ZebraMan wrote:

Sorry. I disagree. (Again) I do not think our object should be to increase the population of racers in the sport. Why? There are certainly some categories that need promotion to fill the peloton or to provide opportunities for more skill specification, but I see no need to simply increase our numbers.

Hmmmm........selective breeding? Zebra, you should look into what happened to the Zebra Quagga........

Quote:Zebras do wind up in pastures (or in a zoo) eventually.
Quote:Oh, and never forget, many zebras become dinner.

Damn, now this is the kind of trash talkin' that gets me fired up to race!! I am sooooo psyched to get this season rolling!! It's way too long from October to January. Thank God for football and crack cocaine.

Quote:I think that the object is to try to grow the sport, and you need new blood to do that.

Sorry. I disagree. (Again) I do not think our object should be to increase the population of racers in the sport. Why? There are certainly some categories that need promotion to fill the peloton or to provide opportunities for more skill specification, but I see no need to simply increase our numbers. On the contrary, we may need to increase the number of races to match the current overpopulation in certain fields.

Rather, in my opinion our goals should be (in priority order): 1. to increase safety and skill level of all racers in the region, 2. to recruit young racers and women to perpetuate the sport and fill gaps in the racer population, and 3. to provide more races and more slots in existing races for the swollen populations of existing racers.

I do not see how it serves any of these goals to have non-junior, male novices - especially masters - mixed with other skill levels or racing road races. For some of the races where admission is less prized, it is not contrary to these goals to admit a 5's field. But I still believe that whether or not you are scared of crits, a mentored corporate park is the place to learn pack skills for the road or crits - not in a non-mentored road race. The very reason that an aspiring racer is scared of a corporate park crit is the very reason he needs to race there first: to gain skills and confidence racing in a pack.

If they want to ride fast and long on Sundays rides and centuries, great. If they want to race and risk the safety of the peloton, they should be trained. Mentored corporate park crits are the best and most effective way to train new racers. Why should the pack be endangered because a Sunday rider wants to "try his hand" at bike racing at Pine Flat or Copperopolis?

Would Infineon let me race my car in a 50-car field because I thought I could handle it without training? Would you partner up with me for a scuba dive knowing I'd never even been in the pool?

This dude is not Sam - the other guy is. But he's definitely how I feel sometimes about these issues. Zebra for dinner? What are you, Cro-Magnin?

mvracer wrote:RacerX wrote:
(I'm mildly curious how you spent your Sunday, but don't want to seem argumentative.)

Since you ask.....70 mile training ride, including about 3500 feet of climbs.

Zebras do wind up in pastures (or in a zoo) eventually.

mmmm, nice. Climbs and good natured jabs at the zebra are cool with me.

Since we (InfoVista) recruited about 30 NEW racers for 2009, including 8 new Juniors, I feel pretty compelled to go around in circles while mentoring on Sundays. Really, the best welcome to the sport seems to be instruction by experienced mentors (like Ron, Zebra, Larry, Lauren, etc.) and induction with other beginners. This keeps them from getting discouraged by racing against higher/faster categories and also avoids unsafe situations for those who've put in the years of work to upgrade. The future stars will move up fast enough while those more human can work it at our own pace; some will find racing just isn't for them.

Keep in mind that many cat 4s (men AND women) do not have the goal up upgrading to cat 3 (genetics and/or limited training time keeps many from competing any higher). It would be nice to know that even the newest of men racing with me in a NON-beginners race had at least 10 starts (or better yet, 5 starts and 5 skills sessions at the EBs). And don't forget the easily forgotten - cat 5s are NOT supposed to races for prizes, even for primes!

Oh, and never forget, many zebras become dinner.

RacerX wrote:
(I'm mildly curious how you spent your Sunday, but don't want to seem argumentative.)

Since you ask.....70 mile training ride, including about 3500 feet of climbs. No arguments taken. Of course I know that Zebra mentors....my earlier post was a little bit of a tweak (just like he does on occassion). Interesting how the stripes fly when Jesster/Zebra is on the receiving end; he sure likes to dish it out though.....

My only point is to try to be inclusive of everyone (in a rational manner) in the race categories. I think that the object is to try to grow the sport, and you need new blood to do that.

Zebras do wind up in pastures (or in a zoo) eventually.

Sam I am? Isn't that one of the Zeeb's alter-ego's already created?

