FWIW, I was crashed out of the cat 2 Merco crit in the run up to the bell lap when an AV rider jumped into a leadout train and stood up, took one hand off his bars and looked backward. (I guess he was looking for his team mate.)

Not making this up. It was unbelievable. What wasn't unbelievable: he slammed into the guy in front of him and completely wiped out. It was so ridiculous even his own team mate made a reference to it in his race report on the AV mailing list.

Safe racing is not a function of category, IMO. There are idiots at all levels of fitness.

I know a 35+ 1/2/3 rider who was off the front with another rider and crashed when he turned to look what was going on behind him. Even the good riders make that mistake once in a while.

"The race is happening in front of you"

Remember Frank Schleck at last year's Amstel Gold? Turning the head is a killer.
It leads me to conclude that the answer is not in tests or training.
We should all have to wear those cute little clip-on mirrors...

Mad Axeman wrote:It's not about how many crashes. It's about how the crashes happen and why.
The data doesn't tell you that.

I agree! The womens Pro/1, last lap, crash at Visalia was a freak accident. Unlike my above example where the guy is in the middle of pack and turns his head and body to yell at another rider.

It's not about how many crashes. It's about how the crashes happen and why.
The data doesn't tell you that.

casey wrote:35+ 1/2/3 - 3 reports
Pro/1/2 - 3 reports
Women 4 - 4 reports
35+ 4/5 - 5 reports
Cat 5 - 3 reports

Thank you for looking at all that, both this and the other post. These are not big enough samples to say anything definite but isn't it interesting that pro,1,2 and 35-1,2,3 had just as many reports as cat 5's. The 4/5 didn't do so well but adjusting all this for field sizes and racer-miles and all that, it might be about even, hard to say. But on this limited data, including the 08 so far, someone could make just as good an argument for mandatory clinics for Cat 2 upgrades, as for 4 upgrades, if reportable events are an indicator for safety of the fields (and safety is the reason for making clinics mandatory). Really, once you pry this one open, it might need to be an all-fields requirement, with more advanced things in the higher upgrades. You know, eventually you get to skills like weaving through team cars and not using old film canisters for your vitamins, that kind of stuff.

And if these reports aren't a good gauge of safety, what is? I hate to rely on unsubstantiated guesses typed out as fact on the forums. Casey has put forward the first hard data.

R4L

I think if we are going to go the route of mandating something we should probably mandate that club have at least one licensed coach who is a member of the club and that every club would have to put on at least one coaching clinic, open to non members, each year. Maybe this way we can start to meet the existing need for clinics. ALso hopefully if there are enough clinics we could advertise more to the performance interested cyclists who currently aren't racers ( triathletes and serious century riders) and have the clinics as an entry point to racing. Once we have plenty of clinics and a number of those clinics are begging for attendees then we would be at the point to seriously making a clinic mandatory for upgrading.

My upcoming Racing Skill Fundamentals clinic this weekend is actually the lowest turnout (so far) I have ever had. I will blame it on being the Easter weekend. I usually have somewhere in the 20's range and the same for my tactical clinic. While I do charge a fee for my clinics, those that have taken them have said they were worth the dollars.

Ron and Warren - I don't see the demand for clinics to be the problem currently. I see not having enough clinics as the problem currently. The clinics that are currently being offered, with limited advertising, are getting plenty of people. At least none of the clinics I know about are going begging for riders. Most of the reports I get form the clinics are in the 20+ rider range. Just because you personally don't think there is enough demand for clinics doesn't make it so.

Mad Axeman wrote:
Right now there isn't a strong enough demand for the clinics for your proposal to work.
-R

If the clinic was free, or nearly so there would be higher demand for the reasons Jess mentioned.

I agree with Warren.
The clinic should be added to the races, not replace the races.

The concept of thinking people will learn something just because they down loaded a PDF and said they read it is awfully optimistic.

Casey, as I said earlier, we need to make the clinic mandatory before we can run the clinics.
Right now there isn't a strong enough demand for the clinics for your proposal to work. You have the cart before the horse.

-R

I took Shawn Mehaffey's Advanced Skills and Tactics Seminar a couple of years ago when I was a 4, and it was the smartest thing I ever did for my bike racing. This year I helped him teach it. It is remarkable to me how many racers - including 3's and masters - don't understand some of the basics that are taught at such a seminar. The funny thing is that it makes you a more effective racer as well as a safer one. Hell, people could just read Bike Racing 101 and learn SOOOO much.

