone in the group. I haven't seen it happen
yet, but someday one of these guys is going to go down hard while holding
himself and it isn't going to be pretty.)

I hate it when people try to say one way to ride is the right way and
another way is the wrong way. People are free to ride the way they want
to. But I mourn the death of the kind of steady, cooperative, flying
formation kind of century effort that used to be common before everyone
decided they had to be like Lance.

For what it's worth,

Bob C.

The first thing that comes to mind is wow! I finally understand a bit of
what is going on in the mind of that group that tries to "win" centuries. I
have racer friends and non-racer friends any they seem to treat centuries
and charity rides the same. They do it to have fun. The racers have real
races to be competitive in and the non-racers just like riding and
socializing with friends. I used to know a couple of people who races
centuries and they always focused on time/placing. They would say things
like "If I raced I think that I would probably be Cat 2 or 3." When they
finally raced they found out that they were really Cat 4 pack fodder and
quickly faded away from the bicycle scene. .

David L. Johnson said:

psycholist said:

Back in the mid-90s the way a century would play out is that, for the
first hour, there'd be a lead pack that would ride VERY hard ... at a pace
nobody could possibly maintain for 100 miles.

I think it's kind of sad to think that large groups of riders would treat
a century as if it were a race. Something like racing all the other
cars away from the stoplight -- when none of the others realize you
are racing them, it's somewhat easier to win.

I've always thought of a century as just a sort of "happening", an
unusually large group ride. For a while you ride in one group, then you
either go up, or slide back, to another. I generally prefer real group
rides, where everyone is in it together. On a century, since there is
always the SAG wagon, and food stops are predicable, no one stops to wait
for someone with a flat, or help someone who bonks.

The real appeal of a century is for the novice rider who has never managed
that distance before. To be able to go out and take a shot at a first
long ride, it's comforting to know that the support is available if you
need it. I've seen people come in from what I guessed was one of the
shorter loops, with victory all over their faces because they made it.
Whether it's 20 miles, or a full century, they are the ones these events
are for. They aren't races, and frankly it's a little silly to use them
as such. For one thing, the roads are full of slower riders, making it
dangerous to barrel through in a long paceline. For another, it's a bit
empty to brag about finishing half an hour ahead of me, if I started an
hour after you did.

This reminds me of my very first skiing instructional. We practiced
standing on the fall line, and walking up hill, and putting the skis in the
beginner V, and turning and slowing and stopping. It was a great class.

At the end the instructor says. "OK, now who (beginners) wants to go racing
down the fall-line (slope) in full tuck (dangerous) with the skis together
(advance), like a guided missile!?"

He was sure nobody would say they'd do that dangerous and reckless and
oft-seen newbie technique (with which he had started the session as a bad
example.)

Half the class raised their hands and cheered...!

(then looked around "what?", "What?" at the rest of us laughing).

Same with your first group ride. Being a mature and sensible person, after
only a year back on the bike, discussing our first group ride, (where
racing is specifically prohibited, I might add) I turned to my brother (who
had the same ski lesson with me) and, with unbridled enthusiasm and glee,
and said....

-B
You guessed it, 'wanna race this puppy full speed down the fall-line?'. We
were both laughing to the point of tears....

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 22:05:43 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson wrote:
|| On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:05:10 -0500, psycholist wrote:
||
||| Back in the mid-90s the way a century would play out is that, for
||| the first hour, there'd be a lead pack that would ride VERY hard
||| ... at a pace nobody could possibly maintain for 100 miles.
||
|| I think it's kind of sad to think that large groups of riders would
|| treat
|| a century as if it were a race. Something like racing all the other
|| cars away from the stoplight -- when none of the others realize you
|| are racing them, it's somewhat easier to win.

Tell me about it!

[snip]

|| as such. For one thing, the roads are full of slower riders, making
|| it dangerous to barrel through in a long paceline.

Tell me about it.

[snip]

Remember Roger's 'close call' with the mini-peloton of fast riders blowing
by him and ruffling a few feathers?

But hey, ride it like you wanna, just be cautious where caution is
warrented, and think of the newbies, like me, and sure, blow their minds,
but don't blow them off the bike. ;-)

-B

"Badger_South" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson said:

psycholist said:

Back in the mid-90s the way a century would play out is that, for the
first hour, there'd be a lead pack that would ride VERY hard ... at a
pace
nobody could possibly maintain for 100 miles.