Ok, MVracer, the Zebra was clearly NOT bothered at all as I observed his fine mentoring of the new aspiring racers Sunday at the EBs. He raced his race and helped for hours through rain & wind - he's an advocate for the sport and a true mentor for the aspiring racer. (I'm mildly curious how you spent your Sunday, but don't want to seem argumentative.) Now, re-read Ron the Axeman's original rationale behind this question, don't read to much into the ideas set forth by anyone here. And again, just answer the question...

Seems many do think the 5s should be separated whenever feasible. Therefore, we may indeed wish to adjust the future BAR/BAT categories which might further persuade some race directors to keep the racers-in-training separate form the intermediate and advanced categories. Seems best for all - beside s the few races way out yonder, is there a good reason to not separate them?

mvracer wrote:I think the ZebraMan shows his real colors here - he wants to race with his buds, and doesn't want to be bothered with aspiring racers.

Ah, Motor Vehicle Racer. Zebraman's world is all about grazing, stampeding, kicking, snorting and (of course) stealing beer out of tourists' jeeps.

Seriously, I don't even like racing with my "buds," that's why I keep changing teams.

No really, you are actually correct, MV. I want to race with my buds; that is, the guys I've been racing against for several years, the guys whose skill sets I trust: the 45+ 1/2/3's (maybe even the 4's). And I want my buds and me to race, not be shut out of the monuments in an hour because of an over-inclusive field of 50 open 45+'s. And I want my buds to go home in their expensive cars, not in ambulances.

But that doesn't explain my opinions about the standarizing the 35+ 4 or 35+ 3/4 groups. I have buds there, but I don't ever get to race with them since I'm a cat. 2. So maybe there actually is something other than self-interest involved -- like logical thought.

But you're right about my "true colors" being "not wanting to be bothered with aspiring racers." Oops, I have no colors at all: I'm black and white. So which is it, white or black, that's spending hours at Early Birds every Sunday working with aspiring racers? Or mentoring 5's fields during the year? (Maybe it's one of those wierd Dr. Seuss zebras that have the nonsensical colors you recognize in me?!?)

Okay, maybe my suggestion about eliminating the 5's entirely from road races is extreme. If Phippsy thinks so, I'm persuaded.

I'm not suggesting a USAC rule change, or even in the NCNCA. But the BAR competition is suggestive of the basic cat's, and Robert probably needs to stop mimeographing the same race flyers and acknowledge the extreme changes in demographics in the region. Even if has the good sense not to read this Forum, can't anyone (credible) talk to him??

Meanwhile, I want to change my moniker and (hopefully) reset my posts register to zero. I know who I want to be ...

Does anyone know this guy's name?

From reading all of the posts it looks like the "simple" solution is to eliminate the 5's from the 35+ 4/5 or 45+ races that are real popular and fill up in minutes (Snelling, Madera, Berkeley Hills, etc.), thus allowing more room for the 4's and giving 5's an incentive to upgrade), and allowing them to race in the 35+ 4/5 or 45+ groups at races that don't sell out and where the courses are safer for mixed fields such as hill climbs and other hilly road races where the pack splits into small groups.

There will be plenty of opportunities for 5's to get in their 10 races on the road even without doing crits if they don't want to. There is always plenty of room at races such as Pine Flat, Orosi, Leesville, and Challenge to name a few.

ZebraMan wrote:

We need to stop treating 5's as racers. They are trainees. I believe that our primary goal for the sport should not be the expansion of the ranks of racers, but the improvement of the general skill level. Toward that end, at least in this wonderful race-rich region, in this as in most other skilled professions, lets' make aspiring racers ("Probies"), male or female, pay their dues before joining the competitive peloton!

Hmmm......I always thought that A) this was just a hobby, albeit a serious one for many, and B) the goal for any amateur sport is to expand the ranks of participants. Better to have the problem of too many participants than the cancelling of event for lack of interest.

I think the ZebraMan shows his real colors here - he wants to race with his buds, and doesn't want to be bothered with aspiring racers.

I'm all for making sure that the aspiring racer is well trained (and mentored) in racing fundamentals and techniques, but I'm not for banishing them to the hinterlands. As long as they are safe, isn't this supposed to be fun in the end?

ZebraMan wrote:We need to stop treating 5's as racers. They are trainees. I believe that our primary goal for the sport should not be the expansion of the ranks of racers, but the improvement of the general skill level. Toward that end, at least in this wonderful race-rich region, in this as in most other skilled professions, lets' make aspiring racers ("Probies"), male or female, pay their dues before joining the competitive peloton!

