What incentives does British Cycling’s points system create?

Dispatches is our home for contributed pieces from inside the British racing scene. In this instalment, Elliott Colyer—racer, founder of the rider-led collective Aero CLCTV, and winner of this year’s Totnes–Vire Two-Day—asks what behaviours it now encourages — and proposes four small changes.

A quick note before we begin: I’ll refer to points bands throughout this article rather than repeatedly listing individual points allocations. If you’d like to see the full table of points awarded for each band, it’s available in the British Cycling Technical Regulations Handbook.

The British Cycling points system has a difficult job.

It needs to reward performance, encourage progression, and create fair racing, all through a system riders can understand.

Most of the time, it succeeds.

But points don’t just determine what category someone rides in. They also influence where people race, which events they prioritise, whether they decide to step up to harder competition, and sometimes whether they race at all.

I’ve started to wonder whether there are any small adjustments that could better reflect the reality of British racing in 2026

That matters because British road racing in 2026 isn’t operating in the same environment the current points structure was built for. The core points structure has remained largely unchanged since at least 2012. During that time the racing landscape has changed considerably. Races have struggled for entries, some have disappeared entirely, and riders and organisers are making decisions in a scene that is thinner than it once was.

In that landscape, I’ve started to wonder whether there are any small adjustments that could better reflect the reality of British racing in 2026.

Before diving in, a caveat: these observations are based on my own racing and conversations over the past season. They’re by no means exhaustive and, as someone racing primarily in the South Region, some experiences may differ elsewhere. They also focus on open racing, as that’s where my experience lies. The dynamics within women’s racing may be quite different, and I don’t know that side of the sport well enough to comment with confidence.

Observation 1: the Reg C+ divide — Goodwood vs Mountbatten

My two local midweek circuit races are Goodwood and Mountbatten. Both are classified as Reg C+, meaning they award the same points: 10 for a win, with points down to 10th place. In reality, however, they occupy rather different places within today’s racing landscape.

The E123 race at Goodwood covers 12 laps and around 45 kilometres of racing, typically lasting close to an hour. Round one of the Spring Series attracted 54 riders. At Mountbatten, the E123 race lasts 45 minutes. Round two of the series attracted 13 riders.

If a points system is intended to recognise both the difficulty and significance of a performance, should races like these really be worth the same as every other Reg C+ event?

The point isn’t that one race is better than the other. Both serve an important role within the local racing scene. Rather, it’s that two races can sit within the same points band despite offering very different levels of competition and playing very different roles within riders’ calendars.

If a points system is intended to recognise both the difficulty and significance of a performance, should races like these really be worth the same as every other Reg C+ event?

Goodwood is simply one example; Thruxton is another. Both regularly attract large, competitive fields that feel materially different from many other Reg C+ races. At the other end of the scale sit National B circuit races, where the winner receives 30 points, but which are limited to E123 riders. That leaves a sizeable gap between the strongest E123 midweek circuits and the next step on the ladder.

The current structure appears to assume that the most meaningful progression through the higher categories should come primarily from National-level racing rather than regional events.

I think there is a great deal of merit in that. The question is whether today’s domestic calendar still provides enough opportunities for that principle to work as intended, or whether some of the strongest E123 circuit races now occupy a role the points structure wasn’t originally designed to accommodate.

Observation 2: the stage race

Last month I rode the Yomp Bonk Crew’s Ronde van Wymeswold (RVW), a National B stage race.

Under the current British Cycling points structure:

• National B GC win: 60 points
• National B road stage win: 15 points
• National B circuit stage win: 15 points
• National B TT stage win: 15 points

Consider a rider who wins Stage 3 at RVW, a planned 117-kilometre road stage against a strong Nat B field, after finishing 8th on the 115-kilometre opening stage.

British Cycling requires a standalone Nat B road race to be at least 120 kilometres for full points where elevation gain is below 1,500 metres. Both of these stages fell only a few kilometres short of that threshold and represented essentially the same effort as a standalone Nat B road race.

The current structure effectively takes the view that a stage win is a stage win, regardless of discipline. Whether that principle still produces sensible outcomes is another question

Yet because they formed part of a stage race, the rider received just 15 points for the win and 3 for 8th place, leaving the weekend with 25 points once their 15th place on GC was included.

To put that into perspective, 8th place in a standalone Nat B road race is worth 23 points, while victory is worth 60. The contrast becomes even starker when considering time trials. At RVW the TT lasted around 13½ minutes. Earlier this season at Totnes–Vire it lasted around two minutes. Both awarded the same 15-point prize as a 117-kilometre road stage.

To be fair to the regulations, this is entirely consistent. The current structure effectively takes the view that a stage win is a stage win, regardless of discipline. Whether that principle still produces sensible outcomes is another question.

I am not suggesting awarding full Nat B points for every road stage. That would distort the wider rankings system and over-incentivise stage racing. However, there appears to be a reasonable middle ground.

One option would be to upgrade road stages within Nat B stage races from the current Reg B Road band to Reg A Road. A stage win would increase from 15 to 30 points, with points extending further down the field, better reflecting the scale of the effort while still recognising GC as the primary objective.

Upgrading road stages to the equivalent Reg A Road band would extend that same principle to road stages

Time trials and circuit stages could remain unchanged. Under the current stage race points structure, circuit stages already align with their standalone Reg A circuit equivalent. Upgrading road stages to the equivalent Reg A Road band would extend that same principle to road stages.

