TBD: We’ve heard you’re more excited about Neversink-style races than even crits. True or false?

DT: Neversink has always been an exercise in putting on a race that I would want to compete in. No pressure from sponsors. No major financial burdens. Yeah, just to be an event that I think would be really fun.

I'm fanatical about designing routes. Part of it is just being able to design a super interesting race course: I was obsessive over last year’s Neversink course, and then seeing everyone race it on the day is really fulfilling. And the setting is so amazing – a brilliant escape from being in front of the screen.

TBD: What's your process for designing a course?

DT: I mean RHC is on another level. To design the course for Brooklyn last year, I spent at least four months of just studying it and going into the venue, coming out with all these different concepts and testing it, and having architects draw up plans.

TBD: What drove the changes last year?

DT: A combination of things. I like to change it every year that I can: What would make it spectator friendly? What would make it safe enough, but not too safe? What would make the festival area work well?

TBD: So is it production value vs sporting value?

DT: I’m always thinking about what will make for a thrilling race in the end.

We took steps along the way to professionalize the operation. We worked with teams that were responsible for building our courses based on our designs. We had to recognize that the race is so crazy, so high adrenaline, that a top priority is being able to control the circuit.

From my motorsports days, I know how important the course marshals are. If there's a crash, the flag goes out immediately. Compare that to any other bike race. If you see some of the insane videos from USA Cycling Crits, there will be a crash, and then they just run into it three laps in a row, because no one knows how to stop the race. So by design we are able to really control the course tightly, and get the best people to do it.

TBD: When it comes to cost of production, is permitting the biggest part?

DT: Staff. Staff is by far the biggest part. And a lot of that is bringing these marshals over. We used to get marshals locally in each city, first as volunteers, and then we would pay them... And then we realized, “Oh, wait. They're only doing it once a year. They're not learning how to do this well.” So we hired a team of the same people to go to every race. Going to all the races makes sense, but it just costs a lot. So every time we made the race better, it costs a lot more money.

TBD: Was there a process for capturing that knowledge and making the whole thing better?

DT: You know, after every race, no matter how successful it was, I would wake up on Monday kind of depressed. Just thinking about all the things that went wrong. In London, a spectator jumped on the course: why did he do that? How can we stop that in the future?

So after every race we make a five page list of all the problems and then we figure out if these things were just flukes, or can we solve it?

To give you a specific example: I decided to start bringing the same marshal team to every race, as a result of what happened after a big crash in Barcelona 2015, with three laps to go: one of the marshals panicked and called for a red flag. Later, we looked at the video, and actually, we could have kept the race going. He wasn't experienced enough to make that decision to keep the race going, because the crash looked really bad. Once you have the same marshals doing it, race after race after race, they would gain more experience and be able to make better calls.

TBD: Any other good examples?

DT: Hundreds probably! Some of them are super obvious: we used to not have photo-finish cameras, because we were just trusting the timing chips. Next thing you know, we had a really close sprint finish in Milan 2013, where it was so close between third and fourth, and we realized the timing chips didn’t really work for that. We ended up getting there, but I could write a book about every step of the way.

TBD: We hear from race directors across the US, and some are really concerned learning that RHC wasn’t continuing this year. Do you have any thoughts to share or advice from your experience?

DT: I think it depends on what scale the events are already at. Take Grant's Tomb here in New York: I think there's a real risk in trying to grow it. CRCA actually asked me this year if I wanted to help direct it, and I determined that they should keep it at the level and exposure it is. Because right now they're not even paying for the police – their costs are super low! And the second you start growing, it is just going to turn into this monster. The police could easily charge them $100,000 for the day, and they currently don't charge them anything. So once you get a big sponsor, the police are going to see a corporate logo, and they're gonna want their money.

For other organizers, especially fixed gear organizers, I think they need circuits that are safe first and foremost. A lot of them are just hacking together these courses and not really thinking about how to make the event safe. Usually those events work well when there's 50 people racing, but all of a sudden, they have 200 entries, and it's a different story.

They’re keeping themselves from growing their own event. Because going through a three foot wide opening between two stone walls might be fine at first, but once the race becomes bigger and more important, people are going to take bigger risks. I don't ever give blanket advice, but safety and making sure your race rules and scoring make sense, could be some. And you know...have a finish line. And perhaps lastly, be honest to yourself as a director about what it is and not trying to make it something that it can’t be.