Existential Thread: Or What is Freezing Saddles Really All About

[Vicegrip]

Some good ideas and concepts here. Let me totaly mess that up with some random ramblings.

Cap at 250 or even a bit less. if the game continues to grow in popularity then those that want to play will be at the ready when reg opens. Previous players get a short advance window to sign up.

Not all that comfortable with minimum stats. Much of the idea is a winter competition but there is something to be said about welcoming new to winter riding riders. I do think that non riders should bow out or be bumped off and replaced. I guess this is is counter to what I just said in a way. I do see the need to control the folks that think signing up for FS will make them ride but soon realise that only their own desire to can make them ride. If a min it should be low and intended to catch those that don’t get it rather than those that can’t ride all the time. 3 rides of qualifying length a week or the like. Care is needed here.

Not all that concerned if a team does or does not ride together. Teams that ride together are fun. I have been on a team that did quite a few fun group rides with an active vocal Captain and on one that has done no team group rides with little noise from the Capt. This is winter riding, not group riding and being able to compete when and how you can best do so should not be discredited.

I like to look at this game as more than the team win. It is not unusual to have one team take a lead that never fades. If we all only look at that one win class then the game is way too long. This is where the pointless prizes come in. There are many facets someone can focus on and try and “win” Not a lot of time but a strong rider? Climbing stats. Not a strong rider? Steady state and pick off pointless prizes like the number of prize locations visited be they bike stores, beer halls or bridges crossed.

It is normal to have a team that ranges from a top 10 to a bottom 10. it is the folks in the middle that make things roll well or not.

I think folks have come up with a fun game to play and have added much to it over the years it has been running. I think we should all get from it and give to it what we want. Me, I don’t want to let my team members down but I also don’t want to grow tired of winter riding or estrange myself from the home life.

The game should be competitive and fun not just advertising for for new riders or forum members. Take care of the fun part and the rest will naturally follow.

[vvill]

There are lots of good points brought up here. I think having tiers of participation would be a good idea. Those who just want to participate but not “compete” could just join the main Strava club, and those who want to be more serious about it can be assigned more formally into teams. Then cap the number of riders in teams to 200 (or less, actually – I agree it’s too big now). There’d be no particular cap on the unassigned riders. Perhaps the unassigned riders would be able to make their own teams just for fun and team stats as well, but they wouldn’t be “competing” as such with the main leaderboard teams, and we could maybe only refresh their stats once a day (or less) to reduce API hits. (Slackers/alumni who live outside the area would be limited to joining the “informal” teams.)

I think the social aspect of the forum and riding should be able to function without Freezing Saddles. The forum has had happy hours with commuters socializing from early days, and like Sunyata, that’s how I began to meet most of the people I ride with now (well, along with the coffee clubs, although some of those are extensions of forum folks too.) I feel that Freezing Saddles was originally sort of a glorified sidebet between riders on this forum that did actually already sort of know each other, and it’s main purpose was to encourage/help winter riding and make it not only more bearable but fun, by challenging riders and qualifying their efforts.

@jrenaut 135422 wrote:

(I made the top 10 individual riders’ names bigger on the leaderboard and no one noticed)

I noticed this pretty much immediately too!

I would be happy to help out where I can with coding but I’m not terribly familiar with python, nor linux for that matter.

[TwoWheelsDC]

I dunno…the idea of dropping people for not riding enough is anathema to me and seems to go against the spirit of the competition. Okay sure, it’s a competition, but I always thought the idea was for the big-guns to have fun duking it out, while ALSO encouraging people who wouldn’t otherwise ride at all to get out and ride some and maybe socialize with the community. I mean, maybe if the technical capacity requires a cull, then alright, fine…But I think that would ultimately prove a detriment to whole endeavor. Perhaps moving toward a more individualized competition, where teams were optional, would be the way to deal with the slacker “problem.”

Frankly, I think the slacker thing is a non-issue. There are people on every team (including me!) who don’t end up riding much, and it seems to balance out fine. As long at the top 30% of riders are evenly distributed, I think the rest of the riders probably aren’t having too much of an influence on overall team rankings.

[ShawnoftheDread]

@americancyclo 135463 wrote:

Fastfriendlyguy and I were talking about this at the last Java Shack FCC, seeing his name in bigger letters is his primary motivation to get out and ride this year.

So it’s Jon’s fault. Thanks, Jon!

[S. Arlington Observer]

Some thoughts.

This was my first year and I have enjoyed it very much. It has definitely increased the number of days and the length of my winter rides. I enjoyed the initial happy hour very much and, while my team has not organized follow ups, I do enjoy seeing their stats and occasionally commenting with them on the Strava discussion. They are great at encouraging me.

I think it is important to remember that “competition” can mean different things. I knew going into this that I could not ride for miles and miles. I am older (not old, just older than the median) and not conditioned for that. And my other life commitments don’t really allow me to devote more time to it.

What I knew I could probably do is ride every day or almost every day. And, so far, I have (every day .. usually between 2 and 5 miles, sometimes 7 or more). So, even though I average only between 30 and 40 miles a week I have always ranked in the mid range of players by sheer consistency. That is a goal I can reasonably strive for. If the goal post is moved to require that I compete with those AWESOME guys at the top of my team’s leaderboard I would essentially be out of the game.