The bumper stickers:
Remake the 35+ 4/5 category! (> 35+ 3/4 or 35+ 4)
Junk the 45+ open category! (> 45+ 1/2/3 or 45+ 1-4)
Create a W5 category!
Combine and mentor!
Eliminate the 5's category from road races, challenging crits and the monuments!

Well now hang on Jess.

Agree that splitting Cat 5 from 35+4/5 makes sense, but only where the field sizes currently justify it, and only at the promoter's option. I doubt this would fly as a USCF rule because of race sizes elsewhere in the country - we do follow national rules after all. And even in NCNCA you don't have to go back too far to find 35+4/5 necessary at many events to get good field sizes.

Completely disagree about a rule shutting Cat 5s out of road races. Terrible idea! Many people find crits intimidating, to the point of never planning to do them - but a central valley road race isn't much more challenging than a weekend club ride. It's a great place for beginners to get a taste of the sport. More practically, Cat 5s are key to paying the permits at the Tam Hill Climb, so I'll make sure you never get that rule change passed. I imagine BobL would say the same for many events. It's addressing an imaginary problem (what is the Cat 5 crash rate in road races?), and would cause actual problems.

Similar Q: is any follow-up being done on whether mentored 5's are doing any better than average at keeping the rubber down? I think these mentored EBs are great but talk about making them mandatory seems premature w/o answering that Q.

-Tad

309 posts? Hmm, is that since the end of last season?
Slackers. Think like Walmart-quantity, not quality is what counts.

Jess/Zebra = 309 posts. Number of posts that are not about racing categories... 12. Maybe it takes something other than posting here to affect needed changes. Run little zebra, run like the wind!

Ignore, this post serves only to half wheel the Zebra and make sure he doesn't pull ahead in total number of posts.

(Surely a futile attempt, but it's Friday)

Robert doesn't monitor this forum, but Casey (pres) Lorri (treas) and George (vice pres) do read the posts regularly. Again, promoters can offer whatever categories they want. And BAR was set in the January BOD meeting. ANYONE is welcome to come in person or log in each month to express their concerns. Get it on the agenda or come in person and present it as new business. My understanding is each club can have one member act as a representative and vote on the decisions made at those meetings.

George Meilahn
VP Road, NCNCA

The Zebrette would never support the idea. It's enough of a challenge to get race time with a 2 year-old and a month old foal.

Besides, there's this little problem I have with ... people.

I am hopeful that Tom and Casey and Robert and the rest of the decision-makers in the NCNCA are monitoring these discussions of their members, and considering the opinions and arguments expressed herein. Otherwise, we really are just puffing smoke.

If Jess doesn't want the job, I would consider it.

I don't have to move to Colorado, do I?

Ron (where do I sign up) Castia

Jess, have you thought about getting yourself elected to the board of USAC? It would appear you've got lots of ideas about how the NGB should develop fields and rules for beginner racers. My other suggestion is pass them onto Tom Simonson, since he's been chair of the USAC legislative committee in the past.

Now tell me again why there are TWO cat.5 fields at the Snelling RR?? One of those 5's fields still has only 3 riders registered!
Why also include the 5's in the two 35+ 4/5 fields, which filled almost immediately?? How many 35+ 4's got eliminated by 5's, who could have ridden in the 5's?

Why are we training racers at Snelling? Eliminate the 5's and you have two more 50 racer fileds and a lot of happy 35+ 4's!

Meanwhile there were only 50 spots available for any and all 45+ racers, possibly including even more 5's! Of course they sold out in hours and filled the 50-person waiting list in a day! The 45's of all cat's should have at least as many spots as the 5's!!

I don't get it.

Yes, Laurie's done a great job. And of course the Early Birds have always (at least as far as I'm aware) trained novice women as well as men.

Lorri, I didn't enunciate well my thoughts: Male 5's and Female 4's with less than 10 races should be mentored in Early Birds, skills camps and a combined, mentored, novice category at non-challenging crits. (Not road races, not the most popular races, not the most challenging crit courses). Both men and women should have 10 mentored non-challenging crits / skills sessions before they are ever permitted to join a competitive peloton or race a challenging course. There is no reason those novice training sessions should be separated by gender.

