[CR]Cirque Show Bike Classification, Judging and Awards (a long and winding road)

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Campagnolo)

Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:21:19 -0500
From: "Wayne Bingham" <blkmktbks@gmail.com>
To: "classicrendezvous List" <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: [CR]Cirque Show Bike Classification, Judging and Awards (a long and winding road)

I have been away since last week, and am just know catching up on all the CR posts about the title subject. This is exactly the type of discussion I had hoped for on this issue, and I really appreciate the number of posts, and the thoughtful and balanced discussion generated so far. I'd like to encourage others to participate, and reassure those folks that every opinion is valued and germane to the discussion. As I had indicated in my Cirque summary, I believe that this is an area that warrants, at the very least, some informed consideration if we are to continue to "judge" bikes at events like the Cirque. As one of our constituents so appropriately stated (not sure if it was on or off list), like it or not, the Cirque is one of the very small number of premier events of this type in the country, and as such carries a certain "weight" in the collector and enthusiasts community. We are, to a great extent, that community, and it's therefore appropriate that we recognize that and at least make an attempt at examining the relative merits of and/or parameters within which we do this type of thing. In the immortal words of Walt Kelly's Pogo, "we have met the enemy and he is us".

What I propose is this. I will compile all the responses on this topic, and try to compress the information into some sort of summary, identifying emerging common points, general observations and areas of agreement/disagreements/general consensus, etc. I will then work to organize a "committee" of sorts to review it, try and put some structure to it all, and propose a "plan" for the Cirque 2009 show. We'll try it out at the Cirque next year and see how it goes. After that, we'll reexamine what seems to work and what doesn't, evaluate what the collective impression/response is, and make recommendations as to whether we should fine-tune it, scrap the whole idea and start over, or eliminate judging and awards altogether.

Following are a few general points, observations and suggestions of my own.

For the Cirque this year, I went with the "original" and "restoration" categories for two primary reasons, to change things up a bit from prior years, and because if seemed to fit nicely with the segregated age-groups of bicycles. I still think organizing the show that way, as well as using those categories was sound in principle, even though it was obviously flawed in execution. I failed in organizing the registration process to include having people clearly designate what category the bike should be entered in. That made it especially difficult to make appropriate judgements about the bikes. However, in almost every case (particularly given the circumstances), the judges did a fantastic job in sorting it all out. I think that if the category entered were clearly identified, and even a very general criteria defined beforehand, things would have gone much more smoothly and easily. And that's just one of the elements needing work to make this judging and awards thing better.

As has already been discussed, clearly defining criteria for categories is likely to be quite difficult. Original versus restored is a good example, one of the main reasons being that different bikes must be viewed (and evaluated) from different perspectives. Using an example that's already been mentioned, a Raleigh Pro is pretty east to define with regard to originality. They were production bikes that were outfitted in fairly specific ways for certain year models. Details are well known and clearly documented. I'll use my Merz/DiNucci as an example of the other end of the spectrum. It's as close to a time-capsule "original" as you are likely to find, and I have the documentation to prove it. The frame was custom built in 1976. Most of the components were specified and purchased from Merz along with the frame, but some were purchased at the shop in Wisconsin where the bike was built-up. All were chosen specifically by the original customer. But this is where establishing a clear judging criteria gets dicey. The bike is equipped with a mix of Campagnolo Record/Super Record components, including 4-in-diamond SR cranks, PAT 76 first generation S-Rec rear derailleur, first gen two-bolt S-Rec seat post, very first gen S-Rec head set, Record brakeset and shifters, and 40-hole Record hubs laced to unmarked silver clincher rims. The originally specified Brooks Pro saddle was missing, so I replaced it with a very slightly used Pro with a '75 date stamp. The year model of the components spans several years and a combination of models, yet the mix represents the original build (in this case right down to the cable crimps), and the practice was extremely common at the time. Anyone establishing appropriate judging criteria, as well as anyone judging, not only needs to understand both ends of this spectrum, but also all the nuances in between. Obviously not an easy task and not an easy burden to place on anyone. The above is only one example of some of the difficulties involved, and highlights some of the potential problems with starting down this path in the first place.

While I believe that we probably need more structure to judging and awards, I would not like to see the judging of bicycles, and therefore the show, become "too" serious. The "fun" and communal atmosphere of the Cirque in general, and the show in particular, are the things that makes the Cirque what it is. That's important for me, and I believe the same is true for the majority of attendees. What I would like to do is try and strike some balance between formal and fun. I think that's possible, but I don't think it will be easy. And whatever happens, there's no way everyone is going to agree and be happy with the arrangement anyway.

In addition, people have to be willing to stand up and volunteer to be judges, and participants have to be willing to be flexible, tolerant and understanding of the judge's challenges and the compromises inherent in the process.

Still, I think it's worth giving this idea a try. I suppose those that agree will participate in this little exercise. If you are interested in being on the "Awards Committee", and trying to put something in place for next year, please let me know off list.

Thanks.

Wayne Bingham
Lovettsville, Virginia USA