(One example was the Bariani RR. How many riders in any of the fields knew how to do an echeloned paceline, or why it was advantageous?!? Answer: The podium-winners did.)

I strongly advocate having a structured training requirement for upgrades to the 4's and the 3's. I think I can say for the Eagle Cycling Club and Racing Team that we'd be happy to run our early-season Cherry Pie with a training component for segregated 5's, as we did in 2007.

So who else will step up?

Getting people to actually see the need to take clinics and LEARN from them will most likely be the biggest task. We can force or encourage participation, but can we get the person to pay attention or learn? I saw this at the EB's during paceline drills. Riders allowed gaps, wouldn't soft peddal to back of group, and would reintegrate were ever they felt like or would stop progress to chat with there buddies. They were doing this with mentors in the mix and myself trying to explain how a pace line works. Well guess which 5's cause crashes later in the season. The people who didn't pay attention to mentors. Last year (35+ 4/5) we had a sketchy rider in the group at Hanford. The whole peleton talked to each other about staying away from this guy. Well, one rider decided to take the initiative to talk to the sketchy rider. He politely expressed that the guy looked tired and maybe needed to go to the back of the peloton and rest were it would be safer for all. Sketchy rider looks back and begins to yell at the other rider, telling him "I can ride were ever I want." No sooner than he finished that sentence, he crashed. We can get every 5 into a clinic by however means, but that doesn't gurantee they will actually LEARN.
Don't get me wrong. Clinics are wonderfull and I highly reccomend them. I did the EB's in 07. Best thing I could have done before my first race. But, I was willing to learn. We can't force people to learn something they aren't willing to accept.
If anything, I like the idea of "no license! with out a clinic first." Not even one days. This would most likely be a bigger motivator for people to take clinics. Also, give the mentors some say as to a license being granted. That might motivate people to pay attention and learn.
Between EB's, Velo Girls, Alan Altha and InfoVista puts on a team clinic, there's little reason for new riders not to participate in one of them.

Ok I ooked at the post event reports that I have copies of from last year. I only have reports from 23 road events from last year because I didn't get a scanner till part way through last year.

Of the 23 races I have records for 7 had no occurrence reports filed. Of the 16 races that had occurrence reports filed the reports came from the following categories.

35+ 1/2/3 - 3 reports
Women 4 - 4 reports
Cat 3 - 4 reports
Women 1/2/3 - 2 reports
Pro/1/2 - 3 reports
45+/55+- 1 report
35+ 4/5 - 5 reports
35+ Cat 4 - 2 reports
Cat 4 - 6 reports
Cat 5 - 3 reports
40+ - 1 report
35+ - 1 report
women 3 - 1 report
Unknown race category but a Cat 2 rider 1 report
Unknown race category unknown rider Cat ( most likely a 1 day Lic rider) - 1 report

I don't think it's good that a rider can do fewer races to upgrade if they do a clinic, but I don't know how to force people to take clinics, especially when riders have to pay a bunch of money to take the clinics. Racing teaches things that should not be bypassed.

All of the clinics related to safety and skills at the track are essentially free, btw, taught by volunteers who want to help more than they want to make profits. Even though the track sees just 15% of the number of riders as there are holding USAC licenses in NorCal, there are more people each week in those clinics at Hellyer than all of the ones offered to road riders.

Maybe if there were more no cost, or low cost clinics available for road riders there would be more riders taking part in clinics.

Maybe we should come up with ways to enable clubs to make free clinics available to their members. Maybe the clubs should be encouraged to offer clinics via some kind of incentive, or disincentive for not offering clinics.

At the track, and at the EB's we try to instill a sense of being safe and "predictable", not just for your own sake, but also because it's important for the people around you. In general, this is the antithesis of many of the problems among road cat 3's. Perhaps if the personal and group responsibility were instilled among more cat 5's this would carry over to when they are racing with the 3's.

And I agree with R4L (he actually spends a bit of time around the track). It would be nice to see a little more interest in helping and a bit less interest in charging fees for that.

I have a little marketing saying that is cynical, but appropriate for this issue. "Marketing is the art of getting people to want what they don't really need."

So, how do we get more riders to want to take clinics, and how do we get other people to want to put on those clinics?