While it is true that the field of a combined M/F novice category is likely to fracture (not by gender but by strength), there are always at least two mentors in NCNCA-mentored fields who can guide and regroup each of the pelotons. I am of the opinion that all novice "sessions" should be mentored, that these "novice sessions" should never be placed, that attendance at post-race discussion should be mandatory for receiving upgrade credit.

I therefore agree with you, Lorri, that the women should have a 5's training category with the same criteria for the men. The low numbers are irrelevant if both genders are trained concurrently.

We need to stop treating 5's as racers. They are trainees. I believe that our primary goal for the sport should not be the expansion of the ranks of racers, but the improvement of the general skill level. Toward that end, at least in this wonderful race-rich region, in this as in most other skilled professions, lets' make aspiring racers ("Probies"), male or female, pay their dues before joining the competitive peloton!

The bumper stickers:
Remake the 35+ 4/5 category! (> 35+ 3/4 or 35+ 4)
Junk the 45+ open category! (> 45+ 1/2/3 or 45+ 1-4)
Create a W5 category!
Combine and mentor!
Eliminate the 5's category from road races, challenging crits and the monuments!

ZebraMan wrote:
That said, let me walk into another lion's den: This philosophy regarding the 5's (male) should arguably apply to the 4's with less than 10 races (female). I understand that we want to do everything we can to encourage new racing gals, and that their fields are smaller and thus crashes less likely, but structured, mentored training is equally important and should probably be mandated in a manner similar to the men.

Unfortunately, there is no separation between experienced W4 and new W4. We have lobbied USAC for a number of years now to implement a W5 category, but they don't feel the numbers warrant it. And, of course, a separate W4 (less than 10 races) would require an additional race for promoters.

Jess, there is a mentoring program for the W4 (Winner Within managed by Laurie Fenech). It's been around for many years and was the model for the new (last year) E5 mentoring program.

tonyreid wrote:Perhaps the EB format could be continued throughout the season to provide opportunities for Cat 5's to get the required racing experience. Some sort of incentive could be provided to attract mentors who would be giving up the opportunity to race elsewhere on those weekend.

Tony Reid, you are a genius. Fortunately there are a lot of other geniuses out there thinking up a storm as well.

We already have exactly that system. The NCNCA is sponsoring a mentoring program, run by Alan Atha, in which experienced (and paid) mentors are supplied to races with a 5's category who wish the service. Almost all of the races in the region with 5's are participating. Many of the long-time Early Bird mentors and some very competent pro coaches are on the mentor list. Many of them are frequent Forum contributors. One of them (in stripes) is your teammate.

Notwithstanding my enthusiastic participation in the mentoring program, I believe that some races should offer 5's and some should not. At popular races that routinely sell out, the 5's should be a lesser priority than a second field for a seriously overpopulated field (like the 35+ 4's or the 45 1-3 or 1-4's), or for a disadvantaged field of experienced racers (like the W3's). That will still leave plenty of races for the 5's.

Frankly, in my opinion there is no logical reason to have a 5's category in road races at all! The pack skills you need to learn to be a safe racer are better learned on a corporate crit course like EB's with mentors guiding and critiquing you. Mentoring is not as effective in a long road race.

If a new racer can upgrade by attending all the Birds, that will make him the best racer. There is no reason to skimp on skills because someone want to try their hand in the middle of the year for the first time at a challenging crit course. This is not protectionism. It's not much to ask for someone to have some structured training before risking all our safety, even if they have to wait half a season. We have more of a responsibility to those who have learned and trained and joined teams and helped run races to get them on the start list, than we do to an aspiring newbie with an urge to race.

That said, let me walk into another lion's den: This philosophy regarding the 5's (male) should arguably apply to the 4's with less than 10 races (female). I understand that we want to do everything we can to encourage new racing gals, and that their fields are smaller and thus crashes less likely, but structured, mentored training is equally important and should probably be mandated in a manner similar to the men.

The bottom line of this thread is almost universally agreed: There is no valid reason why the 35+ or 45+ novice 5's should be racing with 35+ 4's or 45+ 1/2/3/4's, nor why the BAR system should endorse those categories.

"So, maybe there is a middle ground. Why not (at least in the NCNCA region) make the EB's mandatory for CAT 5's. You can't go out and race until you have done the complete series, and passed the "final exam", which would be the last EB crit. You then get some sort of stamp on your license that lets you participate in the 4/5 races. At least then there would (in theory) be a minimum competence level for the 5's, which should help alleviate the concerns about safety, and it would also allow them to upgrade as soon as practicable."

