Jesster can race 5 times in one day! Maybe that will satisfy him for a few hours. :)

In order to resurrect this thread, someone had to offer a race with options. Dash for Cash offers at least two races for the 45+, no matter what their category: 45+, 45+3/4, 35+4; E3, E4/5; 35+1/2/3, P1/2/3. Enjoy!! :) :)

Is it even possible that this debate has raged for two pages without mention of a Zebra or a Jesster? :cry: Have I been so soon forgotten since my chaste conversion and vow of silence on these and all other controversial issues?

Perhaps it is simply that 1. the 2008 demographic numbers evidencing the strong shift to masters, 2. the new upgrade reg's creating a strong shift to higher cats, and 3. the recent string of early sell-outs in the 45's and 35+ 3/4, 4, and 4/5 races, have just made it logically untenable to buck the Zebra any longer on these issues.

Or maybe as long as I continue to shut up and race, new and more politic disciples like Brother BikeDude0 will carry the chalice of reason. Carry on my wayward son. There'll be peace when you are done.

Having divested myself of worldly connections, I can say no more.

:roll: Om Mani Padme Hum :roll:

Sometimes at the track we kind of get to pick our prizes. My first thought is always, what would I like to eat right now, and my second thought is, what prize would my wife like?

The wife will say that even if you win the race, especially after you show her the inner tube and pair of socks you won! :lol:

Heck, even CERTAIN cat 3's complain about having to race with them. Imagine the thoughts going through a cat 5's head during their drive home. I paid $24 plus gas to do that?! And then he gets home and his wife says, you paid $24 plus gas to do that?!

I take back what I said about WarrenG, he's got this one right.

5's should ONLY race with 5's. Can a new 45+ cat 5 compete with Nolan, Gregorios, Caldwell and others? Not likely.

The number of 5's in those races is no doubt lower than it would be in a 5's only race.

There are LOTS of 5's around and since they are sometimes on the fence about bike racing (they fail to renew their licenses at a relatively high rate) it's important to give them the best racing experience possible so they have a chance to learn how to become better bike racers and stay in the sport.

Beginners at the track almost never have to race with cat 1,2's, and rarely with 3's.

Excellent idea Warren! That is one possible solution, a race for 5's only.

It would be interesting to look at the numbers and what percentage of entries in the mixed fields (i.e. Elite 4/5, 35+ 4/5, 45+/55+) are actually 5's. Analyzing the data should be the first step in determining the proper course of action to take.

I think the problem is that every race is looking the same, as far as the 45+ goes. That needs to change, because as we see there are now many more than 50 riders who would like to do the races but the inclusion of 5's creates a smaller field limit, and safety issues.

And really, is it nice to put a new cat 5 into one of our local 45+ races? They're gonna get hammered, and probably won't relish the thought of doing another race like that, so maybe they race less. The 5's don't know any better than to enter the race because they're new.

Instead of yet another 4/5 race (which many 4's don't like) just have a 5's race, and if there's enough riders for that and time then do two age groups for the 5's and leave them out of the 35+ and 45+ races.

Pre-reg'ing early takes care of those who do, but it still shuts out plenty of other riders.

Currently, for a rider 45+, 55+, 65+ who doesn't want to enter the chaos of Elite 3 or 4 races there really aren't many opportunities to avoid racing with 5's.

Lorri,

I am not SUGGESTING anything, nor was I whining, angry or taking a shot at promoters. That's wonderful that you can choose any category you like for your races, although ultimately you are promoting races for the RACERS, right? Yes, I can register early for races, but that does not change the number of guys wanting to race. The category will still fill up and other guys won't get in. I am simply asking if there is a way we can accommodate all the Masters 45+ racers that are wanting to race. I only see two possibilities, either split the 45's up by categories or increase the field limits. I personally don't have any problem racing with the 5's. I am not sure how much the 5's like it. The 45+/55+ group is the only one not broken down by category. If the 35+'s are split into categories, then why not the older age groups also? This has only been an issue in the past couple of years as more and more guys are entering this age group. We can address the issue or ignore it, but it will not go away.

bikedude (sorry, I don't know who you are even though I know everyone else on this thread so I'll have to call you bikedude). I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. are you suggesting that promoters eliminate the CAT5s from masters events so they can increase the field limit to 100?

as a promoter, we use our discretion when choosing categories. if I want to have a CAT2/3 24-39 race, I could do that. I actually think it's great that there are so many unique options for men to race at the various races in the district. I chose the categories for Menlo Park based on feedback from racers. if you promote a race, you can choose whatever categories you want to include.

if you're getting closed out of races, I would encourage you to register earlier.

if you don't like racing with the 5s, choose races that don't include them.

give feedback to the promoters, but don't get angry or whiney or whatever if promoters don't follow your suggestions.

we are fortunate in this district to have 100s of racing opportunities each year. there's no reason that every race should look the same or offer the same categories. that's one of the things that keeps everything interesting, right?