So I have gone thorough the post event reports for the races I have so far for this year. I looked at the occurrence reports for those races. In theory an occurrence report should be filled out when ever a rider goes down in an accident. In reality an occurrence report generally gets filled out when a rider is hurt seriously enough that they will seek medical attention away from the race site. With occurrence reports we don't get a record of all the accidents that happen at a race but just the accidents where someone was more seriously injured. Also more than one person may be injured enough to generate an occurrence report in a single crash. The occurrence report is per person not per crash.

The following races has no occurrence reports
Berkeley TTT
Cantua Creek
Central Valley Crit
Dinuba Crit
Early Bird Crit - The race in Feb there were a couple of occurrence reports in the first 4 Early Birds but those were not actual races.
Early Bird RR
Pine Flat
Mt San Bruno
Webcor KOM

The following races had 1 or more occurrence reports filed in the noted categories.

Cherry Pie - Master 45+/ Cat 3 and Cat 3
MERCO Crit Cat 2 and Cat 2
MERCO RR Cat 2/ Cat 2/ unknown Cat/ Women Pro/1/2/ Cat 35+ cat 4 and 35+ Cat 4
Norlund Crit Cat 3/4/ Cat 3/4/ Cat3/4/ Cat 3/4 - ie 4 reports from the same category
Snelling RR Junior 15-16/ Pro/1/2
Merced Crit Pro/1/2

Probably one of the biggest things that could be done to improve race safety ( for all categories since all categories have injury causing crashes see the Visalia Pro/1/2 women's race last weekend) would be to greatly reduce field sizes. If NCNCA is allowed to start making up rules on their own then taking a look at field sizes would probably be the #1 thing in terms of safety. Heck let's say all Pro/1/2 level races will now be restricted to a Max field size of 60 riders and races with lower category riders will have even smaller max field sizes. If you support the idea of NCNCA making up their own rules then realize you might not like all the possible new rules NCNCA will come up with.

While I think that the Cat 5s may have the most scary riding ( in terms of riders weaving around not holding lines) I don't think they are the category that has the most actual crashes where people are seriously hurt. Guess I need to start keeping track of which categories are generating the most occurrence reports from all the race post event paperwork. Seriously though folks if you really want to improve race safety then field sizes does need to be looked at. I think it is safe to say fewer accidents happen in smaller fields of all category levels. Some how though I don't think smaller field sizes will be as popular as mandatory
cat 5 skills clinics even if smaller field sizes will make things safer than mandatory skills clinics.

LeRoi wrote:Warren nailed it. We know the problem, now we have to solve it.

I don't think forcing clinics for the 5-4 upgrade is the solution. Unless you want to split off NCNCA again (hmmmm...) you need a USAC rule change, you need a standardized clinic, and a calendar full of them to make sure it's not just a choke point. And so you know what to teach it would make sense to figure out exactly what the safety/racing problem is (if there is one) and figure out if just one clinic will actually be worth much towards improving that, and whether 5s are the target group. It's easy to say 5's are BAD MAN, get thee to a clinic! But maybe it's cat 3's that have the highest and most injurious crash rates, and maybe they're the ones that have gotten much worse in the past 5 years, so they need mandatory clinics at the 4-3 upgrade. Don't laugh, the numbers might say that, and if they do then why put the focus on the 5-4 upgrade?

Or maybe the push should be for that web-based test that everyone needs to click through once, or once annually at license renewal time, or once at the 5-4 upgrade, again all done through a USAC rule change.

To me a safety-driven rule change is a big deal. How could anyone know what to start mandating without looking at some numbers on all this and seeing what the real problem is? If there even is one -- I'm not so sure.

I like the free downloadable how to race pdf idea, it lasts, people can keep looking back to it, it's standardized, it's free, it doesn't take any rule changes, it's a way to get the whole message out about way more than you can cover in a couple hours of clinic. Why don't some of you pro-clinic coaches get together and make that happen? If someone should do it it's you folks that keep spamming the boards, think of it as a give-back to NCNCA for not charging you click-through fees. Marketeer WarrenG might say it would make for some good cheap viral marketing, what with your name on the cover and everything. It's not as lucrative as making every cat 5 pay you 100 beans for the privilege of continuing to bike-race, but no doubt you'll get some of them on the up-sell. Whose clinics would people want to sign up for, but the ones by the people who wrote the book?