"I don't think the EB's should be mandatory for upgrading to 4 since many people new to the sport don't start racing until later in the year and waiting for the next year's EB's may put them off."

As I understand it, the EB's are consistently very well attended. Given their location in a business park with limited course closure related costs, I would assume that they are some of Robert's most profitable races. Perhaps the EB format could be continued throughout the season to provide opportunities for Cat 5's to get the required racing experience. Some sort of incentive could be provided to attract mentors who would be giving up the opportunity to race elsewhere on those weekend.

My $.02 worth

Tony

mvracer wrote:So, just how is a 5 going to get in his 10 mass starts?

I'm not 100% certain it's still the case, but once upon a time, there was no rule that qualifying races for upgrades had to be "sanctioned" -- i.e., they only had to meet the field size and distance requirements. And if you look at the field and distance requirements to go from 5 to 4, your run-of-the-mill local twilight race probably qualifies.

mvracer wrote:So, maybe there is a middle ground. Why not (at least in the NCNCA region) make the EB's mandatory for CAT 5's.

Not a bad idea. Unless of course, one lives a few hundred miles away from Richmond (or wherever they are held).

mvracer wrote:

So, maybe there is a middle ground. Why not (at least in the NCNCA region) make the EB's mandatory for CAT 5's. You can't go out and race until you have done the complete series, and passed the "final exam", which would be the last EB crit. You then get some sort of stamp on your license that lets you participate in the 4/5 races. At least then there would (in theory) be a minimum competence level for the 5's, which should help alleviate the concerns about safety, and it would also allow them to upgrade as soon as practicable.

So, who would the 5's be in these 4/5 races if they're required to have gone to all the EB's and hence got their upgrade to Cat 4? :D

I don't think the EB's should be mandatory for upgrading to 4 since many people new to the sport don't start racing until later in the year and waiting for the next year's EB's may put them off.

Many (most?) races currently have an Elite 5 race for newcomers, that doesn't seem to fill as quickly as the 35+ 4/5 or 45+ fields.
If a race doesn't offer a race for 5's, that's OK and it's an incentive to upgrade.
There are plenty of opportunities out there for 5's to get their 10 mass starts, or 5 mass starts and a some clinics if they're in a hurry.

I agree with keeping 5's in separate races and this can definitely be done without adding more fields to races. This would allow 100 rider fields in the 35+ 4 (which filled up within hours at Zamora) and bigger fields in the 45+.

ZebraMan"Secondly, in my opinion the 5's should be eliminated from combined fields completely. It is a temporary training category. They should be mentored and trained, not be racing in mixed fields. And frankly, the 5's category is, in my opinion, more expendable at the popular races.[/quote wrote:

So, just how is a 5 going to get in his 10 mass starts? I understand the concept that no one wants an unsafe race, but it seems like the normal way to get new riders into the sport is through the normal process - start at the bottom and work your way up. At least the process, as it now stands, allows for a serious new rider to get to the next level fairly quickly - assuming that they go to all of the EB's. But, by banishing them to a limited number of races out in the middle of nowhere, you could kill that budding interest very quickly. Unless, of course, the intent is to make this a somewhat closed system, where everyone races with their buddies and the newbies are left to stand and watch.

So, maybe there is a middle ground. Why not (at least in the NCNCA region) make the EB's mandatory for CAT 5's. You can't go out and race until you have done the complete series, and passed the "final exam", which would be the last EB crit. You then get some sort of stamp on your license that lets you participate in the 4/5 races. At least then there would (in theory) be a minimum competence level for the 5's, which should help alleviate the concerns about safety, and it would also allow them to upgrade as soon as practicable.

It would also make sure that they are mentored correctly, and understand what they are doing before mixing it up. I think that this might be a better solution then eliminating the 5's completely. Unless, of course, the promoters want to add a seperate 5 catrgory to most of the races (which I doubt that they want to do).

bunny wrote:i appeal to the promoters of any given weekend to try to coordinate their categories

That's a damned practical idea, Bunny. I'll take that advice and check out what cat's Robert is offering at Santa Cruz and consider that info for Napa. Thanks.

As for the masters having multiple cat's to race at crits, it's true. That's a small offset for the "gift" of aging. And sometimes we can ride "up" in category; but the master 4 males can't because all of their options are the first to fill, and they are the largest demographic. So it would be good to think constructively how to service a larger number of the largest population of racers in the region -- especially at the NCNCA "monuments" like Snelling, Madera, the Giro, Cat's Hill, etc...