I think it's kind of sad to think that large groups of riders would treat
a century as if it were a race. Something like racing all the other
cars away from the stoplight -- when none of the others realize you
are racing them, it's somewhat easier to win.

I've always thought of a century as just a sort of "happening", an
unusually large group ride. For a while you ride in one group, then you
either go up, or slide back, to another. I generally prefer real group
rides, where everyone is in it together. On a century, since there is
always the SAG wagon, and food stops are predicable, no one stops to wait
for someone with a flat, or help someone who bonks.

The real appeal of a century is for the novice rider who has never managed
that distance before. To be able to go out and take a shot at a first
long ride, it's comforting to know that the support is available if you
need it. I've seen people come in from what I guessed was one of the
shorter loops, with victory all over their faces because they made it.
Whether it's 20 miles, or a full century, they are the ones these events
are for. They aren't races, and frankly it's a little silly to use them
as such. For one thing, the roads are full of slower riders, making it
dangerous to barrel through in a long paceline. For another, it's a bit
empty to brag about finishing half an hour ahead of me, if I started an
hour after you did.

This reminds me of my very first skiing instructional. We practiced
standing on the fall line, and walking up hill, and putting the skis in
the
beginner V, and turning and slowing and stopping. It was a great class.

At the end the instructor says. "OK, now who (beginners) wants to go
racing
down the fall-line (slope) in full tuck (dangerous) with the skis together
(advance), like a guided missile!?"

He was sure nobody would say they'd do that dangerous and reckless and
oft-seen newbie technique (with which he had started the session as a bad
example.)

Half the class raised their hands and cheered...!

(then looked around "what?", "What?" at the rest of us laughing).

Same with your first group ride. Being a mature and sensible person, after
only a year back on the bike, discussing our first group ride, (where
racing is specifically prohibited, I might add) I turned to my brother
(who
had the same ski lesson with me) and, with unbridled enthusiasm and glee,
and said....

-B
You guessed it, 'wanna race this puppy full speed down the fall-line?'. We
were both laughing to the point of tears....

One thing that comes to mind from what I've read here is that there seem to
be a lot of people who equate riding fast with racing and/or who believe
riding fast is some sort of unpardonable sin. There also seem to be lots of
people who think that the only valid reason to ride is to socialize and to
enjoy rest stops, etc. I have a farm and I live in a very rural area. My
wife doesn't ride. I ride because I enjoy riding. I have friends who don't
ride and I have plenty to keep me busy besides riding. When I ride, I like
to do it, get it done, then it's on to whatever else I have to do -- and
that's always plenty. And I always have a long drive home. That's just me.

For me, taking 6 or 7 hours to do a century at 17 mph is mind-numbingly dull
and boring (ass-numbingly dull and boring, too). But getting a small group
of riders to work together and bang out a sustained high pace is very fun.
It's what I really love about the sport. But it's not racing. Not at all.
It's a cooperative thing.

But I'm always being told by people that I shouldn't ride that way for this
or that reason. I don't try to tell those people how they should ride.
It's ridiculous for people to say that 15 or 17 is a valid speed, but 22 or
23 isn't. Probably the only reason they don't ride 22 or 23 is that they
can't. Well, some riders can.

And who's endangering who? The centuries in our area all have mass starts.
Riders of lesser experience or lesser ability often leave ahead of the mass
start. The group from the mass start overtakes them and often they're
riding 2 or 3 abreast, meandering all over the road. They don't know how to
respond when they're told "passing on your left" or "riders back." It's not
the riders who are overtaking who can't see what's going on, it's the riders
who left earlier who ride without sufficient regard for what's coming up
behind them. I've tried to tell the organizers of our centuries that, if
they want to make them safer, they need to discourage the folks who leave
early. Make the mass start earlier and tell the others to leave afterward.
But don't do away with the mass start. That's what allows groups of riders
who don't know each other to find each other and settle in together.

Bob C.

Diablo Scott <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

psycholist wrote:
< rant on competitive century riding snipped>

I've done about 50 organized centuries in the 20 years I've been a
roadie and my experiences are much different.

Firstly, out of those 50, only ONE was a mass start and that one only
had a couple hundred riders. All the other rides were, and continue to
be, show and go, so the race dynamics you describe simply cannot happen.
The riders starting the earliest are the ones who show up to register
the earliest and tend to be either slower (so they can finish at a
decent time) or from farther away (so they can get home at a decent
time). There simply IS no "lead pack". Maybe this is a Northern
California thing and rides in other parts of the country are different.