Our team has battled two others for the 4 – 6 spots for weeks now. Sure, it would be great to be number one. But the more realistic day to day chance to be on top of THAT sub group is actually very motivating.

I hope FS won’t become elitist because there is a place for all levels – and it has been a great experience for this middling rider.

[sjclaeys]

@Vicegrip 135482 wrote:

Not all that comfortable with minimum stats. Much of the idea is a winter competition but there is something to be said about welcoming new to winter riding riders. I do think that non riders should bow out or be bumped off and replaced. I guess this is is counter to what I just said in a way. I do see the need to control the folks that think signing up for FS will make them ride but soon realise that only their own desire to can make them ride. If a min it should be low and intended to catch those that don’t get it rather than those that can’t ride all the time. 3 rides of qualifying length a week or the like. Care is needed here.

I am fine with a low minimum of 3 rides a week. The concern I have is that for the past few years I’ve had “teammates” who may only ride three times during the entire Freezing Saddles. Also, these participants rarely communicate with the rest of the team or otherwise participate at all in FS, so the goal of welcoming new riders isn’t being met anyhow. I have a current teammate who at the very beginning said that they are not going to ride much (and haven’t) because they are training for a marathon. The question of why sign up if that is the case does not seem to have crossed his mind.

[Subby]

The best part of freezing saddles this year is that I have now “met” (either through strava or in person) at least 20 cyclists that I didn’t know before. Making that social connection and growing my bike family is really important to me.

Plus I am addicted to BIG FONT LEADERBOARD.

[Bob James]

@Sunyata 135457 wrote:

At this point in the games, there are 18 people who have less than 10 ride days: 41 that have less than 20 ride days. And with the exception of one big snow storm, this has been a pretty mild winter.

Sunyata’s stat is very enlightening in my opinion. I’m definitely would not want any minimum participation based on miles, but ride days seems a more reasonable criteria (if any minimum of something is implemented). I’m just as impressed by those new to winter riding, who ride 1-5 miles in the snow/cold/rain/wind (general winter weather) than with the regular all-season mega riders riders who ride 50-200 miles.

I’m even more impressed by those who commute to work on their bikes in this weather. I can’t imagine getting all dressed up for the cold twice or more a day and be mentally and physically prepared for work. I sometimes do a 2 mile commute on a capital share bike, but I get to work sweaty (or freezing), nose running, hair messed up, clothes rumpled and maybe splattered with winter road muck.

[Anonymous]

3 times a week as a minimum expectation would be intimidatingly high to someone who hasn’t ridden much in winter before. I would NEVER have participated in the first year if that expectation existed. And I wound up riding every day that year, but would never ever have expected that going in.

Not everyone who rides a bike is a bike commuter, and 3 times a week (every week? on average? either way) is a lot of times a week for most people to do — and COMMIT to do for 2-1/2 months in non-optimal conditions — a specific recreational/exercise activity.

I really don’t like the idea of minimum ride thresholds at all, but I also think the suggested “low” threshold is not actually low. I also don’t know what criteria should get used if we want to or need to cap participation numbers but not use riding thresholds… :confused:

[TwoWheelsDC]

@Amalitza 135505 wrote:

I also don’t know what criteria should get used if we want to or need to cap participation numbers but not use riding thresholds… :confused:

Lottery system. $50 to get a number, and 250 numbers are chosen to take part in the competition. Proceeds go to the TwoWheelsDC N+1 Charity Fund, LLC.

[Steve O]

This is a great discussion.

I didn’t articulate this as well as I could have to start. The simple question is this:

Is Freezing Saddles:

A) A winter bike riding competition in which players score points for days and miles of riding for themselves and for a “Team.” (Oh, and there might be some other stuff going on, too, but it may or may not matter to me)?

OR

A community of friends who love bikes, riding bikes, talking about bikes and sharing the joy of bikes, and have created a game of winter riding to make the fun they have together even more fun?

It definitely started as . What is it now and what do we want it to be?

[sjclaeys]

It seems that Freezing Saddles is ending up as “something” (not a competition heaven forbid, a way to increase social interaction, or an opportunity to participate in “reindeer games”) that does not not require any bike riding or socializing. If that is the case, then what is the point?

[Steve O]

I’m going to follow up my own question with my opinion.

I like

vvill recently suggested a “gnarly weather” metric that might more accurately capture the “spirit” of Freezing Saddles. Similarly, if we believe a significant part of the “spirit” of Freezing Saddles is beerneuring and N+1 and London Bridge and photos on Instagram & the website and ridiculous coffee challenges and happy hours and the FSLNHPP, etc., then why not include those in the rankings? Currently we give points for days and miles, so, as any dismal economist would point out, that’s what people care about. If the rankings included points for the social aspects–as many here have emphasized, an important component of the “spirit” of Freezing Saddles, then it becomes integral to the game rather than ancillary.