For my part, I'll take your advice and "ride up" in the 35+ 1/2/3 at Snelling to endeavor to help my teammates (i.e. hand them my water bottles from the side of the road on the extra damned lap).

everybody always wants the fields that they want to race in to be properly represented, understandably

but i maintain that not every category needs to be accomodated at every race

as there are more demands for more categories, it becomes simply impossible to have enough time in the day for all of them

and if we wait for the women's categories to grow to the size of the men's masters and 4/5 categories to be able to get the categories we need at races, we women might as well quit racing now

i appeal to the promoters of any given weekend to try to coordinate their categories

i'll use the women's categories as examples as that's what i know best, but you can apply this to 4/5s and masters categories

so maybe satuday the crit offers a womens 1/2/3 (or 1/2) and a cat 4
and then sunday the crit offers a women's 35+ and a cat 4, or a cat 1/2 and a 3/35+ amongst various options

i think many of us might race more if we had more appropriate options, even if it meant there were days we sat out to allow a different category to have their race

...I agree with Jess.

And Justin.

As long as it doesn't end up meaning taking away a field in order to add an extra 5s race (which definitely shouldn't be necessary considering that you just have to ENTER a handful of races to upgrade), then I'm all for it. Taking the 5s out of the mixed fields adds spots & makes sense, so long as it doesn't end up meaning somebody gets cut to add a extra cat 5 field.

There are only so many hours in the day and field sizes are set by USAC; someone is going to get screwed. But in the grand picture of the entire race calendar, do you honestly believe a masters racer (who often gets to do 2 or more crits in a day and has multiple options at any given event) is worse off than a female racer, who often gets thrown into the same race with brand new riders and seasoned professionals, and is then expected to enjoy their race and earn upgrade points?

My deepest sympathy lies elsewhere... s'all I'm sayin'.

I don't deny there's an issue with the ballooning Master's ranks and funneling all the 5s into a single heat seems to make sense. I have yet to hear an argument for keeping mixed fields, but maybe there's a reason. If a simple reshuffling of category 5 riders means 25 more spots and zero additional races, (i.e. nobody else gets bumped to make room for more old guys), great.

greenjersey wrote:When was the last time you could not race at an event due to a full field?

That would be 2006, when I was a cat 4. Not having to deal with impacted fields is one of the perks of upgrading. Highly recommended if you're really fired up about not getting to reg for Snelling. The M1/2/3 category isn't even half full, and the Elite 3 only has 22 reg'd so far...

The best two ways to change the "standard" field composition are to 1.) change the BAR categories, because promoters do consider that series in choosing fields, and 2.) convince Robert Liebold (Velo Promo).

Secondly, in my opinion the 5's should be eliminated from combined fields completely. It is a temporary training category. They should be mentored and trained, not be racing in mixed fields. And frankly, the 5's category is, in my opinion, more expendable at the popular races. The women, the masters, the experienced juniors - the racers who have paid their dues - deserve the scarce competition slots. The 5's should cut their teeth at Early Birds, at skills seminars, at less-popular road races, and at the wide nontechnical crits -- not at Snelling or Copper or Madera, and not at technical crits.

If the 5's resent me for saying so, join the club. I've been very actively involved with mentoring since my 2nd year racing. BUT ... accomodating the 5's to race should be our last priority. Let the waiting lists and shut-outs and mixed age groups be for the beginners, not for the experienced racers who've paid their dues over the years. I don't mentor to encourage more and more people to race -- I mentor to help those who really want to race do it better and safer.

That said, encouraging novices to join the sport for women and juniors makes a lot of practical sense. But not for elites and not for masters.

Lets' eliminate the 35+ 4/5 and the 45+ open cat's. Lets' have 35+ 4, Elite 4, and 45+ 1/2/3 in BAR and Velo Promo races. More people will be serviced, promoters will make more money (thus allowing subsidy of other less-populated age/gender cat's), and racing will be safer by grouping people of similar skill.

That's just logical.

Justin,

Have you looked at the Snelling registration? I think it is great that they have separate fields for Cats 1/2, 3 and 4 (2 flights) for the women. Great. Let's ee how the women are honoring that distinction. 0/100 registered for the 1/2 race, 1/50 registered in the 3's. One field of the Cat 4 women is full and the other is 12/50 full.