R4L

Ron - Our racing population is barely larger than Southern CA and New England isn't that far behind so our situation really isn't that unique. I'd also like to see more evidence that skills clinics are going to happen before making them mandatory. Especially during the early spring and early summer I think most of the potential people who could conduct clinics are a bit busy racing and this is a time when we would have a greater need for clinics.

If anyone wants to step forward with a program to increase the number of clinics brining it to an NCNCA meeting and I'm sure we would support it. Even if we don't make clinics mandatory I know there is no shortage of riders who want to take clinics now. I always have riders asking me when the next clinic is going to be. Right now the main incentive for riders to take a clinic is getting 5 races worth of credit towards they 5 to 4 upgrade. This incentive alone could fill up a lot more clinics than we currently have offered.

"We need other people who are coaches or club leaders to make something like this happen."

So if someone were to come forward with a program, would the NCNCA be willing to endorse it?

We are not going to be able to require a skills clinic as part of the 5 to 4 upgrade process until the USAC upgrade guidelines are changed.We can't go making up our own rules, even if we feel it will help make racing safer.

Yes we can, and some would argue that the NCNCA already does.
This requirement is a key component to developing an NCNCA Upgrade Clinic. Without it the possibility for the program to be successful is bleak.
If we make it required the people needed to put it together will be appear.

If USAC doesn't like, that is just too bad. We have unique requirements do to the size of our racing population.

"Make it so"

-R [/i]

Since combined 4/5 races are allowed under the rules I just simply can't stop approving race permits which have 4/5 races. Now I can point out to the promoter that 4/5 races are frowned upon but I simply can't just start saying no 4/5 races.

NCNCA could say something like races which have 4/5 race will not be eligible for BAR/BAT points to put a little bit of a stick behind simple moral persuasion to convince promoters not to have combined 4/5 races but really that is about all.

Of course if we stop having 35+ 4/5 races then the plain Cat 5 races are going to fill up much faster and we run into the possibility of new racers looking to upgrade will start getting frustrated because they can't get into the regular Cat 5 races. If we do start pushing harder to stop having combined 4/5 races we will need some extra races on the schedule that will focus on Cat 5s and 4s ( say a schedule like Cat 5s, 35+ Cat 5, 45+ Cat 5, Women 4, maybe a 35+ 4, a 45+ 4 and maybe even a second 35+ 5 race). These beginner focused races could be low key, could feature some mentoring/clinic activities ( maybe even give riders credit for a race for doing the clinic) and should be fairly inexpensive to promote since most of the groups couldn't get prizes. If we are successful in stopping 4/5 races then we need more events for Cat 5s. Remember we have about 1,000 cat 5s in the region and that is with about 400+ upgrades from 5 to 4 the past couple of years so we need enough races to meet the demand.

The First Step -

Casey could stop approving combined Cat 5 fields. If we segregate out the 5's, at least they won't be endangering others while they get their training races done. The sponsoring clubs could agree that those segregated cat 5 races will be mentored. I know from personal experience with mentored 5 fields at Albany and Cherry Pie that finding very qualified people to volunteer as mentors is no problem -- it's the price of an entry fee.

This would also help alleviate some of the overcrowding in the 35+ 4/5 cats.

WarrenG wrote:At virtually every velodrome in the US a rider can not race until after they have completed some kind of beginner's clinics, at Hellyer that's 3 x 3 hours each, or have been racing at some other track (that has a similar requirement), or a get ready to race clinic, or is a road cat 2 who passes a written test. If you don't do these things you are not allowed to race.

I've not seen USAC do anything that suggests this policy is a problem.

The Velodromes worked with USAC to establish the upgrade policy. As you will note the track upgrade process is part of the rule book. The various local associations around the country can't just go off and establish their own upgrade criteria. Part of the contract between USAC and the local associations is that the local associations will uphold the rules of USAC. Now maybe USAC might be open to having a kind of pilot program with a selected LA or two but again we would have to get USAC to buy into the program before implementing it. We would also need to get a large % of the local clubs to agree to conduct clinics during the year for their members and possible for unattached riders in their area during the year. For clubs this could be a profit making program since they could charge non members a reasonable fee for the clinic. Maybe it would be a recruitment program for clubs looking for new members.

At virtually every velodrome in the US a rider can not race until after they have completed some kind of beginner's clinics, at Hellyer that's 3 x 3 hours each, or have been racing at some other track (that has a similar requirement), or a get ready to race clinic, or is a road cat 2 who passes a written test. If you don't do these things you are not allowed to race.

