66781, that’s my USA Cycling number. When I joined in 1992 (and USA Cycling was called the United States Cycling Federation or USCF), the numbering system was different, so my number started out as B0066781. This alphanumeric number shows the optimism of the USCF in 1992, as that combination of letters and numbers could create memberships for every adult in the United States and still have some memberships to spare. I joined in the aftershocks of the Lemond effect, and before the Armstrong era would descend upon cycling like a turd dropped from a passing pigeon.
Despite the membership numbering-system optimism, I was only the 66,781st person to get a racing license with the USCF. The name USCF dates back to 1975, and since there’s almost no information available with a lazy Google search about the early days for the USCF, I will assume that the 66,780 racers that came before me all joined after 1975, the year the Amateur Bicycle League of America became the USCF. I could be wrong about this, and any old codger out there who joined before 1975 should let me know about the specifics of the USCF numbering system in the comments below, and we can then have a terrifically boring side bar conversation about numbering conventions.
USA Cycling has dropped the letters and extra zeros from their numbering system, and because bike racers can be among the most startlingly pedantic people on the planet, I’m sure there’s still some racers out there who insist on using their USCF era number, because, you know, why change or make life easy? So what is the explanation for this long-winded dive into the history of bike racing membership numbers? The current crop of racers have numbers that are in the 600,000 range, so anyone with a number under six digits is a rare bird these days. If your number is under 50,000, you have seen the sport change from downtube shifters and 32-spoke wheels to electronic shifting and carbon rims. If your number is under 10,000, you pre-date vulcanized rubber.
At 66,781, my membership is old enough to be a millennial (which means it’s less religious than previous memberships and has almost no chance whatsoever at owning a house), and I find it comforting to see other racers are still actively involved in the nurturing their memberships. I like to go through the results on USA Cycling and see the low numbers that are still chugging away, and if I’m honest, I get competitive and try to be the lowest number in my races. This is, of course, due to being a lunatic bike racer that has to make everything into a competition, but if I am to be beaten, getting beat by a fellow “low-numberer” is fine by me.
The post schmalz – low numbers appeared first on NYVelocity.
