Group Riding – the caterpillar vs the leapfrog system

We’ve recently had an interesting discussion about group riding on TRC. It spun off from a post about fatal accident circumstances for Durham, and someone remarked on the fact that group runs seem to be accident prone.

I’ve led a fair few ride outs myself, from groups of friends who all know each other to groups of riders who just turn up for the crack, from 3-4 riders to 50+ and I have to say that after years of running them for Compuserve members without a hitch, I was extremely surprised when half a dozen runs I organised over on VD were virtually all disrupted by crashes!

These spills happened despite plenty of precautions – pre-ride briefings, keeping the speed down at the front, ensuring everyone understood the marking system at junctions, factoring in regular rest and refuelling stops, even providing maps of the route on a couple of the longer rides.

The Compuserve crowd were generally… ahem… more mature in terms of years (though not necessarily more restrained in terms of speed!), with far more experience of group riding and varied riding conditions. The VD crowd were younger and less experienced, and the accidents happened in places they could have easily been avoided.

Four obvious factors struck me:

- group runs tend to mean riders ride beyond their limits in terms of fatigue simply to stay with the group. That Compuserve crowd all regularly rode long distances, a lot of the VD riders were weekend riders. We also rode out from a hotel on the Compuserve tours, whereas on the VD runs riders were getting up early and riding to the meet point (maybe not a LONG distance, but it all adds up). Even though I kept the mileage on the rides down around the 100 mile mark, many of those VD riders were simply not used to doing 100 mile rides. By contrast a lot of those Compuserve riders were 250/300 mile per day blokes!

- familiarity meant the Compuserve crowd were mostly used to riding with each other, and used a “team riding” approach. This would be in a staggered formation on wider roads or in urban areas, compacting the group and maximising forward view whilst avoiding riding in wheel tracks, whilst dropping back into wider spaced single file on twistier, narrow roads. Riders on the VD group runs followed far too close and in single file in urban areas because they didn’t understand the staggering system (in retrospect slowing down only made things worse), and in the twisties spent far more time worrying about their individual ‘lines’ than the mechanics of group riding.

- the Compuserve group stayed in order using what’s described over here as the police “caterpillar” system of marking junctions which minimises overtaking within the group. Each rider waits for the group member behind, who stops in turn and waits for the rider behind him. The slower riders end up at the back very quickly and from then on, there’s virtually no overtaking in the group, and because you know the rider ahead and behind, you can ride as fast or slow as you like between sections. I tried to apply this on the VD runs, but those riders who had ridden in groups before weren’t used to the system and got confused, so after that I used the usual UK “leapfrog” or “drop-off” system where the marker waits from the sweeper at the back of the group, so the marker is passed by every other rider in the group, and the faster riders then overtake everyone to get back to the front.

- with the Compuserve group, the peer pressure was to conform to the group riding ethos, so new riders quickly picked up the “style” and fitted in. The VD riders were “every man for himself” and even where that didn’t lead to aggressive or fast riding (we lost a few of the ‘quick’ guys who professed themselves bored at intermediate stops), the constant overtaking by the markers meant riders did not have a ‘participant’ mentality of enjoying the ride as a team.

My own preference is for the caterpillar over the leapfrog system. By allowing overtaking rather than insisting on a rigid order, you can quickly sort out the faster riders to the front, and from that point on they stay there, assuming they are happy riding at the pace they are, because they only need to wait for the rider behind! That means there’s no quick guys riding repeatedly through the entire group and everyone sets their own pace in their own “bubble” of space.

By contrast, the leapfrog system means a constant stream of bikes passing the slower riders. Whilst that might be acceptable for riders who are used to each other’s company, my own experience is that this is far more likely to make a novice group rider feel they aren’t going fast enough; I believe the caterpillar makes for a much more relaxed and safer ride for all riders, particularly the less experienced who don’t have to worry about where the next bike will overtake them, but can simply get on with riding their own ride.

Downsides to the caterpillar system? Well, some were suggested, which are worth considering.