I've not seen USAC do anything that suggests this policy is a problem.

Edit: Casey beat me to it...

Don't dump yet another task on to NCNCA "leadership". They've already got enough to do.

Someone else, some other group needs to step up. They can get guidelines from the NCNCA Board just as people and groups do at the track from the NCVA Board, but things are much more likely to get done if you do more than sit back and wait for it to get done by folks who are already donating plenty of time and energy.

I would suggest you come up with guidelines and programs and ask the NCNCA Board to review them.

The NCNCA leadership, all 6 of us, are busy doing other things and we don't have the time to add on the additional duties of organizing skills clinics. We need other people who are coaches or club leaders to make something like this happen. We are not going to be able to require a skills clinic as part of the 5 to 4 upgrade process until the USAC upgrade guidelines are changed.We can't go making up our own rules, even if we feel it will help make racing safer. If you want to require a skills clinic as part of the 5 to 4 upgrade then start lobbing the members of the USCF board of trustees. Even then it is USAC staff who is really in control of upgrade guidelines so really it is the USAC technical director who needs to be sold on this and can make it happen.

The more practical approach would be for all the clubs to buy into the idea that they will not let their members upgrade from 5 to 4 without getting some skills training. Also you really need to get all the Cat 1/2/3 riders to buy into the idea that their friends and riding partners need to go through some kind of skills training before upgrading. As I have said before one of the biggest problems I see are new racers, who have been training with 1/2/3 level riders. These new racers are told that they need to upgrade to Cat 3 as quickly as possible so they can start to learn how to race. Also these new racers think that since they can hang with their 1/2/3 level friends on training rides then they should be racing at the Cat 3 level at least and that racing at any level below Cat 3 is a total waste of their time.

NCNCA Leadership could/should take the lead in making racing better and safer.

1) hold x # of skills clinics per year for Cat 5s
2) No one gets an upgrade from 5 to 4 without succeeding at a skills clinic.
It pays for itself by charging a fee.

If the free market wants to get involved, all the better.

Additionally the leadership of each team should be doing their part to make sure thier riders are not a danger to others.

I recommend repeating this for moving from 4 to 3 but that is a topic for another thread...

I with Jesster. I can't see a good reason not to have the 5s separated from other categories. Isn't that why the 5s exist? Isn't that why we have categories?

Warren nailed it. We know the problem, now we have to solve it.

Bernie, sorry but this is a recovery year for me. Not much racing outside of a bit of track. But I am doing more for the other aspects of racing, organizing some major track events, got my official's license, and coaching now too. But next year I'll be going fast.

FYI, Cat 3's already know everything there is to know so don't bother trying to teach them anything. It's the same in most other sports. Get to the level of intermediate and people think there's no need to attend more lessons and clinics.

People that see me ski XC say my technique is exceptional. Well it's probably because I've attended more than 60 lessons and clinics and then taught nearly 500 lessons. No surprise as to why the skills are good.

Road cycling has a different, individualistic mentality. At Hellyer Velodrome there is more sharing of ideas and tips that help us each get better skilled and faster. There are masters nat's champions sharing ideas and helping other people every week. The road scene could do similarly.

I doubt many people would disagree with what Ron the axeman, and George wrote. So, we know the problem and some solutions, but who's going to take the next steps?

It seems the biggest range of racing ability and strength exists in the junior ranks. In theory, one field of 75 juniors aged 15-18 could contain some cat 1s and several cat 2s and many cat 5s. And yet a junior rider could become cat 3 having never raced in a "pack" of more than 25 riders. More could be done to help them make the transition to the larger fields, as well as how to stay out of danger when they're being lapped by their own kind.

I think it is perfectly doable for the NCNCA to develop a program and hire coaches and experienced racers to staff several race clinics.

There can and should be several throughout the year.

Charge an entry fee, pay the staff for their time, and you won't have any trouble finding good quality people to show up and instruct.

I also think we would not hurt ourselves by slowing the pace at which new riders are entering the sport. There has been a flood of new riders, mostly in the masters, in the last 3 years.

The problem that is happening now is a lot of those riders are upgrading to the 3s and riding in the 35+ 1/2/3 field without the experience that most of the masters have. They are getting there purely on strength, but are lacking the skills.
In the Masters there is a certain level of trust among the riders who have been racing a long time. We trust the skills of the riders next to us because we have been riding with them for many years and know what they are capable of.
When a strong but inexperienced rider blasts through the ranks and enters the 1/2/3 masters races, they are a catalyst for a disaster that did not previously exist.