Under that approach:

• National B GC win: 60 points
• National B road stage win: 30 points
• National B circuit stage win: 15 points
• National B TT stage win: 15 points

Under the current structure the rider leaves the weekend with 25 points. Under the proposed structure they would leave with 50. Whether that is too many or a fairer reflection of winning a 117-kilometre Nat B road stage is ultimately a matter of opinion, but it illustrates the scale of the proposed change.

At the time of writing, British Cycling Technical Regulations specify minimum distances for Nat A road races and maximum distances for Junior stage races, but do not appear to prescribe a minimum road stage distance for senior Nat B stage races. If road-stage points were increased, a minimum stage length would likely be required. A threshold somewhere around 70 kilometres would seem broadly consistent with the lower end of existing Nat B stage race road stages.

At present, a two-minute prologue and a 117-kilometre road stage are worth the same number of points. Whether they should be is, at the very least, worth discussing.

Observation 3: what if finishing mattered?

Nat A and Nat B road racing are sports of attrition. Looking again at RVW, roughly three in every eight riders failed to finish. One-day racing often tells a similar story. This year’s Kennel Hill Classic had 46 finishers, while the PB Performance Espoirs Road Race had 38, despite both starting with full fields.

Finishing a Nat B road race is not an insignificant achievement. For many riders, particularly those stepping up from Reg A racing, simply making it to the finish represents a meaningful performance milestone.

Yet the current points system makes no distinction between a rider who is dropped after 20 kilometres and one who survives to the finish outside the points. That isn’t necessarily wrong—points reward results—but I wonder whether there is room for a small amount of recognition between those two extremes.

One option would be to award a single point to every classified finisher of a Nat A or Nat B road race

One option would be to award a single point to every classified finisher of a Nat A or Nat B road race. Not enough to significantly alter the rankings system, but enough to acknowledge the achievement of finishing a difficult National-level event.

Importantly, this wouldn’t reward participation alone. Riders who are pulled, lapped, or abandon would still receive nothing.

The reward is intentionally modest, but it changes the incentive. Rather than recognising only riders who finish in the points, the system would also recognise those who step up to National-level racing and see it through to the finish.

At present, a rider who abandons after an hour and a rider who finishes 40th in a Nat B leave with exactly the same reward: none. The question isn’t simply whether finishing deserves a point, but whether recognising it would encourage behaviours we want to see more of.

Progression, participation, and incentives

The three observations above all point towards the same question: what behaviours does the current points system encourage?

Points do not simply determine categories. They influence which races riders enter, which races they prioritise and, ultimately, how they progress through the sport. Like any incentive structure, riders naturally optimise around them. Points are never the only factor, but they remain one of the strongest, and because category progression shapes who races where and who they race against, those incentives extend well beyond the individual rider.

Whether through changes to points, race classifications or the way the system reflects today’s racing calendar, any adjustment to the incentive structure will alter progression through the categories. The obvious question is whether that is a good thing.

One of the defining characteristics of Cat 2 racing is its breadth of ability. Some riders have only recently been promoted from Cat 3 and struggle to score consistently, returning to Cat 3 the following season. Others regularly win Reg As and score in Nat Bs, yet remain one promotion away from 1st Category.

This creates an unusually broad spread of ability within a single category. Viewed through that lens, slightly accelerating progression is not necessarily a negative outcome. If riders who are consistently achieving strong results move through the categories more quickly, they spend less time racing below their demonstrated level.

That may make racing fairer both for riders below them and those progressing alongside them. Categories work best when riders compete against others of broadly similar ability and progression feels attainable. If stronger riders move through the system more efficiently, the categories beneath them may become both more competitive and more accessible, encouraging more riders to keep turning up and racing.

A second incentive also contributes to this broad spread of ability within Cat 2. For many riders, reaching 1st Category does not simply represent promotion. It also represents a substantial reduction in the number of road races available to them. Overnight, the Regional A road race calendar disappears, leaving riders largely reliant on Nat B and Nat A racing.

Rather than striving for promotion as quickly as possible, some riders instead find themselves managing points to delay it

That creates an unusual incentive. Rather than striving for promotion as quickly as possible, some riders instead find themselves managing points to delay it. When promotion removes a significant proportion of your racing opportunities, it inevitably changes the way some riders view the points system and exacerbates that broad range of abilities within Cat 2.

Of course, there are risks. More points could mean more Cat 2 riders. More Cat 2 riders could mean more Cat 1 riders. In a calendar with abundant events at every level, that may not matter. In a thinner one, where race availability is already a challenge, it could create unintended consequences.

Yet national-level racing also relies on a steady flow of riders progressing upwards through the system. Nat B road races and stage races require greater travel, commitment, and expense than their regional equivalents, but they provide the bridge between regional and national competition.

If small changes pushed more riders to step up, finish National-level races, and support stage racing, they could strengthen participation at the top end of the domestic calendar.

The current points structure has done a remarkably good job of rewarding results and providing a clear pathway through the categories. None of the changes proposed here would transform British road racing on their own, and they are far from the only ideas worth discussing.

I chose these examples because they illustrate different ways in which relatively small changes to incentive structures might influence rider behaviour. Some could likely be implemented quickly. Others raise broader questions about whether a points structure designed around the racing calendar of a decade ago still maps cleanly onto the domestic calendar we have today.

My hope is simply that they help start a broader discussion about what behaviours we want the points system to encourage.

Because when you build a system, riders optimise for it.

Featured image: Gary Main