One possibility is that the rest stops for the lead group get extended unnecessarily because the caterpillar means the group strung out too far and the front guys are itching to go whilst the tail enders are only just arriving. True, it can happen if there are very slow riders at the back and you allow long rides between breaks, but quite honestly, if that’s the case, I think you’re better off running two groups with different paced riders each under their own leader, or breaking the ride up into shorter sections; you’re not likely to have to wait more than 7 or 8 minutes if you keep the sections to an hour or so.

Because of the build up of bigger gaps, another argument is that riders will feel under greater pressure to keep up for fear of getting left behind. If you can make it very clear in the briefing that riders don’t need to worry about being left behind, the pressure to keep up isn’t really an issue. And what often happens is that riders tend to form mini-groups anyway.

Another possible problem was the risk of someone moving away from a marking position before really checking that the next rider is the next in the group. Again, a good briefing should prevent that, but if the rider is the kind who’ll abandon the marking point, it can happen on either style of ride.

By contrast, an advantage of the caterpillar marking system is that you soon get to know who’s ahead and behind, whereas with a big group using the leapfrog system, you never know who is part of your group and that can lead to some mishaps. A couple of years back I was out with a few mates using the caterpillar, one of us stopped to mark a turn behind me, and another group (Thames Valley Advanced Motorcycles I suspect ) mistook him for one of THEIR riders and all took the turn to follow me instead of their own group, and then overtook the rest of my group and tucked in behind me!! When I realised what they were doing, I stopped and told ‘em they’d followed the wrong group! They seemed to think it was my fault too! That wouldn’t have happened with the caterpillar, as they would have spotted the unfamiliar rider waiting ahead and ignored them.

A final criticism was that the faster riders at the front have to follow caterpillar leader and can’t go any quicker, whereas in the leapfrog they can ride as fast as they like. In my experience, big bike runs are a bit like a wolf pack, with the riders staying bunched up, so the only way to “ride faster” is often on the wrong side of the centre line! Not my idea of a relaxed ride, and the caterpillar actually gives the leader a chance to ride a bit quicker too if you think about it! But ultimately, if someone wants to ride a lot quicker than the group leader, then the individual should question if group riding is the “thing” for them?

With the exception of the initial sort out of positioning, the caterpillar is the same police system I trained on for the National Motorcycle Escort group – you get allotted a position on the escort, and you stay there.

Many groups run perfectly happily using the leapfrog system, and I’m not suggesting that you change systems if the leapfrog works for you and you’re used to it. But if you’re organising a run for riders you’re not familiar with or who are largely new to group riding, then I’d go for the caterpillar every time.

As regards what group riding should be about, there is an excellent pair of articles from 91, written by Nick Ienatsch, and still highly relevant to group riding today: “The Pace” and “The Pace Pt 2″. You can find them easily enough with a Google.

A summary of his principles are:

1. Set cornering speed early. Blow the entrance and you’ll never recover.
2. Look down the road. Maintaining a high visual horizon will reduce perceived speed and help you to avoid panic situations.
3. Steer the bike quickly. There’s a reason Wayne Rainey works out – turning a fast-moving motorcycle takes muscle.
4. Use your brakes smoothly but firmly. Get on and then off the brakes; don’t drag ‘em.
5. Get the throttle on early. Starting the drive settles the chassis, especially through a bumpy corner.
6. Never cross the centreline except to pass. Crossing the centreline in a corner is an instant ticket and an admittance that you can’t really steer your bike. In racing terms, your lane is the course; staying right of the line adds a significant challenge to most roads and is mandatory for sport riding’s future.
7. Don’t crowd the centreline. Always expect an on-coming car with two wheels in your lane.
8. Don’t hang off in the corners or tuck in on the straights. Sitting sedately on the bikes looks safer and reduces unwanted attention. It also provides a built-in safety margin.
9. When leading, ride for the group. Good verbal communication is augmented with hand signals and turn signals; change direction and speed smoothly.
10. When following, ride with the group. If you can’t follow a leader, don’t expect anyone to follow you when you’re setting the Pace.

One last point when thinking about a group ride – does the stream of bikes constantly overtaking each other look “responsible” to the general public?