A comment from another rider just a day ago, "these guys upgrade and bring all of their Cat 4/5 bad habits with them".

If the 4/5s had better skills to start off with, this wouldn't be an issue.

-R

I have to throw my two cents in as a guy still trying to figure out what racing is really all about. I’m into my 3rd season, and consider myself getting stronger, faster and smarter all the time, but feel I’ve really only cracked the service of the sport. There is just such a huge gap between being a solid recreational rider and becoming a racer that the process for a guy in his late 40’s just takes time, and the experience of others much smarter and more experienced then himself to help bridge that gap.

Yes, I’m a proud member of Team CS, Alan Atha’s team, I started racing with them at the end of last years EB’s. I have attended the EB’s for the last three years, and learn something new every time. I attended Shawn’s program two years ago, and learned even more. I have now attended three of Alan’s clinics and will participate in this weekends also, every time learning better skills. I am now throwing the track into my development, having attended 10 beginner sessions, a few intermediate sessions and now Nolan’s Tuesday night series. I also ride the House of Pain ride out of Walnut Creek, not because I’m fast enough or strong enough, but because I want the privilege of learning from the guys that show up for that ride. And every thing I do, and everyone I meet seems more then willing to teach me something, and help me become a better rider. I don’t see an end to this process, because there will always be someone smarter, stronger and better skilled then I.

Bottom line, everyone considering this sport, should take as many clinics or classes or mentoring opportunities as possible, prior to racing and while their developing. My opinion is that no one should go from a Cat5 to a Cat4 without at least on skills clinic, whoever the instructor.

Gerry

Jesse, you need to do more clinics.
Warren, you need to come out and do more races with Jess and the rest of us.

alanatha wrote:My qualifications: Ex-category 2 road; racing since 1982; USAC Level 1 Coach; ACE Certified Personal Trainer; Great personal racing skills; Great teacher (do you need the testimonials as well?); many, many, many races.

How many races?

Don't you think it's a good idea in your ads for you to list the relevant qualifications of the person/people who will teach your clinics? The items in your sig don't give any real idea about this.

My background is in marketing, so when I see an ad that's missing key elements I wonder why. Perhaps some of your potential customers have wondered about this too.

No, that's blatant, Warren.

I agree with Bickel. Even our one-year-old toddler, the Eagle Racing Team, hired a coach for training camp this year to run skills drills. We (I was allowed to participate as an honorarium) spent half a day in the parking lot and half on a slow road working on turning technique, emergency stops, paceline technique, close-riding drills, etc.. Basically the same stuff we do at Early Birds. (Not surprising b/c our coach, Laurel Green, is one of the most consistent instructors at EB's).

And without giving away any VOS secrets, I'll also say that VOS spent a considerable amount of time on basic racing safety skills at our training camp, thank you Hernanananadando.

You can NEVER practice safety and pack skills enough. And EVERYONE should have to complete a skills clinic before they go shoulder-to-shoulder at 30mph -- whether that is EB's or Atha's or Mehaffey's or team training camps. If uber-masters like my VOS homeys are still practicing their skills, certainly beginners should have to.

Which brings us back to the 5's. I think there is no reasonable counter-debate on this issue. The 5's are a training cat-- masters or juniors. They should exclusively race together as training, and not be mixed into competitive fields before they have the skills. They should be mentored and have skills discussions before and after.

I like to think that NorCal is the prodigal region for amateur cycling, so lets' use our big overpaid brains and make the sport better and safer!! Segregate the 5's and mentor them!! I volunteer to help.

My qualifications: Ex-category 2 road; racing since 1982; USAC Level 1 Coach; ACE Certified Personal Trainer; Great personal racing skills; Great teacher (do you need the testimonials as well?); many, many, many races.
Many pro riders take up coaching, etc. They are great at racing a bike but lousy at coaching...

Alan, since your post and website don't say what the instructors' qualifications are...

Who is teaching your clinic this weekend?

What is the USAC racing category (road or track) of each of the instructors?

How many USAC races have you completed?