The competitive aspect of riding in a century though is about the same
as on any other ride; you pass people, you get passed, you show off, you
strike up friendly conversations, you decide you don't like how one guy
rides so you stay away from him, you decide you don't like somebody's
jersey so you snub him as you pass, whatever... there's just more of it.

My experience mirrors yours, but then we are from the same general
area. Without the mass starts the dynamic is, well, dynamic. Folks
hit the road as soon as they sign in, bio-break, and whatever, then
there is a lot of stuff happening once you get on the road. The clubs
get into their cliques and run their pacelines, some folks are social
butterflies chatting up with all they meet, some get competitive, etc.
It is all fine with me, except for the drafting parasites, those who
suck your wheel but will not return the favor. I've had that
occasionally, but the worst was my most recent century (along the
coast) where there was about 13 miles into a stiff headwind. Got
tired of dragging all those sorry folks who did not want to take a
turn in the front; miles and miles of being the soul individual
pulling the train gets tiring.

I like the social aspects that can happen in a century. I've met a
lot of neat folks, had some good discussions, learned some things,
could have been 'picked up' if I were so inclined, and had some good
times. Hope to keep going to those types of events; much more fun
than the pseudo races the OP pictures.

- rick

Rick Warner said:

It is all fine with me, except for the drafting parasites, those who
suck your wheel but will not return the favor. I've had that
occasionally, but the worst was my most recent century (along the
coast) where there was about 13 miles into a stiff headwind. Got
tired of dragging all those sorry folks who did not want to take a
turn in the front; miles and miles of being the soul individual
pulling the train gets tiring.

I've had that happen before on organized rides. If I'm pulling a
long train, I'll pick up the pace to shed the wheel suckers, then
I'll signal the rider behind me to pull through. The riders that
don't get dropped are strong enough to take their turn at the front.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For me, taking 6 or 7 hours to do a century at 17 mph is mind-numbingly
dull

and boring (ass-numbingly dull and boring, too). But getting a small
group of riders to work together and bang out a sustained high pace is
very fun. It's what I really love about the sport. But it's not racing.
Not at all. It's a cooperative thing.

It sounds like you might enjoy racing, and might love participating in team
time trials. A lot of the fun for most people who race is being part of a
team. They love to train together, travel together, race together, and even
lie together. On a team you don't have to look for similar riders at an
event, you have a lot of the things that you seem to like already.

"RWM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For me, taking 6 or 7 hours to do a century at 17 mph is mind-numbingly
dull

and boring (ass-numbingly dull and boring, too). But getting a small
group of riders to work together and bang out a sustained high pace is
very fun. It's what I really love about the sport. But it's not racing.
Not at all. It's a cooperative thing.

It sounds like you might enjoy racing, and might love participating in
team time trials. A lot of the fun for most people who race is being part
of a team. They love to train together, travel together, race together,
and even lie together. On a team you don't have to look for similar
riders at an event, you have a lot of the things that you seem to like
already.

Unfortunately, I live in a very rural area where there aren't any clubs ...
much less any teams. What I've seen of racing in this area is mostly crits
and I don't have the desire at age (48) to fight my way through Cat. 5
crashfests -- and I know the masters would kick my ass.

Bob C.

psycholist wrote:
:: One thing that comes to mind from what I've read here is that there
:: seem to be a lot of people who equate riding fast with racing and/or
:: who believe riding fast is some sort of unpardonable sin. There
:: also seem to be lots of people who think that the only valid reason
:: to ride is to socialize and to enjoy rest stops, etc. I have a farm
:: and I live in a very rural area. My wife doesn't ride. I ride
:: because I enjoy riding. I have friends who don't ride and I have
:: plenty to keep me busy besides riding. When I ride, I like to do
:: it, get it done, then it's on to whatever else I have to do -- and
:: that's always plenty. And I always have a long drive home. That's
:: just me.
::
:: For me, taking 6 or 7 hours to do a century at 17 mph is
:: mind-numbingly dull and boring (ass-numbingly dull and boring, too).
:: But getting a small group of riders to work together and bang out a
:: sustained high pace is very fun. It's what I really love about the
:: sport. But it's not racing. Not at all. It's a cooperative thing.
::
:: But I'm always being told by people that I shouldn't ride that way
:: for this or that reason. I don't try to tell those people how they
:: should ride.

