Talk:Criterium

Equipment

It's not only Wiki that has a serious problem with the way the wheel portion of the "Equipment" section has been written. It does indeed read like an ad for spendy carbon wheelsets, and it's not completely accurate either. Yes, kit wheelsets have gotten popular in the past 4-5 years, but you might say "kit wheels" and use e.g. "so-and-so" [link] to avoid looking like a product plug. Also, a lot of the serious crit racers I know tend to use a simple box rim setup on light 14/15ga high-tension spokes. 2 reasons for this: 1) they're less expensive to replace if/when you put them over a curb and 2) they don't turn into kites in crosswinds like the superlight highpro carbons do.lonefrontranger (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Added MTB mention, as this is happening more often these days. Sydney and Melbourne (Aus) have regular 'dirt crits' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.13.104 (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The claim to use of short-rake forks for quicker turning at a cost of stability is a very common but erroneous belief. The exact opposite is in fact true. http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/trail.html for a short explanation. I would like to change this portion of the article. However, i am not a crit racer, and therefore do not have authority to speak on equipment use. I also suspect that this fallacy is likely to be widely accepted within crit racing culture. I should also add that while short rake in actuality increases trail and stability, in turns where the rider's lean is the primary force for turning, and not a large tilt of the front wheel, the shorter wheelbase given could overcompensate and create a tighter turning radius, particularly with a SWB bicycle with steep head tube angle.

Reducing fork rake actually slows steering, contrary to the current text of the article. Trail is the critical dimension for bicycle stability; decreasing fork rake increases trail, thereby increasing stability. In other words, decreasing fork rake slows handling. I would add a citation, but the above commenter's phred.org link is as good as anything I could supply. For what it's worth, I'm a mechanical engineer who has raced bicycles--primarily in criteriums--for 25 years. So I'm changing the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.235.226 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger

It totally makes sense to merge the two topics since the criterium is the proper name for all short circuit racing, whether lap counted or timed. UCI Regulations Part II Chapter VII Subsection 0016(http://www.uci.ch/includes/asp/getTarget.asp?type=FILE&id=34033) defines a criterium's course length at 800-10000 metres, and makes reference to minimum total distances, which can be expressed as times as well knowing average peloton speeds. There is also NO mention of the Kermessen anywhere in the UCI guidelines governing road races. Having taken note of this, discussing concepts as "American Criteriums" and "Belgium Kermessens" is moot since they are simply localized versions of what the UCI simply dubs as a "Criterium." This article should have one heading (Criterium) with sub headings discussion the diferent 'styles' used in different parts of the world. DJMW (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that kermese and crits should be merged because they are different styles of races. like apples and oranges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.213.88 (talk) 12:27, January 25, 2008

How so? Severo^TC 16:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They are similar styles of racing, essentially two names for the same thing. This is similar to soccer and football/futbol, where the rules and sport is identical, though the culture surrounding the race may be different depending on geographical occurrence. kermese should be mentioned in the criterium article-- perhaps with its own section-- but there's no real need for a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosFLugo (talk) 20:01, January 26, 2008

as one who has raced both U.S. (road) criteriums and kermessen in Belgium, I vote they should stand separate. American criteriums are typically very short course multilap events of maybe 1 to 2 city blocks run on time (e.g. ~ 1 hour + 3 or 5 laps). Kermessen are typically done on a longer, 'circuit' type course and run on distance, not time. There are other cultural differences but I feel that the two are indeed quite different, and in fact most European road racers don't do well or even like American style criteriums because the speeds, handling skills and tactics are considerably different between the 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by lonefrontranger (talk) 20:01, January 26, 2008

In the cycling community in various countries, a Kermesse is a different race to a Criterium.
A Criterium is a short circuit road race conducted on either public roads, closed or controlled for the purpose of conducting the race, or purpose-built, off-street circuits of anything from 600 metres to 2 kilometres in length per lap and is run on time rather than distance. So, a Criterium race might last for 60 minutes at which time the competitors are given a designated number of laps to the finish which is usually three laps with the bell being rung on the commencement of the final lap.
A Kermesse, on the other hand, is also a short circuit road race held mostly on public roads, closed or controlled for the purpose of conducting the race, with circuit lengths greater than Criteriums and can be anything from three kilometres up to five, six or seven kilometres in length. The Kermesse is generally run on distance like a traditional road race with a designated number of laps to be completed.
During a Criterium, a competitor who suffers from a "recognised mishap" (a puncture or a fall being the most common - in any event being an occurrence beyond their control and excludes incidents resulting from poor bike maintenance) may, within one lap of the incident and after reporting to the officials and rectifying the problem, rejoin the race without penalty at any point in the race apart from the last five kilometres of the race. As it is run on distance, no such option is available during the conducting of a Kermesse. --Abondeson (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Criteriums in the US may wellbe run on a time basis these days, but this wasn't always the case. Back in the 1960s and 1970s (and probably before then too), a pre-determined number of laps was the typical format, with a nominal distance of 50 miles being most common for top level men. Actual distances might differ from the stated nominal distance, depending on how close the actual lap distance was to the nominal distance being used to calculate overall distance, and in some cases, an overall distance differing from 50 miles might be used when lap distance wasn't an integral divisor of 50 miles. Wschart (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)