Hey,
Come on out to my Racing Skill Fundamentals clinic this Saturday, March 22. With these practiced skills, you will actually go faster!!!! I cannot say anything for you being SAFER, as I have seen guys in my clinics still do the dumbhead things they always do and cause problems. However, with constant practice, things can get better for you and others around you.
You can still register at http://www.cyclingsystems.com and then click on the 2008 Clinics tab at the top of my web page.
I know this is blatant, but I couldn't care...not with the negative parts of this thread going on.

roadie4life wrote:That makes sense for motor racing where the slowest POS can very easily kill someone, or yourself, and not just in a freak accident. Heck it makes sense for street driving too, and based on the half-dozen wrecks I've come up on, for rice rockets over 500cc, but that's for another forum.

But piddly little old bike racing?

You're putting guys (and gals) out there elbow to elbow at 30-40 MPH in packs of 50 or more wearing a styrafoam cup on their head and womens undergarments for protection. I've stepped off at 100 MPH and walked away in far better shape than almost any of the bicycle racing crashes I've been involved in. How many ambulance rides are taken a year? I'm not sure I'd throw fatalities out there as a requirement before some type of basic skills education is put in place as a precursor.

And most motor racing accidents, certainly for the two wheel stuff, involve only the rider who makes the mistake. That's from 5 years experience on the pro circuit. The schools are done much more for the benefit of the individual rider. And I can tell you the retention rate was much higher (and the accident rate lower) doing this than when it was run what ya brung. The overall quality of riding went way up too. Being elderly I span both eras.

Asking whether there are more crashes now than whenever is pointless. Nothing's changed in years other than the number of riders participating.

In our sport you're MUCH more likely to involve others in your mistakes. If you go on any of the online forums, you realize how little knowledge some of the folks come into bike racing with. And you also realize the absolutely hideous reputation Cat 5 races have. This in itself is a huge negative to getting people racing in the first place.

We ran 5 schools a year and had no shortage of volunteers, in fact we screened the instructors. And some people who were obviously dangerous didn't get to race till they fixed their issues.

Venues don't have to be a full on crit course, a parking lot and some cones would work just fine to teach a lot of the basic skills. CLinics should be a mix of instruction and hands on.

Perhaps the current system of giving anyone who wants a license an entry no matter how ill equipped or ignorant they are is in the best interest of our racers and the sport. But I'm seriously doubting this is the case, and it certainly doesn't cut the mustard in other regions.

K Bickel wrote:Coming from a motor racing background, you don't even set foot in a sanctioned race BEFORE you go through a clinic/class. Making a skills requirement class before going from 5 to 4 is like throwing the SUV keys at somebody but requiring them to pass the driver's test if they want to get a Vette.

That makes sense for motor racing where the slowest POS can very easily kill someone, or yourself, and not just in a freak accident. Heck it makes sense for street driving too, and based on the half-dozen wrecks I've come up on, for rice rockets over 500cc, but that's for another forum.

But piddly little old bike racing? This thread has gone off in the direction of "put cat 5s into mandatory skills clinics." I lost track of 1 the problem that's supposed to solve, and 2 why it's going to solve it.

Are crashes and injuries happening at a higher rate than in the past? That would be bad of course. If so what's causing them, has anyone looked at that? Is it the same people, different people, same races, same type of race?

And what is a one-day clinic going to do to help that, really? The driver's license test doesn't make anyone a good driver and you don't learn to heel-toe by hearing about it in a classroom. Forced clinics make The Least Accessible Sport even less accessible, while addressing a problem that hasn't even been defined, unless I missed something here.

Not against clinics, but against mandatory ones, and tagaderm wasted on bare skin. If there's a problem, how about figuring out what it is and the easiest cheapest most effective way to address it? Maybe it's clinics but there are crashes in every major UCI race, does the peloton just need a clinic from a USAC certified Level infinity coach?

Other issue: lots of club newbies now aren't pimply faced teenagers sponging up all they can while the masters bark at them for riding like an idiot (that was me). They're 37 year old investment banker Client 9 types, with trainers and TT bikes and all kinds of fuss and bother, and whoo-BOY try telling them how to ride in a straight line! There's a listening issue is all I'm saying, and a little hubris in there, and he'll be thumbing his blackberry during the skills clinic just like he is during couples therapy with his future ex wife. So the two will be about equally useful with that sort of rider and seeing how the NCNCA has gone solidly 35+ that's a problem worth mentioning.

And just maybe a closer look will turn up a short list of crashy types who might need to get their licenses yanked for a spell after they're in their second or third dog pile of the year. I can think of a few names, you probably can too. Clinics for them, sure, but not for all the 245 latest additions to the sport who might not pose a clear and present danger.