:: It's ridiculous for people to say that 15 or 17 is a
:: valid speed, but 22 or 23 isn't. Probably the only reason they
:: don't ride 22 or 23 is that they can't. Well, some riders can.

I don't understand why someone would tell you not to go as fast as you can
while doing a century? As far as I know, nearly everyone would rather
finish it asap. What is the advantage of taking 8 hours to finish if you
can do so in 6 hours or in 4.5?

As for the paceline thing, the only issue I have with that is how closely
the riders pass and cut in front of slower riders. In my limited experience
with this, I've noticed that those at the front of a large group (peloton
type) of paceliner pass well, but those pulling up the rear of the pack
don't. At the rear, the riders seem to bunch up while at the front they
seem to be more in a line. Those in the front easily leave a wide gap to
your left and don't cut so close in front of your front wheel. Those in the
rear, because they are bunched up and trying to share a lane, come very
close to your left shoulder and cut sharply in front of your wheel. My guess
is that the experience level and capability of those participating varies
quite a bit.

OTOH, those riding in smaller groups (like 5 to 10) are a joy to watch, if
you ask me. They pass well, imo.

::
:: And who's endangering who? The centuries in our area all have mass
:: starts. Riders of lesser experience or lesser ability often leave
:: ahead of the mass start. The group from the mass start overtakes
:: them and often they're riding 2 or 3 abreast, meandering all over
:: the road. They don't know how to respond when they're told "passing
:: on your left" or "riders back." It's not the riders who are
:: overtaking who can't see what's going on, it's the riders who left
:: earlier who ride without sufficient regard for what's coming up
:: behind them.

I agree with this. If you're going to be out there ahead, then you need to
be aware that faster riders will need to get by. Hence, you get the hell
out of the way. But, then again, cars move faster too, so you need to get
the hell out of their way too. So it seems to be that the riders to which
you are referring simply don't realize that they must share the road with
others. Some education on sharing the road would be a good idea. In fact,
a tip sheet given to ride participants advising them of the different types
of riders likely to be present and what to do in a given situation would be
helpful.

I've tried to tell the organizers of our centuries
:: that, if they want to make them safer, they need to discourage the
:: folks who leave early.

:: Make the mass start earlier and tell the
:: others to leave afterward.

I agree with this notion. I've always left early because I feel the mass
start time end up wasting valuable daylight and cooler temps (in the SC
that's an issue)...and I too want to get done as early as possible, since I
have other things I want to do too.

:: But don't do away with the mass start.
:: That's what allows groups of riders who don't know each other to
:: find each other and settle in together.
::
:: Bob C.

Roger Zoul said:

I don't understand why someone would tell you not to go as fast as you can
while doing a century? As far as I know, nearly everyone would rather
finish it asap. What is the advantage of taking 8 hours to finish if you
can do so in 6 hours or in 4.5?

I usually don't ride centuries very quickly. They're social rides
for me and a good excuse to put in some easy zone 2 training.
There's also the rest stops. Some of them are pretty nice.

I just did the Horrible Hundred in Bakersfield last Saturday with a
couple of friends. It had about 7500 ft. of climbing, with nice rest
stops. My favorite was the Deadhead theme stop at a real cemetary.
Everyone was wearing tie-dye, and The Grateful Dead were playing on
a generator-powered stereo. I walked up to the table and said "I
need a miracle." They didn't get it. Saddle time: 6:25, total time:
about 8 hours.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"RWM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> For me, taking 6 or 7 hours to do a century at 17 mph is mind-numbingly
> dull
and boring (ass-numbingly dull and boring, too). But getting a small
group of riders to work together and bang out a sustained high pace is
very fun. It's what I really love about the sport. But it's not racing.
Not at all. It's a cooperative thing.

It sounds like you might enjoy racing, and might love participating in
team time trials. A lot of the fun for most people who race is being part
of a team. They love to train together, travel together, race together,
and even lie together. On a team you don't have to look for similar
riders at an event, you have a lot of the things that you seem to like
already.

Unfortunately, I live in a very rural area where there aren't any clubs
... much less any teams. What I've seen of racing in this area is mostly
crits and I don't have the desire at age (48) to fight my way through Cat.
5 crashfests -- and I know the masters would kick my ass.

It is too bad that there isn't a racing club in your area.