E.g.
5 points for each day you get a photo posted on the site
30 points for your team each time you post to the beerneuring side bet
50 points for a London Bridge post (no deliberate falling!)
10 points if you appear in a photo at a coffee club
Take a team photo at an event and earn xxx points for the photo depending on how many teammates appear
25 points for each N+1 bike you post
And so on…

Points accrue to your team, not to you as an individual. Individuals win the Pointless Prizes.
There could still be a prize for the team with the most miles and the team with the most days, but those prizes wouldn’t be the main focus–just part of the game like everything else. This way, Freezing Saddles, by its very design, is a more broad-based, interactive game and not just a riding competition. People who just want to ride can continue to do so, but those who do more boost their team more.

[Vicegrip]

@Amalitza 135505 wrote:

3 times a week as a minimum expectation would be intimidatingly high to someone who hasn’t ridden much in winter before. I would NEVER have participated in the first year if that expectation existed. And I wound up riding every day that year, but would never ever have expected that going in.

Not everyone who rides a bike is a bike commuter, and 3 times a week (every week? on average? either way) is a lot of times a week for most people to do — and COMMIT to do for 2-1/2 months in non-optimal conditions — a specific recreational/exercise activity.

I really don’t like the idea of minimum ride thresholds at all, but I also think the suggested “low” threshold is not actually low. I also don’t know what criteria should get used if we want to or need to cap participation numbers but not use riding thresholds… :confused:

Agree. I was the one that used a number while discussing a theoretical concept. A better “number” would be X days of no rides at all or something else along those lines. As was also posted another team has a member that said he/she was not going to ride and was true to their word. This takes some of the fun away from the team and begs the question “why sign up?” The goal to open up spots to those that want to play/ride and gently remove those that found themselves in the wrong room. Not to kick out a player than has a vacation in the middle or pulled a hamstring. As I said this would have to be handled carefully.

The goal is to get it across to folks that this is a winter riding game. Once a week if it 100% more than you have in the past is a win. Every day is a win, 3 a week if that is where you are happy is a win. Taking a space and then wandering off to shoot pool or run on a treadmill is not.

F.S. is a homegrown and unique social game. those that started this had a great idea that has been carried well by those that have been building, running and tuning it.

[cvcalhoun]

For the record, I vote for B.

A few other comments:

1. The Fourth Awakens has been quite social. We’ve had two meet-ups plus a group ride so far, and another meet-up is planned for Sunday.

2. This forum is not really good for team chit-chat, at least as it is currently structured. Having everything in one thread means people who are interested in a specific event or topic may not see it, because it gets lost in the general thread. There have also been complaints about having team threads showing up for a lot of people who are not even FS participants and have no interest. And in the case of our team, the forum name one of them gave does not seem to exist on this forum, but several e-mails have not gotten her to correct the situation.

If we want to have people use this forum, I’d suggest having a separate subforum under Freezing Saddles for each team, so that there could be separate threads under that subforum for specific topics. And I’d also suggest that posts in those subforums not show up on the New Forum Posts. However, I do not know if this is possible, given the software we are using.

3. I’m also not fond of the Strava chat, because it requires people to go to the team page even to see whether there are new discussions, and then click yet another link to see what the discussions are. We have therefore ended up in a closed Facebook group, but that requires that everyone have a Facebook account, which not everyone does. For the two people on our team not on Facebook, we have sent e-mails and made announcements on Strava, but I’m not sure they are being read.

4. I agree the competition was more fun when it was smaller. My understanding is that the first year, there were five teams that were in competition for first place, right up to the end. At this point, most of the teams have already given up on first place. I wouldn’t have an issue with limiting it to 200 people. If nothing else, we could lower the numbers by not putting people who register after the deadline on teams, except to substitute for people who don’t show up or get injured. This would also have the advantage of having a pool of people we could use for substitutions for the injured, or for people who don’t meet minimum riding goals. (See next paragraph.)

5. If we have minimum riding goals, I’d like to see them be very minimal. Perhaps an average of one ride a week, and not have the first cut of people for failing to make them until 3 weeks into the competition. This would avoid cutting people who are on vacation, or have injuries, the first week or so. Plus, even after that, I don’t want to cut people who ordinarily bike a lot, but take off a week for one reason or another. (I personally am around the middle of the pack in terms of both points and miles, but took off a week when I had a respiratory infection and was nevertheless having to shovel snow two hours a day, every day.)

6. I think this year’s competition has been made less fun by the absence of certain prizes we had in the past. For example, we had a “find the Presidents” challenge one year, and a crossing bridges competition another. Because they were short-term, they provided an incentive to get out even for people who knew their team wasn’t going to win. Even the weight loss challenge provided a fun challenge for those whose teams were not going to win. This year, we’ve got coffeeneuring and beerneuring, but for those who don’t like beer or coffee, those don’t help. And N+1 is not going to work for those of us with only one bike. I’m not going to spend the money to rent others just to win that challenge.

On the other hand, pointless prizes/side bets are obviously up to the people that choose to give them, so there is no real way to ensure that there are more fun ones, short of volunteering to give one myself. (And did I mention the money thing? Also, the fact I’ve already spent a lot of time on the registration thing?)

[Author]

Posts