R4L

It would certainly be a step in the right direction if clubs that have Cat 5s t worked with their new racers to give them some training. The more educated our new racers are the safer everyone who ends up racing with them will be. I'm sure all of us would be happier if fewer of our friend and teammates get injured and wind up in the hospital. Also remember that even experienced riders could benefit from brushing up on their skills every so often. Club clinics don't have to be real formal just as long as they help teach racers the skills they need to be better and safer riders.

If more clubs do start holding skills clinics for their members hopefully they will let some unattached riders tag along as well. It could be a good recruiting program for any club looking for new members and it would give the unattached riders a place to pick up some valuable education.

Could the responsibility of putting on skill clinics be shared by the racing teams? Maybe each team should be required to put on a skills clinic? …just a thought.

Remember just how many new riders we get each year also. While I would love it if we could get all new racers into a clinic before their first race we need a lot more clinics than we currently have. Normally we get around 600-700 first time licensees each year. Already this year we have had 245 people take out their first racing license. That is a whole lot of clinics to run each year. If you don't have enough clinics then you create a road block that keeps people out of the sport and you kill the growth of the sport.

It a little bit easier at the track in that one, or if you're lucky, two people can keep an eye on twenty to fifty people on the track and note who needs a little help. It would be hard to find a road venue as amenable as the track for the particular feature of keeping tabs on a whole lot of riders for the whole lap.

Cart, meet the horse.

Coming from a motor racing background, you don't even set foot in a sanctioned race BEFORE you go through a clinic/class. Making a skills requirement class before going from 5 to 4 is like throwing the SUV keys at somebody but requiring them to pass the driver's test if they want to get a Vette.

You want folks to stick with the sport? Not to crash or make others crash? Then give them the skills BEFORE they start racing, not half way through the process.

Right now it's just natural selection with an eye on the revenue stream. By time some of these guys have ten races and look to upgrade they've already developed 10 races of bad habits but think they know how to race. If they win a couple of Cat5 races anything you say is going to go in one ear and out the other.

The one day license ought to be chucked out the window in favor of a low cost, upgradable "New Rider" license that gets issued after you pass the skills clinic.

There isn't a problem getting mentors and people to run the track orientation, and there wouldn't be a problem getting folks to help with this either. We had half a dozen folks in Reno helping out in a similar capacity for our Tuesday nighters.

TomS wrote:I cannot speak officially for the USCF Board of Trustees, so the following
is my take on our discussions. We see cat.5 as *not* just another racing
class, but rather a special class for beginners. That is the reason for
our current rule banning prizes for cat.5 riders, and the smaller max field
limit of 50.

Another feature of cat 5 races is results don't "count": no prize money, no upgrade points, taking the pressure off to allow an accumulation of experience and skills. This approach is compromised when the 5's are placed in "competitive" fields. I would support extending the prize money exemption to all fields containing 5's, and to not offer upgrade points for races containing 5's.

Unfortunately the evidence points to very few riders actually reading the rule book, even people who have been racing for many years. A case in point would be the back side pit at the TOC women's race yesterday. After the crash several Pro/1/2 women came into the pit talking about how they had to come to a stop and unclip. Since riders do not get a free lap for being caught behind a crash ( you only get a free lap for a crash where you hit the ground in an uncontrolled manner or your bike was damaged in the crash) it isn't a good idea to come into the pit talking about how you had to stop and unclip.

If everyone read a book and took a simple test (coach cert level 3) or the rule book you describe, we would all be pro's. Then we would not have the need for cat 5/4/3/2.

alanatha wrote:I actually do believe that there should be some sort of requirement for the beginning racer. A clinic will give them just the frame of mind and the necessary skills to become safer, more relaxed in the peloton and more skilled in their maneouvers

Making it mandatory for a new 5 is a good idea.

Call that rule proposal the USAC Coach Full Employment Act. It's good that clinics are available but mandatory is a bit much.

Giving more info to all racers, not just the rulebook, would be a good idea. Like take the uscf club-coach manual, edit it into a race-stuff manual, a free PDF for everyone with a license. Not just for 5's. Things that will help racing and safety like this is overlap, don't overlap, this is what the center line rule means at san ardo, etc. You'd think in all these years of USCF someone would have typed that sucker up by now.

R4L