Lorri

We have a 45+ 4/5, 55+ 4/5 and 60+ 4/5 at our event. Right now there are 23 guys registered.

jonathan
http://www.centralvalleyclassic.com

Somehow this turned into a Land Park debate. To get back on topic, is there a solution? First of all the people that make the decisions need to realize there is a problem, which has not appeared to happen. The 45+ fields are filling up 3-4 weeks out. The waiting lists are bigger than some of the other fields! A lot of guys are not getting to race. What is the point of having a combined 45+/55+ race with field limits of 50 each if the 50+ category will only be 10 guys? Why not just make it 100 total or 75? I notice that in SoCal most races are 45+ only. Ten years ago we had 100 guys in 35+ 1-3 races, where do you think these guys are now. Right, they are in the 45+ category, and there is still another year of Baby Boomers on the way. It has been suggested before that the Cat 5's be excluded. Will this help? What percentage of the entrants are 5's? Maybe it's time for a 45+ 4/5 category. When I started racing there were no 35+ 4/5's, or 5's for that matter. At some point it was decided that there were too many lower category riders and some categories needed to be added. The point being, times change and the system needs to change with it. Any solutions?

Alan, most of the poor bike handlers lose so much ground in the technical parts of the course that require good skills that those riders are hanging on the back (or getting dropped), out of the way of the riders who know what they're doing. It doesn't always go that way, but it is much more likely than not.

If you want to see how safe the Land Park course can be, go through all the turns among the first 4-5 guys. Then prepare to see all sorts of stupidity, sorry, poor decision-making on the rest of the course.

Yes inexperienced riders will make mistakes on technical courses and these mistakes may lead to accidents. The difference is that when the pack is strung out fewer riders will go down and the injuries will tend to be less serious.

When the field is tightly bunched the accidents will tend to involve more riders, especially if the crash happens towards the middle of the bunch, and you tend to get more serious injuries. The people who tend to get hurt the worse are not the people who cause the crash but the people following behind the crash. It is the riders who are behind the initial crash who don't have anywhere to go ( ie can't get around the bikes and bodies), can't slow down and end up going over the bars and wind up catapulted into the ground head/face first.

However, a technical course like the newer Land Park makes inexperienced racers with less handling skills take the wrong course of action and still have accidents. I understand everything about stringing it out, but...it all comes down to the race course and the racers who sign up.

The Old Land Park course was one of the most dangerous ones in Nor Cal. As was said above because there was nothing to keep the pack really strung out the fields would stay bunched all race. Then in the final 800 meters everyone who had been sitting in would try to move up and you ended up with some really ugly crashes. As was said above once the extra turns were added the extra turns would string out the field ( especially before the finish) and the number of accidents has gone way down.

Courses that are considered technical ( normally that have lots of turns) make for the safest racing since the turns tend to string out the field. Racing is always safer when the field is single file or only two abreast. When the field stays 4 or 5+ abreast all race then you get the serious accidents. Still there is this perception in a lot of riders that a simple course with no real turns ( like the old Land Park course) is safe because of the lack of turns and the technical courses ( with lots of turns) are dangerous. I guess this is a case where rider perceptions don't match up with reality.

Not to get off topic, but the occurance of crashes has been drastically reduced at Land Park with the addition of the chicane (we went from like 90 medical aids to 2 just in the first year and that was a wet day.) I've heard a few comments about Land Park being more dangerous now, but the numbers don't bear that out. The simple oval course was much more dangerous due to a combination of the meandering roads and the fact that there was nothing to string out the field. I can remember some ugly last lap crashes when half the field had been sitting on all day hoping to win the race in the last 500 meters.

I agree that the field size should be determined by what is deemed safe. For example, allowing 120 cat 3 riders to enter Merco Crit is a recipe for crashes. And I've ridden Landpark as a Cat 4, Cat 3, 35+4/5, and 35+1/2/3. Those fields with even cat 4 riders in them can have close calls on the "non-turns" as well as the added chicane turns. I choose not to ride 45+ there BECAUSE there may be some 4s or 5s that don't have the skill to navigate those turns in a consistently safe manner. Add the element of rain, which is almost always the case, and I'd rather race somewhere else. Personally, I preferred it as a simple oval circuit.

Field limits are suppose to be set based on the course conditions and the skill level of the riders in question. There is nothing magic about the number 100. 100 is simply the default field size if the promoter/Chief Ref doesn't set a higher or lower number. Personally since I hate dealing with post event occurrence reports when people fall down and get hurt I'm al in favor of field limits that are less than 100 since it doesn't matter what category is racing smaller fields tend to have fewer accidents. I salute promoters who are willing to waive some extra money in the terms of more entry fees in order to have a safer event.