On the men's masters side, the 35+ 4/5 (2 fields x 50) and 45+ (1 field of 50 only because of the inclusion of 5's) both filled in less than 24 hours from registration opening.

This is not an either/or argument nor issue. 1748 out of the 3939 racers (44%) registered in Norcal last year were 35+ 4/5 or 45+ racers. This group is also more likely to double up on races at crits (because they can). promoters should give them suffiecient fields if the numbers support it.

Just as we should support women's racing (and I do enthusiastically), we should ensure fields for the numbers as well. It makes sense to restrict the single 45+ field (1006 potential entrants in Norcal for 50 slots) to 1-4 or even 1-3 so the field enlarges. These 45+ 5's and 4's have other options (35+ 4/5, Elite 4, Elite 5). These fields are now all full and there are 60 45+ racers on the wait list and over 60 racers on the 35+ 4/5 wait list, most of which will not get into any field in this race (some will get into the 35+ 123 field).

It is silly to suggest that these people should not express concern when they cannot attend a race, potentially because of field configuration. When was the last time you could not race at an event due to a full field?

I do not promote a race but if I did I would certainly not ignore the NCNCA demographics when I configured fields. I say get more ladies racing so they get more fields that are split by category (I got two new Cat 4 women to the Early Bird yesterday) AND also make sure that the huge majority of Norcal racers, the Masters men, are taken care of as well.

velogirl wrote:justin wrote:
Maybe we could address this issue once the cat 1/2/3/4 girls start getting more than one race per day.

Justin, I like you.

Well you're in yet another minority ;p

I watched my girlfriend race all season as a 3 against "dangerous" beginner cat 4s and unstoppable cat 1s, sometimes in the same race. She never complained once, just said she was "happy" if she wasn't crashed out and could place top 5 against category 1 riders. She was also happy to have more races this year since she wasn't even eligible for some of the more popular races as a cat 4.

Kinda puts things in perspective. I think some of the guys on this forum could take another look at their own dire situations.

justin wrote:
Maybe we could address this issue once the cat 1/2/3/4 girls start getting more than one race per day.

Justin, I like you.

Justin addressed Kyle's comment quite succinctly.

Kyle, you don't have to cut or add any field in the scenario I am proposing. 5s race as 5s in the 5s.

Yes, as Justin pointed out, without the 5s mixed into the Masters, the 35+ 4s at many races would not have the same field restriction that it does when the 5s are present.
This actually allows for more racers without a change to the schedule.

Do the math.

Ron

Can't you just sign up for Elite 4 if you get locked out of the M35+? I guess if you have one "public/cat 5" open race per day and force all the 5's into that heat, it would open the M35+ field size to 100, so that's an extra 25 racers...

Maybe we could address this issue once the cat 1/2/3/4 girls start getting more than one race per day.

In a perfect world everyone would have their own category, no mixing. I don't pay that much attention to the Cat 4/5 situation but I do hear about it from other teammates. From what I saw last year, the 35+ category does fill up fast but the Elite 4's is still pretty easy to get into and usually doesn't fill up until the days right before the race if at all.

I think the reason that category fills up quickly is it's an easier category to race than racing elite's, so all the older riders rush to sign up. I don't think it's an issue of age, A strong 35-45 year old rider can compete with the elites for the most part, especially at the 4/5 level. There is always one simple solution to the problem...if you don't like it, put the work in and upgrade. There is never a problem getting into a Cat 3 or higher race.

Here are some other factors to consider as well. There is only so much time in the day which limits the number of fields you can have. Road races can only have so many fields on the course at one time as well. And while the Snelling model of two different waves or groups which doubles the number of categories a promoter can have is good, it is not always feasible or desirable to the clubs putting on races. I guess my point is that while Ron you bring up good and valid points and I don't disagree with you, but which categories should a promoter cut in order to make room for two separate races. Do we cut the Juniors out? They are the future of the sport and it seems like that is a field we should support and try to grow. Do we cut out the one of the women's fields? Or,should we offer to split them up even more by ability like Masters? I don't really have an answer myself. There is defiantly a issue developing over the last couple of years with the Master 35 4/5's filling up so quick that probably should be look at and discussed more. Here is a question? Do the elite 4's and elite 5's fill up as well? Do the masters in these categories have the option of racing down ( I know they can but is there room)? We don't want to stifle the growth of the sport because there is no room for new riders but at the same time we want to keep it safe.